[ 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: 20 KB, 220x264, DBA20DF8-577D-4E7D-96B5-79D537109D07.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21529188 No.21529188 [Reply] [Original]

how do I contradict this man. I have a deep feeling in my chest that life has meaning

>> No.21529196

>>21529188
Meaning is metaphysical and must be taken on faith in revelation.

>> No.21529241

>>21529188
atheism = sex addiction + narrative that humanism=good AND feudalism=bad


Camus being a humanist, he was a sex addict pervert, putting whores on pedestal. That's literally what he was.
If you take Camus seriously, you take a sex addict coomer seriously.

>> No.21529404

>>21529188
who are some of the thinkers that refuted this guy from the past desu

>> No.21529424

>>21529188
Do circles really exist or are they made up? If they're made up why can't we change the parameters? Where do the constants come from?

>> No.21529492

>>21529241
I can’t really blame a man for that. I wouldn’t really want to say that “well the guy was obsessed by prostitutes” as an argument for why he is wrong. can you suggest something a little more stable?

>> No.21529524

its an unfalsifiable claim. you cant refute it, nor can anyone refute the meaning you feel in your heart

>> No.21529573

>>21529524
thank you anon.

>> No.21529598

>>21529188
“Meaning” comes entirely from goals, which are the result of preferences and desires, which every organism has. So yes, life is inherently meaningful or purposeful. You’re a hypocrite if you say life is meaningless and yet continue to eat. The problem is that these people shitty lives or don’t know how to achieve their goals. For them it seems like all pathways lead to the same miserable outcome. In some cases it may even be true. But that’s just a personal problem, a subjective view, nothing more.

>> No.21529614

>>21529188
>>21529598
The question is asking whether there is inherent meaning (or significance) to human life (or existance) not whether there are meaningful aspects to life.
Is here meaning in life? Yes.
Is there a meaning of life? Not so certain.

>> No.21529635

>>21529614
That question is vague. Life can be understood as just a function of the laws of physics, a rare but possible occurrence that follows the laws of thermodynamics. Specifically, life is great at increasing the overall entropy of its environment by receiving concentrating energy and dissipating its energy in a less organized state, such as heat. By reproducing we preserve the internal organizational structure that is really good at destroying its environment. In our case as an advanced species with technology, creation is good because it leads to destruction.

>> No.21529651

>>21529635
Well at least now you have taken on the challenge of the question, which is an imperfect one, admittedly.

>> No.21530497

Any meaning would still be arbitrary and therefore not the meaning you're looking for.

>> No.21530896

>>21529188
He is so cool fr

>> No.21530993

it is if you say it is and it is not if you do not.

>> No.21531014

>>21529424
This is like saying why can't we make a triangle with 4 sides. These constants follow as logical consequences of the premises chosen by people. Whether they "exist" is a matter of metaphysics and as far I understand, can never be truly known.

>> No.21531435
File: 46 KB, 459x405, 1673829761725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21531435

>>21529188
>"guys i've made up my mind with no evidence. what can i read to feel smart?"
pseud.

>> No.21531462

>>21531014
There is nothing in your post.
If the logic demands something of you, within a given context or not the demand is external to you. You didn't make it up so it exists.
If the circle and the triangle exist then so does meaning. Claiming the circle is made up doesn't make any logical sense, the context which a circle arises can be chosen or ignored but the phenomena of the circle is there if the context needed for a circle is explored or not.

>> No.21531488

>>21531462
I don't believe any progress can be made on the question of the existence of mathematical ideas. It's just semantics to say whether "to be" means one thing or another. If we can agree on how to do mathematics and how to use mathematics, then I think that's as far as we can get.

>> No.21531530

>>21531488
That's retarded. Your position you want to put forward, defend and suggest to others is "just give up bro, thinking is too hard". Why say anything at all? There's nothing there.
>semantics
You will reduce everything to meaningless nonsense like semantics if you don't accept the existence of meaning.
Meaning exists despite your inability to grasp the meaning of anything. I mean something when I use words. That meaning exists or other people wouldn't be able to access it.

