/lit/ - Literature

A man gets hit by a car, on the way to the ER he had succumbed to eternal bleeding.

They say he still bleeds to this day.

Just wait a few years, kid. When you turn 13, you will have grown out of angsty pseudo-philosophy.

give your life meaning or kill yourself so you're no longer a giant waste of resources.

you might learn something

>>5188549
This.
>>5188539
>>5188545
You guys need to grow up and manage your defenses better.

Many still will have to go into the void. Many will be lost before man becomes god himself.
For even as living pyres ye will be bridges to the Overman.
Though shalt do it for the race, and though shalt do it happily.
For truly, the greatest joy of the bridge is to see the other shore.

Nothing matters. Convincing to read books doesn't matter. Hell convincing you to read books if things mattered, wouldn't mattered.

Enjoy the ride, cunt.

So what convinced you OP. Was it the atomists? "The world is billions of years old and it's all just atoms anyway so who cares." This isn't philosophy as much as it is bleak poetry.

"Don't listen to poets."
- Plato.

if stars are real and there are more of them than atoms in the universe, how come space is dark?

shake m8ate

if that's true than obviously reading books won't make any difference

>>5188706
The universe has a relative event horizon, faggot. From any point of view, a single sphere around 15bn ly radius. Beyond that, light cant reach us. Thats, now I'm feeling like a sad lonely asspie for srsly answering your question.

>>5188529
>I just realised that existence is without meaning, and life is nothing but a short walk to the nullifying void.
son, it's your bed-time in 4 minutes. go brush your teeth and get off a site that is for 18+

Wouldn't the meaningful existence be the ultimate existential nightmare?
>your life has a meaning
>therefore you are and everything you do are absolutely pre-determined variables, you are nothing but a mechanical puppet of God, and there is nothing to do about it. And if you think about suicide right now, it's because the Universe wants you to.

>>5188736
Hey. Go fuck yourself, cunt.

I legitimately want to know if there are other reasons to life other than to just fulfil hedonistic pleasures.

>>5188748
nigga you decide what the fuck life is for you vapid chucklefuck

>>5188757
>calling others vapid
>while basically living YOLO life

>>5188748
and this is the place you thought to look?

>>5188748
Go to bed. Now.

>>5188757
Despite the fact that you just reiterated the most basic-bitch defense against existentialism, the way you phrased it has resonated within me.

For me, I guess life IS just about fulfilling basic pleasures. Biologically speaking, of course.
If I were to look beyond that, I guess I'd say life is about fixing things that are broken, solving problems, creating novelty, and helping others do their thing.

Thank you, dicklicker.

>>5188788
You can go fuck yourself too

life is about adventure, chill out and read something fun like the hobbit

>>5188529
Smoke weed all day every day.

Yeah life is pointless and in the long run no human life matters any more than the life of an ant or the millions of bacteria you killed the last time you washed your hands.

But you really aren't allowed to talk about it, because it makes people uncomfortable. There is no real argument against it so people just lash out at you and call you an angsty kid.

You can and probably should make up your own meanings, if only to function better in society.

>>5188829
>Create your own universe and story in your head
>put it on paper
>sell it to millions
>life is awesome with money
>be remembered forever along with the universe you created
>others add upon that universe years after you are ash
Meaning.

>>5188843
>entire human species arise and dissappear
>entire human history and scientific achievement meant nothing but a short blip on cosmic scale, the universe continues it's comfy glide into the absolute enthropy

>>5188796
Son, I will count to three. If you are not in bed, with your spiderman light off, by the time I get to three, no cartoons for a week.

>>5188862
>Don't actually have any talent's that other humans think are useful or cool
>fuck it in a million billion years from now those people won't be cool anymore
>I'll just sit here on 4chan and tell people there life has no meaning like mine because I choose it has no meaning

>>5188854
Every now and then you see something really stupid but oh boy, nothing prepared me for this.

>>5188862
>implying we won't learn to create our own universe and escape into it when this one burns itself out
>implying we aren't the pinnacle of all life, destined to live literally forever

I feel important so I must be.

>>5188886
Poe's law.

>>5188529
>Convince me how reading books makes any difference

>difference
>differance

CHIPS E'EY DAY

So what?

There are things you care about. There are probably things you enjoy.

As long as those things remain true, your life has some degree of purpose. Masturbating to your own angst might feel good, but it's not honest. You don't live your life according to "logic", so the realization that there is no objective meaning to anything shouldn't affect how you live.

>>5188748
Legit question OP.

The answer to this question is going to be determined by metaphysics and to a lesser extent cosmology.

Cosmology: how do you think the world is made? What is its structure and its substance?

Metaphysics: well what do you mean by "hedonistic pleasure" and "point" (I.e. meaning, goal, telos)

I accused you earlier of being influenced by poets and I think that criticism stands. You've probably had your mind infected with metaphysical materialism without it ever being explained to you.

My advice is to calm down and read Plato. Once you realize that the Universe is made up not of "matter" but of forms and essences which imply telos (meaning, purpose) you will be alright.

First though, instead of getting yourself worked up over bad poetry sit back and have a think about what "matter" is and what "pleasure" is. I bet you have an ugly, poetic view of matter as little atoms dizzying around and an ugly, poetic view of pleasure as neurons in the brain. You need to get past these poetic images and cut to the heart of things. What is matter? What is pleasure?

I never got this, even if life is meaningless in the end it says nothing about what you actually do with the time you are alive, and shouldnt that be the focus?.

>>5188956
cont.

side note
It's amusing how Physicists have no idea what they are talking about and are complete sophists. Ask them what gravity or energy is and they have no idea. They might give you a mathematical formula and then you ask, "no, I want to know what it is, not how to measure it." For gravity they might say it is a "force", and then you deride them first because this idea of "force" is really magical/occultic and Leibniz himself laughed at Newton's gravitational "forces" acting at a distance as black magic, and then you deride them with the fact that since Einstein gravity is curvature in space time, not force. They have no idea how muddy their thinking is, how much it relies on metaphors and pictures.

>>5188985
What lol. If the meaning of life is to get laid then that does tell you what you ought to be doing in life. If life is meaningless then anything and everything you do is vain and absurd, and the life of a cretin is equal to the life of a saint.

>>5189014
>Jude !SX.Jipgvhc

>>5188985
The question of the meaning of life itself is stupid.

It reminds me of people saying "everyone is equal". It's not specific enough to have any real value.

To ask the question "what is the meaning of life?" assumes "life" itself has to have meaning. Living has to have a meaning separate from what you desire. It's silly.

It's like asking "who created the reality?" The question itself assumes a lot and isn't precise enough to have a meaningful answer.

>>5189014
In other words. Metaphysics precedes ethics. Ethics is about what we ought to do, metaphysics covers what we are: but before we know what we ought to do we need to know what we are, because our purpose/telos is just one part of our essence/being. If you know what a human being is you know what its purpose is. Unfortunately what a human being is is a very deep question that goes straight to the heart of things, about the Universe. That scientists have obscured what a human being is by popularizing their macabre poetry of the human being as a biological robot.

