/lit/ - Literature

Fruit fly...
Stuck in the droplet of water,
Little life by its little gods
Forgotten.
Struggling,
Trying,
Wanting,
Wishing and hoping
Until it eventually
Dies.

Wrote this sometime last winter.


It's cold.
I stand below the edifice,
With my head tilted back,
I observe
The light ever-present
In windows
Of wealthy districts.
I wonder,
Who are these people,
Living up there?
Who have everything,
Of worldly grief unaware,
Among the decorated walls,
Walking upon the heated floors,
Never hearing necessity calls,
Drinking champagne,
Or some shit.

But don't tell me, I know,
If I would
Succumb to the office turmoil,
I eventually could
Live among the ivory walls
That bear canvases
Caressed with oil.
But my spirit,
You see,
It does not allow me to yield,
It still lives in a fantasy,
It still is quite naive.
So I write down few scant stanzas
With my frozen fingers
That I can barely move
And I head for my dwelling —
In the district of solitude.

Soon enters the key where it goes,
But I stand stand still for a second,
A minute,
The door is still closed.
"Well, come on now." — say I.
"Welcome home" —
Says the the doorstep of mine,
Breath echoes through darkness,
It's here
Where the scariest shadows lose all of their starkness,
And dust makes it hard to breathe,
It's cold in here as well,
This is where loneliness breeds,
Where water gives off a sulfurous smell,
And all food has a stale taste,
The place where days pass in vain
In a life with tragedy laced.

>>20253269
I like this one. What was you inspiration for it?

>>19966005
I've been noticing this as well, actually.
I think it's a global phenomena, present to a degree in all of the parts of the world affected by technology — people now have unlimited and easiest access to porn, but have become more alienated from each other day by day and therefore never get to experience the actual affection("love"). One might simply take a look at the existence of such a thing as Girlfriend ASMR, which I think tells volumes about the on-going human condition. I think, for now, it's only a small minority of global population that is affected by this atomization, and it seems to mostly affects men(compare the view on Girlfriend ASMR and Boyfriend ASMR), and particularly, I think, men of above average intelligence, as they tend to spend more time behind the "optimization center" - computer - and therefore alienate themselves at a faster rate. I even want to go as far as to say that people who are today called neets and those who are living this "low-life" lifestyle present to us a picture of the men "of the future", if nothing changes, that is(but I doubt it can change at this point).
It's a shame really. The people who care more about love than they do about sex, let's call them "sensible" people, in our age are usually the ones ending up never experiencing their so desired "love"(see the chart). In the age where masses get to scream their way into culture, we end up with most degraded and hedonistic manifestations of it.(one might simply look at any trend on any of the biggest platforms).
But I might be just trippin'

>>19859173
It means that we cannot answer the fundamental questions no matter how hard we look into the problem. We haven't moved far since Plato and Aristotle days. All the books in that picture advocate for their own "interpretation" of reality. There is no "truth".
So many smartest thinkers tried their best, but all have reached an impenetrable ding an sich.
Philosophy only "arguments for" a particular position, it doesn't "prove" anything.
Some say that all true knowledge is only that which can be logically proved(Witty), some take more idealistic approach(Kant), all eventually comes down to fideism.
Either you choose to believe in an a priori principles like God, "Good", "Truth" and pursue them, or you choose tragedy and eventually kill yourself, or some other path, whatever is the shit you come up with. Wall of absurd cannot be breached by the mind that inherently searches for causality of things, and we still haven't moved a little in discovering the first cause.

>>19859529
wrong

>>19798070
> Your measurement of suffering and fulfillment are wholly materialistic.
Have no idea how you drew that conclusion out of mine
> choice depends entirely on embracing, at least to some extent, the validity of idealism(i.e. purpose, which I can only find in embracing the idealistic worldview).
and
> ... and suffering — both spiritual and physical


> You suppose idealism holds truth because of an ethical point of view(pragmatic?)
Yes, because it makes more sense for someone who faced the wall of creation at least once to believe in idealistic view of the world.
While googling some details I found this other quotes from Shestov's work which I think describes my stance well:
> Which are the more "practical"? Those who compare earthly life to sleep and wait for the miracle of the awakening, or those who see in death a sleep without dream-faces, the perfect sleep, and while away their time with "reasonable" and "natural" explanations? That is the basic question of philosophy, and he who evades it evades philosophy itself.


