/lit/ - Literature

>>19595159
You could make an argument that we have a sense of beauty for things like choosing mates and then we just make pretty stuff to amuse ourselves. So it's like masturbating or something, doesn't have a strict purpose. But being an artist could be seen as a mating strategy as well to a degree.

>trying to reduce artistic experience to "chemicals in the brain bro"
reddit might be more your style desu

>>19595169
There is nothing supernatural in the world and everything that we didn't know eventually had a scientific explanation. There is no reason to think differently about anything else. Try not to commit a God of the gaps fallacy.

>>19595175
>o-one day we'll understand it, trust me bro

The Germans may have a word for it.

Any Kraut on lit?

>>19595175
I dont think it's sensible to be so certain about such things. We dont really know.

>>19595183
Name one supernatural thing in the world

>>19595159
Culture doesn't have biological causes. As far as seratonin…CHICKS DIG KETAMINE, OH MY GOD I AM SO FUCKING HIGH

>>19595175
>everything that we didn't know eventually had a scientific explanation.
Well except for everything of any significance

>>19595191
>name one thing above nature inside of nature
Wowie zowie

>>19595190
I'm not certain I'm making an educated guess based on the information we currently have. Why would I believe something that I don't have a single shred of evidence to believe while everything that does exist suggests the opposite?

>>19595191
what is supernatural to you? that which is immaterial?

>>19595196
Like what?
>>19595199
Russell's teapot
>>19595203
Sure

>>19595213
Russell's teapot has nothing to do with your stupid question

>>19595220
It has to do with your stupid response that I know was coming

>>19595213
>Sure
ill just bite the bullet then and say consciousness

>>19595200
Well you know that your own consciousness exists and you experience good and bad things and meaning and logic and stuff. So the universe contains these things, and it is possible that they exist outside us in some sense as well and the universe is inherently aware, or meaningful, or whatever.

>>19595229
Everything else involving humans and brains have scientific explanation. We can mold your consciousness by cutting out parts of your brain. By giving you medication which changes the way you think and feel. We can turn you into an entirely different person. Smacking your head on the concrete can turn you into a savant or a vegetable. Where is God here? Where is your soul when you lose all your memories? Where is your soul when a medication easily changes the way you feel and think?

>>19595234
Why would I think that?

why don't redditors stay in their site?

>>19595256
Well why does the universe have consciousness and meaning at all? Dont you find it a bit strange? We could just be unconscious automatons and evolution and everything would work the same way

>>19595175
Empiricists can never confront epistemology in earnest. It requires a paradoxical amount of skepticism when convenient, and certainty when needed.
It's an extreme form if sentimentalism, posing as absolute truth hiding behind its own fallible nature, or, should I say, "unfalsifiability" lmfao
Get real and confront metaphysics and its implications, you coward.

>>19595279
Evolution explains all of this and it's happened over a long long period. When you read about the different lifeforms from billions of years ago to now they don't make sense. Even the lifeforms now don't make any sense. Why would a God this shit? Single cell species. The shit floating in rivers. It's so random and pointless only evolution makes sense. 95% of all species are extinct.

>>19595249
Qlright alright alright, case closed, you're atleast under tge age of 25. Go back to bed, take sunday off, don't you have class on monday?
Loser

>>19595279
Also I think Humans being animals at heart prove that we don't have souls. We are nothing more than animals who evolved to think. It doesn't matter how smart we are we still have to fuck, eat, and our brain chemicals are still animal which is why it's so easy for Humans to go insane and not feel fulfilled at all. Schopenhauer really nails it and it's hard knowing this to believe anything created us.

>>19595302
I don't think you quite understood my post. Evolution would work without consciousness and all the things we experience in it. Why do these things exist at all?
>>19595309
Schopenhauer is actually a classical metaphysician because he just sidesteps Kant's whole point about the Noumenon and assigns to the fundamental structure of reality the character of "will". It's a bit bleak but he actually does think that our human qualities are reflected in the universe at large, he just has a kind of poor view of humanity. I know this is extremely crude reduction of Schopenhauer but for the purposes of what we're talking about here

>>19595336
>Why do these things exist at all?
Why does a snake have infrared vision? Everything has different characteristics. You can see perfectly from the first humans to now why we evolved to think. It's like the evolution of the eye. It's random but it also makes perfect sense when you put it together. Everything science shows suggest consciousness is just another of these scientific processes and there is no reason to think anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU9pP4A8SSQ

