/lit/ - Literature

>largely incoherent and nonsensical rant about "the real you" and "the universe"
>link to an alan watts video
kek'd

>>10408535

Thanks for this post anon. It's really great to read this when on my own individual way I've come to recognize so much of the same.

When your body came into existence, it had no name. The name you were bestowed by your parents who becomes "you" (your identity) only when the consciousness continually recognizes this, and as you grow under the illusion of the young egoistic self, all the memories and feelings experienced through the human perception feeds perpetually into the heaviness of duality, especially concerning life and death once the attachments of the mind become so deep with the body and existence itself in the singular sense.

It's all a big drama, a dream, and you don't exist. Negation is positivity.

I love watts, and I love you anon.

>>10408535
>Your entire existence is going to be exintguished and everything you ever worked for, experienced and know vanished in a flash
>OH BUT AT LEAST I WONT HAVE TO SIT AROUND SOMEWHERE WHEN IT HAPPENS

Fuck off reddit, Death is horrifying

>>10408553
>hurrr duurrr

>>10408567
Watts is a meme, he's not even entry level he's Bill Nye tier. After you read enough Philosophy you realize how feeble and empty his arguments are. Comfortable for your redditor who just wants a nice sounding babble so he can go back to being a good wagecuck but ultimately rested on nothing but flimsy platitudes

>>10408563
>Death is horrifying

How the fuck do you know? Have you died before?

Check mate faggot.

Really tho anon, non-existence was never an inconvenience before you born, what's the difference after? Life and death are the eternal constructs of the self-aware individual. Everything will cease to exist at some point in the universe. Embrace the freedom of emptiness.

Pretty dumb post for such a basic conclusion.

My fear is that from the time you comprehend death and the inevitability of your own death, your brain works hard - subconsciously - not only to maintain your will to live but also to manufacture a means by which your consciousness can lost forever, or at least for as long possible. As a result, so my particular fear goes, the occasion of your death, while seemingly very quick in the eyes of those around you, actually takes place over decades if not centuries in your mind, as your brain clings to consciousness and alters your perception of time to accommodate its desire to remain alive as long as possible. My evidence that this is possible is the fact that it is possible to nap for 5 minutes yet experience a dream which you are certain, upon waking, lasted at least several hours.

>>10408535
But OP I'm worried about how I'll pay my bills if I don't get through Med school. Should I just embrace that we are all everything and in fact I am the bacteria that are killing my patients. Good philosophy.

>>10408572
You fucking retard
ITS HORRIFYING FOR ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MY LIFE AS IS

Thats the problem with death it not only marks a point of annihilation it burns back through time, it annihilates everything you have went through, are going through and ever will go through all in the knowledge that when the end comes it makes absolutely no difference if you live a good life, a bad life, if you work hard or do nothing. Whoever you make yourself into is gone. Whoever knew you is gone. Everything you could love or be attached to is gone.
For fucks sake just think about it, why else would you be afraid of death to begin with? It has absolutely positively 100% fuck all to do with this imaginary waiting room and its all to do with the pure weight of eternity pressing itself on top of you right now.

>>10408535
Alan watts is babies first existential crisis tier, comeback when you are ready for real philosophy

>>10408591
>He thinks any of that mattered to begin with
Welcome to the waiting room

>>10408613
Precisely, the mere knowledge of death is retroactive annihilation. We are the living - dead

I tasted my cum once

>>10408535
>As humans, we are illusioned into thinking that anything outside the body is something we are not. This is not true. Just because you can't experience it, it doesn't mean you are not apart of it.
this is what puttujana believe

>>10408631
Its fucking dumb though since identity can only be constituted through a subjective perspective itself. Otherwise it is utterly meaningless

>>10408607
Your post reeks of idiocy glazed in a false pretence of superior knowledge. I enjoy for different reasons both Alan Watts and "real philosophers", whatever that fucking means lol.

>>10408651
>I enjoy

reddit
Go on then, tell us who these real philosophers you "enjoy" are

>>10408662
Not in any order:
Takuan Soho, Nargajuna, Sun Tzu, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Thomas Aquinas, Nietzche, Augustine of Hippo, Confucius, and dare I say it, Alan Watts. And many more.

>>10408631
this is what anyone who has taken a psychedelic knows through direct experience

>>10408693
Absolutely nothing demanding rigorous thought. Just as I figured you effeminate child

>>10408710
The last pill is the Acidpill. LSD is a very profound experience, and arguably the safest illicit drug. Can't wait to drop legalised LSD(tm) with my grown-up grandson outside my cyberporch in 2070

LSD deserves its own thread desu

>>10408710
>knows

>>10408651
Alan watts just simplifies eastern thought. I never claimed to be superior, and the philosophers you named only prove my point.

>>10408737
should be below the waist

>>10408732
Are you fucking retarded? Such a shame I didn't get your McFaggot literary seal of approval(TM).
Aren't you the same sperg who said earlier that the experience of death is spooky?
I can handle pretence, I can handle edge, but edgy pretence is truly a pain in the neck.
I bet you read some extremely obscure french homosexual pseud and think yourself a smarty for it.

>>10408535
Are you high? Not trying to be too provocative.

>As humans, we are illusioned into thinking that anything outside the body is something we are not. This is not true. Just because you can't experience it, it doesn't mean you are not apart of it.

This is true. We are the observing agents of the universe. The conscious parts of it. But how is that relevant to my interest in continued sentience?
Your arguments remind me of myself at different points in time. After I stopped believing in God, I adopted views on death similar to yours. Epicurus' "When I am death is not. When death is i am not." had a certain dogmatic and effective persuasiveness. Or ye olde "We are the stuff stars are made off."