> most people are content.Indifferent to suffering.
Most people, are not content with suffering. They might tolerate it for some time, but no one will be able to live a live in constant suffering and stay indifferent to it. Some choose to even end it, by ending their life. If makes much more sense for idealism to be true simply due to existence of human condition.
Most people don't go far enough to see the wall of absurdity, and from there go on to turn to fideism. Most people believe in religion, and not because they can justify their belief on groundlessness (like I am doing right now), but because they are either afraid of not believing("you'll go to hell if you don't believe"), or haven't ask enough "why's", or believe whole-heatedly in the existence of overseeing god, because you know "Hell Is the Absence of God" — when you're, say, a soldier, hiding from bullets piercing the air while shells are exploding around you, gore and death fill your world, imagine there not being an overseeing god who sees you, imagine there is no one to even commiserate with you. Or when people are alone in their apartments, drinking themselves into oblivion, can you imagine them thinking "well, shit, it's a materialistic world, there is no providence overseeing my life, life's shit", don't you think their next thought would be that of ending things?

It simply is more practical for a person to accept the validity of idealism, that things exist only because we contemplate them — the idea puts human consciousness onto a higher pedestal.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Materialism goes only as deep as planck's length, idealism goes far beyond.
So coming back to your:
> understanding that "Truth" is nothing more than a term with no definite border
Can you still say that materialism is the objectively better choice out of the two?

>>19797915
Just to make it clear, there is nothing wrong with pragmatism as long as the person finds practicality in fideism (basically, adding idealism into their pragmatic framework.)

As to your questioning of net negative experience of one's life:
One can simply look at the fact that we feel joy in our life much less than we feel the imposing weight of toil, meaninglessness, and suffering — both spiritual and physical. You can, of course, say that it's all a matter of perspective, but how long will you be able to wake up and greet the day with "Oh, it sure is another jolly good day upon our god's green earth"? I doubt anyone will be able to keep an act for long. Even the wealthy, who can indulge in, you would think, endless hedonism, eventually get bored of it, their dopamine receptors get burnt and they are forced to return to reality at hand with responsibilities and toil. Their only solace is finding what I describe below...

> So I will ask, by which measure do you deem a life lived worthy?
But haven't I showed that already? It's the measure of fulfillment you gain by pursuing that which "you chose to say, instead of remaining silent". And this your choice depends entirely on embracing, at least to some extent, the validity of idealism.

>>19797608
I should've been more careful with my wording.
Pragmatism is a valid framework to live by if it includes in itself some aspects of idealism.
What I meant in that post is
> purely materialistic
You still may ask why I think so:
> Why should you stop bothering? (with living)
Why should one not? Given the materialistic rejection of higher aspects of consciousness, that is, reducing it to mere chemical reactions in one's brain, why would anyone who embraces the mentioned notion of consciousness continue on living with the sufferings, or even mere toil, imposed on them by the world?

We now begin to stray further from the OP's initial ontological nature of the debate into the cultural aspects of both idealism and materialism. I'll only add that I believe the
idealism is the only out of two that gives person a meaningful framework to live by, a believe that there exist processes beyond our material world. Materialism disparages human condition, while idealism seeks to justify it's higher origins.

It's as you described
> Once you go full circle
Aristotle(~materialism) > studied by Descartes (led to Idealism) > studied by Spinoza (led to materialism) > studied and criticized by Hume (led to idealism) > I'm sure someone could continue this chain further, I'll stop here.
All this study and critique eventually leads to existentialism and pragmatism, transcendentalism

Out of two only one (idealism) will help you justify the reason and give meaning to life, and help you alleviate the suffering(of any kind) imposed on you by this world, the other, if one fully embraces it, leads to despair(because of the reasons described in the first paragraph of this post).

I'd really recommend Lev Shestov's work "Apotheosis of Groundlessness".

>>19797456
There's an interesting read I once found on JSTOR titled Nietzsche's Critique of Truth by Ken Gemes (found on libgen as well). It a nice read on the stance that you're proposing. So I understand where you're coming from.
But I believe one shouldn't embrace completely a belief that world is merely material, even if it appears so. Purely pragmatic approach rids person of seeing the reason in existence. "If there is no higher purpose — even if the purpose is only the reason for one to sustain the process of living — why bother?"
Therefore, one must not "choose to be silent", but instead "choose what to say", otherwise there is no meaning in a purely materialistic world driven only by one's animal impulses.
And, because of the reason described right above and because I am able to contemplate the origin of first principle, I conclude that idealism is simply necessary for one's life. And it is out of this that I reason that materialism, as a belief, — a stance against idealism, — loses against the said idealism.


