Human: “What is the meaning of life dear Mr. Bear!?”
Bear: “I shit in the woods.” *Eats Human
Too many to really respond to at once since I left.
There is one huge mistake people have made almost the entire thread, I may have said life has no intrinsic value, and that life as a whole does in-fact suck, but that no way means it has no meaning. So the existential shit is completely off-base, and only has anything to do with it in an off-hand way.
It will take me time, but I will respond to those who left an actual comment, and ones that didn’t simply read a key word and make some childish remark(s) due to said keyword (existentialism).
Didn’t deal with what I was arguing first of all, albeit I didn’t really read it once I saw you saying Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist and that people don’t understand that. I’ve read not only Nietzsche’s critiques on some of Kant, but Schopenhauer and others as well. I’m well aware Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, he flirted with it, but by no means was he a nihilist. He believed there was beauty in art, music, etc. Nietzsche is a bumper sticker philosopher whose ubermensch idea gets bastardized more than anything I’ve seen.
If my idea of life is flawed, tell me the flaws, don’t throw out a copy paste of someone’s philosophy 101 on Kant and Nietzsche which wasn’t even good.
We’re not speaking about time.
That’s the problem with Mexicans, you constantly worry about sex, it’s why you guys shit out so many kids. Pussy is overrated, unless you’re 15, than by all means let those hormones rage.
I will answer you in the post below
It did get slightly bastardized due to the flurry of posts. For that I am sorry. What I mean on zero sum is, at best, in life, you can hope to get rid of all your suffering, once all suffering is taken away you’re left at a zero sum. Suffering being negatives, and positives being taking away certain suffering.
I’m speaking of intrinsic value, you on the other hand are speaking of extrinsic. There is a difference.
nah dude, nobody is going to debate philosophy with you after you’ve only read what it seems like 2 books and just filled in the holes with 90s song lyrics. You ask me what German philosophy is and how it relates to your ideas, and I explained it to you, and you chose not to read my post and the works I’ve mentioned (I can tell you didn’t read Nietzsche, really). I don’t really care if you read my posts but at least read the books, I’m honestly trying to help here.
Seeing as you’re probably going to get banned within the next 2 days, you should write a dissertation or at least an abstract and send it to a college or apply for a grant. So you can let a bunch of old white men roll their eyes instead of a bunch of street fighter nerds, since you’re running out of excuses to explain your basement neckbeard school of philosophy that’s built on an intellectual excuse. Maybe we’re ALL too Mexican to understand
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with hyperbole. Sorry, can’t help you there. Is it that hard to realize?
Having a cynical attitude can save certain people a lot of time/work/pain/suffering. So i disagree it can get you nowhere. The attitude if taken on a whole can, but in certain situations it can help. Your little personal observation, and the one of the kid with a keystone avatar doesn’t prove anything. It proves what? That you don’t want to suffer anymore so you don’t dwell on the reality of the fact that life sucks? Congratulations, I’m glad you’re aware of coping skills even on such a small level.
Ignorant statement. How do you know what I do based on a stance I’ve made about a word and general demeanor? You don’t. I do however wholeheartedly agree, there is too much suffering, and people being taken advantage of in this world, and if we should have one goal, it shouldn’t be to go find aliens, it should be to fix the shit we have wrong in nature and our own world. Maybe discussing it can actually help, which would be what this is, so eat a dick you fucking pompous twat.
If there is a God, this life means absolutely nothing. What is important is the afterlife, so this life really has no fucking value at all. God worsens the case on all levels, he does not provide a helping hand in any of these problems.
First, I’m just getting it from wiki. Apparently now I’ve read two books. Are we attempting to have a cock measuring contest? I don’t care where anyone gets their knowledge from, I want to discuss the concepts, whether you’ve read the entire library, or a fucking snapple cap. I personally don’t care. You however are the one that seems to not only not grasp the philosophy you’re aware of, but use it as some sort of shit badge. I’m not impressed. I don’t expect to impress anyone with what I’ve read, and neither should you.
