Nope. Sorry you're 15, it'll get better.

ITT: Immanent Buddhism.

not if you're white :)

One must know suffering to know compassion.

>>8931728
I notice that no one is truly happy.
The rich are sad.
The poor are hungry.
The middle class is stuck in mediocrity.
Intelligent people have no friends.
Social people wish they were successful.

I'm surprised there aren't more suicides.

Vast majority of jobs are never-ending grinds, with no opportunity for growth or change.
A few white-color jobs bring money, but not a lot of satisfaction.
Some artist are ok with their work, but many are very depressed and live poor lives.

I'm only miserable when I'm at work.

>>8931739
23 years old, I believe in this.

It's true, life is pretty good like 1% of the time.

The rest is total shit.
Dealing with faggots
Wasting time driving, talking about stupid shit with superiors, reading stupid crap you don't care about..etc

The "life" is 1%

>>8931740
What are your beliefs regarding this?
You're a respectable tripfag.

>>8931807
and how much of that 99% is complaining on 4chan?

>>8931807
Must suck to be you. My life is amazing.

Grew up as Buddhist here.

Yeah life is suffering, but I wouldn't have it any other way. If I didn't suffer, I wouldn't know pleasure.

The 'suffering' is the act of being alive, but if you really understand it, its not so bad. It lets you come to terms with it, not suicidal.

>>8931839
>>8931740
this topic has nothing to do with Buddhism.

>>8931839
Holy shit, Anon. You just made me have an epihany, and saved my life. I was going to volunteer at a Buddhist sanctuary over the summer and perhaps stay there forever...but dude, you're absolutely right.
I'm not a Buddhist. Wow. Thanks, anon.

>>8931922
jesus christ you fucks are hopeless.

>>8931839
To add, suffering is not just the suffering from random occurrences such as losing a family member, getting fired, getting hit by a car etc. It's the daily suffering such as our body's reliance on food - leading to hunger, our body's desire to sleep - being in the 'life cycle' is basically the same as suffering.

Nirvana, is when you leave this cycle. You cease to exist and stop being 'recycled' in the life cycle, thus ending suffering.

Don't ask me about the specifics though, because I became less religious at 13.

>>8931852
1. upper middle class
2. USA
3. white
4. male

In other news, I don't care about palestine. Ha!

ummm, whats going on in the OPs pic?

forsaking desire is the only way to achieve happiness... and since.. basically only buddah has done that.. yeah

>>8931960
Yes yes I've never seen this before

Saucebloxcox

>>8931940
yeah talk about missing the point

>>8931922
Its kind of silly to just go join a Buddhist monastery without even being Buddhist. I lived as a monk once (culture/tradition thing). It was kind of nice. Eat breakfast and lunch only, pray, do errands, walk around bare feet outside. Wake up at 5-6am everyday. Pray.

I wouldn't prefer the life though. Nothing real gets done.

>>8931903
OP asked if life was suffering, it was a broad ended question, and I'm pointing out that Buddhism relates to his question. Not off-topic.

>>8931960
Looks like some righteous IDF are raining down burning pain upon the undeserving palestinian dogs. Nothing to see here.

>>8931960
Israel is firing white phosphorus on a Palestinian hostpital.

>>8931969
yeah that's one thing I don't like about Buddhism. Its extremely extremely hard to attain enlightenment and 'happiness'.

My own philosophy borrows from Buddhsim, Nihilism and Secular Humanism. I'm content with it. All my answers to life are answered or - unanswered but, I'm fine with that. Well more than 'fine', I pursue the answers.

People have a way to be content with what they have, even if it isn't a lot.

American culture is designed to make you miserable and constantly in search of something to make your life better, and this has made a lot of people unsatisfied with even the most extravagant lifestyles. No matter how much you get, there is always more.

No matter how little you have, there is always less.

I've recently come about to thinking that most of the problem is that we spend far too much time playing around in our heads about 'what is going to happen' or 'what could happen' and not acting. Without action, there is no progress or failure, so you see the kind of people who say life is suffering when they either experience a measure of failure or imagine a level of failure.

Action cleanses all suffering, in any form, because that progression absorbs your whole life. The farther your thinking is from action, the more you will begin to suffer.

buy my book fuckers

>>8931952
ITT; dumb white anons don't understand this topic

delicious white phosphorus. they probably frickin deserved it.

>>8932233
mootblocks meh

>>8932164
Sounds a little communist. Nevertheless, you are wrong. Inaction can be as good as action in some cases. Your problem lies in your absolutism. There is never a right or a wrong and NOTHING is absolute. Not even the very foundation of reality with which we perceive, for it is based off of our current scientific knowledge. Probabilities and truths may be close to a 100% certainty, but that is much further down the future.

Btw I'm the Nihilism + Buddhism + Secular humanist guy.

>>8932442
You're nihilist.. and humanist? You value nothing.. but follow objective ethics?

Can you explain that one to me?

>>8932485
Borrowing from Nihilism the fact that we will amount to nothing and we are not special. Secular humanism, in that we have to take the opportunity in this life to pursue a goal for our species. Reasoning and rationality, over supernatural. To follow one philosophy for its entirety is for the misguided (in my opinion, as not every philosophy is best suited to a changing world).

>>8932617
But nihilism means literally nothing matters. Either what you're doing is a roundabout version of "I behave empathetically because it feels good" or you are not a nihilist, not even an absurdist.

There is no justification for anything, except MAYBE personal pleasure. Doing something because it feels good is fine but there is no future for our species, there is no goal to strive toward, and anything you do is just as useless as anything else you might have done instead.

It's not a matter of borrowing from a philosophical position, you either agree with the logic or you don't.

>>8932737
Uhh.. you can borrow from other philosophies without having to accept their entire statement. It's like how the US economy is based off of capitalism, but it's borrowed a lot from socialism. Doesn't mean that the US accepts that all capital is the property of the government, just means that some of their ideas are pretty good so let's take them lol.

>>8932819
>>8932819
your ideas..however..are completely contradicting.

>>8932819
That's a lot different. Economics involves a lot of wacky shit and room for tinkering. Nihilism is simple - nothing matters, nothing. No values whatsoever. Nihilism isn't even a philosophy - it doesn't even have recommendations or conclusions. It's just a logical argument that all value is subjective, and all action is meaningless.

Again, if you're a humanist because "it's fun" that's fine. But you can't believe in any source of objective value and also be a nihilist, or an absurdist. They are amoral by definition, though that does not mean they are antisocial.

>>8931728
Is life simply suffering?

That would depend on your suffering threshold. If you're a massive pussy, then yes...it is mostly suffering. If you strengthen yourself through adversity, then it is a stimulating adventure. If you are a person of courage and passion, it's the game of a lifetime. If you feel that life should accommodate you, then it's a big pile of shit and disappointment. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?

>>8932889
>>8932892
That's why he said 'borrowing', indicating that he wasn't adhering to the basic logical premise. All he was saying is that he was inspired by nihilism to accept the fact that humanity ultimately is doomed to not matter at all in the end.

He then backs up and rejects the basic premise of nihilism by asserting that meaningful goals can be formed by human consensus and thus he's a secular humanist who just so happens to accept an idea that originated from nihilism.