>>19797446
A good definition I once found:
"Subject is the carrier of action"
From above we conclude that object is the receiver of subjects actions, or rather it is an entity subject's actions fall upon.

Subject - the carrier of action.
Object - the receiver of action.

>>19778605
I like it.

>>19777044
I like the flow, but I'd say you need to either find a different last word, rhyme it with "surprising",
or remove the "the" before "picosecond".


>>19778135
> Let
> Let
I feel like "Let" can only be used as a started for a sentence if the setup before it portrays the narrator as someone of a great status. It's an order after all, even if thrown in a conceding manner. And your poem sets it up to portray narrator as
> as some bloodsucking
> Parasite,
I find that people don't usually care about those with low self-esteem, especially if your narrator is a man. So reading those "Let" orders from a narrator who thinks of himself as "undeserving" just sounds awkward.
I liked everything after
> And all I felt was frost.
But the lines before that one sound to me a little too abstract, it was hard to follow sometimes. But otherwise a good poem.
>>19778149
I read it multiple times and it always feels like there should be one more line that is missing.


>>19778201
That's a nice ending, describes perfectly how I felt after finishing this poem. Even the poems of Houellebecq have more passion. I think that might be because of the subversion, or rather because of a mocking treatment, of otherwise important matters, or at least matters one shouldn't feel apathetic about.
The narrator doesn't sound like a cynic, more like he has no substance.

Sitting in Silence

How do I hide
From din
That falls upon my ears,
When I'm subjected to
The silence so complete?
How do I get relief
From hearing my own heart
Beating a steady rhythm,
Piercing though my body?
Where do I find peace
From the unceasing winds
I hear when I cover my ears?
There truly is no hiding
From the clamour of gears
Going on inside me.
Never before I realized,
How deafening
The silence is.

>>19775337
Thank you,
My friend.
We're all gonna make it
In the end.

Perception of Things

The sun
Used to shine brighter,
It did,
I remember it so.
It's pale,
No longer yellow,
It falls colder —
An incandescent snow.

The thoughts are too crisp now,
No longer the thoughts of a child,
No longer like henids.
A shame
It really is,
To live in a mind too conscientious.
To live in and not with,
For such living
Is closer to dwelling
In a cell
Made in one's cognitive slot.
There's no telling
How far one will go
Expelling
The Animal
From the dark corners of thought.

And the graph,
It has to be analyzed,
The patterns
Must there be found.
The order,
Inconsequential at first,
Must reveal something profound.
An innermost secret
It must convey,
Bring even more sharpness
To human dismay.
And what's the result?
Sun shines a little less brighter,
Hot coffee now faster turns cold,
For the life might be granted
By some one high above,
It's up for the human
To grasp it
And make it unbearable
In doing so.

>>19765019
I like the conciseness. It's a nice little poem.


>>19766068
Like this one. Would, personally, replace the last line with
> I am the only to blame
Think it would flow better that way.


>>19766134
> She too fine
I'm sure ebonics are not intentional
> She's
Also, nice poem. I don't don't want to impose over someone's artistic integrity, but I think last line kinda "under-delivers" rhythmically.
> So divine,
> She's too fine
> To be mine
> Quite so soon.

>>19769404
> according to
> some
Make above into one line so it doesn't break the rhythm. And I'd also recommend adding another line that would be an epithet to those "people" and would rhyme with "some":
> this
> is poetry
> according to some
> """""""people""""""""
> To good poetry numb

> Also loogs lieg a pyhamid :DD


>>19771940
I like this one.


>>19774469
I like the picture it paints
In my head,
Although that is subjective,
You poem sure is a delight
For this poetry thread.
And also, first stanza
Reads more like a song,
Can't help myself
But to sing along
As I spell it,
I would record a vacaroo,
But I have no microphone
In this dwelling.
Oh, never mind,
I'll record on my phone.
Pardon the drone,
I though It'd sound better
When strumming along.

https://voca.ro/1FHNuTFY3mhs

>>19757405
>would want to allow us
wound't

>>19757138
Nothingness, I think, comes from our concept of something being "outside": What is there outside of our world, then the world of our creators, and what's outside that? Even if it all encloses in itself, the loops have walls. Even walls, as some impervious structure, is a concept that leads us eventually to the wall of creation. Almost as if we were designed in a way as to not be able to look behind the veil.
Almost as if the primordial will would want to allow us to "leak" into the world beyond ours, at least while we are alive. It seem much more probable, then, that the entirety of present matter is locked inside and if we take a naturalistic approach to consciousness, it seem, then, that we are no more than animated puppets. Truly depressing, but also reassuring in that you should make most out of your puppet life.

