/lit/ - Literature

C stands for Cunny

>>16586694
What isn't and isn't cope is entirely subjective. According to Terror Management Theory all is cope.

Every active thing whatsoever is a cope, as is all inaction.

Cope means something that is believed because the opposite would cause a great psychological discomfort, rather than because one has great reasons to believe it.

>>16586694
Copepill me on how this is relevant to the board.

1/7

2/7

3/7

4/7

>>16586742
What if you have good reason to believe something and is also the opposite of something which would cause you great psychological discomfort to believe?

>>16586694
cope is an all encompassing temp like hedonism
it can be applied to all without meaning
this very post "copes" with the word cope
what ever response to this post "copes" with my post.

5/7

Isn't coping actually a good thing? As opposed to not coping.

>>16586826
Hedonism has a pretty clear meaning

6/7

7/7

So the word Cope, outside of how insecure and bellicose people Throw it around, has long history and sometimes used to refer to something divine and beautiful. Thanks

>>16586859
cope, seethe, dilate

>>16586694
All of existence is a cope against entropy.

>>16586859
>this word appeared in an antiquated form in Paradise Lost and is therefore relevant
Nope.

>>16586978
I respectfully disagree but at the same time cannot do so whole heartedly because I am not quite sure what your argument is, friend :)

>>16586699
>>16586742
By these definitions, everything that gives meaning and purpose is a cope, and every copeposter is a nihilist.

>>16587002
He's arguing that the contemporary meaning and usage of the word trumps the archaic.

I'm saying that we can bring it back with gay.

>>16587024
Also he who cope posts is conceding according to this >>16586795
I want to say to people well coped.

>>16586777
Attacking the OP is a cope for not trying answer him. This is relevant to the board because I want to know if literature is just one big "cope," or to what extent is writing a cope?

>>16586742
This seems fair, but what are and aren't great reasons to believe something? There needs to be more nuance.

>>16586699
But calling everything a cope is itself a cope. What isn't a cope though?

>>16586777
You're the only one among us who has made an advance. We can built upon your postulate, anon. But Nihilism is the biggest cope.

>>16586842
Hedonism is also another huge cope, for copers who pursue pleasure for a while trying to ignore or undervalue a greater issue at hand...

Buml

>>16587035
It’s the same word. And I don’t understand the last sentence of your post

>>16587235
>calling everything cope is itself a cope
Hence me saying it's entirely subjective.

It's not cope if it genuinely elevates you instead of only stopping you from sliding downhill.

Its all about the COPE

>>16586694
Blackpill: A truth that is bad
Whitepill: A truth that is good
Cope: a falsehood, believed by an individual, that would be a whitepill were it true

If you categorize every defensive mechanism as 'cope' then you're using the word to point and laugh at people who defend themselves from an uncomfortable reality. Meanwhile, while you laugh at the one who 'copes', you are not scared.

Those who point out coping are the ultimate copers. You're welcome.

>>16587327
Aside from the last sentence you're mistaken. OP seems well aware that there's a "defense mechanism" at play, which is why he inquires is and isn't a cope. He's not laughing at anyone but is genuinely curious.

But what's the point of this "coping?" It's all futile and a mental strain on a man who just wants to be. Knowledgeable men desire the samsara, breaking free from the cycles of coping and seething.

>>16587305
But calling everything a cope and stopping at "it is subjective" just admits our ignorance when we get there. It's just too easy to say "everything is relative," because there is a gap in our knowledge.

Here inquiry ends and cope begins. But we can push further than the bounds of subjectivity and objectivity I'm sure.

normally when people post off topic garbage on /lit/, they at least add "what are some books about this" to their post but you couldn't even be bothered doing that

>>16587318
Thank you for this demonstration of grammar level used by dilettantes. Navigating through their thought process often feels like I’m holding my breath underwater

>>16587376
Do you always just read half of the post you respond to?

True non-cope is that which elevates the soul, the individual, in his day to day detail life as well as his holistic big picture life. Allow me to use an example: exercise.

Now, the first question of course is "why exercise". The answer of course is better health, boosting confidence, mental clarity, or a combination of such motivations. So then surely one can say that to exercise to attain better health is simply "coping" with mortality. But, unless you exercise because your own personal feeling of fear towards mortality drives you to do it, then at best you're doing a "biological cope". Same with exercising to boost confidence. Unless the cope is intimate to your psyche it cannot honestly be said that you are coping by exercising because in the same way you wouldn't call eating food a cope (unless you're obese or anorexic or have some other eating disorder) you also wouldn't call having sex a cope (again unless you're a sex or masturbation addict). Does that make sense?

I posit the following:

1. To cope is to justify or rationalize
2. If one never feels need to justify or rationalize anything, one never copes

>>16587434
I counter-posit that it is impossible to never justify or rationalize, since the justification of an action is the verbalized cause of that action.

>>16587448
To amend that: the justification and/or rationalization of an action is the retro-active representation of the cause of said action. But even in and before the moment of action one needs to have atleast an intuitive understanding of causation, or else one wouldn't or couldn't do anything

>>16587293
Gay means merry and happy.

>>16587473
And in the context of what being said how exactly does that relate?

>>16587460
I reject your premise that mere awareness of causation counts as justification/rationalization. If I act strictly out of intuition and instinct, then I can say that I only acted in the way I did because it was my nature. If I refuse to care about this and never give my actions a second thought, then I never justify or rationalize anything.

>>16587532
But acting according to your nature, whether conscious or not, is still an intuitive justification of any act. Just because you don't care about why you do something doesn't mean that there isn't a why to it nor that you do it without a why.