/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11567890]

There is no way to prove anything we experience is real. The only provable thing is the fact that we are experiencing. Experience is a fundamental truth. Some experiences are good and others are bad.
The imperative is toward an overall good experience. That's the point of life and the only answer to the only thing we can be sure of.

"There is nothing in goodness above pleasure there is nothing in evil below pain" - Sefer Yetzirah(aka book of creation)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

[Anonymous No.11567905]

How do you define the good and the bad?

[Anonymous No.11567924]

>>11567890

[Anonymous No.11567934]

>>11567924

[Anonymous No.11567958]

>>11567890
Great. And what's the point of this thread?

[Anonymous No.11568013]

>>11567958
To figure out how to express the point to people other than myself and find others that agree.

Any disagreements with the OP?

>>11567905
How would you?

[Anonymous No.11568017]

>>11568013
I would ask you.

[Anonymous No.11568040]

can you experience the divine?

[Anonymous No.11568059]

>>11568017
My response would be a lot better if you answered it for yourself. You feel good and you feel bad. How would you define a good feeling?
Maybe on a fundamental level so as to figure out how to feel a hell of a lot more of it.

[Anonymous No.11568066]

>>11568013
I was curious what your definition was because it's central to the point you're trying to make.

[Anonymous No.11568082]

>>11567890
>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real
stopped reading there
this is pathetic
read a book

[Anonymous No.11568087]

>>11567890
The reason you don't see people saying this often on this board is because literally everyone has already done their thinking on this topic

[Anonymous No.11568168]

I agree

[Anonymous No.11568177]

>>11568066
This reply was for you sorry:
>>11568059

[Anonymous No.11568229]

>>11568168
Ok, I don't want to lose you by coming off like a sociopath so we'll skip the next point and talk about God!

I'd say God would be completely omnipotent (unlike the Abrahamic Gods). Everything that happens in the universe would be God's doing.

By this definition, it's obvious that God exists though I wouldn't consider it a conscious being. God is nature. Science is an attempt at discovering His laws, technology is how we use them to our benefit.
In doing so, we have greater affect on the world / universe. More things that happen are because of our will. We gain intelligence (the end result of which would be omnipotence). We encompass more of God, getting closer to becoming God.

That's the point of all life.

[Anonymous No.11568245]

>>11567890
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.

[Anonymous No.11568249]

>>11568229
>omnipotent (unlike the Abrahamic Gods)
wat

>I wouldn't consider it a conscious being
y?

>are because of our will
>Everything that happens in the universe would be God's doing.

>That's the point of all life.
y?

[Anonymous No.11568250]

>>11568229
>God is nature
Filthy pagan

[Anonymous No.11568269]

>>11567890
>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.
y?

>Some experiences are good and others are bad.
which?

>The imperative is toward an overall good experience
y?

>good experience. That's the point of life
>We encompass more of God, getting closer to becoming God. [...] That's the point of all life.

>the only answer to the only thing we can be sure of
how?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
meme

[Anonymous No.11568358]

>>11567890
If the only provable thing is the fact that we're experiencing, then how can i know the imperative is toward an overall good?

[Anonymous No.11568424]

>>11568249
Ancients seemed to love titles. God is referred to by different names in the bible and there is no reason to believe they're all speaking of the same one. I haven't read the original Hebrew texts (so I don't know when adonai, el, etc are being talking about) but the first paragraphs of Genesis illustrates this when God essentially makes a blueprint of the world, Lord God brings it to life, and Adam names the things in the world.

The rest of your questions are pretty bad, but you already know that

>>11568358
The imperative is toward an experience that feels good, because it feels good.
I didn't bring this up, but we're a series of experiences. Some may feel good initially though lead to an overall negative feeling. So I say an overall or net-good experience.

[Anonymous No.11568481]

There is more than one kind of reason.
Basically, either science is correct, or there are a couple alternatives...
There is an omnipotent demiurge who's sole purpose is to deceive you and make you think other people and the universe are real.
We live in something like the Matrix, where everything is a simulation created by an unknown advanced society.

