/lit/ - Literature

>>11558999
>With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.
Why?

>>11554943
Everything you just said is false, other than maybe

>>11559008
It's literally a way for our consciousness to tell us "good"

>>11558999
>thinks about god
damn btfo again

>>11559053
The abrahamic Gods aren't omnipotent.

God would be / is omnipotent and is therefore, for lack of a better word, what we call 'nature', Which is to say unconscious.
Life is the consciousness of nature (humans being the predominant life on Earth, currently) and life is fast growing in power via evolution.

The goal is to become God.

>>11559094
If the goal is to become god and what we call nature is god then we have all already achieved that goal from the moment we are born. if god is absolute and infinite, therefore encompassing all of nature and beyond, than it would be impossible to become another god because two beings of the same substance cannot exist because their infinity would impose a limit on the other's infinity. if the goal would be to kill god and assume his place, the act of killing god would necessitate the destruction of all of nature which includes yourself, which is absurd. therefore there is no way a being of finite mode can overtake god in any of his infinite attributes.

>>11558999
>There can be no nihilism when we feel hunger
Tell that to the man who committed suicide by starvation.

>With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.
This is chloroform in the form of (pseudo-)philosophy.

>bare experience
Top spook :DDD

>It is also the only thing we can truly be sure of.
Read Descartes.

No, OP, your weed thoughts aren't remotely deep, new or interesting.

>>11559111
I want to frame this by saying that I'm using these basic axioms in a vacuum. Outside of said vacuum there is plenty of room for compassion (in fact compassion is probably a requirement)

I think the goal is for life (particularly the self, and in effect, the we) to God in its completion, rather than a small subset. Or at least encompass a lot more of God than we currently do.

>>11558999
Okay, makes sense until
>With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.
This is a pretty far-fetched conclusion to your premises.

>>11559260
Well there definitely is mental illness.

There's also truth within a false context. If we eliminate all context that's the result + a foundation to build from. I'm just wondering if we can at least agree on that basic axiom.
I'm not saying I'm the first person to think of this because I'm definitely not. But I do think it's true and obviously would affect how I live my life

>>11559649
>encompass more of God than we normally do
Where 'everything that happens is Gods will'. Speaking normally that can just look like improving science and tech

>>11559677
I think the term pleasure can be pretty offputting and maybe calls to mind blind hedonism or call up images of fascism that were taught as kids.

I'm just saying we feel pleasure and we feel pain. Pleasure feels good, pain feels bad. Pain obviously signifies that our body is being hurt and is meant to protect us from death.
Death is obviously antithetical to 'existence', and you agree that we are existence.

On another level I think it makes sense that stress has had a negative correlation with cell longevity while pleasure (e.g. mindfulness studies) has a positive correlation to maintainig / sometimes even rejuvenating telomere length (cell longevity, youth)

I'm made this thread partly because I'm interested in basic bitch Jordan Peterson esqe self improving, though maybe a very different brand of it, while still calling to mind our lore as humans.

And exploring possibilities, even if they're hypothetical.
I really just want to see if some people here can come to agreement with some iteration on the basic tenant of the original post.

Worded differently I think a lot of people (not all) would call it common sense. All religion seemed based on maximizing pleasure.

Some do it for society at the expense of the self and the few. Some do it by way of lowering the tolerance for pleasure.

>>11558999
It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say "we" with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him invoke "others" and regard himself as their interpreter -- for me to consider him my enemy.

>>11559793
>I'm just saying we feel pleasure and we feel pain. Pleasure feels good, pain feels bad. Pain obviously signifies that our body is being hurt and is meant to protect us from death.
>Death is obviously antithetical to 'existence', and you agree that we are existence.
This is the far-fetched part. Pleasure and pain are a bit of a false dilemma, as the experiences of each are not as definitive as you seem to believe. Both are pretty ethereal and there is a lot of overlap between the two, not exactly a well-defined axiom for understanding your reality and thus has a lot of room for error.

Also, I disagree with your conclusion that death is antithetical to existence. Death is a process of life as a whole. Your person or ego dies but everything else lives on with you. Your subjective experience you have come to know now fragments into a million tiny pieces which eventually come together again to support another superorganism's subjective experience. Life and death are another false dilemma you seem to have propped up. Again, the line between the two is very blurred when looking at the bigger picture.

