Is Submission preferable to Extinction?
>>43962637
Yes. With submission exists the possibility of improvement of your lot, or liberation in the future. With extinction there is no future.
>>43962637
by definition yes, or else we would already have become extinct and/or become extinct the moment the submission is forced upon us by collective suicide.
>>43962661
This is one of those moments where it's clear that Player Characters are in fact not rational humans because of how easily they choose suicide over the alternative that makes them seem less cool.
>>43962690
it's just that, well, most fates claimed to be worse than death, like submission or whatever, are not in fact worse than death.
You know what -is- worse than death? When someone renders you in a state where you cannot choose suicide at any given time via tongue biting or self aneurism.
>>43962690
Rational humans aren't rational to begin with. Like, most people that avoid suicide don't do it out of rationality, they do it out of fear.
The pragmatic answer is of course Submission. If Submissions invalidates your entire existence, then picking suicide is valid (although short-sided) awnser
>>43962637
Way to fall for the classic blunder, OP.
>>43962970
but we're talking about the topic he suggested instead of the picture.
Wait, did the OP start a land war in china?
>>43962851
>most people who avoid suicide blah blah
You are utterly false, and I have extensive experience in this subject that lets me know this for sure.
Most people choose suicide out of fear derived from the perception of lack of alternatives, and then make the incredibly difficult decision to kill themselves. The vast majority of people experiencing ideations of suicide who choose to not act upon them do not because of rational thought.
If a person expresses suicidal thoughts or intent, the entire emergency response process is: first, moving them to a "safe" environment, away from methods of harm and stressors; and second, walking them through a process of getting them to recognize that they have other options than suicide, which is an entirely rational process. It necessitates rationality to function.
Source: I have a medically diagnosed stress disorder, have suffered from ideations of suicide, and have been through an emergency safety evaluation. I am now also trained as a responder for suicide -revention emergencies.
>>43962637
Submission is extinction. There is only temporary deference. Submission saves the animal but kills the person.
>>43963068
>he can't survive submitting and then become the fat cat on top
>>43962637
>Is Submission preferable to Extinction?
Sure. You can submit to a greater power, learn from its strengths, slowly adapt to be able to gain or counter those strengths while building up a sense of trust between you and that power, and then when the time is right you can initiate a coup d'etat and overwhelm them with their trousers down.
>>43963068
You answered why people do kill themselves, NOT why people don't.
>>43963104
People kill themselves for x reason.
If they don't have x reason. They don't do it, because killing yourself is not your natural state.
>>43962637
I'm on to you reaper scum...
>>43962637
ABSOLUTELY NOT
>>43962690
PCs are supossed to be larger than life. Regular people keeps tolling a field and marrying a 6.5/10. Hector could have surrendered Troy, but that makes a meh story.
>>43962658
>>43962661
>>43962690
>>43962851
>All this slave morality
>Absolutely Last Man
>>43963098
>>43963080
This reminds me of what pic related wrote about slave morality constantly imagining schema and eschatology where they eventually triumph over their masters.
Instead of actually taking action like a real man they play pretend.
>>43963564
>"real men"
You mean the guy who studied philosophy, the subject second only to gender studies in absolute faggotry while single-handedly inspiring a generation of pseudointellectuals?
Yeah, fuck Nietzsche.
depends who you're submitting to, and to what extent.
>>43963598
>Absolute faggotry
>Yeah, fuck Nietzsche
Your argumentative skills are supreme anon.
>>43963564
You mean Nietzsche, who wrote about the Übermensch surpassing human boundaries while he himself was unemployed and died insane?
>>43962637
Yes, because there's the possibility of going back and unsubmitting later when your masters slip up. You need to play the long game.
>>43963657
>One must be employed and sane to surpass human boundaries
Consider what you're saying anon.
>>43963695
Sanity would be a good start. And before you get started on genius and insanity being close together, Nietzsche was so off his rocker that he needed his mother/sister to take care of him for the last ten years of his life
>>43963657
>>43963720
>Ad hominem
Try attacking the argument next time
>>43963740
>wipping out the fallacies
10/10
Nietzsche was a fag lord and his works are for pseudo-intellectual teens and edgelords
>>43963765
They're argumentative fallacies for a reason anon.
At this point you're simply being willfully ignorant.
>>43963651
I'm not arguing, I'm insulting the dead guy you have a crush on and calling you a moron.
Arguments are for subjects that matter, I couldn't bring that shit into philosophy if I tried.
>>43963564
Ah yes, those impressive real men who choose not to submit and are summarily killed off. I'm happy to play pretend until there's an opportunity to strike.
You don't get anything done dying pointlessly like an idiot.
>>43963790
>I'm not arguing
But you are. Poorly.
>>43962637
Neither. Theres always another option of your own making. If its not available to you you're not trying hard enough.
>>43963822
Whatever keeps your spirits up, bucko.
>>43963828
Running away?
>>43963833
Go for it. We've been doing it to extinction and responsibility for generations.
>>43963740
When it comes to these sort of person, improving man's lot philosophies, the creator's personal lives become a lot more relevant. Not entirely applicable, just having an idea doesn't mean you're capable of carrying it out. But if the guy who comes up with the idea ends up not doing much of anything like what's advocated in it, how serious was the reasoning behind their ideas? Do they not deserve more scrutiny for the lack of proper application of them, despite peoples' infatuation with them?
>>43963903
>Not entirely applicable, just having an idea doesn't mean you're capable of carrying it out
And you realize why Ad hominem is a fallacy.
>How serious was the reasoning behind their ideas?
I suppose one would actually have to talk about the reasoning behind their ideas to decide that.
As opposed to, you know, talking about the person.
>Do they not deserve more scrutiny for the lack of proper application of them?
Again, you're arguing on the application of an idea rather than an idea itself.
Is brushing your teeth a bad idea because a child molester does it?
>>43963632
Ahot trapand24/7 M/s deal
>>43963822
His point is that the points are not worth talking about at all and you should know this if you had any brains, he's over rated garbage and not worth dedicating thought space to
>>43964003
>Is brushing your teeth a bad idea because a child molester does it?
Oh yes, absolutely! I hear Hitler and Stalin also brushed their teeth!
This is why I payed big dollary-doos to have all my teeth pulled and get a set of wooden dentures, just like my hero George Washington! They are made of genuine redwood heart!
It was expensive, but so is freedom Anon!
[Spoiler]I have no idea what I'm doing[/spoiler]
You loathsome, pretentious, fucking turds :)
>>43964003
>Is brushing your teeth a bad idea because a child molester does it?
The argument is more "why is the dentist not brushing his teeth and dying of tooth decay?"
>>43964133
> called on fallacy
> says he's not arguing
> suggests he is right and smart because same fallacy.
Top kek
>>43964163
Fuck! I didn't know you could get redwood heart! I'm using crappy titanium. Same fucking color as the implant anchors even.. Such a fucking scrub....
>>43962637
to be honest, i've got really stiff knees.
better to die the villain on my feet, and be myself, than to grovel at someone else's whim and fetish as their fuck boy.
>>43962658
submission did amazing for the niggs.
(pic related)
look how shitty their life is now, but they have a few cherry picked as examples of how great they are. and they are locked in a cycle of cherry picked media heroes while the rest get fat and waste their lives.
no thank you.
i feel sorry for the black peoples....
>>43964228
>submission did amazing for the niggs.
Yes, I'm sure the slaves that got deported to the new world would have loved to get exterminated like the people of belgish congo. I'm sure that would have been the preferable alternative
>>43963564
>"taking action like a real man" equates to extermination
>uses Nietzche in an argument from authority as to why his self destructive path is better than a chance at liberation
I don't understand this. As previously stated, the better alternative to dying pointlessly is submission.
>>43962637
Yes because its my fetish.
>>43964290
"Oh no! My path to being enlightened, uplifted, and civilized was a bit rocky! Wahh!"
No, I would choose Extinction over Submission.
You've already submitted, before you've even said it aloud.
>>43964381
There's no enlightenment when you are dead anon
>>43962637
Are you a bitch?
>>43964449
>Implying that you are the one to be civilized
>Implying the whole point isn't to end up with your great-great-grandchildren, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the better culture, come out as more human
>implying you are anything more than a sacrifice, passing your genetics down to someone who can actually use them to worthwhile ends
>>43964449
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.
>>43964535
IT'S THE BASIS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, JACK
>>43964521
>>Implying the whole point isn't to end up with your great-great-grandchildren, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the better culture, come out as more human
>>implying you are anything more than a sacrifice, passing your genetics down to someone who can actually use them to worthwhile ends
Neither of that happens when your whole tribe/village/whatever gets wiped out
>>43964598
Wiped out = not worth cultivating. Gotta thin the herd, find the right stock worth investing in, and the rest are expendable. It sucks, but you can't save everyone.