>>8932947
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the statement "NOTHING CAN BE SAID TO MATTER" inspires you to delude yourself into believing something does, you didn't borrow from nihilism. That's like saying born-again Christians terrified of the prospect of a world without God "borrowed from" atheism.

Again, it's a logical position, not a value system or ethical system.

>>8932931
no op
I don't see how that's true..
Honestly for a while, I wasn't even "sad" or apathetic or depressed..

I just eventually came to the realization that existence is simply suffering.
I don't know what it was..but I DISLIKED it

>>8932962
Then he made a silly statement. It made perfect sense to me, you might want to check your brain for some gunk. The big advantage of intelligence is not one's ability to adhere to an arbitrary set of standards, rather, the advantage is that the intelligent person is more flexible :)

>>8932976
A lot of Oriental philosophy and a few Westerners (Schopenhauer) believe that life is suffering because man either has what he wants and is bored with it, or is striving to something new. They say that the Will is eternally frustrated, that it is a paradoxical existence.

Freudian psychoanalysis also mentioned something called a "death drive"/thanatos in opposition to "eros". It's pretty amazing how well Freud matches up with existentialism.

>>8933004
I disagree. Intellect is in opposition to emotion, because it is deconstructive. Emotion and instinct are irrational and "happy to be" irrational, whereas intelligence is just a tool of a deconstructive impulse, a will to understand and master and expand.

A "perfectly logical" being, with no emotion or instinct or arbitrary desire would just be an inert mind - a computer without any programs running.

Intelligence is inherently inflexible because it adheres to a one viewpoint - deconstructionism, cold rationality.

>>8932892
I borrow from the different ways of thinking. The value of Nihilism lies in the fact that if we are nothing, what do we choose to do with our selves (my interpretation). Combined with secular humanism, I accept that we are nothing, yet constantly struggle against it to gain significance for ourselves.

I do what is the most rational in terms of gain for myself and humanity.

>>8932737
Such absolutism is the reason none of these philosophies work when they standalone. They represent only one dimension.

>>8932889
My belief is not contradicting, but the beliefs which I borrow from will have aspects that contradict with another. It is a hybrid philosophy.

Obviously not just suffering. But suffering is not the worst condition. Its a curious condition of the moderns, to find death and pain to be the single worst things in existance, and shines a light on their rather shallow depths.

>>8933037
The cold, super rational mindset that you're arguing for was defeated long ago. "I think, therefore I am" is the only necessarily true statement ever derived without axioms, everything else that you can logically arrive at is based completely off of your choice of assumptions.

Have fun reading your big fancy books by people who are smarter than you so they must be right.

>>8932962

ITT: bitches dont know bout my Fatalism

>>8931812
I'm sorry I didnt see this earlier.

I like Buddhism. If I were not Christian, I'd likely be Buddhist. My largest complained is the morality system. There is not a terrible amount of impetus with treating people with kindness and compassion outside of a sort of self-interest. While cool and interesting, I think it's a bit dispassionate in the end.

I've too much of a sense of moral duty to that which is not myself rather than purely acting benevolent for self interest.

It's a small irritation, but one that matters enough to me.

>>8931903
One of the chief tenets of Buddhism is "Life is suffering"
It's like the starting point of the faith.

>>8933095
A) There is no "value" to nihilism and if you don't see the irony of that statement you have never read a single exposition of the nihilist viewpoint. You don't understand here: nihilism practically says you should lay down and stop moving. Not even kill yourself, just NOTHING. There are no directives to do anything other than your own subjective desires.

There is no struggle to gain significance. Your actions are not only meaningless in the practical sense, they are literally stricken of value (if you accept nihilism, that is.. I'm not defending it necessarily).

Doing what is "rational" in terms of personal gain is defensible, doing what is "good for" humanity is not (under nihilism). Again, if you derive pleasure from altruistic behavior, fine, go for it. But moral behavior has never been justified objectively, ie. as a rule or directive.

>>8933095

B) "Philosophies" is a misleading term. Philosophy is the practice of applying logic to reality. Nihilism doesn't work or not work - it is simply true or untrue. If the statement "objective value is impossible" is true, then you cannot create a fancy ethical system founded on it, because any posterior statements are unfounded.

C) There is no "hybrid philosophy". There are hybrid METHODS in applying complex philosophies, ie. trial and error in economics. Ask any serious philosopher in history that accepts some kind of objective truth and he will tell you that a statement is either true or not. "A philosophy" is just a series of logical statements. If any of them contradict, it is incorrect.

>>8933133
What are you even saying? I'm not condoning or condemning anything. A mind is a cloud of thought processes, biological, cultural, instinctive impulses fighting for consensus. A perfectly rational mind no impulse, thus no reason to act. That's all I'm saying.

As an example, think of a creature with no pain and no pleasure. No need for sustenance. Why would thoughts even enter its head? Sensations might, if they float it in through perception, but the mind would be unmotivated to DO anything with those sensations. It has no goals, no directives, no purpose.

>>8933226
Looks like you're the nihilist here! Why is it that a perfectly rational being must necessarily be without impulses? It seems like they're compatible as simply two parts of a personality, wherein the rational side would observe the impulses and judge their merit. That is, it's fairly rational to say "I must eat to stay alive" when confronted with hunger.

>>8933158
mootblocks..
hmmmmmmmm
i see

>>8933211
thank you for correcting my improper use of 'philosophy' in that case, can I say that my personal beliefs are derived from aspects of philosophies?

>>8933256
You're misunderstanding me. It's just a thought experiment. It's impossible, aside from like.. transhumanism, to shed biological and psychological directives.

Satisfying curiosity, satisfying appetite, and every other impetus for movement that isn't purely mechanical (ie. consciousness, and even then it is, ultimately, purely mechanical) is irrational. Freud spoke of a death drive. Schopenhauer said life is tragically absurd in that is a quest for fulfillment which is impossible to attain.

A human mind is a cloud of processes screaming FEED ME and GRATIFY ME. They are all equally 'arbitrary' in that they are not 'rational'. Consciousness is irrationally incarnate - it is an emergent property of inert matter, and its "goal" is impossible to fulfill.

>>8933211
>Ask any serious philosopher in history that accepts some kind of objective truth and he will tell you that a statement is either true or not. "A philosophy" is just a series of logical statements. If any of them contradict, it is incorrect.

Depending on whether or not they are using para consistent logical systems, or like in the case of Hegel, argue that rejecting the principle of non-contradiction is necessary for objective truth in the first place.

But that's just me nit-picking. Good explanation.

>>8933292
I feel the stoics and the concept of duty would take issue with that claim.

>>8933279
Sure, but it eventually all boils down to "the animal does x because it feels good when it does and bad when it doesn't". "Personal beliefs" is just a fancy way of saying "the cloud of irrational directives that cause that particular ape to move around before expiring, instead of simply expiring".

>>8933301
I'd feel shitty deconstructing a Christian's worldview, so I won't say anything. I know how it feels to crash into absurdism. Shit sucks, bro.

Just don't kill me with an axe and we cool.

>>8933292
>A human mind is a cloud of processes screaming FEED ME and GRATIFY ME. They are all equally 'arbitrary' in that they are not 'rational'. Consciousness is irrationally incarnate - it is an emergent property of inert matter, and its "goal" is impossible to fulfill.

