[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 428 KB, 718x344, hopium.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20253335 No.20253335 [Reply] [Original]

Any books about the current zeitgeist? Some have been saying we're past the postmodern in the metamodern now?
Been seeing picrel cope philosophy everywhere lately along with post-irony sentimentality without the foundation for any real sentimentality. Help me make sense of this

>> No.20253378

>>20253335
We’re in the early onset stages of 1984 dystopia
>cope philosophy
To cope is a good thing. To associate it with something bad or uncool to do is Orwellian

>> No.20253482

>>20253378
nihilism can never actually be optimistic though; it is truly a dishonest cope to think it is

>> No.20253496

>>20253482
Did you know this image has a video attached to it that will explain it to you?
Also, again, stop misusing the word cope

>> No.20253506

>>20253378
just finished your assigned reading champ?

>> No.20253520

>>20253335
>optimistic nihilism
a cope among copes

>> No.20253523

>>20253335
Gravity's Rainbow

>> No.20253561

>>20253496
did you know the video is wrong?
and attaching optimism to nihilism is most definitely a cope to deal with the impossibility of accepting your life has no intrinsic meaning.

>> No.20253572

>>20253561
>[D]id you know the video is wrong?
Do you know how to use words to show this?

>> No.20253577

>>20253561
Featuring a man who doesn't know the meaning of the word "meaning."
Statements this thick with irony don't happen alone by sheer chance.

>> No.20253598

>>20253335
Brave new world

>> No.20253603

>>20253572
>the universe has no purpose; we get to dictate what its purpose is
ok, so we should just ignore the fact there's no objective purpose and make one for ourselves (and act like that genuinely means anything). pure cope
>do the things that make you feel good, you get to decide whatever this means for you
if this is the case, nobody has any right to say what another person does is wrong. everyone should just be able to do whatever "feels good" for them. welcome to the subjective void

>> No.20253613

>>20253577
>Life is meaningless!
>What? You can’t just make your own purpose! Staaaaahp!

I swear. The evil beast-cloud that hangs around the theist is such a curse

>> No.20253622

>>20253613
>make your own purpose
Cope.

>> No.20253638

>>20253603
>ignore the fact there's no objective [meaning]
More like embrace it. This is quite freeing.
>PURE COPE
>Cope: to manage, deal with, recover.
Yes. A good thing.
>if this is the case
Moreover, it has always been the case.
People can get together and arrange their lives how they want and not how an elite sociopath or schizophrenic tells them to.
>whatever feels good
There’s that evil beast-cloud again. Always against love and happiness

>>20253622
See above, little one.

>> No.20253642

>>20253638
We will see how satisfying your made up purpose turns out to be after a few months.

>> No.20253668

>>20253638
so you have never thought or told someone that what they are doing is wrong? if you have, on what grounds?

>> No.20253669

>>20253642
Meaning what?
You’re the malcontent with an evil funk weighing you down

>> No.20253674

>>20253335
are you mad that the video is right?

>> No.20253688

>>20253642
Do you think people from before weren't somewhat aware of their immediate truth? Do you think something as big as society just comes to pass without individuals coming together and coping with their existences through invented purpose? Do you really think this is the first time someone has gone and thought "hey, wait, maybe all of these structures of religion and power are just bullshit!", or God forbid, a number of people?
Do you even know what nihilism is? Have you read Nietzsche? Here's a hint: he never says spiritualism is bullshit and an individual's life is completely devoid of meaning. It always struck me as odd how nihilism became synonymous with pessimism when the two couldn't be further apart, and how even places that should know better like /lit/ are still full of people making this semantically dishonest mistake.
The truth doesn't have to be scary. Christ.

>> No.20253692

>>20253674
not so much that as I am curious why its conclusions have been emerging everywhere as part of the zeitgeist

>> No.20253694

>>20253668
What am I doing that’s wrong?

>> No.20253702

>>20253692
It’s been emerging that life is worth living for its own sake?
Maybe we’ll make after all.

>> No.20253709

>>20253692
I'd say it's that new sincerity finally hitting the intellectual spheres. Do keep in mind the actual collective unconscious just moves in mysterious ways, but after decades of pretending the truth is dark and dreary maybe we just collectively got fucking sick of it and decided that maybe it's all not so bad.
It's also not as widespread as you'd think.

>> No.20253712

>>20253688
>have you read Nietzsche?
Quite literally the definition of nihilism does affirm complete lack of meaning and Nietzsche was not a nihilist... and nobody is saying he was; if anything he has more in common with the existentialists like Sartre and Camus that obviously have a more positive outlook

>> No.20253722

>>20253694
nothing, but you've said people can get together and arrange their lives how they want; if it's all subjective, what gives you the right to ever infringe on that by telling them they shouldn't do something?