Explain to me how you think I have not read Nietzsche, you make claims every single post, and don’t give any examples. Nietzsche basically is his bumper sticker quotes. “Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”, and “God is Dead” which I’ve heard so many people misconstrue it’s tiring. Maybe you can go find some community college essays on Heidegger and Kierkegaard to really put me in my place. You’ve yet to illustrate a single point of your own, or counter one of mine even with your unoriginal quoting of whatever it is you were attempting to convey which didn’t actually address my concerns at all, petty insults, and C- analysis term papers on philosophers that are so well known I think they actually do have hot topic tshirts.
You never even replied to my original post, I asked how I was using circular logic, and pointed out I that Schopenhauer was really the only philosopher I had directly dealt with as far as personal thoughts were concerned. You then wrote a two HORRIBLE paragraph rant on Kant and everyone’s favorite throwaway philosopher Nietzsche who basically rode Schopenhauer’s balls for half his career until developing his own philosophy.
Whew! I’m surprised this thread is still open.
I don’t think your idea of life is “flawed”, but you could probably benefit from a different perspective on what “life” is.
At the outset of the thread you said, “What are your views on life, pessimism, philosophy, anything really.”
Later, you gave your own view on life, which wasn’t an uncommon opinion. You said, in so many words, that life is shit because of the the amount of suffering that takes place. Okay, but the fact that you’ve made this statement does not in-and-of-itself do anything to alleviate any suffering for anyone. You might say here that it isn’t your goal to alleviate anyone else’s suffering, but then if that’s the case, why worry about “suffering” at all?
You also said that the existential viewpoints that people have been sharing with you are not related to the topic, but I think that was a hasty judgment, because you can’t have a discussion about people’s views on life without an accompanying dialogue on their views of death.
Personally, it seems like you’re stuck in the quicksand of trying to graft words like “value”, “meaning”, “suffering”, and “advantages” onto your views on life without realizing that these words are preventing you from coming up with a sober assessment of what it means to be alive.
I’ll give you my personal view on life and maybe it’ll let you side-step the suffering snag:
My view on life is basically a simple metaphor.
This metaphor is a bit of applied existentialism.
It goes like this:
Life is like a line.
Every person who has ever existed has been standing in a forward-moving single-file line.
Every person who currently exists is standing in this forward-moving single-file line.
When we are born, we assume our place in The Line.
Unlike the line which forms when people are entering, for instance, a concert venue, not a single person in The Line can claim to be there because of their own choosing. We are all someone’s Progeny.
Once you have taken your place in The Line, you cannot step out of it.
Some will ask?"How did I come to be in this Line? Where is this Line going? What happens when I reach the end of The Line? What is the meaning of The Line? How do I know that I am actually in The Line? What is the nature of this Line? Who or what organized this Line?? but reflecting upon your presence in the line is redundant, because your being in the line is the necessary condition for all reflections.
Everyone must proceed along The Path of The Line.
At the end of The Line is a cliff.
Everyone in The Line proceeds forward until they reach The Edge.
At some point during your time in The Line, the person who stands directly in front of you turns around and says to you, “You’re going to die.”
This is the only thing which can be properly considered to be a “fact”. All other utterances are situated squarely in the realm of “values”.
There is only one fact: The Fact of Finitude.
The person in front of you only knows this fact because the person who is directly in front of them turned around and said it to them; and so on to the front of the line.
Whether or not you understand the language which was used to tell you this fact has no bearing upon your situation in The Line.
Whether or not you are capable of understanding this fact has no bearing upon your situation in The Line.
Everyone in The Line proceeds forward along The Path until they reach The Edge.
Everyone in The Line must step over The Edge.
This stepping-over is known as The Fall.
The Fall represents the inescapable fact of finitude.
Everyone in The Line must proceed to The Edge and unto The Fall. This is the only fact. All other utterances are talk of values.
And that’s about it.
You use words like “suffering” and “value” and “meaning”?but these are just words which have no influence over your situation in The Line and can do nothing to prevent you from reaching The Edge and The Fall which accompanies it. In the Line of Life metaphor, words like “suffering” and “value” and “meaning”, are all consigned to the realm of “Talk of Values”. They have no bearing upon the One Fact, the Fact of Finitude. In this sense, when you make statements about the nature of life which hinge upon the concept of “suffering”, all you are really doing is engaging in more discussion of values. This thread, then, isn’t really about “life”, but “values”.
