How do you deal with the fact that nothing really matters? Of

File: 1467660159215.png (956KB, 696x782px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 696x782px

>>1860903
Bro, you're like so existential and shit. Really deep man; it's like you're right, nothing matters. Woah

>>1860903
Hedonism and the hope that we'll get so smart we can bend the laws of reality

Bizarre justification for not being productive with the time you have on this earth.

For me its sort of the opposite, I get depressed and irritable if I'm not doing something every day. My rest only really counts if I feel like I "earned" it after having done something productive - even if that "productive time" might be mocked as arbitrary by others.

File: 1448354074949.png (209KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 499x499px

>tfw the next hitler

>>1860903
The reason you think this way is because you have marginalized the subjective.

>>1860923
Isn't it logical though?

File: Giovanni_Gentile.png (138KB, 426x486px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 426x486px

>>1860923
/thread

Embrace the subjective.

>>1860929
No.

The problem is that modern people have become so caught up in the scientific view of things that they consider the subjective to be illegitimate. Subjective has become a dirty word.

But really, the subjective aspect of being is not "less real" (real is not a matter of degree) than the objective aspect. You experience meaning everyday.

>>1860942
You're a romantic who tries to justify illusions

I just avoid thinking about it most of the time. It's the only way to stay sane.

>>1860970
ad hominem.

>>1860970
That is just another phrasing of the sort of thought that I am criticizing.

How can the subjective be an illusion? It may occasionally deceive us about the state of affairs in the objective world, but it cannot be labeled as an illusion wholesale.

When we experience an emotion, we are not being deceived as to what is in existence. Our subjective experience of the emotion is wholly real. Just because it cannot be objectively observed does not mean that it isn't there. How could we have an experience of something without it happening?

>>1860992
So?

>>1861010
>How could we have an experience of something without it happening?
Because perception can skew reality. It's like when a boy kisses a girl and believes she's mutually in love with him, then a week later she's kissing someone else.

>>1861020
If I experience the emotion of happiness, sadness, or anger, how am I being deceived as to what is the case?

Of course, emotions can influence our thoughts and lead us into falsehoods about the objective, but that is not what I am talking about.

If I experience anger, how is it "not there"? We talk of things having to "be there" because we are so caught up in the objective. The subjective is pure experience, unlike the objective, which is the subjective mediating between us and the external world, which "is there".

>>1860903
The true question is what happens after we die? Nothing in this existence exists, but what exists outside of it.
Bear with me:

everything is made of atoms, atoms are made of subatomic particles, those are made of fundamental particles, those particles are made from the oscillation of underlying quantium fields, but what exists outside of those quantum fields? Once we cease to exist, then what we are both physicallhy and cognitively cease to exist. Every night we fall asleep, we cease to exist cognitively as all that is left on inside the brain is the brain stem so that we physically stay alive, yet our minds are technically dead, so what continues on until we awake again? If we are more than just physical constructs, and have an actual spirit or soul, then might it exist inside or outside of the quantum fields?

Sorry for the ramble, what I'm trying to say is that I think there may be an afterlife, and what we do in this life is probably connected to it somehow. So maybe there is a purpose to life beyond this existence?

Lovecraft was a good writer

>>1861043
Anger is an emotion. A chemical reaction. It's objective and not what we're talking about. We're talking about perception not emotion.

>>1861066
We can view an emotion objectively. This is when we perceive anger.

However, the subjective experience of anger is not a perception at all. That would imply that there is an object which we perceive.

Unless I have misunderstood you?

>>1860913
This guy knows wuts up

>>1861066
>>1861078

I have been lurking and watching both of you argue. and I must say that >>1861066
is too logical.
Logic is a good thing, but only when complemented by spirit and passion. There is a physical aspect to the world, but so is there a metaphysical one also. I cannot objectively measure the length of meaning, I cannot count the number of meters of compassion or of intention. There is an objective side to reality, but so is there a subjective and nuanced side that ascends the physical.

Try checking out Plato's allegory of the cave.

>>1860903
All I can say is, anyone who says they have the absolute right answer is lying to you.

>>1861078
Our perception of the experience which led to anger is what's relevant to this conversation; not the emotion itself.

