/lit/ - Literature

>>10126982
>there's no inherent meaning in nature
>You create it
>for this to be coherent, what creates it couldn't be the name as the rest of nature due to the obvious teleological nature of meaning-making
>naturalists and physicalists still support existentialists

Are they stupid?

>>10126997
>for this to be coherent, what creates it couldn't be the name as the rest of nature due to the obvious teleological nature of meaning-making
Uh, no?

>>10127019
>>10127019
Please tell me when you have an argument. It's either teleology in nature, mind-body dualism, or the mind is an illusion. Which do you side with?

>>10126997
Your skepticism is grounded on a perverted search for truth, cohesion and ''logical'' sense, which itself stems from a moralistic narcissism.

>>10127128
And how would you argue for this?

>>10127128
His maybe, but not mine. I seek tranquillity.

>>10126982
lmfao, absolutely true. I love when people act like Nietzsche is an optimistic philosopher. Yeah sure he is, for the greatest of men. I doubt your 4chan-browsing weak-willed faggot ass can become a true ubermensch

>>10127154
Neither could he himself, to state the obvious

>>10127154
I absolutely love how leddit reads Nietzche
>Thus spoke Zarathustra
>God is dead
>*Closes book, watches Rick and Morty*

>>10126982
>everything matters, but I pretend that is doesn't
ftfy

OP, here. You people actually are responding and even arguing in this garbage thread?

>>10127128
HOL UP
*says it is true that truth is not true*
SO IST YOUS TELLIN' ME
*overcomes metaphysics by making metaphysical claims of the Will to Power and Eternal Reccurance*
DAT I'S (EBEN DO I'S AINT REAL YA FEEL ME) ENDED FILOSOPHIA?
*kills anti-semites*
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEIT

>>10127218
This was actually a fun troll.

>>10127121
Just a random pleb here. What does "teleological nature of meaning-making" mean? Does it imply that meaning is created with a certain end?

It seems dubious to me. For these beliefs to compete with other beliefs, they have to admit their own flaw, or rather, they have to lack all sort of belief in their own truthfulness. It is - obviously - plausible to still wear the guise of truthfulness, though.

I've come to this conclusion as objective, material, physical (positivist) truth is the same for every scenario or claim and even plausible one if it were true.Unless our minds or imaginations are capable of existing outside of their realm, and producing something beyond the properties of our parts and their interactions across the span of time. Now if that is the case, our minds would be outside of the scope of objective reality itself, rather than a part of it. Hence the objective reality would become diminished to something that doesn't span across everything.

To a naturalist it could be seen as a process which produces something aside from objective reality. An emergent truth, beyond the previous phase. Perhaps an evolution of objective truth.

Curiously I find these ideologies and thought patterns lacking in another front as well on this very field. In order to have a competition between claims and beliefs, one needs to have a hierarchy. An objective or imperative that places your claim or belief higher than the other ones - why else compete? None of these beliefs has an innate structure that produces such a hierarchy.

>>10127218
>why are people shitposting in a shitposting thread
Hm. I wonder.

>>10126982
There are no structures in the world that give it meaning. However, from a perspective of a closed system, be it a game or a book, this is also the case. The meaning is in the meta.

>>10127278
No, it means that the mind making meaning would involve the mind having processes that work to specific ends. The capacity to reason involves the capacity to infer, inferring being goal-directed inherently.

So if you want to support existentialism the only way to soundly do so is to entail a dualism of mind and body. If we suppose naturalism and physicalism we get a rejection of the capacity to infer at all and if we support teleology then we have supported innate goal-directedness and rejected existential nihilism in the first place, making existentialism null.

>>10127677
>If we suppose naturalism and physicalism we get a rejection of the capacity to infer at all

>>10126982
Reminder that Ayn Rand completely and irrevocably demolished Nietzsche.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg

>>10127723
Yes.

>>10127677
>the mind having processes that work to specific ends
I still don't understand.
How is that different from what I said i.e. the "meaning-making" processes are "designed" to produce a certain end as opposed to "natural" processes that just "happen" to produce certain ends?

Why should existentialism imply that meaning-making has predesignated function? Why not say that it just "happens" to produce meaning? That is pretty much the evolutionary theory. How does it contradict with existentialism?

>>10127170
Almost as annoying as the deus vult fags that read Nietzche
>God is dead
>Wait, that means God is absolutely real and necessary for all human life
>*closes book, watches Peterson*