/lit/ - Literature

Defeatism? We're not going to make it.

>>14940186
OP here, I think i found out the term after a 5 min google search

Fatalism, right?
But idk. I'd like some more emphasis on the aspect of nature here. That fate/destiny and the all-encompassing nature are intertwined.

>>14940157
Yeah you would like the meme book Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti. full on as nihilistic as you're presenting your position here Camus also talks about the contrast between our desire for meaning and the absurdity of the world beyond this, but he tries to reconcile it in some dumb way by saying he accepts it but he's 'rebelling' against it nonetheless, acting as if meaning existed anyway.

Nihilism of this sort is actually kind of naive though. It's not sufficiently skeptical about its implicit assertions of epistemology and ontology. Which is not to say anything gets better when you start looking into that, only that you are unsure. There could very well be absolute meaning but maybe you'll never get it, maybe you were determined to never get it. Maybe you just didn't do the right thing with your freedom of will to get there. Maybe whatever infinity of options.

Maybe you'll be tortured for an eternity for things you barely understood you were choosing. lol

>>14940191
Fatalism sounds like it matches. What about determinism? And stuff like evolutionary psychology.

>>14940157
>Is there a name for a philosophical position relating to the insignificance of the human condition thrown against the endlessly vast and overwhelming cosmos?
That's just common sense. Nothing "fatalistic" about it.

>>14940197
>>14940204
Okay guys. Noob OP is starting to seriously get into wikipedia-tier philosophy!

I determine (heh) myself to be a compatibilist with fatalistic overtones. What do y'all think?
I think that some people have free will and live largely free of deterministic events, but that determinism does creep into some other people's lives, which then may leave a rightfully fatalistic sense of hopelessness.
And I think the truly depressing thing about this is that we can never know whether we are truly free or whether we're the ones who're determined for a certain outcome, whatever it may be, from their birth.

>>14940157
It’s called faggotism

>>14940228
I don't perceive the human insignificance as inability to introduce changes from the perspective of the universe. I perceive our insignificance from the perspective of a battle between the human and the inhuman, who influences who, and that the inhuman always wins this battle and can never lose it. And that in the end we can never stop being slaves/toys to the Cosmos.

>>14940236
I don't see a sharp distinction between "human and inhuman". Everything is just clumps of matter governed by mechanistic laws.

>>14940248
I know you wanna troll me since im a noob into philosophy, but even I wont take this bait

>>14940157
Start with the Greeks then come back. You'll have the answers

I guess materialism can also fit in with this stuff. maybe you can fit positivism in there somewhere. I don't think that you can have freedom without some kind of transcendent reality. Even then the universe in general might have freedom but you may not. That would be a Natural Evolution from the belief that God has freedom and you don't. Determinism might be the effects or manifestation of freedom. So even if the universe was free we are such a tiny Cog that we have no freedom. It would make the universe feel even more oppressive but less chaotic. We would become the equivalent of sock puppets. Probably sock puppets that have coom stains on them.

>>14940272
I started with Plato at school and he put me off with his useless time-wasting rambling about the absolutely non-existent world of ideas. It doesn't exist so what's the point of talking about it and describing it in detail?

A lot of Greek philosophy (frankly, a lot of philosophy overall) is similar to the concept of the anti-Earth IMO.
Ancient Greeks used to discuss anti-Earth, what it might be, how big it is, they even discussed what weather and climate there is right now on the anti-Earth, and proposed hypotheses for why that might be so.

The problem from the start was...
the anti-Earth simply does not exist. And did not exist. And will not exist.
So why analyze it? Something that doesn't exist? Something that is unfalsifiable and is entirely a fictional creation of a mind on its own?

I think such approaches are good as literary devices when used to explain things that exist. I don't see Plato's idealism as that, I see it as useless rambling equal to ancient discussions on the anti-Earth.

>>14940253
What bait? It's the simple truth.

>>14940295
Clumps of matter are not all the same. Clumps of matter constituting humans have the ability to perform abstract thinking. Clumps of matter constituting stones do not have this ability.

>>14940157
>I'm just focusing on the fact that we can never win in this world, with the cosmos, that we will always be crushed by the machine called fate because we're but a cog in it. And that each endeavor and undertaking of ours, in the battle against the cosmos and the fate, no matter how ambitious, will always ultimately lead to disappointing and bitter failure.
I also like to huff my farts.

