/lit/ - Literature

>>21016770
>he thinks he can demonstrate that evil exists and things are evil

>>21016770
After a few years you're supposed to level up to theology and move on from philosophy. It's a fun intellectual exercise while you're in your 20s, but you outgrow it by the time you're 30s unless you're one of the "puer aeternus" abomination created by the West.

>>21016770
Morality is relative. "Evil" is a spook.

>>21016777
>After a few years you're supposed to level up to theology

Eh, not everyone enjoys the bliss of double digit iq

>>21016770
I bounced back up to baseline, but still I am overwhelmed by my backlog of things I want to read.

humans shit and cum
need I say more?

>>21016791
>need I say more?
please continue until I ejaculate, sir.

>>21016770
Gnosticism is the way, my poor lost boy. Read Tombstone the read famine, The Rape of Nanking, A history of torture. Just add on more material.

>>21016795
Gnosticism is gay (in a bad way)

>>21016777
Literally SPBP, Second Post Best Post

>>21016787
>Eh
Next time say what you think without trying to look indifferent. Own it

>>21016854
Eh. You are dim

>>21016778
My cock in your mouth is a spook.

>>21016863
Yes its a hallucination considering we are thousands of kilometers apart. But what's with the gay fantasies now anon?

>>21016867
I'm actually the one who wants to suck, that's why what I said is a spook.

>>21016858
You're mad because you have the brain of an edgy atheist teenager who hates religion more than life itself. I hate orthodoxy/dogma as much as the next intellectual, but theology in and of itself is just a way of socializing and communicating with others about your own personal spiritual experiences. You sir, may be the dim one, for not realizing how that works. Vedas, upanishads, bhagavad gita, these are profound works; If only you actually read books.

>>21016872
>I'm actually the one who wants to suck

>>21016770
leave the christian value system. Be careful, it's dangerous, but the rewards are great!

>>21016875
>I hate orthodoxy/dogma as much as the next intellectual
>I hate orthodoxy/dogma as much as the next intellectual
>Thinks he's an intellectual

t.pseud

>>21016877
kek

>>21016770
This chart is misleading because it is only a small snippet of a wave. Every downward slide is followed by an upward climb. Keep going and take the happiness increasing periods along with the depression increasing moments with stoic indifference

>>21016884
I'm glad you got some dopamine out of this exchange, but you need some higher aspirations in life good sir.

>>21016770
I am so sorry

>>21016770

>>21016770
this question presupposes that all breeds of humans are the same. since that is false, maybe ask a different question.

>>21016925
Dumb catposter

>>21016770
This except I wasn't happy in the middle.

>>21016998
Dumb redditor.

>>21017004
That's dumb /tv/poster for you

>>21016770
Humans, like all other things, are fundamentally amoral.

>>21016998
Dumb meme but makes me wonder if happiness really has an inverse correlation with intelligence or knowledge

>>21017041

>>21017060
Top kek

>>21016770
the book called "go out and talk to real people"

>>21017041
No, that's the reddit take.
>le sad genius who can't relate to his dumb peers
In fact research indicates that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, correlates strongly to happiness and satisfaction with life. Dumber people are generally less happy.
Low IQ is also strongly associated with drug abuse, Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc.

>>21016947
I was happy for a while because I thought I had already unlocked the secrets of the universe through philosophy, like I had a "cheat code" to life as it were. Boy was I wrong.

>>21016875
>is just a way of socializing and communicating with others about your own personal spiritual experiences
i am also into astrology

>>21017195
Lmao; bet you were a neo-platonist or something like that. Hope you enjoyed at least that, thoug.

>>21017161
Ok retard.

>>21016795
Something about Gnosticism seems like a huge middle finger to the humility Christianity importantly teaches. I love the mythology, Sophia, demiurge, yeah them niggas tight Fr fr. But aren’t we supposed to be humble before god and have almost a Socratic epistemology where we don’t claim to know jackshit (the obvious difference is that Christians would ideally go on faith alone, I’m less familiar with Socrates possible beliefs or even “faiths” in metaphysical phenomena. I’ve read the most of the death of Socrates but I don’t think him quoting the Iliad necessarily means he believes in the stuff). Respond?