>it makes sense that stress has had a negative correlation with cell longevity while pleasure (e.g. mindfulness studies) has a positive correlation to maintainig / sometimes even rejuvenating telomere length (cell longevity, youth)
This is a pretty romantic thought. Your cells are not you by your premises, your personal subjective experience is you, which is very distinct and irrelevant to a sample of cells.

>>11559882
I think questioning the necessity of death is valid. Check out the beginning of Aubrey Degray's talk at Google if you want to hear a British guy put it more eloquently.

I agree with notions of the superorganism / meta consciousness. But which perspective do You view from? Your own, or the superorganism's (or 'God' for short)?

Regardless death may be a process of human life as we know it, but it's still antithetical to existence itself. I think that's hard to argue.
Whether or not 'existence itself' still applies to us is valid. I think it does. I think we can change, at the very least with the emergence of future technology then it definitely will change.

If you believe in objective reality then out cells are our anchor to existence. Definitely a romantic thought, though I'm fine with romance if it can hold up to the scientific method

>>11559935
>But which perspective do You view from?
Both, but my own personal subjective experience is (apparently) at the foreground of my wakeful experience, while the oversoul or godhead or super consciousness or gaian mind is in the background but is ever-present.

>Regardless death may be a process of human life as we know it, but it's still antithetical to existence itself
No, it's not. I told you my point and you just repeated what you said in your previous post, I would need more details to respond.

>If you believe in objective reality then out cells are our anchor to existence.
Not quite. A materialistic realist perspective is not the only metaphysical perspective available. Without a good proof, that claim is pretty meaningless and definitely not as "common sense" or self-evident as you may believe it to be.

>Definitely a romantic thought, though I'm fine with romance if it can hold up to the scientific method
I figured you were an interesting thinker, but it seems you are still drinking the koolaid. Take epistemology 101 before being so confident.

>>11559844
I think that religion is an attempt to restore a sacred relationship. Mankind separated himself from the world of animality, an animal doesn't view itself as seperate to the outside it just lives. An animal has no 'other'. This separation began when we started using tools, a simple moment which created the division of subject and object, a tool is an object to achieve a means to end. This cause and effect was our entrance into the profane world and began our continuing separation from nature. Paradoxically this use of tools identifies ourselves as a means to an end, we are little different to a 'tool' or the ground we cultivate, we are used to shape the world for the benefit of others. Time, labour and capital reveal this paradox. Men are just units with a productive value. Religion is our attempt to reconnect with the sacred world of transcendence above the profane immanent world we inhabit. Religion is not based on maximising pleasure but filling a void, a deep dark chasm of nihilistic visions, the continuing attempt to reduce man to nothing but a productive automaton. The transformation of mere existence into a productive force was the original sin, the tree of knowledge which we ate and so we were cast out of eden. Our task now is not to maximise pleasure but to make ourselves sacred again.

>>11558999
>With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.
i'm sorry, but you'll have to be more convincing. i experience many drives that aren't pleasurable to fulfill.

Bump

>>11560033
I'm curious about these drives. It's inherent in a 'drive' that we seek it to feel some kind of pleasure in its fulfillment. It's pleasurable to eat, drink water, stretch etc.
Some people even find physical pain pleasurable.

Not all pleasure is good for existence. Like doing heroin.
But the thing is, when they're 'not' good, they tend to bring us net-pain to begin author

>>11560630
To begin with*
Phone

>>11559987
I'm going to sleep but as for the last point, I'm just saying that if there is truth and falsehood then enough truths fit into a comprehensive logic. There's no reason to believe it's beyond comprehension.

"Koolaid" by definition wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. To drink the koolaid is to have blind faith

The imperative is towards happiness, not pleasure. Jerking off for 5 hours is certainly pleasurable, but it isn't something to be happy about, hence why people try not to do it.

>>11561057
See:
>>11559793
&
>>11560630

You're arguing semantics. Feel free to replace the term pleasure with happiness.

>>11559935
>Check out the beginning of Aubrey Degray's talk at Google

▄▄▄ R E T A R D ▄▄▄

>>11562637
Lol. You're Seriously a moron. Whether or not his answer is the correct one, the question is still valid and one being slowly answered in science.