The emotion is objective because it's a chemical reaction. Our perception of the circumstances which led to the anger are always subjective which is why some people get angry at certain things while others don't. Neither of them are right or wrong for getting angry or not, but it's almost always objectively illogical to perceive the circumstance in such a subjective and illusionary way which leads to emotion.

>>1861095
I am the one defending the subjective.

It may seem like a small matter, but using the word logical here is not quite right. Nothing is" too logical". It's just that we tend to associate logic and the objective.

I would say that his viewpoint is too scientifically oriented.

>>1861108
oh. Thanks for bearing with me and explaining what you meant.

>>1861105
The emotion is dualistic. It has an objective aspect and a subjective aspect which we link by their concurrence.

We may have a situation where two people view the same event, but the two people have different reactions due to their psychic qualities. To be precise, it is not that the perception is subjective (though it is in one regard), but that the same objective event evokes two different subjective responses. They could have viewed the same event in the same way and had different reactions.

Though you could have a case where there are different reactions because of subjective intrusion on our activity of perceiving the objective (hallucinations).

>Neither of them are right or wrong for getting angry or not, but it's almost always objectively

The fact of whether they are right or wrong is exactly what decides if they are being illogical or not.

>>1860913
Why would you ever want to live forever though? I mean the thought of it never ending to me is just as terrifying, if not more so than actually dying

>>1860903
Behold the fedora, the bashful child of modernity hiding behind the objective's skirt. He can not, will not, venture anything unless all the indifference of the universe grants its begrudging approval. He does not realize subjectivity is its own justification. He founders with ghosts; he thinks man must answer to stones and not the other way around. He castrates himself of feeling and claims it is logical that everyone do the same. He believes the logical is a mind, an insidious, deadening force with its own drive and telos. He is lost. Pity him.

>>1860929

Why is it logical to do so?

>>1860903
Being good to people, exercising charity, especially when struggle is a factor, all that definitely matters.

If you're searching for vain glory, then no, nothing matters.

>>1861127
By there not being any 'right or wrong' I meant that a human is not incorrect for combining the objective with the subjective to invoke a personal perception which creates emotion. It's a natural process which humans have been gifted with; to call it a flaw would be harsh because the romanticism it's helped create keeps people sane when they no longer have religion to find comfort in. Of course when you bring subjectiveness onto the table then it starts to skew the objective which then invalidates any potential logic.

Death only enhances the beauty and importance of life. We should treat life as more sacred than we currently do. We should be kinder and more loving to each other and the world we live in.

>>1861170
The thought process is logical; try refuting it. Now if you asked if it's beneficial to our sanity then the answer would be no.

>>1861194

>The thought process is logical; try refuting it

Why is it logical?

>>1860903
>...the fact that nothing really matters
>fact that nothing matters
>fact
Its not a fact. There is purpose to life, but it is existentialist, and is derived by eah person. To claim that there is not purpose because there is no universal purpose is a presupposition so grand that if it were any larger, it would rival you mama. Jokes aside, you are wrong to assume such.

>..., because nothing matters unless I choose it to.

The universe does not wait for you to determine its purpose. It just is, and will be. Life wont wait for you to determine its purpose, life simply goes on. Every individual has a purpose they found, and they live it. They did not decree their purpose, but they discovered it.

>>1861206
Marginalising the subjective aids in obtaining a disillusioned perception which leads to logical and objective rationalisation.

>>1861186
And are you doing so? If not then revaluate your values.

>>1861194
It isn't. the absolute indifference of the objective does not, in and of itself, compel you in any way to emulate in your thoughts and actions.


You are operating with the presupposition that the objective is automatically "good" and "true" and the "right way to live", all subjectively conditioned ideas that cannot in any way be proven by strict logic itself.

>>1861222
I am only one man. My actions are negligible.

>>1861184
>which then invalidates any logic
So because I believe that there is a God, if I come to a logical conclusion, then my belief in God invalidates it?

>>1861184
It's a minor squabbling point, but I would not describe the occurrence of emotion that way.

But anyways, emotion did not replace religion. Religion gave people meaning through emotion.

And yes, sometimes the subjective skews logic, which is why people must be trained to remain logical.

>>1861229
I would argue that the actions of even one man can shape life itself. Newton was one man, so was Napoleon.

If this is truly your belief, then be active in it, start foundations, join foundations, be humane.

>>1861223
I'm not 'operating with that presumption'. Refer to my post here >>1861184

>>1861221
And you are not deluded then to presume something is of no value and throw the baby out with the bath water?