>>5189034
You are one of the dumbest tripfags on this board.

>>5188996
>>5188956
Well, not OP, but I think the world is made... well, I have no idea how its made. Its structure is one of recursiveness, and its substance would be anything that exists. I wish I could make more sense than that, but that's all I've got. By hedonistic pleasure, I mean things that I enjoy doing, by which I mean things that give my meatshell a good feeling by way of seretonin and endorphines and dopamine. By point, I mean endgoal. Telos always confused me, for once one attains an endgoal, there's no more reason to exist. But if an endgoal is unattainable, then why bother existing? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Only works if there are lots of little goals.

>>5189038
And what do you have to contribute on the matter?

>>5189014
Why would it be vain and absurd?What do you base that valuation on?

>>5189038
I know at least 3 tripfags dumber than him.

I found your portrait, OP.

>>5188529
As Douglas Adams wrote: The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.
The reason this is funny is because it's completely unexpected and signifies absolutely nothing.
"42 WHAT?" you might ask, and that's the point.
And by that I mean that I believe he meant (other than for comedic effect, of course) that life is without meaning unless you give it one.
We go back to the question "42 what?", which is an open ended question. It could be "42 apples", "42 countries", or even "42 times I masturbated into his cup of coffee and he didn't even notice!".
YOU decide what that 42 is. YOU decide what to do with your life, what the point of it is.

At least, that's what I got from Douglas Adams.
If you're interested and somehow never heard of this, go read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. It's a sci-fi comedy which is absolutely hilarious.

Are the insults implying he is under age mocking OP's idea because it is wrong or because it is obvious?

>>5189066
>>5189066
>By hedonistic pleasure, I mean things that I enjoy doing, by which I mean things that give my meatshell a good feeling by way of seretonin and endorphines and dopamine.

Well this cannot be an accurate definition of pleasure. I will give you an example why. If you had a wife and she was cheating on you without you knowing, would you rather remain blissfully ignorant or be informed about the truth. Or, would you rather go through life not knowing that you are adopted or would you rather known the truth about your origins? Well in both cases men would choose the truth or the more dopamine-favoured blissful ignorance, so clearly men consider truth to be a pleasure and ignorance to be a pain, more so than dopamine or lack of.
Is that what you mean by hedonistic pleasure and non hedonistic? Hedonistic I'd related to chemical brain functions whereas non hedonistic pleasures might relate to truth, or honour, or achievement, or virtue? Well, in order to determine which is the better kind of pleasure we need to know what kind of being a human being is. I know how the ancients would have handled this, they would have said, "hedonistic pleasure belongs to brute beasts, whereas man is distinguished in that he alone can be said to contemplate truth and aspire to honour and virtue. So clearly the human being is made to seek the latter above the former."

>>5189076
If life has no meaning then all of our efforts are totally vain, because whether we build great cities or roll around in shit imitating pigs we have accomplished nothing as none of these accomplishments had any meaning, none of them were accomplishments at all. In order to determine what is good in life, what is worth doing and what is worth avoiding, life must have some meaning. When we know life's mesning/purpose we will know good and evil, because good will be whatever leads us to the fulfilment of our purpose, and evil whatever impedes us. But if there is no meaning or purpose then nothing is good or evil.

>>5188529
Maybe already said, but here it is anyway.

>Convince me how reading books makes any difference
It's a life extender to read. A faux experience but an enriching one (depending on what you choose to read) it is an amazing way to communicate with those from the past.

Life is too short, but I wouldn't trade it for immortality.

It doesn't make a difference. But if you enjoy it, at least try to have fun doing the things you like until you die.

>>5189157
For example
Many say that murder is evil, but this only makes sense if the purpose of life contains a mandate to avoid ending other human life. If life has no meaning then murder is indifferent, neither good nor evil, because after all, what is the evil in killing an object that has no purpose? If you take a good car and wreck its tyres, you can say that is an evil act because you've rendered the object unable to fulfilling its purpose, as the purpose of a car is transportation for which it needs working tyres. Same goes for a house, whose purpose is to provide shelter, when it I'd burned down. That can be said to be evil. But if a human being had no purpose then what is the difference of its being dead or alive, and if you have no purpose then it's indifferent if you kill because it's not as though you've moved yourself closer or further away from a purpose/goal.

The very fact that we say that cars and houses have a purpose implies that we think life has a purpose, because cars have a purpose in transporting us and houses have a purpose in sheltering us, which implies that we must have a purpose for it makes little sense to transport or shelters object without purpose. If life is meaningless then of course so are all these objects which serve life in some way or other.

The ancients had a pretty view. They said that the purpose of the sun was to give men light. They pretty much said that the whole Universe wad structured around man, that he was the king of creation and the measure of all things. That might strike you as egotistical, but think what a shame it is for an ancient who has to live up to his purpose of king of creation to fail in virtue, compared to a modern who thinks that the sun and everything else in the world is pitilessly indifferent - he had nothing to live up to.

your realization is meaningless
life isn't a timeline that you exist and travel within (short walk towards), that's just an idea that you experience and have control over
in your mind you have this idea of yourself existing within a linear timeline, like an x on a trail map saying "you are here" with the destination being void that the "x" travels towards, but you aren't the "x" because the map isn't the territory you are the one willing the map to be experienced because it's an idea in your mind your existence consists of your experience and that doesn't extent beyond the changing present 420blaseit faggot

>>5189157

>If life has no meaning then all of our efforts are totally vain

no

if you paint a beautiful portrait, this may or may not be "leading to the fulfillment of life's purpose", but if its not, you're still left with a beautiful portrait to look at and share

things have their own REAL value, the real effects of these achievements are all that is necessary to be motivated to do them, they do not need to combine into some overarching system of the purpose of life

this might seem like a weird question but what do you other anons usually identify with as "yourself?" sometimes I'm very aware of the flesh material that I'm surrounded with, sometimes I feel like a face darting through the world, sometimes I'm caught up in thinking, but sometimes I feel emptiness and the only way to reorient myself is to consciously build up an identity via thought, but it's always very fleeting. is it normal to suffer these kind of lapses, am I suffering depersonalization or can anyone else relate?

>>5189227
>your realization is meaningless
to be clearer if existence is without meaning then your realization that existence has no meaning is itself part of this meaningless existence it's not like your realization somehow steps out of the meaninglessness in order to be significant, because your realization exists, and is therefore without meaning and significance why it give it any weight?

>>5189233
>if you paint a beautiful portrait, this may or may not be "leading to the fulfillment of life's purpose"

On the contrary, if you have painted a beautiful painting then you definitely HAVE moved closer to fulfilling life's purpose, because beauty implies purpose, and if a thing is without purpose then it is necessarily without purpose. You see, a beautiful object is just one that fulfils its purpose. If life has no purpose then it has no beauty either.
You romantic aesthete "art for rat's sake" types who think beauty is separate from truth and goodness are muddleheaded. The ancients were right: truth, beauty, goodness, are all one.

>>5189236
It's a side effect of 4chan.

