/lit/ - Literature

pretty much any book you ever pick up.

>>12339100
>everything is already determined
pic related. can't help you on the others.

>>12339100
If everything is already determined then nothing is determined.

>>12339114
It doesn't really challenge my view because it boils down to >you can't know that everything is determined because you don't see everything

>>12339120
Explain

>>12339100
>There is no God
Can't be proved or disproved. An irrelevant question.

>no free will
This view relies on the dated axiom stating that:

>everything is already determined
Modern physics says not.

>man is an animal that seeks pleasure and avoid pain,every morality is based on that.
Stop listening to Sam Harris.

>>12339125
>you can't know that everything is determined because you don't see everything
that's not what QM states at all

>>12339127
You'd need a state of negation. For something to be ''meant to be'' there need to be others things that weren't meant to be, and the opposite is true.
So saying that ''everything is determined'' is the same as saying ''nothing is determined''.

>>12339159
Hidden variable hypothesis is still quite possible. We don't know.

>>12339159
What it states then?

>>12339191
I'm sorry, what does 'meaning' (a human abstraction) have to do with deterministic hypothesis? What is simply is. In fact, it is far more logical to suppose that fundamental negation isn't possible -- that non-existence/nothingness are merely concepts which do not represent any actual state.

>>12339100
I’m the same as you OP. I’ve searched far and wide for philosophies and literature that might make me change my mind. Just got finished reading K Bros. I’ve come to the conclusion I’ll probably never change my mind, I don’t know what it is but I’m just missing something that allows people to have faith, in god or whatever else. I just don’t understand why you would beyond pragmatic reasons. It’s not like this is obvious or I’m right either, there are plenty of religious people much smarter than me who have thought about it more. The only religious belief I can possibly wrap my head around is deism, because at least it doesn’t think the universe revolves around humans. I’ll keep searching for the rest of my life, but I have a feeling it’s pointless.

Can someone tell me how quantum mechanics contradicts determinism?

>>12339353
>because at least it doesn’t think the universe revolves around humans

Why is that a positive thing? Because there are a ton of galaxies and space rocks? There's a lot of ants too, does that mean ants are more dear to a potential God than humans? You're putting quantity over quality, which is a very modern thing to do. Just because there are 7 billion humans on the planet doesn't mean I care more for each of them than my own child.

t. atheist

>>12339263
>meaning is a human abstraction but "deterministic hypothesis" is not
this is your brain rotting on science

>What is simply is
based on what? your empirical views?

>that non-existence/nothingness are merely concepts which do not represent any actual state.
if non-existence and nothingness aren't states, then neither is existence

>>12339616
It’s not a positive, I just think it’s more likely that if there is a god, humans are irrelevant to it, or at the very least not any more relevant than everything else in the universe. This is assuming that “god” is even a conscious entity and not some conceptual creative principle or whatever. And even if it a conscious being, that it’s even aware of the universe, that’s it even exists, etc. The way I see it there’s just too many variables about what the axiom of reality could be for it to be likely that we’re at the center of everything. I’m tired of hearing that we’re made in gods image.

>>12339663
Why is it "more likely?" If you're basing it on observation, which you seem to be doing, you still haven't addressed the main point. How do you determine what's more likely and what isn't from your approach? Why can't a God or creative force be chiefly oriented around man? As far as we know, we're the most intelligent species in the universe. I'm not saying I believe in a personal God, just curious why you think it's such a far fetched thought. You seem to be looking at the possibilities of things you think have an equal chance of being true and then saying that this particular one out of a thousand of them (or however many) has a small chance (how do you even define this?) of being true so it probably isn't.

>I’m tired of hearing that we’re made in gods image.
Irrelevant.

Time to take a shitload of psychedelics and join the Gnostics.

>>12339100
meomuirs of a gnostic dwarf
you see they believe that this material world could have not been created by a good god
because of all the suffering
and the good god actually created the spirit world
so any of thier dealing in this world, especially pleasure are kinda disregarded by them

any... the book is pretty good. some sections are flat and boring but for sure it fooled me
it vulgar and brutal
and most magnificantly shows how life is and cannot be good and bad, sometimes what you think is good turns to be bad. and life is just complex
cried my eyes out at the end of the book
8/10
planning on reading it again someday

>>12339708
>Why can't a God or creative force be chiefly oriented around man?
It can, I never stated otherwise. My issue with it is that there’s no reason to assume it would be any more so than literally any other possibility. The only reason the idea is so common is because we are human, so naturally we conceptualize god as an anthropomorphic being. If ants were sentient they’d assume god biggest interest was ants.

