There is no philosophy; language creates the illusion of philosophy. There is only hedonism.

[Anonymous No.3159017]

We're all chimpanzees dressed in suits who think that language and tools make us better than wild beasts. We tell ourselves we are better than the beasts, we say so in front of one another; then we go home and pack our stomachs with food that was already hunted and gathered for us, airtight in plastic wrap and cardboard boxes, after which we look at electronic displays of our fellow monkeys having sex, all while stroking the penis.

[Anonymous No.3159022]

Shortly after shooting semen out of our penises, we then move on to other activities; perhaps viewing completely unrealistic, fake monkey simulations on the screen once again--only without sex this time. Maybe we go and read a book, and think we have discovered something deep about our monkey life, as we look at visual carvings of monkey grunts. Just as the monkey has this thought, he feels an itchy feeling in his anus, scratches it, then assess that he should go further wipe leftover shit from his asshole in the bathroom.

[Anonymous No.3159026]

reminds me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Wy7gRGgeA

[Anonymous No.3159027]

If you don't find higher consciousness and thought fascinating on its own terms, then there's no need to make a fuss about it.

[Anonymous No.3159031]

>>3159027
What's higher consciousness? Is your inner monkey looking for a secret pile of bananas inside your subconsciousness?

[VurtKonnegut No.3159032]

OP is just projecting.

[Anonymous No.3159039]

>>3159032
Sorry, you can't just use "projecting" as a strawman anon. You are the one under attack right now: prove you are better than a monkey.

[Anonymous No.3159043]

>>3159031

You know very well what higher consciousness is. It enabled you to post this very thread, to think the very ideas you're thinking. Claiming philosophy as useless is in and of itself a philosophic claim.

[VurtKonnegut No.3159044]

>>3159039
The burden of proof is on you bitch OOOOOWWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAAAHHAA

[Anonymous No.3159045]

>>3159039

We're better because we have the capacity to recognize there is, in fact, no such thing as 'better'

[Anonymous No.3159049]

yes that is true

[Anonymous No.3159051]

fascinating, op. what a shame it's already said, and by actually compelling writers no less.

[Anonymous No.3159052]

>>3159045
>We're better because we have the capacity to recognize there is, in fact, no such thing as 'better'

So then we're not better. Glad you agree with me, now wipe your ass a little better tomorrow and maybe you will attain enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.3159055]

>>3159051
I'm familiar with Joyce, but otherwise I have never really read about this in literature. I would love to read a piece of literature which juxtaposes philosophical meditation in between a man masturbating then noticing his ass feels itchy.

[VurtKonnegut No.3159057]

>>3159052
Are you trolling or did that seriously fly that far over your head?

[Anonymous No.3159060]

>>3159057
The whole sentence is a paradox. 1+ -1 = 0. Only zero flew over my head.

[Anonymous No.3159061]

Humans are animals, like monkeys, with lives as meaningless and short and banal as them, the difference is that we are painfully aware of our own pointless suffering-filled existence and of our own death.
This makes human life different and honestly much more tragic than the lives of any other species.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you OP.

[Anonymous No.3159062]

>>3159052

Of course we're not better. Which philosophies have you been reading that prescribe a normative value system with regard to the 'hierarchy' of species and their importance? What the fuck is the point of this thread?

[Anonymous No.3159068]

>>3159061
What is tragic about our lives compared to animals? Just because animals don't have words, you think they aren't aware that they are going to die someday? Your household cats and dogs sit around all day, and probably think about death all the time as they ponder about the one time they caught a mouse, or killed the neighbor's cat, etc.

[Anonymous No.3159069]

>>3159062
Almost every philosophy besides hedonism

[Anonymous No.3159072]

>babby's first existentialist crisis
too bad a monkey can't manage my jump shot no scopez

>"One night in long bygone times, man awoke and saw himself.

>He saw that he was naked under cosmos, homeless in his own body. All things dissolved before his testing thought, wonder above wonder, horror above horror unfolded in his mind.

