Existentialist /lit/

[Anonymous No.20430937]

>got the good paying job
>got a cute girl who loves me
>parents left me a house for me to live so dont have to worry about debt
>meeting all my goals in life
>Feel more miserable now than ever before

Wtf should I read to help me solve this? Everything feels so fucking pointless and I get paralyzing anxiety just thinking about the purpose of life. Also God is not an option, what should I read? Heidegger? Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.20430949]

I actually hate you. Literally, sincerely, and unironically kill yourself

[Anonymous No.20430981]

>>20430949
>A house, a girlfriend and still can have depression? AGHHHHH I'M GOING INSAAAAAANE

[Anonymous No.20430983]

Call of the Crocodile. Deals with the concepts of non existence and going insane. I’ve never seen the concept done in horror before and it’s really creepy

[Anonymous No.20430990]

>>20430937
Fuck you, give me your house, job and girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.20430992]

>>20430981
I dont really feel depressed, more like empty. Like everything I used to love became chronically boring. If I killed myself it would be out of prolonged boredom, not prolonged sadness

[Anonymous No.20430996]

>>20430983
Memes aside this is a good answer. Gardner seems to have peaked behind the veil of reality and every time I read one of his books it makes me feel like my life is a lie.

[Anonymous No.20430999]

>>20430983
>>20430996
Kys

[Anonymous No.20431004]

>>20430983

[Anonymous No.20431005]

>>20430983
This.

The story is written by the guy Faggot Gardener. It's really well done

[Anonymous No.20431009]

>>20430983
/thread

[Anonymous No.20431017]

>>20430937
Read the religious existentialists. Especially the Russians are really good: Berdyaev and Shestov.

[Anonymous No.20431021]

>>20430983
I don’t even understand why this book is memed so much. It’s a genuinely unique and unsettling approach. I have not read the other books by F Gardner but I’m honestly considering it now.

[Anonymous No.20431046]

>>20430937
Start with the Gospels

[Anonymous No.20431055]

>>20430937
>Also God is not an option, what should I read?
Lol

[Anonymous No.20431157]

>>20430937
I understand. Once the grind stops you got time to be alone with your thoughts. Acquire skills.

[Anonymous No.20431162]

>>20430937
The existencialism is for black people.

[Anonymous No.20431169]

>>20430937
You lack struggle in life, the feeling of accomplishment after hard work. Get some creative hobby and read books related to it.

[Anonymous No.20431200]

>>20431157
>>20431169
>doesn't mention religion
here we go again

[Anonymous No.20431225]

>>20430937
There is no purpose to life and no external accomplishment will change that. You have a hole inside you that only you can fix. Get a beginner's book on stoicism, read it and report back.

[Anonymous No.20431237]

>>20431225
I read the stoics a while back and didnt find them that appealing but its been a long time and Im a different person so Ill give them a go. Thank you fren

[Anonymous No.20431678]

>>20430937
Read pessimists like Cioran and Schopenhauer, they will smooth out your bad mood a bit. But if you are desperate and courageous enough, take the path of nihilism and amoralism, it will lighten up the tarnished image of the world and replace despair with an invigorating hatred and passion for destruction. For the last read Nietzsche and decadent literature like Baudelaire.

[Anonymous No.20431686]

>>20431021
Only Gardner recommends his own books.

[Anonymous No.20431698]

>>20430992
>empty
Cluster B, hence >>20430949

[Anonymous No.20431769]

>>20431698
I was just looking up symptoms of histrionic personality disorder and found this.
>Strong opinions without actual knowledge
Had a good chuckle

[Anonymous No.20431775]

>>20430937
>He believes achieving technical goals will make him content with life

[Anonymous No.20431780]

>>20430937
Read Eleatic fragments and testimonia, some surrounding essays, and spread the good word of monist metaphysics. This is your new mission: give rise to a new era of Pre-Socratic wisdom and discovery.

[Anonymous No.20431794]

>>20430937
those things don't mean anything. what's your job? were all your goals in life just to get a job and a girlfriend? were those your goals or just goals?

[Anonymous No.20431829]

>>20430937
>broke
>alone
>shit parents
>failed ever hope ive ever had
>suicidal thoughts every day
And the joke's still on you faggpt

[Anonymous No.20432368]

>>20431829
Gay

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20432382]

Get some human friends and befriend God.

[Anonymous No.20432388]

you idiots do realize that everything since German Idealism in German philosophy is just their intellectual and erudite form of theology and that includes Heidegger.
Sein is God.

I know americans are too low iq to get, but thats how it is.

