/lit/ - Literature

>>16568101
>what am I following by x action
That's for you to find out. You clearly say it for a purpose and while not everything boils down to survival, every action does boil down to you wanting to do it for some reason. Giving yourself some credit, there were some reasons this became popular among your choices. Maybe it's to cope, maybe it's an alt-right short man syndrome thing. Maybe it's rewarded, maybe it's an alien language that is granting math. I really couldn't tell you.

>>16568101
Animals exhibit rational behaviors

>>16568101
Which instincts am I following if I call someone a nigger on /lit/?

Short answer: tribalism. Longer answer: you're amusing yourself by deliberately acting in a way that's counterproductive to group cohesion. Animals don't talk, obviously, but they do amuse themselves by deliberately being anti-social. Animals start physical fights with other members of their group, just as humans start arguments with people in their own group. Natural selection is an imprecise process, it's a misconception to assume that all characteristics exist because they are useful to survival. Some characteristics persist simply because they are not harmful enough to be lost through natural selection, more information can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

>>16568295
Feel free to rise above your animal instincts by not drawing attention to the embarrassing fact that I forgot to greentext the quote.

>>16568101
>monkeys and animals aren't capable of rational thought or evil
You lost me here. Monkeys are rational thinkers, otherwise they couldn't learn to make tools and form social hierarchies.

>>16568101
>>atheists see man as an evolved monkey
No, they don't. Men and monkeys are both equally evolved, sharing a common ancestor. Evolution isn't betterment towards some objective ideal that all life shares, it's just "increased ability to make babies in a certain environment".

You, a panda, and an earthworm are all equally evolved. Drop the three of you in a bamboo forest, and you'll do just fine. Drop the three of you in the middle of an oak forest, and the panda will starve to death, but you and the earth worm will do just fine.

>>monkeys and animals aren't capable of rational thought or evil
Monkeys are capable of thought. "Reason" doesn't exist, the Enlightenment was a huge fucking meme.

>>16568327
>"Reason" doesn't exist

The fact that no living being can conform precisely to reason, doesn't disprove the existence of reason itself. Electronic systems work entirely on reason.

>>16568101
I only resort to "naming the nigger" once the responder loses all cordiality. Once they begin swearing and acting emotionally without addressing any specific disagreement, I lay back, consult my Treasurer of Insults and on receiving word, name the nigger and send it off to make the responder fume.

>>16568353
Then we've abstracted reason to such a degree that statements like "men are capable of reason and monkeys aren't ergo men can be evil but monkeys can't" is meaningless as monkeys are actually quite reasonable, just like toasters and LEDs.

>>16568367
I'm assuming that by "reason", we're both talking about Logic? If that's the case, then it's always been abstract. It wasn't until the Enlightenment (which as you rightly pointed out, was a meme) this absurd assumption that reason is inherent to human beings became widespread. The statement: "men are capable of reason and monkeys aren't ergo men can be evil but monkeys can't" is indeed meaningless, I agree. Humans and monkeys are capable of reason to some degree, but the majority of their behaviour is driven by instincts. But electronic systems have no instincts, everything that is done by an electronic circuit is the result of millions of simple Yes/No/And/Or questions, electronic circuits are probably the only practical demonstration we have of pure logic at work.

>>16568101
>therefore evil does not exist and we can justify every meaningless destructive behavior as an inclination to follow our animal insticts
Atheists literally never do this. They look at the abyss and just go back to their liberal (christian) morality

>>16568327
How do you live being bound by such illogical fantastical dogmatism?

>>16568353
>>16568423
Reason in animals are purely instinctual. Its movement is always and solely to the exterior aiming at means for survival.

>>16568556
>Reason in animals are purely instinctual. Its movement is always and solely to the exterior aiming at means for survival.

Housecats will use logical reasoning to retrieve toys which are in difficult to reach places. They'll also learn to operate doors, windows, taps and flush toilets for the sake of their own curiosity and amusement. Animals aren't solely concerned with survival.

>>16568612
But would an animal on the verge of extinction choose deliberately to condemn his entire race to die? Would he deliberately choose to copulate with a male instead of the last surviving female?

>>16568556
Not really. At all, in fact. It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>16568676
>But would an animal on the verge of extinction choose deliberately to condemn his entire race to die?