>>5189246
>If a thing is without purpose it is necessarily without purpose
necessarily without beauty

>>5188996
And yet you sit there and shitpost on computer that was engineered by those disgusting sophists and not Plato's metaphysical dogshit

>>5189246
I expand:

In order for a painting to be beautiful it must fulfil its purpose: what is the purpose of a painting? Perhaps to represent some persons scene, idea, thought or emotion well, perhaps to stimulate something particular in the observer, whatever.
Let's get down to the crucial part. How do you know when painting a painting that you are fulfilling life's purpose? Well that of course depends upon what life's purpose is. If life's purpose, for example, is to be part of a well ordered and just State then the State might require a beautiful painting as a decoration for some important wall. Now, if you are a citizen in this state and your purpose is to be a good citizen, then by painting the painting you are fulfilling your purpose by lending to the order of the State.
Now, let's contrast this. Say a romantic artist paints the most beautiful painting the world has ever seen, but in his romantic ardour he burns the painting saying: "no, this painting is too beautiful for mortal eyes that will only depreciate its beauty, I burn it in commemoration to the muse!"" This romantic poet has a very bizarre view of life. He doesn't belong to a State, he exists only to admire "beauty". This reminds me of a poem by Pessoa where he depicts two chess players playing their chess game to its end totally oblivious to the fact that the city around them is being invaded and sacked, the point being that the beautiful game of chess transcends petty matters like the overthrowing of cities. I also heard a story of Archimedes who when his town and house was invaded and the soldiers came upon him, he said "don't disturb my circles!" Caring more about his circles than his own life or the life of his neighbour. This is the romantic view which attaches transcendental value to some personal object which defies the natural order of things. In my opinion this is a sick worldview that makes a jest of life, and as such that painting, that game of chess, and those circles, can never be truly beautiful, or rather the agents behind them cannot.

>>5189284
Well computers crash all the time whereas Plato's Forms are still everlastingly perfect.

>>5189225
I think you're confusing functional meaning and spiritual one. Obviously the car has it's assigned meaning to serve as a transport just like a gene has it's meaning as a replicating protein. But those are inherent 'meaninings', or functions, of the material things, like atoms, molecules etc. They're just as fundamental as forces of gravity and electromagnetism. The problem is, whoever, is that sort of 'meaning' is utterly pointless when applied to phenomenon of life. Murder is 'evil' because billions of years of evolution (another fundamental and unthinking element of nature) rendered murderous species as less capable of surviving than those that band together. My point is that none of that really matters for 70-100 years old process of self-aware decision making called human life, which in itself serves no purpose other than supporting aforementioned fundamental forces.

>>5189236
I've felt that way too.

>>5189236
>>5189350
I used to feel that. Then they gave me benztropines.

Now I can't feel that way anymore. Be grateful that you've still got it.

>>5189350
>>5189236
Because you're a simpleton.

>>5188529

The universe is what it is, it doesn't matter what you think it is.

10,000 years ago, you could have Einstein level intelligence and you'd still work like a horse growing shitty proto-wheat and picking seeds out of your own shit to make necklaces.

We don't know shit you ass-hat. You think ohhhhh I'm so smart, I can read and write, I know about science and what the stars are ohhhhwhwhwhw I bet I can philosophize about the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE and also be COMPLETELY CORRECT.

Fuck you. You're a finite little intellect. You'll never know what your purpose is or isn't. You'll just go from theory to theory, haphazardly oscillating between elation, beauty and absorption in knowledge and experience, and then trying to drown your mysterious and perennial misery in television, vodka and french fries.

Or maybe you won't. Maybe you'll accept that no matter how much you try to learn, you'll always have a gaping hole in what you know about the world, that you'll never penetrate the slightest depth of all this aggregated mystery.

Maybe you'll do it anyways just to fill your days and feed your mind, keeping it fueled on literature, philosophy, art and all the rest of it.

Maybe you'll find that, all along, you were never depressed or neurotic or miserable. You were just a stupid monkey with nothing better to do than stare at image boards, masturbate and indulge their own despair.

>>5188747
That isn't meaning, it's determinism

>>5188529
The universe doesn't care about you, but why should you care about the universe?

As far as you're concerned you're the center of the world. Now that you know that there are no objectively wrong answers, you can do whatever the hell you want

>>5189411
Do you have something you want to tell us? Do you need a hug?
I'm not even patronizing you right now, are you alright man?

So far I'm getting "knowledge does not equate to meaning" from you.

Keep the mind occupied gives meaning.
To be engaged in a task fitting one's aptitude provides meaningful existence.

>>5188529
you missed
>more stars than atoms
>more things which are made up of uncountably vast numbers of atoms outnumbering atoms

>>5188706
>more stars than atoms in the universe
how?

>>5189542
For some reason I really hate these comics

>>5191020
This one is okay. Made me think of transhumanism and the idea of tsmitsoum.

>>5189639

>>5188529
>life is nothing but a short walk
Well, wouldn't you like to enjoy the walk?

>>5191020
Better than XKCD.

>>5191127
if the walk is not enjoyable should you walk?

>>5191127
>>5191514

As a differently abled person, this ablist metaphor is really triggering me. Please check your privilege.

Humans are essentially alone in the world, yet we long to be connected to others. People want to have meaning in one another's lives, but ultimately we come to realize that they cannot depend on others for validation, and with that realization we finally acknowledge and understand that they are fundamentally alone. The result of this revelation is anxiety in the knowledge that our validation must come from within and not from others.

But if we're inherently social creatures, what's wrong with getting all of our validation externally?

Proust on art:

“Perhaps it is not-being that is the true state, and all our dream of life is inexistent; but, if so, we feel that these phrases of music, these conceptions which exist in relation to our dream, must be nothing either. We shall perish, but we have as hostages these divine captives who will follow and share our fate. And death in their company is somehow less bitter, less inglorious, perhaps even less probable.”

>>5188669
Nigger the only constant is change itself. All things end. Man will never be immortal, but he can be his own god.

>>5188529
>/lit/, I just realised that existence is without meaning

"Oh, Sebastian. My sweet Sebastian. It seem you have your pantaloons askew over the most basic of ideas again. Here, my poor child, let me help untangle the problem for you.

You see, Sebastian, "meaning" is not a fundamental aspect of anything you are attempting to describe; it is not a Platonic form, it is not an Aristotelian essence, it is not inherent in the reality you wish to describe. "Meaning" is a mere linguistic device that our species has created to crowbar atop a semantic description of reality. It's a similar concept to the "morality" problem you were nobly wrestling with last week.

Your perception of reality is drastically altered by the Korzybskian 'map' you use to describe it. I know how much you adore bananas, Sebastian, so imagine you're eating one. If you take the banana and realize that "delicious" and "disgusting" are two tags vocalized by the eater rather than, "delicious", as it appears to you, being a part of the banana, then your conundrum becomes easier. "Meaning" in this sense is another linguistic tag that you are trying so desperately to apply to the notion of "Sebastian's 'life' ", and the fact that it doesn't fit, it can never fit, is a source of frustration to you.