>>21016771
/thread

>>21016791
>and cum
Should have said piss. Cum is delicious.

>>21017312
>>21016771
>>21016778
>they think relativism is still trendy

I'm so lonely bros, keeping your spirits up is a struggle.

>>21016777
look at them digits bb

>>21017243
low key tho socratic epistemology and did he quote the iliad? really settled a lot in my head, seems like the people we respect most are just steelmanning their thoughts and emotions about those thoughts and those thoughts about those emotions eloquently

>>21017238
genuinely concerned for your well-being and mental abilities if you can’t at least come up with a counter argument

>>21017824
>derives his ideas from trends

>>21017843
That's exactly what you did, chud.

>>21017843
It’s not trends, it’s being part of the wider cultural dialogue.
Decades ago it was easy to dismiss claims of good and evil with relativist rhetoric but in the intervening decades we’ve seen enough amoral depraved shit that’s it’s impossible to deny the existence of objective good and evil
You’re the one who is clinging to a fad from years ago (relativism)

>>21017060
accurate

>>21016771
Evil is whatever causes suffering. Suffering exists, therefore evil exists.

>>21017866
The idea that good and evil is relative doesn't mean that those things don't exist.

>>21018169
So if I step on a lego the lego is evil?

>>21018195
Not the Lego but your lack of attention is.

>>21016770
you have assumed predicates.

to disprove assumes something is given in the first place. and If I consider evil in a vacuum its useful label is that which is the antithesis of good. and If I take humanity in vacuum, its usefulness, in regards to morality, is the thing that can be both good and evil. If humanity was not fundementally both, we wouldnt embody or be able to comprehend either. For us to pinpoint evil we must know good. Thus implies a fundemental part of us that is familiar with both. otherwise noone would moralize or find moralisms compelling.

>>21018195
Reality itself is evil. According to that definition, that's how it is.
If you think it's inadequate though in a manner sort of like: "i don't know, man, this just doesn't seem right"; we can change this definition to: "evil is whatever is done by a conscious entity which causes suffering". You can clearly see though that this still cannot deny the existence of evil, because even under the belief that animals and the like are not conscious and therefore not capable of evil, we have plenty a history of suffering caused by human actions throughout our existence to prove that evil is still a thing.

>>21016770

>>21016777
>puer aeternus
where do you think we are

>>21016770
"This is, however, my third manly prudence: I am not put out of conceit with the wicked by your timorousness.
I am happy to see the marvels the warm sun hatcheth: tigers and palms and rattle-snakes.
Also amongst men there is a beautiful brood of the warm sun, and much that is marvellous in the wicked.
In truth, as your wisest did not seem to me so very wise, so found I also human wickedness below the fame of it.
And oft did I ask with a shake of the head: Why still rattle, ye rattle-snakes?
Verily, there is still a future even for evil! And the warmest south is still undiscovered by man.
How many things are now called the worst wickedness, which are only twelve feet broad and three months long! Some day, however, will greater dragons come into the world.
For that the Superman may not lack his dragon, the superdragon that is worthy of him, there must still much warm sun glow on moist virgin forests!"

"And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at, and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called “the devil!”
So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman would be frightful in his goodness!
And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman—a devil!"

>>21018299
Der ewige Kindergarten

>>21017081
Real people are retarded

>>21018364
Wenn nur du kennst

>>21016770
On The Basis Of Morality

>>21016875
I would say the work you mentioned are very philosophical as well.

>>21016771
Evil, callousness, sadism. You get what I mean.

There isn’t a objective evil sure but just going of the normie definition of evil.
>>21016777
Alright, bet. I’m not particularly religious but if you think there is a good argument besides:
>bible = self evident
Or
>religion = in your nature

I’ll hear you out.
>>21016795
How are the worst crimes In human history supposed to convince me that we humans have a spark of the divine in us?
>>21016998
Meh. If the sacrifice for hope and happiness is submitting to worldviews I don’t truly believe then I’d rather die unhappy.
>>21017081
Most “good” people would do horrible things if given the right circumstances, the only reason we even have semi moral people is because society makes it possible to survive morally. Take away society and your left with humans who would happily bash my head in if it meant another meal.

