/lit/ - Literature

>>22041303
>It proves nothing
Actually t's the reverse, it renders all prior proofs insubstantial. We simply do not know how the universe works. You could argue it is the difference between atheism and agnosticism, saying you don't know is intellectual much more responsible than suggesting you've proven a negative and making outright assumptions.

>>16935956
Life is true, do what you find meaningful.

>>15542658
philosophy is the spring from which all other academic studies originate. it's the creator study. it's not as useful if you're looking to make airplanes, but it's useful for self-knowledge, communicating, peace of mind, being critical, analytical, skeptical, innovative, etc. which are still valuable in their own ways. only NPCs think otherwise

make your future self proud

>>14452766

this is called learned helplessness OP. you very much can change the fact that you are a flake, and turn into a productive person. there are many ways towards self improvement but the only right way is to figure it out on your own. im in my twenties doing it right now, im experiencing tremendous amounts of growth as when i realized how dumb and needy of instant gratificiation i was i was pretty much bottm of the barrel. working on overriding DMN, inhabiting space between stimuli and reaction(meditation) pomodoro technique works well to kickstart a working session. read mihaly work on flow, and understand what variables need to be corrected in order to reach flow state. also eat healthy and exercise cause its good for you. sorry youre having a tough time but you are never locked by your biology, one can argue about exactly where the line is placed between the gradient of nature vs nurture but one thing that scientists and all of us intuitively know is that its not just one but both

i never post and i cant be bothered to proofread so no brainlet posts

pic related

I don't give a fuck if Mickey is a faggot for going off topic or whatever, Donald was being a bitch and needed to be told, no matter the cost.

>>11914097

>>11495433

>>11474769

>>11342053
>I love my grandma, I guess. Not sure, honestly. Does that make me sound edgy?
yes
>I know we're supposed to love our family but my grandma is so stupid.
I wouldn't say stupidity is a valid reason to not love someone, it's a good reason to be annoyed by them but not something as big as that
if you really don't love her then I don't think you ever did
>all these details
she sounds like someone who is full of worry and insecurity and doesn't know what to do with it, hoarding in particular can be a sign of an anxiety disorder
>Do I love my mom? I care about her and do things for her and want her to be happy and that, but is it love? It's all just chemicals and that, right?
pic related
>>11342373
honestly she fits the stereotype of an aging baby boomer, enough that I'm skeptical this is real
she may be mentally ill, but it's important to remember that mental illness is an illness
it's not something a person can choose and rarely something they want, it's a hiccup in normal functioning that it's really hard for someone to work around or get over

>>10658910
>You can contemplate an extra-sensory world all you like, but miraculously, everyone is a materialist when you have to survive in the here and now by consuming commodities and using your labour-power.
Except any action of any kind taken by individuals relies on the assumption of something extrasensorial. You can go back and forth checking your instruments to tell me I'm wrong, but you don't know if I'm still going to be there when you come back.

>>10040710
The logical system that is working in your brain is not a flawless machine, so you only have the assurance that something is correct insofar as your brain can tell it's correct. You've rejected the mind-body problem, so the only thing you can rely on is empirical evidence. Your brain functions according to the rules of the universe, which you are unable to empirically say that are forever unchanging or even completely logical.

If empirical evidence can't provide proof, relying on your brain in declaring proof is idiotic. Especially when you can't discern truth from the statement that you quoted, it was abbreviated if you still fail to understand.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1kX4Be4Lo6q

>>9965939
>Optimism is Cowardice
How does fixating on the obvious equate to bravery?

Aristotle to Aquinas, just like Plato to Agostinho, right?

But do I need theological background?

>I understand that god doesn't want to intervene because free will and all that but that only accounts for humans being scummy to each other. Why do natural disasters constantly fuck with people's livelihood ( Mostly the more religious countries and regions I might add) and how is that necessary?
What makes you think this world is not your responsibility as well? Why should God intervene with all of nature but not humans in particular; isn't it you that's being anthropocentric now?

>Hell, sometimes I feel like I could run this shit better than god.
You can't even figure out this shit for yourself, and you think you can run the goddamn universe? "Think again, sunshine."

>That would be the fucking checkmate atheists right?
No, it wouldn't be. Religion's not there to make your life easier, it's there so that you can be more than your circumstances. Which is why those poor suffering people find solace in it!

>Never been much of a believer but I do appreciate the way Christianity spread its values throughout Europe and with the way western civilization is collapsing at the moment.
See?!

>It's just seems so silly
How's it sillier than a bunch of tiny and giant balls spinning in the middle of nowhere for no reason? Why does it matter so much that it's silly to you? Who's going to laugh at you? Yourself?

>natural
>self
And why is it that the Japanese just can't seem to get over the spook of society? Was Ishinomori really the only one that saw through the bullshit? There's always this underlying violence in how they go about things, like they're certain they'll be given the death penalty for not wearing a tie to work.

>>9214455
I feel this ultimately comes down to semantics. People fundamentally regard that as more real which pervades and exists for longer. What lasts longest? Nothing.

Everything which exists decays.
Everything which decays transmutes into something else.
Therefore existence is fleeting, like sand through fingers.
No thing lasts forever, however Nothing lasts forever.
Nonexistence abides. Existence fades.

Therefore cultures differ on whether they regard "nonexistence" as more or less real than "existence."

It's a tricky puzzle if you are able to disassociate "realness" from "existence" as you have been trained to and instead associate it with "staying power" the way eastern cultures do.

Paradoxically, nothing lasts forever.
Every culture has a variation on the realization "nothing lasts forever."

How they syntactically decode that statement in their mind is what varies.

Some cultures regard "nothing" as a thing unto itself. After all, this is how it is able to be treated as the subject of a sentence.

However, others would argue that nothing can ever be a subject unto itself, only the idea of it.

It's tricky.

Yeah, its called post-modernism and it was an entire dumb movement. I'm surprised you've never heard of it.

>>8986159
This, p much. I'm a singing monkey, who gives a shit what mute rocks say if it's not relevant to me in any way? "Objectivity" is nothing but a supposedly third party proof of some reality on which me and the other guy are obligated to agree on; it's ridiculous from the get go because all data we can ever get is defined by our particular conditions; as such the other guy is only bringing it up because it serves his own purposes, and, as he's not saying anything about either work, or what art is, or subjectivity, hell the brute isn't even trying to hide his intention through a web of argument... he can go fuck himself.

Shallow words deserve direct answers.

>>8909871