/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8471656]

Thoughts you hate the most.

>There is no objective reality.
Yes, there is.

[Anonymous No.8471663]

>There is no objective morality
Yes, there is.

[Anonymous No.8471664]

>>8471656
Prove it

[Anonymous No.8471667]

>If X doesn't exist I'll feel bad, therefore X exists
Seems to be the only argument for objective morality if you get to the base of it.

[Anonymous No.8471668]

>>8471656

> There is something objective

[Anonymous No.8471669]

>>8471656

>There is no objective reality.

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.8471671]

>>8471656

> Prove it

[Anonymous No.8471678]

>>8471669
All efforts to prove anything will be subjective.

[Anonymous No.8471679]

>>8471667
>feelings are not real

[Anonymous No.8471685]

>>8471678

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.8471686]

>>8471656
Objective reality is a subset of subjective reality.

[Anonymous No.8471693]

>>8471664
>>8471669
>>8471671
>>8471678
>>8471685
Come on guys.

Another one:
>All humans should be equal.
You don't need to use the word "all", just say "humans should be equal". And no, they shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.8471700]

>>8471656
>implying there are ways to percieve reality outside of our own personal senses
>>8471693
>debating moralities

My pleb-o-meter is ringing

[Anonymous No.8471703]

>>8471693
>You don't need to use the word "all", just say "humans should be equal". And no, they shouldn't.
I think we can mostly agree humans should start out as equal as possible, but equality of outcome is a no-no.

Is there any valid argument against inequality so long as the people at the bottom have a good standard of living? (And no, I'm not saying that's currently the case).

[Anonymous No.8471704]

>If one examines the postmodern paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a
choice: either reject dialectic objectivism or conclude that narrative is
created by communication, but only if the postmodern paradigm of narrative is
invalid; if that is not the case, we can assume that class, somewhat
paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.

[Anonymous No.8471705]

>>8471700
Third one.

>There may or may not be extraterrestrial life.
You don't need to say "may or may not", you can just say "may". And there is extraterrestrial life.

[Anonymous No.8471706]

>>8471656
There is a physical reality. However the word objective implies human activity which basic litterature on epistomology quickly will defy. Fucking pleb OP. This is shitty bait.

[Anonymous No.8471710]

>>8471669
Not him, but i actually did this a while ago.

p1: If i do not exist in any form, then i cannot experience any form of existence.

p2: If i do not exist outside a simulated reality, and perceive a simulated subset of existence, (Eg, a computer program), i must then be a product of a reality in which the simulation belongs. Otherwise, i could not experience the illusion of existence.

p3: If i do not exist within the boundary and conditional parameters of actuarial reality, i do not exist.

p4: If i exist, in any form, there must, by extension, be an existence in some form to necessitate my ability to perceive and interpret it.

p5: Actuarial reality exists if i exist.

p6: If i do not exist, i cannot know if actuarial reality exists.

p7: If i cannot know if actuarial reality exists if i do not exist, i must exist as a subset of it, under it's parameters, in order to exist.

p8: I exist, because i am experiencing existence.

Therefore, if i exist, an actuarial reality exists separate from my experiences and interpretations.

The takeaway from that is that you can prove an objective reality exists outside your perceptions through pure logic.


- Signed, Steve.

Not that anyone cares, i don't have a degree. Fuck you, school and 4chan.

[Anonymous No.8471716]

Which socioeconomic system would you choose for an isolated society of 100 people?

>1'000 resources, 10 resource for each person
>10'000 resources, 10 resources for each person, AND 9000 resources divided to random 5 persons
>1'000'000'000'000 resources, 11 resources for each person, AND 999'999'998'900 resources divided to random 5 persons.

[Anonymous No.8471727]

>>8471705
Ok this is acceptable

[Anonymous No.8471731]

>>8471706
No. Physical reality isn't proven, unlike objective reality is.

It is possible that space and time only exists as our interpretations of the behavior of some energy system, and not as actual dimensions.

I'll give you an example.
Space in videogame exists only as information, not physical space.

[Anonymous No.8471741]

>>8471731
And if I'll expand more on this topic, it is pretty likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts our nervous system use.

[Anonymous No.8471743]

>>8471731
>, unlike objective reality is.
How can objective reality be proven? It literally can't be observed, since all observation is per definition subjective.

[Anonymous No.8471756]

>>8471743
It's provable that something exists, if absolutely nothing existed there would be no subjective experience. You might be absolutely deluded about everything including your own mind but that delusion must exist.

If you're talking about physical reality, then yes, you can't objectively prove that.

[Anonymous No.8471757]

>>8471716
3 is the best in theory, but would - in reality - be so unstable as to collapse in a matter of months.

So I'll go with 2.