In option #1, we have to ask what caused the demiurge and what is its purpose?
In option #2, we have to ask what would be the motivation?

Sometimes the best answer is the simplest one. We see that are beliefs in a natural course of events are based on less assumptions, and offer a clearer description of what is going on...
Occam's razor is like inductive reasoning, in that it is generally correct, but not infallible.

[Anonymous No.11568487]

>>11568424
But what you said is not provable, according to you. You're just experiencing that idea. For all I know, you're totally wrong and the imperative or tendency or whatever is toward the bad or indifferent or something else

[Anonymous No.11568534]

>>11568424
>no reason to believe they're all speaking of the same one
plenty of reasons
you'd think the 3000 yrs of jew/christian/muslims scholars prob would have noticed if not lol
in ur genesis ex, 'elohim' creates, 'elohim YHWH' populates
literally the same word but extended

>The rest of your questions are pretty bad, but you already know that
no.
answer them

[Anonymous No.11568570]

>>11568487
I don't know with absolute certainty that the laptop I'm typing on is real, but I do know that I'm experiencing typing on a laptop. You know when you're feeling good. The proof is in feeling it.

I think you could've told yourself this but you're just trying to poke holes for the sake of poking holes.

[Anonymous No.11568575]

>>11567890
baby overdoses on descartes

[Anonymous No.11568585]

>>11567890
Experience is not the same as feelings

When you feel something it is your nerves reactiong to said something. It is merely a biological and chemical process. You as an "experiencer" are merely an observer, so putting this seemingly arbitrary priority on feelings by falsely equalising "feeling" and "experiencing" is simply wrong

[Anonymous No.11568648]

>>11568229
dont talk to me again, dont ping me dont direct at me dont assume I came here to listen to you, then why was i attracted to you well because of your funny Real funny image of Course. i do not care for words, i do not care what reality i am in, if i could trade places witha roach id gladly so just because i am this bored This bored of an individual. I dont talk to anyone any smile i make to anyone can mean many things and i have no control over it so Theres initiation problems. I never give in and wont ever to you either this might aswell be part of your imagination in the shower faggot tuss. I, Eye love myself

[Anonymous No.11568654]

>>11568534
First of all we have very little idea what scholars were noticing even 1.5k years ago. Second, there are modern scholars that believe this. Third, like I said, the ancients seemed to be pretty big on titles and repeating full titles every time they refer to someone. Fourth, Elohim literally translates to 'Gods' which goes in line with the wording of Job making it seem like God(s) encompassed Yahweh and Satan.
Lastly, just to illustrate that every single one of your questions was bad, the bible refers to pagan and Egyptian gods as gods. None of whom are all powerful or completely omnipotent.

>>11568585
We experience feelings. Some are good, others are bad. The imperative is obviously toward the good.

^That response is almost word for word what I wrote in the OP. I should've have had to type it.

[Anonymous No.11568656]

>>11568648
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11568662]

>>11567934
that's a really gay as s fucking hand

[Anonymous No.11568670]

>>11568654
Yes we do experience feelings, but what is to say that is the only thing we experience? If you can prove that is all we experience, I will follow with you to the conclusion that "all that matters are feelings"

[Anonymous No.11568695]

>>11568648
>dont assume I came here to listen to you
>any smile i make to anyone can mean many things and i have no control over it

Wow. If you're not a female then you've definitely managed to clone to emotions of one.

>>11568670
I never said feelings are the only thing we experience and that isn't the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.11568711]

>>11568570
Yeah I'm just shootin the shit, but your whole thing should end with the first sentence. If the only provable thing is the fact that we are experiencing, then there's nothing else to say. There is no good or bad or imperative. There are only experiences. None of it is real, the end. You obviously think there's more going on, but you can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.11568721]

>>11568695
If you surrender that feelings arent the only thing we experience then what follows is that there is no argument that the last imperative is that we should opt for "good" feelings.

Just in the same way me being hungry doesnt mean the correct option for me is to eat. It all depends on the current situation and other variables

[Anonymous No.11568723]

>>11568654
> very little idea what scholars were noticing even 1.5k years ago
noticing? maybe no. but there's plenty of written scholastic theology from that period

>modern scholars
who?