I like my friends, I like my family. But do I think that they would kill me over a burrito if they were on the brink of starvation? Yes.

>>21018634
>if you think there is a good argument besides:
Do you think theologians just repeat those two phrases over and over each day?

>>21018652
No but it’s the ones I’ve heard for the most part on here when I’ve asked for reasons to believe.

I despise atheists because they usually don’t want to engage in conversation about religion but I despise religious people who deflect questions with shit like that.

>>21018226
Before you think about the nature of evil you should finish school first mate.

>>21018226
Suffering exists independent of conscious actions that could cause it.

And for reality itself being evil, as in suffering is natural law. Then you may drop the anthropomorphism to see that suffering is inherent to humans and other creatures. Outside it, pain doesn't exist and so doesn't evil.

So evil has no truth value from a non-human centric viewpoint.

>>21016998
Based

>>21018680
>atheists because they usually don’t want to engage in conversation
>religious people who deflect questions with shit like that.

Hmm. Wonder why atheists do that.

>>21016770
That is the core ideology of Transcendentalism, but I don't care much for the religious aspect so I couldn't recommend you any specific texts on it. I'm there more for the "wow massachusetts nature pretty" written rather eloquently and Thoreau's musings

>>21016791
Some humans shit cum. Sir Elton John, for one.

>>21018169
Calm down Aristotle Buda. Suffering is a subjective term, what is suffering to one might not be to another therfore you can not use it to gauge evil.

>>21018169
Simply this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM

>>21019188
So when I work out or suffer withdrawals that is evil?

>>21018680

I'm an atheist. Despite what I am about to write, I am, for the most part, a well-adjusted adult, by most external and even many internal indicators. My family loves me and I love them, I hold down a job, I pay my taxes, I can crack a joke. I don't have any stupid tattoos (because I find them ugly), I'm usually polite, I can recognize when someone's distressed and help them, and so on.

It's because I'm a well-adjusted adult that I don't share my sincere views on the idea of god when asked. I fucking hate the idea of god, and I hate having to share a world with large numbers of stupid human beings who for no very good reason at all subscribe to that superstition. I am close to 40. The conventional wisdom is that as you age, you mellow out. But with me and god, it's exactly the opposite. The older I get, the more I hate the idea of god, and the better I appreciate its monstrous stupidity, and by extension the monstrous stupidity of my fellow men. My fondest wish is to live in a world where not a single human being experiences private religious feelings. A world where that aspect of the human condition has ceased to be.

If I were to give my sincere opinion on god, in 4chan's vernacular, this would be to "reveal one's power level", which can be socially hazardous when one has extreme or unpopular views.

>>21016771
Well phrased.

>>21017060
holy kek

>>21019782
I hope you become joyful in your old age.

>>21020229

I laugh regularly, even today at work. I'm not a morose person. I just really really fucking hate the idea of god and want to be rid of it.

>>21016770
Stupid picture.
>>21016777
Nah. Never. Abrahamic theology is slavery.
>>21016778
Correct.

>>21016770
rousseau, the social contract
john stuart mill on liberty
jphn loke two threaties on government
marx, das kapital

>>21020335
nigger

>>21020325
You're mentally ill

>>21019782
>I am, for the most part, a well-adjusted adult
In terms of emotional maturity on the other hand, no. I'd suggest you seek therapy to work through those feelings of anger to figure out why an unchangeable aspect of reality upsets you so.

>>21016770
Evil societies are not evolutionary stable - like those practicing cannibalism, widespread murder or incest. Such genes are being constantly removed from our gene-pool; like you don't generally see inter-specie violence among other animals.
A book "The rightous mind" cites experiments where "clean state" infants recognise unjust or violent behaviour in adults and try to avoid contact with such persons.