>>43964598
Eggs need to be broken, son. Else nobody will get to taste that omelette. Not me, not you, not your great great grandkiddies. Big picture, small time frame.
>>43964631
>>43964521
>>43964381
>>43964647
What are you even argumenting for?
I was simply stating that slavery was preferable to what happened to many other peoples in africa, specifically the ones in belgian congo
>>43964665
Basically, they're rushing so hard to out edge one another, they can't be bothered to actually fucking read.
>>43964665
Arguements need to be broken down, son. Else nobody will get to hear that answer. Not me, not you, not your great great grandkiddies. Big questions, small answers.
>>43963813
Worked out great for most of the jews who tried it.
>>43964723
>>43963651
Still better that Nietzsche's
I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.
>>43962637
You need to live to make meaningful choices and experience more life. Submission is preferable, when Extinction puts an end to it all.
That is, except if Submission renders your life bereft of any meaning, any choice and no good hope of change, which would be a slow death. Then, it is merely a choice between dying with a blast or with a whimper.
People submit to laws, societal pressure and opinions. It is quite ingrained. Mastering when you do it is key. And there's some juggling of security vs. freedom involved. But it is still a life.
>>43965063
All life, not just man. Well, the life that's survived more than a few months at any rate.
>>43962637
Depends on the afterlife.
>>43962637
Honestly, if someone were to have the choice between enslaving me and killing me - killing me would be the better choice. For THEM.
I don't think /I/ could put up with myself for the rest of my life, nevermind someone who only keeps me around for a specific utility. If they wanted to change my personality to something tolerable, that could take years of time and insane amounts of food, water, etc.
So honestly, even if I surrender completely and never try to rebel, it still screws the ayyliums over in the end from the sheer cost. So yeah, let's go with Submission.
>>43962637
I actually like this analogy.
Take the man who has spent his life digging trenches with a spoon. Give him a shovel, and watch him carve out continents.
>all those Submission voters
Not even surprised, to be honest. The main argument against Submission is that it's better to die than to live a meaningless life. Taking pride in a meaningless life is a discipline in which the fa/tg/uy excels.
>>43962690
In a lot of settings, player characters are player characters exactly because they are extremely abnormal in mindset/experience. They don't just break the box, they toss it around the room and put it back together as a circle.
>>43965571
Look at the domestic dog. Does it not have a slave relationship with its owners? I would rather live as a dog than not live at all.
> it's better to die than to live a meaningless life.
There is no meaning to life.
>>43962637
No.
No price is too high for Freedom. After all, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
>>43965571
To seek Death is folly. It is nonexistence. The end of all things. The dead have nothing, are nothing. They do not see, or taste, or hear, or smell, or feel.
Death is the end of hope, the ultimate triumph of despair. At least the hopeless in life can enjoy its pleasures in some hedonist fashion - but the hopeless in death have no such recourse. Freedom is worthless to the dead, for they cannot USE it, the same way money is worthless to them.
>>43965571
I don't entirely agree with that last assumption or how damned edgy it is.
>>43965634
>there is no meaning in life
>>43962637
This situation depends heavily on context, and you damn well know it.
Personally, if there was an 'enlightened' alien race that offered humanity a sort of amnesty for all of its crimes committed against itself, you'd be damn sure I'd question everything they said about themselves and refuse if they outed themselves as hypocrites.
If it was a conqueror race, I'd suggest a percentage submit for sabatoge, and the rest help put as much of a dent in them as we can manage.
Honestly, the fact that they're willing to exterminate us if we refuse makes it seem like serving them would be a fate worse than death.
>>43965683
>the dead have nothing, are nothing
Depends on the setting.
>>43965690
There is only the meaning you make and none given, if that helps. Also, have a hug.
>>43962637
Submission.
Choosing to die on your feet rather than living on your knees is arrogance of the highest order. It is essentially an attempt to prove you are better than your aggressor, directly leading to your imminent demise. If you're so great, then why are you fucking dead?
Far better to humble yourself and learn to walk again than run straight off a cliff.
>>43965690
There is no inherent* meaning in life
It is what you make of it.
>>43965634
The domestic dog has been bred to serve and be happy about it. And some may argue that you were too.
>>43965689
/tg/ is probably the board with the highest proportion of "normal people", by which I mean people that are neither social outcasts nor children. It's also the board where you find those who can't find value in their life and either forget it through escapism or build some makeshift reason to live by focusing all their ressources on a hobby.
>>43963564
According to Nietzsche him-fucking-self, the natural cycle of history is the fall of the tyrant, the rise of the slaves and then the fall of the slaves and the rise of the next tyrant, until humanity has evolved to the point of not needing this cycle anymore.
So, yes, submitting so you can punch back later is preferable to being wiped out immedeatly.
>>43963657
The Übermensch has fuck-all to do with what popular culture likes to believe. Also, Nietzsche himself said that he's just a sad fuck that abuses the system.
>>43965571
>pride
You mean the thing which comes before a fall? In this case, an extremely literal fall.
>>43965690
You are looking at it wrong, the fact that there is no meaning puts a huge dent into the concept of universal mechanism, which in turn implies a great degree of freedom of action and decision, and that is a fantastic thing.
It is not unnatural for men to recoil in horror and stick their head in the sand to hide from the unending vastness of it all. Sort of a sensory overload. We naturally fear free reign and shy away from positions of responsibility, instead deferring it all to a higher power, may it be religious, systematic, or just another person. It's a coping mechanism.
tl;dr : You make your own meaning m8.
>>43965634
Domestication is not necessarily the same as slavery. It's closer to a mutualistic relationship. Dogs are subservient to humans but get almost everything they could want in return, food, shelter, protection, a pack. Dogs are content and satisfied with their position and unlike slaves dogs are generally respected and seen as deserving respect for their work.
>>43965683
Lucretius would disagree with you.
He saw understanding that nothing survived death as liberating. You make the mistake of believing that hopelessness and "the ultimate triumph of despair" somehow exists in death.
It does not. Nothing exists in death. Was the time before you were born "the ultimate triumph of despair"?
There is despair in dying. But dying and death are different things.
>>43965634
>I would rather live as a dog than not live at all
Slave morality at work. Do you really have so little pride in yourself?
>>43965571
You hit the nail on the head anon. Some people are so cowed by death and nonexistence that they equate living with existing.
>>43965809
>It is essentially an attempt to prove you are better than your aggressor.
No shit. Why do you fetishize humility so much? Why is meekness so virtuous to you?
>>43965922
>Missing the point of eternal recurrence this hard
Go back and read The Gay Science. One does not "transcend" eternal recurrence. They embrace it and live within it creating value in the immediate moment they are in.
>Nietzsche himself said that he's just a sad fuck that abuses the system
And where are you getting this from?
>>43965912
I like you anon. What you say about this board being filled with those that hate their lives is apt.
Only people that truly love their life are willing to give it up, because their life is more than simple existence.
>>43965941
>Existentialism
You're a good man anon.
>>43965690
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
Life definitely has meaning
>>43965941
>>43965903
>>43965792
That's all nice and swell, but I am not here to debate philosophy with /tg/, I have much better things to do with my time.
>>43966038
kek
>>43966046
>I'm not here to debate philosophy with /tg/. So I'll go and debate philosophy with /tg/.
You're hooked on anger and can't stop replying and you know it.
>>43966065
At least you tried
>>43966083
>replying
Do you see what I mean now? Am I getting through to you yet?
I'd rather be extinct than a slave but I have no love for humanity.
>>43963720
Man suffers from brain disease later in life invalidates everything he thought or did before the onset of said disease.
Thank god you're just fucking retarded.
>>43966139
You are a great partner.
>>43966036
>Why do you fetishize humility so much? Why is meekness so virtuous to you?
Why do you fetishize pride? Why is arrogance so virtuous to you?
There is nothing dignified in death. It is the end of experience, and all we are is experience. While you are alive, your life holds infinite possibilites, a tree with infinite branches, stretching on forever. I cannot comprehend the idea of willingly hacking the tree down just because you can't accept that you've been beaten.
>>43966242
I'm not sure the possibilities really are infinite. Even if they are, there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1 also. Infinitely many possibilities doesn't necessarily imply acceptable possibilities.
>>43962637
"*Know* that we are the First People."
"Once all was chaos. The First People were thought drawn from chaos. When the First People came to *know* themselves, they were chaos no longer, and became flesh."
