/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16245282]

Is Literature evil?

[Anonymous No.16245292]

>>16245282
no, I think how antitheists are turbo individualists and that they don't read anything is proof

[Anonymous No.16245312]

“ In what will survive me
I am in harmony
with my annihilation.”

[Anonymous No.16245313]

>>16245282
Is there anything remotely similar to objective truth in this universe?

[Anonymous No.16245334]

>>16245313
Yes remotely

[Anonymous No.16245358]

>>16245334
If there is no objective truth there cannot be anything definable as either evil or good. Chance rules over the organic and inorganic.

[Anonymous No.16245374]

>>16245358
There is objective truth just we may grasp to it remotely. That math is universal implies it's objective in some non social manner

[Anonymous No.16245384]

>>16245282
Literature was historically racist so yes it is evil.

[Anonymous No.16245387]

>>16245282
i fucking hate that the French spell "Georges" with an "s" at the end. what a bunch of faggots.

[Anonymous No.16245388]

>>16245313
Yes. Kant Describes how subjective determinations of the world become maxims where as objective determinations of the world become duty as they are not dependent on the whim and desire of just one subject but objectively subject to all people. So it would follow some thing like objective truth would be something that is true for all who are capable of contemplating the truth. It would be objective for any and all subjects Describes how subjective determinations of the world become maxims where as objective determinations of the world become duty as they are not dependent on the whim and desire of just one subject but objectively subject to all people. So it would follow some thing like objective truth would be something that is true for all who are capable of contemplating the truth. It would be objective for any and all subjects.

[Anonymous No.16245398]

>>16245374
math is a fully human construct and humans have defective minds, as shown by themselves.

[Anonymous No.16245413]

>>16245388
Why the guck does voice dictation copy paste the first half like a broken record?

[Anonymous No.16245418]

>>16245398
then make math where 1+1=6 and build trigonometry off it. You can't force meaningful math, it must contend w reality

[Anonymous No.16245421]

>>16245388
*Yes. Kant Describes how subjective determinations of the world become maxims where as objective determinations of the world become duty as they are not dependent on the whim and desire of just one subject but objectively subject to all people. So it would follow some thing like objective truth would be something that is true for all who are capable of contemplating the truth. It would be objective for any and all subjects * fixed

[Anonymous No.16245423]

>>16245374
The height of an object is different depending of it is standing or is laying on the floor.

The clockwork universe is an anthropocentric illusion, many physicist have stated that in the subatomic realm nothing remotely similar to time or space can be observed, have you ever heard the term wavicle?

It seems to me no such thing as objective truth ever existed, this universe is a brief diversion from absolute disorder, that absolute disorder is as close as we can get to objectivity.

[Anonymous No.16245429]

>>16245398
yes it is our way of interpreting/measuring natural phenomena, yet it still abides by those basic mathematical principals which is beautiful.

[Anonymous No.16245451]

>>16245388
>So it would follow some thing like objective truth would be something that is true for all who are capable of contemplating the truth. It would be objective for any and all subjects.

That is still highly subjective an anthropocentric.

[Anonymous No.16245456]

>>16245423
so there are some badly defined terms that don't contend universally with reality. The dimensions of "side 1" don't change given any rotation. Wavicle is nonsense. That last line is clearly a contradiction which I imagine you assert it proves your point but you can't be contradictive at your core in anything, even this conversation, I think the contradiction disproves your universal framework

[Anonymous No.16245463]

>>16245451
Truth implies the capacity for rational thinking and empirical evidence which is inherently and institutionally a human endeavor.

[Anonymous No.16245472]

>>16245451
And No it is not subjective precisely because it is objectively true for all who are capable of rational thinking and capable of interpreting empirical evidence

[Anonymous No.16245478]

>>16245418
if all of our brain are defective in the same manner we will be making the same mistakes, you have no way of really knowing the reality, you first have to rely on the axiom that your senses are correct, reliable, whatever you call it, but that would make you an empiricist and being an empiricist is gay.
>>16245429
the world can be one, so it can't be measured, it's likely in our minds that we distinguish the world and it's parts when objectively there could not be a real distinction. so math solely exist in human minds.