Again, this is talk of values.
You say, that when taken on a case-by-case basis, it can be shown that in order to survive, we must take advantage of someone/something else, but is that always the case in life?
In the case of Man versus Wild?, Bear Gryls will kill a snake, or some other random creature, and eat it raw in order to show people how to survive in the wilderness.
In the case of nations, one country will attack and appropriate another country to, say, form a larger unified nation. Like China did.
In the case of you sitting down to eat breakfast, something had to die in order for you to eat breakfast. Eggs, bacon, sausage?whatever.
In those cases, yes, something had to “take advantage” of something else in order to survive, but not everything in life works that way.
What is life if not a clump of cells, atoms, molecules and the like?
Look at the way that cells divide in your own body. One cell splits into two cells. Cells merge together to create even more complex structures. Those complex structures form networks to create even more complex organisms. Those organisms grow into more complex organisms which we call creatures or “beings”.
When a cell divides to make something new, can it really be said that something has taken advantage of something else in order to survive? Taking it on a case-by-case basis, that’s one case in which your statement doesn’t necessarily hold true. Or take your skin for instance. Put a single drop of water on the back of your hand and rub it with your other hand. The stuff that shows up isn’t likely to be dirt. It’s dead skin. Cells have died in order to make room for new cells. This process keeps your skin (and by extension, your “life” in the abstract) in working order. This process sustains “life”. Do we say that one cell has “taken advantage” of another cell when this happens? Of course not. Cells do what people do. They multiply, divide, they live, they die to make room for other cells, they attack other cells when necessary, they defend cells when necessary, and so on.
It’s easy to see, from this perspective, how talk of “values”, “suffering”, and “meaning” simply muddles the topic and doesn’t make for a sober assessment of life.
To be honest, when I read your post which was pretty heavy on tragedy and suffering, all I could think about was the verse from Tool’s Vicarious song where Maynard is lamenting the fact that he has to school people on the fact that the universe is so hostile and impersonal.
My ten cents.
Hoaxium:
You’re speaking of intrinsic now? You used the word inherent originally and are now changing your original statement. Please make it clear about what kind of value you are speaking of. Inherent and intrinsic are completely different terms.
That’s a completely different topic, and if you want to claim that, it’s okay with me. But just be aware that such is an opinion. I could easily claim that there is intrinsic value to everyone since it’s open for that person to examine and select a reason as to why something is valuable.
I wouldn’t have taken such a huge issue with your current statement had you relegated it to mere opinion, but you seemed to take issue with the fact that I used “opinion” and wanted to insinuate that such a thing was a fact.
Here’s an interesting article on the inherent evil of the law of predation: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/evil_laws.html
That sounds like your whole reason for this thread Mr. Idiot Savant, emphasis on Idiot, de-emphasis on Savant.
BTW reported for racism.
Man! why isn’t this shit closed already~!? Where’s Wiz when you need him! I’ll buy you 10 Mc ribbs if you close this!
Life as a whole isn’t anything in particular. The problem with pessimistic or optimistic views of life is that they end up committing the fallacy of composition by attributing qualities from individual parts to the whole.
Example, it’s like saying the atoms in a cat are colorless therefore the whole cat is colorless. It doesn’t logically follow.
Also value is something subjects predicate to objects. So saying life as a whole is shitty or wonderful is not only logically invalid but simply depends on the point of view a subject is willing to take…
Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy turned him into an old perverted man who was afraid of everything around him, including germs and would-be killers. He slept with a sword and gun by his bed and had no close relationships. Although he had an intense desire for sex his efforts constantly failed. The women who did sleep with him were either prostitutes or actresses he didn’t care for.
hence why I know you didn’t read Nietzsche
like I said, I did respond to all your points in my post, it’s just easier for you to respond to my choice of philosophers (which you brought up, coincidentally, but whatever) than anything I posted. Like I said, your basement neckbeard school of philosophy basically revolves around quoting philosophers out of context and using rhetorical terms incorrectly, so there’s no reason for any of us to respond anymore since you would, like you did just now, ignore it and keep beating up logic like it owes you money. You brought up philosophers who agreed with you (they don’t actually) and we did counter-arguments, and now you’re trying to argue against intellectuals in general, which is fine.
