/lit/ - Literature

>>4297475
I want for things to get better, but we're all responsible fro making that happen, just a little bit in our own circles. I wish I could do more.
I live a happy enough life and I want to afford this to others

>>4297475
I stopped caring about the great picture since it presupposes a non-existent perspective.

I find utopias boring to read and so do a lot of people (if that's what you're asking.) For example; the Inferno section of the Divine Comedy is infinitely more popular than the Paradise section

>>4297529
People he doesn't like being tortured was utopian to Dante.

>>4297546
Exactly, he's enjoying their suffering

>>4297475
Positive stuff, like comedy and romance, is great, but tragedy and drama will always be interesting because people can be heroes, and look like gods, through overcoming trouble.

>>4297475
In literature and cinema stories I only enjoy tragic or VERY tragic shit. I suppose it's because the catharsis and that stuff. The sublime is more appealing to me than the beautiful.
About the world, well I'm ok with it. Life would be too boring if everything was going well. Life is suffering in its essence. Once you accept it, suffering stops being such a big deal.

>>4297592
>About the world, well I'm ok with it. Life would be too boring if everything was going well. Life is suffering in its essence. Once you accept it, suffering stops being such a big deal.
>average first world armchair stoic

>>4297627
>armchair stoic
I'm not an stoic.
And suffering will be there, accept it of not. Of course it sucks when shit happens to you. But that's what life is all about, bad stuff happening.

>>4297627
Thank you, I think I'm actually going to start using the term "First World Stoicism."

>>4297650
I meant that "shit happens" is an easy attitude when you're comfortably in the first world posting on 4chan.

>>4297650
>But that's what life is all about, bad stuff happening
>posted by young male of most privileged part of the world in the most affluent period of human history

I bet you've even heard about someone dying before

>>4297653
>the pizza guy is late, stay calm marcus, stay calm, he was destined to be late

>>4297654
Yeah because nothing bad happens to people living in the first world.

>>4297654
>>4297655
What's wrong with you, retards? I'm talking about what's the essence of life. Of course I don't like the fact that capitalism has brought most of the world to starving. But that is exactly what proves my point. Life is suffering in its very essence, if you can't accept it you'll have to kill yourself or live a pathetic life in self-deception.

>>4297658
>comparing an accidental crashing your 30.000 dollar car because you were texting on your iphone to widespread destitute poverty and lack of access to basic nutrition, healthcare and education

woe is me!

It will become immensely more positive once nigger counter culture is removed from the US.

Remove the stains and see how pretty we really are.

>>4297661
That's the funny thing, your experience of that 'essence' (keque supreme) is quite more bearable than that of the majority of the world.

>>4297592
>Life is suffering in its essence.
Appeal to nature. Yes, once upon a time humans did suffer because it was the way of nature. But that's not what's happening today.

>>4297663
>comparing
This is where you fail. Btw I'm pretty sure losing a loved one is one of the worst things to happen, even people living in the third world would agree.

>>4297669
You can't experience essences, retard.

>>4297670
>But that's not what's happening today.
Of course that happens today.

>>4297675
nah, going through life in desperation, and having to bring up kids in a world where they are going to be without perspective or hope is worse.

Not everyone suffers equally, faggot. Get it into your thick head.

Fiction is usually a story. Story is derived from obstacles and conflict. Its hard to make that positive unless its Mighty ducks 3

>>4297679
>You can't experience essences, retard.
That's because there are none, funny buttons.

ITT: We check our privileges.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

>>4297681
>Not everyone suffers equally, faggot.
>Hurr implying.
I never said everyone suffers equally, did I?
When I talk about how the world is, it's not like I'm trying to talk about myself. Stop projecting.
Your kids can die here in the first world too, and I'm pretty sure anybody living in the first world will agree that's what they would dislike the most. Bringing up kids in fucked up situations isn't as bad as contemplating their death without you being able to do anything about it, this is why the third world population still have kids even when they certainly know they will be poor like themselves.

>>4297685
Except you're wrong.
SHOCKING NEWS: there are definitions of the word 'essence' which don't imply the existence of a platonic ideal world.

>>4297694
>http://www.globalrichlist.com/

>>4297701
Name one by which calling suffering the essence of life isn't arbitrary at best, sunny suttons.

>>4297694

Top 20.26%.

Well shit.

>>4297715
Where are you from?