>> No.20253724

>>20253712
I stand partially corrected. Thank you.

>> No.20253738

>>20253722
Like there’s a couple of good ways to eat an egg. I think we can agree we shouldn’t burn them or poison them to kill someone.
>How dare you befriend your neighbors and love each other! Don’t you realize god is dead and we have killed him!?

>> No.20253763

>>20253738
people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone; in your view, they are fully justified in thinking that because they get to determine what's right for themselves just as much as you do

>> No.20253783

>>20253763
They do it already.
They did it during the Sun King’s reign, Emperor Augustus, the Pharaohs.

>> No.20253786

>>20253763
>people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone; in your view, they are fully justified in thinking that because they get to determine what's right for themselves just as much as you do
That doesn't mean you have to respect their perspective.

>> No.20253792

>>20253335
It's not zeitgeist, you silly... it's kurzgesagt

>> No.20253814

>>20253335
Basically the West has gone full retard since the 1800s or so and this is the result of it. There are anons here that are too retarded to see how stupid this is and embrace it because they're incapable of accepting objectivity.

>> No.20253816

>>20253814
The thread stops here

>> No.20253838

>>20253814
>there is no objectivity
>objective claim
it does get tiresome

>> No.20253850

>>20253688
The coping is what continues the eternal suffering of human beings. I would rather we drop the copes and embrace extinction.

Nietzsche's entire philosophy is anti-nihilist so of course he says those things.

Nihilism and pessimism are not interchangeable terms but it is incredibly dishonest of you to disregard their many shared qualities.

>>20253669
>evil
What?

My meaning is that you're only playing pretend. Unless you have genuine faith (meaning total, unwavering belief in X), any 'purpose' you create for yourself will be unfulfilling, because even you will not consider it a true purpose.

>> No.20253876

>>20253603
>ok, so we should just ignore the fact there's no objective purpose and make one for ourselves (and act like that genuinely means anything). pure cope
And if there were one, an objective purpose, would it mean anything? If there were one then you would just have to cope with the fatalistic reality of your life's meaning being beyond yourself.

>> No.20253886

>>20253668
>if you have, on what grounds?
That it make me Muy Maddo inside. If they still disagree I get madderer until they do agree with me. Problem solved.

>> No.20253904

>>20253638
>>ignore the fact there's no objective [meaning]
>More like embrace it. This is quite freeing.
This is also not nihilism. Defining one's own meaning is hypocritical at best (recognizing that there is no objective meaning but holding values in spite of that), and the "freedom" the lack of ethics this leads to is concerning at best. If you truly hold that there is no meaning in anything, and don't replace it, you will end up a husk with no value for anything.

>> No.20253917

>>20253702
>worth living for its own sake
How is that not intrinsic meaning?

>> No.20253936

>>20253838
>>there is no objectivity
>>objective claim
>it does get tiresome
Well if there's no objectivity then I am free to make a claim using the terminology of objectivity. Doing so makes a claim sound more forceful and it would be too tedious to say everytime I disagree with something "killing people is in discordance with my fee fees ". Much more forceful and simple just to say "Killing people is bad ". It gets across the message better. I don't see how using the terms good and bad inherently contradicts with the belief that morality is not objective. Though I'm not really decided on that question personally.

>> No.20253942

>>20253850
Shut the fuck up. If you're going to kill yourself, don't push suicide onto others. What a self-defeating perspective.

>> No.20253953

>>20253936
>missing the point

>> No.20253957

>>20253936
>I don't see how using the terms good and bad inherently contradicts with the belief that morality is not objective.

For the love of Buddha, re-read this.

>> No.20253962

>>20253763
>people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone
How is it advantageous to burn and poison people? Maybe for a dictator (and they already do and have done these things irregardless of debates around moral philosophy) but for your average joe killing people has no real advantage, whereas being nice to people and pro-social has way more advantages. That aside it's really boring to me when people turn debates about moral philosophy entirely into debates about social utility, as though social utility has any bearing on the truth or untruth of these questions.

>> No.20253966

>>20253942
I'm not going to kill myself I'm simply not going to breed.
>inb4 'that won't be difficult then'

I'm not going to kill myself because one of the major reasons I do not wish to create life is due to the inevitability of death and the terror that accompanies it.

>> No.20253969

>>20253936
You sound incredibly confused. It's kind of sad.

>> No.20253989

>>20253957
>For the love of Buddha, re-read this.
Explain the contradiction. These are just terms and words in themselves aren't what is significant here. I can say "killing people is bad" while not believing the term bad refers to anything outside my feelnigs.