>>19757084
Wouldn't you say that these are rather closer to theories that don't have much ground to stand on?
> Nature has no obligation to let us off the hook.
It also has no need to keep us going. Life of one has served as a relay to transmit the biological code and continue life — truly the most persistent virus. The relay, once its task is completed, dies off, falling apart back into the elements. Eventually the elements will manifest themselves in another aspect of the universe.
> You may just "pick up" in the next possible brain state somewhere
> You might just wake up with a giant needle up your ass, wouldn't that be unfortunate. Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to have kids.

I see where you are coming from. If we imagine that all our existence serves as mere entertainment for the creators they could design all sort of sick shit.
But is this theory really enough to take anitnatalistic stance? It no better the other theories. After all, some primordial will wished for life to be. Why? Here we reach the wall of creation, the wall of absurdity, and can only allow our theories to steps further.

And wouldn't the same idea of endless suffering only incline you to live a life of most happiness while you can?

And, as well, how likely is it that you and me and everyone around us is only on the first level of this suffering? I, for example, do not remember any existence before this one I'm having right now, so even if I have suffered before that the suffering was not incremented.
You might then theorize that we are collectively put inside the first level world, but we would again find ourselves imagining all sort of what if's.

>>19756766
I think there were very few men throughout the entire history of humanity who could adhere faithfully to what they've preached. Conditions change, thoughts need to be accommodated. I am not sure what causes you to hate him that much or call him two-faced, and on the available accounts we have we know he died with dignity. So chill and actually criticize his ideas(which in our case still stands firm) than a man himself.

>>19754972
I fancy to think that my self is the result of my memories and the experiences I have lived through. When I think of some concept certain images appear in my mind and memories that have relics of time during which they were formed. So even if you would be able to recreate me atom by atom, that body would still lack the same electricity that forms my brain activity right at this moment, because their memory simply wouldn't recall the same images of reality due to them living in a different time.

>>19755127
I see you point. Yet still, we will eventually succumb to the second law of thermodynamics and be no more. Unless we figure out how to produce pure energy to fill, if not boundless, at least an enormous amount of space. And, after all, we don't care that much about our name being remembered as much as we care for our personality. And, as I believe, our friend Aurelius said ~"People barely even know themselves, how could they ever grasp me for who I am."
We could delve into scifi and entertain the idea that the future will be populated by some hyper-humanists dedicated to investigation of every person's personality, but it is more likely they'll think about us as a set of people — just like we think about greeks or romans.
The lives of emperors sure are interesting to some, but as time marches on I think their lives will become of less relevance to the humans of the future. People would need to dedicate good part of their life to become expert at something, which means that it is more likely people will simply become more specialized, until eventually the knowledge of our time will become something esoteric. If you ever read Solaris by Lem, the part in the library where he talks about the research of Solaristics is what I am talking about. Eventually, our legacy will become irrelevant to some gaynigger stimulated by the narcotics on the ship flying many years away from earth.


>>19755150
I only choose the subject from deep past because (>>19755036) anon already mentioned the deep future.

Also,
> If the content exists, but no links point to it,
It doesn't exist in the eyes of humanity. It might as well have been a photo in your family album.

Also,
> comparing a landmark signifying the dawn of human creativity(as much as I think it to, still, be only of animalistic nature, It is peculiar nonetheless) with the work of that has little significance now that we can create art in seconds.

>>19755052
Only goes to show no memory will last forever.

>>19755055
>>19755061
> somehow the fact that it might have been a single dude changes the fact that the legacy lives on without us knowing a single ounce of shit about him

> but the internet will preserve
Resources for computer memory are finite. Human memory can only take so much and it doesn't care about things which are not relevant.
I doubt people will discuss great scientist we consider to be great 100,000 years from now.

>>19755045
Anon I believe we have discussed everything in your comment.

It all comes down to:
You say:
> ...just as you cannot stop loving someone merely because you think it. I am my animal brain....

I say:
>>19754978
> Well then, the whole question becomes "how do we overcome our instincts"...

So my concluding advice would be:
Just die to some ASMR nigga, like close your eyes lmao

>>19755017
But we can only look to far. You don't know the names of those people who painted Cueva de las Manos.