[ 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: 19 KB, 400x400, philosoraptor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2647934 No.2647934[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What is something that you don't want, but don't want to lose?

>> No.2647936

A temper.

>> No.2647945

PENIS

>> No.2647950

>>2647936

Nope. It's also not a job or a lawsuit.

>> No.2647951

virginity

>> No.2647960

my life

>> No.2647962

My cancer-riddled, bed-shitting, whore of a mother.

>> No.2647998
File: 80 KB, 379x395, 1335029482281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2647998

Not wanting to lose something can be rephrased to wanting it.
So what is something you want, but you don't want it?
For instance wanting to eat a Big Mac everyday is something you do not want to want, because you don't want to get fat.
Or wanting to smoke cigarettes.
Things like that are things you want, but you don´t want them.

>> No.2648003

Depression and my job.

>> No.2648006

>>2647998

>Not wanting to lose something can be rephrased to wanting it.

Nope, because you can't desire something that you already have. Something you don't want to lose is something you'd want if you didn't had it already.

>> No.2648025

If you lose your depression then you'll lose the comfort of being sad!

>> No.2648027

>because you can't desire something that you already have.
>semantic bullshit
Of course you can want/desire/not want to lose something you already have.
A desire is fullfilled, it doesn't just disappear when you get the thing you desired.

>> No.2648030
File: 32 KB, 220x330, 220px-RussianRainbowGathering_4Aug2005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2648030

A war

>> No.2648032

>>2648030
winrar

>> No.2648034

>>2648027
It's not a semantic thing. See
>>2648030

>> No.2648037

>>2648027

You're wrong.

>A desire is fullfilled, it doesn't just disappear when you get the thing you desired.

Yes it does. You desire something when you don't have it. Once you have it, it's no more desire, or this desire is about something different.

not wanting to lose something is not the same as wanting something.

>> No.2648040

>>2648034

Yes it is semantic." Lose" have not the same meaning as expected.

>> No.2648047

>>2648037
It is the same an that's the reason the only way to solve the riddle is with ambiguity (see: >>2648030)
Losing a war is of course losing in a different sense than losing a wallet.
OP's question leads to a paradox if losing is interpreted in as "not having something anymore," because not wanting to lose something is the same as wanting it.
You can prove me wrong by answering OP's question without using ambiguity. So good luck (you can't)!

>> No.2648055

>>2648040
True. It's not a stupid semantic thing, then. It's a riddle. Sorry for having wrongfun.

>> No.2648057

>>2648047
Actually, you can not want something BECAUSE you're afraid you'll lose it. If you leave a check for $1,000,000 in my care and I have to cash for you it in a week, I can both not want to have it (because I don't want the responsibility) and not want to lose it (because I don't want to upset you).

Conflicting emotions are possible and actually a part of everyday life.

>> No.2648059
File: 9 KB, 257x196, cunts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2648059

ITT: Autists of /lit/ destroy a riddle with sperge.

>> No.2648081
File: 64 KB, 400x400, tumblr_lsz4qphh2r1qhe5udo1_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2648081

>>2648059
Bravo, /lit/. It seems to me that if one wants to have one's ego burst, go to /lit/. Which is ironic, because it seems to contain some of the biggest egos on the internet...

>> No.2648083

attention from plebs