Irrational, yes. Impossible to fulfill? I think your notion of desire is unnecessarily narrow. Pic related. Whether or not it will convince you, it's worth reading so as to not take the Freudian framework for granted by providing a possible alternative.

>>8933292
Either way, you never really did address the point. I said intelligent minds are flexible, and I mean that in the sense that an intelligent mind can analyze and find the truths and falsehoods in statements of any variety, not just the ones fed according to a rigid schedule.

That is, if you didn't understand my usage of the word "schedule" above, you would just use context clues to get a rough idea of what it means and then you'd go from there. Your inability to understand what the poster I was supporting meant to say is a clear sign of your inability to process information outside of a specific way, that is, unintelligent.

>>8933318
Lol you assume i've not deconstruction it myself several times over to rebuild it up again despite myself.

I am no blind follower.

>>8933328
The problem is that the goal is absolute - you need pleasure right now. You need to avoid pain right now.

However, it is never "ultimately" fulfillable. If you lived forever as a badger you would just fuck and eat and shit until you die. It's just that the best way to render it in English (that I can think of) is to say your "goal" has no "end result". It just cycles, over and over, for eternity (or until your body dies).

>>8933318
>I know how it feels to crash into absurdism.

Yeah, feels like it leads to true Christianity instead of Neo-Platonism, bro.

>>8933358
I forgot to add - I do commend you on recognizing that trying to disassemble someone's faith for no reason other than personal edification as rather a "shitty thing to do."

Most people dont seem to realize it is.

>>8933361
HOLY CRAP. Way to bring out the big boy.

I loved fear and trembling. I was afraid, and did indeed tremble.

I loves me some Soren.

>>8933358
Eh.. look at it from my perspective. I've spent years and years reading nihilism and absurdism and I have no vested interest in believing them (they make me suicidal at times). I'm logically certain that they're correct (to the extent I can be).

I am of the OPINION that you're wrong to believe in dogmatic theistic systems of objective morality, and if I'm right, I jeopardize fucking up your groove. I don't want to do that.

>>8933360
>If you lived forever as a badger you would just fuck and eat and shit until you die. It's just that the best way to render it in English (that I can think of) is to say your "goal" has no "end result".

Then why call it a goal? This is what I mean. You're applying a teleological structure to something that is apparently inherently incapable of fulfilling said teleology. I'm not so sure I even see the teleology. Why should we assume desire is teleological?

Maybe it's something else entirely.

>>8933361
See, I follow Camus, not Kierkegaard, because Kierkegaard was a proponent of something called the "leap of faith". Camus regarded this as "philosophical suicide" - it is a step back from the truth you have been pursuing into forced dogmatism. It is an act of will, not intellect, in pursuit of.. well, basicaly jiggering your brain back into thinking there's meaning.

The problem with transvaluing your values is unless you have extraordinary willpower, your doubts will eat away at you.

>>8933382
But this means youve obtained a "certainty" and if your logic is sound - above all things you should deprive yourself of anything closely resembling certainty.

>>8933361
is right. Kierkegaard's in your future if you are lookin for a adventure for your brain and soul. Note - it will be harrowing if you allow it to be.

>>8933399
But that doesnt tell us WHY you follow Camus over K.

In my mind, this makes K more poignant. Camus will not acknowledge the fear necessary, and step anyway.

>>8933345
Uh.. okay..? Colloquial use of "intelligence" as "flexible to consider viewpoints outside your comfort zone" or something? Sure, whatever. Flexible as in, flexible with what you believe to be true? No.

>>8933409
Because Camus reached the end of the ride, the end of the rainbow of rationality, and stayed there. He lived with the absurd, the complete lack of meaning, if only because death was equally meaningless. Someone took all his toys away and he sat in the dirt and enjoyed the silence.

Kierkegaard gets off the boat to find he doesn't like his destination, and desperately tries to swim back to any scrap of his old world he can find.

>>8933389
Honestly, it's either a breakdown of English or my ability with it. It's a never-ending goal. It is a "drive" to attain something you can never have, a drive for sustenance that will always repeat, a drive for pleasures which will become irrelevant once you acquire them, to be replaced by another.

>>8933399
> it is a step back from the truth you have been pursuing into forced dogmatism.

No it isn't. Camus didn't understand Kierkegaard, nor did you.

This is exemplified by the fact that you are under the impression that doubts conflict with faith instead of gird it as well as the notion that it is simply willful dogmatism when Kierkegaard's faith was anything but dogmatic. You neglect the significance of the simultaneous maintenance of resignation AND the leap (though "leap of faith" was never a Kierkegaardian term, and the phrase as used isn't what he meant when he talked of leaps).

I'm sorry to break it to you all, but your pure rationality will NEVER fill that ache for meaning in your life the way that true love does. I don't mean "finding a significant other". I mean true love. When you know what love is, you will know why you are alive. You are alive to fight for love. You are a soldier for God (I don't mean "the evangelical Christian sky daddy). That is why you are here. The most that logic and reason can do for you is to lead you right up to the doorway to true love. It is up to you to take a leap of faith and enter that doorway. It is not about submitting to dogma. It is an act of courage. The courage to make the leap comes from your heart. You do not want to hear this. You will promptly dismiss and ignore everything I have just told you, in all likelihood. That's fine, it's my problem that I feel compelled to throw pearls before swine. It only takes one person to hear and understand to make the whole effort worthwhile. Good luck in your lives, gentlemen.

>>8933441
All this tells us is that you have inherent presumptions (which is fine).

You presume that the path is linear in philosophical reasoning, (i'm not speaking about circular arguments but the 'destinations' you espoused).

You presume the goal is to get to the "end' of the ride.
You presume that the act of will itself is somehow less valuable than the supposed "truth" you seek.

Kierkegaard went in a new direction, the very creation of truth. And, if you throw in a little modern quantum physics (for funzies, of course) suddenly it's his that looks more promising.

Now note - by this post, I do imply that I value the counters to each of the presumptions you've made, and supplant them with my own - which I recognize. But that does imply that we ourselves govern the trajectory of our philosophical approach rather than the given arguments.

>>8933292
I like where this is going...

>>8933361
I almost crashed "absurdism" (I have not familiarized myself in formal philosophy), felt like a devastating hollowness. It really brought me to my knees. I didn't want to live anymore because I had no reason. I couldn't see where we were all going, or whats the point of it all. I could hardly even get up in the morning. I could hardly even look at myself int he mirror. Even talk to people, study or enjoy myself.

Then a very dear friend made me realize the solution.

>>8933441
> It is a "drive" to attain something you can never have, a drive for sustenance that will always repeat

Or maybe there is no object of desire. What's the sense of referring to an object of desire always absent? Pretend there is no object.

Pretend there are only desiring machines. These desiring machines connect and hook up producing flows, but they do not aim at some beyond-the-horizon object. Where did that notion even come from?

>>8933442
I agree with everything you just said.

But I do not think that the poster you are responding to will respond with agreement - it will continue to be a disagreement upon which each philosopher espoused.

I suggest, instead of propositioning that either philosopher was 'right' that each had an opinion for which we may call reasonablly valid.