>> No.20254025

>>20253969
>You sound incredibly confused. It's kind of sad.
K so you have nothing real to offer. I often see this cope "NOOOOO YOU CANT USE THE TERMS GOOD AND BAD YOU JUST SAID YOU THINK ITS NOT OBJECTIVE REEEEEE"
Wetbrain, I can use whatever word I want to. And it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs, just that the foundation for those judgements doesn't exist outside of us.

>> No.20254029

>>20253989
Not him, but where do you think your feelings come from?
Certainly, in other cultures, like Feudal Japan, killing peasants for so much as not stepping out of your way was considered acceptable. Where does your humanist conception of murder is bad come from other than the society you live in/interact with?And what was this society built on, other than the Holy Bible? Yes yes God is dead and all that, but his corpse remains pungent, infecting all of society.

>> No.20254068

>>20254029
>Not him, but where do you think your feelings come from?
No one knows. We could play ring around the rosy, but we'd never leave the circle. Any exploration will reach an unsatisfying end point where no more questions can be asked. "It's from God. No it's from evolution. No it's from society." And on and on.
>Where does your humanist conception of murder is bad come from other than the society you live in/interact with?And what was this society built on, other than the Holy Bible?
Certainly the concern for the impoverished and weak came from Christianity. However, taboos against arbitrary killing, however differently defined, exist in most cultures. There's no culture where you can just kill anyone and everyone without punishment. Niet puts too much emphasis on Christianity imo because he's obsessed with it. Plenty of Christians had slaves, or engaged in forms of extreme religious violence.

>> No.20254081

>>20254029
>source of morality genetic fallacy

>> No.20254087

>>20254025
>just that the foundation for those judgements doesn't exist outside of us.
This contradicts
>And it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs
This should seem like common sense but you can't make moral claims since every claim you make is redundant and is based on your fee-fees, you'retrying to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't get it now you never will.

>> No.20254113

>>20254025
Are you saying it's objectively true that "it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs...." if not why should I care; moreover, why should you ever care about being right if it's just what's right for you
>>20254087
listen to this guy ^

>> No.20254151

>>20254113
>moreover, why should you ever care about being right if it's just what's right for you
I can just as easily turn that around. Why should you ever care about being right if what is right has nothing to do with you? It's the opposite if anything. If rightness derives it's rightness from being the transcendent word of God, or a Platonic form, there's no reason in the world to ever care about it.

>> No.20254154

>>20253335
I hate pop philosophy youtube videos. They're even more offensive than "history" or "science" youtube videos where they just read off of Wikipedia with shitty animations as a background since the pop phil videos are literally manufactured to help you accept your place as a good wagie.
"Improve your productivity with [watered down version of serious philosophy]"

>> No.20254157

>>20254151
Or actually to rephrase, not that right has nothing to do with you, but that the rightness itself is not defined by you, That is what strikes me as fatalistic about the notion of objective morality.

>> No.20254183

>>20254087
>you can't make moral claims since every claim you make is redundant and is based on your fee-fees, you'retrying to have your cake and eat it too
You've just restated the same claim with no evidence. Why can't you make moral claims based on feelings? A moral claim is fundamentally an assertion over another person or social group to call them to action or move them. The claim itself is the instrumental use of feelings over others to accomplish certain desired ends. If morality is determined by humans, I don't see how that has any bearing on the terms that are used.

>> No.20254199
File: 33 KB, 639x359, sun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20254199

>>20254157
re: your rephrase, I can see where you're coming from... fatalistic because you have no control over the good. There's no proving any of this, but plato can speak for himself: in the metaphor of the sun + cave, the sun is the form of the good, your eyes are your soul, and the light from the sun is knowledge and truth. The sun is what provides light but isn't light itself; once outside the cave your eyes will adjust and be able to perceive the light. Sounds good to me

>> No.20254213

>>20253692
it's just because religion is slowly dying in the west so new cope come to replace the old ones

>> No.20254217

>>20254068
Fair enough, I know not enough about history to argue that point, and I had misimterpreted your earlier message to be a defence of your statement that murder is bad as objective in a world that you claim is non-objective, my bad for not reading.
Still though, I think there are quite some strong defences for objective morality. Off the top of my head, within your earlier statement that "murder is bad because of feelings", does that not suggest that within our subjective existence(our world) there is still some objective metric? (our feelings) Not to say that this metric in itself is logical, nor consistent, but upon application to the wider world, it becomes objective through our code of law, and society, and so forth, even in the absence of any meta-narrative.
>>20254081
I am a brainlet, please explain what you mean, I put my statement within the context of western society, and to my knowledge the genetic fallacy is an assertion that the current situation is flawed because of history, without taking into context thr current situation.