"With their thoughts and *knowing* of matter, the People shaped the First World and dwelled there with their *knowing* to sustain them."
"Yet the flesh was new to the People and with it, the People came not to *know* themselves. The flesh gave rise to new thoughts. Greed and hates, pains and joys, jealousies and doubts. All of these fed on each other and the minds of the People were divided. In their division, the People were punished."
"The emotions of the flesh were strong. The greed and hates, the pains and joys, the jealousies and doubts, all of these served as a guiding stone to enemies. In becoming flesh, the First People became enslaved to those who *knew* flesh only as tools for their will. *Know* these beasts were the *illithids.*"
"The *illithids* were a race that had come not to *know* themselves. They had learned how to make other races not *know* themselves."
"They were the tentacled ones. They lived in flesh and saw flesh as tools for their will. Their blood was as water and they shaped minds with their thoughts. When the *illithids* came upon the People, the People were a people no more. The People became slaves."
"The *illithids* took the People from the First World and brought them to the False Worlds. As the People labored upon the False Worlds, the *illithids* taught them the Way of the Flesh. Through them, the People came to *know* loss. They came to *know* suffering. They came to *know* death, both of the body and mind. They came to *know* what it is to be the herd of another and have their flesh consumed. They came to *know* the horror of being made to feel joy in such things."
"The Unbroken Circle is the *knowing* of how the People lost themselves. And how they came to *know* themselves again."
>>43966046
Running away from a truth which scares you to hide in dark corners of your mind is just as bad as suicide, anon. When you hide from illumination, you are no better than a corpse.
Accept that you are responsible for your own existence, and be happy. Nobody is going to do it for you.
>>43966294
>Accept that you are responsible for your own existence, and be happy.
Tell that to a slave.
Perhaps you just did.
>>43966277
"Zerthimon labored many turnings for the *illithid* Arlathii Twice-Deceased and his partnership in the cavernous heavens of the False Worlds. His duties would have broken the backs of many others, but Zerthimon labored on, suffering torment and exhaustion."
"It came to pass that the *illithid* Arlathii Twice-Deceased ordered Zerthimon before him in his many-veined galleria. He claimed that Zerthimon had committed slights of obstinance and cowardice against his partnership. The claim had no weight of truth, for Arlathii only wished to *know* if flames raged within Zerthimon's heart. He wished to *know* if Zerthimon's heart was one of a slave or of a rebel."
"Zerthimon surrendered to the *illithid* punishment rather than reveal his new-found strength. He *knew* that were he to show the hatred in his heart, it would serve nothing, and it would harm others that felt as he. He chose to endure the punishment and was placed within the Pillars of Silence so he might suffer for a turning."
"Lashed upon the Pillars, Zerthimon moved his mind to a place where pain could not reach, leaving his body behind. He lasted a turning, and when he was brought before Arlathii Twice-Deceased, he gave gratitude for his punishment to the *illithid* as was custom. In so doing, he proved himself a slave in the *illithid* eyes while his heart remained free."
"By enduring and quenching the fires of his hatred, he allowed Arlathii Twice-Deceased to think him weak. When the time of the Rising came, Arlathii was the first of the *illithid* to *know* death by Zerthimon's hand and die a third death."
>>43966273
But you can't know that those possibilities are not acceptable until you see them for yourself. And you won't have the possibility to do even that unless you are alive.
Extinction over Submission is just another way of burying your head in the sand under a guise of nobility. It's far more permanent, though.
>>43966349
So your argument is the same as Hume's argument against induction? While technically valid, in practical and probabilistic terms it's quite unreasonable. Perhaps the matter could be framed as the expected value of future good given the inductive hypothesis of persistent evil. Once a threshold is crossed, it's valid to kill yourself.
I've always found it funny how the more educated people are, the easier it is to fool them.
>>43966036
Pride is a meaningless concept, used as justification for irrational actions.
>>43966389
Well, Sense Motive is a WIS-based skill, not an INT-based one.
>>43965561
I thought the analogy meant that people who only know one way doing things are badass, yes, but if you think outside the box and use a shovel, you will still be way better than all the spoon-users.
>>43962690
>This is one of those moments where it's clear that Player Characters are in fact not rational humans because of how easily they choose suicide over the alternative that makes them seem less cool.
NPCs can refuse to submit just as well.
Honestly, it depends on how much you have to lose.
>>43962637
>Is Submission preferable to Extinction?
No.
Submission is extinction.
Submission is abandoning your existence.
Submission is letting yourself become one with your enemy and that which you opposed.
Pretending to submit, secretly harboring rebellion and dissent, planning eventual revolution, surviving and striking back to overcome those who long thought you dominated, that is preferable to Extinction.We are talking about the Sith, right?
>>43963564
Go to bed Nietzsche, your sister is a nazi, and no one ever correctly rembers, understands, or respects any of your work.
Also, your are a pitiful, second fiddle existentialist to pic related.
>>43966509
>letting yourself become one with your enemy
The trick is to let your enemy become one with you. By the time they were overthrown, the Mongols (and later, the Manchus) were just as Chinese as the Han.
Assimilate them by making your traits desirable to those who would conquer you, as captive Greece conquered her captor, Rome.
>>43966589
Let's not forget to mention when Diogenes was a slave.
>>43966382
But that is based entirely on the relative value of good and evil, and whether you think there is a point where the cessation of life is 'less bad' than the hypothetical persistent evil, which I personally can't subscribe to.
Moreover, I feel that we can flip the original point on it's head. Is it not noble to see this evil and still hope for a better tommorow, as opposed to giving up?
Is Determination preferable to Surrender?
>>43966481
That's my point. Give a regular man a shovel and he could dig a trench. Give the spoon man a shovel and he can dig the grand canyon.
>>43966017
Some people eat dogs, force the to kill each other and just generally treat the like garbage. Just like a dogs happiness depends on whose its master is so does a slaves.
>>43963657
Whats wrong with admitting humanity is flawed?
And thats our morality is very weak and pathetic?
>>43962637
That kind of depends on nature of submission.
If it means you get to keep your agency and just follow orders of the dominant party, submission is preferable.
If it means something like muh reapers completely taking control of your thoughts and actions, death becomes much more appealing. Although at this point the distinction between "mere" submission and extinction becomes marred to the point of nonexistence.
>>43966614
>noble
Naive, more like.
>>43966654
Because then, what justifies your continued existence? You're human too, aren't you?
If we are all of us madmen and sinners, why don't we all just put ourselves out of the universe's misery?
That's why I can't fully accept that idea, you know?The last thing I need is more excuses to kill myself.
>>43966614
well, uh.
that depends on what it is you're determined to do, now doesn't it?
>>43962637
>limiting yourself to a weak dichotomy
>not seeking and gaining access to an option outside of the limited situation through determination, stoicism, and refusal to kneel to the false dichotomy
>not choosing the path of triumph and success by snatching and wrestling from the pits of your own doubt by turning despair into conviction
Being a Knight of Resignation is for quitters anon. Seek meaningful and smart action as a Knight if faith, and refuse to accept being limited by the preset conditions. Extinction only happens if your an idiot who can't figure out how to squirm out of submission efficiently.
>>43966577
I'm gonna tell my ubermensch on you!
>>43966715
take it from me, anon. sometimes you just gotta know when to QUIT.
>>43966715
Your answer is submission. You put a lot of flare in talking about your return to dominance but you submitted all the same.
>>43966654
Because muh HFY!
>>43966682
I don't understand how everyone gets caught in the extremes of "humanity is the best thing ever nobody can judge us" and "we're all monsters let's end the world".
We're flawed, but that doesn't mean we're hopeless.
We're just people, and that's fine if you're willing to take up the burden of self-improvement.
>>43966698
I had assumed it was obvious based on the preceding statement.
Assuming that you are not omniscient and cannot predict the future, and you see an evil which you believe is not likely to be lifted. I believe that maintaining your determination to grasp better future experiences for yourself even in the face of such adversity is an inherently meaningful thing, because the alternative is to give up, to eat the bullet, to terminate your experience and admit that you lost.
>>43966790
>We're flawed, but that doesn't mean we're hopeless.
>>43962637
I saw this on the catalog a while ago, but didn't have the time to actually sit down and type my response until now.
I don't know what context your putting this question, or even what everyone else is talking about here, but whatever, here I go.
I'm assuming that you mean this in a fantasy setting, with whatever species or race choosing submission or extinction.
I'm going to go off your pic and use Elder Scrolls, more specifically the Dwemer and Snow Elves, as evidence for my "it is better for your people to choose extinction". I know that that is not a perfect example, as they weren't given a clear choice, but I think they show they typical results for either choice in your typical fantasy setting.