[Anonymous No.8471775]

4th one:

>Fat people aren't fat because they are lazy, unmotivated, undisciplined, uncompetent and noncompliant. It's genetics.
They are fat because they are lazy and stupid shit pieces.

[Anonymous No.8471780]

>>8471663
lmao

[Anonymous No.8471783]

>X is "natural" therefore x is "good"

[Anonymous No.8471790]

>>8471780
Say that to my face.

[Anonymous No.8471794]

>>8471663
It would be better if you said "There should be" or something similar.

[Anonymous No.8471796]

>>8471710
QED dreams and therefore anime are real.

[Anonymous No.8471797]

>>8471775
This annoys me to no end

[Anonymous No.8471808]

>it's not hurting anyone so it's ethically okay
fucking degenerates

[Anonymous No.8471815]

>>8471808
>muh degeneracy

People like this have not the faintest clue about history.

[Anonymous No.8472203]

>>8471741

> likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts our nervous system use.

But your nervous system, as a network of physical tissues, is itself *part* of space and time.

[Anonymous No.8472242]

>>8471669
How about just a simple:
>there is no objective reality
Contradicts itself in making a claim about all of reality?

[Anonymous No.8472403]

>>8471693
>All humans should be equal.
Perhaps they should, but they aren't, and won't.

[Anonymous No.8472405]

>>8471700
>implying there are ways to perceive reality outside of our own personal senses
I really hope you include the mind when you say "personal senses".

[Anonymous No.8472414]

>>8472242
I don't see a contradiction there

[Anonymous No.8472508]

If I do not exist, how am I able to perceive and interpret the meaning of existence itself?

[Anonymous No.8472519]

>>8471775
>>8471797

[Anonymous No.8472527]

>>8471703
>I think we can mostly agree humans should start out as equal as possible, but equality of outcome is a no-no.
You think wrongly.

Are you even from this board?

[Anonymous No.8472544]

>We believe in peace, they believe in bigotry and hatred

I've seen this sentence thrown around from both sides of politics

[Anonymous No.8472582]

>>8471794
why the fuck do you think I give a shit about anything you have to say you retarded nigger, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.8472594]

>>8471656
>There is no objective reality
Is this an objective fact or is it subjective to you?

[Anonymous No.8472641]

>>8472582
You're a real cool dude and I respect your considered opinion.

[Anonymous No.8472992]

When people say:
>a man is a man because he participates in being the form of a man
Like, holy shit nigger, that means there must be a third form of the man participating in the act of the man, which it-self is it's own form that is non-stop repeating.

[Anonymous No.8473326]

>>8471656
Subject-object dualism wore out in philosophy in the 19th century, get with the times.

Nietzsche got the ball rolling, and Jean Baudrillard went into further depth with it. Subject and object are interrelated; they are defined via a harmonizing relationship between one another.

i.e. it is erroneous to discuss objective things without considering the subjects perceiving them in your evaluation and definition of them.

[Anonymous No.8474003]

>>8471686

[Anonymous No.8474010]

>>8472203
... as understood by the nervous system

[Anonymous No.8474014]

>>8471656
>hating thoughts

Do people actually do this?

[Anonymous No.8474367]

>>8474010

More fundamentally, as known by the mind; ultimately, human nervous systems are objects of empirical knowledge, and the mind is the knower to this known, the subject of these physical objects. You can think away space and time, and with them the physical nervous system - but you can't think away your thinking consciousness, so in an important way the latter is more epistemologically fundamental than the former.

>>8473326

I haven't read Nietzsche or Baudrillard, but it seems that earlier Kant, and with him Schopenhauer, had heavily affirmed in their own ways a mutual dependency of subject and object of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.8474372]

>>8471663
There isn't but it would be wise to not let the unwashed masses (brown people especially) know that.

[Anonymous No.8474393]

>>8474372
Why does it need to be concealed if it doesn't exist?

I don't get what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.8474416]

>>8471741
>likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts
I think relativity blows this away

[Anonymous No.8474424]

>>8471656
Maybe there is but you will never be able to experience it.

[Anonymous No.8474679]

>>8474367
Close, but we need to go deeper. The mind is a concept created, understood, and rationalized by itself.

[Anonymous No.8474683]

>>8471656
>If you believe and work hard enough at it, it will come true
This is the biggest lie people can tell themselves.

[Anonymous No.8474740]

>>8474679

Ultimately, there's the known and the knower - no? If the mind is thinking of itself, then there is some aspect of the mind that is the thinker and another aspect of the mind that is the thought-of, and these are not identical aspects. So at bottom, there seems to be this opposition even in introspective self-consciousness, of subject/object, where the former can never be the latter, such that a human mind cannot ever have absolute knowledge of its own being. In the thought "I am conscious of myself," there is the fundamental I, and there is the myself, and they are not one in the same.