[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 374x347, a5b887d8084366a7507370f5e6ed1e71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14133367 No.14133367 [Reply] [Original]

"Why?" is a human concept with no basis in reality.

Things just are, there's no reason for why it became that way or why it stays that way. Asking "why are we here?" is akin to asking "why is that tree here?". The tree just IS, and so are you. Just because the question exists doesn't mean an answer has to. If there was an answer it would've been reached by now, clearly the universe didn't put any thought into why humans are here so why should you? If you accept your utter insignificance, which is a fact, questions like that become silly.

>> No.14133374

>>14133367
I like this piece of literature. I liked it so much that I opted to not sage this thread.

>> No.14133378

>Things just are, there's no reason for why it became that way or why it stays that way.
Anti-intellectuals get the rope

>> No.14133381

>>14133378
grug-post

>> No.14133384

>>14133367
Understanding “why” is important though. If I see an orange tree and I ask, “why and how did this get here?” Then I can take that answer, “It grew from a seed of the fruit of an orange tree” and take the fruit from that tree and cultivate my orange tree where I can have my own fruit.

>> No.14133389

>>14133367
why should i listen to you?

>> No.14133395

>>14133384
That's the how, not the why.

Asking "why is this orange tree here" would demand an answer like "the great orange in the sky made it so".

>> No.14133402

>>14133389
Do or do not.

>> No.14133407

>If there was an answer it would've been reached by now
Holy shit, imagine being this fucking retarded. Your opinion, even if incredibly autistic and ignorant of even the most basic forms of thought, was tolerable until you typed down this excrement

>> No.14133412

>>14133402
why did you reply to me?

>> No.14133414

>>14133407
Your own vanity is your only reason you believe an answer exists.

You're SO important there HAS to be an answer, right?

>> No.14133420

>>14133412
I just did

>> No.14133425

>>14133414
>your only reason
i thought reasons don't exist

>> No.14133429

>>14133414
>dude laws of physics are fake and gay just trust god man

>> No.14133436
File: 49 KB, 425x438, 1571796256789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14133436

>Things just are
Good thread Anon. (Irony)

>> No.14133437

>>14133367
>Things just are
That's not true.

>> No.14133442

Human concepts ARE your reality

>> No.14133447

>>14133429
Laws of physics are not laws, they're approximations. Humans have 0 understanding of reality.

>> No.14133449

>>14133374
If you want reading on the subject start with Kant

>> No.14133450

>>14133425
I said asking "why" was a pointless behaviour

>> No.14133451

>>14133414
I criticised you for using god (or in this case not-god) of the gaps instead of using proper arguement. Stop trying to use insults to make up for your lack of actual arguements

>> No.14133452

>>14133367
Through observation humans have come to understand the world as a causal system. Insofar as this seems to be true, and setting aside the question of the first cause or causa sui, "why" is a useful and fundamental epistemological tool.

>> No.14133461

>>14133367
We're just not capable of knowing the original cause, but we can certainly understand why anything happens, it's just sometimes very hard.

brainlet

>> No.14133465

>>14133451
If you make up rules, I'm not going to play with you

>> No.14133480

>>14133465
You keep making less sense with every reply you send. I criticised you because you said that because we don't know something for a long time, it means there's no answer. I think you called me narcissistic for assuming there might an answer, I repeated the exact same thing I've been saying since the start and now you're saying I'm making up rules?!? What exactly are you trying to say?

>> No.14133483

>>14133395
No, that is a why.

>> No.14133511

>>14133483
No, it's not. It's a how.

>> No.14133522

>>14133480
>you said that because we don't know something for a long time, it means there's no answer
It's been 2000 years of recorded history asking this question, I think it's safe to say it's a question with no answer.

>> No.14133551

>>14133522
I don't think there's an answer either, but how can you be sure?

>> No.14133564

>>14133551
>but how can you be sure?
Because such an important question would either be unknowable, in which case it's the same as not existing. Or it would be immediately apparent to even the lowliest commoner. Nature doesn't work on a "ohohohoho go on the journey to find out" storytelling logic peabrains think it does.