>As far as we know, we're the most intelligent species in the universe.
Why is intelligence significant? This is another idea that developed as a result of the human perspective. There’s no reason to assume god or a creative principle cares about intelligence, knows what intelligence is, is even intelligent itself, etc. It might, but there’s no reason to assume it does. Everything in the universe is unique in some way. Maybe God created the universe to admire hydrogen atoms and everything else is mostly irrelevant to him and only developed as a consequence of him making his hydrogen atom admiration universe. This sounds stupid of course, but I’m just trying to get the point across that what “god” values, if anything, could be completely alien and irrelevant to us. We only value intelligence because we’re intelligent and we can’t seperate ourselves from the human lens’s we view the universe through.

>>12339100
Philosophy: Who Needs It - Ayn Rand

>>12339782
from reading you posts i'll give a diagnosis
your idea of "god" is being searched outside
you seem to have no conception of it operating inside of your mind

now, you ask how people can believe?
i suggest you do the following
instead of hunting down this god outside
forget about it absolutley
and start daily asking your self the question why are you doing stuff?
then advance to what i want to do ? and how can i do it better ?
after a while you start to recoginse patterns in your on behaviour and you approch a certain knowledge about yourself which is just there, some illogical assumptions, nobody can prove, but you do relay on them to plan your future actions, those assumptions people call beliefs and thier are usually pretty deep for u regarding the universe u take part of.

>>12339100
If the universe is determined, it must be beholden to that which determines it. If something is determining the universe it is either determined or undetermined (free/self determining) If that which is determining the universe is determined then it in turn is determined by something which is either free and self determining or determined by something else. Therefore, determinism is an infinite regress and unable to be established. In order for the universes origin of the universe to be other than an infinite regress it must be originated from an absolutely free entity. In order for an entity to be absolutely free it must be completely without characteristic such that it is not determined to be any particular thing. Therefore the absolutely free origin is pure unconstrained and undefined potentiality. Because it is undefined and without limitation it is capable bringing into being that which is determinate and defined, for it is without any limitations to prevent it from doing so. Because the universe is birthed from that which is absolutely free it is in essence determined by its very own nature and therefore self determining. Self determination is identical with freedom of the finite to define itself within its own bounds. Therefore all that exists within the universe is essentially self determining and therefore in a state of conditioned freedom. Conditioned insofar as it must take definite form and content, free insofar as it is what decides the content which it forms. Therefore the universe is a free self enclosed self determining system born out of the absolute freedom of pure undefined potentiality. Therefore we can choose to work to enable the goodness of ourselves and of other beings who are all free to work for the goodness of other beings insofar as their definite condition constrain the potentiality which they may actualize. Therefore we are free to create a world in which more beings experience their emergence and wellbeing or a world in which beings are more tortured and oppressed. We are free to actualize heaven or hell on earth based on our decision to take into account the wellbeing of other creatures or to disregard them for our own gain. Therefore we are responsible for our actions and we may bring good or evil into the world through them. There is no law or determination that stops us from exercising this freedom. There is only sheer consequence and outcome of the reality of our choices.

>>12339836
I've tried looking at it that way to no avail. It seems impossible for me to view humans as anything but complex biological computers, same goes for their minds, including my own of course. I think we only view consciousness as a unique concept seperate from the rest of the universe is just because we're on the inside looking out. I'm not an expert when it comes to this field, however I think questions about the nature of consciousness like this will have definite answeres eventually so what ever, provided humans don't die out.

>and start daily asking your self the question why are you doing stuff?
>then advance to what i want to do ? and how can i do it better ?
Just because I'm a nihilist doesn't mean I don't have goals. I want to improve my writing and my art, thats what I want to do and I work to get better at it every day. As for why I do it, I could give a bunch of poetic answers but the real reason is just because my brain tells me it feels good.

>after a while you start to recoginse patterns in your on behaviour and you approch a certain knowledge about yourself which is just there, some illogical assumptions, nobody can prove, but you do relay on them to plan your future actions, those assumptions people call beliefs and thier are usually pretty deep for u regarding the universe u take part of.
Not really sure what you're saying here, sorry.

>>12339875
>Just because I'm a nihilist doesn't mean I don't have goals. I want to improve my writing and my art, thats what I want to do and I work to get better at it every day. As for why I do it, I could give a bunch of poetic answers but the real reason is just because my brain tells me it feels good.

im really cringing at you, you say you are a nihilist but in reality you are just a hedonist that has waay too much faith on pleasure

>>12339891
What do you mean by faith in pleasure?

>>12339875
thank you for your answer...
we are almost there, buddy

what was the last challenge you faced, that you had to sit down, contemplate, and make a decision about your future actions ?

>>12339875
Bro you NEED to read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead, or at the very least Concept of Nature to rid you of the untenable physicalist phantom of abstraction. If this stuff is seriously compromising your wellbeing it is important for you to discover that it is false, and not only that to KNOW it is false. Whitehead is an excellent place to start although he can be difficult.

Also if you are wanting to know how we have free will and self determination please read my post here >>12339849

>>12339938
>If this stuff is seriously compromising your wellbeing
It's really not, I find the ideas more interesting than distressing. I will take your suggestion regardless though and add that to my reading list, thank you.

