Fuck.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
Public sex thread here, faggots.
>>29852668
I'm currently trapped somewhere between cynicism and nihilism. Life is pain.
>>29852668
What's "an ordinary life"?
>>29852668
Absurdism and logical positivism are the only objectively correct ones
>>29852763
A wife, kids, and steady paying job
>>29852763
work in factory 16 hours a day, 6 days a week
send kids to west so they can learn to be doctor, lawyer, engineer
or
they work in factory 16 hours a day, 6 days a week and take care of you
>>29852769
I wouldn't call absurdism correct of false, so much as ignoring the question. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's hardly an answer.
>>29852792
>>29852793
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who can't fucking stand the idea of having kids.
>>29852822
It's not ignoring the question, just acknowledging that there is no answer.
>>29852838
That line is subtle, and in the end there is no functional difference.
>>29852792
>>29852793
They should call that absurdism.
>>29852792
>>29852793
Wrong. It's hunting and gathering going by what was most popular for humanity in he whole span of time.
Assuming that the objective reality exists apart from it's subjective viewer (the human), the objective reality has no meaning or values. Laws of physics are just laws, asking the question of "why" they exist would be counterproductive. The fact that /r9k/ exists is the sum of previous actions, it's just causality and there is no real meaning attached to it.
Things like values and meaning are subjective human mindgames of the dreamscape, which is a double edged sword. You can see a world that's a metarepresentation of the objective reality, you can see things like history and create concepts to describe the objective reality. But concepts are just concepts, subjective manifestations on the dreamscape and have no real connection to the objective reality.
It's like playing a video game, you aren't really the hero of Kvatch and you don't really have a meaning and your values, when projected to the objective reality, are nil. You can pretend the ghost in your shell actually has a value, sure. You can even believe your lie, but it's all inside your head.
The nihilists pretend to understand this and create a new construct in order to validate their existence. "Life has no meaning" is a value that tries to neglect all other values, creating a strange loop.
The only real way to join these world is to end yourself. If you decide not to kill yourself, based on your values and mental constructs, even embracing nihilism will not save you. You will always be stuck between the worlds of subjective and objective.
Truly, a fate worse than death.
>>29852951
Nihilism isn't a fun place to end up for anyone, and there's no real end goal. This is why there are so many philosophies that seem to follow a similar route, but suggest different actions.
>>29852951
Your logic doesn't follow at all. Something can be both subjective and objective. The sun is hot, both subjectively (something hotter wouldn't believe it to be so) and objectively (compared to most other things in existence), first off, and as such your claim that a concept can't both be a subjective understanding, and objectively correct, is false, they aren't either or.
You're also just ignoring what the question is. We don't go "why are laws of physics laws of physics", we go "Why do they exist at all, instead of acting different ways". You're then implying this is useless, despite it empirically being how we find shit out. The heart beats, do you think it's pointless that we wondered why it beats? Same applies here.
And philosophically, as if there is a meaning to the existence of those laws, we can then start to build an objective set of values by which we should aim to live and create. And that's ignoring the other myriad values of philosophy in fields like medicine and anywhere we need to have ethics committees.
There's also a huge jump between "I personally believe there is no inherent meaning to life" and "The only way to fix this is to kill yourself". If you imply that everything is subjective, there's no reason why life having no meaning is worse than it having a meaning, as it still contains many pleasures and reasons to continue to live, goals to reach simply because you desire to reach them. It's why things like hedonism and logical positivism are so closely linked to nihilism that I'd argue they're just end results of it.
People like you often seem to think that depression is a philosophy, and it's not. Being depressed if anything stops you from being able to act and think in rational ways. It certainly doesn't give you any more credibility in anyway over a non-depressed person.
>>29853162
I also have to add, if you truly believed that suicide was the only solution, you'd have killed yourself by now, not be collecting edgy pics from tumblr to post alongside your philosophies here.
Even if you figured yourself a prophet, you wouldn't be doing this, you'd be writing and spreading your belief in a form that lasts longer than however long the thread's up. The reason you don't do this is because you know you'd be fucking torn apart by people who actually know what they're talking about, as it even happens to you here.
