What do you think about this, /his/?

>Does life have a meaning?
Yes, my life has a meaning, one i bear in my mind, and i consider it unshakeable.

What now?

>>523093
1st Yes Option: No comment

1st No Option's path: How do you jump from "we don't know" to 'rationality is the highest virtue'? Why not irrationality and passion?How do you even conclude that virtues are a thing?

This just seems like rambling.

2nds no option: Why do you immediently jump to Absurdism as the only alternative? That's not even the only type of nihilism that exists. Why do you assume the only choices are a pre-defined meaning vs nihilism? How can 'life' be insensitive to human existence when human existence is a part of life? If a living thing is sensitive to at least one other living than sensitivity is a part of being alive, and thus a part of life.

No even going to read the rest of the diagram because it's garbage. The entire stem of it is based on ignoring other philosophical positions.

2/10. The 2 points are for being arranged neatly arranged

>>523192

I actually didn't make this, took this from a forum

I think the 2nd no option just refers to how nature does not necessarily correlate with human ideals, whether someone lives or dies does not necessarily matter in the long run. I do want to know what other philosophical opinions its ignoring though, since I feel like I more or less agree with the diagram, with some exceptions, like the one you mentioned with the first option

>>523093
Why isn't "No, kill yourself" and "No, but you don't have to care" options?

>>523093
I am actually interested in this matter and I am, and always were undecided on this topic. Are there other options than these? I want to decide for once...

File: real.jpg (1MB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1366px

>>523240

>I do want to know what other philosophical opinions its ignoring though, since I feel like I more or less agree with the diagram
See chart


>how nature does not necessarily correlate with human ideals,
Well that really depends what ideal you are talking about. A Nietzsche or Evola would say the natural world fits their ideals just fine because they value harshness. There's also the approach where you make your own ideals to conform to how the world works. Machiavelli does this by just being super pragmatic about the tribe (in his case the nation). The Stoics do this on an individual level, for them the world is only 'harsh' if you have an unrealistic expectation of what should happen in life.

>whether someone lives or dies does not necessarily matter in the long run
This is going to depend on one's value system. If you do not value big things such as a nation, an ideaology, or the long term success of the human race than no an individual life is rather arbitrary. However if there is a grand goal than each life is going to be a step towards it.

>>523270
What if I don't know if a crave a meaning or not?

>>523270
kek, nice pic. but Neitzche never said or implied that he himself was the overman.

>>523300
Than do a cursory sweep over the philosophy in question and see what agree's with you.

The concept of 'meaning' is a loose word anyway. None of the philosophers in question use the word very much.

>>523319
meaning is the same as "command". a slave desires it , in fact needs it. a king devises it and delivers it. that's my interpretation.

>>523300
Then you probably don't crave meaning.

>>523325
A slave desires it from other people, a king creates it himself although not necessarily for other people.

>>523325
Well you either want no meaning or you want to create your own meaning. In this case you are your own king.

>>523337
i agree
>>523338
without meaning, a man will fall apart at the slightest introspection. if a man lives without meaning completely, then he acts only on his instincts, just like an animal. that's like, complete hedonism.

File: J18xc.jpg (85KB, 908x601px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 908x601px

It's about the journey. The arrows in your diagram are the things we are.

>>523253

I guess they could be options, suicide isn't inherently wrong

>>523270

>A Nietzsche or Evola would say the natural world fits their ideals just fine because they value harshness. There's also the approach where you make your own ideals to conform to how the world works. Machiavelli does this by just being super pragmatic about the tribe (in his case the nation). The Stoics do this on an individual level, for them the world is only 'harsh' if you have an unrealistic expectation of what should happen in life.

These sentences are honestly pretty enlightening, I've read Nietzsche before but I've never understood it in that light before.

I suppose the only thing I take issue with the diagram is that it looks more like a buffet where you can pick and choose what you like, rather than looking for the ideas with the least assumptions. I do like the concept of Zen buddism, for example, but I want to make the decision as nearly a priori as possible, rather than going on pure belief.

>>523348
>without meaning, a man will fall apart at the slightest introspection. if a man lives without meaning completely, then he acts only on his instincts, just like an animal. that's like, complete hedonism.

At least read the chart, pleasure seeking is just one of the options available. There are entire Eastern religions built around life having no true meaning.

Also you are ALWAYS acting on your instincts. This is a basic fact of pschology. Your subconscious is there 24/7 and it's working in ways you are not even aware of. It is also incorrect to say that instincts=hedonism. The subconscious works on a much greater variety of stimuli than just pain and pleasure, your subconscious is more concerned about your childhood than maximizing the amount of candy you eat.

>but I want to make the decision as nearly a priori as possible, rather than going on pure belief.

Well that's wear reading comes in. Philosophers do not merely assert their beleifs but try to show how it is grounded in universial laws. Nietzche will tell us that the Will to Power is the basic principle of the universe, so living is learning to ride it. Stirner does a similar to make the point that everyone is an Egoist, his branch of philosophy is just acknowledging it. The Buddhist truth is that all discomfort comes from desire etc.

>>523093
Life is ultimately meaningless. This has been known for at least 2500 years, and is even discussed in the book of ecclesiastes