All these thoughts and arguments lost their appeal. Death is scary. One day you will not wake up, but reality wants you to act as if this won't happen.
I once read an interview of Marcel Reich-Ranicki, German-polish literature critic and author which left quite the impression on me. He was 92. In it he said that he feared the certainty of not being able to read the newspapers of the next day anymore. Not knowing how it all continues. He's dead now.

How can't everyone see the terror even in the most banal things? How boring do you have to be, what a victim of slave morality one must be to ever be content, to 'have enough'. Ridiculous. Every argument normalizing death, every religion, every soothing word and every ever-so-slight euphemism of it is the symptom of Stockholm syndrome.
What would you do if death was optional?

>>10408756
I don't know who the fuck you're referring to but I recommend starting with the Greeks

>>10408740
I could name the most obscure, most impoverished, most struggling philosophers and it still wouldn't satisfy your expectations, simply because it isn't the philosopher YOU enjoy, so there's no winning you there.

But yes, I do agree Alan Watts is good at simplifying eastern thought for a western audience. He is a "feel-good" philosopher, and I myself like him just for that. I don't go looking for the ultimate answers from his work. However, I don't care if people enjoy him a lot because Alan Watts isn't really incorrect in what he says and I'm not some pretentious faggot.
Why do you think this is some sort of competition?

>>10408776
I never said it was, the philosophers you named just discuss basic ideas, or to me they do at least. Like I said before I'm not saying I'm superior so I don't know why you keep assuming I think that. If you enjoy them I'm not stopping you just saying there are better philosophers that discuss more profound ideas. Noone here will take watts posting seriously for a reason.

>>10408776
>so there's no winning you there

Well yeah when you obviously haven't read them. You'd just embarrass yourself more by naming who you think are impressive thinkers

>>10408807
Not the other guy. Can you post some good philosophers?

>>10408776
>enjoy

There's that word again. Only pseuds "enjoy" philosophers, serious people are concerned with which are useful and correct which is not a concern for the pseud

>>10408824
Plato, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein

>>10408824
Shopenhaur, Stirnir, Wittenstein, Marx, Zizek, Kant, hegel
If you aren't into politics than ignore Zizek, but Marx is still good for challenging views even if you aren't

>>10408807
I never said any of the philosophers I mentioned were "profound" and "complex" thinkers, especially not Alan Watts. I can name other philosophers that discuss more intricate ideas. That doesn't make Alan Watts' or any of the other mentioned philosophers' thoughts and ideas less valid, however. I don't get why you think some thinkers and authors are invalid because they're easier to understand.

>>10408838
>Naming Big Z
The balls on this guy

>>10408838
Who's Stirnir? Sounds like a Pokemon.

>>10408841
I never said they were invalid, I said babies first existential crisis tier.

>>10408850

>>10408854
Depends on what and how you're reading from him really. If you watch some feel-good youtube video with inspirational music in the background then yes it is pretty basic and unnuanced. If you actually read at least one of his books and come to some brief conclusion on it then it's not baby-existential-crisis.

The same goes for all thinkers and authors. Just because normies like them and think they know their ideas from a youtube video, it doesn't make the philosopher bad. It's about how well you understand it.

>>10408535
stupid

>>10408807
There are people making threads dedicated to Jordan fucking Peterson on /lit/ and you think Alan Watts is too "basic" for this board, lol.
There is no correct philosopher, it doesn't exist. You make it seem like the more intricate and obscure a philosopher is, the more correct they are. If Alan Watts clicks with some people then that's great, who cares if they're normies or /lit/ browsers, get over it.

>>10408929
>there's people shitting in the other corner so why can't I shit here

>>10408919

>>10408850
Max Stirner

He wrote The Ego and Its Own, he’s the guy Nietzsche secretly read and then didn’t talk about. Marx had a conniption fit over him absolutely BTFO’ing Fuerbach and other faggots so he wrote screed trying to bury Stirner. Peter Sloterdijk thinks Marx became a cyncial authoritarian mind that day and that this was the revealing of Marxism’s true nature

>>10408933
My point still stands. Peterson may be shit to you, he may be of no use to me, but he clicks with certain people that aren't you nor me. So get over it.

>>10408571
you’ve never read any Zen or Vedanta, please shut up when you have. Watts broke through multiple koans, you haven’t. You should be beaten 100 times over the head with a bamboo rod for insulting someone who understands Zen
>>10408607
you’ve broken through zero zen koans you faggot
>>10408934
you’re stupid and this OP is stupid

>>10408951
Zen can suck my dick. Like I'll read some effeminate mysticism written by little yellow men

>>10408951
>shut up when you have
Ok but until then I'm gonna keep calling you a faggot

This entire thread reeks of Reddit, I have nothing against watts but this is just a watts dick sucking competition. I see none discussing any of his ideas

>>10408972
Its hard to discuss something which has no substance

>>10408977
It's what I keep trying to say but OP is retarded
>But I like watts so what if you don't
Is apparently a valid argument now.

>>10408989
Strawman

>>10408972
It was a discussion of his ideas on the consequences of death until a bunch of sperglords got asshurt over the fact that the idea came from Alan Watts which apparently isn't as intricate, complex and profound as elite god-tier philosophers like Jordan Peterson or whoever else they jerk over

>>10409014
>If Alan Watts clicks with some people then that's great, who cares if they're normies or /lit/ browsers, get over it.

Here is a more direct quote for your liking,
>>10409027
Why not discuss eastern philosophy as a whole? Why do you choose watts? why do you bring up Peterson like he is somehow relevant to any of this?

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

>>10409040
I'm not OP, so don't ask why I chose Alan Watts because it wasn't me who chose him. I wouldn't have chosen him anyway but OP does make a compelling thought even if it was phrased poorly, and the opinions he/she made are reminiscent of hindu/oriental yogas and practices.