>>1861247
Any straining towards the objective is founded on some goal, some benefit it it will have for humanity and this is philosophical, and hence "subjective", a viewpoint as any.

No scientist conducts experiments for the sake of conducting experiments, it is always in the name of progress and knowledge. If you're telling me you want to be objective just to be objective, then unironically kill yourself because you are doomed to your subjectivity.

>>1861162
my nigga

>>1860942
DIs guy - and his following posts - gets it. And not even in the normal shitty internet existentialist way. You my dogg, dogg.

>>1861234
If your 'logical conclusion' weighs on the assumption that your religious belief is correct, then yes your conclusion is invalidated in a sense because it's no longer logical. On the other hand if your logical conclusion is completely separated from religion and has nothing to do with it, then you already know the answer; yes, it's obviously logical.

>>1861269
Well met, friend.

>>1861244
I don't believe inventors like newton have really had any benefit on the human race, they have made life more complex but the interactions of men have not changed, we still act in an evil manner towards each other.

People like Napoleon and Hitler and other great figures attained power through the masses or the elites who made them rise. Every individual who has tried to change mankind without the authorization of the elites or the masses has been executed, just like Jesus Christ was.

Foundations and charities are businesses, they exist to make profit and that's the only way they can continue their existence. Their actions are usually harmful, for example giving Africans food instead of helping them farm, hunt and fish to provide for themselves.

>>1860903
>nobody will remember you [...] even if they do, how does that benefit you?

Why would either remembrance or benefit make my life matter? This whole line of argument is confused. You act like things benefiting the subject would validate their existence even as you say nothing would validate their existence.

>da size of the universe man

Ya bro, Carl Sagan and so on. But really, how does the size of the universe or myself have anything to do with whether or not I matter? Would we matter more if we were HUUUUGE?
Or the time of the universe? Would we matter more if we were like....reeeeeally old? OR

OR

Maybe you just literally don't have a functioning concept of value?

>>1861272
Here is my logical conlusiong then:
All matter is made of atoms, all atoms are made of particles, all particles are made of fundamental particles, all fundalmental particles are made of disturbances in quantum fields. Nothing makes up these fields.

Therefore what may exist outside of these quantum fields, but God?

It may seem illogical, until you consider that there is no evidence to prove me wrong. We don't know what exists outside of existence, so it could be anything from a teacup to the flying spaghetti monster.

>>1861253
Why are you making the assumption that I've made presumptions regarding value? Marginalising the subjective is logical, but it's also psychologically detrimental which is why you only ever hear depressed nihilists talk about it. Only edgelords advocate it, which is not what I've being doing. I've simply been stating the objective. There's a difference.

>>1861286
okay.

>>1861302
Marginalizing the objective is just as logical for subjectivity. why privilege one over the other, especially when it is indifference itself that is being privileged, of all things? That is a bias, and biases are subjective

>>1861212
underrated.

>>1861286
>Inventor
>Newton
Are you trying to piss on me dogg?

>don't believe inventors like newton have really had any benefit on the human race

There you go with benefits again. Like you can't imagine any way for a being to matter except by 1. Benefiting 2.Being large 3. Being old

>>1861302
Sorry for the straw man, man.

>>1861300
Why are you trying to turn this thread into theological discussion? We do not know if there's a God or not; we can only choose to believe. You cannot come to a logical conclusion that God exists because there is too much that we as human beings still do not understand.

>>1860903
Have sex with a cute!

>>1861322
Sorry, I do not intend that I take the discussion in that direction. I was using a theological example to explain myself.

Also, you are right that it is debatable whether God exists or not. But for the sake of focus, perhaps we should try avoiding this discussion.

Thanks for pointing this out though.

>>1861314
Humanity's spiritual and moral progress is more important than our technological progress. Even if we were living in a Star Trek-esque civilization we would still have the same problems we have now due to our behaviour and conduct. We would only infect the universe with our virus like ways, going from planet to planet.

In this light it is good that man dies and is not immortal.

>>1861147
wouldn't mean you can't kill yourself

>>1861162
by this logic am i wrong and/or wearing a fedora in pursuing logic and less emotion for decision making

>>1861221

>aids in obtaining a disillusioned perception

[citation needed]

>>1861338
I don't have a boner for tech progress, quite the opposite.
And my main gripe is with the view that our lives are made valuable by the amount of benefit they produce. In this sense my opinion is actually quite at odds with a technocentric view of the world.