>Then woman too awoke and said it was time to go and slay. And he fetched his bow and arrow, a fruit of the marriage of spirit and hand, and went outside beneath the stars. But as the beasts arrived at their waterholes where he expected them of habit, he felt no more the tiger's bound in his blood, but a great psalm about the brotherhood of suffering between everything alive.

>That day he did not return with prey, and when they found him by the next moon, he was sitting dead by the waterhole."
—Franz Kafka

[Anonymous No.3159074]

>>3159068
Animals don't think like us and they aren't aware of their own mortality. They don't have a clear self like we do, they operate mostly on instinct. Even if that was true it just means all organisms have tragic lives.
>>3159072
That was Zapffe not Kafka you cheeky cunt stop playing around

[Anonymous No.3159075]

>>3159072
Sorry I'm not an emo faggot like Kafka, I'm not gonna poison my next banana and then go lay by a river and die. It's not an existential crisis I'm having. It's called not taking life seriously, viewing it from the sidelines like its one big circus show and laughing as people trip and fall and get upset over the banana peel they tripped on.

[Anonymous No.3159087]

>>3159075
I'd rather take life seriously, but if you want to neglect anything of actual value in lieu of schadenfreude and hollow and vapid aloofness feel free to live your life alone and die an unloved husk.

[Anonymous No.3159088]

>>3159074
>They don't have a clear self like we do, they operate mostly on instinct.

That is completely based on our observations of animals, and the fact that animals do not have speech akin to ours. Humans are disillusioned into thinking that they are not acting on instinct--but they really are. They try as they might to become something more, through art, through philosophy, through whatever--but in the end they pick their nose, think about their food supplies and then stimulate their penises to orgasm while imagining having sexual intercourse.

[Anonymous No.3159092]

>>3159017
Best post on /lit/

[Anonymous No.3159093]

>>3159087
I am so altruistic that I embarrass myself so the prideful may further maintain their pride.

[Anonymous No.3159091]

>>3159075
here's a quote you might like
>“The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.”
― Horace Walpole

honestly though life can only not be taken seriously when you don't feel like shit, i find. if suffering didn't exist i'd agree with you. you're being shortsighted

[Anonymous No.3159096]

>>3159093
You can tell yourself whatever lies you want.

[Anonymous No.3159097]

>>3159088
also we've studies animals brains and we know how they work. still, you're missing the point. and yes humans operate on instinct at some level nobody says they don't.

[Anonymous No.3159099]

>>3159096
This here is not a lie: I am pure happiness. If you disagree with what I say, the Spirit of Sadness be with you. Begone, Spirit of Sadness! Say this three times a day before each meal and you will cure your problem.

[Anonymous No.3159109]

OP here, really though if anyone can point to literature (besides Joyce, which I largely drew on for this post) please point me in their direction.

>>3159091
I like this Horace fellow, I'm gonna research his bones.

[Anonymous No.3159118]

>>3159109
read what the fake kafka quote is from

[Anonymous No.3159120]

Filthy, dumb autist scum.

>>>/sci/
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.3159125]

>>3159120
Another man at war with happiness! What did happiness do to you that causes you to react in such a way in the very embodiment of it?

[Anonymous No.3159135]

Complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3159138]

>>3159135
How is it complete bullshit? The inner monkey protecting the sanctuary of "great things in life" just typed out your post, didn't it? So defensive!

[Anonymous No.3159139]

You cant even get basic biology right.

you aren't even using reductionism properly.

sage for illogical, irrational, ignorant thread

>There is no philosophy; language creates the illusion of philosophy. There is only hedonism

only complete tards come up with something so stupid

[Anonymous No.3159141]

>>3159138
>the inner monkey
Even evo-psych doesn't use such baseless retarded terms.

[Anonymous No.3159143]

nope

[Anonymous No.3159144]

>>3159141
But it does use such retarded ideas.

[Anonymous No.3159146]

I'm not a monkey because I cannot produce fertile offspring with monkeys

[Anonymous No.3159152]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 2deep4me ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Anonymous No.3159153]

>>3159069

Arbitrary consensus on ethical systems has nothing to do with thinking there's an objective truth to whether or not humans are better

[Anonymous No.3159154]

>>3159139
Can you please cite your claims? Unless you give me proper citation to what is wrong with my post, you are just throwing poop around: ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.3159155]

>>3159146
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.3159156]

>>3159155
;)

[Anonymous No.3159157]

Yeah, I remember my first "deep" thought.

