There is no good in this world.
All actions are inherently selfish.
Nothing is pure.
No one is inoccent.
Free will is a myth.
We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
Prove us that we are atoms governed by the laws of physics.
If free will is a myth, you wouldn't actually choose your actions, if you don't choose your actions you aren't being selfish or guilty for what you did
>pleb opinion made up of teenage angst and edgyness
>weeaboo
every fucking time
>le deep edgy nihilist post with fucking anime to somehow seem cool and validate your shitty delusional opinion
Fuck off nobody cares you fucking faggot
>>1171964
>All actions are inherently selfish.
Including actions to help people?
>>1171964
>There is no good in this world.
Mutually beneficial actions are good.
>All actions are inherently selfish.
And doing good for oneself is doing good.
>>1171964
You posted some anime character and stated arbitrary claims without any arguments, do you expect us to take you seriously?
>>1172012
It's a young child that has been told doing selfish things is bad. He can not distinguish between bad things done for selfish reasons and good things for selfish reasons. In his mind, only the selfless can be good because selflessness is a virtue.
>>1172012
helping people either makes you feel good about yourself or makes other people like you. The only true form of altruism is to anonymously donate to a cause you don't like
>>1171964
>All actions are inherently selfish.
>We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
These two statements are directly contradictory.
>>1172027
>implying the self exists separate of the material universe
Haha, what
this is a good thread
threads like this usually get 300+ posts
>>1171964
Well at least these atoms can criticize the laws of nature and point out how bad it is. So maybe nature itself is not all that bad.
>>1172040
>not bad nature itself creates fleshbag to criticize how bad nature is
For what reason
>>1171964
Is this from some edgy nihilism generator on the internet?
![quote-pleasure-is-never-as-pleasant-as-we-expected-it-to-be-and-pain-is-always-more-painful-arthur-schopenhauer-41-52-07[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3EUn9uy.jpg "quote-pleasure-is-never-as-pleasant-as-we-expected-it-to-be-and-pain-is-always-more-painful-arthur-schopenhauer-41-52-07[1].jpg")
>>1171964
away with you, schopie. you're ruining everyone's mood like you do every single christmas dinner
>>1171964
> We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
Pretty sure your mom was governed by my dick yesterday and we sure did some things violating the laws of physics.
>>1172021
>Mutually beneficial actions are good.
if they're mutually beneficial it means both sides gain with it - which removes the "being inherently good" part
paradoxal as fuck but you probably won't find any pure good action in this world, they usually strive for the gain of one or more individuals
even when you help someone on the street, you do it because you want to be a hero or if you help someone you know it's because you want to fuck him/her or you hope he will share the tale with someone you might want to fuck in order to appear more fuckable
>>1172054
His mom and your dick are made of atoms acting in accordance with the laws of physics.
The philosophy undergrads took the obvious bait
Like, not one reply called OP out for baiting except for >>1172037
Other humanities are a cancer to this board. I just want to trigger byzaboos and share my historical autism with other history autists is that too much to ask for reeeee
>>1171964
I am on this board for the history, not for philosophy, and i don't see how could this opinion be wrong (granted you don't go full nihilistic, but just accept it as the basic truth). Please philosophyfags, elaborate.
I thought there was space for free will in physics. There are parts of it that can be only be expressed probabilistically, which leaves room to escape from Laplace style determinism
>>1171964
t. A teen's first attempt at philosophy
>>1172172
I hate the argument that says electron fluctuations prove free will.
It's not like anyone has any power over these electrons.
>>1172173
If that's the case, we must cut the OP some slack.
>>1172049
>>1172173
>>1172190
you say this but can you prove me wrong
>>1172191
Can you prove yourself right first?
>>1171964
wow so deep and edgy wow
Kill yourself you fucking mongoloid
>>1172070
>if they're mutually beneficial it means both sides gain with it - which removes the "being inherently good" part
Why does an action need to be inherently good? Who benefits from this inherit goodness? If no one benefits from this inherent goodness, can you really call it good? Then for what reason does inherent goodness matter?
>paradoxal as fuck but you probably won't find any pure good action in this world, they usually strive for the gain of one or more individuals
If no one gains, how is it good? It's not good, it's either neutral or bad. Of course it's a given that a good thing will result in the gain for one or more individuals.
>even when you help someone on the street, you do it because you want to be a hero or if you help someone you know it's because you want to fuck him/her or you hope he will share the tale with someone you might want to fuck in order to appear more fuckable
There are plenty of other reasons. There is a basic human kindness that will tend to instinctively help someone, if the cost for you is small and the gain for the other party is large. You hope that the other person would do the same for you. This is a behavior found in social animals, because on the average it is good for everyone.