>repeating full titles
more exceptions than the rule
u didn't deduce that
it just fits your worldview

>Gods
yes, so?
YHWH is God
he is also a god
not 'among others' but fits the human word god
and sometimes just royal plural
verse ref for job pls?

>just to illustrate that every single one of your questions was bad
wtf
my other questions dont even refer to gods
answer them.

>None of whom are all powerful or completely omnipotent.
from a biblical author's perspective they aren't even real
but you still refer to other religions' gods as gods even if you don't believe in them

[Anonymous No.11568733]

>>11567890
experiences FEEL good or bad, but all experience is essentially good in contrast with not having experiences (non-existence) or having empty experiences (staring at a wall ).
>So you would rather be tortured that have to stare at a wall???!?!?
Again, it's not about what I might prefer. We naturally seek the more agreeable experiences, and this helps to shape our overall experiences in life. But having these experiences is the actual point.
This is going back to my life-affirmation thing from the highest principle thread.
The best life isn't the nicest experience, but the fullest possible life, the one with the greatest depth and breadth of experiences.
>>11568082
t. tricked by an evil spirit
read a book (like Descartes)

[Anonymous No.11568734]

ugh can you guys stop talking about words and look at my vagina already????

[Anonymous No.11568751]

>>11568733
>read a book (like Descartes)
have done
read wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11568786]

>>11568751
nah.
never heard anything good about this guy.

[Anonymous No.11569497]

>>11568734
Post it with a timestamp

>>11568723
This is extremely off topic to my strong convictions as I really don't give a fuck about the bible other than it being fun to read, like any other ancient legend. I tucked this away in 'theory I'd be interested in pursuing further' a long time ago. Everything I've learned since - the many names they use, the fact that Elohim translates to 'Gods' - has pointed in that direction.
I casually assume the bible may be referring to a more all encompassing God (considering the meaning of Elohim maybe more of a super-organism of lesser Gods) and Yahweh/ "I Am" being God of man (unrelated but in Prince of Egypt Val Kilmer voiced both God and Moses, I thought that was interesting)

In picking up the bible, and forgetting Christian canon, that's the conclusion I came to. If it weren't for popular Christianity I'd find no reason to believe that the Gods they're referring to were the same person. Ditto Satan being the serpent or being this evil figure. Or even God being good from a human perspective.

The bible also seemed to put a big emphasis on names in general. I remember Jacob oin Hebrew is similar to Hewbrew for thief, and he's famous for stealing his brother's blessing. There are a lot more instances like this.

As for the other Gods:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/01/the-bibles-many-gods


>>11568721
Feelings are kind of how we experience. Regardless, they exist. Feeling good is a good experience. We literally ARE experience...
Do you follow this logic?

>>11568711
The experience is real. It is the only thing that is definitely real. That's the point.
There are good experiences. Those are obviously the imperative just because they are good.

This is the last time I want to reiterate something I've already said.

[Anonymous No.11569633]

>>11567890
>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.

Nope

"There is nothing in goodness above pleasure there is nothing in evil below pain"

If you mean the intent to cause either then yes.

[Anonymous No.11569661]

>>11569633
Yep

Other people only matter to the self insofar as they affect the self. If logic went somewhere else then I'd be talking about that, but this is where it goes. And it's the only valid place for it to go.

[Anonymous No.11569677]

>>11568734
This is epic because that is what a roastie would say (lol)

[Anonymous No.11569796]

>>11569677
Do you think that was his intention from the outset?
Because
>>11568648
this 'I can do whatever I want without consequence and if you think otherwise that's YOUR problem' attitude + poetry style is pretty great.
Would clap for at a slam

[Anonymous No.11570714]

>>11567890
>morality is subjective
No group of people has ever considered it virtuous to betray and harm one's own group. This is not "pack mentality," which is why this phenomena is so curious.

[Anonymous No.11570749]

>>11570714
A group is an extension of the individuals involved. To betray or harm one's own group betray and harm the self.