>>1861343
This discussion isn't about decision making. It's about whether and where from values are derived. In this sense you are, in fact, wearing a fedora. It's really quite.....logical.

>>1861343
Reason and logic are fine, but they are tools, not the ends of the human spirit. No grief on the planet will be soothed by an objective list of all the neuron firing patterns that "produce" it

>>1861309
You're entering the most dangerous scope of existentialism if you begin to marginalise the objective (as well at the subjective). Marginalising the objective is not perceptively logical, because logic is quantifiable in a sense; since it's tangible by means of proofs.

If you take away our senses and cognitive functions then these objectives cease to exist.

>Biases are subjective
This is wrong. Objective decision making is often beneficial. The bias exists as a result of logical rationalisation.

>>1861147
This>>1861340
And also why would it be terrifying?

>>1861384
Beneficial for what? The overall comfort and quality of life for human beings? Okay, great, why is this a good? Why pursue it? What does the objective care?

And as for your first point, it's almost if there's a balance that's supposed to be struck.

Frankly, I don't owe fucking dirt and rocks and anything, the only place where anything even really happens is in subjectivity, why would I let myself get cucked by lifeless matter?

>>1861098
Best post in this thread.

>>1861346
I can't give you a citation because I arrived at the conclusion independently. Though I'm sure it's been written about and discussed by philosophers.

I can however elaborate so that you may better understand:

Most people grow up with notions personal to them through which perceive their existence. They're almost all illusionary, but to different degrees. Some individuals truly live their life within their own little fantasy worlds set up within the confines of their mind. They limit their external objective perceptions so as to not to interrupt the comforts of their illusion. A person this far gone does not have a grasp on reality and is therefore hindered when it comes to objectively rationalising. Now if that individual began to marginalise the subjective (his fantasy) then this disillusionment would ultimately lead to a more objective and logical rationalisation. Though in a real life case study this disillusionment would realistically cause the person to have a mental breakdown which might be hard to recover from; it would almost definitely cause depersonalisation.

>>1861441
Your fetishization of the objective is just another illusion on the path you are describing, ultimately it ends with a supra-rational affirmation of the individual as a synthesis of objective conditioning and subjective self-determination

>>1861441
>Some individuals truly live their life within their own little fantasy worlds set up within the confines of their mind. They limit their external objective perceptions so as to not to interrupt the comforts of their illusion. A person this far gone does not have a grasp on reality and is therefore hindered when it comes to objectively rationalising. Now if that individual began to marginalise the subjective (his fantasy) then this disillusionment would ultimately lead to a more objective and logical rationalisation. Though in a real life case study this disillusionment would realistically cause the person to have a mental breakdown which might be hard to recover from; it would almost definitely cause depersonalisation

>depersonalisation can consist of a reality or detachment within the self, regarding one's mind or body, or being a detached observer of oneself. Subjects feel they have changed and that the world has become vague, dreamlike, less real, or lacking in significance

Both describe me perfectly. I'm fucked.

t. OP

>>1861391
Just the knowledge that life would never end. Like the knowledge that you're never going to see an end to things. I don't know if just find that terrifying but then again I find the idea of an afterlife equally terrifying.

>>1861393
I'll explain by starting off with a somewhat rhetorical question. Would you rather be a short or tall male? Most people would answer objectively and say 'tall'. There might be a few who have personally subjective reasons as to why they'd answer 'short', but we're going to dismiss that because we're not currently concerned with the subjective. Alright, so tall males are preferred because of the biological imperative; to survive and reproduce. There's a biological mechanism which instils an instinctive preference for the tall. So at this point since we know there's a biological function which creates this instinctive preference, we can begin to refer to that preference as being objective rather than subjective. Hence the bias is objective.

I hope that was clear enough because I could have written a little more on it.

You got to a very good conclusion when you noted that balance is essential. For the greater the imbalance between the subjective and objective, the more detrimental it is for the individual. This can be readily observed with children and adults which I would really love to go into it with examples but it might take too long.