>>19595336
>reflected in the universe at large,
Yes but not in the sense of God correct. More just another process of the universe

>>19595357
The scientific method is merely a tool for the exploration of the material. As such, in its own right and a method and vehicle, it is good and right.
You, fool that you are, fetishize and idolize it. You solidify it into dogma and map out a reductionist, exclusivist view.
Empiricism simply deals with the material and manifestation; as such, it cannot make any credible claim on what falls outside of its realm.
By your militant insistence, you betray your own convoluted, sentimental reasons. Maybe you take some time to explore your emotions on this, clear them up and try your hand at some proper philosophy?
Or maybe it happens to be about you being a fucking college student know-nothing that's tryna prove his consensus - informed intellectual cojones? Yea? Sad.

>>19595357
But consciousness is not scientific; science cant deal with it at all, only with its physical correlates. Again why not just have us be unconscious automatons, blind matter acting out the necessary actions dictated by natural selection? Why are we awake, and good and bad exist for us, and meaning and reason? Where did they come from? Does anything else in universe have them too? It is a deep mystery.
>>19595364
I'm not expert about Schop but I would definitely classify him as atheist. You can mince words about pantheist meme Gods and whatever but I find his view of will to be basically incompatible with most notions of God.

OP come back I was enjoying taking to you

>>19595159
Just read Schopenhauer you fucking autist.

very short introduction to aesthetics actually goers into this. it doesn't talk about any trad aesthetic shit like schiller, hegel, whatever, instead it just goes right into biological aspects of how we experience things, if ur looking for schiller type shit, very short introduction to beauty is what you want, but if u want biological underpinnings of aesthetic experiences, the very short introduction to aesthetics has u covered, if want more in that line get the other books written by the same author

>>19595489
Orthographic mutilation. Script debasement. Visual sneed. Moral dust.

>>19595491
oh ya his name is bence nanay

ITT:
>nooo you can't just explain phenomena, you have to accept my baseless rationalisation

>>19595505
>oh ya
I literally shuddered. I can watch people bluntly cut apart their victims in grainy videos but this is too much. Were you never just exposed to some kind of violent sport that would breed this type of expression out of you. Why would you so this to me?

>>19595192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buR2szwYOXY

>>19595175
>There is nothing supernatural in the world and everything that we didn't know eventually had a scientific explanation. There is no reason to think differently about anything else. Try not to commit a God of the gaps fallacy.

>>19595472
Sorry was watching the Jake Paul fight

>blind matter acting out the necessary actions dictated by natural selection? Why are we awake, and good and bad exist for us, and meaning and reason? Where did they come from? Does anything else in universe have them too? It is a deep mystery.
It's just a side effect from evolution. Different animals have different characteristics. I don't see anything supernatural about it because it all makes sense. Does the animalistic desires we have not convince you it's nothing more than evolution?

>>19595585
I feel that you still arent quite grasping the strangeness of consciousness. Why does it exist when it could be just blind automaton?

>>19595585
Why do you selectively reply itt? Why do you evade confronting my points? Surely that's not an admission of weakness?

>>19595618
It's just random like everything else. Why does it have to make sense?

>>19595625
Which is your post? I don't respond to obvious bait

>>19595585
Consciousness =/= its content.
Are you dishonest or unintelligent? You're not engaging in earnest, and you're not bringing forth proper arguments. In time, you'll jump onto radical skepticism. You types always do. I'm calling it rn, for this thread. Go ahead

>>19595642
Brain running too hot, anon?

>>19595647
Ahahaha you fucking troll, okok I'm done here, thanks for making clear your intent here :)

My post, you sad clown, hahaha god you're pathetic
>>19595385

>>19595642
Evolution is not random??? The process of mutation perhaps, but definitely not the process of outside forces that select. Even here you can see a type of essence-substance relationship. Do you know what that means?

>>19595651
What?

>>19595175
No. Science can only go so far in explaining things before we reach questions like "ok but why does light behave like that?" or "why does that chemical act the way it does in our brain when we see a beautiful object". Science cannot explain that. Neither can philosophy. Neither can religion (or rather religion in the way it is the last 2000 odd years).

>>19595642
It doesnt have to make sense. Maybe the world is insane. But sense does exist. Why does it exist for us?

