/lit/ - Literature

Relax man. It doesn't matter.

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwit12.html

You give your own life meaning faggot.

Guess what book answers all these types of questions?
Guess which book gets enormous amounts of irrational hatred for answering these questions?

>>1680718
It answers no questions.
It gets hate for pretending to be answers but is actually just a collection of bronze-age fables.

>>1680722
>implying there isn't an entire table of contents directing people to the answers of these questions

>>1680713
This should be fun to read, thanks man.

>>1680722
What do we have in this life if we don't have hope?

>>1680753
angsty teenagers who quote nietzsche on facebook

>>1680753
How does this at all contribute to the conversation.

>>1680765

Contemporary Christians aren't capable of deep thought. Ignore his drivel.

onionring to aisle 4 someone is shitting with language, aisle 4

>>1680765
>>1680771
>poses a legidimate philisophical question regarding the benefits of religion
>anons heads explode

>>1680780

I have a computer and access to the internet.

>>1680777
You can go fuck yourself.

>>1680675

If we are going to die anyway, why worry about it?

Irrelevant questions

>>1680809
It isnt about worrying, its about wondering.

Do you think someone back in the day saying "You'll never know why the sky is blue! Stop wasting your time!" stopped the person from wondering why the sky was blue. Probably a terrible example but fuck it.

>>1680822

We don't know why the sky is blue. We know how it becomes blue.

Think about worrying about your real problems, OP, instead of trying to answer ancient questions even our greatest thinkers couldn't figure out.

>>1680675

actually the answer to these questions lies within you...(inb4 this is cliche faggoteries) ultimately all kinds of beliefs that anyone else give you will fail to achieve the peace you are looking for because of the fact that you dont really know if they are true, so the only way to achieve the peace and flow you are looking for is observation.

Observation of your self, your body, your thoughts, your emotions; just observation, dont judge anything. This act will make you realize the only and original truth "you are not your mind nor your body nor your beliefs nor anything else you identify with" all this things are product of your ego which is ultimately an ilusion, but you suffer beacuse you identify with your ego in such way that you think you are that ego which you are not, this realization will shatter the identification and set you free, i cannot describe to you things you will experince because they cannot be described, thats why iluminated people can only give you glimpses or tell you what it is not like buda, he says, "is the end of suffering". Good Luck :D

I think that the question is not unanswereable, because as >>1680720 said, we can find it a meaning based on a existencialism way of think, such as "To improve the world", "We were blessed with the miracle of life, why waste it?", and such.

However, I think that a more credible answer can be found, it's just matter of time. For this moment, I'm happy with the "to improve the world" answer.

OP, don't be affraid, there are unlimited things that we won't know. Things that we believe are correct and are not. The only secure thing in our lifes is that we are alive, and that we want to be happy. So it should become the canon of our life, at least, for now.

You were built to seek out brain chemical sensations brought about by physical activities. This is just the control system as manifested in physical reality.

Due to the constraints of the physical universe (the laws of thermodynamics), these chemicals break down and fade over time, thus need to be replenished.

Thus there is a drive to remedy the situation, to re-balance the chemicals. Furthermore, there are also intrinsic processes internally which perturb the balance.

So therefore the logic inside your mind seeks to categorize (internally) and physically alter (externally) its surrounds.

According to these briefly described rules, what's the "goal"?

1) Stay alive to keep classifying / processing the physical universe, to:
2) Gain control of something in the physical universe, to:
3) Permanently alter some aspect of the physical universe, to:
4) Reproduce a favorable copy that also seeks the above, to:
5) unknown. You were not programmed with information about this end result.

>>1680753
We have the reason, we have a brain, science, and the possibility to CREATE hope, for at least the things that will improve our way of life.

>>1680834
Is this some shit from Siddhartha or something? The last guy who mentioned the same things as that told me about "liberation", and what he said was pretty eye opening, the whole "'I' dont exist, I'm a car with no driver."

>>1680839

mfw...

>>1680839
Is this an excerpt from an article or are you just the deepest bastard on the planet?

>>1680839
So, basically, we have senses. With them, we got to know that the universe will end with entropy, so we have to stop it. To do it, we have to keep living for science, in order to classify all the stuff about the universe.

However, that's a gained idea. We don't HAVE to do it. If we wanted, we could be still living as apes. There must be something else.

Of course, if we keep living, that's a main event that we must do, but it can't be the life's meaning for all the humanity.

>>1680854

what he was trying to say was that the real you doesnt exist as an individual being but you are one with everything that is, but yet you are here right? what does that tell you? :D

>>1680860
>>1680864
>>1680877

All he said is that our biology predisposes us to 1. seeking pleasure and 2. categorizing experience. The rest is scientific in nature, but not supported by a rigorous science. Mouthfarting. Not very good philosophy.

>>1680899
I have no fucking clue what that tells me. Your philo-cock is in my brain?

>>1680899
Suicide. :D

>>1680921
:D

>>1680908
So, let me say it this way, we have biologically two functions:

1. Be happy.
2. Know and experience things.

I exchanged please with it because it's a main goal for the people in common (that explains why it's subjective).
The "happiness thing" , the "good life", "the pleasure" now implies a huge amount of things, but that's a different topic, and it deserves another thread.
In the end, we only have the "be happy" thing.

>>1680921
Be tolerant, it's not bad to use emoticons.

>>1680918

Sagan put it this way: "We are a way for the universe to know itself." We are a part of a whole. In a certain sense we are one with everything that is.

But, of course, in another sense we are an isolated element of the whole.

>>1680864
I've just had lots of time to think. I was hoping somebody has expanded on this and wrote about it.

What helped me a lot, even though there were some disagreements I had with it, was this free book called "The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness" by Steven W. Smith. It took a sort of approach that what's fed to the "mind" is tainted by internal processing.