>> No.21531623

>>21531530
I'm not saying we should stop thinking altogether, but rather that spending time thinking about ideas beyond scientific inquiry (read *unfalsifiable) will never yield any results. We can never determine the truth of the statement "circles are real" because it just depends on semantics of what "real" means, of which there is no consensus — and what is consensus worth anyway? And even if we somehow determine that mathematical objects are not "real", it will not affect mathematician's ability to do math.

>> No.21531816

>>21531623
Beyond braindead. Falsifiability is dependent on things which are not falsifiable like the logic that leads you to value falsifiability. I gave you logic, you can't engage.
>even if we somehow determine that mathematical objects are not "real", it will not affect mathematician's ability to do math
He can only do math because math exists.

>> No.21532121

>>21529188
I wish mods would just ban threads that have absurdism or camus in them. Probably the 1 subject that has literally nothing of value to bring to philosophy or literature

>> No.21532637

>>21529188
Maybe that feeling in the chest is because like does have meaning but your squandering it and treating it as worthless and this will eternal consequences. Your trying to coax yourself with absurdist philosophy but your brain has tricked itself into thinking absurdism is what's hurting you

>> No.21532647

>>21529188
The only way to refute him is to do the work. Dig deep into the foundations of reality. Then you find out why it all makes sense, which the antithesis of absurdity. For an actual recommendation, I'd say Digha Nikaya or Majjhima Nikaya, The World as Will and Representation (and Fourfold Root), and maybe a selection of other works depending on your particular tendencies.

>> No.21532653

>>21529188
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

>> No.21532687

>>21531014
Law of noncontradiction. If you wish to “disprove” logic, you do so by using it.
>>21529188
It’s a nominalist’s problem. If you operate from “universals are not real and simply man made,” you will inevitably become a nihilist. But you should be able to avoid nominalism with a simple question like, if all human/animal minds are no longer in existence, do the laws of logic still exist? The answer to this seems clearly to be yes. We joke by questioning children with, if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around does it make a sound? This is essentially the same question applied to a non-material thing (logic). Some (nominalists) will argue that the laws of logic will cease to exist, as they are constructed/contained in the mind. Well, we then run into the problem of things like pi or the Mandelbrot sets. These are “infinites” that cannot be contained in our minds. Yes, we can simplify them to contain them to the best of our ability, but their ‘real’ or actual existence cannot be contained in the mind. This suggests that our mind is not the determinate factor for metaphysics. These things cannot depend upon our minds to exist because we cannot fully conceive of them in our minds to begin with. Yet, they exist. This should lead us to God, as we know that non-material concepts, by definition, are not contained in the atoms or the strings or the lowest common physical denominator. Get 3 apples on a table and the quality of their “three-ness” is not contained in any of the physical properties. Remove our minds and the quality of three-ness still exists in the universe. So, we might be able to reason that there is an “over-mind,” a mind of God, that contains these concepts so that they have a ‘real’ existence that does not depend upon our minds.

>> No.21532699

Camus? more like Gaymus.

/thread

>> No.21532701

>>21532687
>If you operate from “universals are not real and simply man made,” you will inevitably become a nihilist.
I've never understood how people can place so much importance on nominalism vs. conceptualism vs. realism. There were large schools in the medieval Catholic Church which each had their own philosophical views about these ideas, some being highly nominalist, but all of them being just as devoted to God. In some cases the nominalists were actually more fanatic about God's influence and power than the realists (see occasionalism).

I think all this comes down to is a few autists who are obsessed with philosophical problems placing far too much value and significance on concepts which ultimately, when put into perspective, have little if any necessary influence on human life or the meaning found therein. Both nominalism and realism could be true, and in both cases life could potentially be just as meaningless or meaningful as the other depending on the content given in each.

>> No.21532711

>>21529188
Literally any philosophy can be "disproven" by simply disagreeing with it. You can come up with any disagreeing philosophy and then subscribe to that one instead.

Basically this >>21529524

>> No.21532714

>>21532711
That applies equally to scientific hypotheses though so I'm not sure what your point is

>> No.21532725

>>21532714
We are talking about philosophy here, aren't we?
Scientific hypotheses need to stand against the scrutiny of observable data though and be able to make correct predictions before being either discarded or adjusted if their predictions do not match the data. But I don't really understand why you bring up scientific hypotheses here when OP asked about how to contradict Camus.