>>19595655
I didn't random in that way I meant random as in it's not designed by creator with intent. You can't answer "Why" is the way he asks. It just "is"

>>19595648
I don't get what you mean

>>19595159

>>19595169

If we thought the environment wasn't worth looking at we would've been dead already. Don't you think being interested in the nature around you would be evolutionairy adaptive? It's so obvious, is this board brain dead. Same reason we see more shades of greens, it was more important to differentiate greens for survival (plants whatnot)

>>19595664
>>19595666
Bro... This is proof that we're not functioning on the same level, discussion is moot. Go and get some life experience, contemplate that, read some philosophy. Clown lol

>>19595651
kek

>>19595642
>It's just random like everything else.
This is an assumption you are making, not a fact. Science operates on the assumption that everything has an explanation. And so far, no one ever has concluded their research with "its just random lol"

>>19595695
What do you think the explanation is?

>>19595675
No it means you are ESL and don't know how to speak english

>>19595159
Read Emerson: you're feeling the satisfaction of seeing the feelings and thoughts that you yourself have produced coming out of other people through history and far removed from you.

>>19595706
Excuse you?! Go back and read your own posts. Why are you projecting? You legit keep fucking up your grammar. I grew up in Dorset, you idiot hahah
Now it's just sad. Poor lil guy

>>19595721
Example?

>>19595724
Blow me :)

>>19595704
I dunno. I experienced ego death for the first time from some weed a couple weeks ago and had read some books on nirvana and freedom of the mind, which I think warrants further exploration but I'm prioritizing getting a job and therapy at the moment.
I think that there is a very large portion of our conscious experience that is unnoticed but entirely complete fiction of the mind. To restate, the ratio of mental projection to actual sense experience is much greater than you might expect. Pain, pleasure, our perceptions of others etc are just mental fiction. I am not just saying that these things are only experienced in the mind "we are just a brain in a jar lolol" but that these things are actually being made up. It's the whole we rationalize why we did things after we do them thing You can experience a bit of this through a process of radical self-questioning which amounts to basically examining every belief you have, asking "is this true? Do I truly know this without any doubt?" Not very many are.

>>19595726
That's nothing more than self induced schizophrenia

>>19595734
Whatever schizo

>>19595659
Science is based because once it reaches a dead end of it's approach, it starts questioning and developing this approach until a way to make new explanations possible is found and the process continues. Metaphysics inevitably descend into autofellatio at this point.

>>19595618
>I feel that you still arent quite grasping the strangeness of consciousness. Why does it exist when it could be just blind automaton?
How do you know it is not blind automation?

>>19595749
Tell me how you don't know anything about metaphysics without telling me

>>19595659
>Science can only go so far in explaining things before we reach questions like "ok but why does light behave like that?" or "why does that chemical act the way it does in our brain when we see a beautiful object". Science cannot explain that
God you are so fucking dumb dumb DUMB. Check yourself.

>>19595754
Tell me how I know you have no arguments.

>>19595175
You need to go back to R*ddit.

>>19595585
b8 reveal. successful b8 too

>>19595757
Oh I've put mine out all over the thread. Your turn, dickhead

>>19595769
What was the bait dumb fuck

>>19595777
Well, I don't see anything responding to my point: that having no frames of reference other than reality and itself, a metaphysical model trying to transcend thee known reality inevitably ends up locking into one other thing left - itself, becoming self-referential, at which point it conveys and describes nothing.

Which is not a dismissal of metaphysics as a whole, but only pointing out how and why it has no place in expanding the limits of knowledge like the scientific process does, rather re-framing what is already known for private or public purposes. Which is in many ways even more important, but this doesn't contradicts what I posted originally in any way. Come up with something at last, ridiculing the entirety of scientific epistemology as le plebbit academia cultists NPCs is the definitive NPC faggotry on /lit. The only thing's lacking so far is a recommendation to read Guenon or convert to Orthodox Christianity.

>>19595793
Embarrassing, wow

>>19595249
It might have a scientific explanation, but it still might not be knowable or understandable by us. Knowing a thing by its use is not the same as knowing a thing by its origins.
>>19595159
Depends on the thing. Vast landscapes bring a sense of beauty, and it's probably a carry over from our time as nomads, where you look over a landscape and your mind recognizes that there's possibilities beyond counting, both ill and fortunate. Studies of the sublime touches on this.
>>19595167
Physical beauty in people is definitely a part of mate selection. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to hypnotize you into a femboy.