>> No.14133703

>>14133367
"Just" is a concept for retards unwilling to trace causality. Every time someone says "It just is" one can say "well actually"

>Why is that tree there
>NOOOOOO DON"T ASK THAT! IT JUST IS! NO NO NO WHY ISN'T A VALID CONCEPT
>Well actually I planted a seed there 10 years ago because I thought it would look nice
>Well actually that larger tree next to dropped a seed that managed to take root, it is apparent that trees have been doing this for much of recorded natural history.

>> No.14133705

>>14133703
>Every time someone says "It just is" one can say "well actually"
And you'd be wrong, the rest of your post is therefore irrelevant

>> No.14133711

>>14133703
So by that logic, humans are here because one human fucked another human.

>> No.14133746

>>14133705
Explain how this is wrong.

>> No.14133761

>>14133367
I think you'd like buddhism, op. Specifically Zen Buddhism and taoism.

>> No.14133781

>>14133367
Let's go back to caveman times.
Why does my leg not work? Because a mammoth stepped on it.
Why? Because I startled it like an idiot.
So asking why is an important concept for survival strategies and based on objective causalities.
If you keep asking why,

>> No.14133785

>>14133761
Well OP already succeeded emptying his mind, if you know what I mean

>> No.14133789

>"Why?" is a human concept with no basis in reality.

You realize that the natural conclusion of this assertion is that causality doesn't exist and it's just a meme, right?

>> No.14133814

>>14133711
Most specific humans are willed into existence by at least one other human, often two sometimes many.
Some specific humans arise due to the stochastic results of unprotected sex where they were the "unforeseen" consequence of one, two, or many people seeking to put jizz in vaginas.
When faced with a "Why?" question and I do not know the answer it's more accurate to say "I don't know", instead of "It just is". You're free to make OP's assertion that "it just is" a sufficient answer but I disagree.

>> No.14133820

>>14133789
>You realize that the natural conclusion of this assertion is that causality doesn't exist and it's just a meme, right?
Wrong, human understanding of causality is lacking

>> No.14133833

>>14133511
Why and how are mutually interchangeable in their ontological significance.
>how did life start
>it evolved
>how did the universe start
>Big Bang
>what caused the Big Bang to happen
>DUDE IT JUST DID FUCK OFF CAUSALITY IS A HUMAN CONCEPT
Funny how materialist become semanticists the minute the chain of causality reaches its first cause. You’ll gladly expound at length on the various mechanisms of selection that affect the genetic mutations which cause evolution. But as soon as it comes to cosmology it’s all hand wavey bullshit.

>> No.14133844

>>14133564
Yeah you’re right. It’s sort of like how the heliocentric mode was apparent even to Neanderthals.

>> No.14133854

>>14133564
It’s amazing how certain you are in your beliefs on how inscrutable nature is to others. How can you know that something cannot be answered? That would presume knowing the answer.

>> No.14133872

>>14133367
i understand the sentiment. things just are. but the question becomes important when you ask why do you read literature then? the question inevitably becomes ‘well, why am i alive?’ an artist without an understanding of ‘why’ is not one worth listening to particularly

>> No.14133882

>>14133833
How do first causers respond to eternalism?

>> No.14133893

>>14133442
butt why

>> No.14133907

>>14133564
>Or it would be immediately apparent to even the lowliest commoner.
>Metaphysics is dumb BUT ALSO naive objectivism
STEMlord detected

>> No.14134168

Just because reaching a satisfying answer is hard doesn't mean you should just give up like this

>> No.14134418

>>14133872
>why do you read literature then?
To reach this conclusion.

Everyone is talking out their arse.

>> No.14135051

>>14133833
The existence of the universe is a time paradox. Causality isn't linear. There is no first cause. Cosmology is a spook.

>> No.14135085

>>14133367
>"Why?" is a human concept
thanks genius.
>with no basis in reality.
then "why" do people use it, if it has no real basis in reality?
>Things just are, there's no reason for why it became that way or why it stays that way. Asking "why are we here?" is akin to asking "why is that tree here?". The tree just IS, and so are you.
People give things meanings (=uses) to help them. It's not that complex.

>> No.14135136

>>14133367
"Human" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"Concept" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"With" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"No" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"Basis" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"In" is a human concept with no basis in reality.
"Reality" is a human concept with no basis in reality.