>>12339100
>There is no God, no free will, everything is already determined
Those are some pretty big claims, chief. You had better prove them before asking them to be disproved.

>>12339912
i'll give you mine...
i have a cat that started coming over
i am feeding it lately
now it has an absaas on its cheek
puss coming out
i don't want it climbing on my bed anymore
i have to retrain it
it probably wont like

now i am very conflicted, the cats wants to be on bed, i don't want it on, but its a little sick, should i wait till he heals, and also should i keep it in at night even though i can't really sleep with him in

to accomplish what i feel is justice in the situation i had to contemplate the situation from different angles, and i did reach some action and decision

and now i am sitting and writing the story to you and now i can ask myself something deeper
why did i look for justice? do i believe in justice?
maybe it brings to me resolution and my action no longer linger in the future in my head, maybe i treat the situation with the cat and me not in selfish but just caus i want to be treated alike ?
all this and way more questions of contemplations are showning me, who i am, and what is my illogical, natural, just accuring essence of me.
are colors logical? green is just green
something beyond logic is experienced
look into your self experience without the logic lense, whats there?

>>12339909

you have faith that pleasure will bring you enough joy to make it meaningful

joy is happiness with meaning, pleasure is transient happiness without meaning, that's why if you have a way to get joy you can sustain suffering because you add meaning to the suffering so it can become joy

>>12339959
I don't believe in meaning in the first place, I just follow what I'm passionate about. I'm passionate about art and I never choose for that to be the case, so I follow it. Not really more complicated than that, at least to me. In a sense I'm fine with suffering conceptually because it inspires the creation of more interesting art.

>>12339973

>don't believe in meaning
>but art makes me passionate

think about it for a second, passion is about the spirit and it's about faith in something, be it power or the spirit itself, art isn't about body pleasures because to be passionate about art you need a mental framework of beliefs, which is inherently about the spirit

>>12339849
can you share some of your inspirations and where your ideas have been collected from?

i like your post.
very smooth paradoxical logic which resonates with ( where should we go form here? high maths ) the set containg all sets not cointaing itself? ( some folk ) or is it the barber who cuts the hair of those who dont cut it themselvs ?
regression you say

cheers

>>12339984
Art is indeed based upon a framework of beliefs, but this framework means nothing outside of the human realm. Humanity can make many compelling claims about morality, theology, philosophy, politics, can use these ideas to make compelling tragedies and comedies, but all these things still only matter to human beings, I don't think it has anything do with with spirit or metaphysics. It all just stems from what we are biologically. I find these things very interesting but I find them interesting because I'm human. I can acknowledge that I don't think anything matters and that there's no such thing as objective meaning, but I still feel pain, I still feel empathy and sympathy. Because I'm still human, because I feel emotion art still has value to me, even if it's just because I'm programmed to feel that way. I'm also not on board with the idea of equating mind to spirit, I think it just muddies the waters. The definition of spirit pretty much means something different to everyone on the planet, it becomes a semantics game I'm not interested in playing.

Sorry if this isn't a satisfactory answer, this is a really complicated topic that I don't feel like thinking really hard about right now.

>>12339100
Man is an animal seeking pleasure and avoiding pain,every ideology is based on that. Why do some people commit suicide for their ideologies? Even non religious people?

>>12340064
They're avoiding pain of course.

>>12340066
This is often not the case. They could have lived fine and dandy lives but commit suicide nonetheless. Why is that?

>>12340071
What is fine and dandy to you may not be fine and dandy to someone else. If someone is committing suicide and they're not being coerced into doing so by other people or by religious reasons, they're doing it because the find nonexistence a preferable alternative to existence.

>>12340042
>but all these things still only matter to human beings
Sorry but I couldn’t read any further. You’re autistic or <18. News flash, those are the only things that matter. You’re not a grey from zeta reticuli. Join the club retard.

>>12340086
I'm in the club dipshit, why do you think I like art. I'm just tired of people acting like we matter outside the club.

>>12340086
chill out

>>12340099
you do matter

>>12339100
Free will exists, but we dont have it. To assume you are in control is foolish.

>>12339100
tips fedora

>>12339573
Deep down physics if fundamentaly random and unpredictable. Irl it gets smoothed by big numbers, but what if the "randomness" is actually a way to steer events.

>>12339114
Quantum mechanics doesn't prove the physical world isn't determined.