It's debatable how 'deliberate' anything done by an animal is. They may be capable of Logic, but I doubt they understand taxonomy. Or the scale of their proliferation. But, the Panda bear is a fine example of an animal that's choosing to end it's line. There's a reason Zoos are desperately trying (and failing) to convince these creatures to mate.

>Would he deliberately choose to copulate with a male instead of the last surviving female?

Possibly. Animals are known to attempt same-sex mating and as I said previously, they most likely can't conceptualise concepts like birth rates.

One-upmanship has a curious way of operating in reverse where the regal aspect of sentience, or reasonableness, is conspicuously lacking. This >>16568321 suggestion for perspective on it is most apt, though it understates the difference of degree in development, especially when it comes to natural language: As an attribute, it is is intrinsically or naturally sociable in its direction, or tendency, especially toward establishing consensus in diction: Everyone wins when no particular player wins at negotiating the terms of discourse, though why this comes about isn't a simple matter to explain, and isn't in any case within the reach of mere wit, which neglects memory.

>>16568612
indeed, you are right. but my point is precisely that their reason is one sided and not elective like ours. our reason can be really animal-like when we deal with exterior things, and it can be directed to purely intellectual issues which condition the very exterior (physical) things, this is (self-)reflection, conversion, which they don't have.

>>16568101
Humans are evolved apes, not monkeys. Monkeys and apes are different! Don't make this mistake in public as I once did.

>>16568101
>>16568321
>>16568327
>>16569573
hundreds of years and we still have no link between apes and humans found. keep brainwashing yourselves and your future generations.

>>16569594
>No link
There have been literally dozens of links found idiot. Every time someone finds one some discount Zeno like you crawls out of the woodwork and asks for another link.

>>16568101
Chimps are capable of planned deception, offering small animals food then hitting them with a stick for fun, signalling that a predator is coming so that all the other chimps run and then the liar can get the food or whatever. Even dumber animals hide and feint one direction before running another. There's a certain amount of layer strategic thinking involving deception in nature long before sophisticated social reasoning and communal priorities became a thing.

"Evil" means nothing but parasitism and opportunism come a lot more intrinsically with life than altruism, even if the most stands to be both gained and lost by altruists.

You call people a nigger on /lit/ because the selective pressures on human behavior have disappeared so much that our entire life is masturbation and you're a worthless nigger.

>>16569604
what i am aware is of many frauds concerning attempts at establishing such link. post a found link then

>>16569564
I think the problem is that the term: "Reason" is somewhat vague. I'm thinking of reason as a synonym for "Logic". The things you're thinking of, such as self reflection are things I'd classify as "theory of mind". I'm no expert on the topic, but I believe some kinds of animals have shown evidence of those faculties.

>>16568101
>>monkeys and animals aren't capable of rational thought or evil
[Citation needed]

>>16569668
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Meet Lucy, she is an early Hominid. She's named after a Beatles song, it was playing on the radio at the time they found her.

>>16568101
>therefore evil does not exist and we can justify
under the premise, the word justify does not mean anything.
also your instincts evolved for a very specific environment. in this modern enviroment, instincs that were once beneficial (for instance, to prove your w?competence by squabbling with other members of the group) are now channelled into something meaningless like name calling on /lit/.

>>16569753
>bones of a chimpanzee
>see we are just monkeys!

>>16569594
>we still have no link
We have Neanderthal DNA in us and they are an extinct species. Why does that not tell you that species evolve over time through breeding and natural selection? Are you too dumb to grasp this?

>>16569796
I don't think you read the article. There are numerous small difference between a chimpanzee and Lucy. The nature of specialisation is that small changes accumulate over time and eventually result in large changes.

>>16569811
that means nothing, our dna shares a lot with monkeys's. what is absurd is affirming that mere exterior and material changes can produce qualitative ones, that there is no predisposition for its emergence, that all characteristics of humans being dispersed throughout humans did not imply their resolution in man, that this natural selection is random (utterly nonsensical) and whatnot. are you too much of a brainwashed npc not to be able to think for once?

>>16568101
>>monkeys and animals aren't capable of rational thought or evil
If this is not bait you're retarded.