>>14940300
Yes, different clumps of matter have different properties. So what?

>>14940313
humans possess properties no other clump of matter (of the ones yet discovered) do

>>14940329
Many non-humans possess properties no other clump of matter (of the ones yet discovered) do. Lots of different types of matter out there.

>>14940329
you just repeated this >>14940313
this is the kind of non-thinking you want to get rid of if you want to start to understand philosophy

>>14940157
>Is there a name for a philosophical position relating to the insignificance of the human condition thrown against the endlessly vast and overwhelming cosmos?

Yes it's called brainletism

>>14940347
You repeated your question, I repeated my answer. Simple as.

>>14940343
No clump of matter possesses the property to self-analyze and constrast itself with other clumps of matter, both at the same time.

>>14940363
The plasma in the interior of the Sun has unique properties as well. Nature doesn't play favorites.

>>14940367
Yeah read what I said again:
>No clump of matter possesses the property to self-analyze and constrast itself with other clumps of matter, both at the same time.

>>14940395
I'm not following you. Why are you so fixated on that particular material property?

>>14940157
>Since I'm not focusing on the meaning of life here.
>I'm just focusing on the fact that we can never win in this world,
Schopenhauer is exactly who you want, everyone loves him, he is the artists philosopher in that way, no one dislikes reading Schopenhauer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9_9MZyQGo

>>14940414
Elaborate
>>14940406
Because this property is central to the free will/determinism debate.

>>14940157
Reddit.

>>14940425
What philosophical views are not reddit?

>>14940423
Free will is nonsense. Everything works in accord with fundamental physics.

>>14940253
Proud of you anon

>>14940157
Did the bathwater ethot get arrested?

>>14940157
Doesn't this kind of universalism from a human perspective undermine the argument that the human perspective is insignificant? Win what? Because we can't control some star dying in a distant galaxy we ought to be concerned about our insignificance? What other philosophical presuppositions do you hold that you are not aware of?

>>14940289
God what a fucking brainlet. Stick to Wikipedia

>>14940437
>Win what? Because we can't control some star dying in a distant galaxy we ought to be concerned about our insignificance?

Win with the Cosmos not over control of some star, that's dumb. I'm talking about attempts to win with the Cosmos over control of self.

>>14940443
You're not providing any arguments or substance to the thread. Fuck off, get lost, see ya!

>>14940450
>attempts to win with the Cosmos over control of self.

What?

>>14940423
>Elaborate
Some say he is too depressing to read, others say he charts the course for redemption "of the misguided will"- as Wagner would say.

Every desire and willing for something which will only ever be temporary. Irrational desire from physiological determinism, though he still believed in free will and would have to be considered by some, the strongest base for any ethical system in the history of Western philosophy, developing and critiquing Kant.

Just read the description of this and then the book itself: https://www.amazon.com.au/Essays-Aphorisms-Arthur-Schopenhauer/dp/0140442278

But before reading that book read this, which is a popular masses-centred dilution of his work, in being of the art of "Eudaemonology" and rejecting his main (far more pessimistic) philosophy: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10741/10741-h/10741-h.htm#link2HCH0002

>>14940430
I’ll dub them inconsequenialists otherwise known as nihilist otherwise known as Reddit. Sounded like rick and morty to me at a glance. But you know anon, maybe the overarching narrative of humans has been us vs the cold, cruel reality that’s why people love climate change so much. Maybe that battle in itself is something that gives us extrinsic meaning, inspires us, regardless how ridiculous the odds. Maybe that’s also a Reddit position.

>>14940432
>'everything' exists

Fucking moron. Go back to your physics textbooks idiot

>>14940435
People said this like over a year ago bro, I think maybe two, you gotta get with the times. That said, I think most came to the conclusion it was a photoshoot, and so should you.

>>14940460
Go back >>>/b/, you drooling imbecile.

>>14940450
we are immanent in the cosmos though. Whether we control the cosmos or the cosmos controls us, it's just perspective.

>>14940472
I can't believe they let people this stupid on /lit/

>>14940452
i came to the conclusion that im a compatibilist. i dont perceive free will's existence as something binary. i believe that some people are simply destined to certain outcomes, and that some don't have this special kind of burden.
and what im talking about is the futile act of rebellion of the destined people. an act of rebellion against their own destiny

>>14940459
what's reddit about juxtaposing the insignificance and fragility of the human, against the endless totality of the world?