>other people only matter insofar as they affect the self
If you take this statement for what it is then that can obviously be a good thing in a lot of cases.

Morality should probably be like laws in that it is meant to work to your benefit. It used to be legal to be a pirate against competing nations. 'Piracy' became 'privateering'

[Anonymous No.11570899]

>>11567890
>I think therefore I am
>The imperative of life is toward your self-defined imperative

Wowza! Truer words nay been said before!

[Anonymous No.11571007]

>>11570899
I'm tempted to make an FSF (frequent stawmen fallacies) to reword what I've already said so it's more digestible for children.

We are our experience -> some experience feels good -> the obvious imperative is toward good experiences.

I said this in the OP. Are you stupid or what is going on

[Anonymous No.11571016]

>>11569497
>This is extremely off topic
I know
dunno y u decided to only answer that one question
others were better

>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/01/the-bibles-many-gods
ty
though secular scholarship will always find myriad ways to interpret bible
they take human authorship/revision as primary
axiomically christians take divine insp as primary (for internal consistency from nt) and read ot only thru lens of nt, the problems dissolve - not multiple gods but multiple names, trinity, royal plural, etc
islam easily dismisses all ot contradictions as corruptions

ill make my other questions clearer for you
>>11568249
>>11568269
>are because of our will
contradicts
>Everything that happens in the universe would be God's doing.

>That's the point of all life.
y? that didnt follow from ur other stuff
it also contradicts (maybe, depends how u clarify)
>We encompass more of God, getting closer to becoming God. That's the point of all life.

>The imperative is toward an overall good experience
y? also doesnt follow

>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.
y? only because ur starting from a dualist poisition from the get go
dasein or wittgenstinian "embodied" linguistics makes the assertion nonsensical

>Some experiences are good and others are bad.
which? srs. if you don't define good, then 'good' might as well be anything that people choose anyway (otherwise why would they choose anything else?). this definition needs to be clarified b4 u can even try to derive an imperative from the statement

>the only answer to the only thing we can be sure of
how? taken with the above, this is nonsensical

[Anonymous No.11571063]

>>11571016
I wont even get into predetermination (which, from what I can tell, is likely though "what I can tell" is extremely limited)

Everything that happens in the universe is God's doing, so if we eventually control everything in the universe than we are God.

Why were you not able to get ^ this from this
>God is nature. Science is an attempt at discovering His laws, technology is how we use them to our benefit.
In doing so, we have greater affect on the world / universe. More things that happen are because of our will. We gain intelligence (the end result of which would be omnipotence). We encompass more of God, getting closer to becoming God.

The second question almost answers itself. The imperative is toward a good experience for no other reason than the fact that it's a good experience.
In some cases suffering a few negative experiences can improve our overall / net-experience.

So imperative toward good experience -> imperative to an overall good experience

Also said this in another post you replied to:
>>11568424
The fact that I had say essentially the same thing twice and you're still asking about it is why I'm not going to answer these questions.

There aren't any jumps in logic here. It's very minimal and maybe a more comprehensive way of saying 'all epistemological + ontological philosophy has a goal of maximizing pleasure', and without the subtle appeal to authority.

It's common sense

[Anonymous No.11571507]

>>11571063
>say essentially the same thing twice
then stop saying it
ur not actually answering the q
>some things are "good"
>we should do these "good" things
>why? because they are "good"
that's a necessarily circular definition
without the third point, the second does not follow from the first, that's the jump
you've said nothing about what constitutes "good" except that sometimes "negative experiences" can be good overall
which also says nothing
it muddies waters more: what things are people doing that they don't believe are in the best overall interest? your definition does not preclude the possible that everything everyone already does is already "good" as far as they can tell...
>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.
...that's if other people are even real. can it be good to torture them if you get off on that and you know you won't be caught?