>>21018634
>If the sacrifice for hope and happiness is submitting to worldviews I don’t truly believe then I’d rather die unhappy.
Then you aren't looking for eternal truth but vanity.

Most people are not psychopaths believe it or not, so if they do something they think is wrong they feel bad. Morals didn't drop from the sky after all, we invented them ourselves.

>>21018634
>Most “good” people would do horrible things if given the right circumstances, the only reason we even have semi moral people is because society makes it possible to survive morally. Take away society and your left with humans who would happily bash my head in if it meant another meal.
The fallacy you're making here is supposing that there are "good people" and "bad people" when really there are just people who can choose to act good or bad at any given time. Tendencies only exist as a crutch for your animal brain to ascribe predictability to objects over time in order to be able to survive. In reality only the present exists and the kindest and most moral man can at any time if he so wishes choose to blow up a school bus full of children for absolutely no reason. What you're doing is sneaking in a covert fatalism to the narrative in order to justify your own immorality.
>I like my friends, I like my family. But do I think that they would kill me over a burrito if they were on the brink of starvation? Yes.
I don't doubt that (although I do pity you if this is the case). But don't pretend that this proves anything about human potential. Sure there is a case to be made that the average person is probably like that. But by claiming that that has any bearing on what a human is capable of you are coping and justifying your own evil. In truth, you have no idea the heights men can and have reached, and how could you when you're surrounded by ugliness and your mind is embedded in this gutter of a world that we have created.

Humans aren't fundamentally any of these things because these concepts are learned and are basically memes in the original sense of the word.

>>21021119
>evil societies
The US has been waging war on 'undemocratic' societies. Have they been bred out by evolution yet you clueless moralist fag?

>>21021516
Evolution is slow you inbred psychopathic chimpanzee.

>>21021516
Besides, "the US" has no brain (like you), 95% of Americans has nothing to do with it.

>>21017243
As far as I'm concerned, evil exists because yahweh (the god of the jews) exists

>>21021529
Oh is that why the Middle East has been fighting for thousands of years? Europe anyone? Because evolution is slow?Retard makes an argument about evolution replacing 'bad' genes. Doesn't have good example other than toddlers preferring safety. Makes general conclusion that le bad societies die out. Cool story bro.

>>21021538
Poster mentioned societies brainlet. Try to keep up.

>>21021552
learn to speak human first you monkey

>>21021550
kek, you're truly illiterate. The OP is about individual humans, not government structures comprising a tiny percentage of them and being responsible for all the "politics".

>>21017161
>>>le sad genius who can't relate to his dumb peers
I would rephrase it as
>le sad genius who can't relate to dumb niggers

>>21021566
Govt structures. Lol Congress sanctions these wars. Congress is in turn sanctioned by the very clueless public. You can always trace a society's decisions back to the source. Govts don't make decisions in isolation brainlet not in countries like the US.

>>21021597
lol, we actually have a psychopathic toddler (believing in democratic fairytales to boot) among us. That's rare

>>21021606
Brainlet arguing with a psychopathic toddler. Only in /lit/

>>21021610
I wasn't aware before his last post. But I won't really respond to YOUR next post kek

>>21021616
Here's another (you) for you brainlet. In case you're still not aware why individuals in govt controlled societies like the US volunteer to go kill people in undemocratic societies. Why because govts control them like drones. Isn't this what Hitler apparently did?

>>21021628
Do you think that govt institutions hold power or is power and decision making one step higher in hierarchy?

>>21019782
You still deserve to have no rights and eventually get unpersoned

>>21019782
>I am, for the most part, a well-adjusted adult, by most external and even many internal indicators. My family loves me and I love them, I hold down a job, I pay my taxes, I can crack a joke. I don't have any stupid tattoos (because I find them ugly), I'm usually polite, I can recognize when someone's distressed and help them, and so on.
wowzies you want a medal buddy?

