Post your shitty halfbaked Shopenhauerisms or other and I'll tell you why you're wrong and just a sad impotent faggot.
Rule: You have to try your best to explain and be good philosophers
Break the rule and you get no replies.
>>27220605
guess I broke the rule
riddle me this
you suck
I've had my fill of arguing with pseudo-intellectuals on the internet. If you don't know what the term 'nihilism' actually means from a philosophical standpoint, or you don't know that it (and other terms) can have multiple meanings, this is probably just going to be frustrating for both of us. Like playing chess with a monkey; I wanna take your king, you want to flip the table and chew on the pieces. Everyone loses.
>>27221335
What you don't think I have the same doubts about you? Keep your definitions clear and give it a shot. Otherwise go be a non-practicing (pseudo) intellectual somewhere else, I won't take offense.
>>27220605
Nothing matters and being constantly concious of this causes depression.
>>27221416
You probably do have the same doubts, you're obviously just not as sick of this as I am. And in my experience, there's a 90% chance you're just going to come out kicking and screaming with your logical fallacies and attacks on my character and all that other shite. You're not worth my while, pal. Especially when you haven't put your own personal philosophy out there. Maybe if you did, I'd know if you were a pseudo-intellectual or not. For now, I'll just assume you are.
>>27220605
There is no point in living, nothing we do makes a difference in the Trillions of universes and infinite planets. We are simply filling In a void to make our extinction more enjoyable.
>Stupid robot
Redundant.yes I'm making the claim you can't be a robot if you're smart numbnuts. Why did you even check this?fuck off now you're just playing. It's because you're dumb
>>27221444
There's a point in life when you realize being depressed doesn't even mean anything you're simply a clump of molecules
>>27221490
>>27221416
>both of these faggots are scared of each others brains
they're probably not that smart lmao
>>27220605
I'm sure you're an expert. :^)
Women receive inherent attention, affection, and validation just for being women; thus, they cannot be lonely, nor can they be robots.
Ex supra, get the fuck off my board you fucking whores.
Women are inferior humanoids because the male is the provider of the relationship in all aspects.
The only reason we weren't able to develop social skills as children is because we were ugly, and because of it we're destined to be perma virgins until we no longer exist
>>27221444
>>27221503
This is a big confusion among robots.
There's no meaning in life because there can't be, not for sad reasons but because it's logically inconsistent. Meaning is a function that maps one thing to another. If by 'life' we mean the set containing everything then obviously there is no referential set outside it that can contain the meaning of it all.
If you are sad about meaning, you are a confused little boy/girl indeed. Hope this helped.
Philosophy is meaningless because it relies on logic and in/deduction. If you reject these things, you can no longer come to any conclusion or even function as a human being, but they are still merely constructs of human intellect and outside reality bears no obligation to tailor its laws (if laws even exist) in a logical way. Therefore philosophy cannot possibly hope to describe objective reality to any meaningful degree
>>27221490
No I'm good at this, try me. But don't come half-cocked, full-cocked. Seriously if you're gonna say something advanced you'll have to define your terms because I don't read many continentals.
>>27221710
You're just saying all we can know is the world as perceived by humans. This is perfectly true, but not very exciting.
>>27221710
>logic is merely a construct of human intellect, it cannot describe reality
>therefore
lol what makes you special
>>27220605
Uhhh ok.
What about camus then?
Your opinion, sir?
>>27221851
You have to give me a specific example, that's how this works. And don't assume I have all of Camus in my head, even though...
The point of philosophy isn't to find 'the truth', it's to collate all the different ways people think and understand life and the world. Knowing the range of ways people can think allows you to understand the actions of others from their point of view, instead of simply dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as wrong.
>>27221956
Sure! I don't pretend to be a philosopher by the way, or an intellectual. But I try to follow along as best I can.
What do you think of camus' theory that people commit suicide simply because the absurdity of life is simply too much for them to handle?
Life is absurd in that it is objectively meaningless, we assign meaning to certain things to keep us relatively sane.
>>27220605
The only one I like is the one he said about books I think? but I apply it to everything;
"Time and effort are finite."
>>27221967
Knowing how people think is a form of truth isn't it. The last part I agree with, I'll add that a huge part of philosophy is understanding what language is and the different ways that it is used. Reg people tend to be very bad at this and sometimes get hung up on words for no reason.
>>27222004
I think absurdity is a confusion and that before that confusion became rooted in language there were no problems. I stated much of this case in this post.
>>27221682
>>27222024
You also need to think about the words 'objectively' and 'meaningless'.