>>16569855
>dispersed throughout humans
dispersed throughout other creatures*

>>16569855
>natural selection is random
Go back

>>16569855
Your fedora is on too tight, dude. Your hyper-materialism is choking you to death.

would help if you absolute morons get an above kindergarten level of knowledge about evolution

>>16569855
>our dna shares a lot with monkeys's
Do you not wonder why that is?

>what is absurd is affirming that mere exterior and material changes can produce qualitative ones
>mere exterior and material changes
Such as?
>qualitative ones
Such as? What are these seemingly arbitrary categories you've devised and how are they related to the matter?

Neanderthal DNA and DNA in general means that "species" is merely a label we have created for communicating a set of DNA. It's fluid and non-static, in an ongoing process of changing. We refer to humans as a "species" for the purpose of communication, but if we were to observe each human, we would find distinctions between all of them. These distinctions have lesser effects than those found between different species, however, which is why we come up with such labels. The point is that space and time are a continuum and no organism exists removed from time, every classification of organism is merely a means for communication and not a truthy statement.

>>16569888
The trips have spoken, everybody in this thread is a lackwit, except for gentleman with the splendid trio of eights.

>>16569594
Yikes

>>16569855
>that this natural selection is random (utterly nonsensical)
Correct, which is why no one is arguing that natural selection is random. The fact that you think that people think this is a testament to your nihilism and materialism.

>>16568101
lmao
theists have the same logical skills as a baboon, which explains both their theism and human evolution. rational thought produces evil, humans developed rational thought, therefore they developed evil.
by your reasoning, flowers couldn't produce pollen just because the tree branches don't.
>>16568253
i think animals exibit religious behaviours

>>16569907
>such as
self-convertive consciousness and reason.
how can these be developed through seminal transmission?

>>16569878
>>16569875
>>16569912
learn to read

>>16569909
brainwashed

>>16569968
>t. angry bugman
Go stare at your funko-pop collection and calm down.

>>16569968
>consciousness
Fancy term for awareness. How does biology produce awareness, you ask? Through the brain in connection to the senses.

>>16569968
Counterpoint: You're a walking sack of meat, and as your hyper-materialism and nihilism demonstrates, are not conscious.

>>16570005
> sack of meat
not him but are an elephant or a lion a sack of meat?

>>16569988
>Through the brain in connection to the senses.
lmao you have no idea what matter, bodies and non-materiality are.

>>16570059
Elephants and lions have souls and higher mental faculties, whereas the materialist bugman does not. By "sack of meat", I mean that in the sense of "only". A lion and an elephant are "sacks of meat", but are more than just that.

The anon in question is incapable of any higher spiritual or intellectual activity, and as such is ONLY a sack of meat. His character is understood by his LACK, rather than what he has, leaving in stark contrast what little he does have: a mouth, an anus, and a large collection of hotsauce bottles.

>>16570060
Close your mouth, drone. If you keep fear grimacing, flies will wander in.

>>16570060
t. brainlet stuck on philosophical arguments from 300+ years ago

>>16570073
>Elephants and lions have souls
ok, and are vermins and rats just sacks of meat or they have souls too?

>>16570108
Rats and other assorted critters have souls, yes. The bugman was born with a soul, but it has been stolen from him.

>>16569968
Boo hoo I don't understand thing so thing is wrong waa

>>16569946
>i think animals exibit religious behaviours
some do
elephants are the best example.

>>16570113
and the fishes? do they have souls?

>>16568101
>Which instincts am I following if I call someone a nigger on /lit/
Your fragile ego feel threatened and you respond with aggression
Because you have a tiny cock and your weak mind has been infiltrated by /pol/, you think that screaming nigger makes you part of a group, and there is safety in numbers
Gorillas call each other "nigger" when the weaker, tiny-cocked incel one challenges the leader to get access to his harem
And when he gets his ass kicked and everyone laughs at him, he goes off to sulk in a corner, and you pot on /lit/ about some faggot superstition

>>16570108
Nothing has a soul, organisms only exist physically.

It's just another example of imaginary human superiority.

You're no different than a demodex mite who is feasting on your dead skin right as you read this.

>>16570262
that was exactly my point. organisms vary in complexity, not in quality.

>>16570392
>complexity is not a quality
i swear people in this thread can't think

>>16568354
you may have this

>>16568101
Causing black people mental distress and pushing them away from a resource/environment (4chan). Securing your group's survival just that tiny bit more.