I'm not saying you can't use the tag. It is sometimes useful WITHIN a particular framework. The same as "wrong" or "delicious". Just be aware that it can never be external to that semantic framework, and it is a man-made linguistic tag that can never be an inherent part of what you are describing. The idea of life having meaning and life having no meaning are equally incoherent.

Here, Sebastian, have a banana. "

>>5189189
>Life is too short, but I wouldn't trade it for immortality.

Why? Because you'll see everyone you love die and yadda yadda yadda?

>>5191806
Fro starters. Imagine, f I couldn't even kill myself, not only everyone I knew would perish, but everything. The sun goes nova, etc. Just me floating in cold darkness. What a hell.

>>5192503
You actually wrote that post even after the guy you're replying to preempted it with yadda yadda yadda?

Are you 12 years old?
Because that's the exact kind of shit I was spewing at that age to appear deep and insightful.

>>5192529
Even if he was, it still doesn't make immortality any less preferable to mortality.
>i'd like to live forever, am I profound yet?

>>5192629
>he
You're new here, eh?

I'm not saying immortality is great or that wanting it is profound. I'm saying the whole "loved ones will die and the Universe will end" argument is extremely played out.
Next this shitposting illiterate bitch will ask what the biggest number is (24) or maybe ask "omg guyz... what if you traveled back in time and killed your own grandfather??? Then you'd never be born etc. etc."

She just, generally, parses as an actual child trying and failing to pass for someone old and well-read enough to join the discussion.
Quite often she'll drop in with her ever-so-insightful opinion on books she's never read.

It tires me out. Especially since newbies like you see the name and subconsciously figure she's some manner of an authority since she's not just an anon like the rest of us.

The only thing more poisonous to the board is people responding to her bullshit, much like I'm doing now.

>>5192662
Holy fuck I was just asking a legitimate questions (in my eyes at least) and because I finish my sentence with three unfortunate words I trigger a shit storm of critique. God this board is really full of elitist pricks!

Anyway, to get back on the subject, I'd say living forever is a chance to acquire an infinite amount of knowledge, right? Who wouldn't want that? I mean, perhaps we'll discover one day where all that matter came from which created the boom (or whoever created the world in case you're religious).

I don't know about you but I, as an obvious layman, am dieing to know.

>>5192529
What's a "yadda yadda" mean. No, I don't think it a very profound statement, I think it an extended "yes" to his question.

>failing to pass for someone old and well-read enough to join the discussion.
Oh revoke my speaking privileges or something. (For all I know, you're the anon who claimed to not read a thing) ...So why haven't you filtered me yet, you hate me so much?

>>5192756
I wouldn't mind a really extended life though.

And yeah, some elitist pricks hang around here. I've grown immune to them by now.

>>5192775
i have filtered you actually but sometimes I get bored and take a peak at yours and feminister's posts anyway.

If you were wondering; I do read but I obviously haven't read everything. That means that when I see a thread about, for example, The Fault in Our Stars, I just minimise it. I haven't read the book and I don't plan to.

You, on the other hand, will gladly offer your opinion on Ulysses, and whether or not there's anything someone should read before trying to tackle it, despite the fact that you've obviously never read it yourself.

When you're right you're right but a lot of the time you just talking out your arse and you know it.

>>5192662
>I'm saying the whole "loved ones will die and the Universe will end" argument is extremely played out.
>"omg guyz... what if you traveled back in time and killed your own grandfather??? Then you'd never be born etc. etc."
Well maybe its played out for you, but you don't have to work yourself in a knot because now someone else wants to take a crack at it. God forbid, there's someone else in this universe with ideas besides yourself.

>She just, generally, parses as an actual child trying and failing to pass for someone old and well-read enough to join the discussion.
How are the youth supposed to ever learn without entering the discussion? Just listen to the conversation of the people "qualified" to have ideas?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with people approaching ideas from their own standpoint?

tl;dr: blow it out your ass you elitist cunt

>>5192756
>Who wouldn't want that?
Me. If you knew, literally, everything, life would become an automated function which spits out output x from input y.

>>5188529
Books, to some, are a form of escapism. To others, it's nice to find someone else who realizes the same ideas as you.
I get the feeling though, that this is the more educated -- or at least, more well written -- form of "everything is pointless, why do anything."

>>5188529
>wanting to be enslaved by universal meaning

>>5188529
There is no such thing as nothing. Nature is not about destruction, but transformation. You will always continue to exist, just in a different form

>>5192756
Knowledge, has literally, never brought me an ounce of happiness in my whole life. If I could revert to a previous form of intelligence I would do so. Probably back to when I paid attention to every adult I met, listened to teachers with baited breath, and would rush home to do my work for the next day. Life was good then.

Now, I am so conscious of everything I write that it has become cumbersome, save a certain anonymous image board.

>>5188529
>being pretentious by not just saying "meaningless"

>>5191694
>You see, Sebastian, "meaning" is not a fundamental aspect of anything you are attempting to describe; it is not a Platonic form, it is not an Aristotelian essence, it is not inherent in the reality you wish to describe.

Bullshit.

>>5193184
>He believes in platonic forms.

I guess you took the 'start with the greeks' advice and never progressed any further.

>>5189337
>I think you're confusing functional meaning and spiritual one.

There is no distinction for man because man is spirit.

>Obviously the car has it's assigned meaning to serve as a transport just like a gene has it's meaning as a replicating protein. But those are inherent 'meaninings', or functions, of the material things, like atoms, molecules etc.

So why can't man have an "assigned meaning" in the same way?

>Murder is 'evil' because billions of years of evolution (another fundamental and unthinking element of nature) rendered murderous species as less capable of surviving than those that band together.

I think there's a confusion of concepts here. Murder isn't evil because "billions of years of evolution" has made it so. Murder is evil because one exercises one's free will in a way that is contrary to the purpose of man's life. If man is a biological robot without free will then we can't really say that any of its actions are evil, any more than an animal's actions are evil. And if life has no purpose then murder is not evil, because killing something that has no purpose cannot be good or evil, because a thing without purpose is indifferent, its existence is indifferent, and so ending its existence can have no moral implication. In actuality I think nothing is indifferent, everything has its purpose, because everything is related to God who directs things towards its end by his intelligence.

>>5193184
No, he's right. Both 'meaning' and 'good' are not inherent tangible attributes of an empirical event, they are linguistic constructs created to describe them.

>>5193229
>Murder is evil because one exercises one's free will in a way that is contrary to the purpose of man's life
>everything has its purpose, because everything is related to God who directs things towards its end by his intelligence.

>>5193198
>I guess you took the 'start with the greeks' advice and never progressed any further.

Every philosopher after Socrates looks like a liar. Socrates seems like an honest guy. Everybody else is messing about with concepts I don't think they understand.
Socrates said he knew that he knew nothing. That's cool. See, Socrates was aware that man is finite and for him to know anything he must be assured of his knowledge by a divinity, it must be revealed to him from above.