>>4297694
>top quarter for sitting on my arse all day

>>4297724

Brazil.

>>4297694
>In 1 hour you make $156.25
>You’re in the top 0.03% richest people in the world by income.

>That makes you the 1,799,266th richest person on earth by income.

Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

>>4297729
You're the lawyer guy right?

Check your petit-bourgeois first world level privilege, please.

The world is less "horrible," less violent, and more caring than ever. Read some Steven Pinker instead of being a baseless alarmist.

>>4297698
Think about the implications of that statement, idiot: Your argument, namely that 'humans need to suffer, therefor it is okay for people in Asia to suffer', doesn't cover the topics of justice or equality. Is it okay for them to suffer more than others, for no reason other than them being born into the wrong circumstances?

>>4297661
>capitalism has brought most of the world to starving

>this is what gommunists really believe

>>4297694
Still not rich and powerful enough, there's still millions of people wealthier than me

>>4297694
>14.87%
Pro tip: If you're a student who has a shitty job to survive and lives with roommates but still hasn't totally emancipated from his parents, calculating your wealth by income is pretty useless.

>>4297735

I wish. No, broke college student here.

>>4297744
Given that scarcity at the moment is only a problem of distribution, yes.

>>4297712
Arbitrary? Suffering is the main motivation for life to avoid death. It's the logical starting point for all possible kinds of life known.

>>4297740
>things are better than they used to be so you should stop trying to make it better

>>4297749
it said include your student loans as part of your 'income.'

>>4297753
>Suffering is the main motivation for life to avoid death
Dead things arguably suffer less than living ones, boo boo.

>>4297694
>http://www.globalrichlist.com/
>top .13%
>live in a 500 sqft studio apartment I split with my gf
>living paycheck to paycheck
Goes to show you can always find a way to feel poor even if you make megabucks

>>4297694
>yfw it won't allow less than 1000 income

check your privilege

>>4297743
>Your argument, namely that 'humans need to
Ok, you're obviously retarded.
Description =/= prescription. I don't talk about humans need. I talk about facts. It happens.
>suffer, therefor it is okay for people in Asia to suffer'
Again, your implications pulled directly from your ass.

Just learn to understand what you read without making up whatever you want from it, seriously.

>>4297753
anon... I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not making sense. Might want to overthink that statement.

>>4297752

"Capitalism has brought most of the world to starving" implies that capitalism actually increased starvation or that it somehow wasn't a thing before the industrial revolution.

>>4297749
I calculate my income by the welfare and other state money on which I depend.

>>4297757
In student loans you should include money given to you by your parents.

>>4297763
That's because you have a decadent lifestyle probably.

>>4297760
Dead things don't die, retard. Dying is pretty painful even if suffering stop forever after that. Try to stop eating or breathing, it's pretty painful.

>>4297769
Why do living things fulfill their basic needs? Because it doesn't feel any good when you don't fulfill them. Actually, it's pretty painful.

>>4297764
So this site is specifically designed to make people think that compared to everyone else they aren't that poor, and it won't allow any result other than that?

>>4297782
How do you justify the actions of organisms that lack the capacity to suffer then?

Check mate, reductionists.

>>4297768
You're >>4297592, right?

>>4297764
Doesn't count if you live with your mum, m8.

>>4297783
835 EUR is the lowest it will go via income in euros

>>4297787
They still evade what it's lethal to them. Suffering isn't just pain in the sense of what we feel thanks to our nervous system, it's aversion. And species¡ behavior make us think they feel aversion to death.

>>4297790
Yes.

>>4297782
Computers compute neither because they want to, nor because not doing so would make them suffer. They compute because it is what they are designed to.

>people care what happens to starving Africans

>>4297805
You design computers. Life designs itself. Life designs itself to feel aversion to death. Computers don't design themselves and have no aversion to anything. You design computers to behave how you want them to. Life designs itself to behave in the way it wants to. Life tries to evade death. Why? Maybe because Life means aversion to death. What is that feeling of aversion called? It's called suffering.

>>4297807
Only when they can use it to get angry at other people and tell them their problems are just first world problems and imply they don't deserve to have a good life.

>>4297804
On one hand you say that you don't believe that humans need to suffer. On the other you say that there is suffering in the world, and we need to accept it, because 'it just happens, and life would be boring without it'. Sooo... why is it that we need to accept that the world is the way it is, if it doesn't need to be the way it is?