In this - I feel, it is more reasonable to question our own motivations and feelings as to why we ourselves ally with the varying philosophers rather than try to create a false supremacy.

It is in us, not these brilliant thinkers wherein our own faith lies.

>>8933474
>Kierkegaard went in a new direction, the very creation of truth.

You familiar with Badiou?

>>8933493
>instead of propositioning that either philosopher was 'right'

The only point on which I was saying Camus was wrong was in his reading of Kierkegaard. Whether or not Camus was right in a broader sense is not something that could feasibly be dealt with in this thread.

CANT MISS THIS CAMWHORE BUT I WILL RESPOND ITT TO YOUR POSTS I AM NIHILIST MAN TOO HORNY TO WASTE TIME ON FGTS SRY

>Why do we have philosophers? Why can't we just think for ourselves and come upon our own philosophy to which we can better ourselves?

>>8933495
Not as such. Though I have been out of school for some time now.

The specifics of names and arguments is less important to me (hence my wording) than is the position of those exploring it.

In this - I think it is more telling for individuals to speak of themselves and the reasons they want, do, or have followed certain philosophical paths over others. What the paths are, more or less are merely the specifics - it is the root causes in the various choices (or at least obedience) which are truly interesting, because while grand theories are grand indeed, for the individual not nearly so much is needed.

Rational thought matters, but we must too attend to our irrationalities. Emotion should not be discounted.

>>8933530
Why do we have engineers and architects? Cannot we make our own homes?

Well yes - of course you can. But you dont. You buy homes which were made by someone who developed knowledge you dont have. Much is the same for society. The values people have didnt simply come up form nothing. There are thousands of years of tradition, mores, values, scruples, taboos, and topics which have been built, one upon another over time.

Philosophers are the maintence men who constantly remodel the house or try new experimental things.

You're not making up your own philosophies - you've purchased ones made by someone long, long ago - who's ideas were so strong their plans and blueprints exist still to this day.

>>8933530
I don't see how the two are at all mutually exclusive. In fact, having philosophers can be conducive because you are able to consider a much wider variety of perspectives, ideas and arguments than you could conceivably come up with on your own before you come to your own conclusions whether those are in agreement with something expressed by a philosopher, a modification thereof, a synthesis, or an entirely new construction.

I am wholly defeated, spiritually, morally, and emotionally. So much so that I can't even summon the power to take my own life.

Or, perhaps there is something still holding on, trying to climb back up the depths of my soul, that prevents me from taking such action.

>>8933504
But using terms like "wrong" and "right" do not assist the discussion of something this personal. It becomes a disagreement on a larger scale, which will, invariably lead to tangents and semantics rather than the things that initially interest both parties in the conversation: life.

Maybe your life is simply suffering. That's a bummer to hear. Not sure if I can honestly say your life won't continue to be characterized by suffering. But I can say it will get relatively better as technology increases which subsequently increases the relative quality of life.

>>8933442
Kierkegaard's entire position is that the material world offers no proof of theism and requires a "leap of faith". A leap of faith to believe in meaning in an absurd world, that is, a world without meaning. That's an emotional thing and outside the realm of rationality.

If you want to argue semantics I'm not your man, sorry. I'm only going on what I've been told by professors and THE MIGHTY INTERNET about Kierkegaard's position - will over logic. I agree inasmuch as will is more fun, but I disagree on the terms that self-deception is tenuous and difficult.

>>8933582
Ok, let us for a moment assume it is a "will over logic" debate - which not everyone agrees on, but it doesnt matter.


Why do you favor logic over will?

>>8933557
Yet in another and still more definite sense despair is the sickness unto death. It is indeed very far from being true that, literally understood, one dies of this sickness, or that this sickness ends with bodily death. On the contrary, the torment of despair is precisely this, not to be able to die. So it has much in common with the situation of the moribund when he lies and struggles with death and cannot die. So to be sick unto death is, not to be able to die -- yet not as though there were hope of life; no the hopelessness in this case is that even the last hope, death, is not available. When death is the greatest danger one hopes for life; but when one becomes acquainted with an even more dreadful danger, one hopes for death. So when the danger is so great that death has become one's hope, despair is the disconsolateness of not being able to die.

>>8933469
Love is a chemical!!!!!

That's gay and emo, but it's true, and I can't ignore that. I enjoy companionship but I don't enjoy being immersed in purpose by hugging or dying for my loved one. I acknowledge the absurdity of my love for her.

>>8933474
My vision of the Universe is: humans are very dumb but capable of arriving in consensus on some version of objective truth. For many of us it is not possible to be willfully ignorant or to shy away from what we "know" to be true, after we have fully integrated it.

I do not believe in the creation of truth as I see humans in behavioralist and biological terms, not spiritual.

>>8933476
My solution was to let go of my lifelong obsession with objective meaning and embrace the absurd, to sit on my fat fucking ass and enjoy my friends' company while I get drunk.

Why are they cluster bombing that apartment building?

>>8933601
Ok, on your vision:

Why is that your vision as opposed to any other vision?

>>8933582
>Kierkegaard's entire position is that the material world offers no proof of theism and requires a "leap of faith".

No no no no no no no no no no no no no. Why the hell would he use Job or Abraham to illustrate faith then?

>will over logic

No again! Logic is a necessary stepping stone to logic. Resignation is a necessary foundation for the leap, but the resignation cannot be abandoned or the leap will cease to be precisely that.

>>8933548
An engineer or an architect are completely different from a philosopher.

To be an engineer or an architect requires years of knowledge. They are also able to apply their knowledge physically.

The study of philosophy leads to little results in terms of beneficial development, for all.

For a person to build a home, they require knowledge and skill.

A philosopher can make do with neither of these.

>>8933590
I don't favor anything over anything. I cannot shut off my drive to deconstruct. I would rather enjoy one irreducible pleasure (FUCKIN') than try to lose myself in Islam.

Some people have the will required to ignore logic - Nietzsche had it, in that he could simultaneously transvalue his values, and still value them. That takes doublethink, and I can't do that - because I'm weak.

>>8933627
>The study of philosophy leads to little results in terms of beneficial development, for all.
>A philosopher can make do without logic or skill

>>8933627
So you think all those beliefs you have now you came up with yourself eh?

Interesting proposition. I think more or less you completely ignored my metaphor. 's cool.

>>8933616
Because in my vision of reality (which I think is a scientific one, broadly speaking) there is only one position that could "logically" be taken. That's nihilism. But I still like fucking, and my guilt over leaving my mother is unbearable, so I don't commit suicide.

>>8933626
Dude he was the first absurdist. Absurdism is "world lacks mneaning oops". He still believed in Christianity, of all things, a sprawling retarded fuckup lasting 2000 years of councils, schisms, botched crusades and petty politics.

>>8933650
...deep down you know I'm right...

>>8933650
Lol, is that some Barrats and Beretta?

's one of their brothers, isnt it?

>I don't favor anything over anything.
>I would rather enjoy one irreducible pleasure (FUCKIN') than try to lose myself in Islam.

These contradict.

>I cannot shut off my drive to deconstruct.
Will or not - this implies a vector. Such a vector had an origin, a compulsion. Something sent you on that journey.