Dwemer went extinct because they were experimenting with a dead god's heart, right? That action, as well as everything else they did with that attitude of "let's mess with metaphysics with no regard to our own well being" caused them to leave behind a bunch of cool stuff. Future researches from other races explore their ruins, study their history, are completely enthralled with them.
Snow Elves, on the other hand, went into submission as slaves for the Dwemer. They became twisted, degenerate versions of their race. The legacy of the Snow Elves is now forever tainted, as when you think "Snow Elves", you don't think about their cool ruins and culture and religion, you think about how annoying their progeny is.
Continued...
>>43966873
That's why extinction is preferable; let your people go out with a bang; die off with whatever crazy event resulted in the extinction of a species. Die as you build your own god, fight the advanced sentient robots, whatever. From then on, other races in your fantasy setting, or aliens in your sci-fi setting, or whatever other groups of people in whatever other setting, will forever remember your people as "that race of absolute madmen who fucked with things they shouldn't have". They'll explore your cities, collect your artifacts, and immortalize your struggles in their history reports and theses.
That is definitely a better alternative than submitting to the cosmic horror, evil empire, absolute madmen or whatever other enslaving group, which will more likely than not end in the future of your race being an annoying category of mobs whose only purpose in life is to hassle future adventuring parties exploring ruins trying to find some badass "Madmen Race" weapons.
>>43966873
I think the question was more of a personal one, concerning one individual making the choice. If that's the case, submission is better; all this talk of pride is null. Sampson is still considered a badass though he submitted to years of slavery, for instance.
>>43966855
And here we can see an advanced trolling technique known as the Baitception, where the act of denouncing something as bait is itself the bait.
>>43966802
perseverance for the sake of perseverance? if you are harming yourself and others just to crawl towards a goal you don't really believe in, you're a monster. it's pointless.
sometimes the most determined thing you can do when faced with an unwinnable choice is to not make it. just give up.
>>43962637
>Submission
>implying the existence of freedom
lol
>>43966963
>>43966749
>>43966698
Sans pls
Determination is a good thing.
>>43966894
Why does being remembered when your children and future are dead matter in any conceivable way? This is the most hubris filled idea I've ever heard for going extinct and the worst part is how unbelievably unlikely it is even to happen.
People will remember your conquerors a thousand times more then the inconsequential stepping stone you presented them. Your cities will be burned and your artifacts taken and they will be considered worthless in comparison to the works of your slayers architects and artisans.
>>43967084
Some deaths can ring and echo down throughout the Mists of the Ages until the Wheel of Time turns or breaks. Some times the death IS remembered and the truth it bears carried on.
But those deaths are few and far between.
Are you man/woman enough to make your death worthy of remembrance? And the death of your culture, your race worthy of legends that ring down throughout the ages?
>>43966924
Not him but he's right. Flaws means the sword will eventually break and reforging will only make an inferior or smaller sword which will only break again. They also tend to exacerbate other flaws making them worse which is why the sword breaks in the first place.
>>43967313
He wasn't arguing against the feasibility of the idea, but the actual point of it.
Why is being remembered important, really?
>>43967391
Nigga, saying something is hopeless just because it's flawed is like saying that computer science is a waste of time because programs can glitch or fail.
>>43967394
Not him, but I can see the point of being remembered as dashing yourself against the rocks in proud yet impotent rage, or even being forgotten entirely, as being preferable to being remembered and known as the sad, pathetic shadow of what you once were, now grown into a weak, submissive mutation seen only with pity.
Imagine if nobody remembered what Native Americans were like before the colonists came and everyone just knew them from the casinos.
>>43962637
"It is an undeniable, and may I say fundamental, quality of man that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable."
>>43967313
How would your death, right now, cause any echo through the ages? Your subscribing to a thought process with results only viable to 99.99% of the populace in only a very specific scenario.
It would be meaningless. Why should you care that a group you were loosely related to is briefly remembered by others when the chance remains for the work of your hands and the fruit of your loins to live on?
>>43966788
>the Knight if faith is the same as the Knight of resignation
Sounds like someone needs to read more Kierkegaard. I'm not saying Submit, I'm saying scarper on out and find the third option. Don't give in, instead flee and lick your wounds and plan for another fight. That way you get to live while also ensuring that your enemy does not be the satisfaction of eradicating you.
Basically I'm saying that OP is a fag, and that trying to boil such a scenario into only a dichotomy is a retarded idea.
>>43963068
have an anecdote doesn't make you an expert.
>>43967568
Got that backwards. The results would only occur for 0.001% of the populace. Who would remember you the individual
>>43967568
Not the point. The point is that if you might as well die, then you might as well die and make it worthwhile, I suppose.
Die as you have lived, with meaning.
That is, if submission is nothing more than a slow death, which it isn't most of the time.
In the end, it is context-dependent.
>>43967579
Picking a third option when only two paths are available doesn't lead to anything. Your answer is just a meaningless what if.
>>43967684
You don't have to die, the alternative is presented and a meaningful death only occurs in a far more specific context then a meaningful life, even if that life is one of submission to another
>>43967705
Not him but,
>Your answer is just a meaningless what if.
>The question is a meaningless and pointless dichotomy.
I too chose the third path.
If someone asks you if you could only eat broken glass or lethal poison for the rest of your life, which would you choose?
The only sane answer is neither.
>>43962637
Death before slavery. Every time. Anyone who says different is a European or a Communist, perhaps both.
>>43962637
Death before submission! When the galaxy burns, WE! WILL DEFINE RIGHTEOUSNESS!
>>43967887
>>43967986
>dying in vain
For what purpose? If you are so willing to embrace oblivion, can you really say you have anything worth living for?
>>43968097
I live for myself. If I cannot be free, if I cannot be allowed to be who I am, then I have nothing to live for. May my death be spit in their eye. I will not be conquered.
>>43963564
>All these spooks
>Absolutely Involuntary Egoist
>>43962637
YES, CITIZEN. DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO SUBMITTING TO COMMUNISTS.
>>43968129
freedom does not exist anon. The self is little more than interlocking memes fighting for survival
>>43968129
Do you pay taxes and respect the law?
>>43968161
I don't know about anyone else but I, at least, exist and I decide my own destiny.
>>43968180
I've moved several times because I did not agree with the ordinances. I now live in a place where I agree with the taxes and laws.
>>43968214
no that is nothing more then the meme of egoism struggling to survive, you, do not exist.
>>43962637
Only if you extinct somebody with you
>>43968352
I exist because while I can prove my existence, you cannot prove my nonexistence.
>>43968408
but you cannot prove your existence, it is impossible to prove anything, all proofs are based upon assumptions.
>>43968445
I am an observable phenomenon and can be ascertained with empirical evidence. Unless you are doing something as useless as questioning observable reality, I exist.
>>43967394
>Why is being remembered important, really?
Nothing is important, so we might as well be a good story.
>>43968491
no as a matter of fact you are not.
>>43968097
I live for others, for civilization, and for history. If my death cannot be worthy of a chapter in the annals of time, then I shall do my best to help write someone else's.
>>43968445
>but you cannot prove your existence
Cogito ergo sum.
>>43968562
As a matter of fact he is.
I am an observable phenomenon, I should know.
Live Free or Die Hard
>>43968596
>claims the existence of the self while parroting an ideal from outside his theoretical self.
>>43968695
Free hard or live die.
To become a puppet is to rid oneself of the pain and harshness of choice. Now nothing you do is your fault, now you belong to something.
>>43968863
>implying there are people on this board who aren't Rene Descarte
>>43962637
I would prefer death over submission, but if it came to the matter of the whole human race, I would instead choose submission and then constant subversion and terrorism.
>>43962637
You really fucked up if you get to a point where those are your only two options.
>>43963828
Multiple choice question of subjective nature, and you still get 0 points. It's an either/or question, put your 'nuh-uh, I have an invisible forcefield' business elsewhere.
>>43966038
You cheeky asshole.
>>43966996
I agree with this anon, never submit, never surrender, keep fighting until you've grabbed life by the neck and throttle it until you've made it your bitch.
>>43962637
I wish to add this to the argument: Submission means that you will be inducted into their civilisation, and all traces of your former culture, people, values. beliefs and maybe even some of your personality will be forfeit and mostly opposed. In its place, they intend to replace these aspects with their own. Do you still agree?
>>43970110
That's actually better than what I was assuming.
As long as my fundamental ability to experience is not affected, of course I agree. It might be nice to see things from a fresh perspective.
>>43970416
>yfw the "fresh perspective" is worse than all the worst aspects of 4chan combined.