[Anonymous No.20432420]

>>20432388
>posts something that has nothing to do with the thread
>drops some bullshit opinion he probably read on the internet
>very possible never read German idealists and Heidegger
Thank you for your effort.

[Anonymous No.20432454]

>>20432420
i have read every work of german idealism (in german) and all of Heideggers major works.

my post was pertinent to a user itt but he didn’t deserve a (you)

[Anonymous No.20432475]

>>20432454
That's unbelievable how a person who is so well-read can't distinguish between pure ontology and theology.

[Anonymous No.20432497]

>>20432475
do name german theologists post 1800 where you dont feel cringe calling them genuine theologists.

I would like to point out that even Ratzinger ‘was’ self proclaimed heideggerian in his ‘theology’

[Anonymous No.20432528]

>>20432497
I'm not interested in theology. My point is that such categories as Geist or Dasein don't necessarily include connotations of God and should or at least could be seen as completely autonomous ontological concepts.

[Anonymous No.20432540]

>>20432528
>Der dialektische Weg des Geistes zum absoluten Wissen ist ein Gottwerden -Logik Vorwort
did YOU even read the guys you claim I didnt read?
And surely Heidegger basing so much on Luther and Eckhart was just material for literary inspiration. Dude was a based atheist too smart for God just like me!

[Anonymous No.20432568]

>>20431775
stop shilling him

[Anonymous No.20432577]

>>20430983
Call of the Crocodile is kino as fuck.

[Anonymous No.20432590]

>>20432540
Been meaning to read Heidegger but I've heard that it's just Zen with extra steps. Is there any merit to reading him? I lean more towards positivism/empiricism/skepticism. Which philosophers would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.20432595]

>>20432540
The fact that the spirit as a certain absolute becomes in God doesn't disregard the autonomous potential of Hegel's concept of Geist. Also, the fact that Heidegger was influenced by the mystical teaching of Eckhart doesn't necessarily affect the concept of Dasein directly, either explicitly or implicitly.

[Anonymous No.20432636]

>>20432590
unless you are German I dont recommend getting into German philosophy that isnt analytical philosophy (as that is highly influential in the anglo world).
But of course Heidegger is ‘worth it’.
Just start with the greeks. It should take you years to get to ‘your philosopher’.
>>20432595
its the natural progression of german intellectuals. Jacob Böhme was a strict theological Christian and Hegels biggest influence specifically for terminology.
Maybe you think all medieval theologians were low IQ dogmatists?

Sorry dude, but you are just wrong. Youd get more out of thinkers who reference God if you approached them with the same respect as you show your “godless” thinkers and lose the ignorant prejudice and cringe anglo dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.20432662]

>>20432636
Well, in the end, this is a respectable ending to our discussion, if you can call it that way.

[Anonymous No.20432664]

>>20430992
>more like empty
mate that is just normal. There has never been a day in life that I didn't feel like there was a giant part of me missing. You just have to delude yourself into believing a overarching goal and work towards it. Doesn't matter if it is a politcal ideology, religion or money. So long as you can see it as something worth devoting your energy towards and can become an absolute fanatic to the point you think it is worth fighting for you'll at least not notice the emptiness (as much).

[Anonymous No.20432812]

>>20432388
>>20432540
>>20432636
>Sein is God
This is the dumbest reading of Heidegger (and German philosophy) I’ve ever seen. You obviously don’t grasp the ontological difference if you believe this. God and gods are beings, not Being.

Heidegger was an outspoken atheist, even edgy, during the time he did his habilitation on Duns Scotus and when he worked on SZ - not to mention his whole period of historico-destruction of ontotheology and platonic-christianity, and the fact that his black notebooks are full of rage directed towards Christians and Jews and their theological “worldview”.

Taking Heidegger and Hegel for that matter (who got a lot flack for ‘killing’ God and the Christian faith before Nietzsche even entered the stage) as theologically preoccupied with putting “God” at the center of philosophy is a horrible mistake.

[Sage No.20432829]

>>20432812
good post. Heidegger in the end was a sort of Platonist, taking on Plato's quest to understand the difference between the Ideal and the Real. In the end it drove him insane.

[Anonymous No.20432857]

>>20430937
>Heidegger
lol, Heidegger surely won't help you feel gud.
What's your idea about Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.20433019]

>>20430937
>Also God is not an option
This is your problem. There is no other option.

[Anonymous No.20433045]

>>20430937
I think you should do some drugs and experience ego death, might give you a new perspective on life

[Anonymous No.20433056]

>>20431698
>Cluster B

[Anonymous No.20433062]

>>20432590
Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, Hume, Descartes

for OP read Gabriel Marcel if need be.