>>14940479
>i believe that some people are simply destined to certain outcomes

This is a view regulated by human kind being placed at the centre of the operations of the universe. Destiny and fate are not universal operations, there is simply too much randomness in the universe that cannot be neatly accounted for by science, philosophy, etc.

>>14940450
>dude ideas have no value but solid matter my brainlet self can perceive itself interacting with has value because reasons
You are a complete fool, an absolute buffoon

>>14940493
Prove that the world of ideas exists.

>>14940497
Define "prove"
Define "ideas"
Prove to me that the idea of "interacting with matter" is any different from any other idea

>>14940157
>into philosophy
>never read a single philosophical work in my life

>>14940157
I can't believe people are seriously replying to this newfag.
go back.
sage.

>>14940157
Hhh...
You are also insignificant to your next door neighbor, but do you care?
You are insignificant to McDonald's too, a very big business, but do you care?
The only thing that should matter is your significance to yourself.

>>14940500
Define "define"

>>14940511
>You are insignificant to McDonald's
wtf but they called me a valued customer

>>14940512
Define

>>14940511
That's my point dumbass, the totality of the world includes me as well. We all make up this totality.

What my point is is that we are all (well, the predetermined ones at least) insignificant to ourselves as we are not even in control of ourselves.

>>14940511
If no one likes you in the world you might very well die. That's why there's this thing called extraversion. it's where people get happy to talk with one another because that means that they have more survival potential and mating potential. you don't got to be smart if you got lots of friends who are smart. So we should care about more than just our self-esteem.

>>14940289
>I started with Plato at school and he put me off with his useless time-wasting rambling about the absolutely non-existent world of ideas. It doesn't exist so what's the point of talking about it and describing it in detail?
>A lot of Greek philosophy (frankly, a lot of philosophy overall) is similar to the concept of the anti-Earth IMO.
>Ancient Greeks used to discuss anti-Earth, what it might be, how big it is, they even discussed what weather and climate there is right now on the anti-Earth, and proposed hypotheses for why that might be so.
Anon, I'm going to reply nicely to you because I saw you told the other anon to fuck off when he pointed out your pubescence. Before I say anything, have some fucken modesty, just because you don't understand quite possibly the single most influential figure in history other than Jesus Christ, does not mean somehow that you've somehow found the answer. Stick to tradition to provide a base for yourself, history and what great-men have thought and done and made. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you cannot exist without these impersonal structures or helps, let alone think to the level of these men and understand what they say. Use your intuition to look through to the inner heart of meaning which is present within everything you want to, but necessarily things of great value. What of historically? Plato provided a moral/epistomological basis for the philosophically troubling Greece at the time -you may say he inherited this from Socrates but his thoughts are his own-, the realisation of all the false connections we had made such as between sense and fact, and the progression of true connections- furthermore setting Western civilisation ever striving for the good in itself, for the beautiful in itself, and for the true in itself, recognising these things as themselves true and good for man, and beautiful because of that! And what about religiously or poetically(they are impossibly intertwined as Wagner would later show)? In Plato lies an allegorical presentation of poetic truths. The very greatest and purest.

>>14940157
Why do you care about so much about outer space? "oooh cosmos big" so what? Literally who cares only nerds are interested in spaceships and planets and stuff. Also, "fate" might as well not exist outside of Earth's atmosphere because it's just a bunch of gas and rocks bumping around. Stop being such a nihilistic edgelord, or rather, why can't you be nihilistic about your nihilism and so reject gay emo brooding as the pointless cringe moping that it is?
As for everyone else that has wasted precious minutes of their lives reading this gay thread please look at this funny cat.

>>14940556
Plato was important. So what? I can't say that I dislike his extremely ad-hoc and shaky take on the problem of universals? Take that no one perceives seriously, not even in Antiquity?