[Anonymous No.3159161]

>>3159156
Is that you patient zero?

[Anonymous No.3159169]

>>3159157
This thread isn't about thinking deep.

[Anonymous No.3159167]

OP here, this is my scientific proof backing up all my statements thus far:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T1LA5P10O393EH8TS

Can you guys even provide some proper citation for your counter-arguments?

[Anonymous No.3159171]

>>3159167
Yes.

www.google.com

[Anonymous No.3159170]

>>3159167
>http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T1LA5P10O393EH8TS
>She must have had some sexual attraction to them since some were males and she is female

Fucking gold

[Anonymous No.3159173]

>>3159055
>but otherwise I have never really read about this in literature

Now this is what I find surprising. There are numerous examples of people who got to the same conclusion. In fact, that's quite an obvious conclusion afterall. The philosophers themselves talk all the time about that illusion of philosophy and of language, you can read any one who addresses language to conclude that. From Diogenes to zen monks, from Freud, Darwin and Jung, a bunch of theologists that study the language of religions, Marx, Lacan, anthropologists, biologists, shitty behaviorists, in fiction you have from Oscar Wilde to Kurt Vonnegut, you got Shakespeare ("What a piece of work is man..."), you got Brecht, you get the whining of Holden Caulfield, you got Don Quixote, you got Isaac Asimov... fuck, you got all of that, all that jazz and always coming around to say, at some point, in one way or another, a very similar thing than what you just said. And you act as if it was new? C'mon, pal, wtf...

[Anonymous No.3159177]

>>3159173
Oh, and as the other guys said, they say much better than you do.

>counter-argument
There is no counter argument to such a thing. What took you so long to get there? Now you can start to think

[Anonymous No.3159178]

>>3159173
Just about all of those try to be art at some point or another; they try to be something high. Joyce does not. He goes from the mental ramblings of a man trying to work out some great metaphysics, to a man masturbating to a letter he got from a woman, imagining the woman beating him on the buttocks.

[Anonymous No.3159187]

>>3159167
>That is the hottest thing I ever thought about – her getting raped and thrown on the ground in used in every way by those big gigantic gorillas!

[Anonymous No.3159194]

>>3159187
>>3159170
Yes, it's funny and absurd, but I linked to that page for a much...I daresay, a much "deeper" reason. Try to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.3159202]

>>3159178
And you don't think Joyce was "trying to be art" with that? Well, and what does that even mean? But wait wait, let's not waste our time in theory, or else we will be "trying to conceptualize" and that's not a monkey-ish thing to do...

If you want more examples, take visual arts as a whole in which that is much more easily perceived. From Turner to Pollock, Lascaux, Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, Vincent guy, Matisse, Dali and motherfucking Duchamp. Not dada enough for you?

The "all of those" argument falls flat because I'm citing basicly everybody from every field and they are different from each other in a lot of ways. But nevertheless, it is the acknowledgements of one's own humble position that leads to these great masters of thought, of language, of prose, of art, etc. That is, they are not fabricating themselves, they are not yet pretending they are opening a glorious path of human vs animal or looking for a word above all words, above all language. They do it because they need to do it. They acknowledge the masturbation and enjoy it as they can. They observe, contemplate and make use of the masturbation act itself.

[Anonymous No.3159209]

>>3159202
> I'm citing basicly everybody from every field and they are different from each other in a lot of ways

Exactly. I asked for some blue paint on my floor, then you turned my floor into a Pollock masterpiece

[Anonymous No.3159216]

>>3159202
Oh wow, I didn't even finish reading your post when I responded, hilarious to see Pollock in there. I think Pollock understood art more than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.3159237]

Le monkey face :)

[Anonymous No.3159247]

OP here. I am actually Satan! I tricked you all. Don't eat fruit of knowledge, ignore this thread!!