>> No.21532730

>>21532701
>dude just stop thinking
It’s not a practical question, except that we live in a nominalist world now— in which all things are seen as mere ‘constructs.’ The question of the thread suggests a desire to ‘get into it,’ so if you’re not one of those autists, you have a hard time answering absurdity to another person’s satisfaction. As for your point about pious nominalists. We have seen the fruits of nominalism, and though it took many generations, they are relativism and nihilism. You seem to have fallen into this pitfall given your closing sentence.

>> No.21532732

>>21532730
I'm not saying stop thinking. I'm saying put your thoughts into perspective. Or better yet, think about things that are more important.

>> No.21532737

>>21532711
Not really. You can disagree with something but can you make an argument to justify that disagreement? That would be required for “disproving.” If your claim is “logical laws are not real,” how exactly can you prove this claim? It’s selfrefuting.

>> No.21532739

>>21532732
It’s literally the only way to answer the problem of nihilism, relativism, absurdity (in a way that can convince others— I get that anyone can come up with a personal reason or ‘feeling’ that prevents them from seeing the world as meaningless, but that’s not the point of this thread). Give me an example of something “more important” lol

>> No.21532744

>>21532725
>We are talking about philosophy here, aren't we?
Your statement applies to virtually all forms of knowledge. So if I made the claim you did, that X can be disproven by simply disagreeing with it (which is true of all conditional, ie hypothetical [scientific], statements), then every possible form of knowledge we can possess can be disproven by simply disagreeing with it, because all possible knowledge we have begins with an axiomatic conditional/hypothetical (if X, then Y). In which case by contradicting Camus, you'd also be contradicting yourself, which is pointless and if anything just confirms Camus's philosophy implicitly.
>Scientific hypotheses need to stand against the scrutiny of observable data
They actually don't. Any given hypothesis can be replaced by another which results in the same outcomes (and perhaps more), which means that it is possible to simply disagree with any scientific hypothesis and put another in its place, if you feel like doing so.

>> No.21532765

>>21532744
Except that by disagreeing with the very notion of being able to establish logically consistent knowledge requires logically consistent knowledge.

>> No.21532779
File: 130 KB, 384x378, 1672238031226.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21532779

>>21529188
> I have a deep feeling in my chest that life has meaning

Yeah that'll go away eventually don't worry about it

>> No.21532820

>>21532737
My point is that philosophy is personal analysis of perceived reality, as opposed to "objective analysis". Camus' philosophy fundamentally rests on how he feels about the world. It's not like he has reached further towards truth than anyone else. He is just saying words. Are his words wrong? Are his words right? It does not matter, he believes them.

Think of it this way. How many people in the world do you think disagree with you in some way on any subjective topic? How many of these people do you think, upon being called into discussion with you, would use an (according to you) very much flawed logic to justify how their belief diverges from yours? To them, their flawed logic may seem very much sound, while your logic to them may seem entirely flawed. But in the end, it changes nothing: both you and the person disagreeing with you hold your respective beliefs. How many people agree with Schopenhauer? How many people agree with Hegel? There can be hundreds of thousands found on both sides despite these two men greatly disagreeing with one another. You yourself may align with either of them, thinking people who do the opposite must be uneducated, stupid or ridiculous. But that changes nothing about the fact that thousands of people, intelligent people even, can agree with a set of beliefs that seem entirely alien to yours, and without any cognitive dissonance.
My point here is not that philosophy is democratic, nor is it that modal logic is fundamentally flawed. My point is, that the value of philosophy is not how "true" it is, but how applicable it is to an individual's perceived reality.

>> No.21532832

>>21529241
i dunno man, now that condoms exist if you had a shitload of money what could you actually spend it on that would be more enjoyable?

the only thing i can think of is my wife and future kids, and there's a point of diminishing returns after i spend a certain amount on them

like im fine to pay my kids through college but beyond that i feel like id just be making them into spoiled brats

>> No.21532844

>>21532820
>He is just saying words. Are his words wrong? Are his words right? It does not matter, he believes them.
How did you reason your way to the conclusion that it “does not matter?”
>on any subjective topic
Are you of the thought that all topics are subjective or something?
> My point is, that the value of philosophy is not how "true" it is, but how applicable it is to an individual's perceived reality.
Self-refuting. You’re attempting to make an objective claim about the value of philosophy, and that claim is “subjectivity” is the value. You’re lost at sea.