>> No.20254226

>>20254087
>You are being hypocritical
okay and, I don't have any objective standard teling me not to be.

>> No.20254229

>>20254183
Nigger, you have zero justification for anything you say or do, thus becoming redundant. Your feelings aren't justification. Again you're never going to get it either due to your stupidity or wilful ignorance.

>> No.20254233

>>20254226
>I am a living contradiction
/lit/ isn't bringing their best.

>> No.20254234

>>20253335
We're still living in postmodernity

>> No.20254235

>>20254217
>where do you think your [moral] feelings come from?
implying the truth/untruth of something is determined on where it comes from. genetic fallacy moment

>> No.20254256

Wisdom of life - Arthur Schopenhauer

>> No.20254259

>>20254217
>does that not suggest that within our subjective existence(our world) there is still some objective metric? (our feelings) Not to say that this metric in itself is logical, nor consistent, but upon application to the wider world, it becomes objective through our code of law, and society, and so forth, even in the absence of any meta-narrative.
That's a very good point. I've often wondered this myself that the consistency of our feelings have their own internal logic to them, and so could be said to be objective. The terms subjective v.s subjective imo should be discarded from philosophical debates. Questions about morality imo are primarily metaphysical questions. I don't think we can see beyond the border of reality to ever truly understand the real nature of anything including morality. All we can do is observe certain patterns among humans and make guesses as to the nature of these patterns. Certainly there's a kind of ostensible logic to the notion of fairness--that a disequilibrium, where one takes excessively, ought to receive equal response. We can see this impulse even in animals.
The answer that these impulses are only natural selection, animals seeking their own survival never satisfies me because it only begs the question as to why such order should appear in reality to begin with.

>> No.20254260

Optimistic nihilism is one of the most soulless and empty life philosophies out there.

>> No.20254271

>>20254233
>>I am a living contradiction
>/lit/ isn't bringing their best.
We are all walking contradictions if we're honest.

>> No.20254308

>>20253335
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the video, but I remember thinking that it was just the more of the same, techno-utopian positivism. I recall thinking it was bizarre that anyone could believe that humans could achieve the level of technology depicted in the video without it also being used by terrorists, cults, nation states, privateers, etc. Am I remembering this correctly?

>> No.20254389

>>20254259
>I've often wondered this myself that the consistency of our feelings have their own internal logic to them, and so could be said to be objective.
Except someone's feelings on a subject can change due to stimuli. Usually some empirical evidence or rational argument (which can be treated subjectively through skepticism and knowledge of cognitive biases). I think feelings are subjective but also the best thing we have but trying to treat them as objective can lead to some problematic outcomes like the stereotypical "my feelings over yours facts" new age stuff.

>> No.20254442

>>20254389
>I think feelings are subjective but also the best thing we have but trying to treat them as objective can lead to some problematic outcomes like the stereotypical "my feelings over yours facts" new age stuff.
Sure feelings change and obviously everyone has a different personality. All I meant was that there could be a kind of over-arching logic to people's feelings and to human social structures. A worker ant's desire to help the queen bee may be subjective to it, but zoomed out one can see how that individual will fits into a larger totality of how the colony functions. Certain scenarios tend to provoke similar predictable responses. The person to the right of you is given 4 gold coins, you only get 1. The feeling will likely be resentment or anger. Someone tries to attack a mother's baby, that mother will go aggro. Etc.

>> No.20254444

>>20253962
>as though social utility has any bearing on the truth or untruth of these questions
well, it might

>> No.20254448

>>20254260
It's probably not a good thing for your evaluation of life philosophies to be just based on what you find aesthetically appealing.

>> No.20254465

You need to go further back and start with history to understand why nihilism is rubbish.

The french bourgeois went a step further than the angloscum and their british and american crappy republics or sterile monarchy. The french bourgeois understood very quickly that in order to secure Humanism, ie capitalism, for good, they have to build an alternative which remains 100% humanistic, ie without any monarchy in mind.

So after the french bourgeois told the peasants to kill their evil king and how the bourgeois will care more and better about the peasants than a guy literally sent by god on earth to rule a military power and MAKE FRANCE GREAT, they created the ''''''''''''''''''''''new liberalism'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' with the help of their jewish friends. THat's called proto judeo bolchevism..
So instead of the having the dichotomy, ie the choice, left to the peasants between the republic, their bourgeois, merchants, merkantlists and their crappy angloscum religion that everyone should be a meaningless businessman obsessed with making money for money's sake on the one hand, AND and on the other hand, the king and it's monarchy based on strong army and strong agriculture, the evil atheist bourgeois shifted the whole society towards the choice between ''''''right'''''' and ''''left''''' bureaucrats.

