/lit/ - Literature

>tfw instead of badasses like this dude and Junger and Captain Jack "Sparrow" Churchill we got pussies like Hemingway and Remarque who either didn't fight or who were serving under countries too cowardly to enter the war until it was already over

>>4318591
Being a hypocrite just means you have a change of acting relative to the course the greater good is going. It is not a flaw, it is the tool of the living; Consistency is for the dead. If the dead (or their ideas) start roaming, shit is a brew!
Insanity, just like sanity, are tools to keep certain information locked away. Insanity is only flawed because sanity is, something 'perfectionists' fail to see.

[Not native English/American, my defence for if I spewed shit]

>>4318638
>It is not a flaw, it is the tool of the living; Consistency is for the dead.
That is why living is insanity.

>>4318665
Aye, I wasn't opposing; Merely amending the disregard of the use of insanity for these questions.
Insanity in my opinion is seeking for (a) answer(s) to a false question, not for trivial questions. Trivial things revel, and form, in context. A false question lacks context and (more important) an answer; Sane humans ask them to control/guide the insane.

Now the question is, are you insane or not?

>>4318942
But there is no such thing as a sane human that is doing something, because a sane human would perceive the pointlessness of any action.

I am very much insane, since I am doing things. But there have been times when I was saner.

>>4319031
>But there is no such thing as a sane human that is doing something, because a sane human would perceive the pointlessness of any action.
It may seem like that, hence my amendment, but how did you form it, out of context or did some sane human (including yourself, if you deemed yourself sane) tell you this?

>I am very much insane, since I am doing things. But there have been times when I was saner.
This answer is just a divergence from the flaw of the question and more so from the question behind it: Why do you ask yourself if you are insane or not?

>>4319116
>It may seem like that, hence my amendment, but how did you form it, out of context or did some sane human (including yourself, if you deemed yourself sane) tell you this?
I came to that conclusion myself in times when I deemed myself saner than I am now, but now I am ridden with emotions.

>Why do you ask yourself if you are insane or not?
I don't ask myself. I am very sure that I am insane, even if I have been saner. But all humans are insane, and cannot be completely sane. However, they can be "saner".

>>4319134
Captain, the metadata exchange seems to have encountered an error. Diagnosis: Alien vessel seems to enter emotion into the equation, while it has no purpose here.

Emotions are compasses that give us a sense of time and space, sane humans just use them sanely.

>>4319182
Having emotions is to be insane, since they only blurr the mind - the sanity.

>>4319194
> Having emotions is to be insane, since they only blurr the mind - the sanity.
The blurring is just an effect that emotions have when not used sanely. The cause and effect are reversed.

>>4319224
I disagree. Emotions have no place in the truth. They blur the truth and create the illusion, that there is no pointlessness. And that is insane. Sanity is the ability to see truth, and to perceive the pointlessness.

To all the autists ITT:

Biological life did not evolve to align with the dictates of rationality. Rationality is a tool that we frequently use, but it does not and should not subsume all our actions.

Read some Adorno, or Camus if thats more your speed.

Insanity is deviation from the normal, healthy and sane. If something is sanctioned by the majority, no matter how stupid, it would be sane and insane to do the opposite in defiance of most other people.

Also just because you will die, doesn't make your actions pointless, your syllogism fails on the first line

>>4319242
Maybe if you would only want to see the truth, I for one have the will to experience and/or create the truth.

>>4319249
And since we never (or rarely) act fully rational, we are insane. Rationality is sanity.

Could never get into Adorno. Never tried Camus. Where start?

>>4319258
>Insanity is deviation from the normal, healthy and sane.
Insanity is deviation from the rational.

>If something is sanctioned by the majority, no matter how stupid, it would be sane and insane to do the opposite in defiance of most other people.
Now we are talking about functionality, which is a completely different subject.

>Also just because you will die, doesn't make your actions pointless, your syllogism fails on the first line
Pointlessness is not dependent on transience. It is pointless in itself. The act itself is pointless.

>>4319300
What would you consider not pointless?

>>4319332
Something transcendental.

>>4319336
Like?

>>4319345
Something that has any meaning in itself. Something a god told me to do.

>>4319300
Try 'The Stranger'

>>4319357
Are you implying sane people are like a god?
That does make sense, I never trust someone who wants to cut me.