[Anonymous No.20433129]

>>20430937
Welcome to life, anon. Have a kid to spice it up for a few more years until Habit consumes that, too.

[Anonymous No.20433134]

>>20432497
Ratzinger is too much based on the comparison with Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.20433140]

>>20430937
You need to do something dangerous to regain your love of life. I recommend starting with skydiving and go from there. Seek thrills, and you will start coming back to humanity. I was just like you

[Anonymous No.20434255]

>>20432812
sorry to break it to you kid, but when God is ontic you are not doing theology. Read Ratzinger.

You atheist cringe LARPers just WANT to have ‘God’ be the thing you are against to elevate your own notion above that which ‘the uneducated masses’ (your parents most likely) hold onto, but you fail to realize that when a genuine Christian, jew, muslim etc speak of God it is nothing but ontological.

You are vain losers who create strawmen to prop up your conviction, but by doing that you just make yourself as shallow and pathetic as those who you oppose.

German Philosophers Since Kant simply didnt accept the dated and ever sophmoric becoming arguments by the southern Europeans convincing anymore, so they made their own God and gave him all these beautiful German names.

[Anonymous No.20434327]

>>20430937
Read the Gospels, Acts and Ecclesiastes.

[Anonymous No.20434366]

>>20430937
Kierkegaards sickness upon death, and fear and trembling

[Anonymous No.20434383]

>>20434255
God doesn't exist, there is nothing I want or don't want god to be, because how can you make something that doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.20434387]

>>20434383
God is being and knowing. refute either, virgin.
Protip: you can't.

[Anonymous No.20434401]

>>20434383
>because how can you make something that doesn't exist?
The same way that God made our world, by making it come-to-be from nothing. You have reality upside down, it's us that were created from nothing.

[Anonymous No.20434409]

>>20434387
No need to refute something that doesn't exist. While you still haven't proved your nonsense. Don't feel too bad tho, it's impossible to prove metaphysical opinions, so you can quietly disappear from the thread.

[Anonymous No.20434412]

>>20434383
Not him but this was a midwit cop-out

[Anonymous No.20434413]

>>20434401
Then who made god? And your argument falls flat. God doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20434414]

>>20434413
>>20434383
weak bait

[Anonymous No.20434420]

>>20434412
Sorry, but I don't partake in metaphysical masturbation matches to prove or disprove other people's metaphysics. Metaphysics are fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.20434425]

>>20434414
Weaker argument, but please tell me all about your opinions on fairy tales and how they fit into your worldview, I'm sure you even have a unique take on christcuckery.

[Anonymous No.20434431]

>>20434413
Nothing can come from nothing. Something must have always existed.

[Anonymous No.20434438]

just stop posting

[Anonymous No.20434445]

>>20434431
So the universe always existed, where's the problem?

[Anonymous No.20434454]

>>20434445
Your argument of who made god is rendered irrelevant. Better luck next time.

[Anonymous No.20434460]

>>20434454
Universe and god is not the same, the former exists, the latter not. It's okay it might take some time for Christcucks to come to terms with this information.

[Anonymous No.20434461]

>>20434460
And how are you making this assertion?
How can you not know that the sensible universe is a subset of God?

[Anonymous No.20434465]

>>20434461
No proof of god, no god, simple as.

[Anonymous No.20434467]

>live in poverty
>autodidact
>mentally unhinged
>only go outside to visit the gym and the supermarket
>read obscure alt right political essays all morning
>study all evening
>haven't had sex in years
>every day is a struggle
>angry misanthrope with delusions of grandeur
>happy, look forward to conquering every day

consider struggle op

[Anonymous No.20434478]

>>20434465
No current proof =/= no god.
>if we have no proof of the Americas circa 1200s, they mustn't exist!

[Anonymous No.20434488]

>>20434478
And we found America's, so until you sail your little boat, find god and send god back to earth as a slave then tough luck, no god, it is cute that you think you'll ever find god tho.

[Anonymous No.20434494]

>>20434413
This question assumes God is conditioned by time, which would make time more divine than God. Nobody believes in god you're trying to refute, it's just a strawman.
Every worldview at its core would either rest on unprovable resupoositions and be circular. So the problem you want to see in God's existence is in fact not the problem of God, but the problem of how any worldview works. So the question is which worldview would be most coherent all-encompassing and honest. Materialism is not such a view.
And the fact that we didn't explain something in terms prior to it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. For example mathematics is 'out there', doesn't need time or space to sustain it, yet it's very studiable.