As an aside they also started ''''''''''''''nationalism'''''''' to replace the kingdoms with ''''''''''''''''nation states''''''''''''.
The killing of the french king scared lots and lots of small kings in europe and people were eager to adopt this new society, ie the 100% bourgeois controlled '''republic''.
So this started well and the final destruction of the old god-approved world was to kill the russian king, ie the tsar.So what did the bourgeois and algosucm did? they told the russian peasants to kill their king. Russia was the biggest military and agricultural power remaining from the old days. Before the bourgeois took over, dont forget that society was based on the army, with the king being a miliatry guy, and on agriculture.

The first thing the bourgeois and their atheists puppets did was to turn russia into the second part of the new dichotomy. With the american, the british scum turned the brand new america into the atheit heaven embodying the ''classical liberalism'' part of their dichotomy.
Russia was the perfect opportunity to get a HUGE country starting fresh on '''''new liberalism'''.
This was in the 1900s. 100 years later the made up jewish-bourgeois creation of the ''''''new liberalism''' lives strongly in the mind of the atheist goyims and business wanabees from the ''middle class'', especially the middle class women.
To this day the goyims still believes that '''left'' and ''right'' are real dichotomies, when in fact it's 100% controlled by revolutionary bourgeois. The alternative is utterly fake.

>> No.20254469

>>20254465

So as said, the atheist democracy is just the social system created by the merchants to develop international commerce to the max, and since jews have been in the middle of any business due to the elite christian goys putting them here when societies were based on kingdoms and military, the jews are again at the top of the society. And capitalism is the atheist version of judeochristinaity. And the goys still idolize this jewish system. It's funny how things never change in the West lol. THat was jsut a broad historical recap.

Now for philosophy. It's pretty quick because intl commerce is empty. The intellectual side is barren.
atheism = hedonism = consumerism, so there is no real purpose to life beyond:
-following the rules of the current bureaucrats
-being some wageslave
-trying to coom in your spare time

In other words, atheists dont have an answer to suicide. They are literally defenseless.
Atheists killed any higher purpose since that was given by religious people and the merchants hate to have their lives dictated by those. So they removed them from power and now there is only the 3 above parts of the daily life.
300 years later, the atheists had to invent some meaning to life, so they created the ''Think of the children'' meme.
The funny thing is that the direct consequence to devote the moral actions in a society on the kids, is that it puts women on the forefront of morality and the society.


The atheists have no critical thinking so they hype retards who discover warm water.
they just discovered that society is full of mental maturbation about pictures & humanism is just glorification of the state, ie fascism, but it's better than other fascisms because this time, 1/all the humanist intellectuals, actors, commentators & journalists are included in the ruling class, & 2/they said that ''being life affirming'' ie being a vitalist, is good. Vitalism is the fancy word of the atheist for being an hedonist, ie cooming. This is why in humanism, there is a merger of politics, education & entertainment, & why atheists are sex & drug addicts glorifying sex & drugs.

>> No.20254478

>>20254469


Atheism exists only by rejection of judeo christianity , so now that jewish or goy christians are not in power (jewish christians died 2000 years ago, so they really cant be in power, only christian goys survived roaming in europe and the US), they still need a bogeyman & need to dream up threats of nazis harming atheist democracy. Ie creating more & more narratives & pictures to delude themselves into a fake sense of righteousness, because atheists never hear from non-atheists that atheism is awesome. This is why atheists desperately turn to eastern guruisms, hoping the gurus will tell them they are decent people. It works because the gurus capitalized on these empty followers by embodying the drug-free asexual old wise character. Gurus expressed the emptiness the atheists were feeling & then played the character which would be the opposite of their emptiness, which in turn reinforced their projection as him being an enlightened master.
So atheists have no external validation besides scam artists banking money & sex from them. An atheist is a fatherless girl craving to hear from her father that she is a good girl, but all she does is spending her life on casual sex & posting on instagram how she loves the dalai lama & the latest fair-trade beauty cream.

>> No.20254625
File: 129 KB, 1200x1190, 1645136843137.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20254625

>>20253335
Bumping. Can someone recommend me a book about the current online political landscape and culture wars? Preferably neutral sources though, not neo-reactionaries or anyone overly concerned with aesthetic

>> No.20255222

>>20254259
>The answer that these impulses are only natural selection, animals seeking their own survival never satisfies me because it only begs the question as to why such order should appear in reality to begin with.
Discard evolution and you have the solution to this dilemma.
>>20254465
Yes, you're correct. The European states all share the same humanistic foundation. Democracy, Fascism, and Communism are all part of the same system. To achieve this end they had to kill or remove the monarchs after the first world war, the final and strongest being the Russian Tsar. This is what we call the 'revolutionary spirit'. It is inherently a revolution against God, objectivity, and hierarchy. To remove the divine elements of society and replace it with a humanistic interpretation of the bourgeois or societal elites. For example we now see humans as homo-economicus, just a flesh bag made for economic production. Make no mistake, this was an endeavour by the Western Europen states particularly from the Anglos and French as they saw the Russian system as a competitor to their atheistic worldview.