[Anonymous No.16245506]

>>16245478
Yeah I agree we don't have epistemic certainty I just assert there is still objective reality or we'd be solipsistic but I can't change stuff w my mind so I'd still have to follow what my neurons lead to which is universal truths or math

[Anonymous No.16245513]

>>16245506
This https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

[Anonymous No.16245561]

>>16245456
>so there are some badly defined terms that don't contend universally with reality. The dimensions of "side 1" don't change given any rotation.

The point is that most laws are mere correlations but we cannot prove they are directly caused by certain chain of preceding events.

>Wavicle is nonsense.

Explain to me why should I regard it as such and choose to believe in any other model of the wave-particle supposed duality.

>That last line is clearly a contradiction which I imagine you assert it proves your point but you can't be contradictive at your core in anything, even this conversation, I think the contradiction disproves your universal framework

I am not asserting, it is merely an observation. Everything becomes less differentiated over time, or in other words, it dies, even the universe itself. Prove objective truth in a universe guided by quantum indeterminacy.

[Anonymous No.16245569]

>>16245463
>>16245463
>Truth implies the capacity for rational thinking and empirical evidence which is inherently and institutionally a human endeavor.

Correlation does not imply causation.

>>16245472
It subjectively considered objectively true by deluded subjects that have an instinct to keep on living.

[Anonymous No.16245593]

>>16245388
>truth
>kant
filtered

[Anonymous No.16245603]

>>16245569
I don’t know what you’re getting at. The laws of gravity are objectively true for everyone. The application of radiation, the interpretation of light waves, that not only disclose ultra violet rays but radio waves and x rays and the color spectrum. We take pictures of distant planets and by the waves that appear we can determine what kind of gasses exist, the temperature, as well as its distance based on those waves. Open a fucking science book you stupid bitch, or did you think people who read philosophy are sci illiterate like you?

[Anonymous No.16245610]

>>16245593
that’s too bad brainlet

[Anonymous No.16245624]

>>16245603
As I said before, correlation does not imply causation. You cannot prove objective truth or anything similar to it now and even if you were able to live until the twilight of the universe, you would still be unable to do so, because even tough it might take aeons for some constants like gravity to change, that change will occur as the universe becomes more entropic.

[Anonymous No.16245644]

>>16245624
Shut the fuck up dumbass I don’t wanna hear it

[Anonymous No.16245670]

>>16245561
yet some are more correlative than the others.
A wavicle just sounds like some nonsense. It's all a wave that breaks down into particulars that are still connected to the wave.
Are you saying that atoms or their constituents have no cause?

[Anonymous No.16245723]

>>16245670
I'm saying that according to some prominent physicists, in the subatomic realm the few registers that can be observed and understood are utterly random.

The wavicle is the perfect example of the factual sameness of the supposed divisiveness of certain human-made constructs such as good and evil. They are the same because all that has been spanned from zero point energy is untarnished randomness.

[Anonymous No.16245734]

>>16245670
>>16245723
Ur all a bunch of fucking pop phil/sci retards. If you really gave a fuck you would be doing elementary research instead of talking about some shit you know nothing about and only became familiar with because of some fucking faggot on the Joe Rogan experience

[Anonymous No.16245736]

>>16245723
I'm not a physicist but I know very well ppl talk out of their ass w this shit. Im sure you've seen picrel, relativism is not only inapplicable for higher studies, it doesn't make sense in any framework

[Anonymous No.16245745]

>>16245734
citation pls

[Anonymous No.16245753]

He drenched himself in his own cumbut he wouldnt let go of his ambitions. The semen on my hands and on my pants is in no way a denial of who i wish to become, he told himself while lighting the cigarette. Sex is NEUTRAL, its nothing that pulls us towards any direction, it is as neutral as the act of breathing is, isn't thjat true? There is no wrong in sex as long as i respect the boundaries of my ego and don't impose myself on my fellow human beings.

