Beware Internet!
the meaning of life.:
What's its only output? What does like presupposes? What is it to achieve? What is its finality? What is its object ive, if it's not the death?
That's not any pessimistic point of view over existence. No!
It's hard to be dead. Even knowing and invented thousand of methods, we are still able to stay alive a be here.
It's easy to be dead. We will surely be anyway. Even for those that believes in resurrection, there must be death before it. To believe in a Highlander however, might be a rhetoric approach to a reality that anyone can attest: that the best bet (in terms of risk) in the world is in someone's death.
So, why are we still alive?
Well, that's not quite simple.
How much was necessary to get to this conclusion? Does the abstract idea of death belongs to other species? Can any species transcend from the feelings of fear to a perception of the incontestable end of their own existence?
The creation of the universe and world has established the situation for the development of the thing we call life, and thus the life spawned and here we are.
Under those improbabilities we mostly love to diverge and ask ourselves the whys, but we never ever decided to embrace the certainty of the end.
Under those probabilities we have developed sufficient knowledge to acknowledge the end. So why aren't we doing so?
Because every machine is imperfect: the idea of life, death, end and humankind are all tolls created by us in order to understand phenomenons that surround us in order to serve us.
There's nothing in the void: no explanation, no life, no humans, no death. In the human existence, however, we filled this void by being humans.
And every specie that existed, exists and will exist fulfilled, is filling or will fulfill it. The dimension of the void, however, shrinks when we're closer to end. Every new way to explain things is a new bet on when it will happen, how will happen, why will happen.
So I propose an answer that will generate for us a bet that can't be challenge. We live to die.
However, we don't need to live to be humans.
We might chose to end our existence to be nothing left - nothing to come after us - or shape ourselves to become something that never existed.
Here you are: a metaphysics for systemics.
Intrresting.
metaphysics has come to an end long ago
>>1270623
Ok Nietzsche
Up!
No consistent critics so far. Seems that 4chan haves not much bullets after all. Maybe it's a publicity issue.
Here, have a Hitler to catch your attention:
>>1274991
Well if you really want one. Let's take your initial set up. All things die so death is the ultimate purpose. You could just as easily say that all things live so life is the purpose and explain death by saying it is necessary so that things may live. Life and death kind of bequeath each other.
The title is also kind of odd. Most metaphysics are systemetic and frankly what you write is teleological than metaphysical.
The big thing though is what sort of conclusions can you draw from your thought? A systemic thought is only as good as the results it produces. It seems all it really does it provide a comforting rhyme about the inevitability of death and little impact on how you view everything else.
Systemics is an approach that tends to see the world in a holistic point of view and metaphysics is concerned with the being, the world that compasses it, their existence etc.
Instead of look at separately on the meaning of these things I'm stressing how its a input/output system. In the existence, life is our input: among of all things that could happen in the world without livings, appeared a living being. Among all things that could happened with this living being, the thing that happened was death.
On your hypothesis, let's check if the syntax of this function still works:
To live is to be living
So I shall continue be living
Therefore there's not an end.
In your bet - that seemed more to be a mere rhetoric exercise to show a flaw in the logic I presented, but let's assume that's your bet - life might not extinguish. I must ensure you, however, that the best bet is that among all things that we can experience as existing beings, the result might be either the end of our own life or our own specie.
The basis of the existentialist approach is the presupposition that our existence precedes essence. We might so change our essence and experience a new existence. We might so succumb to our essence and than not exist anymore.
Now the bet is not own you, but in humankind itself. How will humans end their own existence?
I guess my thesis goes far along the death of One and the meaning of this One in a "comforting rhyme", but the consequences of the death of One to the Whole and how the Whole can stop existing but not the One, thus pointing how the Whole limits the One and the One limits the Whole in defining what is its world... or am I mistaking myself?