>It's because I'm a well-adjusted adult that I don't share my sincere views on the idea of god when asked. I fucking hate the idea of god, and I hate having to share a world with large numbers of stupid human beings who for no very good reason at all subscribe to that superstition. I am close to 40. The conventional wisdom is that as you age, you mellow out. But with me and god, it's exactly the opposite. The older I get, the more I hate the idea of god, and the better I appreciate its monstrous stupidity, and by extension the monstrous stupidity of my fellow men. My fondest wish is to live in a world where not a single human being experiences private religious feelings. A world where that aspect of the human condition has ceased to be.
wowzies a mr. nice guy fumming and being bitter behind his facade hohoho

>If I were to give my sincere opinion on god, in 4chan's vernacular, this would be to "reveal one's power level", which can be socially hazardous when one has extreme or unpopular views.
You just hate reality retard, most people hate it when things don't go their own way, for some reason you decided to think idea of God is evil when without him evil does not exist (muh sufferino muh painerino is indifferent for universe retarded imbecile). You are actually arogant seething retard like those people who avoid taking about money or relationships because they mentally blocked themselves arbitrarily and delusionally convinced they are right automatically. You are filled with human weakness and sin and you hate yourself, the world and ultimatly the One for your miserable existence that you probably earned yourself ( inb4 no i am ok haha stop being presumptuous).

>>21021682
Power is held by the people. Whether they know it is a different matter. If a govt makes a decision it means a significant proportion of the population support it. This is especially so in the politics of free societies such as the US.

>>21021701
Support also includes the belief that you can't or don't want to change the decision before even trying to.

>>21018192
Yes, morons will confuse moral abolitionism with moral relativism, pay them no attention

>>21018169
>evil is anything that stands in the way of my unrestrained hedonism
This is what most people actually believe.

>>21016770
Locke. Humans are fundamentally evil but can be improved through training, tradition, society etc.

>>21023395
Barring that, try Xianxia/cultivation. Humans are fundamentally evil, and you have the Locke stuff, but also you can become an immortal and vaporize everyone you don't like.

>>21021467
It’s not vanity. It’s integrity.

>>21021497
Fair point.

I don’t doubt that humans are capable of kind, genuinely awe inspiring and odds defying acts. But, i do believe that to be kind or good in a world without society is to struggle against your instincts and therefore struggle against what you fundamentally are.

Sure there are no good and bad people. But there are instincts, and that is who we are at our core, animals. Tame animals will still lash out and maul you if put under stress. We can fight against our instincts, we might suppress them for a entire life time, but they are always there in the back of our mind.

>>21023435
edgy dude, i'm impressed.

>>21021700
Lol @ the seethe

>>21023449
Well I’m not trying to be edgy. I want to be wrong. Still haven’t really been convinced humans are more moral than other animals.

>>21016854
Ho hum, what a banal response.

>>21016850
First, post. Best, post second. Post best. Post.

Second SPBP

>>21016770
Not a book but a series of beliefs that basically contradict the reality of evil. If you accept Classical Theism, Panentheism is the next course of action. Attributing to God atemporality, omniscience, omnipresence, and supreme causal power bears certain implications if you're an Eternalist (which is the most logical theory of time). What basically follows is Necessitarianism and the denial of a multiplicity of agencies; there can only be one agency, according to which everything is as it is (given that creation was beheld in its entirety prior to the act, what follows is that nothing could possibly be any other way, and this discounts notions of personal moral responsibility). To complete this framework, in which only one true agency/will is admitted, one could add Monopsychism to the mix, or at least a form of Idealism that admits of only one subject of which everything is a mode. At this point, however, the good can hardly be differentiated from undifferentiated action itself, considering that no evil can come from a supremely good Being that would only elect to create the maximally perfect world; actions that we recognize as evil are in themselves undifferentiated from what we typically view as good, basically.

>>21016771
Fpbp

>>21023435
>It’s not vanity. It’s integrity.
Said Satan
>to struggle against your instincts and therefore struggle against what you fundamentally are
You are not your instincts. Since you wanted literature to prove you wrong I can't suggest anything that's better for this than picrel.