>I'm weak
If true, why does this matter? If false, why cling to it?
You choose to believe that logic matters more than the will - as this is your *complaint* of K. This is why - as you said, you choose Camus over Kierkegaard (even though I disagree with this assessment).

The reasons are here. You can see them as plainly as I.

>>8933661
your metaphor is inadequate and fallacious.
>>8933650
I didn't say logic, I said knowledge.

>>8933664
>Dude he was the first absurdist

So wait, instead of actually pointing out something in Kierkegaard that would support your position, you're going to label him and leave it at that?

>He still believed in Christianity, of all things, a sprawling retarded fuckup lasting 2000 years of councils, schisms, botched crusades and petty politics.

If you knew anything about Kierkegaard you would know that when he talked of Christianity, he would hardly consider those to have fallen under the title, in much the same way as the famous Nietzsche quote: There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

>>8933664
You dont begin at nihillsm, you end there. Which means that even though you're calling it a reductionism - it's not. You've constructed yourself into nihilism.

Why do you presume, for example, that scientists are telling you the truth? Why presume that there is not consistent lies being garnered in your direction?

You are not an astrophysicist, or a neruologist, or, etc etc etc - which means at the end of the day you believe science. This is a good thing - I should note, and I too believe in science. But I understand why it is I choose to believe in the Scientific method and science.

And I recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with "truth." Science is consistency. Truth and consistency are not the same things.

So I'll ask again - why are certainty, and consistency, so important to you?

>>8933695
>I didn't say logic, I said knowledge.

My bad. It's nearly 5 AM and I'm afraid when it comes to ignorant and ridiculous claims I simply can't summon much mental energy.

>>8933667
>>8933695
you will see that nothing of value can result from a debate of philosophy over philosophers. SCIENCE on the other hand...

>>8933694
I don't favor any LOGICAL position over another, in that I don't really care what I believe, I just believe it. It so happens that my stupid faggot asshole brain saw fit to ruin my enjoyment of religious, political and moral authority. I could devote my time to brainwashing myself into obedience and love (considered it) or I could just drink beer and enjoy the one thing we haven't reduced - pleasure and pain.

Vector.. journey.. no idea, bro. I'm not a philosophy genius or anything. As I said above, it's too hard for me to resist my urge to deconstruct my emotions. I can enjoy my love of my friends because it's there, but I acknowledge it's also meaningless and subjective. If I could deconstruct subjectivity itself I would just vanish into thin air I guess.

Logic doesn't matter more than will, that's my whole point. If I were capable of sitting down and saying I WILL BE LOGICAL NO MORE! and selectively forgetting everything depressing I know, I'd be Nietzsche, or better yet a Christian peasant who believes in soulmates.

If I COULD dive into faith and ignore the constant doubts, I would. I can't, or I'm not willing to try because if I fail I have to face the lack of meaning again. I accept that there is no meaning.

>>8933695
Logical arguments can have the quality of being fallacious. I didnt make a logical argument, I made a metaphor. Metaphors are either more comprehensive or less. If you didnt comprehend the metaphor, that's my fault. If you disagree with it - that's opinion. In no way is it an issue of fallacy.

You've a different opinion and you base that opinion on your presumptions of what philosophy means. That's fine. I wont argue that with you.

>>8933727
>If I COULD dive into faith and ignore the constant doubts

This is what I've been trying to explain. That's not how it works.

Faith isn't about ignoring doubts.

>>8933722
do you quote by copy pasting or quoting from what you remembered what the person said? (rhetorical question)

>>8933727
I will give you 10 dollars if your debate leads to an applicable positive outcome.

>>8933724
>you will see that nothing of value can result from a debate of philosophy over philosophers. SCIENCE on the other hand...
>SCIENCE on the other hand...

I hate to break it to you regarding where science came from...

You seem so happy to be ignorant of its origins.

>>8933703
I.. I thought it was obvious. HE BELIEVED IN THE ABSURD. He literally, IIRC, that you cannot prove God exists with logic. You just have to ~BELIEVE~. That isn't for me, because it's too hard.

Christian apologetics are another matter. I don't fucking care what he said, he was subscribing to the cultural legacy of that institution, and it's a messy and busted one. If you want to WILL yourself into believing spiritualism, do it with a nice tidy religion, maybe an Eastern one.

>>8933720
Because they're all I know. I'm not saying I want to be a nihilist, I'm saying that a lifetime of bashing away comforting fantasies because it gave me pride was enough, until I bashed away the fantasy of pride. I no longer see myself as a secular humanist courageously destroying myths and legends, so now I'm left with the Absurd, and I prefer it to self-delusion.

>>8933743
Faith is belief in something in spite of evidence, or when evidence is lacking. I don't have the will for that. I am too conditioned to ask why.

>>8933727
In one breath you claim you could brainwash yourself. In the next you claim the opposite is true.

This concerns me less for it's contradictions, and more for the obvious battle that is going on in your head. I fully believe you meant both, and with all sincerity. Such is the human mind.

To be on topic, and more to the point - there is a desire in you which is obvious to me that you are vexed by your own minds ability to relenquish control of what it preceives to be "Truth." Truth, in the sense I am using it now, is in some manner consistent and ridgid, like some sort of building block, upon which we might construct the universe.

But - we must ask ourselves why we might want to create a universe at all? Why might we want to understand this universe around us? Why might we want to instill some order upon what could very realistically be nothing but abject chaos?

The short answer would be control and power - through these, should we come to the point of certainities, we could grow closer to some semblence of balance with our surroundings - we might, in theory, find peace. Tranquility.

If only we understood enough, if only we discovered the right truth, if only we knew what meaning existed - it would be then that we could take control of our lives... and avoid pain.

Avoid despair.

And this is where K says hello.

>>8933754
AH! Exactly.

Read this - for you are in the same boat.
>>8933777

>>8933754
Yes, I've never denied absurdity's central place in Kierkegaard's thought. But he's not an absurdist because, as you've pointed out, he has significant differences with Camus.

However, I think you (and Camus) misunderstand said differences as basically irrationalist apologetics for dogmatic Christianity.

>he was subscribing to the cultural legacy of that institution, and it's a messy and busted one.

You mean like science? Or communism? Or democracy? or Buddhism? Or Hinduism?

>>8933777
When did I say I could brainwash myself? I've said numerous times I wish I could. Maybe I can, but I am not willing to try. I'm content with my beer and my sex.

Seeking truth is a human instinct. It's why we have tools and pants and lasers. You expand, you adapt, you understand. I cannot shut that off, I am not willing to try.

Kierkegaard can say hello to anyone he wants. He's asking me to believe in something that cannot be proven with logic or science. I am incapable of doing that with my current mindset.

>>8933737
You are experiencing a form of escapism. You turn to philosophy to help you make sense of the world. You will encounter philosophers you like; that you can agree with. Ultimately, you will find that philosophy is pointless. This doesn't have to be an argument, because if you are willing, I am perfectly content to supply my reasoning and universal truths with little bias.

However, what I am doing is the very thing that was "an asshole thing to do". Never mind. Do what you feel good about, this life is very short.

