/lit/ - Literature

>he believes in time

>>11444289
Completely

>>11444289
Not if you want a coherent worldiew

Are God, awareness and the soul a waste of time?

>>11444289
What even is Metaphysics anymore?

How do you know metaphysics are a waste of time if you don't use metaphysics to find out?

>>11444305
Yes

How many threads like this do we need?

>>11444305
All of them except awareness are bullshit

>>11444824
>>11444856
If God and the soul are null then having awareness is pointless.

>>11444289
Without it your "spirit" will take on the appearance of a mound of dung

>>11444865
I'm spiritual and it's statements like this that make us seem stupid. Figure out what you are talking about before you start saying things.

>>11444289
I love how you capitalise Waste and Time, as if they’re metaphysical concepts.

>>11444876
Explain why you think I'm wrong and I'll make a rebuttal.

Posting on 4chan is a waste of time. Watching films is a waste of time. Doing anything other than gathering food and keeping your shelter from falling down is a waste of time.

>>11444882
Because pointless is a value judgement. And your statement was absolute.

>>11444865
This is peak brainlet right here

>>11444901
Alright, I'll try to be more clear.
Without God and soul, the universe is destined to die.
Even if one is to give themselves a purpose, perhaps in a philosophically existential manner, their life was not intended for anything, was ultimately meaningless and every action they took was futile.

>>11444931
1. Sometime ending does not make it meaningless
2. There is a lot of indication that everything is cyclical

>>11444888
What about smashing boipucci?

>>11444931
Why does everything have to have meaning? We're just animals just like all those around us, except we have evolved further to be aware of such concepts like awareness and metaphysics. It's interesting to think about our limitations and discuss things such as epistemology, but God and soul are just ridiculous inventions. Do animals have souls and a God? Do their actions have meaning?

>>11445130
Anything is a waste of time. So you can do whatever you really want to do as long as you can fulfill your basic needs and still have spare time left. Study metaphysics, fuck boipussi, listen to vaporwave music.
But is it morally correct? That depends upon how we set the standard for morality. This debate is best left for a different discussion.

Before Kant it was.

>>11444876
>I'm spiritual
What did he mean by this?

No way. Even if you think metaphysical propositions and theories are meaningless, metaphysical questions are relevant to our lives. For instance, some people say that they don't care whether or not free will is true, because they would live the exact same way anyway. But that's not really true. If someone was a hard determinist were consistent with themselves, they would never carp at vice and people with vices, because nobody would be an ethical agent, so they would never call anyone a bad person. It would change their behavior if they were consistent with themselves, and if they weren't consistent with themselves it would create an undesirable and uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance. So if metaphysical questions are meaningless, you have to understand how they're meaningless, which means becoming acquainted with the questions and arguments themselves. So if only to critique metaphysics you have to study it, because the questions are relevant to life, and a person who ignores them is deceiving themselves.

Spinoza’s metaphysics are good. Everything else is mad gay

>>11444882
We can accept that we live in a meaningless universe (as far as we know) and yet still choose to build ideals of ethics and philosophy that keep us going instead of devolving us in to nothing. Thats all christianity is but we can do better this time around. Maybe something more honest to reality.

>>11444292
FPBP

>>11444931
What does that have to do with awareness?

>>11444289
daily reminder the only good thing kant did was rehash the bible and wonder about the stars and transcendentalism or some shit. aurelius was right, metaphysics is a meme.

>>11444289
It's the only thing that's worth your time

>be dumb mammalian creature whose primary motivations, once you put the intellectual pretense away, are just fucking and sucking your way through life trying to get the best feels possible, and metaphysics enhances this because you are a peepee monster
>you will die, but hey at least you came 0.1% closer to knowing things than you did before

if you were permanently disfigured and disabled in a fire today, you might consider suicide. if the study of metaphysics was deleted today by a powerful angel who came down to earth to fuck shit up, you'd probably just be really mad. so the answer is clear, or the question: what is the best end to my desired peepee?

>>11446859
jesus christ materialism was a fucking mistake

>>11444931
I think you mean, without God, everything would be essentially meaningless? Nothing would have lasting relevence?

>>11446767
Don’t we live in a society?

>>11446826
this

>>11444931
>Without God and soul, the universe is destined to die.
Why?

