[ 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: 64 KB, 294x400, possession.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2048302 [Reply] [Original]

If none of us owned ANYthing which was not readily available to EVERYONE around us.... i.e if we lived a greed-free life and only lived off the land and took only that which was necessary and readily available to everyone, there'd be no need for money, possessions, greed, anger, jealously, war, fighting, aggression or ANY of the things which so pollute and ruin our society and our planet. We'd all be equal, and no system of government would be necessary. We only need leaders if we are pursuing something to which we need to be lead... yet thousands of years of searching and we're still in search of 'it', and our eternal search appears to yield nothing more than further confusion about what it is we're looking for.

What do you think of this, /lit/? Ghandi, Icke, Uys and many others agree, yet the pursuit of the unknown thunders on. Why would you rather own an iphone than embrace heaven on earth? Where does the theory fall down? What exactly is it we're trying to achieve? Where is it all leading which is supposedly so much better than the blissful peace achieved by those few remaining human tribes in the rainforests who know nothing of possessions or money?
We claim to be the most intelligent species on earth, but we humans believe that we're intelligent because we've invented money, prozac and cars, while apes, for example, spend their lives nomming fruit, chilling, fucking chicks and swinging around with fuck all obligations, merely having fun. I for one think that apes are the more intelligent species for this very reason.

Thunks?

>> No.2048306

Are you 12?

There's a difference between
>the pursuit of the unknown
and
>own[ing] an iphone

>> No.2048309

I think if you lived a life where you read more books and talked about them instead of posting barely relevant philosophical bullshit - it'd be more fulfilling.

>> No.2048311
File: 65 KB, 227x219, 1308403375486.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2048302
pic related

TL;DR

>> No.2048312

>money, possessions, greed, anger, jealously, war, fighting, aggression

What about disease, famine, natural disasters, and a desire to procreate? You seem to presume that humanity has war, money, etc. just for its own sake.

>> No.2048338

>>2048306
> There's a difference between
> >the pursuit of the unknown
> and
> >own[ing] an iphone

Are you suggesting that happiness is not the purpose of life? Would you rather the world be filled with intellectual psychopaths or happy pigs?

The most supposedly unevolved and unintelligent people on earth; those who own nothing but mud huts and spears; are the most content, peaceful and conflict-free people on the planet. Source: Cambridge University.

Why would anyone choose to be less happy and less content for the sake of living in a 'modern' society, filled with prozac, debt and rage?

>> No.2048341

The natives lived this way, but they never accomplished anything of consequence either.

Also, jealousy is a natural human emotion, so we're always going to have conflict on some level.

>> No.2048351

>>2048341
> they never accomplished anything of consequence either.
Except for universal happiness amongst all of their kin and all they knew.

> jealousy is a natural human emotion
No, it isn't. If nobody owns anything you're not able to acquire yourself, then there's nothing to be jealous of.

>> No.2048355

So what you're asking is... if ignorance is bliss, is it worth it?

no

>> No.2048359

lol, ok

>implying cavemen led better, more fulfilling lives
>implying people even lived past 20 back then
>implying people aren't more educated now than they've ever been
>implying people's quality of life isn't higher now than it's ever been

We live in a fucking wonderful time. Sure, there are problems, but that doesn't mean we need to throw everything we've ever accomplished out of the window and start living like fucking common animals. You say we've been striving for thousands of years and have achieved nothing. I say you're a blind moron.

>> No.2048361

If I want to I could nom fruit, fuck chicks, have fun and chill

If an ape wants prozac, he's f*cked

That's why humans are better

>> No.2048364

>>2048355
> We live in a fucking wonderful time
LOL.

>> No.2048368

>>2048364
.
You don't think so? Why not? Too much adolescent angst to see all of the amazing things humans have achieved in the last one hundred years alone?

>> No.2048372

>>2048338

>intellectual psychopaths

I've never encountered psychopathic intellectuality. Neither have you, I suppose.

> most supposedly unevolved and unintelligent people on earth

There is no such thing as an unevolved human (homo sapiens) on earth today.

>those who own nothing but mud huts and spears; are the most content, peaceful and conflict-free people on the planet.

As I said before, there is no such thing as an unevolved human. That you should assimilate the state of living in a hut with the state of being unevolved is incredibly offensive.