>> No.21532875

>>21532844
>How did you reason your way to the conclusion that it “does not matter?”
I did not reason myself to anything here, Anon. I just gave my opinion. Because that is what I believe philosophy to be. Well elaborated opinion.
>Are you of the thought that all topics are subjective or something?
I think the utmost majority of them are, in some way, subjective. I think as a rule of thumb, if a subject concerns itself with anything man-made or man-thought, it is subjective.
>Self-refuting. You’re attempting to make an objective claim about the value of philosophy, and that claim is “subjectivity” is the value. You’re lost at sea.
I'm not sure why you think I gave you anything but my personal thought here. There was no attempt of any objective or universal claim. I, subjectively, think that all philosophy is subjective belief. Of course, to me this thought might aswell be objective, because it is mine. But I am well aware that it is not necessarily yours.
If it makes you happy, you could add an "(I believe)" behind every "is" in my previous post.

>> No.21532892

>>21529241
Oh no, he called him a coomer. I can't take what he said into consideration anymore.

>> No.21532907

>>21532875
Adding “I believe” before the claim is not necessary as that’s what a claim entails. You seem to have a profound misunderstanding; you are under the impression that declaring ‘subjectivity’ or ‘personal’ is a get out of jail free card that ends discussion. Are these thoughts that simply pop into your head without reason or explanation? The sentence “I subjectively think that all philosophy is subjective belief” does not make sense. Actually think about what you are saying.
>the utmost majority
So that is a “no, I do not believe all topics are subjective.” Okay, which one or ones are not?

>> No.21532942

>>21529188
Meaning is metaphysical and must be taken on faith in revelation.

>> No.21532950

>>21529188
By not trying to fuck little boys. Heidegger doesn't get a pass on being a Nazi so why should French existentialists get a pass on being child rapists?

>> No.21532953

>>21529241
>feudaliam=bad
>Not obviously correct
This is your brain on edgelord

>> No.21532977

>>21529188
If everything were absurd then life would make no sense

>> No.21532988

>>21532942
can there be a meaning without faith?

>> No.21533048

>>21532907
Before I go on, I might ask you what your intentions are. Are your intentions to pluck little truths from untruths within my arguments, in an effort to chalk up a perceived victory in online debate? Or do you ask this because you wish to understand my point of view better?
I'd find the latter a much more interesting partner of discourse than the former.

I already explained my reasoning: a lot of well educated people believe wildly different things with such conviction, that "objective truth" must not be as relevant (is that a better word for it?) as "subjective applicability". If something seems right to someone, he believes it. I do not believe there is a "great truth" waiting to be discovered by man, that one "true" philosophy will eventually reach. I believe there is the world "as it is", and people talking about it - having their own ideas, theories, analyses about it. Particularly smart people make particularly elaborate ideas, theories and analyses about the world - philosophies. But these, man-made, philosophies, objective as they seem, are in the end no less subjective than a child licking honey and saying "I like this, it tastes good".

>Okay, which one or ones are not?
One rather objective topic is simply "existence". There is something. Man came about and put this something into categories, so that he can mentally interact with that something, but these categories are subjective ideas that do not actually correlate to the something that exists. Matter arranged in the form of a chair is not actually a chair, since "chair" is a man-made, subjective, idea that we use to talk about the matter arranged in the form of a chair. But there is something that exists. The chair-arranged matter is objectively existing, but it is subjective that it is supposed to be a chair.
From here on, it is hard to pin down topics as objective. I think it is easier to find topics that are "objective within given parameters". Measurement of temperature, for example, is "objective given the parameters of temperature measurement". If we agree upon the concept of Celsius, and measure the room to be 20°C, that is the objective temperature of the room (even though the concept of Celsius is a subjective man-made idea).
If a ball crosses a goal line, it is "objectively a goal given the subjective-but-agreed-upon parameters of the rules of football". But objectively it is not a goal because objectively there is no such thing as a goal, only "something" that someone calls a goal.
Science gives the idea of getting close to an objective description of the world, but only insofar that we divorce ourselves from the idea that the words used by a scientists are anything but usefull tools that make it easier for us to describe the "something" that exists. "Man evolved from ape." is just a shorthand for "something ape-shaped did something to rearrange into something man-shaped" - and that still is just a very brief shorthand.