You know who believes in simplistic misreadings of existentialism and see all criticism as validation of their viewpoint? People who wear shirts with Nietzsche quotes on them.
If you’re just going to do 4chan-level insults against people who aren’t even alive and source your life views from wiki, all you’re demonstrating is that you’re barely old enough to drive. Do it some place where people will be impressed.
god, you are so stupid. you insult people who don’t agree with you, and claim they misinterpret/“don’t read” your posts, when that is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly. my post wasn’t about coping mechanics or ignoring reality, it was about the fact that life does not, in fact, suck. life is fun, living is fun. notice the people around you enjoying things? that isn’t some distraction from life’s inherent problems, fun and enjoyment are as much a part of life as the shit.
“a lot of us aren’t fucking stupid or illiterate on these subjects. Whether it’s because it’s been discussed before, a topic that seems to be associated with a mind seeking to impress by scratching only the surface of a subject, or not being the most appropriate topic for such a forum; it goes to show that the method of introducing the subject was flawed and therefore must be scrutinized.” bingo.
also, the jab at mexicans was ridiculous and brings your thread down the level of cheap trolling.
ITT: people getting troll’d by a 2010 member, most likely g3nshiro.
imo.
shit…
No what you did was misrepresent my argument entirely. Hyperbole is when you exaggerate a claim. That has nothing to do with what you did, which was create a strawman argument. But that wouldn’t be the first time in this thread you’ve tried to use big words to sound intelligent, only to fail miserably.
[QUOTe]
Having a cynical attitude can save certain people a lot of time/work/pain/suffering. So i disagree it can get you nowhere. The attitude if taken on a whole can, but in certain situations it can help. Your little personal observation, and the one of the kid with a keystone avatar doesn’t prove anything. It proves what? That you don’t want to suffer anymore so you don’t dwell on the reality of the fact that life sucks? Congratulations, I’m glad you’re aware of coping skills even on such a small level.
[/Quote]
No, cynicism by definition is defeatist. It gets you nowhere. Your problem is that you think there are only two extremes. One is cynicism, and the other being viewing the world through rose colored glasses. That is simply a false dichotomy (OMGLOL I USED A FANCY VOCABZZZ!!!111) . Being realistic and being cynical are entirely different. It is quite possible to temper optimism with realism. A cynic looks at a problem and just pokes holes in it without offering anything solutions or constructive comments. A cynical 5 ft person realizes he will never be able to play basketball in the NBA, and gives up completely as a result. A non cynic realizes he won’t ever compete at the highest level, but realizes with practice he can still become a pretty good player. If you give up without even trying, you are by definition, getting nowhere.
How do I know? Based on your posts, its pretty easy to infer, you fucking 16 year old, emo, pseudo intellectual piece of shit. You’ve been whining, moaning and pissing yourself nonstop this entire thread. You’ve annoyed everyone on here, and its pretty obvious that if this is how you act in real life, you have no friends, so kill yourself. I especially like how you cry foul when others use ad hominem, but you have no problem using it yourself. If you would like to continue trading verbal jabs, so be it. Cunt.
This is why very few people are taking this thread seriously. You smell like a troll. Its not that deep discussions don’t happen on SRK.
No, if you believe in a God, your whole purpose is to spread your religious meme as far and wide as possible, and prostrate yourself before this God 24/7.
@Lothar: His posting style differs entirely from genshiros
edit: IMO
For the actual responses, I appreciate it. The tired two line meme-esque SRK “diss and quit” can get old. For those that weren’t complete asses, thank you.
I apologize if I am unclear, interchange words incorrectly, or make my thoughts hard to understand, I usually feel rushed when I have to respond to 17 posts in a row. Responding, but going to take my time thus as to hopefully clear up some of the shit so it shall not continue to reappear like herpes.
lol at everyone baited by 17 yr old troll