>>12339100
* proceeds to stuff his face with a kale and quinoa salad *

>>12340013
Hmmm I have been developing this world picture for several years in periods of drastic leap and retraction into questioning and reflection. It is something of a gestalt of my present philosophical development which is a panentheistic existence = knowledge god = knowledge itself, sort of climax, which is beginning to seem irrefutable. My initial formative insight was the absolute impasse the hard problem of consciousness presents. That led me to think that because whatever the totality is is the kind of place that produces feelings of beauty, love, fear, and awe whatever the essence of our total existence is is the kind of thing that produces those as an outcome of its nature. This blew my speculative window wide open and I was forced to dismiss any kind of substance materialism which knocks out a huge amount of contemporary philosophical and scientific theories or at least renders them partial, while also opening me up to the possibility of meaning and mystery. Another major insight was when I tried to understand Ein Sof in Kabbala or Jewish mysticism. This provided me with some of the essential ingredients of knowledge which is the principle of self evidence and negation which is the essence of logic. Self evidence is the nature of knowledge. Knowledge cannot know itself through something else or else that is another infinite regress therefore knowledge must be of itself and therefore self evident. My own existence as a temporal feeling aware process is absolutely self evident and therefore constitutes knowledge. Within the passage of my being there is something stable which witnesses each duration moment without itself disappearing with the transition of phenomena. So knowledge is not only knowledge of phenomena but it persists outside of the passage. This is the self or essential nature of knowledge. But within the passage it is clear that things take a definite form and are distinct from other aspects of the wholly witnessed passage. This direct knowledge of difference necessarily implies negation. Negation demonstrates that a thing only can appear for us in the particular definite way that it does by virtue of not appearing in some other way. The glass on my table only appears to be a glass by virtue of it not appearing to be an elephant or a vase. So all existence implies its negation or that which it is other than such that it can eb what it is. Then quality itself implies the negation of all quality. This is the absolutely undefined emptiness or pure freedom from characteristic which is known through the very self evident principles within our own definite experience.

>>12340210
The rest falls out from there. Honestly the truth is distributed at least partially in the great philosophers and religious systems of the world. Right now I am on a Whitehead kick. I don;t think I can recommend a particular path other than encouraging you to persist. Seek truth not knowing what it is. Seek God not knowing what he will be for you. I can promise you if you persist and are relentless you can satisfy your desire to know both, for they are one and the same. The philosopher and the seeker both know not what it is that lies at the end of their path, but they find themselves shaking one another's hands in the very same spot wherein the journey is complete.

>>12339849
ok now tell us if eating meat is moral

>>12340246
Goodness is nothing other than goodness itself or the sum of all positive valuation. Goodness is within each being that experiences good and evil. Insofar as goodness may differ in degree and complexity beings may experience different degrees and complexities of goodness or evil within their experience. In so far as a being with complex and intense valuation only ever brings lesser and simpler evils into being it functions to wholly contribute more goodness into existence than it extracts from it. Thus, it generates positive and excess goodness within the world. So insofar as simpler and less complex beings are consumed such that the complexity and intensity of goodness within existence is increased compared to the simpler and less intense evils it creates a being is a net utility generator. The more net utility generators there are the more goodness is brought into existence and the less evil. If plants are significantly simpler and experience less joy and less pain within their sustaining of themselves and their destruction, it may be the case that more complex and robustly sensitive beings use them to sustain themselves, as compared to beings which are more complex and more sensitive to good or evil. Therefore if plants are simpler and less sensitive than animals, veganism is superior in terms of goodness than omnivorous existence. (There are other complex factors which could factor in to this equation but we are finite in knowledge and accounting for every variable is essentially impossible, leading us to have to make due with the best we can surmise given our present informational state. Ecology/sustainablility is another massive factor supporting the goodness/utility of vegan practices)

>>12339100
>There is no God
You only have faith that there is no God. I can only say that it’s more pragmatic to have faith that God does exist.
>no free will
Again, we can’t really prove or disprove this. You can have faith in free will, or simply not care/don’t think about it. I’m a Christian, and when it comes to the debate over predestination I don’t really care, but I could easily accept either possibility. I tend to think we don’t have free will, but I prefer to stay in ignorance.
>man is an animal that seeks pleasure and avoid pain
I basically agree with this. But as Mill said, there are different levels of pleasure where some are better than others. I rank them as
1. spiritual
2. rational
3. physical

I’m sure you’re skeptical of the spiritual category, but there’s a reason deeply spiritual people stay spiritual. The joy that results from intense prayer and meditation is unparalleled, in my opinion.

I probably won’t be able to persuade you much, but I will tell you that I was once exactly like you until I read pic related, and converted immediately.

>>12339114
Quantum mechanics is made to uphold casualty you pseud.

>>12339135
>Modern physics says not.
Science obviously upholds casualty you idiot. This is just embarrasing.

>>12339135
>This view relies on the dated axiom stating that
I’ve never seen anyone who thinks free will doesn’t exist claim that only determinism refutes free will. Indeterminism based on randomness is just as lacking in freedom.

>>12340339
Pascal is a hack. His reasoning for Christianity being the correct religion was essentially that "its self evident".

>>12340404
If he thought it were just self evident, he wouldn’t have detailed all the reasons why he thought Christianity is perfect.