>>19595159
Probably something to inspire you to fuck and make an effort. Not only is our general look selected for, but also our motivations and personalities and other mental processes.

Let's settle this once and for all, y'all.

JESUS IS LORD

Why is it either or? Why is it either material reductionism or idealistic monism?
Why not a hierarchical, tiered system between essence and substance? Nestled in a non-dualism.

Which came first, consciousness or communication? In other words, is language a byproduct of consciousness or its cause?

>>19595302
>>19595309
>>19595357
>>19595585
>>19595642
>>19595753
Every time
Every time you ask strict empiricists questions about consciousness, it's always

"Uhhh science is gonna figure it out eventually" (Even tho consciousness is the only thing in the Universe we know of that is invisible, soundless, odorless and intangible, making it uniquely impossible to empirically observe)

"Consciousness just evolved somewhere bro" (Yes, yes it did, but this still offers zero explanation of what it is or how it exists)

"Consciousness is the processing of information bro" (Literally ALL matter processes information, look up Information Theory)

"Consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems" ("Complexity" is subjective and not an objectively measurable property or force in the Universe)

>>19595159
>What's the point?
nice reminder that all art is non-secular

>>19596942
"soul does it" is such a powerful explanation
lmfao

>>19596942
>consciousness is the only thing in the Universe we know of that is invisible, soundless, odorless and intangible, making it uniquely impossible to empirically observe
Begging the question. What you claim, are not at all settled issues.

>Consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems
Consciousness may be emergent property
Happy now?
It may also just BE the physical

>>19596942
this is flawed reasoning based on the Anthropic Fallacy. It is like that watchmaker argument "there is a watch in a desert, it could not have just appeared, who created it??? must be god" humans are special, consciousness has a magic purpose etc etc.

>>19596942
the anthropic fallacy is not whether empiricists can answer these questions adequately to your satisfaction but simply that you are asking them as a human. A rock or a tree would probably not ask these questions. You as a human naturally feel like human consciousness must justify some special purpose but it really does not

>>19595175
Science doesn't answer things. It explains how things work. Science can only study the things which we can observe.

All of the important questions, the ones that matter, are un-observable, and thus un-answerable. Science will never tell us the nature of consciousness, the meaning of life, or why anything exists at all. Go back.

>>19596436
this I think is very close to it. A lot of the AI researchers are wondering today if they can ever achieve the technosingularity transcended consciousness lol until they give the GANs and GPT-3s a human like body ("embodied cognition") etc. Like can you even think or reason at all like a human if you never have hands, eyes, limbs or reproductive drive / fear of death (Freud eros thanatos lol) otherwise the best AI algorithm is still just dumb lines of linear algebra and matrices and tensors. Hopefully if it works there will be enough waifus for everyone afterwards

>>19597086
>All of the important questions, the ones that matter, are un-observable,
wrong

>>19597086
>Science can only study the things which we can observe.

Have you observed any {7/2} heptagram tessellations in hyperbolic space today? How will you study them if you cannot see them?

>>19595159
There isn't one, because the only biologically motivated reason to be attracted to beauty is for mate selection. All you're going to get are untestable hypotheses from psychologists like sublimation

>>19597086
Religion is a genre of literature. It is not science. If you know theology this was one of the oldest debates between cataphatic (affirmative) vs apophatic (more mystical, negation-based) theological definitions. The correct stance for religion in the modern era should be to lean into the history/poetry of it (which is really quite appealling aesthetically) and not pretend religion is physics or that religion can explain the world, offer moral instruction or imbue it with meaning.

>>19597068
>must be god" humans are special, consciousness has a magic purpose etc etc.
Are the religitards here in the room with us?

Hello?
Any christians here?

>>19597078
>You as a human naturally feel like human consciousness must justify some special purpose
I never said it does

>>19597158
>Religion is a genre of literature. It is not science. If you know theology this was one of the oldest debates between cataphatic (affirmative) vs apophatic (more mystical, negation-based) theological definitions. The correct stance for religion in the modern era should be to lean into the history/poetry of it (which is really quite appealling aesthetically) and not pretend religion is physics or that religion can explain the world, offer moral instruction or imbue it with meaning.
The religious boogeyman sure lives in your head rent free. I'm surprised you haven't screeched about Trump out of nowhere yet

>>19595159
>Beauty is truth, truth beauty
There is an evoloutionary advantage to being pleased by having all things in their correct order and seeking the truth.