[Anonymous No.20434497]

>>20434488
At best, you can only say you are agnostic, not that god doesn't exist. Good job, retard.

[Anonymous No.20434511]

>>20434255
The holy and prayer and so on exists in an ontological sense for Dasein, but “God” is a definite ontic being. Sein is not a being for Heidegger

>when genuine christian, jew, muslims etc speak of God is nothing but ontological
They mostly engage “God” as a metaphysical place-holder to ensure presence (omni-presence), which is a particularly dangerous and misguided way of construing the “holy” as Heidegger would say, which is why he prefers early Christians (who never had any insurance of God’s presence because they waited for parousia) and Hölderlin’s notion of the flight of the gods

[Anonymous No.20434514]

>>20434494
Sorry, but humans coming up with math isn't proof that god exists.
>>20434497
Are you an agnostic for Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus and tooth fairy? Don't be stupid.

[Anonymous No.20434524]

>>20434514
>God is Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Holy bad argument. In no way are any of these comparable. If you're going to use such poor assertions, I'm not going to bother. At least come up with an intelligent retort.

[Anonymous No.20434529]

>>20434524
>It's not comparable because it just isn't okay
Put your tooth under the pillow, just in case she does exist and if nothing happens the next day, then try again, because you never know.

[Anonymous No.20434536]

>>20430937
Nigga, become a Buddhist

[Anonymous No.20434540]

>>20430937
Wow being buckbroken must suck.
I’m a schizo NEET and I wake up smiling every day and love being alive.

[Anonymous No.20434544]

>>20434514
>Sorry, but humans coming up with math
Where did I attempt any proofs? So you belief math is just a product of imagination. How do you then explain the fact that this imagination is independently accessible to different humans and civilizations? What makes it different from the works of fiction? The elements which are common to all fiction no matter time and space such as day, night, sun, rain, love usually describe things which exist.

[Anonymous No.20434548]

>>20431769
Hmm if everyone has it is it still a mental illness?

[Anonymous No.20434562]

>>20434544
Inches or centimeters which is correct? Math is a human construct to explain nature. That's it.

[Anonymous No.20434572]

>>20434514
>Are you an agnostic for Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus and tooth fairy? Don't be stupid.
That's quite an ignorant premise. You assume religions are exclusivist in the sense that they view all the other religions as totally made up nonsense just in the same way as you do, and that the only different is that you just reject one more religion as total nonsense. But that is not the case at all, Christianity for example doesn't reduce all pagan traditions to mere fantasies, they are often seen as genuinly describing real things, but not giving the complete picture, some could also been seen as demonic influences. But in any case not a single religion is atheistic towards other religions in the same way as atheists are.

[Anonymous No.20434588]

>>20434572
So you are agnostic for Thor? Or he's just a demon? Why do christcucks call themselves monotheistic again?

[Anonymous No.20434594]

>>20434562
>Inches or centimeters which is correct?
What does it have to do with math?
>Math is a human construct to explain nature
Wrong, most of mathematics is far removed from corpreal reality and is not based on anything from the physical world.
And you're not answering the question. If math is a mere human construct, how come it has notion of absolute truth which is accessible to different humans independently? Pi was the same throughout civilizations. Moreover if you see what prominent mathematicians have to say on the subjects, they all say they're discovering stuff, not inventing it.

[Anonymous No.20434605]

I'll be honest, there's this girl that I know and it is fucking KILLING me knowing that I'll never be able to lick her feet once in my life. Other than that I am almost numb to the misery of life now, just patiently waiting for it all to end

[Anonymous No.20434610]

>>20434594
What math is removed from reality? Give me an equation.

[Anonymous No.20434614]

>>20434588
I'm not well-versed in Scandinavian mythology to have an opinion on Thor. Maybe he was a demon, maybe nephelim, maybe Thor if understood correctly stood for some natural principle which was practical and the whole question of being agnostic for Thor is meaningless. Why should I have an opinion on the things I don't know about? What problem are you trying to point out exactly?

[Anonymous No.20434623]

>>20434610
Large cardinals are quite far removed for example. But more 'normal' things are not motivated by anything physical too such as Adams spectral sequence.

[Anonymous No.20434635]

>>20434623
What's so not physical about them?

[Anonymous No.20434647]

>>20434635
About large cardinals? The non-physicality begins in far ealier concepts which precede large cardinals, I just gave it as an example for its whackiness. Non-physicaly starts already when you consider transfinite sets and various sizes(cardinalities) of infinity. Continuum hypothesis for example has nothing to do with physics.