[Anonymous No.16245757]

>>16245736
OHHH SHE HAS A PICTURE

[Anonymous No.16245762]

>>16245757
This image triggers trannies.

[Anonymous No.16245764]

>>16245734
I would like to see a video in which a guest in The Joe Rogan Exp mentions that in the subatomic realms all that can be found is correlations of seemingly disconnected elusive constituents.

>>16245736
So with the nature of the universe being impermanent and random, what other framework but relativism can explain all phenomena?

[Anonymous No.16245773]

>>16245764
it's relative in that it refers to the objective. Denying the objective is just a subjectivism while asserting atoms can think

[Anonymous No.16245778]

>>16245773
LMAO

[Anonymous No.16245795]

>>16245773
What do you mean by the "objective"?

[Anonymous No.16245800]

>>16245282
>it's an "evil is just another side of free life" type of retard
I cannot begin to explain how annoyed I grow by the sight of these morons, I detest more their parading of a lack of intelligence than their actual immorality.

[Anonymous No.16245808]

>>16245795
universal truths. For instance everything has a cause in this universe

[Anonymous No.16245809]

>>16245753
S-O-X S-O-X S-O-X S-O-X
S-O-X S-O-X S-O-X SOKKUSU!

[Anonymous No.16245817]

>>16245795
I think he means objet petite a

[Anonymous No.16245818]

>>16245282
Everything is.

[Anonymous No.16245825]

>>16245753
>cumbut

[Anonymous No.16245827]

>>16245825
Women don't laugh fuck off

[Anonymous No.16245833]

>>16245808
>universal truths
There are none, these are merely correlations.

>For instance everything has a cause in this universe

And what is the "First Cause"?

[Anonymous No.16245855]

>>16245753
>as long as i respect the boundaries of my ego and don't impose myself on my fellow human beings

[Anonymous No.16245867]

>>16245833
What does it correlate to? One things being to another? Also this doesn't account for creation, for instance how do you suggest computer science/math/linguistics necessarily use logic? Of this i say creation is simply by being in the proper subset of a superset or by the nature of one's existence implies the other's because its being is created by the being of the other.

The first cause is the creation, prior to this universe's first cause is unimportant rn. I accept there may be an extra universe but we have to study this universe, do you deny the big bang?

[Anonymous No.16245870]

>>16245833
>THERE ARE NO UNIVERSAL TRUTHS
u are fucking retarded. Universal doesn’t mean timeless you stupid little bitch, it means universal as in so far as time has been recorded it is universal as in it is universally around the globe to every human being true you fucking dumb piece of shit

[Anonymous No.16245877]

>>16245870
Idk wth you're saying and I'm arguing universals

[Anonymous No.16245904]

>>16245855
There he went, refreshed the page. Was called out like never before. You idiot. You fucking idiot. Today my ex said that i'm like a nice little mouse with people i don't know. Shit, she's right. She knows about the violence in my heart, yet she's right. And then this guy came along and called me out on my cowardice in life. One image can be enough.

He's sweating like a pig, dick still hanging out. Thirsty for a beat up. Bad vibes making his bones shiver, as he draws his imaginary gun. I will kill everyone.

[Anonymous No.16245913]

>>16245904
Big dick*

[Anonymous No.16245925]

>>16245904
Aw don’t be like that :(

[Anonymous No.16245933]

>>16245913
No doubt, he chuckled, a big fucking dick is what i need right now. He curls into a violated ball after being ripped apart consensually.

"What happened to him?"

This king needs a good fucking.

[Anonymous No.16245935]

>>16245867
>What does it correlate to? One things being to another?

Yes, but only according to our own deeply-rooted biases which are distorted by our sensory limitations.