>Philosophy has to grant that revelation is possible. But to grant that revelation is possible means to grant that philosophy is perhaps something infinitely unimportant. To grant that revelation is possible means to grant that the philosophic life is not necessarily, not evidently, the right life. Philosophy, the life devoted to the quest for evident knowledge available to man as man, would itself rest on an unevident, arbitrary, or blind decision. This would merely confirm the thesis of faith, that there is no possibility of consistency, of a consistent and thoroughly sincere life, without belief in revelation. The mere fact that philosophy and revelation cannot refute each other would constitute the refutation of philosophy by revelation.
- Leo Strauss

This is what I think philosophy is about: coming to know your ignorance. When you claim to actually HAVE wisdom then you are either proud and stupid or God has revealed something to you. Socrates + the prophets, these are the only thinkers you need :^)

>>5193258
I also like the theologians that base their thought on the prophets. Point is though, the theologians have their AXIOMS, their principles, from divine revelation. A "philosopher" who pulls his axioms out of his ass and constructs a system out of it is a pseudo-mystic thought fancier.

>>5193235
>they are linguistic constructs created to describe them.

You're saying that man creates good and evil through speaking? Sounds like wizardry to me, speaking magical words and changing reality.

>Jude !SX.Jipgvhc
thank you for using trip. Now I don't have to read your pseudo-philosophical bullshit and can just glance at your name.

>>5193274

is it wizardry when i ask the man at in-n-out for a double-double with fries and a double-double with fries is brought to me?

morality is a socio-linguistic phenomena, it has to do with expectations we place on each other, expressions of emotion.

it does not refer to some independent criteria by which all things are judged, because that is incoherent, who is the judge and why should we take their judgment? only persons are judges, a judgment always a person's judgment, nothing more

>>5188529
>>"I just realized..."

>2014
>trusting the signals filtered through your puny human nervous system

>>5193252
I don't know why people deny that telos is a part of reality.
If we say that the human arm has its telos in giving the human the use of tools, balance, defence, etc., then surely the human himself has a telos, because it would make little sense for a part of something to have a purpose if the whole is without purpose. Like, "the door's purpose is to give you access to the house? What is the purpose of the house? Oh, it has no purpose! Well then, what kind of purpose does the door have?" If man is meaningless/purposeless then so are his arms :^)

>>5193258
>>5193269
>>5193229
>the theologians have their AXIOMS, their principles, from divine revelation
Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just rolling out the tired old claiming-to-know-the-mind-of-my-personal-deity troll?

If you have to trip, at least be sincere and productive and don't create a persona based on a poor troll attempt. We already have too many tripfags who base themselves on a gimmick, and your one is pretty feeble. Please don't bother with the inevitable response saying you're honestly voicing your true opinion, your facade is virtually transparent. Just a word of advice before you invest to much time in your persona and regret wasting that time later.

>>5193283
you can filter his posts.

>>5193309
don't encourage him to drop the trip, then we can't filter him and well have to endure more of his bullshit.

>>5193283
np m8

I don't do any thinking I just rattle off from the top of my head.

>>5193287
>morality is a socio-linguistic phenomena, it has to do with expectations we place on each other, expressions of emotion.

So if it weren't for socio-linguists, rape and murder would be indifferent? What if we created a socio-linguists that endorsed rape and murder, would that make it good? Was the human sacrifice practiced by ancient pagans not evil because they had a socio-linguistics that approved of it?

>expressions of emotion.

So emotion is the God that judges what is good and evil?

I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying, "nothing is either good or evil, but thinking makes it so". "Life is a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Well if that's the case then I hope you have no objections when you are raped or killed; the only defence you would have is, "this makes me feel bad", you can never say, "this is wrong!" because the man would just reply, "not in my socio-linguistic construct!", then you would reply, "but we're in the West where a socio-linguists has been constructed which condemns rape/murder!", "aha! I do not consider myself part of the West. I am a Nietzschean Superman that has risen above herd morality, broken the old tablets and set myself my own law according to my own will", "oh noooooo!"

[13] For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. [14] For he created all things that they might be: and he made the nations of the earth for health: and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor kingdom of hell upon the earth. [15] For justice is perpetual and immortal.

[16] But the wicked with works and words have called it to them: and esteeming it a friend have fallen away, and have made a covenant with it: because they are worthy to be of the part thereof.

[1] For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: [2] For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, [3] Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: [4] And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. [5] For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

>>5193340
[6] Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. [7] Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. [8] Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. [9] Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. [10] Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged.

[11] But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. [12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men' s, and his ways are very different.

[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

21] These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. [22] And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. [23] For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. [24] But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: [25] And they follow him that are of his side.

>>5193343
[1] But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. [2] In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: [3] And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. [4] And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. [5] Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.

[6] As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. [7] The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds. [8] They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. [9] They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect. [10] But the wicked shall be punished according to their own devices: who have neglected the just, and have revolted from the Lord.

dunked :^)

This is why you edgy moral nihilists are wrong, why you have "reasoned with yourselves, but not right". Your view of the world leaves you absolutely defenceless. You are more or less saying, "there is only power, and he who is powerful decides what is good or evil" (a sophistry dealt with already by Plato), well, if that's the case, then the weak have no defence against the strong. If you are right and right/wrong are made up then you shouldn't be talking to me trying to convince me that you are right, you should be off on your Machiavellian reveries trying to plot how to get power over me and as many people as you can.

>>5193085
If you new everything that was going to happen, you could follow the path that provides the greatest amount of pleasure.
I'm assuming of course, that by knowing literally everything that one doesn't know of the personal experience of what its like, simply the things that would be happening.
By bringing in knowledge of the personal experiences, one has to tackle the problem of knowing hypotheticals, which creates a werid, infinite experience.

>>5188696
I think what convinced him was the fact it's summer, he has no friends to go out with, no willpower to do something productive, and he thinks life is pointless since all he does doesn't really fulfill him.

Basically 15, introverted and friendless, like half of this board.

>boohoo I need cosmic validation

lmao FAGGOT

>>5193340
>You're saying, "nothing is either good or evil, but thinking makes it so".
No, thinking doesn't make it so. Thinking allows you to say either "boo to murder" or "yeah to murder".

>Well if that's the case then I hope you have no objections when you are raped or killed
Why would I not object? I would say "Boo to raping or killing me."

You have to remember that a social ethics function on an accumulation inter-subjective views, not just one person saying "boo to murder". One individual or small groups of individuals might say "Yeah to murder". For example, a sect could break out who believe the Old Testament is the word of God and enforce "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." from Leviticus 20:10. In that case "yeah to murder" is being uttered in certain instances. The same for a solitary serial killer with his own justifiable reasons; but this goes against the collective inter-subjective view of "boo to murder(mostly)," so those individuals will be punished by the society.

"Yeah to murder" might be the collective view in an instance like capital punishment or when an opposing country, religion, group attacks another collective, and those murders will go unpunished.

>>5193309
>Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just rolling out the tired old claiming-to-know-the-mind-of-my-personal-deity troll?

You are dodging the argument completely and positioning yourself for some hot ad hominems.