>>11444305
>>11444305
Yes and no. I'm practically an atheist but I have learned so much about myself and life by reading the parables of Jesus, in particular the parable of the prodigal son. I also learn a lot from kierkegaard and tolstoy. I read religious texts as if I'm reading Confucius or Zhuangzi, we have no idea if they existed (its often suggested that Chinese 'philosophers' were actually teams of writers, possibly similar to Matthew Mark Luke and John) but they are different perspectives on life. I rarely find contemporary authors to have deeper insight than the ancients, it's the same shit with different words.

Whatever makes sense to you will help you.

You can't avoid metaphysics. You can only avoid doing it well.

>>11444289
Yes

>>11446743
Based. Also consider Ecclesiastes

>>11447163
Exactly, it's always implicit in any claim on any level. Even naturalism nd materialism has metaphysical baggage.

You guys honestly think if majority of the third world was atheist there wouldnt be even more violence and chaos?

Atheism only works in rich societies.

>>11446743
>jewish materialism is good

No.

I don't care what you call it, it's materialism, God is substance and not personality for Spinoza

>>11444931
Without god the universe is destined to repeat itself just to see me post on 4chan

Nietzsche ended metaphysics. Heidegger simply misread him and preserved its corpse.

>>11447273
>Spinoza was le jew!!!
If that’s the case why is the Ethics still considered heretical? Spinoza’s philosophy is less Jewish than most, fucking brainlet.

>>11447523
nope, it's as jewish as you get, the reduction of God to the objectivity of substance, typical jewish mind attributing spirit to our misrecognition of the causal machinery of nature, gayyyyyyyyyyyyy

>>11447267

I think there's gonna be violence and chaos either way because religions don't sufficiently disincentive it. Shit, you can have fucking Buddhists genociding Muslims if the pressures are right, even though Buddhist thought has so much less to justify that with than the Quran.

Religious apologists always try to make this argument that we should trade just a little bit of skepticism and rationality for the peace that religion's "objective" morality can create, except that it doesn't reliably create it. That's not a Faustian bargain, that's just fraud.

>>11447529
>causal machinery of nature
Maybe you should actually learn what you’re talking about or more precisely, read the propositions where Spinoza discusses that god is not the cause of finite modes of extension and that every body must be caused to motion by another. But of course since you don’t understand actual jewish doctrine or how Spinoza stands apart from it I doubt you’ve even glanced at the Ethics you fucking supreme retard.

>>11444289
Unironically less a waste of time than anything else you could possibly do. Is finding a way out of a maze a waste of time for a rat?

>>11444289
In philosophy, yes. In fiction, no.

>>11447536
>Religious apologists always try to make this argument that we should trade just a little bit of skepticism and rationality for the peace that religion's "objective" morality can create

Who would say that?

>>11447550
Who says you're in a maze? How do you know when you get out?

>>11447538
why would you assume individual freedom being subsumed by and ultimately reducible to the immanent determinism of substance as anything other than consciousness being the misrecognition of "causal machinery of nature" just described with different lingo? lol

>>11447610
>not understanding the difference between natura naturans and natura naturata
once again, what you're saying is what spinoza says anyways, you just don't realize it.

>>11447584

Anybody who ever implies that the acceptance of religion, which is a trade of that sort, will provide peace and strong ethics to whoever accepts it? Like someone who defends religion by implying the atheist version of a violent country would be even more violent than the current one;
>>11447267

>>11447595
it's self evident. and we won't get out, trying just seems like the right thing to do though. It's like if there was a bomb in a room with one minute left, with no hope to defuse, but Macgyver didn't at least try to fidget around with a paperclip. just proper decorum m8

>>11447536
If you think that religion involves any trade off in rationality you are fundamentally misunderstanding what religion is. Religion is to your life narrative what materialist rationality is to matter. They are completely orthogonal.

>>11447683
Somebody taking the position that atheist societies would be worse than religious ones are not saying that's a reason to believe a particular religion is true. Religions are true or false regardless of its effect on society. You said there were religious apologists saying that we should "turn off our brains" on the question of religion because it makes society better. Who are they? If you were just talking shit then don't bother.

>>11444305
>>11444289
yes spending energy on clinging to fantasies is bad

>>11447732
>things I can't touch, see, smell, hear or taste aren't real. nothing exists outside of sensual experience that can be confirmed between multiple people
do people like this ever realize how fucking retarded they are or is there some threshold for awareness where they can't realize that they're living in a collective delusion?