>Also this doesn't account for creation, for instance how do you suggest computer science/math/linguistics necessarily use logic?

It doesn't matter, one day humanity will become extinct, compare that span of time to the time span of the universe. We have the delusion of order and absolute laws because we are briefer (compared to the universe) than the blink of an eye. There are not fixed constants.

>Of this i say creation is simply by being in the proper subset of a superset or by the nature of one's existence implies the other's because its being is created by the being of the other.

There will never be a way to prove something like this. Are you a dualist?

On causality:

>But are space, time and causal order truly fundamental ingredients of nature? Is it possible that, in some circumstances, even causal relations would be 'uncertain', similarly to the way other physical properties of quantum systems are?

>Here, we show that quantum mechanics allows for such a possibility. We develop a framework that describes all correlations that can be observed by two experimenters under the assumption that in their local laboratories physics is described by the standard quantum formalism, but without assuming that the laboratories are embedded in any definite causal structure. These include non-signalling correlations arising from measurements on a bipartite state, as well as signalling ones, which can arise when a system is sent from one laboratory to another through a quantum channel. We find that, surprisingly, more general correlations are possible, which are not included in the standard quantum formalism. These correlations are incompatible with any underlying causal structure: they allow performing a task—the violation of a 'causal inequality'—that is impossible if events take place in a causal sequence. This is directly analogous to the famous violation of local realism: quantum systems allow performing a task—the violation of Bell's inequality—that is impossible if the measured quantities have pre-defined local values.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2076?hc_location=ufi

[Anonymous No.16245957]

>>16245817

[Anonymous No.16245991]

[Anonymous No.16245992]

>>16245935
I've already accepted that we have epistemic uncertainty. You seem to be claiming objects are entirely made up. Plus correlation as said is a bad tool for inference. I won't ask or observe 5000 ppl to find out if 1+1=2, i will analyze it based on taken axioms.
You don't seem to have an argument for creation so you can't criticize it.
It's very simple to prove causation, you can't do math without logic, you can do logic without math. The mixing of two people's genes make a child. I don't need to poll ppl to figure it out. It's analytically derived given axioms. You can attack the axioms but only if your newer axioms are more relevant to reality.
Saying some cause is uncertain doesn't deny they have a cause. We know Leptons etc have a similar cause in that they can be grouped. We also know they're material. You can easily ascribe cause to their being, it's their action which is so far confusing.

[Anonymous No.16246069]

>>16245992
Axioms and postulates are nothing but well-disguised "First Principles", I'm sure you believe they are inherently rational.

>You seem to be claiming objects are entirely made up.

I'm articulating an observation, the observation being: there is no objective truth.

>You don't seem to have an argument for creation so you can't criticize it.

I do, this is it:

>In particular, it was Boltzmann's attempt to reduce it to a stochastic collision function, or law of probability following from the random collisions of mechanical particles. Following Maxwell,[23] Boltzmann modeled gas molecules as colliding billiard balls in a box, noting that with each collision nonequilibrium velocity distributions (groups of molecules moving at the same speed and in the same direction) would become increasingly disordered leading to a final state of macroscopic uniformity and maximum microscopic disorder or the state of maximum entropy (where the macroscopic uniformity corresponds to the obliteration of all field potentials or gradients).[24]

>The second law, he argued, was thus simply the result of the fact that in a world of mechanically colliding particles disordered states are the most probable. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder – the macrostate with the greatest number of accessible microstates such as a gas in a box at equilibrium – or moving towards it.

>A dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction", Boltzmann concluded, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann#Second_thermodynamics_law_as_a_law_of_disorder

The universe is but a fleeting epiphenomenon of Chaos.

>Saying some cause is uncertain doesn't deny they have a cause. We know Leptons etc have a similar cause in that they can be grouped.

>We also know they're material.

You're saying this with such certainty, all while hundred thousands of researchers are trying to somehow figure out if a thing such as a particle can be said to exist.

Axioms are not objectively true, they are man-made heuristics but they cannot be proven.