[Anonymous No.20434663]

>>20434647
If it doesn't deal with reality then it is just a thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.20434670]

>>20434663
So what? It's still math, I brought it up to demonstrate that math is not a human construct to describe material reality. The whole math can be said to be a thought experiment. Still you don't have any explanations to why math is objective and accessible independently to various researchers.

[Anonymous No.20434677]

>>20434670
Because people observe nature and use math and/or other tools to understand it, simple.

[Anonymous No.20434681]

>>20434677
Where did I claim math is not used to understand nature?
You're not addressing what I said at all and instead keep making unrelated strawmen.

[Anonymous No.20434691]

>>20434681
Where's the problem? Math is objective because nature is objective. People observe nature and it gives them objective answers in the form of math.

[Anonymous No.20434697]

>>20434691
>Math is objective because nature is objective
Holy paleopositivist cope, Batman!

[Anonymous No.20434707]

>>20434697
I'm sure you have an argument, but you accidentally pressed post, try again.

[Anonymous No.20434712]

>>20434691
>People observe nature and it gives them objective answers in the form of math.
That's the problem. Math is not studied by observing nature. You seem to be totally unaware of distinction between pure math and physics/applied math. The way math is done is totally different from the way natural sciences are. Scientific method doesn't use the notion of absolute truth, quite the contrary everything should be falsifiable. Whereas in math absolute truth is assumed. You can choose to say that his absolute truth is nothing more than chemicals in your brain, but in that case it's just a dishonest assumption, since you would seriously expect something like 2+2 could be equal to 5 sometimes.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Hume's is-ought dilemma and Duhem-Quine thesis.

[Anonymous No.20434723]

>>20434712
That which doesn't deal with reality is just a thought experiment. I have no problems with it, people can come up with all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove and disprove other mental gymnastics, doesn't make them real tho.

[Anonymous No.20434725]

>>20430983
>>20430996
>>20431005
>>20431009
>>20431021
>>20432577
Shut the FUCK up.

[Anonymous No.20434726]

>>20430937
you can't think your way out of existential angst

the only salvation to be found is through reconnecting with nature. if you need to read something, buy a bird guide for your state/region. Spend a couple of hours a day walking in the woods, focus on your surroundings. It goes without saying, but stop posting here and get rid of your smartphone and any social media.

after a decade plus spent in this shithole, it's been about six months since I last posted here, and they have been the best months of my life. this might be the last time I come here. good luck to everyone.

[Anonymous No.20434733]

>>20434707
There is no math that is tied to nature in any way.

[Anonymous No.20434736]

>>20434733
Math is just a tool, it obviously is not literally nature. A hammer is not a house.

[Anonymous No.20434737]

>wants to discover meaning of life
>avoids spirituality
Idiot.

[Anonymous No.20434738]

>>20434723
>That which doesn't deal with reality is just a thought experiment.
What are you trying to reduce it to by saying it's JUST a thought experiment? Is it just demagogy or you mean something precise? You still don't have any explanation for the objectivity of math.
>people can come up with all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove and disprove other mental gymnastics
What does it have to do with math? Established truth in mathematics is absolute, it's not some vague mumble-jumble which can be refuted by someone else.

[Anonymous No.20434742]

>>20434736
>Math is just a tool
So math is a made up human construct. Could it have been done differently then?

[Anonymous No.20434746]

>>20431769
>i was just looking up the latest horoscopes authority figures swear are true

[Anonymous No.20434752]

>>20434742
>So math is a made up human construct
No it isn't. It represents underlying reality.

[Anonymous No.20434757]

>>20434746
Traditional astrology is more accurate than jewish psychology.

[Anonymous No.20434758]

>>20434752
So you believe in non-physical reality?

[Anonymous No.20434759]

>>20434738
Math is objective because nature is objective. It's nature from which math derives it's objectivity, not the other way around.
>>20434742
Yes, it's a human construct. I don't know, maybe, the numbers could definitely be different.

[Anonymous No.20434777]

>>20434758
Yes, for I am not a jew nor a pleb.

[Anonymous No.20434782]

>>20434759
It's so simple, but he is having so much trouble with it. He has trouble thinking for himself I guess, definitely a leftcuck.

[Anonymous No.20434791]

>>20434759
>Math is objective because nature is objective
I don't know what you mean by nature exactly. But I have demonstrated that a lot of math doesn't only lack any physical motivation but deals with things which wouldn't ever have physical intepretation. And still those are objective and you don't have any explanation for their objectivity.
>Yes, it's a human construct. I don't know, maybe, the numbers could definitely be different.
Kekus. That's where atheism leads, denying the objectivity of numbers and logic. At least you're considering your convictions honestly which not many atheists do. But you should still take one step further. Since you deny the objectivity of logic and the notion of truth, you also shouldn't assume that you're arguing for some truth, you're already good at breaking logic, but you're still attached to the notion of truth, abandon it also.