>>4297820
Having a good life and whining incessantly about really minor set-backs and trivialities are two different things.

I live in a very affluent society, and there is literally no end to the idiotic whining about really dumb shit, a lot like pic related.

"First world problems" or "white people problems" isn't supposed to shame you into living in a hut. It's supposed to shame you into shutting the fuck up and enjoying the good life you have.

>>4297832
People worrying about things, being annoyed at inconvenience, becoming depressed, etc. is chemical, not a mental issue with some magic frame of reference defined by the median of 7 billion human beings.

>>4297825
>On one hand you say that you don't believe that humans need to suffer.
That's because we never started talking about what I think humans need. That wasn't the point of the thread at all. And I already stated I dislike capitalism with all the implications of it.
>On the other you say that there is suffering in the world,
You should be pretty retarded not to see this yourself
>and we need to accept it
There's 3 options:

Dealing with it.
Not dealing with it, delude yourself instead.
Kill yourself.

I prefer to choose the less pathetic one, since I'm not a fagot.

>because 'it just happens, and life would be boring without it'.
Yes. Suffering is the most essential characteristic of life. Being happy all the time would be pretty pointless for me. I like putting effort into doing stuff and overcoming difficulties. If there's nothing to achieve, there is just peace and boredom, so I'm ok with life not being perfect in the way some people wish.
>Sooo... why is it that we need to accept that the world is the way it is, if it doesn't need to be the way it is?
Because accepting reality is one thing, and not being able to get what's the difference between 'is' and 'ought' is something very different. You can close you eyes, the world will still be there.

You seem to assume that me talking about how life is essentially suffering means I like how we humans have built this pathetic globalized and consumerist civilization and that I try to justify capitalism. This assumption is what made me call you a 'retard', since I think people who fail that hard at logic are retarded.

>>4297844
No offense, but you're dumb as fuck.

>>4297832
You are right. But the idea of first world problems and this kind of shit is used mostly to shame other people, not to make them live in a hut, just to make them feel bad. This happens SPECIALLY in this board.

>>4297850
>since I'm not a fagot.
Don't get me wrong, I literally meant I'm not the guy on this pic.

>>4297854
Strong counterpoint

>>4297850
Welp. I thought you were talking about accepting that the world is the way it is, and how there's no point trying to go against it. There wouldn't even have been an argument, if I had realized that what you meant by 'accepting reality' all this time was just 'not closing your eyes to the truth'.

My bad I guess.

>>4297773
Monoculture and cash crops increase the risk of starvation, yes.

>>4297778
You seem just a tad to lively for me to take you on your word how dying feels, m8.

>>4297798
Yes, that's anthropomorphism. They don't have a concept of death to fear. We're on some Jaden level here.

>>4297894
Oh, well. It's ok then. I didn't want to sound like a conformist. This system sure generates a lot of unnecessary suffering, and I don't like it. Life itself will always have its tragic part, but this is why we shouldn't add extra suffering to the suffering that already is there.

>>4297922
I saw my grandpa dying. By the look on his eyes it didn't look very fun.
>>4297927
>anthropomorphism
P sure we aren't the only species who can feel suffering. I didn't talk about fear nor concepts. Aversion doesn't need a concept, it's just something you can observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnlULOjUhSQ
Look at this. Doesn't look like that bacteria is just randomly floating there. Looks like it feels some kind of aversion towards that neutrophil. We aren't talking about fear or concepts, we're talking about aversion (and the feeling of aversion is called suffering).

>>4297946
>I saw my grandpa dying. By the look on his eyes it didn't look very fun.
I did as well, he seemed cool with it. Nice anecdote.

>P sure we aren't the only species who can feel suffering. I didn't talk about fear nor concepts. Aversion doesn't need a concept, it's just something you can observe.
You can't have aversion to a hypothetical situation without having a concept of it. You have never seen a fish swim away from death because death is a concept, not an object.

>Look at this. Doesn't look like that bacteria is just randomly floating there. Looks like it feels some kind of aversion towards that neutrophil. We aren't talking about fear or concepts, we're talking about aversion (and the feeling of aversion is called suffering).
So because bacteria move away from certain things, the essence of life is suffering?

oh you all philosophers

expressing radical thoughts, trying to win arguments against other people, believing they're smarter than anyone else, and still living their lives like any other average shit, slowly heading for death.

you're all stupid unless you actually do something that will change your lives, stop discussing, ffs

>>4297475
100 years of solitude is strangely positive to me.

