/lit/ - Literature

>>20157220
Forget about reality. Embrace gusic.

>>20157220
No.

>>20157220
You can be sad, or you can try to make cats less sad. I choose the option with no sad cats. <img class="xae" data-xae width="27" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1d3f2a13_happycat.png">

>>20157220
>Can someone help?
no. HAHAHAHAHA <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e1899bbe_YEP.png">
btw you're right, but there's nothing to be done, the human brain is pretty much useless for anything beyond the most basic practical tasks<span class="xae" data-xae="grinsweat">😅[/spoiler]

>>20157225
>>20157238
>>20157240
>>20157252
Furred brothers, wise and candid, what are we to do? We seek honestly and vigorously. Will God punish us for this, for wanting to know him by certainty not willed delusion? I dont want to die and yet I don't even know if dying is what they say it is.

I just wanna meow and breed thicc cat bitches while wilin' on the nip.... someone save me.

>>20157270
The search itself is the answer.

>>20157220
Every philosophical premise is a hypothesis. You can either test it or depend at your own risk on the experience of others who tell you that it can be proven true or false

Every anecdote is a parable. The characters in the anecdote, if it is a good story, stand for something else. This is why, often, the details in such an anecdote get blurred; we are worried about how the same characters may figure in our own lives and our own thinking. We are worried about the bigger picture

Every poem, every song, and every rhyme is an allegory. We must read into the key words the principle behind them, to see if this holds as a general principle, and if it does, whether it is an absolute one or not

If the authors you are reading don't admit of an allegorical or even purely allegorical reading. Why are you reading them? There is only so much that can be said literally that it is not the case that literal nonfiction texts are actually better than allegorical fictions. Use your understanding, even if some books make it hard

>>20157302
>Every philosophical premise is a hypothesis
Catman likes this approach, however I think it is too susceptible to confirmation bias. For example, the smartest catholic ive met said what convinced him to the point of no return is how much happier he became after his conversion. However, let us say I convert too, I spend considerable effort in studying the faith, surrounding myself with those conducive to it. This recipe, idealisrically, would let a homie discern whether they're acting right; except practically speaking the fact of growing accustomed to something will lead to me "feeling," its rightness regardless of reason. Maybe I'm just a brainless boy.

>>20157270
>Death
In order to determine our ends we should investigate what we ourselves are. We exist, we can be sure of that. But do we have extension in time? I see four possibilities; that we have no extension (Heraclitus), that we have finite extension (the common herd), that we have infinite extension (the reincarnationists), or that extension does not really exist in the same way we do (the Platonists, Parmenides). It seems to me that death is only to be feared if we have finite extension; and yet this is also a position that appears weak to me. If we are to say that an object at one time is the same object at another time, then must it not be the same in some way? And how could something that persists perfectly be destroyed, or for that matter created?

>>20157285
meowdy partner

>>20157323
I think a Thomist would answer by drawing a distinction between the body (matter) and the soul (form). Or, to put it in modernist terms, the intellect/consciousness. That the body is purely spatio-temporal whereas the soul is metaphysical. The problem here is, unless you are a Christian, what that metaphysical is is necessarily unknowable.

What would you say?

>>20157346
meowdy <img class="xae" data-xae width="27" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1d3f2a13_happycat.png">

>>20157346
Do not hit on him in my thread. Seriously.

>>20157346
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/4623886c_HeavyBreathing.png">

>>20157349
STOP!!!!

>>20157347
Any sort of soul has to fit into one of the four categories I described, and I still say that ‘death’ is only a meaningful concept if your soul has some kind of finite extension, and I am extremely sceptical of such a finite extension. It would seem to make the soul a body, something that is by nature a changeable thing, and then asks us to presume that it for some reason doesn’t change for a substantial period of time.

>>20157392
death isn't real and time is a loop
<span class="xae" data-xae="alien">👽[/spoiler]<span class="xae" data-xae="alien">👽[/spoiler]<span class="xae" data-xae="alien">👽[/spoiler]

>>20157220
>No philosophy rests on a logically provable foundation. They all demand a faith in some form or another, whether it be in a God or in the lack of unknowable contradictions.
Nice philosophy <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/8ea2d160_peepoClown.png">

>>20157412
Thats the best part of this perspective. It is not merely open to being disproven, it demands it. It does not affirm itself, it despairs over not having yet been denied.

>>20157418
Technically it isn't inconsistent to assert that every philosophy is inconsistent, as it itself is an inconsistent statement. Ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet: from a contradiction anything follows. <img class="xae" data-xae width="29" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7a95728b_Gigachad.png">

>>20157220
Stop simping for materialism

>>20157476
Stop simping for your illusions :desuSmirk:

>>20157476
Stop simping for your illusions <img class="xae" data-xae width="41" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/72694e0e_desusmirk.png">

>>20157464
Yeah sure whatever this guy with the fancy jargon bullshit said. My philosphy is airtight in admitting it makes no sense. Take that: sophists, platonists, aristotelians, neo-platonists, Muslims, Christians, Satan worshippers, gnostics Buddhists, confucianists, humanists, empiricists, rationalists, skeptics, realists, idealists, critical idealists, nihilists, hedonists, existentialists, absurdists, pragmatists, jungians and esotericists.

>>20157476

>>20157620
Alright, you’re under arrest <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/98cf0be7_KannaPolice.png">

>>20157220
>No philosophy rests on a logically provable foundation. They all demand a faith in some form or another, whether it be in a God or in the lack of unknowable contradictions.
And your foundation for saying this is...?

<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/0ee48fb4_longcat.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e77bc341_longcatb.png">
Kot thread.

>>20157418
All propositions affirm themselves in that they state what they state. What you just said makes no sense. Unless you are saying you don't believe in what you just stated, to which I can just reply: then why state it?

<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/0ee48fb4_longcat.png">
>>20157661
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |

>>20157220
Dear catanon,
You are upset because philosophy has no basal logic - but does the same problem apply to your qualm? If yes, start with the Greeks. If no, abandon the litter box, and set yourself free.
Here's a clue, from me(ow).
Sincerely,
anon.

<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |
>>20157698
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |

>>20157660
The innate fallibility of Man

>>20157669
You misunderstand. The essence of this position is seeking and accepting the possibility that your seeking will always be in vain, and as a result that that very position of the impossibility of finding an answer is itself incorrect. The point is having a perspective that is designed to challenge itself and others only secondarily rather than primarily as some sort of arrogant polemic.

>>20157737
Firstly and foremost, I love you. Secondly, Daddy-Cat is on the liquor again so I apologize if my replies are incoherent. Thirdly and finally, please direct thine attention toward my reply to this fella, as I think it'll answer your rebuttal to my absolutely crippling philosophical WAAAAAAAAAAILS!

>>20158252

— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
— | |