/lit/ - Literature

>implying you exist
this is no way to start, OP.

>>3535939

>another kid misunderstands eastern philosophy

heh

You have to figure it out yourself, OP. There are no shortcuts.

>>3535946
>eastern
>implying cogito ergo sum is not a fallacy
>implying cogito at all
this is all kinds of silly, anon.

>>3535958

Explain how 'cogito ergo sum' is a fallacy.

>>3535958

cogito is inaccurate, just like your grasp of eastern philosophy

>>3535960

it presupposes that which it is trying to prove.

>>3535962

Which is not a fallacy in this case, because cognition is self-evident. You can't disbelieve in your own existence with falling into absurdity.

>>3535964
>Which is not a fallacy in this case, because cognition is self-evident.

Self evident ideas don't require support.
Cogito tries to support itself, but does it circularly.

> You can't disbelieve in your own existence with falling into absurdity.

That isn't the issue at all. Your existence doesn't depend on the Cogito argument.

Lets stay on topic. You can practice phil 101 later.

>>3535960
the premise that is his capacity to summon the condition of 'cogito', is a baseless premise

>>3535961
>how does implying work

>>3535967

seems to be working pretty poorly for you

Because you are the chosen one, sent to show us the truth and the light.

Now go forth my son and show us the true meaning of anal sex.

>>3535976
>Now go forth my son and show us the true meaning of anal sex.

>implying anal sex has a true objective meaning

>implying it isn't a rainbow of infinite subjective possibilities

>>3535964
Linking cognition with identity is fallacious

I think, therefore I am
You think, therefore you aren't?

>hokay

does a complete account of the physics of the situation help? if not, then there's your answer

>>3535965

The Cogito is not circular. It doesn't presuppose anything other than though.

If there is thought, there must be a thinker.

Unless you'd like to argue that you don't have thoughts (which might actually be tenable in your case).

>>3536005

thought*

>>3535936

No, but Wittgenstein could show you why these are meaningless questions.

>>3536005
>The Cogito is not circular. It doesn't presuppose anything other than though.

It starts with "I"
it doesn't define it. It just assumes it at the start.

"I" is what he is trying to prove. "I" is the conclusion

It's saying "I am thinking, therefore I am.

Cogito could be the definition of a circular argument.

>>3536013
>No, but Wittgenstein could show you why these are meaningless questions.

and then he would retract that and admit they are meaningful but beyond his ability to answer

>>3536014

You're confusing phrasing with logical order. The sentence begins with "I" in English, but in the argument only thought is presupposed. It is not a circular argument. You're missing the entire point of the Cogito if you think that.

>>3536015

Not beyond his ability, beyond the ability of LANGUAGE to discuss, which is why they are meaningless questions, as I already said.

>>3535936
Can you even be certain that you exist?

But, anyways. It all happened because your dad fucked your mom and you popped out 9 months later. If you did not exist, the world would perhaps be a tiny bit different but ultimately could go on without you.

There is no reason why you are here. You simply are.

>>3535936
I'd hedge that you're unwilling to accept anything resembling a religious tenant. In that case, you won't find one. Any answer more satisfying than "because events happen" will require you to just believe in an answer.

>>3536019
>Not beyond his ability, beyond the ability of LANGUAGE to discuss

why would this be the case?

>>3536022
>It all happened because your dad fucked your mom

Doesn't explain "me", it explains why a human baby popped out of my mother, but not why "I" am that baby.

>I'd hedge that you're unwilling to accept anything resembling a religious tenant

Go for it.

>>3536036
>Doesn't explain "me", it explains why a human baby popped out of my mother, but not why "I" am that baby.
Because a person is born with a consciousness and reason that gradually grasps the outside and inner world. Then, through years of formation through society and language, you have become the you you are now.

There is only causality at the root of your existence, nothing more. Simply let that sink in and then you'll see how absurd it is, how self important it is to even wonder why "you" were born.

>>3536036
I'm not going to give you a particular tenant that I want you to buy into. But if you want to believe that you're more than just the result of an event and you have a unique identity and place in the universe -- hell, even a PURPOSE if you want to be really ballsy -- you're going to just have to take it on faith. The philosophers might not agree with you (Kierkegaard would though, check out The Sickness Unto Death if you haven't already), but it's a lot more fun and fulfilling than stressing out about how the universe is meaningless and random. The universe may ultimately be a meaningless, random mess, there might not actually be a God, but as far as I can tell, it's more interesting and helpful to believe in an overarching cosmic narrative in which even an ordinary bozo like you or me can play a part than going with the position that logic defends most easily.

>>3535936
I am both singular and ubiquitous
more than 7 billion served
almost that many terminated

Does anyone else find "cogito ergo sum" naive with respect to time?

"I think" or the general verb "to think" presumes certain properties of time we can't take for granted. This can be taken either way. First, in the reductionist "there is only the present moment" sense, in which it is impossible to say "I" come up with a thought: I arrive at a conclusion after considering premises... the conclusion exists in the present moment, sure, but if there is truly only the present moment, and the past isn't here, isn't real, then I am no longer whatever considered the premises.

Second, you can even criticize the other way, from the idea that the past is real. If we had a "depth perception" of time, for example, we might see ourselves extended at least backward through time the same way a cube is a square extended through a third dimension of space. From this perspective, thinking is not a verb but an object's property. The "I" is similarly illusory.

Does any of this make sense to anyone? I'm not high.

>>3536050

>tenant

For fuck's sake.

>>3536042
>born with consciousness

i don't remember coming out of my mother's womb

ruh-roh

>>3536069

Nope, you're not making any sort of sense.

>>3536073

Memory =/= consciousness

>>3536073
You don't remember every conscious thing you did last week, either.

>>3536069

>"there is only the present moment"

You need to convince us of this before you can use it to argue against the cogito.

>"from this perspective, thinking is not a verb but an object's property"

You are high as shit.

>>3536071
Oh shit you're right. Now I feel like a fool, and I am ashamed.

>>3536069
You're confusing "thinking" with "reasoning". "Thinking" doesn't require premises or a conclusion, it can take any shape it likes.

>>3536074
For the second part, this is all I have that might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

The 'presentist' interpretation of time would reject the argument made in the above video. A presentist would say only the present moment is real.

>>3535939

Someone hasn't taken philosophy 101.

The basis for all knowledge is the self-evident truth that I exist. Can't say shit about you, but I exist.

>For me to be wrong there has to be a me.