>>11558999
philosophy discussion on this board can be good and I'm all for it
but what's the point in threads like this? it'll go nowhere that hasn't been fully explored and btfo hundreds of times over
these are the sort of half-baked musings you'd hear off tipsy normies in a pub
but it's a literature board and the good phil stuff always begins, at the very least, with reference to some phil lit by people who spent their lives doing this stuff and built upon the previous many other lives spent doing the same
just read descartes' meditations
outside club start with the greeks it's really the most common intro to the field, the basics

>>11563086
LOL XDXDXDXDX

>>11563201
Based and redpilled

half of you are 10 times smarter than me... I don't understand this. ...

>>11559038
>he hasn’t experienced beauty or the sublime
plen

>>11563282
Experiencing beauty and sublime would be pleasurable

>>11563167
I feel like this response is coming from an unwillingness to actually read what I write / think for yourself.

I'm sorry I can't use concepts that are more in line with conventional / historic thought but can you at least respond to anything I've actually said?

>>11563726
>I feel like this response is coming from an unwillingness to actually read what I write / think for yourself.
I feel like this response is coming from an unwillingness to actually read
good that you think, but wouldn't you rather flesh it out properly (isn't that what you're attempting here?) by engaging with actual philosophers instead of bouncing lazy conjectures off a burmese stamp collecting forum?
>To us, our experience really is everything. It is also the only thing we can truly be sure of.
there's not enough here to make this mean anything
if experience is everything, and it is the only thing we're sure of, then we're sure of everything
unless you're presupposing something that exists apart from experience, but in what does this consist? of what parts cannot we be sure and why not?
>With bare experience, the only imperative is toward pleasure.
honestly that jump is so ridiculous I can barely see how you made it
from your other posts it seems you mean that by pleasure you mean the maintenance and prolonging of our experience? even from your seemingly pseudo-solipsist position, there's no self-evident reason that that should be the imperative more so than suicide
>
(please at least skim the wiki like everyone else: descarte's meditations, epicureanism, stoicism)

>>11563953
I read plenty. I've actually taken the time to read some of the Bible, I've read about history, ancient texts, etc. I can't bring myself to read much of philosophy because I find myself constantly disagreeing. That's not engaging.

From my view stoicism as well as a lot of eastern philosophy seeks to maximize pleasure by lowering the tolerance for it.

Why can't you take what I wrote for what it is rather than have me meet you o the level of someone I fundemantally disagree with.

We feel pleasure and it feels good. What else would a bare experience seek?

>>11563953
The fact that we are experiencing is the only thing we can be sure of. We can't be sure any given thing we experience is real. Just the fact that we're experiencing it.

I'm not the first person to say this. This is just a fact

Hedonism fails only because survival trumps enjoyment. A hedonist will starve to death dick in hand while those who value power of will over pleasure die with 60 years of job experience to put on their resume. The real question is whether you think living a full life comes from ectasy or achievement.

>>11559094
Literally none of these statements form a rational, cohesive argument. You went from God isn't omnipotent to saying trees are an unconscious conscious God that we need to become.

>>11559038
no

Wrong

>>11559008

>>11559866
Based hypocritical Cioran

>>11564780
>That's not engaging
finding ways to contradict what you're reading is arguably the most engaging way to study, memorize, flesh out, etc.
it's also completely expected you'd disagree with nearly all of it. how could you agree with so many contradicting ideas?
and what's the difference between reading a phil that you disagree with versus posting here? did you expect a circlejerk? or afraid your ideas don't stand up to proper scrutiny?
>This is just a fact
it is not just a fact because you're abusing terms
my glass of water is real, middle earth is not
I'm sure of my name, I'm not sure what the weather will be tomorrow
assigning metaphysical connotations to 'real' and 'sure' beyond their actual use in language is the source of hundreds of years of confusion
even if we were to play such a game with language, then:
>We feel pleasure
are you "sure"? how? however you derived this from "bare experience" is certain to make you "sure" of many other things too. if pleasure is empirically observed, why haven't you factored everything else empirically observable into your behavioral imperative?
>What else would a bare experience seek?
are you "sure" if "other minds" exist such that there's any imperative towards ethical behavior?
and again, why not suicide? "it is good to do what feels good" does not follow from your solipsism, it's another axiom. as is your freedom to choose.