>>43969637
The D is eternal.
>>43970619
Equal chance I could end up with the perspective of a race of Mr Rogers-esque enlightened beings.
So, you know. No pain no gain.
>>43971131
>Equal chance
Your universe seems nicer than the one I live in.
>>43962637
Submission is preferable.
Proof: Literally everyone in this thread has submitted to the rule of powerful governments. Everywhere that isn't literal anarchy where you are raped and shot by warlords, people have submitted to a powerful authority.
Submission is what people will choose, even if they claim that extinction is better online. They are empty words.
>>43962658
This. The living have no duty to die for the ideals of the dead.
>>43971411
Also this. Society is a comfortable compromise. We all bend the knee.
>>43962637
Domination can be overthrown. Death cannot.At least by filthy fleshbags. Rattle rattle rattle
>>43971362
Even if his values were replaced with the worst and most depraved values and mindset in this hypothetical universe he probably wouldn't mind it, as the change would be in effect. If they can change what you believe to what they believe, and do so, then your old self is erased and that new self exists
A slave's life is only as cruel as his master. I choose submission.
>>43971627
So uh, what kind of master are you looking for?
I'm just curious here.
![add[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6v33zR3.png "add[1].png")
>>43966633
But suppose you gave a regular man a shovel and then he took to his task with as much determination as the spoon man. How much more dirt do you think he'll move as he learns how to be great at digging?
The point isn't about the final destination: it's about the rate at which you progress. Given the same amount of time, the same starting skill level (zero), and the same amount of willpower, the regular man with the shovel will go vastly farther than the spoon man who is given a shovel halfway through digging his trench.
>>43971487
True, but being Stockholm Syndromed into becoming a Reaver is hardly going to be a pleasurable experience.
>>4397173450 shades
I have a Master's degree in rhetorical theory.
This thread is bananas. And also hilarious.
>>43965941
>>43965903
>>43965792
>Life's meaning is what you make of it.
This is the only one step below utilitarianism for the most retarded philosophical position that has any degree of popularity.
Say a person is digging a ditch and you ask them what they're doing it for and they reply 'nothing', you can conclude it is a meaningless activity (aside from leisure but that's unimportant for the example). Meaning to life is asking this question on a fundamental level, it is not the actual question 'what is the purpose that I was created to fulfill?' it is rather the question 'what is the desire I wish to fulfill by living?' or more briefly 'what do I desire most?'
Stating you make your own meaning is effectively stating you decide your own desire set, this is a problematic theory because desires are what determine the outcome of decisions in the first place, meaning either
1. There is another untouchable desire set that decides the second one in which you have a more fundamental desire set that could be more accurately described as the meaning to life.
Or
2. The desire set can actually change itself which is fucking retarded and clearly wrong (there are a ton of issues with this, the presence of 'instinctual' desires for one)
This positions existence is largely due to the fact that philosophy is largely made by philosophers (for which trying to find a meaning in life would be a rather fulfilling task) and due to the confusion between the subjective and voluntary. Stating that meaning is subjective is sensible position (and one that I have). It is a subjective fact that Florida is to the south; it's true for me, it's not true for everyone, however I cannot choose (without travelling) to make Florida to the north, similarly people cannot choose their own meanings in life.
Also just because meaning is subjective doesn't mean that meanings are dissimilar.
Also your life lacking meaning is due to your actions seemingly not helping you achieve your existential desires.
>>43971894
Curiosity gone.
Kill yourself you undersexed middle-aged soccer mom.
>>43965941
But if meaning is subjective you can't say people make their own meaning, since the definition you attribute to "meaning" is of your own epistemology and not the one you're prescribing to another.
You can't say "We create our own meaning" just because meaning is subjective. It's like saying "we create our own colors" because the colors we consider pretty are subjective.
>>43971976
>>43972013I wasn't that non. Just as planned.
If I had slaves, I'd treat them real nice. Almost like people.
They'd still definitely be slaves though. If I thought they might run away I'd lock them up, but I'd wash them and feed them and ask them why they thought about escaping when it's so much better here. I'd ask them until they believed me.
I don't really need the extra labour and I don't need obedience to the order, I just want to know as a fact that there're people in my life who would never be able to leave me.
>>43971734
I want a master who will treat me with kindness, even if they don't respect me. I want a master who I can be comfortable serving.(actually that anon)
>>43971934
dude, your desire set does change itself.
Usually because of instinctual desires and cravings and shit.
It's not like you CHOOSE what you want. You see it and you know.
>>43972502
Then what happens when someone looks at everything and doesn't want any of it? What explains that?
>>43972554
Then they probably have an unfulfilling life.
>>43962637
Depends on what you mean by "preferable."
Obviously from a posterity or survival standpoint, yes.
>>43972502
pic related
>>43971934
>The desire set can actually change itself which is fucking retarded and clearly wrong (there are a ton of issues with this, the presence of 'instinctual' desires for one)
>fucking retarded and clearly wrong
Yep, that sounds like humanity.
We are insane little meatboxes ain't we?
>>43971894
>>43972502
>Usually because of instinctual desires and cravings and shit.
Read possibility #1, the idea is that there are fundamental desires which create meaning.
>It's not like you CHOOSE what you want
That is... Exactly what I was saying. I'm confused, how are you disagreeing with me? Are you even disagreeing with me?
>>43970110
Skullface, please get off of the internet
>>43972761
>fundamental desires which create meaning.
see, that's where you're wrong.
It might be true for one person, sure, but people are such broken meatboxes that the "fundamental desires" are never the same between any two beyond the most general of terms.
And they can be affected through the world around you. Marketing and convincing and all that are based on this.
Just much harder to do it to yourself. Just like how you can't tickle yourself. You would have to be a very accomplished double thinker to be able to convince yourself you want something you don't want.
>>43972850
>but people are such broken meatboxes that the "fundamental desires" are never the same between any two beyond the most general of terms.
That isn't relevant though, I didn't state that they had to be the same for every person I stated they exist for every person.
>It might be true for one person, sure
What does this even mean?
>And they can be affected through the world around you.
First off, that doesn't make them voluntary, voluntary actions are things that are controllable almost innately, that's like saying twitching away from burning stove is voluntary because you can put your hand on a burning stove to trigger the effect. Second it is way more difficult than you are implying, brain damage is the only case I can think of where I will agree with that.
>Marketing and convincing and all that are based on this.
No they're not, they aren't based on changing a person's fundamental desires they're based on convincing a person that it is in the interests of their fundamental desires to want something else, the fundamental desires remain unchanged.
>You would have to be a very accomplished double thinker to be able to convince yourself you want something you don't want.
There's a contradiction with the rest of your argument here, at first you're saying that convincing is changing your wants, but now you're saying that you don't want the thing even after you've been convinced? Or are you stating that it's only deception until you have succeeded?
>>43972850
>>43972614
meatbox hivemind
>>43972761
Not that anon, but I agree with them.
Human beings are like androids that can reprogram themselves, only we start doing that long before we learn how to code, if we ever do.
It's messy and illogical and true.
>>43973062
I'm pointing out that, while the world can change your desires, it is very difficult to actually change your own desires.
if you could, then fuck, I'm jelly. you must live in continuous and neverending bliss.
>>43973070
>Human beings are like androids that can reprogram themselves
That fact that humans can 'reprogram' themselves isn't being questioned here (is there any reason you don't just call it learning?).
>It's messy and illogical
How is it illogical in any way? The human mind is incredibly logical, I struggle to find one example of even the dumbest of thoughts which does not have some logic behind it.
>>43973169
>while the world can change your desires
I'm stating that those changes in desires are not changes in fundamental desires but rather changes in beliefs which effect your more immediate goals (which are manifestations of your fundamental desires).
Like, say you desired pizza, and you were going to the store (a goal) but then you saw a pizza place on your way there and went there instead, your desires didn't change, but they manifested in a different way. This is a microcosm of the relationship between your fundamental desires and your less fundamental ones (in this case the desire to get pizza), your fundamental desires (for the most part) can't change, but your changing beliefs make them express themselves differently.
>it is very difficult to actually change your own desires.
Well, if you are doing so intentionally then that's usually self deception which is difficult (there are exceptions though) but if you change your own beliefs unintentionally by naturally thinking then it isn't difficult and happens quite often.
>if you could, then fuck, I'm jelly. you must live in continuous and neverending bliss.
I am not capable of that level of self deception and try to avoid deceiving myself.
>>43973413
I think my sticking point here is your insistence on fundamental desires.
Beyond the animalistic, like "I want food", the rest is up in the air. You could want some pizza, sure, but that taco smell could just as easily entice you.