>>3536086
>The basis for all knowledge is the self-evident truth that I exist.
>Someone hasn't taken philosophy 101.


someone hasn't gone beyond phil 101.

>>3536085

What argument does a presentist base his point of view on though?

>>3535938
This is a good book and you niggers should read it.

>>3536090

Either:

(A) I am not a nigger, and therefore your exhortation to read that book does not apply to me.

(B) I am a nigger, and cannot read.

>muh paradoxes

there is no why - kierkegaard

>>3536095
Where did he say that? I suspect someone's using quotations without relevant context.

>>3536096
Gee, I love not having simple, relevant questions answered.

>>3536089
Solipsistic basically. Socrates isn't here in the present moment, so he isn't real in the literal sense. You might say some atoms that were his body are still around, but not Socrates the person.

Hey guys, OP here, so did anyone answer my question?

>>3536107
nope

your question is a vulgar form of some of the most large and enduring problems with philosophy.

>>3536107
Closest I've got is Kierkegaard or Aquinas. Once you move out of religious philosophers, like I said before, you're pretty much a goner on that front.

>>3536107

It's kind of scary that the possibility of "you" even exists.

Think about it. There is some signature somewhere, in the fabric of the universe, of your consciousness. Once matter takes on the appropriate neural structure you appear.

You can be summoned randomly in some absurd environment because of this. Forever, potentially.

>>3536115
*in philosophy, not with

its not just philosophy either; people tend to assume neuroscience explains consciousness or emotion but they can't actually connect what's going on at the biochem level with higher order functions. regardless, i'm still a monist/materialist

>>3536123
>You can be summoned randomly in some absurd environment because of this. Forever, potentially.

Please.

>>3536136

why not?

>>3536123

Stupidest thing I've read on /lit/ in weeks.

>>3536168

>Stupidest thing I've read

You misspelled scary.

>>3536168
>Stupidest thing I've read

You misspelled 'scariest'

>>3536172

How could I be frightened by an eighth-grader's worldview? Especially given that it has nothing to do with reality or the nature of consciousness?

>>3536183
>Especially given that it has nothing to do with reality or the nature of consciousness?

Why not?

Protip: there is no central definition of 'you'.

'You' is a temporal causality dance with stimuli.

>>3536192

>>3536188

>>3536192
>Protip: there is no central definition of 'you'.

Definitions don't matter.
What's a "central" definition?

>'You' is a temporal causality dance with stimuli.

go eat some more curry

>>3536213

>There is some signature somewhere, in the fabric of the universe, of your consciousness. Once matter takes on the appropriate neural structure you appear.

This would be a 'central definition.'

>>3536226

Everyone agrees on those basic premises.
1 - (consciousness depends on specific neural structures)

2 - (the possibility of your specific neural structure exists as a potential in the universe)

I just showed them the conclusion that follows.

>>3536240

>consciousness depends on specific neural structures

It has a relationship to those structures. It is not necessarily directly in tandem with them. We don't have an answer to that particular question.

Are you really this dense?

>>3536251
>It has a relationship to those structures. It is not necessarily directly in tandem with them.

Well the scientific/neurological community assumes consciousness is caused by brain matter, and has neural correlates that give rise to it; so what I said is very appropriate.

>Are you really this dense?

I'm only dense in regards to thinking about consciousness as a spiritual/magical product...

>>3536281

So you're fine with blind assumption? Why didn't you say that early on?

>spiritual/magical product

Feel free to point to where spirituality or magic was brought into the conversation by anyone but yourself.

>>3536285
>Feel free to point to where spirituality or magic was brought into the conversation by anyone but yourself.

It was implied when you said consciousness and neural structures aren't "directly in tandem" as if consciousness could be "in tandem" with some other thing? It better be material or else its magic.

>>3536289

>it better be material

Why? That's a statement of faith, something I should hope the scientific community frowns upon.

Deep down we all know the real reason

Brace yourselves for the Last Pope

>>3536281
>Well the scientific/neurological community assumes consciousness is caused by brain matter
I'd be wary of such generalisations. Either you're a materialist and a reductionist in these circumstances, or you're not and you're not.

>>3536251
>It has a relationship to those structures.
Maybe it has a relationship to them, but will whatever that happens to be have any effect of the concept or idea of what you are? I think it's an interesting bit of academic frippery in regards to the question of our consciousness and existence, but if it doesn't change anything in how we come to existence or the idea of a subject or whatever, the two aren't really that relevant to one another. It's a bit like WIttgenstein and his thoughts on the relationship between logic and the world: Logic describes the bounds of our World, but doesn't have any particularly meaningful descriptions of that World.

>>3536293

What is the alternative? You aren't making much sense now.

>>3536295
I thought he just gave that up for Lent.

>>3536300

You've clearly never read a word on phenomenology. Leaving thread.

>>3536304
>I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. Leaving thread.

Up to you.

>>3536300

Go read some philosophy of mind. Clean all that Dawkins and Sagan out of your ears.

>>3536007
This.

>>3536289
Neural correlates are, more or less, a way of saying the two things are "in tandem" with some third thing which is a "semi-abstract" (for want of a better word) set of physical states. I personally wouldn't go as far as to say that that set is material, even though it works in a materialist framework.

>>3536311
>Go read some philosophy of mind.

No serious philosopher of mind contradicts the fact that brain structures give direct rise to consciousness.

You must be stuck in the 1700s or something.

>>3535936
Also, because of your mom. I fucking hate my mom...

>>3536301

No, he gave up his favorite red shoes, the giving up the pope thing was because only the pope wears red shoes

Needles to say /fa/ would be in an uproar if they knew this

>>3536317
>No serious philosopher of mind contradicts
I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein would have called you a dumb dumb doo doo head for that.

>>3536317

Someone needs a history lesson. If he were in the 1700s he'd be making your argument.

>>3536322
You took his word out of context. How is that fair? IS that fair? I don't believe that is fair. Context can be used in a reverse fashion, but not that way.

>>3536320
It's okay, Steve Martin bought some red shoes to keep the balance.

Watch Brian Cox's 'Wonders of Life' series.

i think you're narcissistic to think 'you' exist more than a tree or anything else.
>muh consciousness
you're not special

>>3536086
so when i have a dream about a goat with a chickens beak that speaks in a Jamaican accent i cant say it doesn't exist so long as it argues it's existence? i learn something new on this board everyday

>>3536381
>i think you're narcissistic to think 'you' exist more than a tree or anything else.
>i think you
>i think
>i
>you

Please spare me the gymnastics about how you technically avoid realism.

