/lit/ - Literature

>>14124948
Counterpoint: Everything works. We're not doomed. The world will continue ticking, melodrama about the death of society is made in fear of change.

You only think "this time for real" because it's what is familiar and most immediate to you. 40 years ago the world was afraid of the cold war going nuclear. What are you afraid of? Transexuals? People being depressed? Global warming? Islam? Archons? Demons? You're falling for the same sensationalized bullshit that every single generation has fallen for. And every single generation has always been shown that their collective fears are never what does humanity in.

You were never guaranteed invulnerability, you were never guaranteed happiness. People dying for stupid, preventable reasons isn't bad. Life without tragedy is not life at all. You were given an existence, and if it ends with you drowning in an inch of water while you're being raped, oh well. Sometimes that's just the lot you get in life. It's the cosmic humor. Don't want to play? Then kill yourself, God understands.

>>14035111
>with that X emerging from something else...inherently self-contradictory and illogical.
>X cannot really 'emerge from something else' either as this creates an infinite regress that only can be begun or initiated by that X emerging from some base X existing eternally
This is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to even begin.

Talking about platonic concepts as positive things that exhibit properties of existence is an abuse of language. It's no wonder you're so against formal grammars, because you can't try to smuggle violations of basic dialectical rules when there are rigid standards. Existential seperation in totality makes tense and other contextual modifiers completely meaningless. Abstracts are not tied to time and space like material things. Only in the absolute purest idealistic arguments can you begin to say otherwise, and the inevitability of these arguments are always full of the exact same unsubstantiated ontological exceptions that end up being entirely the same in a technical sense, only bearing difference in a useless figurative sense.

X exists as a label under conventionalist thought. This is substantiated in that an entity of X that arises out of the interaction of Y and Z can be atomized into that interaction as long as knowledge of this observation has been preserved. However the conventionalist label allows for higher higher information entropy in communication. In a practical example, the element of helium which is composed of two hadrons, one positive, one neutral. The nucleus of this atom is bound by nuclear force. This phenomenon is fundamentally incapable of being explained from a perspective that only considers hadrons (in our practical example, these are X.) However, when the perspective is atomized to the level of elementary particles, the nuclear force is now perfectly explained as the interactions of quarks and gluons and antiquarks shift color charges around.

The pattern of hadrons existing is materially real. The pattern of helium existing is materially real. Both of these are results of the same force and properties of their most elementary components, producing different patterns at different scales. The second pattern's existence is reliant on using the same cause of the first pattern on two discrete instances of the first pattern, it's a function of a procedural system that has observable rules. "Emergence doesn't exist" is absolutely galaxybrain bullshit that you've derived from throwing out the observed rules for the patterns they create. The only possible environment in which this perspective of yours even remotely approaches "sense" is one without change, where all things are static, where there are no actions driving a time arrow forward. The argument you're trying to make is the most brainlet attempt at idealistic thinking I have ever seen in my entire life.