Also, you do not know how to use semi-colons.

>Why would anyone choose to be less happy and less content for the sake of living in a 'modern' society, filled with prozac, debt and rage?

>prozac
>debt
>rage

are not why I choose to live in a "'modern' society." I choose to live in the developed world because in it, I have access to the best tools for exploring the "unknown."
Rage, and debt exist in all societies. I don't take prozac.


My analysis:
OP, you should read Plato's Republic and read it very carefully. You'll learn that each person in any society must fulfill the role for which his natural disposition suits him. As a graduate student, I would go so far as to say that my natural disposition is towards learning and, eventually knowing. My role in society will be that of the philosopher king and I will govern the piggish fools, a group to which you belong.

Have fun

>> No.2048369

>>2048351
>Except for universal happiness amongst all of their kin and all they knew.
What are you basing this off of? The 1 in 5 chance they had of dying at the hands of another human being?

>No, it isn't. If nobody owns anything you're not able to acquire yourself, then there's nothing to be jealous of.
Are you really this narrow-minded and stupid? Material things are not the only thing to be jealous of.

>> No.2048376

>>2048372

>My role in society will be that of the philosopher king and I will govern the piggish fools, a group to which you belong.

lol
lmao
roflmao

ok, right.

>> No.2048379

1. greed is an inherent part of human nature
2. heavan on earth would be boring as fuck
3. man will ALWAYS have a reason to fight
4. progress is more important than peace

>> No.2048380

>>2048351
If jealously isn't a natural emotion then where does it come from? Is nobody owns anything you'd still have people who are physically superior, mentally quicker, and who are fucking the girl you wish you were fucking. There would still be plenty of things for people to be jealous about even if we don't have possessions.

>> No.2048391

So OP who is going to produce the things that are 'readily available'?who is going to distribute it?
faggots think ideologies will make you happy but you can only make yourself happy.

>> No.2048393

>>2048380

You've obviously never read Harrison Bergeron, man. Vonnegut had the right idea.

>> No.2048396

>>2048393
Good job not actually presenting an rebuttal argument.

Are you gonna pick up those names you dropped or should get them for you?

>> No.2048532

>>2048396
its not possible to "drop" harrison bergeron, as you can fucking google it and read it in like 5 minutes.

Also, the other poster was being sarcastic you retarded high school twat.


Anyway, the freedom of poverty is always available for you OP, and no one will stop you. That is basically what you are saying, but in some fuzzy part of your brain you are not realizing it is poverty you are selling.

>> No.2048537

"google it lol" isn't an argument either

>> No.2048550

>>2048532
This is correct. OP's view is rejected by almost every ideology, including communism, marxism, and numerous anarchist sects. The arts and sciences, along with the technologies that emerge from them, are not evil. If anything, they are conveniences. Strife and unhappiness come into play when we draw ourselves into conflict with one another out of greed and jealousy and all these modern creations like money and possessions are designed to protect us from that aspect of each other, not promote it (though they sometimes do).

In short, happiness for humans is the feeling of progress and halting all progress would degrade into violence rapidly.

>> No.2048555

This thread:

IF EVERYONE WAS REALLY NICE . . . THAT WOULD BE PRETTY COOL.

>> No.2048586

>>2048302
Er.... is this /lit/ or /philosophy/?

>> No.2048596

Not OP but I think we could consider looking at Schopenhauer's philosophy here. Things such as owning commodities, greed, belief in progression and wanting to overcome resistance in general are part of man's will. This is essentially what we do as humans. However, the more we submit to our will and the more things we have then, essentially, the more we will want. If one considers successful businessmen, rarely do they stop and think "Okay that's enough power, I think I'll just sell-up and be content with this." They strive to own wealth to such an extent that it is almost impossible to spend it all.

The question we should ask ourselves is "is this a good way to live?" To eternally strive for more with no clear end-goal. Schopenhauer argues it is not and cannot lead to happiness. Rather, as humans we must suppress this desire for more (or will) for happiness. It is interesting how similar this is to a lot of Eastern thought.

Whilst I do not have any definite view of it all as of yet, there is no point criticising OP for it. Sure he may have worded it rather naively but people who have subscribed to a similar view have included Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Buddha, Diogenes.