>> No.21533085

>>21533048
You could have simply written, “I’m a nominalist.” It wasn’t that deep.

>> No.21533331

>>21531623
>only BASEDENCE is worth thinking pursuing!!!
You deserve to be ridiculed

>> No.21533705

>>21529241
Mounier argued that Camus was describing the quintessential Catholic experience of Man's faith, including in his rejection of God.

>> No.21533740

>>21529188
>ow do I contradict this man
You don't, you agree with him because he provided the proper view of the Absurd and the tools to defeat it. Re the Absurd, you have two initial choices, is it an ontological feature or not? Yes follows Sartre, no follows Camus. If its an ontological feature, and it is true, then we are truly fucked, nihilism is essentially true, modern athetistic relativism is essentially true, the greatest work of human art and civilization is no better than an aphid's fart. If it is not an ontological feature, but an existential one, and it is true, then you do not have to contradict it, you just have to make peace with the conditions of your existence limiting your knowledge, either through a strengthening of the conviction held in your own value (rebellion), or the belief that once those limits are removed that knowledge will become available to us (faith). Camus couldn't reconcile himself with faith, but he did point to the path.

>> No.21533881

>>21532953
Peasants were infinitely more free, mentally healthier, had vibrant communities and generally better off than your average white collar worker of today. Unironically feudalism was good. The only reason why it went bad was because of a weak king and a series of bad decisions and acts of nature that caused mass famine in France. The modern world is an aberration and an abomination of corrupted morals and monetarily exploited people.

>> No.21534015

>>21533740
>Camus couldn't reconcile himself with faith.
Didnt he write it at 28? Did he change throughout the years?

>> No.21534233

>>21533740
>If it is not an ontological feature, but an existential one
What does it mean, that it is an existentialist feature?

>> No.21535118

>>21534233
bump, I would like my question answered

>> No.21535496

>>21533881
you're that guy who paid to get on tim dillon right?

>> No.21535662

>>21534233
That it isnt a intrinsic feature of the world but rather something about our relationship to the world which can be revealed at times. Saying the Absurd is ontological means there is nothing in the Universe such as meaning. Saying it is existential means rather that it is a fearure of our very existence, not of the world. A way I like to explain his position is
> it is essentially Absurd that the universe would create a being endowed with a sense of his own dignity, while the world itself is not capable of satisfying this dignity.
He doesn't say everything is meaningless. He says we are susceptible to situations and moments when all meaning seems to evade us, and where we are confronted with the ultimate indignity, that we have to die with no knowledge of what comes after or that what we did will endure.
>>21534015
Not that I'm aware of. He probably died too young and lived the second half of his life too happily to truly put effort into the question. I really wish he'd have survived to have Merleau-Ponty introduce him properly to Husserl.

>> No.21535742

>>21532699
This

>> No.21536465

The meaning of life is to have fun and set attainable goals
>do these things
>later get into philosophies and all that
>Suddenly these things seem inconsequential, plagued by questions like if it even matters or whether i should continue
>eventually realize there's no alternative, the alternative is kms
Big questions are unironically reserved for big minds, convince me why a layperson should waste their time with this when it inevitably brings you back to where you started.
I've yet to recover or "get over myself" as they say

>> No.21536496

>>21536465
There is no meaning in life, there isn't such thing as a "meaning". You're free to do whatever you want, you don't even have to be a part of society, you can survive in the woods if you learn and have the tools. That's what so scary about life, you can literally do anything but you'll see a lot of consequences afterwards.

>> No.21536532

>>21536496
This post doesn't mean anything.

>> No.21536550

>>21536532
Neither does yours.