>Nietzsche ended metaphysics

>>11447354
>>11447749

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-maJpKBDVw

It really is. Studying metaphysics in a materialistic world is to be a professional retarded.

>>11447854
On the contrary, it makes you a professional human

I don't think it is, but it also depends in your perception on it, I see as a field that overlaps and expands our ideas about the world, I enjoy metaphysical interpretation even if I don't always agree with them, because they are just interpretations, the problem is when people over romanticize metaphysics, they get so blinded by the cloud of the ideal thats the non-physical to them, the human and the material is the devil to them and I think there is something toxic about thinking that only whats outside of us is divine, but don't really listen to me, am rambling about my personal context on it.

>>11444289
It helps to get concepts and history better but I don't think I ever got anything from just discussing metaphysics as is

>>11444289
Life is pointless, without purpose, meaning, and reason. There is absolutely no reason to live life. Your life will end and you will stop existing. Making up a reason for you to live is like making up a reason why a computer or rock should live. From a physical standpoint, you are no different than a rock. What you think is entirely based on the arrangement of molecules in your head. If you get Alzheimer's, you will forget things. There is nothing special about you or your mind. You will stop existing one day and you will never think, see, touch, taste, smell, or hear anything else ever again. It will be as if the big bang or this universe never occurred from your point of view.

To create your own meaning is to side with creative ignorance. All you know is nothing more than a fabrication.

>>11444865
>religious people are just nihilists with a rulebook

>>11448072
t. insect person

>>11448093
Life is pointless, without purpose, meaning, n' reason. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. There is straight-up no reason ta live game. Yo crazy-ass game will end n' yo big-ass booty is ghon stop existing. Makin up a reason fo' you ta live is like makin up a reason why a cold-ass lil computer or rock should live. From a physical standpoint, yo ass is no different than a rock. What you be thinkin is entirely based on tha arrangement of moleculez up in yo' head. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! If you git Alzheimer's, yo big-ass booty is ghon forget thangs. There is not a god damn thang special bout you or yo' mind. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! Yo ass will stop existin one dizzle n' you aint NEVER gonna think, see, touch, taste, smell, or hear anythang else eva again. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Well shiiiit, it is ghon be as if tha big-ass bang or dis universe never occurred from yo' point of view.

To create yo' own meanin is ta side wit creatizzle ignorizzle fo' realz. All you know is not a god damn thang mo' than a gangbangin' fabrication.

>>11444888
Nice nazi trips

Claims against metaphysics are still metaphysics. You need to have an excellent grasp on the field to be properly skeptic

>>11448148
Thank u ! Appreciate the translation for a neighborhood nigga like me

>>11444289
Never heard a good refutation of metaphysics. Positivists say that it revolves around abstract objects and ontological entities, psychological statements etc. That it's prior because it's prior, relying on indubitable insight into the nature of things, that this nature of things is basically imaginative, that this is fallacious in itself.
Kantians are saying bullshit about there existing a noumenal world and that even if you accept abstract terms and predicates the mode of logic used in metaphysics only conforms to the phenomenal world and hence its conclusions about things beyond phenomena are unfounded.

In the first case, the positivist argument, I think it's retarded. It fails to take into account the human element in truth and in addition to defining a heuristic for truth-seeking it defines the nature of truth in general restricting it to a particular category of verifiable or actionable knowledge. This is intellectual pride nothing more - subscribing to a view of reality based in the idea that there's an objective world or a kind of logical framework above or separate from the current one to which we must attain or correspond or observe... think this also takes care of the kantian argument - a noumenal world can have nothing perception lends it - portion partition termination logical consistency all belong to perception & are products of the brain's interpretative activity. There is no noumenal world besides an entirely uniform one, hardly something it benefits us to try to be in conformance with logically, because it has no logic at all...

Universal and particular knowledge aren't separate, I don't accept arbitrary delineating of knowledge... particular knowledge serves as a foundation for universal knowledge and a basis for ontological reasoning. Conversely universal knowledge when tried against logic resolves into particulars and helps us to understand ourselves in a general manner and come to conclusions that sit well in the brain, that we can accept for the moment because the basis for them has moved beyond matters of logical validity and into the intrapsychic... either kind of knowledge can go wrong - it's our job to synthesize them and thereby know God.

>>11448391
>Never heard a good refutation of metaphysics.
And you never will.
You choose the easier path of never questioning yourself.