>>29852668
WHY THE FUCK CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO REPRODUCE MORE EFFECTIVELY?
>>29853183
Because how much more effective can we get?
We've done that. Now we need to do other stuff or we'll get bored and become like pandas.
>>29853183
We've already won, now we are reversing the process.
>>29853162
But he would be saying that, in your example, the concept of something being hot or cold is a human construct, therefore interpretable and subjective. You've missed the point slightly anon, and done it in a very headstrong fashion.
>>29853362
I didn't miss the point, his point is just a stupid one to make. If heat was just a human construct, we'd all experience it differently and not be able to measure it objectively. We can see how heat impacts other things.
Even solipsism doesn't work here, as all humans see how heat impacts things in the exact same way.
The only way that it could be both is if we were all connected by some hivemind like entity, in which case it's unlikely we'd have free will at all, we'd just be worker ants dedicated to serving humanity.
>>29853162
>Something can be both subjective and objective.
Things in the objective reality can be objective. Your subjective represetation of the objective reality can only come ever so close to the objective, as you are not an omnipotent being which is one with the universe.
>The sun is hot
Compared to what? Ahh, the subjective experience. The surface of the sun is about 5600 C, but when you use an adjective, such as "hot", you are practically saying:
"In my subjective experience, compared to the temperature of most things I've seen, the sun is _hot_".
>You're also just ignoring what the question is.
The question of "why"? Because we cannot answer such questions through our subjective experience. The closest we get is the OPs picture. We can pretend we know the answer, even believe in our own lie, but it doesn't really matter. It's just a trick. It's some abstract your brainslush created. It has nothing to do with the real world.
>The heart beats, do you think it's pointless that we wondered why it beats?
Why does your monitor show pretty lights and pictures, even text? You can go on and on about the technical details of how something works, describing the inner workings of the objective world via your senses, but you won't find any meaning in it.
>we can then start to build an objective set of values by which we should aim to live and create
With your purely subjective minds? Let's wait a few hundred years for singularity first.
>no reason why life having no meaning is worse than it having
You misunderstood me, I didn't just slap some values (which I argued to be subjective previously) and claim it was objective, like a fool does. I didn't say killing yourself would be "better" or "worse", as those are subjective things and hold no value in the objective world. I argued that we, as human beings are a gateway that connects both the objective reality and our subjective representations of it. I only claimed that for me, it's a fate worse than death.
>>29852822
An absurd man must always stay aware of the contradiction
t. has read Camus once
>>29853175
>if you truly believed that suicide was the only solution, you'd have killed yourself
This is a prime example of subjective values conflicting with the world. You believe that people work like clockwork. You believe that when faced with horrible amounts of pain and suffering, people would choose death. You'd also believe that a man who thinks living holds no value would kill himself.
This is what I'm talking about.
>>29852668
Holy shit that info graphic is retarded
Why do people talk about philosophy when they're entirely ignorant and incompetent? You don't see me discussing electrical engineering.
If you actually care about these issues read SEP articles or ISP articles for those just starting and follow up with the sources given. Most such sources can now be pirated.
That's Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and Internet encyclopedia of philosophy.
Resist your moron tendencies to oversimplify, become a fan boy, and think about things that don't matter any more than miss America contests like who influenced whom or the personal lives of philosophers.
Bear in mind that almost everything ever contributed to philosophy hitherto has been wrong and you're likely wrong as well. Especially when you feel confident you are not.
>>29853495
(Posting this because this entire thread is as retarded as that infographic)
>>29852769
But absurdism doesn't make sense.
>>29853401
>Things in the objective reality can be objective. Your subjective represetation of the objective reality can only come ever so close to the objective, as you are not an omnipotent being which is one with the universe.
These don't follow the way you think they do. I explained why subjective and objective can be the same thing.
>"In my subjective experience, compared to the temperature of most things I've seen, the sun is _hot_".
Did you even read my post? I didn't say that at all, I said it's true in both that way, and compared to other things in the universe. It's both subjectively and objectively hot.
>The question of "why"? Because we cannot answer such questions through our subjective experience
This doesn't follow. You have to explain why we can't.