>> No.21536575

>>21533881
Can you provide more info as to why feudalism was hood? Actually genuinely curious

>> No.21537696

>>21536496
>There is no meaning in life, there isn't such thing as a "meaning". You're free to do whatever you want

This just triggered a burried trauma within me about the times my ex who is a big fan of Camus told me this exact same thing, only to cheat on me later on. What a garbage person to adapt a certain perception of life despite having it good in all departements, for the sole reason of justifying the BPD/NPD behaviors and avoid all sort of responsibility. Camus is garbage as well for the whole absurdism meme he brought that appeals to teenangers.
>>21529188
The meaning of life is to live it and communicate with your family and loved ones, plus having faith in God. if you omet God the whole package of absurdism,nihilism,atheism take place. Simple as. it's just a teen phase you'll get over it.

>> No.21537968

>>21537696
>having faith in God
how does one have faith in God?

>> No.21538174

>>21537696
>if you omet God the whole package of absurdism,nihilism,atheism take place.
The problem is that God does not exist, so it isn't really a choice.

>> No.21538178

>>21538174
lmao
and i suppose next you'll say grass isn't green, or birds can't fly.

>> No.21538186

>>21538178
To you God might exist, but to me he very clearly does not. Do you understand the point of my argument, or are you saying that you at one point in your life made the decision to believe in God?
Or are you just shitposting? (A valid option aswell.)

>> No.21538207

>>21529188
Absurdism doesnt make sense

>> No.21538228

>>21529188
I mean, really, only God has the true-est sentience and awareness for he is above all interfaces dimensions etc. so by connecting to him and his will (which is infitely complex and has room for us thusly to be filled with true sentience), we gain some importance. For it is true that it is infact absurd for an individual without this connection to try and enact his own will in how vast things are. and they are very, very, vast as science has shown us.

>> No.21538269

>>21537968
Islam, soufism.
>>21538174
Fucking zoomer. None of yall had a religious education in childhood?
When you're in a dark place in your life and disoriented; you have faith in God by praying and doing what you have to do, this way you'll have the strength to remain mentally stable knwoing that God is preparing you for a better next arc of your life, and it will manifest in your reality. Sadly i know what i said is not understandable and sounds to you like some mystical schizoid gibberish, i really pity you, you're so sad. Do what i told the guy before you to do.

>> No.21538275

>>21529241
>putting whores on pedestal
Really?

>> No.21538315

>>21538269
>Fucking zoomer. None of yall had a religious education in childhood?
I turn 30 this year. I had religion class in school, I was confirmed at age 14, I attended church a lot because of that. My mother is quite religious, and I love her dearly - so my atheism is not a product of some missplaced sense of rebellion.
I had my share of religious education. On top of that, I am good friend with a lot of Christian theologists.
Mind you, I do not think the non-existence of God is a good thing. Quite the opposite, I find it rather miserable. But prayer never felt like I was actually talking to someone. I remember thinking as a kid that God must exist because it would be really sad if he didn't, but I eventually realized that chain of logic is not exactly sound.
Do you think people only become atheist when they are not religiously educated?

>> No.21538322

>>21538315
>Do you think people only become atheist when they are not religiously educated?
I think it's the exact opposite.

>> No.21538705

>>21538315
>Do you think people only become atheist when they are not religiously educated?
I think it's a rebellion against going to Church on Sunday.

>> No.21538748

>>21529188
life's meaning is God.
Camus realized too; he was talking to a priest about converting before he died.

>> No.21538756

>>21538748
>he was talking to a priest about converting before he died.
source?

>> No.21538782

>>21538756
not the place i read it on, but a quick search
>https://www.religion-online.org/article/conversations-with-camus/

>> No.21538916

>>21538315
You atheists always want something more concrete: well here it is JACKIE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20zH6NEdUzg&list=RD20zH6NEdUzg&start_radio=1
it's more a force from circumstantial prerequisites. God being the original particle/wave where:you can't see "closer" or look inside any further, havesto be: the creator of all things, and it havesto be: infinitely complex because you can't zoom in anymore. but this is *outside of every dimension and interface. so that, being infinitely complex mast have always been, because something to be anything must have always been. people like to believe there was a certain part of time where something originated out of nothing, but don't like to think of a certain force that was always there. this force being "God" or the most high original creator. Since it's infinitely complex this means it has a divine nature, divine character (as it has enough complexity to develop a character to it's nature) and a divine sentience for since it always was and is infinitely complex it has the most awareness of anything after it.