>>19597112
>>All of the important questions, the ones that matter, are un-observable,
>wrong
So you think existential questions are observable?

Is the origin of the Universe observable? Can there be observable explanations for the laws of physics being the way they are? Is there an observable explanation why we are conscious and not blind automatons? Is there an observable explanation for the conscious experience of suffering?

>>19597168
does not have to be christianity. Magical thinking like "consciousness is super special, there must be some purpose to it..." is the same thing

>>19597208
>All of the important questions, the ones that matter, are un-observable,
>existential questions
ok that aside the rest of your questions are either observable or non sequitur; why is green?

>>19597175
I do not have anything against religion, it is beautiful and deserves deep theological study. Can you name any work of literature in the Western canon up to today which has not evolved from judaeo-christian underpinnings, either as a reaction against it or Hegelian synthesis to it etc. I am just asserting that it is not productive to apply religion or pseudoreligious concepts like "consciousness is special, science will never understand it" to explore this debate

>>19597240
Who says that? It's not about any special purpose. Consciousness is simple the only thing I have direct access to. All of science relies on intersubjectivity.

>>19597240
>magical thinking
Overused redditor buzzword. If you lived in the past you would call the quantum physics of today "magical thinking"
>there must be some purpose to it..."
I never said anything about consciousness having to be some god-given purpose. I merely pointed out the fact that yes, it is ontologically different from matter. You say it's not certain that consciousness can't be empirically observed. I say it's certain because of the famous "Mary Didn't Know" argument where a colorblind scientist can spend her entire life studying the light spectrum and neuroscience, understanding the exact wavelength that manifests as the color "Red", understanding every single connection inside the human brain, understanding every single chemical interaction, and still not know what "Red" really is. Only the indescribable, intangible, internal experience of SEEING the color Red will tell her what "Red" is

>>19595191
the fact that there is ‘nature’ at all, that there is anything rather than nothing- it’s the most stupendous ‘supernatural’ occurence imaginable and it’s right in front of your face every second of every day

>>19595675
Why you gotta call people names over an internet disagreement

>>19595749
>science is BASED!
stopped reading right there, champ

>>19597286
Not sure your analogy is valid especially given history. What did the Ancient Greeks think red was, Erythraean? I am pretty sure some of the Ancient Greeks could see. Carmine? Porphyry? Was that more purple wine colour? Or orange? What was blue again? Or green?
Except now with mathematics we can describe red exactly as a frequency or a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, or even just as 0xFF0000 with computer science lol. Consciousness will probably be the same.

>>19597368
sorry anon but your definition of colour doesnt fit my intangible undefinable one therefore it is WRONG and TRUE colour CANNOT ever be experienced.

>>19597286
Quantum effects can be measured

>>19597188
checked
based keats quoter

>>19597368
>again? Or green?
>Except now with mathematics we can describe red exactly as a frequency or a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, or even just as 0xFF0000 with computer science lol. Consciousness will probably be the same.
That's not a description of red. That's a description of what we perceive as red, the perception itself can't be "described" except in terms of itself.

>>19597429
Nice strawman and samefagging. I clearly said that color can be EXPERIENCED. I merely said that it cannot be DESCRIBED

You clearly are failing to comprehend what i'm explaining, so just look up "Knowledge Argument Mary" and do some reading.

>>19595191
you're mom's puss

>>19597469
>That's a description of what we perceive as red,
I should say rather

"A description of the physical thing we see as red"
To be more clear

Yes, "0xFF0000" or "620-750 nanometers wavelength light" is a description of what triggers the optical mechanism of seeing red

Still not a descriptor of red

>>19595159
We love patterns.
Same reason birds find their own patterns beautiful.

>>19597479
And do you think saying 0xFF0000 or 620-750um light conveys what red is? Do you think it explains red to a colorblind person? Will a colorblind person know what red is just by hearing the physical explanation of it

Of course absolutely not. Look up and read the Knowledge Argument.

>>19597335
Dishonest and arrogantly stupid people deserve no kindness whatsoever. He selectively replied to posts, he never replied to my arguments properly. Screw him.

>>19595191
Ghosts.