>We can pretend we know the answer, even believe in our own lie, but it doesn't really matter. It's just a trick. It's some abstract your brainslush created. It has nothing to do with the real world.
Your belief is no more valid than any of those in the pic, according to your own philosophy, yet you treat as if it is.
>Why does your monitor show pretty lights and pictures, even text? You can go on and on about the technical details of how something works, describing the inner workings of the objective world via your senses, but you won't find any meaning in it.
The cause of something can both be simply causative, and the meaning. The computer makes lights because of the technology which is contained in it. Understanding that lets us understand the technology, and do more with it.
>With your purely subjective minds? Let's wait a few hundred years for singularity first.
Unless you're arguing for the existence of a hivemind all causing us to experience the same thing, a shared experience is the closest to objectivity we can ever know. If everyone sees something the exact same way, that thing is that way.
cont
>>29853401
> I didn't say killing yourself would be "better" or "worse", as those are subjective things and hold no value in the objective world
You literally did.
>You will always be stuck between the worlds of subjective and objective.
>Truly, a fate worse than death.
That's a pretty obvious implication that killing yourself is the best possible solution.
>>29853443
>This is a prime example of subjective values conflicting with the world. You believe that people work like clockwork. You believe that when faced with horrible amounts of pain and suffering, people would choose death. You'd also believe that a man who thinks living holds no value would kill himself.
No? You're making assumptions here.
I've said that to you, living is a fate worse than death. As such, if you truly believed this, the obvious solution would be to kill yourself, that would be a positive change for you.
People kill themselves when death becomes a positive change for them compared to continuing to live.
I also never said that a man who believes life holds no value would kill himself, I in fact explained several possible solutions he could come to. Don't strawman.
I simply said that a man who has conviction that life is worse than death, would therefore find suicide a logical conclusion, as that allows him to achieve a better state.
>>29852668
I'm surprised no one has said anything about Epicureanism. Making an environment for yourself where you are always comfortable and any struggle in life is gone. It sounds so freaking peaceful and relaxing.
>>29853552
>I explained why subjective and objective can be the same thing.
You claimed that we can create representations of the objective reality in our subjective minds, yes. You study the objective reality and create concepts in your mind to reflect on the reality in order to understand it. However, you fail to see that creating a representation is not the same thing as copying the whole mechanism of the objective world, and that the subjective and objective are very different concepts
>compared to other things in the universe
Which exist only as subjective representations inside of your head.
>This doesn't follow. You have to explain why we can't.
Because our subjective reality is but a representation of the objective and while we can create a meaning, it's all in your head. In the objective reality, meaning doesn't even exist.
>The computer makes lights because of the technology which is contained in it.
>Understanding that lets us understand the technology, and do more with it.
Indeed. But the objective reality doesn't hold values, as they are of human creation and cannot answer questions like "what should I do?".
>Your belief is no more valid than any of those in the pic, according to your own philosophy, yet you treat as if it is.
Bingo. Now you know why you question:
"Why haven't you killed yourself then lol xD", is stupid. But whatever we do, even if my personal philosophy doesn't apply in the objective world, we'll still enter this strange loop.
>>29853605
>implication
You'd find implications and double meanings in MLP, right?
>best possible solution
Subjective.
I think it's true, but does it apply to everyone? I mean there are no objective values in play here.
>No? You're making assumptions here.
Yeah.
>> It certainly doesn't give you any more credibility in anyway over a non-depressed person.
>>Even if you figured yourself a prophet, you wouldn't be doing this
>>The reason you don't do this is because you know you'd be fucking torn apart by people who actually know what they're talking about, as it even happens to you here.
But if finding implications and trying to figure out the mindset of the other poster purely based on their post (incorrectly, even), then fine.
>>29853837
>>29853776
Mate, I can respect what you're saying, but you're not the first person to think this stuff, and a lot of what you're saying doesn't follow very well, as in the logic kind of makes jumps and assumptions, and you can't do that sort of stuff in philosophy.
You can't go "Our perspective is always subjective and useless because it's subjective and useless", because that's circular reasoning, you being right depends on you being right, which doesn't actually prove that you are at all.