It's true this isn't universal. People may perceive a threat, increasing perceived cost, and cognitive disconnect may dampen the instinct.
The problem is you don't understand what good or bad means.
obligatory
True. There is no point denying this.
>>1172226
Goodness is when you do something for somebody else without expecting anything in return. Christanity and all religions are fucked up in this sense, since they promote it, but they promise heaven and eternal bliss in return, so all the goody two-shoes christans donating for charity and shit are as selfish as anybody else.
>There is a basic human kindness that will tend to instinctively help someone
>You hope that the other person would do the same for you. This is a behavior found in social animals, because on the average it is good for everyone.
So basically you are doing it in expectance of later payback, so it has selfish motives
>>1171964
Well, now that you figured this out, what is the next step?
>>1172194
>There is no good in this world
This tackles the afirmation that good exists, in which case, you're the one to prove it does. By default, unless something is proven to exist, it doesn't. it's like me saying invisible unicorns don't exist, and you're the one saying to prove they don't. Regardless, good is an human definition. If humans did not exist, do you think that good could exist? Imagine the human species erradicated from the Universe, and all other intelligent forms. Is there any good in nature? When a lion kills a zebra and makes it suffer just so it can feed itself, or when a super nova blows up. Is there any good in unanimated nature? No, only humans can make good be real, because that's a human definition.
>All actions are inherently selfish
Even when someone does charity work, or gives money to the poor, they are doing that ultimately because they think it is right, to fulfill their desire to do something wrong. If they didn't do that, they would feel bad for not being able to help. When you do something "good" (which cannot exist), you are doing to make yourself feel better. So even altruism is selfish.
>Nothing is pure
Plato.
>No one is inoccent
People are always inevitably influentiated by the envorinment they're in. The fact that you speak a language is proof of this. If you were born somewhere else, you'd be speaking a different language. This goes to numerous extents. It's impossible for someone to be themselves.
>Free will is a myth
Determinism.
>We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics
This is true to most things.
Most things that have mass are made up of atoms, like a chair or a bean. And everything, even what has no mass, like energy, is governed by laws of physics.
It's only a natural conclusion to assume that we are governed by laws of physics.
Let me end this with a question then, what makes you think that we are different, special? That there is any light in this world that can give meaning to our existence?
>>1172258
*fullfill their desire to do something good
>>1172248
> without expecting anything in return
This is kind of retarded definition because every action has a consequences and you would except something one way or another.
>>1172090
>half of the threads on this board are "were nazis really bad" "is christianity better than islam" or "this general was best/this president was best"
The issue isn't with other humanities desu, its just with userbase of this board being fucktards from other boards who think history is cool because swords and zombienazis and shit.
>>1172090
I am a kind of autist myself.
I love maps and infographics more than anything in this world.
Share your wisdoms.
>>1172248
>Goodness is when you do something for somebody else without expecting anything in return.
This is an arbitrary definition of goodness. What you mean is self-sacrifice.
>Christanity and all religions are fucked up in this sense, since they promote it, but they promise heaven and eternal bliss in return, so all the goody two-shoes christans donating for charity and shit are as selfish as anybody else.
You seem to not understand that doing something for selfish reasons does not make something bad.
>So basically you are doing it in expectance of later payback, so it has selfish motives
No, you are doing it because you would hope that anyone else would do the same for you. You expect no specific payback from the person you helped. Nor do you expect someone helping you to do it based on the fact that they are paying you back for helping someone else. You do it because on the average, it is good.
>so it has selfish motives
But you can't explain why being selfish is inherently bad if it inflicts no harm on anyone else.
>>1171964
Yes, but what does that mean for -me-
>>1172286
I have come to realize that you can't know nuffin, and now I'm not sure whether you can even know about not being able to know nuffin.
>>1172291
Your life is an escapism.
>>1172292
>You can't know nuffin
I kind of feel that.
Care to elaborate?
>>1172294
And?
>>1172297
There is no "and".
That's all there is to it.
Your existence is meaningless, there are no real reasons to be happy, depression is the only logical response.
>>1172286
I remember making this post a while ago.you might enjoy it
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/1031445/#1035060
>>1172296
It's hard to explain, but I'll try, it seems that which we know is built on assumptions we take as truth, if you take the truth component out of these assumptions they seem to just fall, thus all knowledge is built on that which we don't know for sure.
>>1172303
I can spend several minutes analyzing a single small map but unfortunately I have not reached this level of enlightement, although I appreciate and respect your passion for maps, it is commendable.