[Anonymous No.20434793]

>>20434791
>considering your convictions
consequences of your convictions*

[Anonymous No.20434796]

>>20434759
> It's nature from which math derives it's objectivity
Holy paleopositivist cope, Batman.

[Anonymous No.20434824]

>>20434791
Nature, reality, whatever word you want to use.
Again they are objective because nature is objective. That which is not set in reality is just mental gymnastics, no matter how objective it is in said mental gymnastics, I'm sure Plato's forms can seem very objective, doesn't make it true.
Numbers and logic are man made, plenty of numbers, plenty of logics, who makes you the superior on logic? Ever heard of a women's logic? What truth? Why not untruth?

[Anonymous No.20434838]

>>20434824
How do you know there isn't a higher reality that is more real than this reality?

[Anonymous No.20434846]

>>20434838
Because this reality is enough for me.

[Anonymous No.20434855]

>>20434846
Read a book on logic. It will do you good.

[Anonymous No.20434857]

>>20434824
I said I don't know what you mean by nature because I don't intend to be stuck in your false dichotomies. Of course mathematics is part of reality, but the non-physical part of it.
>That which is not set in reality is just mental gymnastics, no matter how objective it is in said mental gymnastics
You can call it thought experiment, mental gymnastics or whatever you want. You still don't have any explanation for why math is objective, and repeating the same thing doesn't help, I've shown you math which is not only devoid of physical motivation but will never have physical interpretation.
>plenty of numbers
What?? There are different kinds of natural numbers?
> plenty of logics, who makes you the superior on logic?
From the context of my posts it's very clear that I meant formal mathematical logic. When it's applied to human thought or to anything about physical reality, then the question of superiority and mental gymnastics makes sense, since maybe there is a flaw in the way you applied it. Still I can rely on such a logic because it is absolute, the fact that I can use it mistakinglly is another issue, just like arithmetical mistakes don't mean that numbers are flawed.
>What truth?
Because I assume you are a materialist, I bring up only very restricted notions of absolute truths, namely mathematical and logical truths. But you yourself denied their objectivity already, so I don't know how you could argue for anything without assuming those things.

[Anonymous No.20434858]

>>20434855
Who's logic? There are as many logics as people.

[Anonymous No.20434862]

>>20434858
Atheism as it is.

[Anonymous No.20434875]

>>20434858
A man is condemed to death. Is he the murderer? Or is he not the murderer? Either/or. No such thing as multiple logics.

[Anonymous No.20434890]

>>20434875
I think he genuinly doesn't understand the nature of distinction between the general and particular, that's why he keeps trying to muddy the waters by reducing each particular case to something, ignoring the abstract categories, so he could say murderer is a human construct too, and the victim was killed by knife, not the murderer.

[Anonymous No.20434904]

>>20434857
Math is derived from nature, all objectivity and truth that is in math comes from nature. If the math that is used isn't set on physical traits it's just a thought experiment and therefore not set in reality. That is how paradoxes come to be, they are just conjured in the mind and not set in reality.
I still don't understand why you give such divinity to a tool(math), when all the power of it comes from nature.
Materialism isn't set in logic and truths, because logic and truths are made up, then materialism would become metaphysical, same as religions and not be set in reality, but because materialism is reality so there is no need for manmade tools like logic and math for it to be real and argued for.

[Anonymous No.20434913]

>>20434875
>>20434890
If you steal to feed your family are you a criminal or a hero? Let's say the man murdered a pedo, is he a murderer or a hero? Murder is murder, but pedos bad therefore murder good in this case? And no matter which option you pick someone will pick the other and you will have two logics.

[Anonymous No.20434942]

>>20434904
>Math is derived from nature
If by nature you mean physical world, then no it isn't. Mind alone sufficies to study math, you don't have to observe nature.
Moreover, you have no basis to say that math is derived from nature, where is number Pi with all its infinite digits in nature? Known physical universe has finite amount of particles, so there are numbers which cannot ever physically be represented, do you deny the existence of those numbers then? You are ultrafinitist then, which is a marginal view within mathematics (yet it's not material still).
Of course we can learn about math through the material world, because math manifests itself in the material. But it is not subject to it, it is timeless and changeless, meanwhile nature changes.
> If the math that is used isn't set on physical traits it's just a thought experiment and therefore not set in reality
You're not answering at all why it is objective and accessible to independent researchers.
> but because materialism is reality
Meaningless statement by your own reasoning since you deny the notion of truth.