>How do you feel about all the terrible stuff, horror and shit going on in the world?

>>4297592 >About the world, well I'm ok with it.
>>4297928 >This system sure generates a lot of unnecessary suffering, and I don't like it.

>>4297946
If an example of a bacteria experiencing aversion proves life is suffering, would an example of bacteria experiencing attraction prove life is hopeful and joyous?

>>4297957
nice philosophy you got there faggot

>>4297957
>implying you have any idea how we live our lives

Nice projection of mediocrity, frater.

>>4297993
>tfw black holes are fucking euphoric

>>4298010
>tfw literally all mass in the universe is attracted to other mass
>tfw the dark energy phenomenon will tear them all apart anyway

We all die alone ;_;

>>4297951

>I did as well, he seemed cool with it. Nice anecdote.
Not an anecdote. Most causes of death aren't exactly pleasant. The only ones that are somehow pleasant are the ones that get you unconscious before dying.
>You can't have aversion to a hypothetical situation without having a concept of it.
You can have aversion to stuff just because it makes you feel something unpleasant. There's no need for concepts
>You have never seen a fish swim away from death because death is a concept, not an object.
Huurrrr.. no fuck. I really thought all fish were aware of the brevity of their own existence. You just ruined my day, after discovering fish aren't philosophers I feel like my life has lost its purpose.
How many times do you think a sardine needs to be eaten by a dolphin before realizing he's not going to be friendly? Fish don't like dangerous things. They don't know if a dolphin is a mammal or not, they feel the urge to get the fuck out when something resembling a dolphin is detected. What causes that urge isn't pleasure nor a concept precisely, more like extreme irrational fear.
>So because bacteria move away from certain things, the essence of life is suffering?
They feel aversion to those certain things. And those things just happen to be the ones that kill them.
What makes living things feel aversion to stuff that harms them is commonly called suffering. We aren't talking about slight aversion, we're talking about extreme aversion. That is, suffering.

>>4298057
>>tfw literally all mass in the universe is attracted to other mass
a-am not

>>4298060
>What makes living thinf feel aversion to stuff that harms them is commonly called suffering. We aren't talking about slight aversion, we're talking about extreme aversion. That is, suffering

You do realize that proving suffering exists does not prove suffering is "the essence of life," right?

Microorganisms also experience attraction, and they also experience apathy.

>>4297971
Can you understand the difference between irremediable suffering involving all living beings and some humans being assholes because they're greedy fucks? I'm ok with the suffering inherent to life and me dealing with it. What I don't like is the unnecessary, I repeat: UNNECESSARY suffering cause by humans for no other reason than greed. You can't change the nature of life as it is, and it's ok, it couldn't be any other way. On the other hand, people being greedy assholes and causing suffering to other humans is something I don't really like. They could not do it, but they choose to. Can you understand it now? Did I dumb it down enough? I can make you a drawing in MS Paint if this is still too difficult for you.

>>4298060
>Not an anecdote. Most causes of death aren't exactly pleasant. The only ones that are somehow pleasant are the ones that get you unconscious before dying.
Causes of death are not death.
>You can have aversion to stuff just because it makes you feel something unpleasant. There's no need for concepts
Death itself is conceptual, numby noggin. It's not a thing. You can't point at it. You can't capture it with your poké ball.
>Huurrrr.. no fuck. I really thought all fish were aware of the brevity of their own existence. You just ruined my day, after discovering fish aren't philosophers I feel like my life has lost its purpose.
How many times do you think a sardine needs to be eaten by a dolphin before realizing he's not going to be friendly? Fish don't like dangerous things. They don't know if a dolphin is a mammal or not, they feel the urge to get the fuck out when something resembling a dolphin is detected. What causes that urge isn't pleasure nor a concept precisely, more like extreme irrational fear.
Dolphins aren't death though. They're dolphins. And the very fact that the aversion is irrational means it has nothing to do with death.

>They feel aversion to those certain things. And those things just happen to be the ones that kill them.
What makes living things feel aversion to stuff that harms them is commonly called suffering. We aren't talking about slight aversion, we're talking about extreme aversion. That is, suffering.
Let's say I agree that the organisms capable of suffering tend to evade suffering. That still doesn't in any way mean that suffering is the essence of life. There is no actual link here. Common tendency does not a conceptual essence of everything make.