>>43971934
Alright, it is an oversimplification with giant holes in it. Big deal. It is a rote thing to communicate, yes, it is.
As you wrote, it'd be more precise to write that you choose the desires you wish to fulfill by/during your life, which you can choose overtly, while you also have some more intrinisic desire sets that are hard-wired through culture and evolutionary genetics.
I can't make meaning as if one'd make an entire desire set, but I can choose based on what I feel and think is the best way to add meaning to my life. I can make choices based on the desire sets I have.
>>43973443
>Beyond the animalistic, like "I want food", the rest is up in the air.
Yeah, that's fine. If they weren't up in the air there would be a serious problem with the theory. People want a lot of different things after all.
>>43973478
>but I can choose based on what I feel and think is the best way to add meaning to my life. I can make choices based on the desire sets I have.
Agreed. The problem I have with saying you choose your own meaning as a simplification is that I don't think that all people mean it in the way you do and a meaning in the sense of an overt goal for all of your life is neither necessary nor sufficient to have one's life hold meaning.
>>43973413
>That fact that humans can 'reprogram' themselves isn't being questioned here (is there any reason you don't just call it learning?).
Well, mainly because I'm talking about the kind of "learning" that operates on an unconscious or subconscious level as well.
When, as a very small child, you subconsciously learn to associate things that have no logical association that is learning.
But it's not conscious learning like being taught how to spell or not to run into traffic.
It's more like being programmed to associate sweetened milk with cartoons or the smell of rain on asphalt with summer.
It's the kind of learning that makes a person feel sad for no rational reason when the sunlight shines a certain way at 4pm, or consider short haired women more free spirited, or find large nosed women more attractive, or consider plaid fine unless it has white in the pattern.
That is the kind of learning that goes on in the back of your head when you're not paying attention so it seems more like passive programming than active learning.
>>43973413
>How is it illogical in any way? The human mind is incredibly logical, I struggle to find one example of even the dumbest of thoughts which does not have some logic behind it.
And no.
It's not logical.
It's associative.
I heard this sad song during that happy time, so I associate a sad song about sad topics with happiness.
A person's mind makes judgments like "I ate a strawberry and it tasted awful, therefore all strawberries are awful."
That's not logical.
Especially when really they tasted a bad strawberry when they first tasted one and now associate the taste of natural strawberry to the sour bitterness taste.
Also, the subconscious is not very logical.
>>43973664
When you have realised the absurdity of everything around you, then you find a way to deal with it. Making some choices as to what you yourself would find authentic serves as guide.
It's not about an overt goal, one single meaning. It's about making your own personal compass, choosing it and evaluating your following choices with it. Sure, it changes and sure, it is hardly complete or accurate. But it serves a purpose. It adds meaning to some actions and guides you to what you find meaningful.
>>43962637
Depends on whether you prefer submission over extinction.
>>43962637
So the entire point of that monologue is that spoondiggers are stupid and you should just bring a real weapon in order to defeat a spoontard?
>>43974124
>unconscious
Lol, just throwing out words.
>things that have no logical association that is learning.
They do have logical association, their logical association is just subjective, that doesn't make it illogical.
>It's more like being programmed to associate sweetened milk with cartoons or the smell of rain on asphalt with summer.
>notice that thing A happens when thing B happens
>this doesn't count as learning it's just 'programming' or 'association' because shut up I said so.
>It's the kind of learning that makes a person feel sad for no rational reason
>for no rational reason
Association with sad times is a rational reason, even if it isn't correct. Are you confusing the words rational and logical with correct? They don't mean the same thing anon.
>or find large nosed women more attractive, or consider plaid fine unless it has white in the pattern.
>taste is irrational
You're kidding.
>so it seems more like passive programming than active learning
OK, here's a compromise, call it active learning vs passive learning, active learning is built upon passive processes so the distinction breaks down, but it still makes the slightest of sense.
>It's associative.
Association is logical.
>I ate a strawberry and it tasted awful, therefore all strawberries are awful
Confusing logical with correct once again, that statement is a totally logical conclusion it just isn't a correct one.
>That's not logical.
YES IT IS.
>now associate the taste of natural strawberry to the sour bitterness taste.
You're acting like association is magic now, the association won't change their qualia to make the strawberry taste more bitter or something.
>Also, the subconscious is not very logical.
The conscious is built upon the subconscious, you can't elevate the conscious as logical while damning the subconscious very sensibly.
>>43964228
Black people EXIST TODAY, which they wouldn't if extinction had been what happened instead of submission. So, comparatively, yeah it did pretty good.
>locked in a cycle of cherry picked media heroes while the rest get fat and waste their lives
You just described the entire human species. So I guess we really have attained racial equality!
>>43974124
Associative sounds about right. There is an internal logic running, but it is dependant on associative processes, which can throw that into loops as regards to correctness.
I tried eating at a new chinese place and got sick, while another friend got sick after eating at the same place. I came to emotionally associate the place as a bad place and I never tried again, even if I love chinese and it was the first time since forever I had some.
I've logicked about that it would not be persistent, as health inspections in my country are rigid and respected as fuck. I've also logicked about the fact that I want to eat chinese badly and that it was simply a bad impression.
When it finally closed I was satisfied. I saw it as a trap meant to get at me, get at my friends. I felt relieved none could suffer from it, even if I logically knew the chance of that was low, what with inspections and PR killing it earlier if that was true.
The logic seemed sound, the emotions correct. I could have tried again, though, with a probable chance of it just being bad once.
>>43974488
Or the entire point is about how adaptation and the will to overcome is what matters and that those with it will run you over.
Also how difficult it is to really embrace something that simple and make it stick.
>>43962637
Depends on the level of submission, and who is the one dominating you. If its just a political conquest or simply being defeated in a form of simple competition, then sure. If the guy is demanding that you forsake your god, or demand that you tear your eyes out and become his fuck-nugget, then go down swinging. Also, it depends on what ats stake and what it is dependant on you, since the influence in your choice selection will depend greatly on whether your just a soldier, or a king/other important figure, and how it interacts with the other options. Afterall, is it better to die a pointless death, admit defeat, make yourself into a martyr, ,seek to no longer waste lives and resources, or go into exile so that others may still have the flame of hope within them? The ability to make and effect this choice carries with the individual, thier position, the responsibility entailed with them, and the level by which you are being dominated as stated previously. Afterall, no individual is an island to themselves, and all actions me make will have an effect on others to a certain degree, so we must be able to determine which would be the best choice considering that degree
Really, this is a massive case of pic related, and I'm surprised no one else has realized that, and instead decided to get hooked into pointless bickering with that one Nietzsche baiter. In other words, OP is a turbofag.
>>43974863
That pic is fucking retarded for a place like /tg/ where the entire point is to have discussion starters.
>>43974983
The point is to have discussions, not pointless shit arguments where people are insulting each other over a poorly worded, vague, and contrived scenario that isn't even written in a manner applicable to traditional games.
You do know what the difference between a discussion and an argument is, right? Afterall, the picture is about calling out retarded argument starters, not about demonizing intelligible discussion catalysts. I believe it should be intuitive as to being able to tell which of these this thread both started as and resulted in.
Comprende?
>>43970110
Then there is no difference to this argument. Extinction leads to you and your culture, your achievements being scrubbed from the face of the world. Submission leads to you and your culture being scrubbed from the face of the world, albeit slower. It is a Morton's Fork.
Not sure which one I would choose, but I notice a lot of the "extinction" choices imply that they still make their own impact on the world by spitting in their destructor's eye. But what if no one cares? Like all those civilizations completely razed by Genghis Khan, remembered for no more than "being completely destroyed by Genghis Khan".
>>43975082
And here is where the problem comes out.
When one person doesn't like the discussion and declares it an argument or shitposting, and tells everyone they shouldn't be enjoying doing that they are doing.
THEN the argument starts about telling the guy to shut the hell up with his badwrongfun shit.
>>43974536
>>unconscious
>Lol, just throwing out words.
Um, what? No.
>un·con·scious (ənˈkänSHəs) -adjective:
>The part of the mind that is inaccessible to the conscious mind but that affects behavior and emotions.
This is exactly relevant to what I was discussing.
>Association with sad times is a rational reason
Good catch. I meant no apparent rational reason.
As in, no memory of anything sad associated with that time day, everyone else finds it warm, happy, and beautiful, you find it sad for no apparent reason.
>Are you confusing the words rational and logical with correct?
Nope.
>>taste is irrational
>You're kidding.
Not kidding.
Personal subjective taste is sometimes irrational.
>Association is logical.
Not necessarily.