>>11448457
Think I just displayed a pretty good understanding of two arguments against metaphysics and not only that, I fully invested myself in them at one point in my life and believed them to be correct. You wanna point out where my self-scrutiny is thin huh or you just going to cheaply summarize me with your piffy greentext two-sentance epigram?

>>11447749
He did. That's why everyone's been running around like chickens without heads since he published his books, either continuing to write about shit he already nullified or outright copying his work since they don't know what else to do.

>>11447732

>>11449548
He might have shitted on a few strains of western thought but Nietzsche was completely clueless when it came to eastern metaphysics

>>11449548
I'm interested. How did he end metaphysics? I've only studied him intermittently for college courses

>>11448391
Would you be able to discuss the approach of german idealism to metaphysics, anon? thanks in advance.

>>11447854
bugman mentality
>it doesn't benefit the hive
>why don't you spend more time getting resources instead

>>11447854

>>11448086
Not quite. They are merely relativistic about this. Value seen in everything through a filter (which gives it all the values to begin with) will not be replaced by your filter if they abandon theirs. It will often result in a net loss of most values.
This is seen in even relatively small belief changes such as determinism leading to opportunism and reflexive/reactive behavior.

Christ really is the salt of the earth. Imagine eating your food without.
Though this obviously also alludes to the problem of too much salt.

>>11449778
I think we all should have a bugman layer/foundation which would allow us to be free of needs, which in turn allows us to focus our thoughts.

>>11447745
Determinism is a control meme. Positivism is a result of a bloated ego and naivete (everything told to by the system is obviously true) - this is a universal problem with humanity, its shape and power varies.

>>11449768
bump

>>11449696
There was a thread about it recently. Here's a snippet.

>>11449682
Top kek. Have you actually read him? You're spouting off like a weeaboo orientalist high school drop out.

>>11449682
>>11449986
Sorry. I am being mean.

I will say that Zen and Nietzsche or Daoism and Nietzsche makes a powerful combination but I think he would be opposed to their ethics as slave morality. He just doesn't like monks.

>>11449976
thanks anon

>>11444305
'awareness' isn't a waste of time, but the others are

>>11449976
>inverting Plato means you end metaphysics

>>11450195
>implying metaphysics becoming relevant only to autistic Anglos from here on isn't the equivalent of its end

It seems like a lot of posters in this thread are taking "metaphysics" to mean something specifically religious. Modality, Theory of Time, Realist vs Constructivness can all be discussed in a secular way.

>>11450274
Yes. Many people are confused. It doesn't help that traditionalists use it in that sense.

>>11450083
Neitzche's writings display a fairly shallow understanding of eastern doctrines, the only Hindu text he read at length was the Manusmriti which is not even an important text and the particular translation he read was infamous for being absurdly inaccurate with blatant misunderstandings being repeated in the footnotes. He knew almost nothing about Hinduism and only marginally more about Buddhism, to a large extent his understanding of Buddhism came from Schopenhauer who did a better job of understanding it but even he still made mistakes and also relied on generally bad translations as these were often the only ones available.

Nietszche was incorrect in his understanding of Buddhism as being pessimistic or nihilistic as has been explained dozens of times on this board already (just search Buddhism and Nietszche on warosu). Despite that he greatly respected Buddhism and saw it as way more valuable and sensible than Christianity but he still misunderstood it and knew little about the massive range of other eastern doctrines. Nietzsche is an interesting and insightful thinker but his thought is only meaningful when applied to a western context, it's almost useless when applied to eastern cultures and their doctrines. Almost all of the problems and issues he focuses on would not be considered relevant to someone well steeped in eastern doctrines. To a non-westernized person who has deeply studied Daoism, Vedanta, Buddhism and so on Nietzsche's analyses and conclusions seem like unnecessary answers to hypothetical and non-existant problems. That's not to downplay his insights but to present him as the 'end of metaphysics' or the 'end of philosophical-like thought' is silly because he only engages with a certain portion of all the profound currents of human thought/philosophy/metaphysics and not all of them, missing or not understanding several major ones. He may have had something interesting to say if he had studied them in depth and understood them well but that wasn't how it turned out.

>>11450539
>doesn't address slave morality problem
Ya. We all know you didn't read Nietzsche now. Thanks.
>To a non-Westernized person
You mean like half a dozen uncontacted tribes in the world? You know nothing...