[Anonymous No.20434970]

>>20434904
>Materialism isn't set in logic and truths, because logic and truths are made up, then materialism would become metaphysical
Saying that your metaphysical assertion is not metaphysical doesn't help whether you realize it or no, it's always been considered metaphysics and your particular view is a form of monism. By placing materialism above logic and truths, you're making materialism even more metaphysical.
And it appears you are neither naive empricist, nor positivist, since you belief logic and truths are human-made concepts, so the reality is unknowable. What view do you even represent?

[Anonymous No.20434975]

>>20434942
Sure you can study math in your mind, but it is what I said, that math is a man made tool and not set in reality. And everything objective of it comes from nature. Otherwise you could say 2+2=5 in your mind, but nature would show that is not the case. Math being timeless just shows that it is made up, a fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.20434978]

>>20434913
What does it have to do with the subject of discussion? We are not discussing whether the absolute good or evil exist, nor discussing whether ethics are absolute. We merely discussed if logic and numbers are absolute, the fact that ethics is more complicated doesn't mean logic and math are merely human constructs and don'texist objectively

[Anonymous No.20434980]

>>20434970
>What view do you even represent?
My own.

[Anonymous No.20434991]

>>20434978
What makes math and logic objective? Math and logic itself? It selfcorrects until it becomes objective? Then again what defines it as objective?

[Anonymous No.20434997]

>>20434975
Not only you're not answering anything at all, you contradict yourself in your own assertion, you say that math is just man made, yet when saying "nature would show that is not the case" you're assuming it's inherent in nature.
Again I'm repeating it for another time, I've shown you math devoid of physical motivation and still it's objective, you don't have any explanation for why it is accessible to different researchers independently.
>>20434980
You don't actually have a view, since you like most atheists didn't ever question your assumptions or address contradictions in your beliefs, instead you just arbitrary resort to whatever ad-hoc justification without caring for your justifications to be coherent with each other.
>What makes math and logic objective?
Independent accessibility to different humans.
> Then again what defines it as objective?
The notion of objective already assumes that you belief in non-human made truth, which the poster I replied to denied, so I don't know if it makes sense to discuss it.

[Anonymous No.20435000]

>>20434997
>>20434991

[Anonymous No.20435039]

>>20434997
All I've been doing is answering and all you've been doing is not understanding. Both of those statements are correct. Math is in nature and humans made math. Nature allowed humans to make math to understand nature with math.
And what makes humans objective?

[Anonymous No.20435081]

>>20435039
>All I've been doing is answering and all you've been doing is not understanding.
You didn't answer at all, you just kept repeating same thing ignoring my objection. I've shown you math not only devoid of physical motivation, but also devoid of any possible physical interpretation, yet it's still objective. How is that so? But the problem starts with far more mundane math as I outlined here >>20434942
>you have no basis to say that math is derived from nature, where is number Pi with all its infinite digits in nature? Known physical universe has finite amount of particles, so there are numbers which cannot ever physically be represented, do you deny the existence of those numbers then?


> Math is in nature and humans made math. Nature allowed humans to make math to understand nature with math.
If you mean that math is part of nature (non physical), but the means through which we study math, our language and notation are human-made, then I agree. But I clearly meant the math itself, not the notation.
>And what makes humans objective?
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.20435120]

>>20435081
What makes non physical math objective? Itself? Mathematicians?
Sure, math obviously is not physical.
It's a simple question, what makes humans objective or what is it that allows humans to be objective or make things, physical or not objective?

[Anonymous No.20435128]

>>20435120
>What makes non physical math objective?
I've amswered it already>>20434997
Independent accessibility to different humans makes math objective.
>what makes humans objective or what is it that allows humans to be objective or make things, physical or not objective?
Same answer.

[Anonymous No.20435161]

>>20435128
So humans make things objective and humans make humans objective, sounds very subjective to me.

[Anonymous No.20435172]

>>20435161
>sounds very subjective to me.
Not a problem for me, since I've not placed objectivity as supreme reality and subjectivity as lower version for me. It's only a problem for materialist itt who postulated that materialism is so much real, that it's beyond the notion of logic and truth, thereby giving it divine qualities.

[Anonymous No.20435176]

>>20435172
> and subjectivity as lower version for me
and subjectivity as lower version of it*

[Anonymous No.20435182]

>>20435161
What are you even trying to argue against? In that way nothing is objective, the whole world is subejctive then. I don't care about the definition of objective, when I said that math is objective I merely meant it is as objective as the physical world. If physical world is subjective, let it be so, my point still stands.