Tell me, if men don't get their axioms / first principles from God, then where do they get them from? Are they completely arbitrary, and if so, how can we call wisdom that of which the foundation is pure whim?
I'm not sure what you people's (because you seem to be of similar mind) is. It's something like, "man is all matter/biology, and matter/biology has no concept of good or evil." You then deduce from this principle that "good and evil" are "constructs", or what have you. But how did you arrive at this principle that man is pure matter? Surely you did this through an exercise of your mind, so how did you mind decide that it was an "epiphenomena" arising from your matter/biology? Metaphysical materialism is totally arbitrary. That's what I realized eventually. The assumption that the Universe is made up solely of matter is just a position arrived at by sheer whimsy, by bias, prejudice.

>>5193340
You think that telling your rapist that "rape is morally wrong!" would foil his plans?

"Oh no! You've proven my actions to violate the universal standard of morality!"

>>5193411
>if men don't get their axioms / first principles from God, then where do they get them from? Are they completely arbitrary

Not that guy, but axioms are formed by bayesian modelling. Axioms aren't objectively correct, but the probability of them being correct is given a value of 99.99%+ within the framework that they are used in. They undergo investigation and scrutiny against all other elements the within framework. Mahayana Buddhism has two wonderful terms for clarity, 'ultimate truth' and 'convenient truth', with axioms and any virtually any statement following the verb 'to be' (as in 'this is a dog') being convenient truth.

>>5193407
Do you think if I convinced a man that he was a bird, that he would actually be a bird? So why do you think that if a man could be convinced that murder is good, that murder is good? You're preaching moral anarchism, you're undermining the basis of morality. If morality does not refer to an objective order of things but is just a set of subjective or "inter-subjective" constructs then it is more or less fantasy, delusion, a spook.

Good and evil can't be constructed out of thin air. Nothing is created by us. Even when a man "creates" a work of art he is still relying upon nature to derive his material. Therefore good and evil must refer to something that we find in nature.

> For example, a sect could break out who believe the Old Testament is the word of God and enforce "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." from Leviticus 20:10. In that case "yeah to murder" is being uttered in certain instances.

Well that wouldn't be murder, because murder by definition is unlawful killing, whereas according to the Mosaic law that would be lawful killing.

>>5193396
faggot detected

>>5193449
In a moral Universe where everything has its order and purpose, if you are murdered you lose nothing, because you have not done anything against your nature/purpose by being murdered, whereas the murderer loses something by acting against his own nature/purpose.

In an amoral Universe where all is chaos it's "every man for himself", life is but an illusion, reality is a creation of wizards speaking magical spells

>>5193411
It's impossible to disprove the existence of the human soul, or of a spiritual essence behind right and wrong, but no one has proven their existences either. Sure, these essences are possible, but I don't see any reason to base my life or my world-views around what's possible.

I mean as far as I'm aware anything is possible. For all I'm aware the hornets that I exterminate in my back yard have souls and human emotions, and I'm committing a horrible crime by hurting them. I choose not to entertain that thought because I have no evidence supporting it, and my belief in it would make my life more difficult.

>>5193548
>For all I'm aware the hornets that I exterminate in my back yard have souls and human emotions
The air you breath has a spirit. Every time you inhale you kill an air spirit.

>>5193467
>Not that guy, but axioms are formed by bayesian modelling. Axioms aren't objectively correct, but the probability of them being correct is given a value of 99.99%+ within the framework that they are used in.

Makes no sense whatsoever. A "framework" is self-justifying. The axioms are always 100% correct according to the system.

>>5193548
>It's impossible to disprove the existence of the human soul, or of a spiritual essence behind right and wrong, but no one has proven their existences either.

And has anyone proven the existence of matter?

>>5193411
Divine Command Theory
(1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.
(2) If we take option (a), then God’s commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.
(3) If we take option (b), then we will have acknowledged a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s will. We will have, in effect, given up the theological conception of right and wrong.
(4) Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological conception of right and wrong.
(5) From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God’s commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.
(6) Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s will must be accepted.

>>5193532
In the book Johnny Got His Gun, Joe goes out to fight in the war with the intention of protecting innocent women and children being hurt by the German war machine. Unfortunately for Joe, a German shell takes his arms legs eyes ears mouth and nose, leaving him as a slab of meat rotting in a hospital for the next 16 years of his life. In a moral universe, because he hasn't lost his moral high ground, did Joe actually win in this situation, because he preserved the sanctity of his soul, the only thing that truly matters?

>>5193584
>In a moral universe, because he hasn't lost his moral high ground, did Joe actually win in this situation, because he preserved the sanctity of his soul, the only thing that truly matters?

Yes

> But in order to make my argument plainer, let us first of all enquire what injustice is, and of what kind of things the material of it is wont to be composed; also what human virtue is, and what it is which ruins it; and further what it is which seems to ruin it but really does not. For instance (for I must complete my argument by means of examples) each thing is subject to one evil which ruins it; iron to rust, wool to moth, flocks of sheep to wolves. The virtue of wine is injured when it ferments and turns sour: of honey when it loses its natural sweetness, and is reduced to a bitter juice. Ears of grain are ruined by mildew and drought, and the fruit, and leaves, and branches of vines by the mischievous host of locusts, other trees by the caterpillar, and irrational creatures by diseases of various kinds: and not to lengthen the list by going through all possible examples, our own flesh is subject to fevers, and palsies, and a crowd of other maladies. As then each one of these things is liable to that which ruins its virtue, let us now consider what it is which injures the human race, and what it is which ruins the virtue of a human being. Most men think that there are various things which have this effect; for I must mention the erroneous opinions on the subject, and, after confuting them, proceed to exhibit that which really does ruin our virtue: and to demonstrate clearly that no one could inflict this injury or bring this ruin upon us unless we betrayed ourselves. The multitude then having erroneous opinions imagine that there are many different things which ruin our virtue: some say it is poverty, others bodily disease, others loss of property, others calumny, others death and they are perpetually bewailing and lamenting these things: and while they are commiserating the sufferers and shedding tears they excitedly exclaim to one another What a calamity has befallen such and such a man! He has been deprived of all his fortune at a blow. Of another again one will say: such and such a man has been attacked by severe sickness and is despaired of by the physicians in attendance. Some bewail and lament the inmates of the prison, some those who have been expelled from their country and transported to the land of exile, others those who have been deprived of their freedom, others those who have been seized and made captives by enemies, others those who have been drowned, or burnt, or buried by the fall of a house, but no one mourns those who are living in wickedness: on the contrary, which is worse than all, they often congratulate them, a practice which is the cause of all manner of evils.

>>5193576
You can take the epistemological argument as far as you want, so far as to say that you can't prove the existence of yourself. But this doesn't have any bearing on your actual life. As far as I'm concerned the things that I feel and see are real to me, and that's as real as anything can get.

>>5193584
No, Joe lost his soul to Satan. You can present "intention of protecting innocent women and children" but on the other side is "Kill people to protect women and children." Joe set out to Kill people, that was his intention, and his soul will forever belong to Satan unless he confesses to a priest before he dies, and then he can go to heaven.