[Anonymous No.3159260]

>>3159209
I just want to understand what do you really expect? That people stopped talking?

>>3159216
Yeah, I think so too.

[Anonymous No.3159960]

ish

[Anonymous No.3160188]

OP here, why did that scared little man delete all his posts?

[Anonymous No.3160194]

>>3160188
Poster here.

I'm more surprised than you are. I didn't delete anything. What the fuck is going on with /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3160197]

We're better than beasts because we have the ability to exterminate any other species if we choose.

[Anonymous No.3160198]

>>3160194
Moot is spending his captcha pass money on more steroids instead of keeping the servers running smoothly.

[Anonymous No.3160200]

>>3160197
That just means we're at the top of the food chain. Because we're just a bunch of food mongering monkeys, after all.

[Anonymous No.3160204]

I don't know why some of you don't like admitting this. It's just a reminder that life isn't serious. Isn't that comforting?

[Anonymous No.3160206]

>>3160197
We are better than beasts because we have the ability to do something stupid if we want to like messing up with the balance between species?

Weird logic some people have... I really don't know what goes on your mind.

[Anonymous No.3160239]

>>3160206
>buying the theological myth of nature as "balance"

lmao do you even read

[Anonymous No.3160253]

>>3160206
>the balance between species
lel
Your stupidity proves my argument.
Nature is war, son, and we have won.

[Anonymous No.3160291]

>>3160239
>>3160253
I never said it was about peace, I sad it was about balance. It's a war balance, but a balance nevertheless. The ability to exterminate other species is not a good thing at all, only the ability to survive and prevail despite the hardships that those other species bring.

Now I know what kind of absurdity goes in your heads. Kill everything, win the war, durp durp.

[Anonymous No.3160297]

>>3160291
>I sad it was about balance. It's a war balance, but a balance nevertheless
Now you've taken away the meaning of the word balance. What is "a war balance"?
>The ability to exterminate other species is not a good thing at all
If it helps your species survive, then yes it is.

[Anonymous No.3160309]

>>3160291
why reply to my post if you're going to ignore it

fucking retard, typing one retarded retort burn you out or something?

[Anonymous No.3160321]

>>3160297
No, you have a weird idea of the word balance to begin with. What is that you don't understand in a war balance? It's a constant war. If the lions ate all the gazelles they would not win, they would starve. They perhaps would like to have that power, but we perceive that they are lucky not to have it. We have that power and yet you think that's an advantage and not the real advantage being the awareness that can stop us from using that power we know we have.

>If it helps your species survive, then yes it is.
Except it doesn't. We're safe enough and more than enough (imbalance) is harmful. And there are a bunch of other things wrong with that mentality of yours, mainly because we are not separated. It's a war, but the species are not against each other like a chess game. Much because it's an arbitrary separation of groups in species. Are the species trying to survive? The individual? The groups? The races? Animals vs plants? But then it was the genes all along. We do what we can with the power we have to make ourselves satisfied, as individuals, not as genes, not as a species.

>>3160309
There is nothing theological about it. On the contrary, theological is to think of chosen people, chosen species, etc. Theological is to blindly belief being "better" is equal to being more "powerful", as if there was an underlying sense of justice to those who are given more power.

What drugs are you two on? DYER?

[Anonymous No.3160328]

>>3160321
>theological is to think of chosen people, chosen species, etc. Theological is to blindly belief being "better" is equal to being more "powerful", as if there was an underlying sense of justice to those who are given more power.
>implying i asserted any of this bullshit
>implying i didn't just mock your retarded conception of 'balance'

[Anonymous No.3160339]

>>3160328
You would have implied that if you disagreed with me, but if you just don't agree with my idea of "balance", then I don't know what do you think my concept of balance is. The other guy thought it was "peace", lol.

It seems people get intimidate by 'pretty' words, as if I was a cute little lamb jesus-lover tree hugger just for saying "there is a balance between species that keeps the whole healthy and going", which is a very obvious thing to observe anyway, specially from a scientific and non-theological point of view.

How does the possibility to "exterminate" makes anything better?