>>21016787
>>21016938
>>21017004
>>21018634
>>21019782
http://www.necessarybeing.com/

>>21016770
Of course. You just have to dismantle the evil/good binary in your mind.

>>21016777
You mean pueri aeterni for the plural nominative case, anon.

Theology is a waste of life.

>>21016777
Man those digits

>>21017824
>they think it matters whether something is trendy
Only a faggot would care whether or not an idea is trendy.

>>21018634
Not memeing when I say this, if you're interested in theology check on "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Other saints like Basil will often demonstrate points using only the New Testament, but Athanasius frequently only takes the concept of God as a given and uses that to proof Christianity. It's quite a book.

>>21021550
Man you're dumb. The point isn't that humans never do violence to eachother, but that within a given group excessively anti social behaviour is not evolutionarily advantageous.
Chimps form social groups and at the borders between those groups they sometimes clash. Within the group there is sometimes conflict as well, but general group stability must be maintained. A group of monke s that all help eachother out often are more likely to survive. And this provides a basic explanation for the evolutonary origins of altruism. Not sure why that made you sperg out about "moralism"

>>21021701
>Power is held by the people. Whether they know it is a different matter. If a govt makes a decision it means a significant proportion of the population support it
Must be nice to be this naive and innocent. Only about 40-50% of people vote most presidential elections. And of those that vote it's the most active and engaged of the electorate that get to set the conversation--i.e those with the most resources and time. Now add in all the various special interests constantly lobbying the government and you get the picture.
Not to mention all the positions throughout the government at a local or federal level that are unelected. The notion that "power is held by the people" is a nice sounding abstraction that doesn't really mean anything in practice.

>>21016777
Checked

>>21016777
>talks about "leveling up" to theology and in the same post criticizes pueri aeterni

>>21016770
That graph doesn't represent my experience with philosophy at all. My happiness level first decreased then increased. I suppose it depends on who you've decided to spend your time reading.

>>21018634
>How are the worst crimes In human history supposed to convince me that we humans have a spark of the divine in us?
Because they were all committed by atheists and communists.

>>21026146
>t. puer aeternus

>>21017060
Can't stop laughing at this. First time a meme has made me laugh in a long time.

>>21026151
I already leveled up to vir aeternus 10 years ago buddy

>>21025834
>Is the sum total of all contingent things itself contingent?
alright this question caught me off guard, I can't really say

>>21016771
Fuck your semantic gymnastics dancing around the issue. Fuck all like you, pussies. Address what OP is saying instead of being cute. Asshole retard bastard.

>>21026155
The answer is basically yes, because there is no actual sum total that is not concretely contingent. It's a bit of a trick question.

>>21026155
>>21026212
Much of Plato's Parmenides dialogue for the record is actually fleshing out exactly this axiom. Determining whether sum totals (they discuss "parts" and "wholes") are contingent or not. Evidently it's something that can take up much more discussion.

>>21016770
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDw6sJV_ng

>>21025834
>I define 'it is possible that such and such' as 'the statement that such and such does not contradict anything that must be so (is necessary)

>Hurting babies solely for fun is bad.

Already lost me here

>>21025834
>confuses "necessary" with "uncausable"

Do christbros even?

>>21018195
The Lego doesn't have free will or human agency. Given you have conscious awareness, and our society relies on cooperation, you are held responsible for your actions and positive/negative intent. It would be evil, or malicious if you cause Anon physical or mental harm for no reason

>>21026249
I think they are talking about evil in a metaphysical sense. Like there is a "thing" called "evil" which is part of this world. The way you define it evil wouldn't exist if humans stop existing.

>>21019181
>still using relativism in undeniably realistic concepts

Okay, chud, what about shoving a hot iron rod up your ass and push it up to your eyes. Or force you to drink cum and rot in piss and gore. Would there be someone who won't experience this as agonizing suffering?

>>21026269
>Or force you to drink cum and rot in piss and gore.
>Would there be someone who won't experience this as agonizing suffering?


Believe me anon. You don't want the answer

>>21023410
I did this and ascended to the Jade Dog Foot Palace.