>> No.21538979

>>21538916
so in other words: the force speaks, and his son absorbed all sin into consciousness as he lived, and it approache it with magnetism aka love, which since he magnetized it he tranformed the sin after death and used it as a device to where he went past space-time to counteract every transgressional consequence so you wouldn't fall into the chaotic randomness that is true space, and your particles wouldn't explode. this is the lake of fire. if you don't accept him and what he did since you are a true being God can't invade your rights. the current hell is satan's as it is simply a lower energy field for those whom have less sentience. having the amount of sentience you have in a lower frequency range causes suffering of all kinds, but after the thousand years you will still have a trial and this hell will be obliterated along with "death" aka staying in heaven or hell. the heavens will open up and God will always protect you from the infinite chaos if you choose him and embrace love.

>> No.21538991

>>21538979
>if you choose him
Why would there be a single entity that wouldn't choose him at that point what

>> No.21539106

>>21538991
https://soundcloud.com/tunedef-1/lights
well it's satan, they don't know what I just said right there, they just look at our small little dot and go this is all there is and they see God as some asshole whom is a tyrant rather than an entity like I just explained. Now, how he speaks is up for debate, some people interpret the voices as God and Demons, or spirits, others interpret them as they're in our own head. It's my belief symbols and scenarios are just arranged in a certain way either by God, man, or satan, to create the videos in out mind. This doesn't mean there isn't spiritual consequence, for the vids in your mind can suggest you to do certain things to your spirit or life and they were formatted in a specific way for you to perceive that certain spiritual scenario. SO in my opinion it's all real, and inside your head at the same time. But I'm not certain on this yet. seems the most logical to me.

>> No.21539206

>>21539106
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA7BHMC-vIg
also alot of people undergo psychosis and start believing this is a simulation ... and after what I just said I believe it is, but it's a collaborative timeline, and there are still consequences to what you do in the simulation see? but then people have certain vids in their head that makes them view themselves in some sort of other reality, and that no one else is real, and all is lies, and then they go "here's the REAL truth, you must not trust "God" and these are seen more and more in society today. but the thing is Jesus is the way, the *truth, and the light. Praying to God will give you the reality of this world, and all other dimensions you are currently in. so there is no deception but the thought that you are undergoing a deception see?

>> No.21539275

>>21539206
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XqIWr_WqM4
there is also invalidation, like they have lesser sentience which in reality this is true at certain times, we aren't truly in control or aware of everything all the time, but they think they are lesser and not as important to be saved, or the worse pain, satan*ists, as they believe they are doomed and meant to be damned so they don't consider praying to God. There is pleny more false reasoning satan can use to decieve and convince you and join him in hells obliteration.
okay that's enough internet im gonna just listen to music now.

>> No.21539292

>>21539275
Can you make an interpretation starting from your religious vision and the symbolics of Satan, God, Pain and all of that, to explain the rise of narcissisme as a universal pathological phenomena in our current postmodern era? and what's the key to heal from it after it being analysed by science and rendered into an incurable disease, which shall atomise society and cut all cords of communication between humans?

>> No.21539318

>>21529241
>sex… bad!
Okay but imagine living one life on this earth and not wanting to spend a healthy amount of your time splashing in that sweet pussy nectar like a bee in a flower

>> No.21539323

>>21539292
(and I looked again. dang)
Ok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f3HbKyaEtk
Narcissism is a lack of empathy, and therefore love. Empathy through all people isn't a natural occurence it just isn't it must be taught and you must introduce other people at an early age so they begin to relate to people. Narcissists believe in the deception I just said, they can't confirm others are as real or sentient as them so they fear us and therefore in order to get an ounce of love instead of being kind they attack people for negative attention to get the little bit of love they need from us reacting to their malevolent tactics, and after we are used they go about their day. Ways I've started to change a narcissists mind is explaining soul overlap and how we are a little bit overlaped in the spiritual realm, (this is how love kinda works), since they recognize the other sentience this way they become (a little) more considerate. To completely "cure" a narcissist takes years of explaining a: you are as real as them and b: how their tactics are not how others get the attention, and it's a fucking heartbreaking subject which is why no one wants to have it because in reality after this is shown to them they may have suicidal tendencies.