>>12339849
>Because the universe is birthed from that which is absolutely free it is in essence determined by its very own nature and therefore self determining. Self determination is identical with freedom of the finite to define itself within its own bounds. Therefore all that exists within the universe is essentially self determining and therefore in a state of conditioned freedom. Conditioned insofar as it must take definite form and content, free insofar as it is what decides the content which it forms. Therefore the universe is a free self enclosed self determining system born out of the absolute freedom of pure undefined potentiality.
Your argument falls apart here. You perform a bait and switch with the overarching entity being free and the universe being free. To be free is to be controlled by oneself. The universe is not controlled by itself. The godly entity controls itself and is therefore free and determines the universe. Though, this is just a technicality to prove humanity isn't truly free.

This entity could be determined if time was circular as well.

>>12340412
By correct religion, I mean correct in comparison to others. His dismissal of Islam for instance was very poor.

>>12340421
Maybe you can’t completely dismiss every religion, but I think there are plenty of arguments for Christianity’s superiority over Islam. Other than the standard “Mohammed was a pedophile warlord who looted caravans and Jesus was a good guy” argument there’s a major flaw with Islam’s conception of Jesus. Islam views Jesus as just a prophet, but what records do they have of Jesus only claiming to be a prophet? You can believe Jesus was the son of God, or that he pretended to be the son of God, or that he didn’t exist at all, but how do you believe he was just a prophet? You also have to wonder why God would choose to communicate through Mohammed, a non-Jew, centuries after the prophets with no revolutionary tenets. It just seemed like Mohammed was out for political gain.

>>12339849
Infinite regression is a possibility -- we don't know. The birthing ground of universes could well be timeless, operating in ways we are ill-equipped to speculate about with our temporospatially bound cognitive processes. Furthermore, even if we suppose that universes erupt from something like a random field of potentiality, that does not preclude this universe from being deterministic from the moment of its inception.

>>12340286
>Therefore if plants are simpler and less sensitive than animals, veganism is superior in terms of goodness than omnivorous existence. (There are other complex factors which could factor in to this equation but we are finite in knowledge and accounting for every variable is essentially impossible, leading us to have to make due with the best we can surmise given our present informational state. Ecology/sustainablility is another massive factor supporting the goodness/utility of vegan practices)

Veganism doesn't provide vitamin B12 and other essential proteins found in milk, eggs, and it's an economic and environmental drain because vegans must rely on imports from other countries to get these proteins (except for B12, which they must use supplements for otherwise they go insane from brain rot)

So it isn't at all clear that veganism is the moral choice.

>>12339950
Evidence thus far supports such conclusions; pretty sure the burden of proof is on those claiming these things exist... They are only default positions because they're psychologically comforting.

>>12340629
Saying “there is no God” is a positive claim. The burden of proof is upon someone who says this.

>tfw can't lead lost anons to the path of righteousness through the depth of my life experiences

>>12340644
Saying "there are no reptilians" is also a positive claim, but I'd wager you'd probably agree with it despite lack of evidence.

each and everyone of you is a nigger

>>12339111
Trips is truth

>>12340655
Unless your life experience includes meeting god I don't know how much it's going to help. "Christianity is good for you and good for humanity" isn't good enough, even if it's true.

>>12340605
If I tell you I own a cow and you ask me how it is that you can know I own a cow and I say because I own a chicken, and you ask how is it that owning a chicken means that you own a cow, and I say because I own a goat, and this process continues on forever I will never demonstrate that I own a cow. The only way to demonstrate my owning of a cow is for me to own a cow. Infinite regress is not a possibility. Knowledge is nothing other than knowledge itself. Existence is nothing other than existence itself. That which exists must be nothing other than existence, and therefore must be that which it is and nothing other, and therefore determined by nothing else. The infinite freedom and pure undefined potentiality of emptiness is a necessary non determinant component of the freedom of existence. The only way existence can establish itself without an impossible infinite regress is to be self determined and therefore to be originated out of absolute freedom or not caused by anything determinate other than itself.

>>12340042
Totally satisfactory. Nice to see someone who actually comprehends nihilism instead of wielding their misunderstanding as a weapon against physicalists, or as an excuse for their own apathy.

>>12340678
I'm glad my feelings resonate with someone, thank you. Have a nice day anon.

>>12339100
*unsheathes katana*

>>12340678
If this things are true,then what's the problem with apathy?

>>12340656
The question of the existence of reptilians is of a much different nature than the existence of God. One depends on empirical evidence while the other can be understood rationally. I don’t believe God can be proven or disproven, which is why it makes no sense to say “there is no God.” I will also not say “there are no reptilians” because I simply don’t know. However, if I had to bet, I would say there’s a higher chance reptilians don’t exist.

>>12340675
Yeah, you simply can't know that. We don't obtain information external to our universe and our perception and thought may be limited in ways we can't understand. With the information we can apprehend, determinism appears to be the case in our universe thus far.