>>3536381

somebody watched a Daniel Dennett video.

>>3536381

Human beings are unique in their experience of higher consciousness.

>>3536398
>Human beings are unique in their experience of higher consciousness.

Human two-year-olds don't even have self-consciousness.

>>3536404

So?

>>3536322

Wittgenstein? Did he ever do any experiment? He didn't even hear about neurons, synaptic clefts, and ion channels.

>>3536013
Leave That troll Wittgenstien the fuck out of this. His utter pseudo-mystical breakdown clusterfuck of a magnum opus shows that his thought process are not dependable for rational argument.

>>3536382

What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? You are mixing purely linguistic concepts and language phrases with the physical world. That's meaningless.

>>3536404
>>3536398

You might want to check out our solipsism thread...

>>3536297
>>Well the scientific/neurological community assumes consciousness is caused by brain matter
>I'd be wary of such generalisations.

Subjectivley you can be wary but it doesn't matter at all. Science with its scientific method can objectively and securely state that.

>>3536019
Greatest troll of the 20th centruy.
>ontological and epistemoligical questions are menaingful
>but we can't answer them properly using languge, as language is a consequence of the ontological state we are investigating
>implying that ontological and epistemiological questions can never be answered, even relative to each other
>implying that he dao that is spoken of is not the true dao
>implying that me might not ever be able to turey know anything
>implying that we don't even know weather or not we will ever be able to know anything
>implying that epistemology is an intractable study
>implying the legitimacy of all of philosophy as a study is in question

Wittgenstein-troll-face.png

>>3536036
YOu sense of "I" that is attached to the baby which grew in an d popped out of your mom is an emergent consequence of the way the brain inside that baby works. Your self-awareness is a function of your brain's structure and operations. IF you don't believe this, then look it up in the neuroscience literature. If you don't believe that, then you're probably a dolt who can't be helped. Enjoy your immaterialist advedanta bullshit.

the end /thread all threads

>>3536289
>It was implied when you said consciousness and neural structures aren't "directly in tandem" as if consciousness could be "in tandem" with some other thing? It better be material or else its magic.

Just think of consciousness like a magnetic field. The field is generated by something material, but the field itself is not made of particles of matter (as far as I can recall, I'm a complete scrub). However, the field can exert an effect back on matter (induction). Of course this doesn't mean you have free will, but that's mostly a problem of ill-conceived terminology and mixing of levels of description (no, random quantum events do not 'scale up').

>>3536436

Every point you referenced is a valid one.

>>3536435

>Science with its scientific method can objectively and securely state that consciousness is caused by brain matter

Are you in grade school?

>>3536050
To believe on faith, without a solid set of reasonable arguments or evidence, something you've already gone to great lengths to show that you can't really prove, just becasue it makes you feel better, is a weensy bit ignorant don't you think? Possibly also cowardly.

Know-nothings like you piss me off becasue not only are you wrong, you're also in the fucking way of everyone else who has a values-based mission they want to fullfill that is above and beyond worrying about whether or not they exists. Shit is happening and they're dealing with it. The fact that they're able to interact with the shit that is happening in a patterned and understandable way is proof enough that they must "exist," or something much like "existence."

If shit didn't exist, then how the fuck are you typing on 4chan right now?

If the above question I just sarcastically posed is in fact the question you're working with here, then this anon, for one, has no direct answer for you. Your denial of what is self evident is an absurd premise that exists in a vacuum.

"Whoa, dood, like, what if we don't exists man? IF we don't exists, THEN HOW ARE WE TYPING ON 4CHAN OOHHH SHIIIITTTTTTT"

You do exist, dipshit, at least in some fashion that approximates what we would logically understand to mean existence. That's the solution to your supposed stoner-esque paradox.

>>3536053
just like Micky D's

>>3535936
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L7uNyQL0H0

>>3536085
...And the presentists would be, as all presentists are, scientifically inaccurate and annoyingly wrong. The universe exists, and it undergoes state changes, and these state changes are, as best we know, controlled by the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. So what we refer to as the progression of time is simply the tracking of state changes relative to one another via entropy. The present moment exists, yes, but the present moment always changes into different forms. We then compare those previous forms to the current form, as well as consider what future forms might look like. We call this analysis of the universes changes states "the perception of time" and we call the state changes themselves "the flow of time." In order for time to not exists, the "present universe" would be static and unchanging. There would be no energy interactions and nothing would be happening. TO claim that only the present moment exists, and then use that to argue in favor of other ideas that would require the states of the universe not to change, is to misunderstand the idea of "the present moment," is to misunderstand Heraclitus' River Maxim, and is just mystical ignorance.

>>3536480

Isn't time simply all points in space at right angles?

Doesn't ALL of time exist at once?

>>3536123
this is what reincarnationfags actually believe;
this is what newagefags actually believe;
this is what spiritistfags actually believe;

never underestimate the cognitive dissonance capability of immaterialists.

>>3536297
>Logic describes the bounds of our World, but doesn't have any particularly meaningful descriptions of that World.

That's a highly contentious claim and Wittgenstein was a dick.

>nothing means anything so we can know anything, let alone trust science or our own knowledge derp derp derp muh naive skepticism

>>3536311
I cleaned all the ancient philosophy of mind out of my ears by reading Dawkins and Sagan

Come back when you're done with your undergrad philosophy coursees

>>3536501

How old are you? What did you study? Curiosity.

>>3536398
LOL WRONG.

A short list of other earth creatures thatshow higher consciousnesses:
>dolphins
>great apes
>elehpants
>possibly some octopi

Yea, get the fuck out of here with that anthropocentric bullshit. Wake up to the 21st century, bro

>>3536511

'consciousness' isn't the same thing as 'higher consciousness'

Dolphins are the only other animals known to show novel, creative thinking, albeit in a VERY narrow sense.

>>3536447
magnetic fields contain energy in proportion to the electric fields they are associated with and their corresponding electron arrangements. So yea, magnetic fields are material.

ITT: /lit/ tries to remeber /sci/ in order to back up their immaterialist viewpoint, gets it all wrong, and makes a fool of themselves.

PROTIP: Philosophers who multi-disciple into to the hard sciences usually drop all their pretensious and absurd philosophical views they once held, due to having lived in a bubble of ideas and logic without real standards of evidence.

Take the red pill, take a science course.

>>3536489

>I want so badly to pretend that I have all the answers, any form of metaphysical abstraction terrifies my young ego and sends me into fearful throes. Hold me.

