/lit/ - Literature

>>15335969
Such as the desire to deconstruct for deconstruction's sake. Humans will construct a truth simply because we need a truth to live by. We'll have the metaknowledge that truth is unknowable currently but also that we should fight on anyways.

>>15335958
Feel free to give up. I'm willing to fight on.

>>15146090
Sarcasm is hard to detect through text. I stand by what I said about antinatalists though

>>14695010
I am actually both >>14694949 and >>14694900.
Deducing initial cause is just a deduction based off of cause and effect. The universe exists, so it must have had a cause (whether this is a big bang or living agent is another matter).

It is best to start with the most central neutral start point for everything. We both agree that we are living, and I'm assuming be both agree that suffering is both real and unwanted for both of us. From this we can go down a long list of reasons why life guarantees this suffering through things as vast and undeniable as entropy, or as trivial and situational as boredom.

Since this suffering is guaranteed for all beings, the question becomes one of creation. If we know these things are gauranteed then why do we create more beings? The answer is that it lessens the suffering of the creator; I.E. parents find enjoyment and purpose through their children, so despite knowing they will endure the same suffering they endured in their life, they do it anyways. This is both a problem because it creates more suffering, but also because a person cannot gain consent from the uncreated child. However this plays well into why this universe exists from a religious perspective. In my view the idea of a secular creation to the universe does not make sense, considering that nothingness is the most stable state of being (objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest). So if nothingness existed prior to the universe, there was nothing to disturb this state, therefore there must have been something to disturb it.


I suppose I'm getting off track with this post so I will give you the basic premise of my religion;

There are only two types of entities/people/groups/organizations/etc

Those who see suffering as necessary and justified, and those who see suffering as unnecessary and unjustified.

Further since the idea of suffering can be ascertained through neutrality (if you simply stop consuming/achieving and instead lay in a bed without excreting, drinking, eating, entertaining yourself, you will suffer pain, this is the natural state of existing) and this suffering is generally gauranteed, creators commit the ultimate sin by perpetuating this existence for their own benefit. If the dimensions/worlds/realms/beings beyond our comprehension share in our perspective/reality in any significant way whatsoever, then they also mimic these tendencies and desires, for if they did not have these tendencies and desires, then this universe would not exist. Therefore we are created to suffer for the benefit of a being we cannot comprehend.

My goal is to comprehend this being to my greatest possible ability, and if I cannot or will not do so, then to challenge it, to call forth its nature.

>>14679928
>>14680387
>>14683326