[Anonymous No.16246115]

>>16246069
Okay ill take your assertion that objections aren't real at all (if you're making a lesser claim I couldn't spot it): given they are not real, how do you account for them? Can you similarly make them appear and disappear at will (I linked my study on your neurons making your choices before your consciousness does -- you'd have to have an answer for that).
That doesn't account for creation it claims the world is naturally entropic. I deny entropy in that the laws of physics operate exactly as they do. Either way this doesn't account for causation. Probability can't handle causation and asserting entropy doesn't either. Assuming a mechanism which asserts entropy it would itself be the causation but it doesn't even do that.

[Anonymous No.16246119]

>>16246069
Also, are you asserting the parts of an atom aren't material and still asserting them as true?

[Anonymous No.16246179]

>>16246115
>given they are not real, how do you account for them?

They are correlative.

>Can you similarly make them appear and disappear at will (I linked my study on your neurons making your choices before your consciousness does -- you'd have to have an answer for that).

This would be unknown. Could you tell me why this is out of the realm of possibility?

>That doesn't account for creation it claims the world is naturally entropic

It does.

>I deny entropy in that the laws of physics operate exactly as they do.

How can you deny entropy?


>Probability can't handle causation and asserting entropy doesn't either. Assuming a mechanism which asserts entropy it would itself be the causation but it doesn't even do that.

Then how come existence?

>>16246119
I'm saying it is not know whether they are even wavicles at all, but of some third unknown thing.

>It has been argued that there are never exact particles or waves, but only some compromise or intermediate between them. For this reason, in 1928 Arthur Eddington[53] coined the name "wavicle" to describe the objects although it is not regularly used today. One consideration is that zero-dimensional mathematical points cannot be observed. Another is that the formal representation of such points, the Dirac delta function is unphysical, because it cannot be normalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Neither-wave-nor-particle_view

>Also, are you asserting the parts of an atom aren't material and still asserting them as true?

>All matter exhibits wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted just like a beam of light or a water wave

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

[Anonymous No.16246231]

>>16246179
Correlative isn't an answer I already told you that, it has no cause mechanism in it. Also correlative still necessarily asserts an object in which it correlates with which you've denied and haven't explained how or if they exist.
You can't blink shit into reality, you're not a nutter. Just try for two seconds. There's no proof you can do that.
It does not explain causation. It talks about order. Even your citation claims macroscopic order so it doesn't even cite pure relativism (it says microscopic disorder).
It's clearly in the sentence how I deny entropy. Ask a better question.

>then how come existence
I'm asking you you fucking moron. It's your shit ideology that your citations don't support.

No you dumb fucker, you claimed they have no cause, which your citations don't support, then you claim they aren't material. If you deny the big bang then you claim they don't exist materially. That is your shit creek to paddle out of and you're doing a bad job so far.
If you're asserting "all matter is just waves and energy maaan" then you're asserting it has a material cause. You asserting causation by claiming it is at all tangible.

[Anonymous No.16246280]

>>16245282
it can be, because evil is the food of genius.

[Anonymous No.16246313]

>>16246231
>Correlative isn't an answer I already told you that, it has no cause mechanism in it. Also correlative still necessarily asserts an object in which it correlates with which you've denied and haven't explained how or if they exist.

It is because it is not know how what we refer to as objects exist. Why are you so this narrow-minded?

Reality is inherently disordered and random, as a result it is overwhelmingly undifferentiated. No matter how many conscious beings it brought to it (in many ticking time bomb universes) for a very transient period of time.

>You can't blink shit into reality, you're not a nutter. Just try for two seconds. There's no proof you can do that.