>>1171964
You are essentially posting copypasta of Machiavelli's philosophy. What is there to discuss? Do you expect us to refute said claims? Perhaps cite some Hobbesian or otherwise pro-altruistic literature?
what a pointless thread
>>1172319
That's exactly how it seems to me.
From that I thought I also reached the conclusion logic cannot be true. If every premise is to be true, former premises must prove it as being right, so there's one original premise that made everything else be logically proven. The problem is, if that's the first premise, how do we know it's true? In the end, everything is just the creation of human imagination, even maths. That's how I see things. Maybe we're all just brains in a vat.
>>1172325
I-it was a joke... ;-;
>>1172337
I think you should read some books, because you're not nearly as deep as you think you are. All of these topics have been covered in depth by various philosophers.
>>1172355
I'll gladly take up recommendations.
>>1172299
> there are no real reasons to be happy
You don't need a real reasons. People can be very happy with their escapism as it is.
> depression is the only logical response.
How? There are no real reasons to be sad. If your existence is meaningless then there are no logical way to live or respond to the world anyway.
>>1172366
I hate it when someone replies to someone else by making them think I am you.
>>1172370
I'm pretty guilty of that indeed.
>>1172366
Hume
>>1172374
Anything else?
Do I have to start with the Greeks/read other books to deal with obscurantism or any other stuff, I'm not initiated in Philosophy.
>>1172380
It's probably a good idea to at least read Plato.
>>1172368
>You don't need a real reasons. People can be very happy with their escapism as it is.
What you say makes sense but it doesn't seem right to me. I think it's wrong to feel happy when you should feel sad.
>How? There are no real reasons to be sad.
There is a reason to be sad, and that reason is that life is meaningless. Maybe it is true that we can only be happy because we forget that one day we die, or that we do not care about the existential aspects of life.
>If your existence is meaningless then there are no logical way to live or respond to the world anyway.
I think that deep inside somewhere there must be some sort of ideal, some sort of code, what I sometimes refer to as an "absolute truth" that is within its own existence certain. Something that when you look at, you just say: "this is it". "this is how i should live life". Something that makes logical sense and explains meaning, something that reveals all truth, and that can not be wrong.
>>1172398
>I think it's wrong to feel happy when you should feel sad.
Is-ought.
>There is a reason to be sad, and that reason is that life is meaningless.
Why do you correlate meaning with happiness? Why must meaning be inherent to life, and not the result of it?
>Maybe it is true that we can only be happy because we forget that one day we die
But this fact would bring you great joy if you were sad.
>I think that deep inside somewhere there must be some sort of ideal, some sort of code, what I sometimes refer to as an "absolute truth" that is within its own existence certain. Something that when you look at, you just say: "this is it". "this is how i should live life". Something that makes logical sense and explains meaning, something that reveals all truth, and that can not be wrong.
On what basis?
>>1172412
>On what basis?
None other than my inner feelings.
In the end that's what philosophy is, a bunch of old balding men ranting on how they personally see the world they live in. Part of philosophy can be explained as the appliance of mathematical logic to explain emotions.
>>1172217
>implying he proved he was right in te first place
>implying "bruh were just atoms and just like physics man were all atoms and like and whoa" says anything about fucking anything, least of all justifying your puerile edgy undergrad bullshit, other than "we are made of something and inhabit a behaviorally consistent mediun"
>>1172398
Only pu$$ies need meaning, pu$$y
>>1172012
Yes. All actions are ultimately for one's own self satisfaction. People are charitable because it makes them feel good.
>>1172928
Yeah no shit genius. There some sort of problem with that?
>>1171964
so like
are you mad about it or something lmao
>>1173011
No. I'm just backing up the "all actions are selfish" argument.
>>1172236
Thanks. I opened the thread just to see how long it would take this to be posted.
There is also no evil in the world.
Something being selfish doesn't mean it's bad or not noble.
Purity is overrated, I prefer the complexity of things.
What would they be guilty of?
Determinism and free will aren't at odds; the compatibilists won that one a while ago.
Yeah, so what?
>>1172236
But anybody can say this about anything. Basically you can't know anything for sure and we just have to take that as an a priori, ignore it, and move on.
>>1173071
>Determinism and free will aren't at odds; the compatibilists won that one a while ago.
I wasn't very smart when that happened. Could
you sum it up in a few sentences, or should I just google it later?
>>1173101
The gist as I understand it is that just because our will follows causal factors doesn't mean we aren't still making decisions. Consider of course that free will itself is a term never sufficiently defined.