I agree there must be a fundamental state of existence, but the nature or 'freedom' (whatever that's supposed to mean) of that potentiality cannot presently be known.

>>12339100
I sure do hope this only is a shitpost.

>>12340707
It's maladaptive. Recognizing that human values aren't universal qualia but rather follow from our biological nature doesn't mean that values don't have utility.

>>12340708
It depends on what you mean by God. I would agree a vage deistic concept of god can be inferred logically without empirical evidence. If however you're talking about the Abrahamic God then that is something that does require evidence. God's existence can be deduced logically to a reasonable degree but nothing about the nature of god can.

I have been reading about philosophical pessimism lately.
Schopenhauer says that what separates men from animals is our ability to reason and our ability to be self aware. He also goes on to say that if we are truly capable of reason why would we choose to be born into a world of endless suffering Happiness is not something that can ever be attained. It is a fleeting feeling that comes and goes. And when it goes you revert back to boredom. And during boredom we become aware of ourselves, and then we remember death. Who is always on the horizon.
This is just the thing. pleasure is a desire. and suffering comes from desire. and even if you attain this desire then new ones will be born.

>>12339135
What's wrong with Sam Harris?

>>12340737
Obviously, if it didn't work like that humans wouldn't be a success, evolutionary speaking. We didn't evolve to be happy, we evolved to survive. To that end we can never be satisfied, to be satisfied is to stagnate and to stagnate is a death sentence as a species. I'm not trying to romanticize this, I'm just stating it as a matter of fact. Even if you're not a pessimist you must acknowledge this. Also if you're interested in pessimism read Ligotti.

>>12340729
but the Abrahamic God is the very same person who revealed the God that has been deduced. what now, lamebrain?

>>12340752
Evidence?

>>12340747
bad case of idiocy

>>12340756
That's not very helpful.

>>12340756
sam harris btfo

>>12340750
This is what Schopenhauer calls the will. Like when you get a boner for a hot girl, it makes you stupid. This is the biological will. And this leads to suffering.
Schopenhauer also commented on this idea of total satisfaction. He said if in the future that all our needs are ever satisfied it would lead to waves of suicide, war, and madness.

Im not reading ligotti, i see his pictures and he looks like a fucking hack

>>12340781
Don't judge a book by it's cover anon, Ligotti might not be as insightful as Schopenhauer but if you have an interest in pessimism he's very enjoyable to read.

>>12340747
His politics mostly. There's a strange cogdis gap between his logical philosophical reasoning and his mostly neoliberal political positions. I guess there are some places he just can't go, being Jewish, married/reproduced with a non-white and living/working in liberal HQ.

So, you can see why he's a popular target around here. He's a great strawman to hold up as representative of empiricists/utilitarians/materialists everywhere.

Also, there's a very vocal crowd who just hates anyone that challenges the validity of transcendentalism.

>>12340801
He has a son ?
Holy moly what a fucking hypocrite.

>>12340813
Daughter I think. If you're referring to claims that he's anti-natalist, he's not. I remember him saying he thinks there is a moral good in as many people existing as is environmentally reasonable (as most people seem to prefer having existed, even if their lives weren't stellar).

>>12340838
He's not an anti-natalist ?

>>12340838
What the fuck, I thought he was an anti-natalist

>>12340849
Well I admit I haven't listened to him since his support for Hillary in 2016, so maybe he's changed. When I did listen, he seemed quite pro-natalist though... More humans = moral good is a starkly pro-natalist position.

>>12339100
>no free will, everything is already determined

I don't get this still, how so? Can I not choose specifically what I want to do in the next 5 minutes?

you don't sound like you actually want help, you sound like you want reaffirmation presented in the form of help.

but in the case that my analysis is incorrect, from a former nihilist and apatheist, read camus. take the absurdist pill and humble yourself. realise how autistic you are to think you know all the answers to the existential question.

>>12340878
What is the nature of your choice? Does your thought and feeling spontaneously arise from the ether or does it have deterministic biological origins?

>>12340878
No, it's determined by physics and biology. Also there's no "you"

>>12340878
You're gonna do what you like and you don't decide to like things, you just do.

>>12340878
You cannot choose what you want.

>>12340884
This.

>>12340878
Everything is material
The material follows a determined chain of causality
You are material, therefore you are part of the deterministic process of causality.

Wooo guys look at me, I'm doing biologically impossible shit like deciding to make this post, have you ever seen someone decide to make this post? No? Thought so. Look how free I am. There's no rational/pleasure based motivation to do so, because I know I'll be called a faggot but I still do it out of sheer freedom, wooooooo. Also I'm not the other guy, I just decided to test things. Did I pass?

>>12340878
it's not fatalism. the idea is that everything you do, and every choice you make, is just the result of biological chemicals in your brain interacting with the current environment presented to you as free will. it's bunk btw.