>The essential idea behind RQM is that different observers may give different accurate accounts of the same system. For example, to one observer, a system is in a single, "collapsed" eigenstate. To a second observer, the same system is in a superposition of two or more states and the first observer is in a correlated superposition of two or more states. RQM argues that this is a complete picture of the world because the notion of "state" is always relative to some observer. There is no privileged, "real" account. The state vector of conventional quantum mechanics becomes a description of the correlation of some degrees of freedom in the observer, with respect to the observed system. The terms "observer" and "observed" apply to any arbitrary system, microscopic or macroscopic. The classical limit is a consequence of aggregate systems of very highly correlated subsystems. A "measurement event" is thus described as an ordinary physical interaction where two systems become correlated to some degree with respect to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics#Observer-dependence_of_state

>If you're asserting "all matter is just waves and energy maaan" then you're asserting it has a material cause. You asserting causation by claiming it is at all tangible.

I'm not asserting that, I'm proposing humanity is a brief epiphenomenon of absolute disorder. That is why I quoted Boltzmann. There is only one permanent attribute in this reality (the superset of this universe), and that is Chaos/undifferentiation.


Stop shifting the goalpost, please.

[Anonymous No.16246335]

>>16246313
Yeah except your dumbass is contradicted by your own Boltzmann study which claims macroscopic order. Until you show how macroscopic order implies chaos your dumbass is wrong. It's your citation stupid.

[Anonymous No.16246344]

>>16246335
It seems that you want me to spoon-feed you, very well, you shall have it:

>Ludwig Boltzmann, was one of the founders of statistical mechanics and the modern atomic theory of matter. He is remembered for his discovery that the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law stemming from disorder. He also speculated that the ordered universe we see is only a small bubble in much larger sea of chaos. The Boltzmann brain is a similar idea. He can be considered one of few indeterminists to embrace pure chance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism#Boltzmann

[Anonymous No.16246345]

>>16246313
You're not doing shit is what you're doing. You claimed you can blink your eyes and make new shit appear. You can't cite that study until your dumbass deals w this claim first. You aren't quirky you aren't idiosyncratic. You're a dumbass caught in a lie.

[Anonymous No.16246351]

>>16246345
>RQM argues that this is a complete picture of the world because the notion of "state" is always relative to some observer. There is no privileged, "real" account.

[Anonymous No.16246357]

>>16246344
I'll spoon feed you bitch. It's impossible to claim order comes from disorder. Even if that was the assumption it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.16246373]

>>16246357
It is defined as order by us. There is a correct term for what you call order, and that would be hallucinatory non-entropy.

[Anonymous No.16246383]

>>16246351
yes and you can't blink things into existence, you have no explanation of objects except that you don't know. Im curious why you know you don't know and why you're using this syntax to speak w me if it doesn't exist and I don't exist. It's just nonsense

[Anonymous No.16246388]

>>16246373
And absolute disorder grows bigger the more fleeting hallucinatory non-entropic realms are randomly spanned.

[Anonymous No.16246391]

>>16246373
He says order is when they go same speed same direction. So you're denying his account of order. Well you're going to have to find another one.

[Anonymous No.16246397]

>>16246383
I never said humans or objects do not exist. As for your other queries, they are irrelevant. Stop shifting the goalpost.

>He says order is when they go same speed same direction.

And the citation is...?

[Anonymous No.16246408]

>>16246397
citation >>16246357
then account for their existence

[Anonymous No.16246429]

>>16246408
It depends on how you define order. I assume you're familiar with Wittgenstein, I can infer that what you define as order is vastly different from what Boltzmann conceived. And what I define as order is a slightly updated version of Boltzmann's.

That part of the citation you screencapped is only referring to illusory non-disorder.. it doesn't imply it's alongside entropy.... he is saying this universe is extremely improbable...

[Anonymous No.16246442]

>>16246429
If the universe is improbable how is that an account for existence? I need to know your framework exists and is real. If it's not real then you admit it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.16246465]

>>16246442
I've said this numerous times: the only thing a human being could regard as realm is the vast superset of this universe, the realm of absolute disorder/undifferentiation in which universes such as this are mere specks of dust in infinite deep space.