It's worth noting that hard determinism doesn't really work on a scientific level, since at the most fundamental level our world isn't entirely causal.
I'd implore you to check out the Stanford article on compatibilism.
>>1171964
It's hard to call images like this strawmen when people like you literally fulfill them.
>>1174146
A strawman is supposed to contain some sort of contradictionairy statement. This is all just ad nausea
If a house is just wood, nails, shingles, insulations, piping, tile, paint, etc., then a house dispersed by an earthquake would still be a house, because all thr parts are still there.
A dispersed house is cearly no longer a house, because you cant live in it.
When the parts of a house are dispersed, it ceases to exist.
This applies to all composites made of mulitple parts, including humans.
Therefor, composites, including humans, are not reducible to their parts alone.
>>1171964
>There is no good in this world.
>Nothing is pure.
>No one is inoccent.
Something must be pure, innocent, good, etc etc as nonexistent entities and properties cannot be known to not exist. Logically, this is semantic memery and doesn't amount to much however
>Free will is a myth.
Any rejection of free will should be taken as a rejection of a bad definition. Agency and will exist, as does experience which legitimizes them. Just because you may not be a metaphysical first cause of your actions does not mean you do not in fact cause anything. You functionally act in ways that relate to yourself and exist as a causal locus.
>We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
You cannot deduce the total properties of a system by the individual properties of its basest elements. Novel properties manifest as things relate to one another. If these atoms composing your body were lone and disparate, there would be no you. Almost any counterfactual figuration of these atoms would still preclude you from existing
>>1172299
Why does existence have to have a meaning?
Why is depression the assumednatural response to existence not having a meaning?
yeah that's fine but please don't post based Koma-chan on a board like this it bugs me.
Also your rant is inherently flawed in that you're suggesting "guiltiness" exists even though there is no "good" in this world, meaning there's no "bad" either. Not really sure how you could imply that anything could be inherently wrong or inherently subject to negative judgement while holding that premise. It's true that nobody is innocent, but nobody is guilty either. It just doesn't actually matter, a lot of us just say it does.
>>1172440
Then why does your personal philosophy have to be rational or logical when the conclusion is base on pure emotion? Then too your entire personal philosophy can be based on pure emotion.
>>1174236
Because some people are deluded from childhood into believing their stupid movies carry some message that life is this mysterious and beautiful thing. Some people are just inherently whatever antonymous word there is to 'down to earth', their feelings demand explanations that are out of this world.
>>1174209
Aaaaand /thread
>>1172051
KEK
I just imagined a Christmas dinner with Shopie and he comes as edgy asshole, smart and well spoken but on the side of Aspergers more than someone enlightened. Just let me enjoy atmosphere, the food and joy of pretending Santa is real with the kids.
Dude, i just had an existential moment here...
>>1174209
>Any rejection of free will should be taken as a rejection of a bad definition.
No, rather, 'compatibilists' invented a new definition after realizing the true definition of free will is not only illogical but also linguistically meaningless.
>>1171964
>selfish = bad
>selfless = good
Your slave morality is showing. Nice """"nihilism"""" you got there.
>>1171964
>There is no good in this world.
I'd agree, but I would also stipulate there is no evil either.
>All actions are inherently selfish.
It would not make sense to pursue anything other then our self interest, but self interest is a wide term, and can include perusal of love and though it may seem paradoxical, may lead to altruism.
>Nothing is pure.
Seems like a pointless term unless you are from a standpoint where there is an objectively omnibenevolent God.
>No one is innocent.
Still a non-term, unless there is a omnibenevolent God who is the source of good.
>Free will is a myth.
You act like that would mean anything. It's not like we would "change" our behavior either way.
>We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
That presumably form together to grant us a higher level of experience then individual atoms.
also, stop triggering me
>>1171964
Basically, you have a set time alive, then you die.
You can spend it, believing in something good. That helps inprove the general situation, helps and aids your fellow man. Which also lets you feel good about yourself, happy to be alive, content with the passing years. Or sulk about how meaningless it all is, and take part in self destructive behavior. It's up to you.
MEMES
DNA OF THE SOUL
atoms or no atoms, getting a bj from a cute young girl who's just wearing a pair of white cotton panties still feels pretty good
>>1171987
And every time, they are wildly contradictory.
>All actions are inherently selfish.
>Nothing is pure.
>No one is inoccent.
How do you square any of these with
>We are all just atoms, governed by laws of physics.
>>1177681
so deep
>>1172012
You can extend your definition of your "self" to include your family, or your neighbors, or friends, or the entire human race.