>>21026306
Let me guess, you also read that botfly girl blog?

>>21025745
>said satan
If I’m supposed to believe in things blindly instead of believing in what I find convincing I’d rather go to hell.

>picrel
I’ll read it, thanks.

>>21026148
Well some I guess. Still a lot torture methods where invented by feudal Christian lords or the inquisitions. Also Japanese soldiers where often religious just not Christian.

If anything this has just convinced me that humans are evil across all believes and ideologies.

>>21016770
>smart people are... le sad
Midwit meme.

>>21026212
>>21026214
>>21026155(You)
I answered yes because my line of thinking is that any set which contains within it a contingent element is contingent as a whole. Does that make sense?

>>21026449
What exactly are you being told to believe blindly?

>>21026536
That makes sense at a certain level (it's probably the first thought that pops into my mind when the question is asked), but it's not sufficient. The idea which negates it is that there is a limited set of all contingents which is therefore non-contingent (because it consists of all contingencies, there cannot be any other contingencies, thereby making them necessary as a whole), despite of course being composed of the contingent. At first glance this violates the rule of sufficient reason, because it generates the higher from the lower, the necessary is derived from what is contingent, which is prima facie absurd (which is what your response was rightly). The other major problem is in the assumption that there can even be a limited set of all contingents, rather than an indefinitely large set (which would be a purely theoretical and unreal entity). Whatever we decide to limit the set at, there are always more possible contingencies we can introduce, expanding the set even further, just like how any arbitrarily large number can always have a one (or any number) added to it. So the question itself ends up being absurd (almost contradictio in terminis), not the response to it, because we are effectively asking the question: "Is the sum total of all things which don't exist existent?"

>>21026545
Theology.

I would probably embrace religion if I was convinced it was the best belief system. As I have not been convinced I don’t believe in religion and if that means I align with satan so be it.

But as it stands I don’t plan on submitting to unconvincing world views.

>>21026570
>The idea which negates it is that there is a limited set of all contingents which is therefore non-contingent (because it consists of all contingencies, there cannot be any other contingencies, thereby making them necessary as a whole), despite of course being composed of the contingent. At first glance this violates the rule of sufficient reason, because it generates the higher from the lower, the necessary is derived from what is contingent, which is prima facie absurd
So in other words whether the overarching set is contingent or non-contingent is literally indeterminable? I assume the problem as a whole simply arises from the false assumption that the number of "contingent things" is finite like you said.

>>21016777
Atheist retards btfod

The OP image shows what happens when you only grow sideways, and not upwards.

>>21016771
>moral relativism

>>21016777
based Jung's whore quoter

>>21019047
Pain is nothing more than the body’s reaction to various types of failure. Suffering = failure. Humans will dismiss plants releasing toxins to combat insects, because they’re retarded tribalists with a vested interest in classifying exploitables as “other”, but it’s the same thing as you stubbing your toe - or an atom splitting. Failure.
Then we get into questions of intent.

>>21016770
Siddhartha and Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse do to an extent. A lot of Hemmingway does as well, specifically for whom the bell tolls. It's humanization of unspeakable violence, and defining it's characters through that violences, shows how naively misguided it is, and how despite the carnage everyone is just hoping for something better.
It really depends on your idea of evil, though, and whether you define it as humanity being kind and altruistic or flawed but well meaning.
A thousand splendid Suns is another one that does a rather good job of showing humanities capabilities of good and bad.

>>21028139
Finally someone who gave me good recommendations. Thanks man.

>>21026571
>blindly believe in theology
This is an oxymoron on the level of thinking you have to pay for money. Theology consists of, among other things, the arguments for divinity.
You sound like another someone who's been spoon-fed atheist intellectuals dunking on retarded evangelicals with no real rebuttals, and are too lazy to seek anything else out.

>>21016778
>>21016863
>Come to /lit/ expecting a more nuanced, intelligent, and thoughtful dialogue
>This interaction is one of the first I see
Did make me chuckle.