This terminal domain is an epiphenomenon of entropy. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many citations do you want me to add?

[Anonymous No.16246467]

>>16246465
the only thing a human being could regard as real*

[Anonymous No.16246485]

>>16246465
So you deny atoms are real? All you've accounted for is change you haven't accounted for existence. Saying things entropy doesn't explain how they are. If you account the universe as real then what differentiates thats realness from its parts being undefinable.

[Anonymous No.16246488]

>>16246465
Entropy can't account for matter itself just what matter does (which is a bad account so long as causation still exists and saying anything is material implies a material cause).

[Anonymous No.16246509]

>>16246485
Researchers are still debating what the nature of an atom is.

To define something as real it must be or posses permanent constituents. Entropy as disordered energy fits both.

>>16246488
Wittgenstein again. Entropy would seem to you as decayed zero point energy. But illusory non-entropy its actually just a mechanism that spans randomly from chaos.

[Anonymous No.16246525]

>>16246465
On that it doesn't even account for immaterial objects. You can say it's just material but math works in atoms. Two hydrogen atoms becoming one helium atom is represented in math before humans could exist. This math is clearly not inherent in anything material (if you're arguing physicalism then we can discuss that but it contradicts your "everything is entropic" statement) therefore it is universal by which it applies everywhere, where atoms could be and mix etc. It doesn't give an account for universals existence and claiming they are entropic makes me wonder why two hydrogen atoms don't be iron for instance if your statement is valid for everything in the universe.

[Anonymous No.16246535]

>>16246509
What in entropy gives material existence? It takes materialism as an axiom.
What are you citing Wittgenstein for, language games or image ontology? Neither of those suggest matter's material existence

[Anonymous No.16246542]

>>16245292
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.16246553]

>>16246509
How can entropy spawn from chaos? Entropy is an explanation of chaos, it's not derivative of it.

[Anonymous No.16246566]

>>16245282
Not evil, no. Certainly dangerous though. Much like TV and rumors, people can distinguish fiction from reality in the moment, but still use made-up stories to inform their intuitions and interpretations of all their future interactions. Literature can seed poisonous culture. It can make people do evil things by twisting their impressions of what's reasonable and what's not. So in that sense, it certainly can be evil. Even in the sense that it leads people to believe things with fabricated evidence, it might be considered evil. But it also is a valuable way for people to communicate their feelings and experiences in a more accessible way, which might be inherently good.
I'd say the medium itself is neutral, if something to be cautious about.

[Anonymous No.16246649]

>>16246553
Entropy is disorder/undifferentiation. Chaos is absolute disorder. But I use all these three terms interchangeably.

[Anonymous No.16246666]

>>16246649
It just doesn't seem to account for chaos in the universe or explain, if entropy is derivative of chaos, how it can be derivative, particularly by referring to an unchaotic explanation. If there's no explanation it's not a good framework for understanding it or at least it's as useful as the claim that invisible dragons sit on my shoulder or that I have non pizza in my mouth right now. You'd have to have a framework that can not allow those latter claims.

[Anonymous No.16248184]

>>16245388
Is this a bona fide schizopost?

[Anonymous No.16248357]

>>16245313
The subjective/objective split is invalid.

[Anonymous No.16248370]

>>16245282
>it’s another “nihilist didn’t understand Spinoza’s meaning of freedom” episode

[Anonymous No.16248372]

>>16245282
>to choose freedom is to choose the possibility of emancipation from all restraint, to choose to commit evil.
fixed it for him

[Anonymous No.16248385]

I mean, he has a book called Literature and Evil, so it might be.

[Anonymous No.16248489]

>>16245282
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XCnGuK8CVc

[Anonymous No.16249800]

>>16248357
How so?

[Anonymous No.16251061]

And what is evil?

[Anonymous No.16251338]

>>16249800
Can a subject exist objectively?

[Anonymous No.16251402]

>>16251338
Why shouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.16251413]

>>16251338
Is any subject eternal?