We are seen as biological machines that can be 're-programmed' like any animal in a Pavlovian sense. The final critique of mine is that without objectivity or God we have no justification to argue against this and thus we end up with no argument against anything we might find displeasing or contradicting to the Christian ideas of morality, economy, society or even humanity.

>> No.20255227

>>20254625
Abandon politics. It's a trap for the goy masses.

>> No.20255234

>>20254259
>animals seeking their own survival never satisfies me because it only begs the question as to why such order should appear in reality to begin with
Your mistake is assuming that there must necessarily be a "why" behind it at all.

>> No.20255245

>>20253335
Optimistic Nihilism is a philosophy for people who quote Rick and Morty

>> No.20256611

>>20253335
Read The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker.

>> No.20256951

>>20253506
Anons like you are the worst. You come in, derail (or in your case, attempt to derail) conversation without providing any substitution for the topic of conversation. You don't push a theory from a harder book, you don't refute the one from 1984, you just say easy, empty sentences that can be defended from any angle because of how insubstantial they are.

I hate you, anon. I hope your shitty country's space program launches a taped-together craft into the air that makes it a quarter as far as it needs to and ten times further than it should and it comes plummeting down on you, wiping out you and all your loved ones.

>> No.20256981

>>20253335
>“Life is what we make of it. Travel is the traveler. What we see isn't what we see but what we are.”
-Pessoa

>> No.20257241

>>20255222
>Discard evolution and you have the solution to this dilemma.
Not really. People have forever debated these philosophical questions long before evolution was ever a concept and still disagreed. In any case evolution is real so what you're suggesting is to just retreat into delusions

>> No.20257244

>>20255234
There might not be but it's only human to search for answers where answers evade us.

>> No.20257275

>>20257241
We're not animals and morality is separate from a narrative about natural selection or survival.
>In any case evolution is real
"No."

>> No.20257478

>>20254469
>300 years later, the atheists had to invent some meaning to life, so they created the ''Think of the children'' meme.
>The funny thing is that the direct consequence to devote the moral actions in a society on the kids, is that it puts women on the forefront of morality and the society.
Fascinating insight

>> No.20257559

>>20253335
Bronze Age Mindset. Beyond Good and Evil. Natural Right and History. The Republic.

>> No.20258223

>>20257478
lol'd

>> No.20258269

>>20253335
Read Jameson

>> No.20258385

>>20253335
Optimistic nihilism makes no sense. It is self-refuting. Nihilism is anti-foundationalism: nihilists have no grounds on which to believe such a thing like hope even exists. Resorting to hope (optimism) in the face of nihilism is to not be a nihilist.

>> No.20258397

>>20256951
He's right. Comparing our current socio-political climate to 1984 doesn't make any sense. What we have today in the post-industrial world is a basically ruleless society.

Modern and pre-modern peoples spent their days working towards their survival, and had very little access to information. This led to rigid cultures forming around simple ways of life. Taboos, beliefs, and norms all came about as a way of regulating social behaviour. Government's took on the role of overseeing these "rules".

Unbridled technological progress has led to automation and wide spread access to information. The sorts of tasks we busy ourselves with today are abstract and usually exist to serve our entertainment, not our survival. We have overcome our survival and become alienated from our historical ways of life. This, coupled with our wide spread access to information has led to cultural disintegration. There now exists less widely agreed upon norms, taboos and beliefs in Western culture than ever before. Almost any way of life is seen as valid and acceptable. Because of this, it's not clear anymore what the role of governments should be. How could the US gov for example possible govern the internet and its use? The answer: with a lot of uncertainty and confusion.

And that basically sums up postmodern, post-industrial life. To quote Kafka, "we are lost because we are free". Our value system has collapsed. People don't derive much fulfilment from their careers because the tasks they do aren't essential. People who work in offices today frequently ask themselves "why am I doing this? What difference will my actions make?" But this question wouldn't have made any sense for a medieval peasant growing crops to feed his family. Life may be easier now than ever before but it's also less meaningful, because he have no real rules and no ideals to aim towards. Because we have overcome our survival, we have no purpose (besides artistic pursuits I suppose).