>>27222024
>objectively meaningless
but some people find meaning anon
ie religion, etc
I've got a philosophy degree from a pretty well respected program. I'll play.
1. Time is, by definition, a relationship between two separate physical objects, or the relationship between a physical object and a point in space; either definition will do.
2. The human mind cannot create original objects without reference. A unicorn is a horse with a horn; the horse and horn as objects/concepts already exist, so we can make up unicorns. But coming up with new colors outside of our current reference material (e.g. ocular perception) is impossible.
3. Therefore, a physical universe wherein the rules of time or the building blocks for time exist must exist independently of the human mind. (Idealism is false.)
4. The mind is subject to the influence of time in the same way that any other physical substance is subject to the influence of time.
5. Therefore, the mind is a physical entity composed of physical substance; the idea of mental substance is absurd. (Dualism is false)
>>27222169
Time is a measure of change, without change never time, without time never change.
You posit 'physical' in (1), but do not define it. You do not really disprove idealism or subjective idealism because you simply assume the 'physical substance'. We can replace 'physical substance' with 'mental substance' at every instance.
I guess it comes down to: how hard is it to disprove idealism if you get to assume physical substance?
A better bet is neutral monism.
Coming from a man with no capacity to change into someone who could trust a partner, I frankly don't care enough to curbstomp you. The fact I'm doing this on phone shows that I care enough to let you know.
If you subscribe to rights and wrongs you already lost from the start.
>>27222169
What does the human mind mean? What does physical mean? You can't defend a lot of this against ordinary language philosophy.
Physical is a term used on things described in the field of science labeled physics, extending somewhat to other fields of empirical science. It has no relation to categories of being.
You seem to make 3 categories, horses and horns EXIST, a unicorn IS, and 'new colors' do NOT EXIST.
Now we want to place these inside or outside the human mind. To make the categories mental or physical.
The problem of language is that the labels always go in the IS category but never in the exists. In fact any ordering goes into the IS category because reality always appears in the particular and not in the general, there EXISTS no general horse. Guess where 'human mind' goes.
Both the exists and not exists category are strictly beyond language.
This is much neater ontology than
>>27222169
or
>>27222583
>>27221335
>that it (and other terms) can have multiple meanings
No, they really can't.
A word can only carry one specific meaning in one specific context.
Otherwise what is even the point of language if you cannot accurately represent a concept properly, in an understandable fashion?
>>27220605
Because I have no free will there is a material mandate that I must become a bad person due to my social conditioning, more or less in line with Nietzsche's Last Man. This means being a utilitarian antinatalist. It also means being openly hypocritical, logically inconsistent, inscrutable and above all unaccountable.
>>27222169
>But coming up with new colors outside of our current reference material (e.g. ocular perception) is impossible
Colors, I love colors.
Do Mary the Color Scientist for me, please. You know what that is, if you actually have a degree.
>>27220605
Do you honestly believe there is any argument against someone committing suicide if they want to?
>>27223207
kek. Who has no free will?
>>27223297
Free will is undoubtedly the most logically incongruous idea imaginable, because it necessitates that any decision, happening at any arbitrary moment was somehow the ultimate event in a chain of causality.
>hurr durr my cheerios just caused a rift in the fabric of time
>>27223270
There are lots of arguments. From utility, morality, religion e.t.c.
What good will it do? Is one I like.
>>27223153
>disregarding the intellectual basis of wordplay; specifically, punning
Hey Merriam-Webster, tell me what "you're a fucking humorless hack" means in this specific context.
>>27223402
>Free will is undoubtedly the most logically incongruous idea imaginable
I don't disagree. But if you are 'just' material processes, then who is it that has no free will?
ITT: smells like teen spirit
>>27223487
Sorry, but philosophy is not about doing fun or fancy things with words.
Also, I addressed this with the "one specific context".
>>27223512
ITP
>>27222169
This is pretty bad, there's problems with nearly all your statements.
First off, define all your things and do it properly and correctly.
1. Time does not describe a relation between objects or even location, if it were to, then the entire concept of time dilation, could not exist, must not exist. Neither of your two provided definitions will do at all.
2. Define "human mind", "original", "object" and "reference". This is a baseless claim you most likely cannot prove. An example is not a proof, sorry. Basing your argument on this statement means that your argument is not rigorous in the slightest. Therefore Idealism may or may not be true.
3. Define "physical"
4. Change is not limited to the physical at all.
5. How is it absurd, show me. I can see lots of fun things to do with the idea of a mental substance. Especially if we're just casually arguing on a Tibetan tapestry board.
>>27223127
my austrian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk
