/lit/ - Literature

>>17583157
Name of the gurl?

Bible

>>17583157
You post that a lot. As suggested read the bible or for a more direct attack look into Buddhism.

>>17583184
Religious texts have piles of irrelevant stuff. I'm seeking a work that's more refined to my goal.

1009. Scientists still swear up and down that there's a fundamental difference between the classical behavior of the universe at macro scales, and the quantum behavior observed at the micro level, but that's only because the type of scientist who understands the micro levels has not the faintest clue of how the macro levels operate, and vice versa. Take for example the double-slit experiment. Its philosophical significance is that the particle's behavior is ultimately dominated by the observer's will; the particle will simply go wherever the scientist consciously wants it to go, depending on how he sets up the experiment, and the only conclusion the scientist will arrive at, no matter how many times he runs the experiment, is his own will. And this is where the quantum mechanists throw their hands up in the air and despair, pathetically exclaiming that "THAT'S NOT AT ALL HOW REALITY FUNCTIONS AT THE MACRO LEVEL, THIS IS A BRAND-NEW, RADICALLY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR!" And yet isn't that precisely how pyschologists observe that people function under examination, in interviews for example? Doesn't the way the interviewer poses the question radically alter the type of answer he gets? Don't people always end up getting the types of answers they are looking for, at the end of the day? Isn't the infinite way in which statistics can be interpreted "a type of wish-fulfillment" as Baudrillard has strikingly noted? So there is no fundamental difference between the macro and quantum scales, it just takes a genius who understands both to connect the dots and reconcile the apparent contradictions.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>17583198
Buddhism isn't like that. Everything in it is about detaching yourself from this world. It's actually a system on how to do that, scary as hell though.
You btw are forced to look towards some sort of religion to transcend materialism. You have to establish a reality beyond the material one to make hedonism irrational.

>>17583157
>I'm addicted to researching expensive stuff all day
What exactly do you mean by "researching?" Anyway just get a better hobby

>>17583198
I think the key to getting rid of materialism is experiencing the lack of material. For example try to fast for a week and you'll realise that it's okay to go without food for a bit and you don't need to constantly stuff yourself with something. Go out for an hour long walk in the forest and don't look at your phone or listen to music and you'll realise that there are tons of interesting things around you that you don't need to pay for.
If you want to read some fiction that promotes anti-materialism and promotes a simple life I can recommend you Tolstoi or Hamsun.
These are my non-spiritual solutions to materialism, but as other anons have mentioned the best antidote to materialism is spirituality.
If you don't want to read any religious works then I can recommend you to read Plato on this topic.

>>17583262
Not all atheists are materialistic

>>17583408
I wouldn't use the word materialistic since that has a more specific meaning but without transcendent values you cannot act outside of this world. If you truly regard anything beyond your own self-interest/maximization of pleasure as relevant then you are not a rational atheist, or at least you're not behaving like one. I think there's a lot of confusion here because so much of our social programming is religious in nature.

>>17583471
>If you truly regard anything beyond your own self-interest/maximization of pleasure as relevant then you are not a rational atheist, or at least you're not behaving like one. I think there's a lot of confusion here because so much of our social programming is religious in nature.
well put