>>4319453
No, I am saying that only a god - or anything transcendental - could make actions not pointless. But since there is nothing transcendental, actions are pointless. A sane mind perceives that. An insane mind is blurred and does not see the pointlessness - or does not care about it.

Basically: sanity is nihilism.

>>4319463
Nihilism? That's just what sane people want you to believe.

>or anything transcendental
And where does the belief come from that an act of a human can not be transcendental? And/or why is there nothing transcendental?

>>4319498
Well, do you see any hint that there might be something transcendental?

>>4319502
Will

>>4319507
Will? No, will is just a mechanism of chemical reactions.

>>4319510
>will is just a mechanism of chemical reactions.
>a mechanism of chemical reactions
>mechanism
not transcendental?

>>4319515
No? Why would a mechanism mean that it is transcendental?

>>4319521
Hmm, humans call it will, the forces of nature, laws of the universe and whatnot. You call it a mechanism, a working I presume.
What is there not transcendental about a working mechanism?

>>4319528
I don't see anything transcendental about a system of chemical reactions just because it happens to be self-sustaining.

>>4319547
I'm trying to figure out how you see transcendental things. There isn't one according to you, but you are the one insane right?
(yeah I know, too cheap a shot to fall for :p)
With a mechanism I meant the way things always work (a contemporary concept of such a thing in godlike form is the speed of light[I think]).

*Trying to condense it, re-framing it*: If just only one thing is transcendental, doesn't that at least leave (plenty IMHO) possibilities of other things gaining temporarily (or absolute, I can't check things back and forth through time) transcendences? Or doesn't it count as transcendence when it's made up out of some temporarily transcendental things?

>>4319242
>the truth
well someone sure hasn't made it to 2013 yet

all truth is constructed subjectively
grow up
drop your bullshit logocentrism and your emotions are for the weak bullshit

>>4318633

>men are most valuable and brave when blindly following orders in a collective and pointless killing spree.

Go shoot people are something. What are you doing on 4chan

>>4319589
It is kinda hard to word transcendental. But I don't think anything materialist can be transcendental. I think for something to be transcendental it needs to be divine.

>>4319687
Yeah, that wording was kinda awkward. What I meant was: emotions blurr your view. They make you see less clear. They influence what your senses pick up. If people had less emotions - or none - and wouldn't be insane, I think that truth wouldn't be all that subjective.

'Pulled off' his own fingers? Bloody hell.

>>4320618

I don't know that transcendental is necessarily synonymous with the noumenal or immaterial. Many 'transcendentalists', for example, subscribed to a panentheist perspective, wherein the transcendental and material are one.

I'm sure it makes you feel all grown up and cynical to talk like that

Stupid pseudo-intellectual ignorant kids. Your wikipedia and /lit/ education in "philosophy" is showing.

I'm sure it makes you feel all grown up and cynical to talk like that

>>4318591
This isn't true, by any means.

Sanity, for this example, is going to purely operate off of mathematical logic. Simply because everything else is inconsistent.

Now listen, in math many things have no reason to work, but easily do. In calc, a lot of things that normally don't work in the mind of logic, work easily.

For example, the derivative of the function "sine" is "cosine". Think about that, the function that describes the slope of every tangent line at all points, is its corresponding function.

And the area under its curve, is also the corresponding function.

None of those really have a reason to work, but can be mathematically proven.

Things like fractals, these mathematical works of art, are like nothing ever observed. But they can be proven, and are incredibly chaotic when observed from a laymen.

You, wrongfully, take into consideration that because things have no reason to exist, mathematically should cease. So therefor things that don't cease, are abstract of mathematical reasoning.

But what you fail to realize is that what makes our personalities is only a list of chemical reactions that are recorded as "right" and "wrong".

We have no reason to be sentient, as every other creature in the world still has not. But we are, if that reason is an object of defection, is a different subject.

>>4320628
Is panentheism so much different from pantheism? Because pantheism to me always kinda felt like a cop out, and in pantheism it really wouldn't matter if there is anythign transcendental or not.

>>4320756
What exactly are you trying to tell me here?

>You, wrongfully, take into consideration that because things have no reason to exist, mathematically should cease.
That's not at all what I mean when saying emotions are insane. Sanity sure has its place. I just say that sanity, rationality is blurred by emotions.