FURTHER, and this is the important part, that it is your inability to examine or measure yourself by way of the processes that arrive at "the answer", that gives rise to the human contradiction.


>>1680877
Being nebulous because I don't know myself.
If I knew, I would tell you.

The purpose just isn't understandable by humanity because I fear the result isn't about human experience.

We aren't built to understand it. We as humanity might even be in the way. Or, it might be a contest. Or, we might have already lost and thus there's no pressure anymore.

Picture it like sticking your finger into a glass of water. Only you have a lot of fingers and a lot of glasses.

>>1680918
>Philo-cock
>Love for the cocks.
>MFW

>>1680931
That's why I used them. Not everything is sarcasm.

Thanks for all the neat-o answers guys, but Im just as/more sad than before. I'll just keep on being the cold, analytical and douchey asshole and see how that works out. Most likely going to end with my suicide.

Shit man.

There are no answers to these questions; no reason for you to live at all, unless you form attachments--in which case you have attachments and they will keep you living until your attachments are severed or until your body shuts down..

>>1680936
So on some level we're all connected to some great, cosmic oneness/body?

I felt like throwing this here
http://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8
The sub-conscious may be a reality while this life may be a dream

>>1680945
Ok, man, let me tell you something.
In philosophy, we want to know basically two things:
- Meaning and origin of life
- A moral to adapt to be happy

Obviously, because the circle jearking and stuff, they haven't found it. So, in terms of absolute truth, we are still short to comprend it. We may even never know.

But anyway. Let me say this: Are you happy? If yes, why suicide? You don't throw away the winner lotery.

Are you unhappy?. Then FIX IT. There are lot of things to improve it. Starting with mental problems and physical problems.

If you need help for that, try it. You're not alone.

>>1680962

nahh.

too many sciencefags testing out universal constants to the nth decimal place, constantly.

The waking world is depressingly consistent.

>>1680945
You sound like me. Yep, everything is pointless. Making the world a better place won't change that you won't be there for it, and the people who come after won't last long, either; they'll just shit up the planet (which is also temporary), eating and breathing and pooping until the sac of skin and organs on their skeleton waste away and can't do it anymore. People before you did it, and people after you will do it, and either rant against the pointlessness of it all or go on about how it's some huge miracle that you get to experience stuff for a small time and then die. Your life already at least one quarter over, maybe more. Isn't it all so beautiful?

WELP. Time to go back to arguing with people on the internet.

>>1680949
>>1680949
YES

>>1680931

I'd say our biological function is only to carry out the tasks necessary for sustaining life (eating, drinking and so on.). However, a person might chose to defy his biological function whereas an organ may not.

It's the choice that is important to ethics. Why ought I perform my biological function?

>>1680949
Your response + that pic made me laugh.

Has /lit/ been invaded by 12 year olds who've never read any philosophy?

>>1680970
I have no physical or mental shortcomings, the problem is the ultimate pointlessness along with how much shit there is in the world.

>>1680988
Not reading what other people have written on philosophy make you unable to discuss it or come up with ideas. I know this because I read it somewhere.

>>1680988
does philosophy have the answer?


No?
Didn't think so.

>>1680991
You seem to be one of these people that have seen too many truths, while being still young. Let me say this, and think about this, because it's not what I thought, it's what I've read. The way to deal with bad stuff is to look it in the eyes and think:

Is this really a bad thing?
Why do I give it importance?
What do I gain with worrying about it?

Read a bit about philosophic esceptiscm and Stoicism. It can give you advance.
For me, at least. After starting to read about it, my social anxiety was A LOT lower. Give it a try, man. Again, you're not alone.

>mfw people think philosophy as an activity and philosophy as truth production are two conflicting visions of philosophy

>>1680899
>>1680834
i wrote those.

since everything i say will be distorted by other anons ill be direct, the realization that you are pure consiousness hence part of "the whole" but being able to act and live in this world of matter( thought, emotions that you are NOT ) with this knowledge in background, that is ilumination, this questions you have will no longer matter, sure you can answer thwm but you wont need to anymore... Good Luck :D

>>1681016
I agree, these two are inseparable.

>>1680992
>>1680996

When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.
The riddle does not exist.
If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.

The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem.
(Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)

There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.

The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—this method would be the only strictly correct one.

>>1681013
Not OP, but the second I started getting depressed about pointlessness, I asked myself these. It doesn't change the fact that everything is pointless, whether I care or not. So it doesn't matter if you care.

>>1680699
Should have been /thread

>>1681030
This has basically nothing to do with what any of those posts said, reagardless of the quality of content.

>>1681037
>Not OP, but the second I started getting depressed about pointlessness, I asked myself these. It doesn't change the fact that everything is pointless

Pointless... it could be discussed, but it's not important right now, because we should be talking as an election of life based on the subjectivism of our desires. In that terms, we must do anything in order to do the two things listed above.

I can see that you have also the same spirit as OP. And maybe the answer that you reached at that time were not the correct one. I invite you to think about it another time. All in all, in it depends our quality of life.

>>1681030
>mfw I post Wittgenstein in response to someone who has never read philosophy

>>1681048

Wittgenstein did away with dogmatic metaphysics in his two major works. Questions of metaphysics are not the same as scientific questions. Simply, there are no unique answers unless we accept common definitions and axiom schema and even then we never discover the "true nature" of "reality." The concepts are metaphysical themselves.

Reading philosophy shows you where others have tread and faltered. You needn't make the same mistakes as Plato.

>>1681133
>mfw when you besmirch Wittgenstein by posting him in this garbage fucking thread

>>1681150
>Deep&Edgy calling anything but himself garbage.


Absolute twaddle.

>>1681188
But in doing so that would make you infinitely worse than garbage