>>8933797
> I could devote my time to brainwashing myself into obedience and love (considered it)

But you're not incapable. You're doing it right now.
You say you are unwilling to believe anything not provable by science or logic. But yet you disdain how far logic and science can take you. These are at odds.

Simply put - why do you feel you need to understand? Is it a natural human desire? Sure - but if you are truly a reductionist - that is not compelling enough. So then - why?

>>8933789
Absurdism is logical insofar as it reaches the limit of human understanding. I cannot understand pleasure, so I live for pleasure. Believing in things that cannot be proven is illogical, so religion is a rejection of the absurd. It is an "eluding" of the truth that you know.

And no, all religions have a shitty history. Science as I mentioned it is not an institution, it is an application of philosophy to truth seeking in the material world. What individual societies do with that information is their problem. Science is neutral and deconstructive, all dogmatic belief systems are arbitrary and constructed.

>>8933798
When I said I didn't want to deconstruct someone's religion this is what I meant. If you had the will to find Jesus, shit I envy you. Enjoy it.

>>8933772
>I don't have the will for that.

Having faith in this is an awfully good way to guarantee you don't.

And again, asking why does not exclude faith. In fact, it's essential to it. Job questioned God to God's face. Christ cried out asking why he had been forsaken.

>>8933798
I'll ignore the slight you made and the very subtle 'permission' you've given me to choose to believe as I do and say only this.

I grasp your position and opinion, I do not share it - and I think neither one of us truly believes me a fool.

>>8933824
I am doing nothing right now, and I am content with that. My existence is irrational and it will end when the pain becomes unbearable, by suicide, or when I expire.

If I ever get smart enough to transcend my own consciousness and understand the pleasure-pain dichotomy, I guess I'll just vanish since I'll have borked my own mind.

>>8933834
I don't care what parables say, I have spent a life deconstructing and disrespecting dogma as a rule, and I don't want to give myself false hope that I can be brainwashed into Islam.

>>8933840
There are no fools, and everyone is a fool. You believe what you believe. We're all just killing time.

>>8933826
> Science as I mentioned it is not an institution, it is an application of philosophy to truth seeking in the material world.

I could easily construct an equivalent non-institutional definition of Christianity, probably prominently featuring the word love. If you're denying Christianity can exist outside its institutional history, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to stop No True Scotsman-ing when it comes to science which has VERY MUCH been embedded in actual historical institutions which have on occasion engaged in unethical and monstrous behavior.

>>8933846
"Right now" meant this conversation.

You're on the cusp. I can see it. To me it is as plain as day. The position you are in is unsatisfactory and unsustainable. I... remember it well.

But be that as it may - it is not something I can bring you to. What I do challenge you to consider is your own motivations in the position of philosophy you have taken.

Ask yourself not the logical foundations but the emotional consequences of your beliefs. You value will as secondary to "logic" - which is swiftly becoming your short hand for "reality." Why do you presume that reality is the superior?

You desperately want to avoid wishful fantasy, but a true reductionist would have a grave time explaining where the fantasy ended and reality began.

Like a bullet through the black void I see your trajectory and know where it will take you if only you let it. But - to believe me in such a thing, would require an act of faith.

Irony runs thick.

>>8933846
>I don't care what parables say

Ok, this makes no sense whatsoever. You're talking about faith, which is something that belongs to the tradition that these parables occur in, but then define faith in a way differently than said parables. You're rejecting a straw-man of faith, and then don't care that you're doing so? Doesn't sound to me like you're much of a fan of rigor when it comes to your 'deconstruction'.

>I have spent a life deconstructing and disrespecting dogma as a rule

So you've been doing it dogmatically. Got it.

>brainwashed

Really? That's what you're going to call it?

>>8933854
I have a old quote for that.

"We kill time.
We kill time and this is all we do.
In the end, time will revenge itself and kill us.
Ours, is a justifiable homicide."

>>8933855
Love is an irreducible human emotion and thus not grounds to be logicked at. You can argue behavioralist shit about love if you accept it a priori, which is what people do, but you can't dissect emotion itself, because we don't know how yet.

Christianity doesn't exist outside its history, it IS its history, and its present. If you want a practical application of this, Christianity is a lot of people deciding something exists because they want it to (unprovable benevolent deity + mystical love) and then making a reaaaaally fancy complicated system on top of that, while a bunch of peasants murder eachother.

My point is that the first premise is bad, and on top of that it's just messy justifying all those horrible schisms, wars and persecutions anyway.

Life is the pursuit of happiness and continued survival. So long as you have no choice to fight for both of these ends, you will be faced with conflict and you will either be victorious (Happy) or lose (Suffer)

For most people life is suffering because it's quite easy to lose at life.

>>8933887
>Christian love is an emotion

First fallacy.

>Christianity doesn't exist outside of its history, but science does

Second fallacy.

> If you want a practical application of this, Christianity is a lot of people deciding something exists because they want it to

Question-begging the question of whether or not Christianity is historical by reducing it to a historical imagination. Third fallacy.

>>8933874
I value nothing, and I keep saying this. I lack the capacity, in my opinion, to transvalue values and value them simultaneously. I can't do it. That's all.

>>8933878
No, goddamnit. Pleasure and pain are irreducible. I found pleasure in deconstruction. I reached the limit of my deconstructive efforts when I could not reduce pain and pleasure. So I am fine to live for pleasure. It's dogma in the barest sense, that I believe it "because I feel it", but that is only because my logic is not strong enough to destroy it. My logic is easily enough to destroy Kierkegaard's philosophical suicide, for me.

You are chasing pleasure as much as I am, you just have an easier load to bear because you have more meaning in your life. I exist only for pleasure and contentment because it's all I've managed to justify.

>>8933878
You're insightful but a bit antagonistic.

Try relating rather than admonishing and 'correcting.' I think you want to be convincing, no?

>>8933918
>I exist only for pleasure and contentment because it's all I've managed to justify.

And how in the world did you manage to do that? How did you justify your taking pleasure in deconstruction, for instance?

>>8933913
It's a fallacy to say love is an emotion..? It doesn't matter what kind of love.

Scientific institutions of different cultures exist historically, but the METHOD OF SCIENCE is a METHOD, not an institution. Evil wizards studying atoms to destroy the Universe as part of their evil plan are a cultural scientific institution. Experimentation is not.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Religion is based on faith. Faith is not rational - it is the antithesis of rationality. You can reason things if you accept your faith a priori, but the kernel of your reasoning would still be faith.

>>8933918
There is an error in that absolutism and you know it.

To say you value nothing would require explanation, of this moment, at this time, at this very instant.

You value "something" even if only impulse - the problem with impulse, as you know, is that it tends to build upon itself into trends and patterns. And patterns exist for other reason, etc ad infanitum.

To say you value "nothing" should mean that you are already dead. However, even taking your own life would be to value something.

The problem with value absentia is that all else becomes chaos - all else becomes inexplicable, and that logic you value so much, the very substance of your argumentations themselves - breaks down into a mush of insubstantial meta-matter.

You value something. Pick something, however small, and build. Having this conversation alone, disproves the value-absentia.. you know that.

To say the things you value (in preemption i do this) "dont matter" is to then parse and split and render meaningless the word "value." Pick a term and remain with it, lest your inconsistencies render your own perspective circular.