>>12340926
Is the number 5 material?

comeonnow.jpg

>>12340934
The number 5 doesn't actually exist, its just a representation of something.

>>12340932
>it's bunk btw.
Based on what? What factors aren't included in your biology + your environment?

>>12340931
>There's no rational/pleasure based motivation to do so
Why on earth would you do something if it isn’t for your benefit in some way? Do you just act randomly throughout the day? Could it be that you were trying to prove something through your post? Ist that motivation?

>>12340938
wow.. man.. that's fucking deeeep!

>>12340948
How old are you?

>>12340934
The number five dosen't really exist

>>12340947
It was my best shot at acting with no self-interest. Idk if I pulled it off, but it was fun. I don't feel more educated than before, now that I did it. I guess I wanted to see what would happen.

>>12340969
Trying to act with no self-interest is itself out of some self-interest. There is no escape.

>>12340969
Why not shoot yourself, that would definitely do the job.

>>12340958
Circular reasoning.

>>12341002
You don't know what that term means.

>>12340987
You know, I could actually shoot myself in the foot or hand some day to see what it would be like. I don't like the potential for long term damage, though. Ever considered how weird it is that we don't have a convenient, risk free area of the body, where we can shoot ourselves for fun? That's an argument against me being God, if I was God, I'd try that at least once.

>>12340986
Yeah, I guess you're right. It's a funny feeling.

>>12340986
Projection. There are selfless, unbelievably charitable people throughout history. And they too had serious doubts about eternal reward in an afterlife.

>>12341002
Prove it and show your work

>>12340958
why do you plague yourself with such nonsense?
>the number 5 doesn't akschully exist
whether it's true or not, how does it actually affect you? if you acted on this belief it would impact you negatively

>>12341017
People are only selfless because they benefit by it in some way, even if it’s just the idea of being selfless, the immediate satisfaction upon doing something good for another. This is self-evident.

>>12341017
They did those things because it made them felt good doing it, if they felt like shit doing it they would stop

>>12341020
Do you actually have a point or are you just rambling? He was responding to someone who tried to say the number 5 isn't material as a rebuttal to the statement "everything is material".

>>12341017
But don't they do it because they like people and want to make their lives nicer? That just means that their self-interest includes the well-being of others, does it not?

>>12340451
>but I think there are plenty of arguments for Christianity’s superiority over Islam
stoped reading, while you may think of yourself as "deep" there is nothing unique about your ways, please just fucking stop christ this shit is getting boring

>>12341017
Provide examples of such people.

>>12341028
my point is these existential questions and pointless and autistic

>>12341011
You can’t hold a number, or a color, or the sound of a violin, but they are real. If you deny that then you are autistic. Sad!

>>12341036
while you may think of yourself as "deep" there is nothing unique about your ways, please just fucking stop christ this shit is getting boring

>>12341045
Holy fuck you're a real brainlet huh. Sounds and colors exist even if you can't hold them. Sounds exist in the air and colors exist in light. Numbers don't exist. Did you really think you had a point with that?

>>12341029
If their self-interest results in the well being of others it dosen't mean they are selfless,their actions are still motivated by self interest

>>12341039
Well, they aren’t famous because they weren’t selfish. Jesus of Nazareth, is a good one. Even if you aren’t religious.

>>12341057
Yeah that's what I'm saying. I wonder how the other guy will respond.

>>12341053
They exist in your mind, but they’re still real. Your materialism is axiomatic to you.

>>12341058
Christ had two natures,one of them being divine, he dosen't count

>>12339849
Pure sophist nonsense.

>>12339652
The idea of universal/transcendental/agent-independent 'meaning' does not have any supporting evidence. It is fully abstract. Deterministic models are based upon concrete observations of reality, so no -- it is not anywhere near as abstract.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that 'meaning' is relevant to the possiblity of existence.

How can nothing be an actual thing? Actually think about what you're claiming instead of spewing nonsense from your piehole. If you're going to ignore logic, why even bother attempting philosophical discourse?

>>12341069
The mind is a byproduct of the chemicals in your brain, they are material

>>12341081
More or less correct. So what?

>>12341053
Numbers do exist... Think about it. All abstractions do exist as some type of physical information... Whether they describe something else accurately or not is another issue entirely.

>>12341088
The number “5” is a mathematical symbol that refers to the set of all things of which there are five.

>>12341087
see
>>12340926
That was the original point of this conversation after all.

>>12341103
>The Mind is the byproduct of electrochemical processes in the brain, which are material, and thus it is also material.

Nope.

>>12341096
Yes, and that symbol is physically encoded electrochemically in your brain, magnetically on a disk, with ink on paper, etc. At what point is symbol not physical?

>>12341114
The consciousness itself may not be material, but every single thought you have is as a result of a material process in your brain. The fact that the consciousness itself is immaterial is irrelevant, because it is completely dictated by materials.