>>14940289
>>14940556
And to pause for a moment, you can start off, if you don't realise how presupposed your own view of the world is by the neoliberal materialist mindset however irrationally because of your own lacking basis other than supposed "obviousness"(the true fools intellect-crown). Then you must see at the very least lest you ignore like a fool things even greater, that the metaphysical acts as a representation or expression of certain things which cannot be presented in material superficial and typical form. As Heidegger would later say, religion is the metaphysical metaphysical, the metaphysical itself tied irreversibly to Being here and now and not to mean some materialist confusion of "haha you believe in devils and shieeeet". I am not claiming the commonly understood "exterior" metaphysical is not real, but I am saying that you must recognise the literal existence of the metaphysical in attachment to Being itself immanently. Precisely in your case because an individual cannot progress in this world without these things, not because he necessarily instinctually desires these things or whatnot(like a Jungian religious drive and yearning) but because they are present in the very act of his desiring and self evident in his own experience and phenomena in this world. To be aware of them, is the only thing you must do at this stage.

And now skipping the millions of other things Plato talked about and skipping the millions of other ways one must interpret and understand him and them(for example epistemology would not exist without Plato) we can now ask your question of what about literally? Well he obviously has a literal value as I have explained in not just being some midwit atheist conception of an "anti-Earth theory"(cringe). Plato's ethics other than perhaps(speaking within philosophy) Schopenhauer are of the strongest of natures, but really what you would be interested in is his ideal presentation of hierarchy. Of the Philosopher-King; the spiritual men and leading greatness, the Warrior-Cast who are honourable in themselves and strive for these more immediate beauty's, and finally the well-appreciated peasant class of workers and frivolours. Of course you can put the warrior class on-top or whatnot and it can be changed innumerably for the culture and such but it is the archetypal presentation of the idea and truth of hierarchy itself. In every dialogue Plato is more self-aware than you think, everything relates back to everything like leitmotifs in his later dialogues.

Plato presents and looks up only to the ideal of things, very rarely is he wrong in this regard, one example would be his view on artists, but then even this is at worst only an expression of the ascetic spirit which runs along his works but would not remain entirely "life-skimming" in Platonism as the neoplatonist Proclus would worldify. Relating back to Heidegger, one can see the notion of the character of the Being of the world in the Timaeus.

>>14940289
>>14940568
Modesty is important for young people to be trained well and find and appreciate truth. However even what I have said is at best just an attempt to do this, and not the best of these great-men explained.

>>14940567
You should reply slower.

>>14940556
>>14940568
Fuck off, moron.

>>14940563
i'm not being nihilistic, im not concerning myself with the meaning or value of life.

>>14940568
Hey, I didnt say that Plato was stupid. I just said that hearing about his theory of ideas put me off. It's an ad-hoc created hypothesis leaving you with more assumptions (based on nothing) than you started with. It's the equivalent to the anti-Earth (which I remembered just now is called "antichton" or counter-earth)

>>14940567
>>14940581
>>14940585
You get nothing.

>>14940567
How does one "perceive" seriously? When I look at my son I "perceive" failure but I do this with the same tone I perceive my disgust at a slimy 6" sub. You can perceive something as unworthy of seriousness, like when my eyes flit open to find surprise my wife telling me to get a job, but that's only after she wakes me up at 3PM by opening my blinds like she's pouring hot water on a dish in an impotent effort to scrape the week-old food therefrom. You've gotta scrub at it lady! I don't leave them under my bed to make it easy for you. No, you judge after perceiving. Maybe old Aristotle perceived Plato as an ass after hearing from his mates that the ol' man shat out another mind-numbing dialogue, maybe that perception colored his reading of Protagoras ("Tell me, Hippocrates!" What a name I swear to god). Anyways I'm rambling please elaborate.

>>14940603
cringe

>>14940604
I bet Kant would agree with me.

>>14940157
>ctrf+F lovecraft
>0 replies
come on lads. this is literally his entire schtick.

>>14940525
but significance is more than that.
Hitler for example, was very significant, but to whom?

To the world and to humanity, for what he did, how he did it, his influence, and other things.

Millions hated him, yes, but he was a very significant person in his time, and to the people he killed.

If no one likes you then you might die yes, but perhaps that situation has been less hostile since the stone age. lol

You could say, if we're insignificant to the universe, then the universe is insignificant to the universe.

But we don't value ourselves or each other based upon our size. It's the thought that counts, size doesn't matter (well not in this context anyway.)

>>14940525

>So we should care about more than just our self-esteem

Self-esteem any further from being self-reliant and not liking being outraged by psichopaths is pure ego masturbating

>>14940585
I will unironically recommend jordan peterson's "12 rules for life" to you

>>14940758
?