>>3536522
>Philosophers who multi-disciple into to the hard sciences usually drop all their pretensious and absurd philosophical views they once held, due to having lived in a bubble of ideas and logic without real standards of evidence.

It was the opposite for me. Chemistry major hooked on German philosophy.

>>3536522
>>3536529

There's a middle-ground somewhere.

>>3536511
Come again when they start inventing shit and be all like "Why are we even inventing stuff? Where did we come from? Was that dolphin who calls himself the king-dolphin really chosen by the god-dolphin?"

>>3536522
>Take the red pill, take a science course.

Hahahhaa

/lit/'s red pill is the scientific method. It's so true

>>3536537

>when they start inventing shit

Why aren't they doing it now?

>>3536538

There are definitely two sides to that coin.

>>3536522
This. So much this.

>>3536548

Nice assumptions there, pal.

>>3536528
>believing in the infinite universe

>>3536452
If those points were all valid as you claim, then it would also mean that we can't trust any human institution or endevour that depends on epidemiological stability, becasue those institutions would never yield tractable, even if meaningful, results. However, we have technology, which is a very tractable and meaningful result of engineering and science, which are in turn are proven, structured disciplines and envdevours based on the fact that our models of the physical universe are accurate enough to be able to predict what will happen when we manipulate the energy of the universe. The fact that we have working technology and functional scientific models to back it up is a direct contradiction of Wittgenstein's epidemiological objections.

The physical evidence is strongly against the Wittgenstein hypotheses, to the point of embarrassment. The only argument to be made against this is to claim that humans never really know what we're doing while we're doing it. While this might be technically true in the broadest sense (if only becasue we don't know everything there is to know), it's so functionally and practically false as to appear absurd when applied to everyday human thought and activity. Somewhere you have to draw the line and say "this is what we know" and "this is what we don't know," based on the precision and functionality of the results of our actions. Actions based on knowledge at least. An economist would vehemently argue that we ultimately never take any action without it being based on some sense of knowledge.

In general, I stand steadfastly opposed to the idea that humans can't ever really know anything, becasue the evidence and results of human actions are steadfastly against that. Of course, I can't expect you to give any credence to evidence and results, being the immaterialist hat you are and what not. That's the luxury of your position. You can claim "well we can't prove anything exists so therefore your evidence is invalid trololol"

>>3536522
>magnetic fields contain energy in proportion to the electric fields they are associated with and their corresponding electron arrangements. So yea, magnetic fields are material.

But is the field made of particles of matter? Because I did point out that I am a scrub, and you didn't really invalidate anything I said. Is energy per definition material?

>>3536552

You're completely missing the ontologic divide here. It's a simple philosophical problem, not a pragmatic one. 'Tractable and meaningful results' are arbitrarily defined as such.

>>3536483

You're not undersntading me. Time coordinates are ultimately for the purpose of taking state changes. The universe ultimately all exists at once, and you could claim via certain interpretation of quantum mechanics that all the state change possibilities exists at once. BUT, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: ALL THE REALIZATIONS OF THE POSSIBLE STATES DO NOT.

>>3536540
to answer this very important question of "why are the dolphins not building civilizations" i will take the same perspective towards the dolphins as Habermas does towards the lower classes, and say that the dolphins actually do have utopian potential but they are being opressed by us. Imagine if we let them make their own tools, how much more efficient would a dolphin-hammer be than our simple-minded hammers?

>>3536529
>>3536522
It still works as an analogy. "magnetic fields contain energy in proportion to the electric fields they are associated with and their corresponding electron arrangements" doesn't change anything, it puts the idea of a magnetic field at about the same standpoint to physical reality as something like inertia. Chemistry dude, you should know this, molecular dipoles are part of the bread and butter of undergrad chemistry. It's a secondary effect to something else that we explain away or simplify or whatever by putting in the idea of a "field". Both of you could look up Gravitoelectromagnetism if you want some perspective on the whole thing.

>>3536556

That's what I said, isn't it?

>>3536557

How would we let dolphins make tools? How are we stopping them?

>>3536565
Uh, just give them some time i suppose, we are constantly interrupting their natural development by feeding them fish and smiling at them.
>making them feel akward.

>>3536553
If you want to believe it's all down to virtual particles you can, if you want to believe it's all down to fields as described by Maxwell you can. In some circumstances one analogy works and another doesn't, or one fits better or is more elegant. Virtual particles don't particularly fit so elegantly into all situations involving fields and things, and that's part of how string theory got started, although that isn't strictly one thing or another in regards to particles and fields.

>>3536069
Look at Hume. Temporal solipsism doesn't upset Descartes' meditations though, cogito ergo sum still works for both spatial and temporal solipsism.

>>3536566

You could've kept the joke going for a little bit longer...

>>3536575
Dolphins cannot into humour. Oppression will do that to a species.

>>3536553
Matter is a form of energy, which is apparently the fundamental thing. The particles are excitation of the energy fields, and appear in certain patterns depending on their overall energy level and the rules of the interactions of the fields (that is, the other forms of energy). Magnetic fields are a form of energy, as is EM radiation (light, photons), which is associated with magnetic fields and their electrical sources.

So yes, energy is by definition material, and we track it by noting it's various changes. As far as we can tell, it is fundamentally the only quantifiable material, and the the universe appears to be nothing but energy in different forms.

babbys first physics lesson.

>>3536590
>So yes, energy is by definition materia
No, material is by definition energy.

>>3536511
>octopi
lel ur dumb
It's:
Chimpanzumbinis
Oliphants
Ol' Grandpa-Tangs
Doll Fins
Wails

Incidentally, these are also the only animals (with the exception of the swan) which engage in sex for the object of pleasure.

>>3536590
>babbys first physics lesson.

thanks!

>>3536595
>Incidentally, these are also the only animals (with the exception of the swan) which engage in sex for the object of pleasure.

"It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated 'animals mate only for reproduction'."

>>3536555
WEll if you're arguming that philosophical questions and answers have no bearing on the pragmatic, then I would argue that you're wrong, but I would also ask you, then why does it matter? Why ask the question in the first place? If the questions are meaningful, but the answers are intractable, and none of it really matter, then why is philosophy relevant?. Of course this is ultimately what Wittgenstein was asking, in a sort of academically passive aggressive way.

>>3536600
Ruh oh, you've just chowed down some poorly understood metaphysics peddled as actual physics. That'll give you some pretty bad intellectual indigestion.