>>19595191
american idiocy

>>19595191
Remote viewing, Dreaming, observational effect on random number generators, NDE'S and the ability for someone to bring back impossible information while comatose, children recalling past lives about obscure people and having access to impossible information

>>19597751
Fake and gay

>>19595551
nice cartoon retard

>>19595159
>What is the biological explanation

cringe

>>19596567
vishnu > jesus

>>19596958
all art is bourgeois nowadays

>>19597175
good job being a seething retard replying to a well articulated and thoughtful post with inane bullshit

>>19597158
>>19597266
I like your style anon

>>19595175
Your conception of science is so indicative of a person who knows nothing about science, yet leans on it's supposed authority to back up their retard ideology.

Real scientists do not believe in science. Only pseud atheists do to fill their gaping void.

>>19595191
Hmm let's see

Expecto patronum
Stupefy
Expelliarmus
Avada kadavra

>>19595175

>>19595191
your field of view

>>19595159
>The Neuroscience of Beauty
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/

>What makes art beautiful? Artistic and Aesthetic
https://www.virtosuart.com/blog/what-makes-art-beautiful

>>19598974
God bless you anon for actually contributing.

Art isn't a biological byproduct of humanity any more than flight is; that some especially good art can hijack your biological functions to create direct emotional or physical reactions is a testament to the skill of the artist just as much as a plane taking off is a testament to the skill of the engineers who built it.

>>19595618
We are blind automatons, we are just so grossly complex that it doesn't seem that way on the surface.

>>19595159

>>19599711
I mean not conscious at all.

>>19599809
Yes.

>>19595169
>NOOOO ARTISTIC SENSIBILITY AND CREATIVITY HAVE TO BE THIS INTANGIBLE THING OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT VALID
Fucking hell

>>19599908
But we're clearly conscious. What is the point of this little game

>>19599956
Who is "we"? Who is you? Your mind? Your consciousness? Your conscious mind?

>>19600015
Come on. You know what I'm saying, you could have animals that didnt experience anything at all, theoretically. Just a robot.

>>19600033
I'm not the other anon, but that's what I was going for. Your mind is not what you call you. That would be consciousness. But consciousness is just the act of perceiving, and therefore is not intelligent or complex by itself. It takes the intermingling of consciousness (origin unknown) and mind (created by the brain) for the conscious being to exist.

>>19595175
Look at all these seething replies. You asked a high philosophical question of the inner workings of beauty and because you mentioned Sc**nce you triggered the frail retards too embarrassed to even give hypotheses for the sole purpose of gathering an understanding of the world. What an embarrassing display for this board.

My idea is that beauty is found in the things that can potentially bring us closer to being a more prosperous person or society, obviously with a variety of different clashing notions for what path is best to take. Even self destructiveness can be healthy in some people as a martyrdom and testament of bad values and what good can be dissected from their experiences, or as an example of what to avoid, IE the concept of the villain. I believe that all enjoyment of art stems even without being aware of it, from a promise, and the key word is promise, to be a piece of information that can improve your life or the life of those around you, not knowing how or why or when of even if, it can do these things. The amassment of knowledge is addictive because of these promises to improve you. The most vapid of entertainment is still doing some good in keeping you company until something more important and valuable comes along.

>>19598179
>nice cartoon retard

>>19601581
thats not a "high philosophical question" you absolute pseud retard, get your head out of your ass and stop smelling your own farts, jesus christ. it isn't even really a question, its an assertion, since it is inherently built on accepting the terms of specific material axioms that do not even allow for a modicum of exploration of and conclusions regarding the concepts in question

>>19601617
>get your head out of your ass and stop smelling your own farts, jesus christ

>inherently built on accepting the terms of specific material axioms that do not even allow for a modicum of exploration of and conclusions regarding the concepts in question

Don’t project your own problems onto me, you sophomoric term spewing ant.

>>19601632
>calls me an ant
>cant refute me and unironically thinks the OP is like totally deep bro, literally "high philosophy"
hahahahahahah

>>19601617
It is a high philosophical question it's something all the greatest philosophers talked about from Kant to Plato to Hegel. Even the Analytics dealt with it.

>biological explanation for a final end
Heh

>>19595175
You just projected a God of the gaps onto a statement that had nothing to do with God of the gaps. Its such a bugman behaviour to distill everything down into secular terms, especially when it's not warranted.

>>19595188
The technical term for the sensual reaction to something possessing sublime, transcendent beauty is Nafflegubershrecktlemigurne.

>>19595191
Numbers

>>19597368
You can explain color as a frequency but you cannot explain the perception of color as such. A man born blind cannot understand color by giving him that scientific explanation. Therefore there is something more to color than mere wavelength.