[Anonymous No.3160355]

>>3160321
You are really dumb, and really angry.
This is still amusing.

[Anonymous No.3160358]

>>3160355
Ok, I'm dumb then.

Sigh.

[Anonymous No.3160386]

>>3160321
baby's first postulate regarding the theory of the evolution? that's incredibly sweet, if it weren't full of empty straws. what you just wrote is utterly meaningless, speculative and pseudo-intellectual. have you read anything else besides Dawkins' and Sam Harris' latest neodarwin-atheist brainwash-farts?

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3160392]

>>3160386
LELELE
and here we have most prominent and widely used attack on /lit/, taking the form of a 'reverse appeal to authority' whereby the rhetorical force emerges through a link made between the theory advocated in the victims's post and the lesser respected proponents of that theory. harris' shitty writing and mass appeal do not disconfirm evolution and its sociological consequences.

[Anonymous No.3160395]

>>3160386
I never read Harris. I read Darwin himself though, amongst other things.

I hate those guys and I'm as far as I could be from the "neodarwin-atheist brainwash farts", so much that I don't even get you trying to offend me with that.

Point still stands: you guys have a retarded concept of the word "balance" (which you rightfully disagree) but then you believe that when I say the word, I'm defending that retarded concept you guys are imagining it to be.

[Anonymous No.3160398]

>>3160392

>harris' shitty writing and mass appeal do not disconfirm evolution and its sociological consequences.

Ah, if only!

[Anonymous No.3160401]

ITT some 17-year old fails to realise just how complex human culture is and makes empty comparisons to chimpanzees through anthropomorphisising the animals and then redundantly comparing their actions to that of humans

your thinking has logical traps of its own. don't think you're any more enlightened than the rest of us

[Anonymous No.3160403]

Son, smoking got you fucked up.

[Anonymous No.3160405]

humans evolved from apes, not monkeys

[Anonymous No.3160418]

>>3160405
And vice-versa.

Can we talk about how great Planet of the Apes is instead?

[Anonymous No.3160420]

>>3160392
>harris' shitty writing and mass appeal do not disconfirm evolution and its sociological consequences.
like that's not the problem though. rather, the hordes of edgy teenagers that jump on these cretinistic bandwagons promoted by neodarwinists and are incapable of an independent, metaphysical and abstract thought.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3160432]

>>3160401

except that the anthropomorphising has really nothing to do with the argument. here it serves merely the purpose of "rustling". thus the comparison would be redundant only if we were to assume human-like chimps--the actual notion here is that of chimp-like humans.
the crudeness of OP's posts, stemming from the fact that he just turned 16, does not detract from the fact that it is correct...its all really sad to be honest, but hey

hey

[Anonymous No.3160455]

>Mixing up "monkey" and "chimp"
>Repeatedly
>Purposefully ignoring the myriad characteristics that set humans apart
>Exhibiting a sort of obsession with human masturbation, especially as some sort of evidence of how humans aren't as great as they think

You're either intelligent for a chimp or fucking stupid for a human

[Anonymous No.3160585]

Does a monkey look like this ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ?

/thread

[Anonymous No.3160650]

>>3160321

Do I sense some Daniel Quinn up in here?

[OP !z1sjxvkLpY No.3161120]

>>3160401
I have given evidence as to why human beings are not complex. Try to tell me why your philosophizing is so good.

(if I didn't tell you in these brackets that I was trolling you by using the word "philosophizing", you would probably just use ad hominem and attack my post. Now that I have made it clear that I was blatantly trolling you ahead of time, ignore the trolling and give me a proper explanation as to what you mean by humans are "complex". Our tools are complex (physical tools and the tool of language) but as a species we are nothing. Nothing but monkeys whose creations have far surpassed the monkeys themselves)

[Anonymous No.3161151]

>>3161120
Saying we are monkeys whose creations have surpassed themselves is ridiculous; if it can be created its complexity cannot surpass the creator's
.

[Anonymous No.3161541]

Doesn't this all sort of hinge on the given definition of "better"?

Smarter, faster, stronger, more complex biologically, all of the above?

I could be missing something...but "better" seems kind of subjective to me.