I believe we are fundamentally "evil" or whatever you might call seemingly unjustifiable violence and otherwise wholly damaging actions in the context I am providing for my limited-scope example. chimps go to war, they have internal power struggles, they put new leaders in place, they split into different factions. this is obviously interpreting animal behaviour in terms of human behaviour which is pointless, but really think of how you cannot grasp how they see the world. we cannot comprehend what "reasons" (or the chimp equivalent of reason) an individual chimp would support one leader over another, or participate in a specific act of violence
>ex. a chimp will not randomly maul another chimp, there is "reason" or "justification" involved in why it will attack a certain chimp
don't get me wrong - I do not think it's as straightforward as chimp violent therefore human violent. based upon the fact that reasoning as we know it is a man-made concept, I believe that we are "evil" and all reasons given to deny or justify that are nothing more than elaborate excuses

>>21028598
I think another Anon said it best when he said we're both 'evil' and 'good'.

Me personally, I recently came to the conclusion that humans aren't 'evil' or 'good' per say, but we simply have the potential for either, and while moral relativism is a meme, it kinda does explain things. Some guy might sabotage a rival for a job position, but use the money he earns from that job to support his family. To the guy who got cucked out of the job, he'd say that was evil, but to the other guy he was looking out for the things he cared about.

Even individuals who commit crimes against their fellow man with nothing to gain except joy at their suffering aren't truly 'evil', they made themselves happy with that act. I suppose only a sociopath who might do something cruel and not even be able to comprehend why it was 'wrong' might come close to the definition of evil, and even then you couldn't really ascribe any more blame to him then you could a dog who ate your sandwich when you weren't looking.

>>21028528
My point was that I’m being told to study theology when I consider it a waste of time since nothing has convinced me it’s not. And that I’m apparently “vain” or a satanist for being sceptical of the value of that persuit.

> You sound like another someone who's blah blah blah blah
I couldn’t give less of shit how some random Christcuck thinks I sound. Give me a argument for why I should study theology instead of religion instead of smugly going
>ha you aren’t religious so you must be a Redditor, I totally just BTFOd you bro.

>>21029036
*instead of ignoring religion and instead of smugly going

>>21016777
>you're supposed to level up to aimlessly trying to put the cat back in the bag in your 30s

>>21029036
Theology is the endgame of both philosophy and science though. You're basically admitting you know nothing beyond surface level. I hate people like you. Smug and stupid is the worst

>>21029184
>it’s the end game bro! because philosophy and science are totally linear ways of thinking with definite end points. That end point continently being the field I’m advocating for.
You haven’t given me a reason for why theology is worth my time let alone why it would be the “end game” for philosophy and science.

Philosophy doesn’t have a single definite answer, it’s a set of questions and a set of ways to anwser those questions. There is no “end game”.

Science is observing the natural world around us and determining it’s building blocks. It’s completely disconnected from theology. Theology can discuss science but science can’t discuss theology since you can’t measure, calculate or experiment religion and god.

So give me a clear cut reason to why theology is worth my time other than “it’s the endgame bro” or “because I said so”.

> I hate people like you. Smug and stupid is the worst

Man you must really hate mirrors.

>>21029036
Utter schizophrenia, didn't mention Christianity at all
take ur meds or get off the board

>>21016875
>the next intellectual

>>21016771
Evil only exists in the framework of God. This is why you could argue humans evolved to believe in a higher power.

>>21029273
>Science is observing the natural world around us and determining it’s building blocks. It’s completely disconnected from theology. Theology can discuss science but science can’t discuss theology since you can’t measure, calculate or experiment religion and god.
NTA but

>>21016787
Double digit IQ is thinking it's all random

>>21026242
Wtf does that even mean pseud?

>>21029524
The guy earlier in thread said I’m a satanist. Last I checked satan is the Christian name for evil.
>>21030634
>conveniently ignoring me asking for a single reason theology is a worth my time or even a “endgame”
It’s almost like theology is a waste of time and it’s practitioners are pseudo intellectuals who don’t want to admit they’ve completely wasted their time.

>>21016770
Picture related?

>>21030757
Thinking what's all random?