>>5193599
>Come then (only, as I exhorted you at the outset, do not make a commotion), let me prove that none of the things which have been mentioned injure the man who lives soberly, nor can ruin his virtue. For tell me if a man has lost his all either at the hands of calumniators or of robbers, or has been stripped of his goods by knavish servants, what harm has the loss done to the virtue of the man?

But if it seems well let me rather indicate in the first place what is the virtue of a man, beginning by dealing with the subject in the case of existences of another kind so as to make it more intelligible and plain to the majority of readers.

3. What then is the virtue of a horse? Is it to have a bridle studded with gold and girths to match, and a band of silken threads to fasten the housing, and clothes wrought in various colours and gold tissue, and head gear studded with jewels, and locks of hair plaited with gold cord? Or is it to be swift and strong in its legs, and even in its paces, and to have hoofs suitable to a well bred horse, and courage fitted for long journies and warfare, and to be able to behave with calmness in the battle field, and if a rout takes place to save its rider? Is it not manifest that these are the things which constitute the virtue of the horse, not the others? Again, what should you say was the virtue of asses and mules? Is it not the power of carrying burdens with contentment, and accomplishing journies with ease, and having hoofs like rock? Shall we say that their outside trappings contribute anything to their own proper virtue? By no means.

>>5193610
And what kind of vine shall we admire? One which abounds in leaves and branches, or one which is laden with fruit? Or what kind of virtue do we predicate of an olive? Is it to have large boughs, and great luxuriance of leaves, or to exhibit an abundance of its proper fruit dispersed over all parts of the tree? Well, let us act in the same way in the case of human beings also: let us determine what is the virtue of man, and let us regard that alone as an injury, which is destructive to it. What then is the virtue of man? Not riches that you should fear poverty: nor health of body that you should dread sickness, nor the opinion of the public, that you should view an evil reputation with alarm, nor life simply for its own sake, that death should be terrible to you: nor liberty that you should avoid servitude: but carefulness in holding true doctrine, and rectitude in life. Of these things not even the devil himself will be able to rob a man, if he who possesses them guards them with the needful carefulness: and that most malicious and ferocious demon is aware of this. For this cause also he robbed Job of his substance, not to make him poor, but that he might force him into uttering some blasphemous speech; and he tortured his body, not to subject him to infirmity, but to upset the virtue of his soul. But nevertheless when he had set all his devices in motion, and turned him from a rich man into a poor one (that calamity which seems to us the most terrible of all), and had made him childless who was once surrounded by many children, and had scarified his whole body more cruelly than the executioners do in the public tribunals (for their nails do not lacerate the sides of those who fall into their hands so severely as the gnawing of the worms lacerated his body), and when he had fastened a bad reputation upon him (for Job's friends who were present with him said you have not received the chastisement which your sins deserve, and directed many words of accusation against him), and after he had not merely expelled him from city and home and transferred him to another city, but had actually made the dunghill serve as his home and city; after all this, he not only did him no damage but rendered him more glorious by the designs which he formed against him. And he not only failed to rob him of any of his possessions although he had robbed him of so many things, but he even increased the wealth of his virtue.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1902.htm

>>5193567
>Makes no sense whatsoever.
Because you fail to understand something doesn't mean it makes no sense.
>A "framework" is self-justifying.
Define what you think a framework is. I think this is where your confusion lays?
>The axioms are always 100% correct according to the system.
Yes, the axioms appear 100% correct WITHIN a particular system.

>>5193605
>But this doesn't have any bearing on your actual life.

The existence of matter and spirit has enormous bearing on my life.

>As far as I'm concerned the things that I feel and see are real to me, and that's as real as anything can get.

Fair enough, but then why would you object to a person who claims he has seen spirits or has experienced something of God?

>>5193623
>but then why would you object to a person who claims he has seen spirits or has experienced something of God?
Because the next words out of his mouth will be "God told me to make you drink you this suspicious tasting kool-aid"

>>5193619
>Define what you think a framework is.

A logical structure built upon definitions/axioms and expanded through deductive reasoning. The deductive reasoning is not totally arbitrary, but the selection of the first principles / axioms (seemingly) is. So my point is, how do people select their first principles / axioms?

>>5193606
nigger I JUST posted this, >>5193581, are you for real?

>>5193616
>>5193610
And you, I wanted to be on your side, but not if you're going to copy and paste straight walls of text from books. Engage in the fucking conversation by addressing points and writing retorts in your owns words.

>>5193623
>Fair enough, but then why would you object to a person who claims he has seen spirits or has experienced something of God?
Because those aren't public neutral objects.

>>5193581
>Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.

God is not distinct from right. God is right.

>>5193623
You're entitled to your opinion, if you've seen spirits or heard voices from God then you have no reason to accept the opinions from an anonymous user on the internet.

Since I've never seen spirits or communicated with God, I don't have any reason to base my life around him. Especially if accepting this belief would advocate a life in which I lose my face and limbs, both of which are things that I'm very much aware of.

I'd like to believe in a loving supernatural being watching over me, and I figure that if he exists, he'll figure out a way to convince me of his existence, and help me in my life. So far I haven't seen any signs, so I'm sticking with the assumption that he's only a concept. And no, an anonymous user posting the gospel doesn't count as a sign, he can do better than that

>>5193606
Well shit, imagine a world in which Joe put himself in the same danger by joining the red cross instead, would it have been worth it?

>>5193646
>Engage in the fucking conversation by addressing points and writing retorts in your owns words.

OK.

In this situation with Joe, no, Joe does not lose anything by becoming a "slab of meat" against his will. If it were the purpose of a man's life to walk, to talk, to run a business, to do anything that absolutely requires that you not be a slab of meat, then Joe would have lost something.

>>5193690
but if you are insisting that life has no meaning then Joe definitely loses nothing by becoming a slab of meat, because he has nothing to lose in the first place. If life has no meaning then there is no gain and no loss in life.

>>5193669
You have black hair and blue eyes.

>>5193692
Or, if you're an existentialist, and think that meaning is a concept created by people, then Joe definitely does lose something, because as far as Joe is concerned, his meaning in life was being with his fiance and living a happy life with her.

>>5193699
Brown eyes motherfucker, nice try

>>5188529
This is the problem with society.
They realize that life is pretty much meaningless on the grand scale of things, fail to realize that at our human level of interaction in society still holds significance that can be worth pursuing whether it be raising a family, travelling the world, killing people, whatever, and instead of embracing truth they run from it by finding God or some other absolute mind slavery and bend over and take it raw dog straight in their virgin asses.

>>5193669
>I figure that if he exists, he'll figure out a way to convince me of his existence, and help me in my life

A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood. A man comes by in a boat and says "get in, get in!" The religous man replies, " no I have faith in God, he will grant me a miracle."

Later the water is up to his waist and another boat comes by and the guy tells him to get in again. He responds that he has faith in god and god will give him a miracle. With the water at about chest high, another boat comes to rescue him, but he turns down the offer again cause "God will grant him a miracle."

With the water at chin high, a helicopter throws down a ladder and they tell him to get in, mumbling with the water in his mouth, he again turns down the request for help for the faith of God. He arrives at the gates of heaven with broken faith and says to Peter, I thought God would grand me a miracle and I have been let down." St. Peter responds, "I don't know what you're complaining about, he sent you three boats and a helicopter."