You have thoughts that could develop into something much better, but I'd really recommend you did some reading on logic in these fields. As much as it's reddit, the side bar on their philosophy subreddit has some good recommendations on the topic.
Lol, wtf is this.
I asked for porn.
>>29853400
>If heat was just a human construct, we'd all experience it differently and not be able to measure it objectively.
How do you know everyone experiences heat the same way? There's even evidence that we don't, thanks to things like acclimation. I consider 0c to be a decent day in winter, while my Australia friend thinks that same temperature is unbearably cold. The other anon was right, you are missing the point. We have inaccurate senses that only give us a small glimpse into all of reality. Even using tools we can only ever have an incomplete idea of what reality actually is.
For instance, we know there's particles and energy that we can't interact with, so we don't know much about it. If you assume that it's possible for a conscious observer made up of "dark" particles to exist using laws of physics that we still haven't discovered, how would you know they wouldn't see us as seemingly random collections of particles, if they could even interact with us at all? What makes your collection of particles special compared to every other particle in existence?
>>29854478
>How do you know everyone experiences heat the same way? There's even evidence that we don't, thanks to things like acclimation
I'm not talking about what we think about it, I'm talking about how we experience it. As in what it does to our bodies and the things around us. That doesn't change based on personal opinion. Don't accuse me of missing the point when you so grossly misunderstood what I said, the context even made it obvious.
>For instance, we know there's particles and energy that we can't interact with, so we don't know much about it. If you assume that it's possible for a conscious observer made up of "dark" particles to exist using laws of physics that we still haven't discovered, how would you know they wouldn't see us as seemingly random collections of particles, if they could even interact with us at all?
How is this relevant at all? Us not understanding something doesn't make our current understanding wrong or somehow subjective. We simply don't understand it yet.
>>29852668
19/19 wrong. What clickbait website made this shitgraphic?
>>29852668
What is this based on, babby's introduction to philosophy? Most of these are inaccurate.
>Hedonism
>Epicureanism
Same thing. "Hedonism" in the modern context is simply a misnomer.
"Free yourself from pain" isn't far off, but it's lacking context. Epicurus posited that the best way to live was to partake in the simple life and not obsess over grandiose things. This is more or less what hedonism is.
>Nihilism
Nihilism is merely accepting that life has no objective purpose. It's not a way of life in which you go around murdering and raping because you think nihilism bestows some depraved nature in people. Anyone can believe that their life has no intrinsic meaning or value, but still observe morality because it's mutually beneficial.
>Classical Liberalism
This is just a cover for "I'm an alt-right shithead." The only liberties alt-rights push for is their own. They'd just as soon ship all faggots and trannies off to concentration camps under some conceived notion of moral depravity.
>>29854593
>I'm not talking about what we think about it, I'm talking about how we experience it.
Exactly. The experience of temperature is qualia. People might react in the same way to certain stimuli but that doesn't mean they perceive it the same way. I'm sure most people have wondered if their red is the same red someone else might see in their own heads. Objectively the light that causes the sensation is the same, but that doesn't mean the way they perceive it has to be the same. If you take LSD it's very likely you'll experience a far more vivid red, possibly even the red light shifting into other colors. Schizophrenics could possibly be used as an example, due to how they sometimes have vivid, realistic hallucinations. The hallucinations don't exist to others, but to them it's as real as anything else they experience.
>How is this relevant at all? Us not understanding something doesn't make our current understanding wrong or somehow subjective. We simply don't understand it yet.
The point was that if there are conscious observers made up of different material that we can't interact with, they would perceive us as seemingly random collections of particles, they are even able to perceive us at all. I guess the point I was trying to (poorly) make is that assuming we're special seems odd when we're made up of the same fundamental building blocks that everything else in the universe is made from. We're just as natural as anything else in the universe as far as we can tell, and it seems like you need to take a bigger leap in logic to argue that we have a greater purpose for existing than it is to simply say we are the result a long line of fortunate coincidences. Arguing that we have a purpose for being seems like it'd imply that there's something supernatural about us.
I'm sure there's flaws in my logic, but I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just trying to give a different perspective.
>>29852668
Stoicism reporting.