What I'm getting at is that our world today is one characterized by a lack of meaning and structure. We are free and we are fed, but yet we are lost and we are starving.

1984 is about a totalitarian regime that brainwashes its subjects into serving it, out of greed. It's a good book but it doesn't really relate to the problems of our world today. For that, I would recommend my dairy desu

>> No.20258420

>>20258397
good post

>> No.20258434

>>20258397
Just joking. I actually would recommend Deleuze (for understanding our world today), and Proust (for understanding how one can affirm life and find meaning in such a society). You could also check out my book, which aims to do both of these things: https://www.amazon.ca/Spring-Rain-Adventures-during-Covid-19/dp/B09HQBQRZN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3ISSMQGHQZUYQ&keywords=thomas+andersson+spring+rain&qid=1650577588&s=books&sprefix=thomas+andersson+spring+rain%2Cstripbooks%2C79&sr=1-1

>> No.20258459

>>20258420
Thanks mate. If you like that you should buy my book. It's entertaining I promise.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B09HQBQRZN/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_J4511KJ7CE81H5MQPAJ6

>> No.20258462

>>20258459
>people on /lit/ don't actually write books.

>> No.20258463

>>20258397
>1984 is about a totalitarian regime that brainwashes its subjects into serving it

What do you think the entertainment industry is trying to do?

Also nice book shill

>> No.20258465

>>20258462
I wrote it before I discovered this place. Haven't written much since...

>> No.20258498

>>20253335
Thanks for pointing me toward the YouTube video it was pretty good.

>> No.20258509

>>20258397
Artistic pursuit is the purpose of survival. Without artistic pursuit and beauty, life would literally be hell (since this is what hell consists in: ugliness). Nothing has essentially been lost other than the obvious motivation, that of doing what you need to to survive. It doesn't take a genius to know you need to find food and eat if you're hungry. But once you've already established your basic needs such that you don't have to be constantly attending to them, your actions should change to better fit in the previously mentioned "artistic pursuit", but this becomes much more difficult, because the direction is no longer a clear one. It becomes a life of careful introspection, comparison, self-knowledge, and discovery, and then at that point one of summarization, distillation into clear self-imposed principles of aesthetics, and then a testing of discipline, a reworking of ingrained habits. If one fails, you can collapse into dumb hedonism and ironically turn your life into a hell following your first impulses without careful experimentation and examination.

>> No.20258699

>>20258498
the video is bad

>> No.20258843

>>20258699
The video is good

>> No.20258847
File: 131 KB, 1044x1280, IMG_20220326_221209_085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20258847

>>20253335
> Rising rates of mental illness
> Even worse for dispossessed digital youth
> Climate catastrophe unleashing positive feedback loops
> Emissions still increasing
> All alternatives dependent on materials harder to extract and more globalized than oil
> 70% drop in total insect populations compared to 50 years ago
> Supply chain hasn't recovered 2+ years after a brief demand shock
> Inflation and food prices skyrocketing worldwide
> War between Europe's breadbaskets making everything worse
Lol I bet it's easy for these Gates Foundation lackies to "find their own meaning" when they've been riding the prog gravy train of the 2010s nonstop for years
Also let's see how resilient this self-found meaning proves when people are living by Indian slum standards and their "self-found meaning" is 95% consumptive in nature
How do you queers who actually believe this even remember to breathe?

>> No.20258855

>>20258397
Best comment in the history of lit. You summed it all up. now I feel depressed thanks anon

>> No.20259050

>>20257275
>We're not animals and morality is separate from a narrative about natural selection or survival.
We are animals, but yes I agree debates about morality do not have to revolve around natural selection. Weird that you think these positions are mutually exclusive.

>> No.20259447
File: 846 KB, 1704x2560, 912siL3k6vL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20259447

>>20253335
Only good answer in this thread

>> No.20259468

>>20259050
Go debate with a dog.
>>20259447
This is the only correct answer. It's a shame most people can't humble themselves enough to realise this is the truth.

>> No.20259475

>>20253496
We are all coping with something. Doesn't have to be bad, simply the reality we live in and the limits it provides.

>> No.20259500

>>20253496
>Did you know this image has a video attached to it that will explain it to you?
Kurzgesagt fucks up whenever they touch anything philosophical with a 10 foot pole and this is no different. There is no rational reason to be "optimistic" about existence having no purpose. "We can make our own meaning!" this is not only a pathetic cope it's inconsistent pathetic cope. What if humanity decides to collectively embrace Wahhabism as their chosen meaning? Kurzgesagt would go "Nooooo don't choose your meaning like that!"