>>8933913
Technically those are misunderstandings, not fallacies.


Fallacies only work with logic. Call them errors, call them something else, all i ask.

>>8933874
lol, I read this post thinking "this sounds like some pompous shit Qes would say." Then I look up and see it's you.

Good job on being recognized for being an over inflated piece of shit.

>>8933931
I don't. I used to. I used to think I was a rad dude because I was edgy and smart. It was all I lived for. I lost that eventually, when I realized it was just as meaningless a quest as any quest there has ever been.

>>8933921
Why? He can take whatever I can dish out. I'm not out to trick him into agreeing with me, so I fail to see why I should resort to optimizing my rhetorical approach.

>>8933947
Ok.. I value jerking off. Help me build CHRISTLOVE out of that. I've been tryin' real hard.

>>8933942
>It's a fallacy to say love is an emotion..?

No, not generally. But in this case it would be incorrect. Christian love (love in the vein of Christ) is not an emotion.

And just as the scientific method itself is not necessarily tied to any scientific institution, Christian love (which is closer to a method than an emotion, though it's not a method either) is not necessarily tied to any religious institution. And the core of Christianity is this love, not the Pope or whatever other historical institution or figure you'd like to select.

>>8933959
Well you'll do as you like. I mistakenly believed you wanted to come to consensus with him. Your rhetoric is nearly flawless - but that's all it is, rhetoric. You're not convincing him, you're comparing notes. It becomes competition, in which there will be a loser (possibly two).

If you just wanna verbally spar - then I grasp now why you've chosen the angle you have. I'm sorry for interrupting you.

>>8933957
Is this supposed to upset me?
Your opinion is noted. Carry on.

>>8933976
Ok, pleasure.

Let's be honest, and quick - you're very smart.
Orgasm = sexual pleasure. A physical sensation of pleasure.

Is this the greatest pleasure? I'm gonna preemptively answer no for you, as a guess. If i'm wrong, please correct me.
If there is something greater than physical pleasure, what might it be - mental pleasure? How does it differ from physical pleasure?

>>8934029
>but that's all it is, rhetoric.

Oh lord, the irony.

>>8934047
I think you mean hypocrisy.

>>8934027
Ok well I have no idea what Christian love is, so I can't argue with you. If it's an emotional attachment to something it's irrational, imho, whether or not you can "get" that enough to stop caring.

>>8934029
Who cares? The question is whether it's attainable. I used to be happier when I believed shit I can't believe anymore, yeah. So what? I can't believe it, so it's irrelevant. ~Believe~ me when I say that I've tried being dogmatic, I cannot do it.

I orgasm and I feel good, I work all day and I don't feel bored (and then I feel good), I drink and I feel good, I orgasm again, etc. Until I find something else this is what I got.

>>8934029
Qes, you are falling down a circular and energy draining discussion. I suggest you cease your escapism in philosophy and this thread for now. You are not benefiting, are you? You are only perpetuating yourself from ego alone.

This thread is over. Nothing of value can be extracted from here any longer.

>>8934029
>If you just wanna verbally spar

No, actually, that is not my intention. I'd like to suggest, now wielding some rhetoric in the stead of the reasoning I've been relying on, that you pull your head out of your ass at least far enough to see that there are other methods of honest, rational discussion than whatever narrow view you happen to hold.

>>8934056
Well. You care. Obviously.

Hm. Let me try something else.


You are supremely confident of your opinions. Which is fine. But do you believe that you have the possibility of being wrong?

I am not asking of the strength of your convictions, but instead the epistemological question of certainty.

Are you certain? Or are you confident?

>>8933918

I barely ever post on 4chan but this is one fucking interesting thread.

You - I empathise completely with where you're coming from. You seem to be vaguely depressed/on the cusp of suicidal. At the very least you seem to be overwhelmed with existential angst. Your honesty and sincerity is touching.

Can I recommend you look into a guy called Yukio Mishima? Get his book called Sun and Steel, if you can. The problem is that we're overly intellectual. And we're overly intellectual because we're bored. And we're bored because we just don't do anything: we have no balance between thought and action. Now, the moment you put yourself into some exciting or physically engaging scenario, the angst disappears, right? Why? Because it only exists in the mind. It is a creation of the mind. Your impulsive deconstruction of reality and its reduction to absurdity would cease just as soon as you actually start doing something. Trust me. The world isn't fundamentally absurd or fundamentally meaningful. And the way out of the despair of the absurd is not some Kierkegaardian 'leap of Faith' (per se) but more like an actual, physical leap. The problem is always practical. It has nothing to do with metaphysics.

>>8934077
Mine were only suggestions, made timidly and without weight. I complimented you not once but twice. Nor did I make demands of you. If you take umbrage at that I apologize, it was not my intent.

I was concerned for a moment that you seemed hostile. Perhaps I was in error. Now you do seem slightly more hostile at me - but I may have incurred it.
No hard feelings.

>>8934069
Your suggestion is noted.

>>8934088
> The problem is that we're overly intellectual. And we're overly intellectual because we're bored. And we're bored because we just don't do anything: we have no balance between thought and action.

Just jumping in to say that your contrast with Kierkegaard was unnecessary and inaccurate, and that this is very much at the core of Kierkegaard's thought, though Mishima and Kierkegaard would disagree on many things.

>>8934087
I spent five or six days reading anything resembling "existentialist ethics" and blasting my fucking brain trying to grok it, and I couldn't.

I thought I was going to kill myself on Thursday and I read Sartre and de Beauvoir until Tuesday in the unbelievably vain hope that they weren't just nutjob Marxists. I had to be open to being wrong, because I wanted to live.

Even now, I'd welcome an epiphany, but the problem is that I'm conditioned to be suspicious. If I woke up tomorrow and found Christ, even if I didn't know *why*, I'd be incredibly suspicious that I was wrong, because it's just too convenient. Ultimately I'd defer to my logic.

>>8934088
This is exactly the position I've arrived at, like in the last few days. If life is absurd, so is suicide. Dwelling on a lack of meaning is silly, when I can just occupy my hands and body with work and play. I'll check out your recommendation, thanks.

>>8934114
I think it's awful suspicious that being necessarily suspicious is such a convenient excuse to reinforce the significance of your own ego by allowing it to refuse to admit or submit to anything coming from outside.

>>8934114
I'm Christian and wonder every day if I'm horribly wrong and the fool. Doubt is not the antithesis of faith.

Normally I'd suggest some K, but you've read K.

Have you read much of C. S. Lewis? He's quite good and while not as thick as K or others, he's very well reasoned, and can provide a foundation to reread other authors.

Mere Christianity is only one of his works. But there are other non-christian scholars who talk of theism too.

But... it's not really theism that will help - I think. Theism is only one brand of a particularly vexing issue when it comes to existential darkness. It's the value of certainty.

I'm trying to think of others who challenge the value of certainty.

Have you read David Hume? He's pre-existentialism but his works would do some good in this regard.

>>8934150
>I'm trying to think of others who challenge the value of certainty.

I'm not sure whether Derrida would hurt or help, though he certainly fits the bill. Memoirs of the Blind wouldn't be a bad suggestion, I don't think.