>>3536575
i'm sorry it didn't last as long as your lust for amusement, but the problem is that joking about opressed peoples quickly turns into racism.
>racism against dolphins is unacceptable

>>3536611
>inb4 Dolphins are not a race they are beastly animals

>>3536607

Does why it matters matter?

>>3536615
HOW DARE YOU!
i hope you feel bad or badly, i hope the mechanism with which you feel is damaged!

>>3536563
No, it's not. What you said, in support of presentists, was that time does not exists and so the self, thoughts, and all that kind of stuff, exist as fundamental time-independent properties of everything. This is wrong becasue presentists are wrong in their interpretation of the existence of a "present moment". Presentists tend to believe that the existence of the "present moment" implies that the past and the future, time if you will, doesn't exist. This is wrong. Time exists, in the sense that the present moment is always changing. Thus, if you attempt to track the changes that the present moment undergoes, you end up with the concept of time again. SO really the presentists would be right to assume that the universe is a collection of existent states, but they are flawed in thinking that there is no time. To claim that there is no time is also to claim that states don't change, and to claim that states don't change is clearly wrong,

>>3536605
>wikipedia
If you'll take the liberty of reading on, you might see that the paragraph then clarifies its issue, reading:
"Its conclusions are broadly that the statement is true, but only using a very specific definition of "sex for pleasure," in which sexual acts tied to a reproductive cycle or for which an alternative explanation can be asserted, are ignored, as is all sexual activity that does not involve penetration."
The definition of 'sex for pleasure' that is dismissed, in your example, as a 'common myth' is that of sex that is simply pleasurable, independent of whether pleasure was the object. These animals seek out sex in order to please themselves, and are sometimes even inventive about it; this, as a definition of 'sex for pleasure', is what, I had been arguing, makes those animals unique.

>>3536565
GOD DAMNIT. HOW DESNES ARE YOU PEOPLE?

DOLPHINS CAN'T MAKE TOOLS LIKE WE CAN BECASUE THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY LIMITED. FINS DON'T HAVE THUMBS NIGGERS.

DUH

THEY INVENT OTHER THINGS THOUGH, LIKE AD HOC PLANNING AND GROUP TACTICS FOR THE CORRALLING OF FISH. AND THE LEARNING AND USE OF LANGUAGE AND GESTURES

GOD DAMNIT /LIT/

>>3536623

I'm not the presentist guy. I was just saying that all of time exists 'simultaneously' - this also, incidentally, is why I hold some semi-spiritual ideas about eternal life.

>>3536629
ew. this is my least favourite kind of trolling. please don't do it again, sir.

>>3536086
>>For me to be wrong there has to be a me.
That's some crazy western logic right there. Stop thinking like that. You are assuming existence from the outset and concluding that you must exist in order to exist.

>>3536594
Um, ok, yea.

material = energy

the order of the left and and right and terms makes no difference.

>>3536595
Pigs do too.

>>3536634
>this also, incidentally, is why I hold some semi-spiritual ideas about eternal life.

Eternal life? Semi-spiritual ideas? That's a very funny assumption. Very literary but with no reference to the physical world.

>>3536557
>i will take the same perspective towards the dolphins as Habermas does towards the lower classes

I was going to say that this thread is worse than the solipsism one, but this is amazing!

>>3536562
>It still works as an analogy.

Glad to hear that, and since you use clever words like 'gravitoelectromagnetism' I feel kind of validated after getting babby's first physics lesson by the other kind anon.

>>3536635
It's lampooning. The all-caps variant has been worn to death recently, although it was never particularly clever.

>>3536641
It does make a difference. Think about it: are there things that energy can do that matter can't and vice versa? I'm guessing you've confused yourself over the idea of a "mass energy equivalence", which isn't uncommon.

>>3536651

I've got some ideas about conscious experience existing 'forever'. In some ways I feel that death is a removal from a linear view of time.

>>3536655
I'm not sure he is trolling, I sometimes get like that when people refuse to acknowledge the validity of my technical critique of Roland Barthes application of the Saussurean notion of a language to photography for three days, for example. It could be genuine.

>>3536620
Welcome to Philosophy
Where the answers are intractable and the questions don't matter

>>3536662

You must be a card at parties.

>>3536662
That was a terrible "critique" though.

>>3536661
>I've got some ideas about conscious experience existing 'forever'. In some ways I feel that death is a removal from a linear view of time.

I once thought that maybe the last moments of your life are experienced in a continuing dilation of time that asymptotically makes your experience of these last moments approach eternity. But that's probably not gonna happen.

>>3536620
>Does why it matters matter?

Such an utterence is a pure logical nonsense.

>>3536667
>That was a terrible "critique" though.

>implying I wasn't right from the beginning
>implying you do not have nothing on me

>>3536668

But you don't know for sure, do you? The possibilities are potentially vast.

>>3536670
You did one of the classic idiot moves, "I don't understand anything therefore it's nonsense".

>>3536665

yeah, bitches are all over my autism. I also love pointing out that 'The medium is the message' is merely an advertising slogan because its literal meaning is incompatible with any meaningful way of talking about communication.

>>3536671
What if we're all just like sandwiches on a Deli counter? And death is like being digested?

>>3536674

>its literal meaning is incompatible with any meaningful way of talking about communication.

How so? I think it's a perfectly sensible statement.

>>3536669
Wait wut. No it isn't?

>>3536672
>You did one of the classic idiot moves, "I don't understand anything therefore it's nonsense".

Wow, that's a nice claim you got there. Would be a shame if someone pointed out that if you had any arguments against my point, surely you would have brought them forth in the original thread...

>>3536675

What if making fun of something complex is just avoidance?

>>3536674
firstly it has historical implications.
Secondly it is not a denial of content but simply a semiotic repositioning, referring to that fact that the content of one medium is another medium.

>>3536677
It's probably a little too close to "being logical is an illogical choice" for some ITT.

>>3536669

How? It's a valid question.

>>3536675
Woah. You're totally cool!!!!!!

Keep up the high level of powerhouse thinking, /lit/!!

>>3536679
I did, and they went over your head. Or through one ear and out the other. One of those.

>>3536637
Assuming non-existance is tautologically unnessesary and meaningless.

If the natural state of things is non-existence, and everything that happens is actually non-existent, then we have the same discussions but we just reverse the usage and meaning of the labels "existence" and "non-existence." Same shit different flavor.

