/lit/ - Literature

>maintain that nostalgia related to a certain place, for example, *[isn't] destroyed by forgetfulness*
>thus both the quality and quantity of any and all affection is caused and owned by the Self.

So which is it? The self mainly consists of our mind; If affection is owned by the self, and it's forgotten, then a big part of it is lost.

When it comes to something like nostalgia, that is entirely owned by the self. When it is some action imprinted onto the world, then it's owned by both the self and the world. You can forget it, but the world may not (depending on the action) and will treat you accordingly.

An oversimplification of Ecclesiastes:
>just be happy, and also don't forget God.. even though praising God won't do anything for you, and everything is random anyway and we all die

Are you kidding me? I can make a better logical argument for the point of life. The bible is a sham

>>12146788
>comparing based Howard to GRRM

>>11819179
>Is it worth to give up on pleasures if it means that you are also distancing yourself from potential suffering that comes after or before the pleasure?
Throwing the baby out with the bath water

>In what cases would this approach have results in our happiness?
By lowering the tolerance for happiness dramatically and increasing the will to preserver without happiness (which is a form of suffering in itself)

>Or is it a far streched view that has no apply in modern life?
Learn English

Why are you still on /lit/? What purpose does it serve to you? Community? Knowledge? Recommendation? To just meme? Why?

I think there is an imperative to create an ideal self.
There are no genes for specific personality traits; that isn't how genes work. Along the lines of how humans tend to act it's mostly 'nurture' that lead us to become who we are.
An impactful event (eg nurture) can completely alter who we are. This is no more or less fake than who we were before. We can change.

Rather than outside events lead us to unconsciously change, I'd propose we do our change consciously along the lines of self interest.

>OP coped my threads

>>11567890
>>11558999

>>11592551
>>11591327
>>11591614
>>11591638

Those philosophies seek to maximize pleasure by lowering the tolerance for it.
All ideologies inherently seek to maximize pleasure. Hedonism (which is not what we're talking about) is the strawman of pleasure seeking, as actually it seems to lead straight to pain.

>>11592561
That's a good point. Life's meaning (at least life as a human) is to maximize (keyword:) "net" pleasure, increase control / power, and ultimately become as God.

>>11592623
Drugs damage the body because the body becomes reliant on them (and cause the body to stop producing serotonin or testosterone) but there is no reason we couldn't learn to be in a state of constant pleasure without them. Landing on the clouds would look like leading an exceptionally happy life.

As a human superorganism, we reproduce and die in the same way cells do in our body. The goal is to achieve constant progression and, like I mentioned, to become God.

>>11585388
>tfw that's not me

>>11567423
Asking myself the same thing

>>11567437
Is this really the view of some people on this board?
Philosophy has dramatically less to do with history than lit. Lit rules say philosophy is fine here, though begrudgingly.

>>11567465
>the anonymous format forces each reader to evaluate words and ideas equally
This also gives rise to the ability for any idiot to jump in the conversation

>>11567687
Disagree again. The appeal to authority is worse here because it includes appeal to memes. Anonymity doesn't change the fact that a vast majority of people have an aversion to independent thought. The nature of this place also kind of guarantees that the people you're talking to are putting a minimal amount of effort in a lot of areas of their life.

Sounds pessimistic but it is what it is

To us, our experience really is everything. It is also the only thing we can truly be sure of.

In the universe of our mind, then, nothing is meaningless. There can be no nihilism when we feel hunger. Or pain. Or happiness.

Our experience is the only truth we can be sure of. With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.

To us, our experience really is everything. It is also the only thing we can truly be sure of.

In the universe of our mind, then, nothing is meaningless. There can be no nihilism when we feel hunger. Or pain. Or happiness.

Our experience is the only truth we can be sure of. With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.

I've
>run naked on acid to an ex's house, cops chasing me and tackling me once I get to her door
>once been in 8 fights in 2 weeks, all wins, 1 KO
>been in a relationship where I was physically abusive and would interrogate my gf (not a good thing)
>discovered the Merkabah, had intense meditative experiences, and was kind of into the occult
>interesting and random sexual encounters
And more. People have been lauded for provocative personal essays that were a lot more tame.
Do I deserve recognition?

I'm not enlightened but I may be "very intelligent". I'm interested in enlightenment anyway.

I've made my own belief system and, while I've read enough to know I'm not the first person to think some of these things, I still haven't read much.

There's no need to correlate knowledge to anything that came before if you've built yours from first principles. Knowing the classics would help with working from a conversation that people are already familiar with. But if your ideas are your own, and if they're good enough, they should be able to stand on their own feet.

>>10451627
I have a very serious interest in this.
No, there's no need to rely on others to build and speak on your own ideas.

You're obviously getting at the fact that you have ideas and I'm curious what they are.

Here's some of mine.
http://pyramid.glass/uncategorized/equations/

At the end I get at the heart of what I believe, but in the middle I get sidetracked in trying to explain how predetermination would still hold true given the experience of free will.

It's a pretty short post but I can reiterate the main point if you want.

Ultimately I'm interested in applying it in the real world and course correcting / editing this model from there.

>>9728586
Just to expand on this, we don't even understand evolution completely. It's just a barely pieced together theory. It seems to work in a system of improvement, but how? We have zero idea.

I take the opinion that it isn't completely random. Mice show that genetic memory is a reality. On a mental level, there is an instant 1 generation evolution in a mouse's ability to get through a single maze.
But what if an entire line spent their entire lives getting through mazes? It's not a stretch to think there would be a genetic evolutionary trait that starts popping up to help them out.

This goes back to my point: the meaning of life is to strive for ultimate pleasure. Like the mouse strives for the cheese at the end of the maze, we strive to gain an understanding and thereby control of the world around us.

>TFW you wanna make a YouTube channel about books, but fear /lit/ will start stalking you.

>>9210913