>>8934150
Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

>>8934150
Hume is practically a scepticist. He's one of the first people I read that made me get all bummed out that art and love and truth aren't tidily objective, progressive things.

Honestly I'm content with my existence and I've spent enough time looking at justifications for faith in my life that I'm not really concerned with any attempt to become a Christian. Not to rebuff earnestly given advice, but I'm just not really inclined.

>>8934170
Oh yes! I sorta just spaced him out completely.

>>8934164
You know I always intended on reading some of Derrida. Never got around to it.

Maybe I should fix that soon.

>>8934185
Just for the love of god do not start with Of Grammatology unless you're big on Husserl, Saussure, and Rousseau. Derrida is fairly reactionary so you need to have a grasp sometimes of what he's reacting to in order for him to not sound like gobbledegook. You might enjoy The Gift of Death, which focuses on Kierkegaard and Levinas and is fairly lucid generally.

>>8931772
>Vast majority of jobs are never-ending grinds, with no opportunity for growth or change.

This is the appeal, some people value stability over the foolish idea of a life consuming career.

>>8934179
Well I didnt expect you to "want" to be Christian - and I'm not terribly evangelistic myself.

It's more like you seem disquieted and dissatisfied with where you're at, and on your own path already. I'm just trying to see if I can mention anything that will help you speed you along your way.

Give you some Lamnuss Bread if you will.

Hume's good for "awakening one from their Dogmatic slumbers" But it is interesting to me that you took him to heart and then ignored his warnings of association.

Logic suffers from associative properties like all objects of the mind (yay transcendentalism).

But - I like what these other fine anon's have suggested. Some Wittgenstein. Still - beyond just "reading more of what others have said."

Why not take it upon yourself to ascertain your own emotional and mental requirements of "certainty." I would warn you against sleeping with her for she is a fickle mistress and will always abandon you.

>>8934205
I will keep that in mind. The Gift of Death sounds particularly interesting now that you mention it.

>>8934113

I apologise. I actually haven't read any Kierkegaard, his Christianity always put me off. Now, however, I find myself being pulled towards at least some form of religion I'd like to see firsthand what he has to say. What would be the best book to start on?

>>8934114

Yeah but I'm saying life and suicide _aren't_ absurd. They're not meaningful either. They're merely not subject to that dichotomy. It's always puzzled me that absurdists and nihilists think that life is absurd or meaningless. By admitting its absurd you're suggesting it could be meaningful. And by making that suggestion they're at least _implying_ that they know what a meaningful life would be like - begging the question of how they came to this knowledge.

Life can feel like either. It is what we make it. By working and playing we're automatically manufacturing meaning. And so you're not merely 'occupying' your hands. It's not like you' have to distract yourself from the horror of an absurd and meaningless existence. Its everything you do which is itself creating this absurdity. Everything you do, in that sense, is of cosmic importance.

This is a rather interesting discussion.

>>8934252
Heh. My only regret is the continuing trend towards the cerebral rather than the emotional.

As it's a strength of r9k's thinkers, it tends to be where most of the action is.

However, I think much of r9k's deeper issues are not so limited to the left brain.

>>8934208
Well, it was an interesting thread. I understand everyone is just being earnest and doing what they think is right, so I'm thankful for the effort.

>>8934243
I think that's the ultimate position of Camus, even though he is called an absurdist. To me, the absurd reflects the failure of our mistaken quest for meaning, and not any inherent "lack" of meaning in a universe that never had any and never could have any. It's the disparity - that feeling of longing for "shoulds" and "oughts", and teaching yourself to just "be".

>>8934243
Wait, I dont mean to interrupt. But how is it that K's view of Christianity has put you off if you've never read him?

This is to say - how do you know what his view is?

>>8934276
Have you read much on Buddhism?

It occurs to me we've been ignoring the obvious for a while.

>>8934243
>What would be the best book to start on?

Oh lawd. Depends on how much time you want to invest. Kierkegaard actually wrote a bunch of pseudonymous works functioning by representing the progress of varying fictional personas (from the inside) towards the religious which can, itself, never be directly expressed except through the individuals appropriation of it in actual existence and thus could not be appropriately ever present in said writing. If you want only one of these, I'd go with Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments.

Kierkegaard also has some excellent 'direct' sermons and writings. Works of Love is probably his best out of these.

>>8934285

I've read about him and his ideas in the context of other existentialists. His Christianity itself has put me off. Pretty fallacious of me, I know. His actual approach to it, though, is probably the only one I could really sympathise with.

>>8934312
Heh. Of contradictions that dont contradict - he is a master.

Try Either/Or - for those who loves them some absolute logic, this is a great intro book and will get you acclimated to him. It's not particularly Christianity centric.

Plus his "Diary of a Seducer" basically inspired all Vampire and Don Juan stories thereafter.

Lol, K would laugh at the PUA texts and demand royalties.

>>8934304
The Present Age is probably the best direct text for the non-religious individual.

Did you guys go horribly off topic or does this discussion have to do with life, suffering, and existence?
I want to know before I read.

>>8934343
Indirectly, it does.

>>8934343
Eh, not really - more like tangential.

>>8934276

I don't like Camus because he's too goddamn depressing. He imagines life is some constant struggle to roll a stone up a mountain which is inevitably going to roll down again. He's invested in his view that life is somehow miserable and depressing, and I don't like that. I believe life can be utterly beautiful and good or entirely abysmal and depressing, and anything in between. That's why I prefer Mishima.

>To me, the absurd reflects the failure of our mistaken quest for meaning, and not any inherent "lack" of meaning in a universe that never had any and never could have any.

I see what you're saying and too a large extent I agree. This is where I'd draw the line:
You phrase it like the universe has no meaning, but we expect it, and that's where that sense of 'lack' comes from.
I'd phrase it like the categories of more or less meaning simply do not apply to the universe to begin with. Say I'm willing to kill myself for the sake of love, or God, or my government - there, in its fulness, is meaning. If you do not experience this desire, you do not have it. If you do, you have it. But it's got nothing to do with the universe.

>>8934398
Remember, as Camus says, we must imagine Sisyphus as happy. His mind is lost in contemplation of his task - he loves the stone, he loves the mountain, and he loves himself.

The truly absurd man would be content with idleness as well as all-absorbing activity. He faces the absurd head-on and accepts its conclusions.

>>8934445
> we must imagine Sisyphus as happy. His mind is lost in contemplation of his task - he loves the stone, he loves the mountain, and he loves himself.

Love is a chemical reaction that is not controllable, is logically arbitrary etc... etc...

>>8934463
Yes, exactly. He cannot control himself.

Man as he is can never become a true nihilist, and if he did he would go silently into death.

Sisyphus loves what he does and what he sees, because that's all life is.

>>8934480
Yeah, I dont see Sisyphus as broken, and this is where I depart from Camus.

>>8934482
I also see myself as sleepy and this is where I depart from the thread.

Goodnight fireflies in the void.

>>8934482
We are Sisyphus. If Sisyphus' punishment is Hell, then this is Hell - a world devoid of meaning, whose tasks can only be sispyhean.

But Sisyphus is happy and we should be too.

Goodbye, long-ass thread!

hjmmmmm I understand where OP is coming from here.

>>8934542

Fuck up Curtis.