>>4298080
Nice next-gen dubs

>>4297993
One bacteria vs the behavior all living species known until now need for life going on during millions of years instead of disappearing instantly? No it wouldn't be prove enough.

>>4298060
>Not an anecdote. Most causes of death aren't exactly pleasant. The only ones that are somehow pleasant are the ones that get you unconscious before dying.
Causes of death are not death.
>You can have aversion to stuff just because it makes you feel something unpleasant. There's no need for concepts
Death itself is conceptual, numby noggin. It's not a thing. You can't point at it. You can't capture it with your poké ball.
>Huurrrr.. no fuck. I really thought all fish were aware of the brevity of their own existence. You just ruined my day, after discovering fish aren't philosophers I feel like my life has lost its purpose.
>How many times do you think a sardine needs to be eaten by a dolphin before realizing he's not going to be friendly? Fish don't like dangerous things. They don't know if a dolphin is a mammal or not, they feel the urge to get the fuck out when something resembling a dolphin is detected. What causes that urge isn't pleasure nor a concept precisely, more like extreme irrational fear.
Dolphins aren't death though. They're dolphins. And the very fact that the aversion is irrational means it has nothing to do with death.

>They feel aversion to those certain things. And those things just happen to be the ones that kill them.
>What makes living things feel aversion to stuff that harms them is commonly called suffering. We aren't talking about slight aversion, we're talking about extreme aversion. That is, suffering.
Let's say I agree that the organisms capable of suffering tend to evade suffering. That still doesn't in any way mean that suffering is the essence of life. There is no actual link here. Common tendency does not a conceptual essence of everything make.

>>4298078
>Microorganisms also experience attraction, and they also experience apathy.
Yes, but this isn't as essential as suffering. Ignoring suffering means you die right now. reproducing can only be done when you've ignored dangerous stuff long enough.

>>4298090
>Yes, but this isn't as essential as suffering.
Top kek, completely arbitrary judgement.

> Ignoring suffering means you die right now. reproducing can only be done when you've ignored dangerous stuff long enough.
>teleological evolution

You're in over your head.

>>4298084
>>4298088
>Causes of death are not death.
Maybe this is why I've been making a difference between dying and death from the beginning.
>Death itself is conceptual, numby noggin. It's not a thing. You can't point at it. You can't capture it with your poké ball.
No need to. There's life. There's living beings. When they stop living we call them dead.
>Dolphins aren't death though. They're dolphins. And the very fact that the aversion is irrational means it has nothing to do with death.
Dolphins are the cause of death. It has everything to do with death. This is why sardines evolved to fear dolphins, because the ones who didn't died faster. We're not talking about sardines understanding what a dolphin is, we're talking about species evolving to suffer when death is close to them. That suffering and the extreme aversion it causes is what keeps them alive until they can reproduce.
>Common tendency does not a conceptual essence of everything make.
There is a logic nucleus, a basic way which all life follows: evading death. Escaping dangers: evading death. Nutrition: evading death. Reproduction: evading death at species level. What motivates the living beings to evade death? A very unpleasant feeling towards what causes it. That's the most basic, the essentials of life.

>>4298108
>Top kek, completely arbitrary judgement.
Not arbitrary. Evading a cause of death means dying immediately. How's that not more essential?
>>4298108
I never said it was teleological. It just happened this way because when happened differently those living beings died at that very moment.

>>4298125
You recklessly assume survival has some sort of inherent value, which it hasn't. There's nothing 'essential' about evading death. Essential to what?

Your idea of 'essence of life' is nothing more than one of the tendencies that can be observed among a wide range of living organisms. It's pick and choose reductionism.

>>4297475
Hell if I wanted to hear about positive stuff I wouldn't be on 4chan

>>4298135
>You recklessly assume survival has some sort of inherent value
Quote where I assume it, please. I talk about facts, not values.
>which it hasn't.
How do you know?
>There's nothing 'essential' about evading death. Essential to what?
To survival, maybe? You can't survive without evading death. You can't continua living when you die.

>>4298171
>ignoring suffering means you die right now

True.

Ignoring attraction means you never reproduce.

Thus attraction is essential to human life.

>>4298171
Yes, it's essential to not die to survive. These tautologies aren't profound.