>> No.21539331

>>21539318
if you have a good relationship why the fuck not? women are the same as men they want it sometimes they just don't like it forced and men can't cope when it happens.

>> No.21539369

>>21529188
"meaning" is a feeling, so if someone says life is meaningless, you don't refute them, you recognize that that's how they feel. if you think life is meaningful, then it is, just like if you think strawberries are tasty then they are. if someone else says "strawberries are bad" you don't start thinking "how do I refute them?"

>> No.21539596

>>21539323
Very interesting. Indeed when i tried fixing those narcs it worked for a while then they had to cause chaos because they were bored. i realised it takes a lifetime as you mentionned, which isn't worth it to me at a point. Now i'm armed with my sword and whenever one of them gets close or i spot them causing evil i slash their necks.

>> No.21539607

>>21539369
I feel this post

>> No.21539847
File: 16 KB, 296x170, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21539847

>>21539369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auWvT_rwRPU

>> No.21539981

>>21529188
discord.gg/Pf4ZJzHg

>> No.21540415

>>21529188
Young Vince Vaughn

>> No.21541332

>>21539369
does it really mean that meaning is lost when you feel bad?

>> No.21541339

>>21541332
not when you feel "bad" you can feel like life is meaningful while feeling bad. If meaning is lost when life feels meaningless, then regaining meaning becomes your meaning.

>> No.21541341

>>21541339
>regaining meaning becomes your meaning.
thats me but I dont know if I can regain what I've never had in the first place.

>> No.21541346

>>21541341
if you have any idea of what path you should take or even the most minuscule step that begins it even if you don't know where it's ultimately going then you already have meaning. if you ask yourself "what should I be doing right now" and have an answer even if it is an extremely trivial action then that means you do have an idea of what you "should" do and therefore have meaning

>> No.21541381
File: 199 KB, 519x481, 5B3C7449-84D6-4419-BAEA-0C938557DEB2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21541381

This is the most brain dead thread I’ve seen on 4chan it’s wierd how easily people misinterpret Camus work.

>> No.21541384

>>21541346
I dont know what I would want to as oppose as to what I should do.

>> No.21541449

>>21541384
You instinctually know what you should do or else you have a serious brain disease. If you’ve literally ever done something you initially didn’t want to despite not being forced to do it then you have the instinct that tells you what you should do.

>> No.21541459

>>21541449
I'm pretty disconnected from my gut feeling/intuition. I just go through the motions, literally an empty shell of a person.

>> No.21541474

>>21541381
there is nothing to interpret from any piece of shit humanist

>> No.21542123

>>21529188
>I have a deep feeling in my chest that life has meaning
That is exactly what he is saying. You just proved him right, yourself.

>> No.21542637

>>21541474
This is the most retarded thing written in this thread, and as >>21541381 correctly pointed, there's already a lot of retardation at work here.
In case you aren't just a retarded cunt or a retarded bot, try reading Emmanuel Mounier's Introduction to Existentialism in order to understand not only Camus himself, but his privileged position amongst other humanists.

>> No.21543887

>>21529196
This is the real answer and it has been ignored the whole thread.

>> No.21544917

>>21529188
The problem with absurdism is that in the absurdists world nothing makes sense

>> No.21544923

>>21544917
so whats the point of living then?

>> No.21544979

>>21529188
What do you mean by "meaning"? Not arguing with you, just asking.

>> No.21546058

>>21529188
???
You've already contradicted him by having those deep feelings

>> No.21546604

>>21544923
There isn’t. Its impossible to know, thats the point of philosophy is to think many ideas. No philosopher knows the true answer, now run along and stop sucking camus dick.

>> No.21546681

>>21546604
do you have to come with the meaning on yourself?