>Everything that happens in the universe is God's doing, so if we eventually control everything in the universe than we are God.
so
>god does everything
>we become god (eventually)
>therefore we do everything (retroactively?)
can cut the word god if it's just a synonym for us (humans?)
so science is just discovering our own laws that we eventually make in the future?
this is just silly

>>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.
>y? only because ur starting from a dualist poisition from the get go
dasein or wittgenstinian "embodied" linguistics makes the assertion nonsensical
didnt touch on this at all
most important
setting off from wrong place, everything else u have wrong is just bonus

[Anonymous No.11571522]

>>11567890
>the fact that we are experiencing
prove it

[Anonymous No.11572774]

>>11571522

[Anonymous No.11572914]

>>11567890
>The imperative is toward an overall good experience.
This does not follow. You need to provide a reasoning for it. Considering then that your reasoning apparently revolves around feelings of these experiences: why are those feelings and more real than say, the knowledge that you might gather from an experience?

[Anonymous No.11572984]

>>11567890
How do you reconcile the fact that the universe is expressible in concrete, simple, and universal terms (mathematics)? Considering your position is a flavor taken straight out of the Descartes Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.11572985]

>>11568245
but the conscious part of our mind is literally a problem solver device, how do you stop trying to do what you are meant to do?

[Anonymous No.11573034]

>>11571007
so should I go overdose on heroin because I bet it feels pretty good while you're conscious? Is there any reason to preserve myself in the pursuit of good things?

[Anonymous No.11573052]

>>11567890
Where can I get this edition of Plato's dialogues?

[Anonymous No.11573198]

>>11572984
You are not expressing anything but our own delusion, same with words or any other human construct

[Anonymous No.11573260]

>>11571507
You want me to explain why 'good' is preferable to 'not good'?
Doing heroin for example is good in the moment but bad overall. Hard work can be bad in the moment but good overall.
So the imperative is toward maximal pleasure for no other reason than it's pleasurable. Pleasure is preferable to non pleasure because it's an inherently more enjoyable experience.

>can it be good to torture them if you get off on that and you know you won't be caught?
>you will get off
>you won't get caught
Based off of this then yeah

>god does everything
>we become god (eventually)
>therefore we do everything (retroactively?)
You're either a moron or you're intentionally misreading.
I said pretty clearly
>God, by definition, does everything
>We are doing more and more
>Once we do everything then we are God

I again just repeated myself
>>11572914
If the knowledge you would gather from an experience is beneficial then that would be an overall good experience.

>>11572984
I thought of my position independently.
A definite equation has a definite solution. I assume everything is predetermined and that there is a singular answer for everything. I'm talking about the answer for life ITT

[Anonymous No.11573324]

>>11573260
>I thought of my position independently.
lmao

[Anonymous No.11573333]

>>11573324
lol

[Anonymous No.11573455]

>>11568229
>By this definition, it's obvious that God exists though I wouldn't consider it a conscious being. God is nature.
What's the point in calling nature God, when we already have words to describe the exact same concept that aren't loaded with implications of consciousness and agency: the universe or nature?
>We encompass more of God, getting closer to becoming God.
If God is nature, aren't we already infinitely close to God, since we are natural?

[Anonymous No.11573564]

>>11573260
>you've said nothing about what constitutes "good"
you still didn't answer directly but w/e ur examples and terminology give away enough
you identify "good" with cumulative base pleasure (that which scientists may correlate with hedonic hotspots) over your lifetime

>I said pretty clearly
>God exists
>God is nature
again the term god can be cut here, ur just using it as a synonym for nature
ur not clear, there's no sense in which an omnipotent god is limited by causality unlike nature
>Once we do everything then we are God
you mean: then will be [nature] (future tense)

>Based off of this then yeah
so not only dualist but happily solipsist? srs the only real important q here is...
>>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real.
>y? only because ur starting from a dualist poisition from the get go
>dasein or wittgenstinian "embodied" linguistics makes the assertion nonsensical
...why u think cartesian dualism hasn't been completely btfo already?

>>>can it be good to torture them if you get off on that and you know you won't be caught?
>Based off of this then yeah
>Ok, I don't want to lose you by coming off like a sociopath
oops

[Anonymous No.11573613]

then we will be [nature]*

[Anonymous No.11573629]

>The point of life is to have a good experience
Truly a revolutionary thought.