Let's bring some structure in it. Your basic claims:

>living things avoid suffering
>therefore the essence of life is suffering

Now try to connect these in a few clear sentences that aren't nonsensical.

>>4298204
Evading death is more basic: you can only continue living once you evade death. Then you can reproduce, but if you don't, you continue living. Then you can choose to reproduce or not... until you definitely fail to evade death. Then you die, and it all finishes.
If you don't evade death the first time you die and it all finishes at that very moment.

>>4298211
There's a motivation to live, the first motivation: suffering. Suffering that makes you cry for your mom to feed you. Or suffering to make other living beings to find food for themselves. If this first suffering is ignored, game over.

>>4298234
Also, to develop the reproduction subject: what do you feel when you have unsatisfied needs? Is it pleasant? No, it isn't. It can get very unpleasant, to the point where some people get depressed and end up killing themselves.
Unsatisfied needs imply suffering. The more basic, the more unpleasant it is to keep them unsatisfied.

>>4298234
Except simple life forms don't suffer yet manage to survive. I know you want to equate any behaviour that benefits survival with the evasion of suffering, but that's as nonsensical as calling all attraction pleasure seeking, including that of magnets.

>>4298245
Life is more than humanity. Your whole theory rests on misguided anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism.

>>4298253
>Except simple life forms don't suffer
The feeling of extreme aversion implies suffering. Even if there isn't pain in the sense our nervous system feels it.

>>4298258
>Antropo
No. The only possible critique to my perspective is
>simple life forms don't suffer yet manage to survive
But suffering doesn't equate pain. I'm not talking a bout physical pain, I talk about extreme aversion.

>>4298261
>>4298266
Simple lifeforms don't feel aversion because they don't feel. So yes, antropo. You're projecting processes unto organisms of which they aren't capable. Extreme aversion requires some form of nervous system, if not a brain. You need to be able to detect things as well. Many life forms aren't capable of this.

>>4298286
>antropo
So dogs don't feel aversion? Duh.
That youtube link with the bacteria evading the neutrophil is a good example of what aversion means. They don't feel in the sense of your feelings getting hurt because of something, but it's pretty obvious that even the most simple bacteria make representations which implies some kind of input, there's information from the outside and there's a reaction. The most basic representations a living being can makes are like it/don't like it, and by the behavior of that bacteria we can say it doesn't like it.

>>4298309
Which has nothing to do with 'suffering being the essence of life', which is a ridiculous statement.

And your use of "like it" is also anthropomorphism. Why can't you just observe a tendency to move away without having to humanize it and give it a cute smiley face and make it talk?

>>4298573
>Which has nothing to do with 'suffering being the essence of life'
The essence of life is a negative impulse, extreme aversion, something very unpleasant which causes a mandatory response, that is: suffering.
>which is a ridiculous statement.
If you say so.
>And your use of "like it" is also anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism? But liking and disliking things isn't a human characteristic. All animals have preferences, that's obvious. You are the only one assuming the tendency to prefer one stimulus to the other must imply complex concepts.
>Why can't you just observe a tendency to move away without having to humanize it and give it a cute smiley face and make it talk?
Maybe I can. Maybe you are the one who cannot that the tendency to move away has a cause, and that's not just living beings randomly moving away, it's living beings moving away from particular things which luckily for them happen to be the things that kill them.
If you can accept that living beings make representations out of external impulses, and that those impulses generate a response, why can't you understand that the most basic impulses are one positive and the other negative, and that the negative one is more basic since it implies avoiding an imminent cause of death?

>>4298737
Not all live is mobile, so your theory fails.

>>4298845
>Not all live is mobile
http://www.climatechangematters.net.au/LOTS/Bio/sub/chara/chara.htm#1
There it is explained in a way I think you can understand.

My theory wasn't based on movement, it was based on reaction to negative impulses. That "move away from" wasn't the point, it was just an example of all the multiple reactions all living beings have towards something lethal to them.

>>4298915
Life still doesn't have a neatly reduced essence by which everything can be explained, baby girl.

>>4298972
No it sure has nothing to do with reverting entropy and that surely, and that surely has nothing to do with the mechanism of life being based on stimulus making it evade the return to inert matter.

>>4298972
No it sure has nothing to do with reverting entropy and that surely, and that surely has nothing to do with the mechanism of life being based on stimulus making it evade the return to inert matter.