[Anonymous No.20435193]

>>20435172
I didn't say that, but it is interesting how you are putting such emphasis on things when they are subjective to you. Just leave it at that.
>>20435182
Only thing I'm arguing is that math doesn't mean God exists.

[Anonymous No.20435213]

>>20435193
>on things when they are subjective to you
?
>Only thing I'm arguing is that math doesn't mean God exists.
Who argued for that? You fail to grasp simple inconsistencies in your reasoning and repeat the same refuted thing over and over. Of course at this point you are far from "proving" God from math. So I just point out problems of your views instead, showing contradictions in materialism.

[Anonymous No.20435297]

>>20430937
Better off than 90% of /lit/, and 99.9% of the chan. Maybe you should kill yourself you decadent faggot. Go indulge in your retard wistfulness somewhere else. Maybe at the end of a noose, seriously.

[Anonymous No.20435325]

>>20430937
I am 24 years old and have never even kissed a girl

so kill yourself you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.20435372]

>>20435213
You not understanding doesn't mean it's a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.20435416]

>>20430937
You're supposed to have kids anon. Stop making excuses or instead of simply being depressed for no good reason, you'll be depressed for a very good reason later on in life.

[Anonymous No.20435455]

>>20434467
Holy shit is this me or what

[Anonymous No.20435709]

>>20432664
>feeling empty inside is completely normal and ok, mate.

[Anonymous No.20435725]

>>20430983
This.

[Anonymous No.20435828]

>>20434738
what are your opinions about the godel theorem? I am not a mathematician, but I'm curious, doesn't it undermine the "absolutivity" or whatever of maths?

[Anonymous No.20435873]

>>20435828
It says that a consistent axiomatic system sufficient enough to model arithmetic would be incomplete, meaning that there would be true statements which are not provable. So it doesn't undermine any absolutivity, it only shows that mathematical truth is more mysterious than previously thought.

[Anonymous No.20435886]

>>20435873
alright thank you. Might I ask what are you? your worldview or whatever lol

[Anonymous No.20435896]

>>20435873
Mysterious is a fun way to say math is only absolute in a non physical world aka math is a fairy tale made up by people.

[Anonymous No.20435964]

>>20435886
Orthodox Christian, I've also studied and practiced Kashmir Shaivism I understood a lot of things through it and it affected my life a lot, as a result of it I ended up being Orthodox eventually.Although I'm not sure if I would have gone as deeply into KS if I was familiar with church fathers before.
>>20435896
No, it's simply a fun way to say that some theorems cannot be proven in a finite amount of steps and therefore we will never prove them. Those unprovable theorems can appear to be something mundane such as twin prime conjecture (it's now known if it's unprovable, but it could be)

[Anonymous No.20436055]

>>20430937
You are just lost in your path to self-actualisation. You thought that happiness comes from without when the truth is that it comes from within. Read the stoics and create something like art.

[Anonymous No.20436063]

Call of the Crocodile is the closest thing I can think of.

[Anonymous No.20436624]

Not read. Starve. You are too same to live. Only the irrational survives. Take up a job which brings you fear. Say words which will scar your memory for decades. Pain is the longest pleasure and peace the most humid anguish of the wretch

[Anonymous No.20436816]

>>20435873
Self-evident because Gödel was a Platonist anyway

[Anonymous No.20436857]

>>20436816
What's self-evident? Gödel's theorem being true has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting Platonism.

[Anonymous No.20436901]

>>20436857
That it can be compatible with it.

[Anonymous No.20437262]

>>20430983
Damn you’re right.

[Anonymous No.20437271]

>>20430996
>peaked
subliterate scum

[Anonymous No.20437281]

>>20430983
>all these posts after OP vaguely describes Call of the Crocodile.

Amazing. I love this board.

[× I V R I V S × !!GgBWHLRiayD No.20437717]

>>20430937


To miserable desolation is opposed melancholic consolation; you believe in the delusion of happiness, therefore, you stray from the perpetual reality of sorrow, and persist in psykhoemotional, multipolar instability.

[Anonymous No.20437726]

>>20436624
>Only the irrational survives.
Interesting, books on this?

[Anonymous No.20437736]

>>20437726
Nietzsche’s Gesammelte Werke

[Anonymous No.20437992]

>>20434726
See you tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.20438002]

>>20430937
WHITE NOISE DON DELILLO

[Anonymous No.20438030]

>>20430992
Find something to make life fun and meaningful.