Assuming that things which appear to exists don't actually exists, without it having any real bearing on the practical results of the following arguments from that new premise, is pointless.

Ok, so I don't exists and neither does the universe. What does that mean from a practical point of view? That life is but a dream? lulz ok, so what?

>>3536676
>How so?

The medium has some significance, and a new medium changes the way we communicate, but it is certainly not 'the message'. If that were the case, the message would be exhausted in the medium, any one medium would only have one single message, itself. It wouldn't make any difference whether you read a phone book, a bible, or a physics textbook. Since the medium is the same, you would receive the same message each time. Is that how communication works? I don't think so. Also, McLuhan claims that electric light is pure information. This of course is pure nonsense. The information lies in the pattern, which could also be transported in pieces of spaghetti of different lengths, for example. But you don't see me going around claiming that noodles are pure information.

>>3536685
I heard we'd had an influx from places like 420chan, but it's becoming more and more apparent.

>>3536687

You have to ignore practicality and the 'so what?' if you're looking to do actual thinking.

>>3536684
>How? It's a valid question.

Playing with words may be funny in literature but not valid in terms of the physical world.

>>3536688

Oh. So you weren't joking about the autism thing.

>>3536688
>any one medium would only have one single message, itself
Not even one single explicit message is "one single message".

>>3536662
>>3536667

Dolphins can't make tools like we can because they don't have thumbs. Not being able to makes tools doesn't mean they don't think philosophically. Seems perfectly reasonable. There's evidence that it's the case, based on our interactions with dolphins, which is extensive becasue Sea World.

>>3536688
I'm not going to say that McLuhan isn't an old (and dead) man, but you are looking at a micro level while McLuhan looks from a macro. His point isn't that we should simple overlook meaning, but that we should understand that meaning itself is a medium, there is no essence only another form within the form.

>>3536686
>I did, and they went over your head. Or through one ear and out the other. One of those.

So you still don't understand the difference between iconic, indexical, and symbolic representation?

>>3536697
But if one cannot "have a thumb up one's arse" how can one think philosophically? Same applies to navels, do dolphins even have belly buttons?

>>3536699
I thought the problem was your inability to understand a "language of photography" or something equally ridiculous.

>>3536698
>meaning itself is a medium

If he does indeed claim that at some point, I didn't get there because I got too angry on the first three pages (like most theoretical texts, to be honest). I have come across the notion that different media contain each other (interwebs [writing [speech]], for example), but I'm not sure how much sense it makes to include 'meaning' in this process, because it seems to imply that meaning also functions as the carrier substance for something else, some content. Not so sure what that would be, or what the benefit of proposing such a concept would be.

>>3536699
are you purposely referring to unrelated posts or wasn't this directed at this >>3536698

>>3536708
>I didn't get there because I got too angry on the first three pages
It shows.

>>3536681
How is the sonic content of a song also a movie? What the fuck are you smoking

>>3536708
that is the point, we should understand the word meaning without its essentialist implications.

>>3536710
the point is not that every medium is the content of every other. A song is not a movie, but the movie can contain a song.

>>3536706
>are you purposely referring to unrelated posts or wasn't this directed at this >>3536698

No, it was part of the Barthes problem, not the McLuhan problem.

>>3536702
>I thought the problem was your inability to understand a "language of photography" or something equally ridiculous.

If we are generous and assume that every medium (as a component of all its individual instantiations) is made up of parts of all three kinds of representation, iconic, indexical, and symbolic, it should still be obvious that the distribution of these in photography is so different from that in (natural) language that the Saussurean notion of language would encounter problems at a completely different scale than it does for its original application, natural language. For language, you have arguments like onomatopoeia that are used to question whether signs are always truly arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is an exception in language, but the reason we are able to recognize the picture of a car as a picture of a car is not the exception in photography, it is the normal case. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who could spend a lot of time convincing themselves in a ass-backwards way that the Saussurean notion of language is actually a valid framework for photography, but that should take a lot of effort, specifically a different effort from the same ordeal for natural language instead of photography, which still means that Barthes off-handed assumption that this is the case is careless and not backed by (the dearly needed) arguments.

>>3536718
>I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who could spend a lot of time convincing themselves in a ass-backwards way that the Saussurean notion of language is actually a valid framework for photography, but that should take a lot of effort, specifically a different effort from the same ordeal for natural language instead of photography, which still means that Barthes off-handed assumption that this is the case is careless and not backed by (the dearly needed) arguments.
So you're saying you now accept it's valid but find it difficult?

>>3536721
>So you're saying you now accept it's valid but find it difficult?

No, I'm saying it's wrong and retarded (a lot more so than Saussure's conception of language as applied to language, which is also wrong, but obviously not quite in the same way), but that in this day and age, for any idea no matter how wrong, you will find someone (especially in the humanities) who believes in it, more or less. Including dolphin-civilizations, for example.

>>3536683
There you go with that Wittgenstein shit again.

>>3536732
That's Kierkegaard broheim.

>>3536690
>You have to ignore practicality and the 'so what?' if you're looking to do actual thinking.
>You have to ignore practicality and the 'so what?'
>You have to ignore practicality
>ignore practicality

never change, /lit/

>>3536737

Pragmatism only gets you so far. Read a book.

>>3536713
Removing any word or concept from the context of it's "essentialist implications" is futile intellectual masturbation. Andy Warhol spent his whole life making art about this.

>>3536716
That a movie can contain a song as part of it's message is an observation that seems...sorely lacking in profundity.

>>3536769
well McLuhan doesn't want to complicate your life more than that for now.

>>3536769
We are not discussing the finer points of Saussurean semiotics, this is the absolute basics.

>>3536733
Trolls, both of them. Riffing off one another sub-textually.

>>3536725
>in this day and age, for any idea no matter how wrong, you will find someone (especially in the humanities) who believes in it

Like immaterialism, anthropocetrism, dieties, life as we know it after death, magical magnets (FUCKIN' MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK), etc?

>>3536781
It really belongs more to late enlightenment thinkers than to Wittgenstein. You could level that claim if influence at pretty much anyone too.

>>3536762
>the context of it's "essentialist implications"
are you saying, parodoxically, that the essentialist implication of a word like meaning is already displaced due to having a context, being its own context? Or are you trying to say that there is such a thing as an essence (meaning in the word meaning)?

>>3536740
All thinking is towards some pragmatic end, even if those ends are purely creative ones. Or just intellectual masturbation.

>>3536795
i just thought something about your mother.