>>5193708
I'm enjoying my life, I don't need any help from a supernatural being yet. Maybe if something horrible happens to me and I get desperate enough I'll turn to god (although I don't know which one I'd turn to. A lot of my friends are Muslims and have been trying to convert me to Islam for a while now.)

>>5193692
>but if you are insisting that life has no meaning

See
>>5193235
>Both 'meaning' and 'good' are not inherent tangible attributes of an empirical event, they are linguistic constructs created to describe them.
>>5191694
>The idea of life having meaning and life having no meaning are equally incoherent.

>>5193708

>God only does magic during story-time
>the all powerful controller of the universe gets things done by letting things happen as they would have regardless

>>5193703
Ah, I knew I should've left it at black hair.

captcha: some sectThe

>>5193666
Alright, well fuck you then.
You realize you just took option (a), right? You didn't wriggle out of DTC at all.
By making Rightness synonymous with God itself, the very idea of either becomes arbitrary. Whatever is Right is God, and whatever is God is Right. The idea that Right things are good goes out the window, its just line-for-line equivalent to things that God is.

also, while we're shitposting,
>666

>>5193733
God is Good is Right is True is Beautiful.

See: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In other words, all the positive words in our language like that (good, true, just, right, etc…), at least according to language, are just attempts at trying to reach the mightiness of God, which is God. God is good because God is God.

Religion honestly isn't about philosophizing and quabbling about these things, it's about mystical experiences.

>>5193721
>A lot of my friends are Muslims and have been trying to convert me to Islam for a while now.
Good choice; especially if they are Hanafi's from the Sunni school. Sikhism is a beautiful religion too.

>>5193750
>at least according to language
*christian theology

>>5193581
>(1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.
False dichotomy. The will of God is incomprehensible to us.

>>5193733
Or, in another words, the argument that "If it's good because God wills it, than that means anything could be good!" is true, but it's not a good anti theistic argument. Kierkegaard says that when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham obeyed until an angel stopped him, morals were temporarily suspended and religion superseded it. Religion is above morals.

>>5193750
Yeah... that's nice and all, but I'm talking about morality and ethics here.

>>5193762
>False dichotomy. The will of God is incomprehensible to us.
Says who? If his will is incomprehensible should we just throw out all of our holy books and ignore him completely? Because the schizophrenic man who lives under my porch is incomprehensible, and thats basically what I do to him.
I really don't know what other attitude someone should take towards something that is by its very nature, utterly incomprehenisble.

>>5193791
It's a miracle! I presciently answered your post seconds before >>5193790

Repent, and be saved.

>>5193790
>Religion is above morals.
I feel like this is the big problem a lot of atheists have with religion. This way of thinking makes it easy for a man to justify anything.

>>5193802
Like I said, religion is about faith, not philosophizing, and faith is about action. But the paradox here is that you might have faith in the wrong thing or do something against God's wills while trying to please him. But then again, Kierkegaard (who argued this) was a Christian Universalist (he thought everyone would go to heaven). Yet another bizarre… bizarre...

>>5193581
>Divine Command Theory
I think a further (7) should be added to the DCT, to include methods of knowing what God believes to be right and wrong.

>>5193823
I like the way you think sir.
I just don't know how we'd go about doing it, as pointed out here (>>5193708, >>5193762, >>5193805, and here>>5193791) we can't truely know what God wants us to do.
Or perhaps, that IS our answer.

>>5193733
You're the one who created two options and are forcing everyone else to conform to them.
I don't think there is an issue here morally. Theology would say that God's Goodness proceeds from his very being. The fact that you call something Good is only in imitation of the ultimate Good, which is God.
You could say again "that's still arbitrary", but you're not making any sense. There is no objective meaning that is not based upon something, that is what makes it objective, it is an ontological source of Good.
A theist can rightly say to you, on what standard are you judging the actions of God, upon whom your very ability to think and act morally depends? It is a condition.

>>5193964
It is a contradiction*

>>5193964
>A theist can rightly say to you, on what standard are you judging the actions of God, upon whom your very ability to think and act morally depends? It is a contradiction.
I think I see what you're saying. There needs to be a baseline assumption from which to derive other things right?

>There is no objective meaning that is not based upon something, that is what makes it objective, it is an ontological source of Good.
I'd say that our sense of morality stems from our biology; our ability to experience suffering, our desire to alleviate suffering, and our sense of empathy coupled with the social structures we gravitate towards. Unless God directly or indirectly shared these characteristics or is present within them, our moral sense likely just came from our biology itself.

>>5194060But that biology can simply be a creation/expression of a creative energy, and so on. Ultimately I don't think it's a question reachable by empiricism since finding out about our biology doesn't bring us to the first cause of life and maybe never will, with the exception of time travel perhaps. Some people abandon their belief in God due to being persuaded by the theory of evolution, but it seems to me their conception of God was rather simplistic in that case, like God could only conceivably create us with swooshy magical effects or form us from dust. At the most I'd say our current understanding makes it difficult to see how a God consciously formed the human body in some "image" since there are hundreds of ways he could have improved us and made us less susceptible to various diseases/environmental dangers etc.
Of course, that is stilll only speaking from our perspective. Maybe we are the result of a huge cosmic experiment without conscious intent to create humans specifically, but our intellect formed and that Something contacted us (or didn't).

I think a theist perspective starts from the fact that we as beings consider certain things sacred and not reducible to matter, and this view doesn't seem to deminish with the increase of our knowledge but rather gets directed at different things (and the revival of religiousness in the west after the fall of marxist views is another thing).
Pure materialists hold that all human impulses are basically results of biological accidents and can be traced to our animal ancestors etc.
But the obvious flaw in this is that we have no basis to trust our own capacity of reasoning and conclude that we hold anything resembling "logic". After all, our perceptions could simply be a survival mechanism that allows us to perceive things to the extent that are useful to us, and not reflecting any actual objective truth. This is, perhaps, the second step to a theist worldview, as the very idea of rationality implies something transcedental, platonic.
I realize this is seen here as "you can't know nuthin" dribble but it's a logical conclusion of reducing us to biology. We are aware that so many of our actions are leftovers from the evolutionary process but we persist in the Enlightenment idea of Reason as our guiding principle, as something obvious by itself. It is just a different concept of the Logos.

>>5188761
>implying yolo life isn't the literary lifestyle of the 2010s

>>5194872
The Box Man is the literary lifestyle of now and forever.

>>5194614
why god?.

>>5191111

>Convince me how reading books makes any difference
Quite the contrary, in fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJemN7zGhF0

>>5188529
> /lit/, I just realised that existence
> is without meaning, and life
> is nothing but a short walk to
> the nullifying void.
> Convince me how reading books
> makes any differencegod is answer

>>5188549
Pretty much this OP

>>5188529
You could give your life meaning, it doesn´t have one BECAUSE you´re supposed to chose it.
By reading you increase your chances of finding a meaning to give to your life.

>>5196079
Gotta love Captain Kierkegaard.