>Confusing logical with correct once again, that statement is a totally logical conclusion it just isn't a correct one.
I see. You just don't know how logic works.
The strawberry example is *not* logical.
"One x is y, therefore all x are y."
In order for this conclusion to be true (aka logical), there needs to be other true statements supporting it, proving the assertion that "If one instance of x is something, all instances of x are as well."
If you are trying to say that something can be logical and not logically correct at the same time, you are being silly because then all things, true, false, or potato are all logical.
>YES IT IS.
No, really, it is not.
>You're acting like association is magic now, the association won't change their qualia to make the strawberry taste more bitter or something.
Right, because the human mind is incapable of making the human believe something that is not true. [Sarcasm. The mind does this all the time.]
>The conscious is built upon the subconscious, you can't elevate the conscious as logical while damning the subconscious very sensibly.
What?
Different parts of the mind do different things.
I am not damning or elevating anything.
>>43975166
>inb4 "logically true = correct"
Logically true = logical
correct = factual
Here's a logic lesson:
Assumptions:
Bob is a human.
All humans have blood.
Conclusion:
Bob has blood.
It is logical that Bob has blood.
But it is not correct that Bob has blood because Bob is dead and exsanguinated in a morgue.
The assumption that "All humans have blood" did not take into account humans that have been drained of their blood.
The assumption was wrong.
But the logic was true.
The conclusion that "All strawberries taste bad" is not logically supported by the assumption "I ate a strawberry that tastes bad" alone.
It needs to be supported by an assumption like "If I eat something that tastes bad, all things like that something taste bad."
That assumption is not correct and also not present in my example of association.
Which was the point.
>>43963564
There are times when it's best to bid your time. Striking at the wrong time is key to getting ass raped, nothing superior about dumb raging barbarians who don't understand what strategy is and go "huuuurre no retreat!", the no retreat not one step back philosophy only works if that is what your strategy hinges on, not as a strategy in and off itself.
>>43964003
If I try to sell you a weight loss product as a fat dude, who uses this product, will you buy it?
Ok.
>>43975134
Submission still gives you a chance, which is better than none.
>>43975166
>The part of the mind that is inaccessible to the conscious mind but that affects behavior and emotions
Don't use a dictionary definition in a psychological/philosophical discussion.
The unconscious is referring to what is not conscious, the consciousness is fundamentally what is put to memory, what is noticed. How can a thing be learned in a way that it is not put to memory? How can such a non-memory effect beliefs? Unconscious learning is an oxymoron.
>Personal subjective taste is sometimes irrational.
By what metric? First you need to prove that logic is even applicable to personal taste and then you need to show that there is no logic in it.
>I see. You just don't know how logic works.
I see. You just don't know how logic works.
The strawberry example is logical
"One x is y, therefore all x are y."
Is an (extreme) example of inductive logic (a subset of reasoning) you fucking sophist.
>In order for this conclusion to be true (aka logical)
>true (aka logical)
>I'm not confusing the words rational and logical with correct
Fucking really now?
>there needs to be other true statements supporting it, proving the assertion that "If one instance of x is something, all instances of x are as well."
Do you believe you know roughly what a strawberry tastes like? Do you believe that gravity won't suddenly turn off in the next second? Do you believe that getting hit very hard hurts? OK, you're a hypocrite. The problem you have with the statement is its data size, inductive reasoning is perfectly valid.
>If you are trying to say that something can be logical and not logically correct at the same time
Equivocation, I was using logical as 'had sense in it' while you are using logical as 'logically correct' they are not the same thing.
>you are being silly because then all things, true, false, or potato are all logical.
Nonsesical things have no logic in them and sensible thoughts are hypothetically capable of having no logic in them, they just don't.
1/2
>>43976046
>Right, because the human mind is incapable of making the human believe something that is not true.
>Artificially separating 'the human mind' from the human
>believes in the unconscious having desires
Practically Freud.
>Different parts of the mind do different things.
And sometimes the same part of the mind does different things, do you actually think that there's a separate part of the brain devoted to conscious non-subconscious though? 'Conscious' thought doesn't work without subconscious thought, it doesn't even exist.
>I am not damning or elevating anything.
You are invariably calling associations illogical, that sounds like a comparative insult.
>>43975638
Nah, got you on something else.
>>43976046
>Don't use a dictionary definition in a psychological/philosophical discussion.
Don't define terms? Okay...
>How can a thing be learned in a way that it is not put to memory?
You remember lots of things you don't remember.
Your mind store all sorts of things you can't actively recall.
Remember passive learning?
Maybe you don't.
Go back up and read your previous posts.
>How can such a non-memory effect beliefs?
The same way all the other memories do.
>Unconscious learning is an oxymoron.
Which is why I chose the term programming, but we settled on passive learning.
>By what metric?
People sometimes like one thing over another for no apparent rational reason that they can explain, so it would seem to be irrational.
>I'm not confusing the words rational and logical with correct
>Is an (extreme) example of inductive logic
No then it would be: "One x is y, therefore probably all x are y."
>Fucking really now?
see >>43975638
>OK, you're a hypocrite.
I'm not going to break down the logical proofs of any of that, I'm just going to point out that I was just stating what was needed for it to be logically true.
I fail to see how I was a hypocrite or even if I was, how that would affect my argument that the human mind can sometimes be associative and illogical.
>inductive reasoning is perfectly valid.
No, inductive reasoning is probably valid.
>Equivocation, I was using logical as 'had sense in it' while you are using logical as 'logically correct' they are not the same thing.
>Don't use a dictionary definition in a psychological/philosophical discussion
I thought we weren't defining terms?
You seem to be the hypocrite.
The truth is that both are sound definitions.
I stand by my assertion that associations are sometimes illogical and do not "have sense in them".
>Nonsesical things have no logic in them and sensible thoughts are hypothetically capable of having no logic in them, they just don't.
Yep, you're being silly.
1/2
>>43962637
Since the only real definitive purpose of any biological replicator is to survive and thrive, submission to another organism will always be preferable to the complete eradication of the species, since all biological replicators have a species imperative to maintain their own survival at least long enough to replicate and produce a new generation, and any species that lacked that imperative for survival are already extinct.
Nah
Kill shit and Die cool.
"Give me freedom or give me death" and all that jazz
Life is meaningless and death is enevitable so might as well bring about as much destruction as you can until your spark is snuffed out by the superior person/civilization just make sure you burn their fingers doing it or dont, doesnt matter.
>>43976089
>Artificially separating 'the human mind' from the human
>believes in the unconscious having desires
>Practically Freud.
Okay, let me try.
>pretends "the human" was not referring to the human's conscious mind
>wasn't pretending
>is actually that stupid
Wow, that is really not helpful or fun.
Not sure why you did it.
>And sometimes the same part of the mind does different things, do you actually think that there's a separate part of the brain devoted to conscious non-subconscious though? 'Conscious' thought doesn't work without subconscious thought, it doesn't even exist.
Do tell. Or don't.
My point was that different parts of the mind do different things.
Your response indicated that you tacitly agreed so I move on to my point.
>I am not damning or elevating anything.
>You are invariably calling associations illogical, that sounds like a comparative insult.
>that sounds like a comparative insult.
THERE IT IS!
Holy cow man.
I get that you somehow believe that all human thought is perfectly sensible (after all there are no examples of humans acting illogically ever[sarcasm again])
But not everyone considers being occasionally illogical or without sense an insult.
I was not, in fact insulting, damning, or elevating anything.
Sometimes people think without sense.
Sometimes people are illogical.
We are messy chaotic meatbags.
It's a truth, not an insult.
The human mind is sometimes illogical, sometimes senseless, and often associative.
It is.
No insult intended.
Except to you.
You're an idiot.
>Nah, got you on something else.
Nah, you try to did "get me" on exactly what I said, you dip.
>>43976704
>Nah, you try to did
*you did try to
>>43976498
>Don't define terms? Okay
I never said that, I said a dictionary is not the best place for a definition.
>Your mind store all sorts of things you can't actively recall.
Oh, wow that sounds like the subconscious and not the unconscious, you must be confused, or rather not know what you're talking about.
>Which is why I chose the term programming
Passive learning isn't an oxymoron because it is put to memory it's just that instance of it being put to memory isn't actively noticed itself.
Unconscious learning is.
>People sometimes like one thing over another for no apparent rational reason that they can explain, so it would seem to be irrational.
>apparent
That aside, that still doesn't explain how logic is applicable to the situation. There isn't any logic to the color green, but that doesn't mean anything.
>No then it would be: "One x is y, therefore probably all x are y."