>>3536791
I'm saying that essence, while preceding existence of course, requires a context. In some cases, the perceived essence of things helps define the context in which we usually find them. So to remove certain ideas from their context is to simply play word games.

We can sit here all day and ask "what does the word meaning mean?" to varying degrees of success.

>>3536799
I see what you did there

>>3536795

>All thinking is towards some pragmatic end

You're acting like we have free reign over our thoughts and where they lead us.

>>3536807
>essence, while preceding existence

aaaaand you're out.

>>3536807
okay, did you read the thread?
The point here was to explain the purpose of McLuhans famous "the medium is the message".
The reason for this "word game" in the end was to make clear that when the content of a medium is another medium, in the case of McLuhan, we have to reject the notion that there is a bottom, there is no meaning communicated that isn't in itself another medium and so there can be no essence, only another form. The point was not that we can't derive meaning from any medium, the word meaning was just used to describe the lack essence.

>>3536762
>Andy Warhol spent his whole life making art about this.

Warhol with his pure form and colorful meaningless games in painting was the same case of artist as Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Barthes, Derrida in literature. Both painting and literature use playful means of subjective expression. But they can't tell anything about objective reality. That is the domain of science.

>>3535936
>14 billion year
hahaha i love how idiots like you take this for granted

>>3536042
This is not what he means. He means 'why is MY consciousness in this body'. And yes, there are no words for it, 'me' refers to the body but actually we are trying to ask why our current experience of consciousness is invested in this body and not in some other. I cannot put this into words.

Naturally Wittgenstein.

Why is this over 200 replies

>>3536858

Because there are no satisfactory answers.

>>3536858
OP had to know that he is pretentious fool

>>3535936
>Why did I become conscious?

You weren't conscious before finishing the age of two years old because consciousness isn't an entity but a process of the brain activity. Your state of consciousness depends on neurotransmitters, activity in the synaptic cleft and ion channels. Using appropriate tools scientists can easily manipulate your consciousness. Therefore electrical, magnetic or chemical stimulation can affect your brain and change your consciousness. As a result you can hear voices, feel the presence of angels or God. Or if you have unbalanced number of chemicals or faulty electical circuits in your brain you can even ask questions like this.

>>3536826
>okay, did you read the thread?
>The point here was to explain the purpose of McLuhans famous "the medium is the message".
>The reason for this "word game" in the end was to make clear that when the content of a medium is another medium, in the case of McLuhan, we have to reject the notion that there is a bottom, there is no meaning communicated that isn't in itself another medium and so there can be no essence, only another form. The point was not that we can't derive meaning from any medium, the word meaning was just used to describe the lack essence.

I'm pretty sure this was never McLuhan's point. Can you cite something to support this?

>>3536868

Why are there brain-states that make you feel the presence of God?

>>3536816
>implying we don't

lay off the acid

>>3536817
>>3536826
I misspoke. What I meant to say was that existence precedes essence. I was attempting to quote sartre and I dun goofed bigtime. Now that we've established that existence precedes essence, does what I'm saying make sense now?

>>3536884
why are there brain-states that make you feel happy? depressed? anything at all?
no one has any answer as to why, only how.

>>3536858
it was all me.

me: >>3535939

>>3536880
Before you have me jumping around for no reason looking for the exact page, tell me how you came to the conclusion that it is not his point, so that you stand with an argument and not just one of those empty positions that one so often sees in debates between atheists and christians.

>>3536898
God put them there, obv.

>>3536898

Well there's arguably a survivalist motive for positive and negative emotions. But what about the experience of God?

>>3536898
"happy" and "depressed" are just words (social programming) that you use after the fact to create a narrative about how you remember feeling.
there is no single "happy" or anything.
you feel on a continuum and tell yourself a story about it later in as few words as your limited mind can handle.
kill yourself

>>3536851
It's more typical Zhuangzi, though you could also use Schopenhauer. If fact, a lot of the posters ITT need to look up some Schopenhauer.

>>3536909
Well, from what I read by McLuhan he seemed a little goofy, but not that goofy. What you are describing sounds decidedly 'French', or more precisely what anglophone academia got out of Lyotard, Derrida, etc.

>we have to reject the notion that there is a bottom
>no essence

To me this whole 'lack of essence' thing you are describing sounds like you read lots of French theory and basically filtered McLuhan through that.

>>3536895
I don't understand what you are saying, or what the person you are replying to is saying.

>>3536923
those were just examples, you god damn autist.
of course there's not one single state of being "happy". it's incredibly fucking complex.

>>3536942
but it isnt complex
input from the world -> feels -> words

fucking crows and chimps have feels and complex social hierarchies.
dont kid yourself about being a unique and beautiful snowflake

>>3536932
Well i can see what you mean, while i have never read Lyotard or Derrida, and simply reject Derridas deconstructionism on the grounds that i heard Zizek say something critical about him ones, there are similarities in their way of thinking to the people i'm influenced by. My view of McLuhan is clearly influenced by Christian Metz, who analyzes cinema, and whos semiotics are clearly influenced by Lacans, both french. That said my point that McLuhan rejects the essence of any medium, actually derives from Bolter and Gruisin who takes McLuhans ideas to the extreme (basically saying that media are like pokemon wandering around and evolving by themselves). What is true in Bolter and Gruisin however is the idea that when McLuhan accepts us humans as media aswell, the logic of "the medium is the message, must be applied to this. McLuhan himself, originally in "Understanding media" stops his trail of thought when saying "if it is asked "what is the content of speech?" it is necessary to say "It is an actual process of thought, which is itself nonverbal" (it's like the first page of the first chapter). The point is then, for Bolter and Gruisin, that McLuhans logic demands a deeper look into this "process of thought", and then of course into the parts and into the parts and so forth.
> no essence

>>3536981
>simply reject Derridas deconstructionism on the grounds that i heard Zizek say something critical about him ones

n1, you sound worse than me, even

>The point is then, for Bolter and Gruisin, that McLuhans logic demands a deeper look into this "process of thought", and then of course into the parts and into the parts and so forth.

You see, the problem is that McLuhan does not do this, and he probably refrains from trying because we don't have the tools for actually saying a whole lot of meaningful stuff about the sublinguistic level of cognition. Of course you can use Lacan to make all kinds of wild claims about that, since he claims to have knowledge of how the unconscious works. For me Lacan is easily among the worst of French theorists. Not only is the claim that 'The unconscious works like a language' problematic both because it is not methodologically founded and most likely wrong, but because by 'language', Lacan means something like the Saussurean conception of language (with certain modifications, but I'm not sure that adding Kojévean Hegel to the mix really 'clears up' things), to which we can firmly state that not even real language works like that.