What he actually means is that you can pick your own "meaning" so long as it conforms with his primarily materialistic and nihilistic outlook on the cosmos but the issue is it's IMPOSSIBLE to be logically consistent in intellectually knowing there is no point to existence and choosing a "meaning" of your life. He's just saying "Hey there's no real difference whether you live or die tomorrow but just LARP like it matters and it will be ok". It's intellectual cowardice. If the universe truly is fundamentally nihilistic and without meaning then you need to accept all the unpleasant consequences that comes with that position.

The tendency for fedoras like Kurzgesagt to simultaneously claim the universe is a pointless dark void and then turn around and spout sappy sentimental bullshit about how you can just pretend the shit you do matters is disgusting

>> No.20259538

>>20259500
Agreed. It's disingenuous as fuck and intellectually dishonest. Good post.

>> No.20259739
File: 2.00 MB, 500x377, moe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20259739

>>20259500
Nihilism is attractive to intellectuals because it's safe. It's the most extreme declaration possible, and extremes are always easier to defend because they don't allow for complexity. People who have even an ounce of sincere curiosity and aren't just looking for the most meta way to intellectually spar about bullshit will wind up crossing through nihilism and settling into absurdism, where you at least don't have to LARP about meaning and can instead accept that meaning is a possibility. Absurdism isn't going to appeal to those people, however, because it requires you admit to your own limitations.
Nihilism is itself a cope for cowards and narcissists who would rather live in denial about the pressure having to live a meaningful life, so it only makes sense that sweetening the deal with "optimistic nihilism" would sell like fucking hotcakes.

>> No.20259793

>>20259739
>where you at least don't have to LARP about meaning and can instead accept that meaning is a possibility
What makes that not a LARP? Don't absurdists also believe everything is ultimately meaningless in the long run, and acknowledge the meaning you create for yourself is only good for the duration of your life? Never was able to grasp the concept well.

>> No.20260094

>>20253335
>Any books about the current zeitgeist?
>cuckgezagt screenshot
pseud detected

>>20253496
>>20253572
>>20253638
>>20253669
reddit tier midwit delusion to think that a cuckgezagt video will explain anything, you're coping with the fact your shitty opinion got shredded outside of reddit

>> No.20260198

>>20258509
art is 100% bourgeois

>> No.20260200

>>20257559
so all books by atheists pushing for more atheism woah

>> No.20260227

>>20257478
It's not good that women are listened to. one of the biggest red pills is the first time you realize that women experience literally no disconnect between saying X when it feels good to say X, and completely betraying and contradicting X five seconds later when it feels good to do that. women like to "try on" male-centric morals and virtues like children playing dress-up, but they don't actually know what it means to set up a virtue as an objective principle for oneself and then resist the temptation to break it in future moments when it stops being convenient and pleasant.

so if you ask a woman what kind of guy she values, she will blab on and on for hours about how noble she is and how she sees through superficiality and only wants sweet genuine men and etc., etc., etc. then five seconds later she'll completely contradict everything she said. the key thing to understand about women is that they don't perceive any difference here. from a man's perspective, you are thinking "but she said 'i only do X' and two seconds later she did 'non-X'?" this is because the fundamental modality of male consciousness is erecting principles and trying to follow them - even if you're a shitty man, it just means you're shitty and weak at erecting principles, not that the FUNDAMENTAL modality of principle-erection is absent. a woman's fundamental modality is "doing what i feel like." to a woman, that behavior is completely consistent: in the first instance, she did what she felt like. then she did what she felt like again. only a man perceives that the CONTENT of the actions was contradictory, i.e., would be contradictory if performed by a man. but for a woman whose primary stream of consciousness is "what do i want to do right now? :) perhaps i'll wear a ribbon in my hair tomorrow, tralalaa!," no such contradiction occurred, or indeed is even possible.

>> No.20260283

The amount of sincere discussion besides disdain and simple refutation towards a Kurzgesagt video is a heavy indictment to the state of /lit/.

>> No.20260300

>>20253335
the knee jerk reaction to this is "evilism" which won't manifest politcally until resource scarcity but will we propped up in the coming decades by the deterioration of humanist or idealist idology in place neo-primitive sacrificialism, fatalism and dualism or atleast I wish ;_;

>> No.20260449

>>20260227
Utterly deranged

>> No.20260453

>>20259447
Based

>> No.20260465

>>20259468
>Go debate with a dog.
We are animals. Doesn't mean every animal is the same. I can't debate with a dog because a dog lacks language. Man you are dense. Keep coping.

>> No.20260567

I've always had a strongly acosmic outlook on life but it's not despairing as much as it is numbing

>> No.20261117

>>20259500
>t. der Untermensch