>>12341117
"5" exist, but it's just lines, it doesn't mean anything. "5" as humans think of it, an idea that represents five things, does not exist.

>>12341117
It’s never physical. It manifests physically as the fingers on your right hand, but five itself is immaterial.

>>12341130
I’m an idiot. What does it mean for something to be immaterial?

>>12341127
The idea exist as a chemical in your brain, chemicals are physical.

>>12341137
It doesn't exist in the material world. It's important to make a distinction between "5", the symbol, and "Five", the idea

>>12341127
you're missing his point. even if it doesn't "mean anything" it still exists. existence isn't determined by meaning

>>12341137
Not made out of matter, or perhaps energy. They are interchangeable after all.

>>12341127
>>12341130

Yeah, but the idea itself is material. It's some electrochemical encoding in your brain. Everything you experience exists in some form. You will have to logically demonstrate how something can be experienced but not exist if you wish to refute that.

>>12341145
It is important to distinguish abstraction, but if we then move on to suppose that abstractions don't actually exist in some form, then we are fallaciously reinforcing a notion of dualism that there is no evidence for.

>>12340364
Yeah to explain the randomness of electrons. They are a source of true randomness.
Nothing is for certain. Every prediction is just an approximation.

>>12341167
Unless there are variables we can't apprehend, and thus approximation is the best we can do. We don't actually know.

>>12341141
There may be lifeforms which have brains that are made out of neutrinos or something and aren’t electrochemical. If they are sufficiently intelligent they will be able to conceptualize the number 5.

>>12339100
my diary desu

>>12341145
Ok it doesn’t exist in the material world. That doesn’t tell me what it is, though.
>>12341148
So then what is it made out of?

>>12341178
And at what point that process is not material?

>>12341178
Still physical. Is this bait?

>>12341182
Nothing, if something is immaterial it doesn’t exist.

>>12341191
The process is undeniably material but the mind is not material. The mind is a result of the process, and all other processes acting in tandem.

>>12341195
you lack imagination. the point is that the number 5 is informational and separate from the neurons. it can exist in your brain or on a hard disk and is separate from both. those representations are physically very different but behave the same mathematically.

>>12341225
You can’t explain the number 5 without referring to something material. It doesn’t exist on its own. Try to actually conceive fiveness in your head. You can’t do it unless you imagine 5 things/quantities or, worse, the symbol “5”

>>12341243
Easy. Five is a set. In particular, it is the set of all things of which there are five.

>>12341259
A better example might be a circle. Circles are physically impossible, because a true circle has no sides, even down to an infinitely small scale. Are you going to say circles aren’t real? You can envision one easily enough in your mind, but it’s physical manifestation isn’t possible. Even spacetime isn’t flat enough anywhere in the universe to create the physical manifestation of a circle.

>>12341225
Information=physical patterns

The fact that encoding can transfer between various physical substrates doesn't negate the fact that information exists physically. Consider that two people could learn a concept from the same source, but have divergent understandings of it due to the divergence of their biological states. At no point does information take non-physical form, it is simply re-encoded in another physical form by physical processes.

If your imagination is not lacking, you should be able to more precisely describe what you're referring to.

>>12341293
yeah but have you zoomed in far enough to be sure that your mind circle doesn't secretly have many tiny sides at the smallest scale? yeah, I'm being facetious, sorry

>>12341293
Your concept is still a physical event. Abstractions exist as information, whether or not they accurately describe something non-conceptual is entirely beside the point.

>>12341293
Circles only exist in your memory because of all the circles you’ve viewed in your lifetime, which were all false circles. You can imagine that a perfect circle MIGHT exist, but once you perceive it, it becomes false.

>>12341329
so you're saying that his mind circle does in fact have many tiny sides at the smallest scale? I can't stop myself, please send help

>>12341293
Planets are circles though you idiot.

Holy shit how can you not be a nihilist?

>>12341329
I posit that a mind, devoid of all sensory input, with sufficient intelligence and perhaps time could surmise the concept of the circle.

>>12339100
Read Kant husserl deluze Kuhn and Whitehead. S

>>12341320
This. The "pictured" circle in your brain is limited by the Planck's length. It's not a perfect circle, even in your imagination.

Any of the alan watts lectures can help, if you have what's needed. Won't really give you a awnser but will entertain you and mabye open your mind to uncertainty.

>>12339100
Aristotle

read anything by Buddha

>>12343413
Cringe and life denying

>>12339191
>other things that weren't meant to be
We have stuff like that. We call it "everything that is not the case."
Don't even try to jump from here to some "but that's the world, which means the rest isn't part of it", I won't fucking forgive you, because you don't understand Wittgenstein and I seriously hope you haven't even read him to start thinking you do.
When people say "everything is determined" they meany "everything that is is determined," which is not everything, meaning the complementary set is not nothing, meaning there is no room for paradoxical reasoning.