>>3537015
You are precisely correct that the reason for not doing it is lack of knowledge. But as you know, when it comes to speculating on whether or not he would if he could, i find the argument that he would, most compelling.
On another note i am sorry that i mentioned Lacan now, it is of course easy to think that i would do something as horrific as to try and apply medium-theory to psychoanalysis. That would be radical, although at the same time sort of reactionary. My point with Lacan was only as an influence on on Christian Metz, whose theoretical work is far from reevaluating mediumtheory and is more about analyzing individual media.

>>3537015

>>3537039
That said i should also mention that when i then state that "the medium is the message" as a concept cannot lent any room for essentialism, that is an absolute undisputed truth inherent to the very logic of the concept even if McLuhan himself did not follow through with the idea (since doing so would be a sisyphonian task requiring an all-knowing man).

>>3537039

I don't know what Bolter and Gruisin say about 'meaning as a medium', but I'm still pretty sure that we know almost nothing about the relationship of meaning and language, certainly not enough to maintain that meaning itself works like a medium. Even saying that the relation of meaning being contained in language is structurally similar to how speech is contained in writing or in film (or any other containment relation of media, you don't have to agree to these examples) seems to be problematic in that it is not like we can notice a parallel between the two processes (since we know practically nothing about the first), it is basically just one more claim about how meaning works. Without any argument for why this should be accurate or useful I fail to see the point (apart from the fact that we have established that this is indeed what Bolter and Gruisin say, not what McLuhan actually says...).

Well good sir, I believe simply because you can exist that you do exist. I have my own laws, though I am sure some are already in place to the same effect.
Weeks' Laws of Basic Infinite Time.
1)If it can happen it will happen.
2)If anything can hinder it from not happening, it is not classified as "can happen"
3)If it can't happen it never will.
4)If anything can enable it to possible, it is not classified as "can't happen"

>>3537054
You missed the point. I'm not saying that we have the tools to go that far, or ever will be able to. I'm simply saying that McLuhans logic calls for it, whether he wills it or not.

>>3537048
a)
>"the medium is the message" as a concept cannot lent any room for essentialism
b)
>absolute undisputed truth inherent to the very logic of the concept
c)
>a sisyphonian task requiring an all-knowing man

So... it is a universal truth that is simultaneously impossible to actually think through for anyone who is not God? I think you are the one who is sissy-phony here...

>>3537070
LOL
i just wanted some attention.
The point is that yes McLuhan did not start deconstructing the human psyche. But his logic of "the medium is the message" still finds it necessary.
>and yes actually beginning such a deconstruction on the terms of said logic, would be an infinite task.

>>3537070
Welcome to thinking.

>>3537063
And by laws I mean theories

>>3537083
>But his logic of "the medium is the message" still finds it necessary.

But that's wrong. This almost neurotic drive to continue digging deeper is only justified if you already assume that the analysis of media can be applied to meaning. This is the assumption that you (or BnG) are adding to McLuhan, unless you can show me where he suggests that this is the case. Otherwise meaning is the 'final message'.

>>3537098
I like how you conclude that it is wrong, having not yet added or brought any knowledge of McLuhan to the board other than what can be derived from my knowledge.
I have already answered this question.
When you think in terms of "The medium is the message" then meaning in a film for example derives from it's parts (photography, music, recording etc.) and the meaning that we can derive from these media are inherent in the media they contain. Is it so hard to accept that this logic in itself necessarily results in infinite deconstruction? The question you should be asking instead is whether McLuhan when digging deeper would enter the realm of semiotics or seek out the natural sciences for answers.
> meaning is a product of relations between media.

>>3536465
My point about faith isn't about existence or non-existence, it's more an answer to the previous concern (albeit not particularly well-articulated) about "that doesn't explain why 'I' am that baby" or something to that effect, which I understood as a concern over individual value or purpose, which have to be taken on faith more than anything. I firmly believe in my own existence because it seems unreasonable, unhelpful and unnecessary to think otherwise.

>>3537118
>Is it so hard to accept that this logic in itself necessarily results in infinite deconstruction?

Yes, because this logic applies only to media. You have yet to provide an argument - from McLuhan or from anywhere else for that matter - that suggests that meaning can be analyzed as a medium itself. Until you do that, the applicability of the analysis of media containing each other to meaning is not a logical necessity but a category mistake.

>>3537165
It is becoming clear to me how little you really know of McLuhan. The reason you don't understand is that in the tradition of medium-theory that McLuhan builds on, everything is a medium. I should of course have been quicker to realize that the uninitiated don't know this, but to medium-theory there is nothing that isn't a medium. Examples like film and photography are only classical examples, they do not mean that medium-theory pertains to a specific set of objects, or is primarily physical. To McLuhan a paper-route is as much a medium as a telephone or money, or a discourse.

>>3537196
If that is true, that makes McLuhan dumber than I had hitherto thought. Also this is not 'infinite deconstruction' because McLuhan does not employ deconstruction.

>>3537204
I didn't mean deconstruction in the sense of Derrida, but simply that the act of constantly finding forms in the form.
He is kinda weird to read, often with wild associations and small examples applied as truths.
I hereby conclude todays lecture on McLuhan.

>>3536086
Oh man, Kierkegaard is about to fuck you sideways.

So did anyone provide a satisfactory answer to OP's question?

>implying it isn't just a clever ruse

>>3535939
what's the point of not assuming you exist

>>3537359
>what's the point of not assuming you exist

because he misunderstands eastern philosophy

>>3537336
>implying there is a satisfactory answer to anything in philosophy

>>3537597
>>3537336
Aporia is best philosophy.

>>3536858
because /lit/ cares way more about philosophy than literature.

guys, what if we created a space of negative mass, this would attract dark energy and make it a self sustaining chain reaction, creating a new potential source of work and energy.

>>3538388
Would work. Get on it, science man; I want to live forever.

>>3535936
>peaceful 14 billion year slumber
>implying your slumber wasn't so tramatic that your brain simply repressed all of it
>implying an existential crisis isn't a realization that nothing you do here will be able to stop you or make your nonslumber time worthwhile before you return to your chaotic, tumultuous sleep

>>3538820
I don't. I've read Tithonus, I know not to wish for that.

>>3538869
>implying technologically-granted immortality would not also impart eternal youth