The probably doesn't need to be stated, it's implicit in the belief itself, it isn't like the belief would hold strong after eating a 100 more strawberries, this is asinine.
>see >43975638
"I was using logical as 'had sense in it' while you are using logical as 'logically correct' they are not the same thing."
>No, inductive reasoning is probably valid.
No, it is statistically proven actually, they lead to probabilistic claims but it's definitely valid.
>I thought we weren't defining terms?
I said that using the dictionary to define unconscious was stupid not defining terms in general actually.
>The truth is that both are sound definitions.
I never contradicted this, logically correct is a fine definition I objected to you pretending that that was what I was talking about, maybe you just misinterpreted me though.
>I stand by my assertion that associations are sometimes illogical and do not "have sense in them"
So if you are using my definition of illogical can you not confuse it with your own?
1/2
>>43977023
>pretends "the human" was not referring to the human's conscious mind
OK then you're artificially separating the conscious mind from the unconscious mind, which is what I implicitly accused you of, I shouldn't have assumed that you thought that this was voluntary, but it isn't sensible in the slightest nonetheless.
>Do tell. Or don't.
The conscious, logical mind is fundamentally created through associations, it is a recursion of self input (generally through imagined auditory or visual cues) where the mind with some voluntary direction orders thoughts taking from associations, the point is that consciousness is build upon the subconscious and that the incorrectness of the subconscious carries over to the rest of the mind.
>I get that you somehow believe that all human thought is perfectly sensible
No I don't I believe that all human thought has sense it is, not that it is perfectly sensible.
>I was not, in fact insulting, damning, or elevating anything.
So do you put associations on the same level as 'logical' thought?
>chaotic
We've been talking about the order of associations what?
>Nah, you try to did "get me" on exactly what I said, you dip.
You equivocated my usage of logical with logically correct, you were guilty of exactly what I said you were guilty of.
>>43963564
Nietzsche was about the reassessment of all values; the overthrow of conventionally decent feelings. In a culture that passively accepted a set of ideas, the philosopher, the necessary man, was the one who attacked and overturned them.
If you feel good about your philosophy, if your philosophy makes you feel good about yourself, your philosophy is fucking wrong.
>>43977023
>a dictionary is not the best place for a definition.
heh, so silly.
>you must be confused, or rather not know what you're talking about.
I was just answering your question.
>Passive learning isn't an oxymoron...
Now you're just making distinctions for no reasons.
>Asserting that sometimes liking something has no apparent connection to anything rational/logical/sensible not applicable to rationality/logic/sense.
More silliness. Green silliness.
>The probably doesn't need to be stated, it's implicit in the belief itself
>belief
You should probably at some point mention we are talking about belief and not logic and truth if you want the "probably" to be implicit.
>No, it is statistically proven actually, they lead to probabilistic claims but it's definitely valid.
Probably.
>I never contradicted this
Defensive much? That was me conceding that point.
>So if you are using my definition of illogical can you not confuse it with your own?
"Why not both?"
I find my assertion holds with either definition, if not all my previous arguments.
>The conscious, logical mind is...
Citation needed.
>So do you put associations on the same level as 'logical' thought?
Where are the levels?
Are we talking XP levels? Character levels? Spell levels? Dungeon levels?
Seriously though, there does not need to be levels, there is no competition here.
The human mind is capable of senseless associations, precise logic, and making that sense you hold so very dear.
>We've been talking about the order of associations what?
People are chaotic.
>You equivocated my usage of logical with logically correct, you were guilty of exactly what I said you were guilty of.
I clarified the definition of logical first (inb4) so therefore you are a dip.
You are a very silly dip.
>>43962637
Life is a game and even if you're dealt a shit hand the only way to win is to stay in as long as possible.
>>43977457
>heh, so silly.
Do you actually think that a dictionary is the best place to find the definition of unconscious?
>Asserting that sometimes liking something has no apparent connection to anything rational/logical/sensible not applicable to rationality/logic/sense.
>asserting that logic is applicable to desire
>You should probably at some point mention we are talking about belief and not logic and truth if you want the "probably" to be implicit.
We were talking about both, how was "A person's mind makes judgments like "I ate a strawberry and it tasted awful, therefore all strawberries are awful."" not about belief?
>Defensive much? That was me conceding that point.
OK fine.
>I find my assertion holds with either definition, if not all my previous arguments.
OK so what is a time where the human mind makes a judgement without any sense?
>Citation needed.
I wasn't acting like this was a medically established fact or something, it's what I think is the case.
>The human mind is capable of senseless associations, precise logic, and making that sense you hold so very dear.
The issue is that you seem to value (in terms of use) conscious thought above associations, I agree in this case that the question is senseless, because one is included in the other, either you are stating that all thought about non-mathematical objects is fundamentally illogical or you are disagreeing that the conscious is made from the subconscious.
>I clarified the definition of logical first (inb4) so therefore you are a dip
You 'clarified' it, but you still basically did what you said you didn't, just in a roundabout way.
>>43966682
What need has existence to be justified?
>>43977644
>a dictionary is not the best place for a definition.
Actually this silly.
>We were talking about both
The part of the discussion originally referenced, "One x is y, therefore all x are y." was me discussing deductive logic.
>How was it not about belief?
How was it not about bad deductive logic?
>OK so what is a time where the human mind makes a judgement without any sense?
When I decided to continue this argument with a silly anon?
When a person picks a randomly generated item from a selection of exact other items?
When a child accidentally does the exact opposite of what they were just instructed to do and can't tell you why?
When Harry and Ron flew a car instead of sending an owl?
When a person tries coleslaw everytime it's presented, hates it everytime, except once even though it's the exact same store brand with nothing changed, and everytime after that they still hate like before?
When a person zigs when they should have zagged?
When a person meets a stranger than looks perfectly harmless and yet the hair stands up on the back of their neck and they just *know* there is something "not right" about them?
Religion?
When they argue over whether or not chaotic people that act senselessly every day are capable of making judgments without any sense?
>The issue is that you seem to value (in terms of use) conscious thought above associations,
I literally said otherwise whereas you, you silly sod, have been talking about one part of the mind or another being above, elevated, or insulted.
>either you are stating that all thought about non-mathematical objects is fundamentally illogical or you are disagreeing that the conscious is made from the subconscious.
Or, I'm saying different parts of the mind do different things, that it is capable of logic, sense, associations, and illogical senselessness.
>You 'clarified' it, but you still basically did what you said you didn't, just in a roundabout way.
inb4 anon is a dip- Damn! Too late.
>>43977771
You.
I like you.
>>43977771
Conciously being aware of what justifies existence is just another step upon the path to more enlightenment. It is also a counterpoint to when somebody is down and depressed, where they need to balance all the bad with as much good as can be. Yes, it can even help sad ¤%&#ers!
Also, the need to find justifications for things like existence is usually due to curiousity and the propensity to ask "why" questions. Why aren't you curious? Why avoid the issue? Why do I feel baited? Oh, see. There, I did it.
>>43978105
>a dictionary is the best place for a technical definition
>Actually this silly.
Agreed.
>How was it not about bad deductive logic?
You were referring to the example as if it was bad deductive logic when it was really extreme inductive logic, it was about logic, I said it was about both in the quote you posted.
>When a person picks a randomly generated item from a selection of exact other items?
What?
>When a child accidentally does the exact opposite of what they were just instructed to do and can't tell you why?
I'd guess they just forgot the 'not' in the statement effectively.
>When a person tries coleslaw everytime it's presented, hates it everytime, except once even though it's the exact same store brand with nothing changed, and everytime after that they still hate like before?
Is this about taste or about them trying a thing they dislike over and over again? The fact that taste varies doesn't say anything and there are plenty of reasons to continuously have something that you hate.
>When a person meets a stranger than looks perfectly harmless and yet the hair stands up on the back of their neck and they just *know* there is something "not right" about them?
>fear of the unknown is irrational
>Religion?
kek
Come on, these are situations where people act wrong but in all of them there is some sense their thoughts.
>I literally said otherwise
Sorry I'll try again do you value conscious thoughts above associations for finding the truth.
>whereas you, you silly sod, have been talking about one part of the mind or another being above, elevated, or insulted.
To voice my disapproval of it, so technically yes.
>Or, I'm saying different parts of the mind do different things
I'm confused because to me "different parts of the mind do different things" is the same as "disagreeing that the conscious is made from the subconscious."
Do you think the conscious is formed from the subconscious or not?
>>43966065
>>43966083
Come now anon. Nothing wrong with arguing philosophy. It strengthens and weakens the philosophical ideals' intellectual integrity. Also don't get mad this isn't /v/.