In summarization: Children prefer the subjective, which is why you sometimes hear others being referred to as childish (ex. manchild - he prefers his fantasies and illusions which obstruct objectivity). If a child is subjected to overwhelming subjectivity as a child, then he is prone to a breakdown in adolescence which may lead to an unhealthy preference towards the objective. These people are complete buzzkills and are often genuinely nihilistic.

>>1861508
I find the concept of non existence far more scary than endless super cyber sex and hedonism with the knowlage and abilities of God

>>1861483
The solution to depersonalization is to regain a balance between the objective and subjective. I'm assuming you've had a falling out with all of your previous hobbies and have a hard time enjoying anything. The key is to begin affiliating actions with emotions again. You have to build up some semblance of illusion (it's important to understand what is meant by illusion), but this time don't let it fuck your shit up. Of course right now it won't seem rational because you feel your current state of mind is 'the correct' state of mind; but as long as you feel that your nihilistic state of mind is correct, you won't be able to recover.

>>1861537
I profoundly disagree, there is no impersonal biological mechanism pulling the levers "behind" my thoughts and decisions like a fedora wizard of oz. If someone would rather be tall, they would base that decision on a subjective evaluation of what it would feel like, be like to be tall. That feeling of physical dominance has a huge effect on a person's self-concept, which translates into feeling more comfortable in one's skin, which is always attractive. In other words, it is the actual experience, the actual flesh-and-blood presence of someone who is tall and strong right here, right now, that creates this preference and not biological instincts arbitrarily pulling your strings. The qualitative experience of tallness is prior to and determinative of evolutionary patterns of behavior pertaining to tallness.


Otherwise I can say there's nothing in a smile that's "really" a smile, we're just conditioned to react to a smile positively, and it could just have easily been a scowl that we interpreted as a facial expression of joy and endearment, which is ridiculous.

>>1861580
Let's say an individual turns their head towards someone and smiles. If there is no evident reason for an individual to scowl then it is assumed that the scowl is not induced by pain but rather by stimulation. Smiling at someone indicates stimulation which is why we like people who smile at us; we understand it as them being interested and stimulated by us. Of course through conditioning this turns into habit and is often forced/falsified. But people still smile, even if the're not feeling a genuine physical reflex which forces them to; because it's polite and also manipulative because we a express a false interest which can benefit us.

Now going back to your previous paragraph:
>The qualitative experience of tallness is prior to and determinative of evolutionary patterns of behavior pertaining to tallness.
Exactly. These evolutionary patterns are real, tangible, and the biological imprint still exists within us (otherwise women wouldn't care about height, but we all know they instinctively do). There's a reason why they exist, whether it's for domination, mating, or both: They're objective benefits to being tall.

You feel it's just social conditioning when really it's biological.

>>1861675
To clarify: The only reason I confidently say it's biological is because of the similarities between other species.

>>1861675
No, what you're saying is there's nothing qualitatively distinctive about a smile vs. a scowl, it's all just arbitrary reactions grafted onto arbitrary expressions determined by some numinous biological instinct, when it is exactly the opposite. the being-here, the immediate experience of the world, is what conditions people to act certain ways, which eventually accrete into impulses, habits, predelictions, what have you. A chick who wants to fuck a tall guy is first and foremost a chick wanting to fuck a tall guy, the instinct is not prior to her, it is her, and she is it, they are one and the same

File: hold.jpg (89KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 728x546px

I figure that if nothing matters, than nothing mattering doesn't matter either. I really don't see any need to make it more complicated than that.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-22-22-10-37.png (187KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 540x960px

Well sometimes op, I wonder about the holocaust.

>>1861748
Can you explain your thought process? What you're saying sounds incredibly illogical. It's as though you want to fight predetermined mannerisms and instincts which are induced by biology. You're dismissing what cannot be dismissed. You're replacing objective human traits created by biology with some personalised rationalisation which I can't comprehend.

>>1861805
You're reducing the actual real time experience of the world people have to some kind of opaque biological determinism that is as illogical as it gets. You are influenced by your genetics but you are not your genetics. The objective is simply the foundation for the superstructure, which is living awareness.

I can ask you why it is that women prefer tall men, and you'd say biological instinct, then I'd ask what determined that, and you'd say the first women who preferred tall men or whatever, and then I'd ask WY they preferred tall men, and you'd say instinct or genes. We just keep going around in circles. sooner or later there must be a subjectivity that bases its decisions on (what else?) its felt experience of the world as it is presented to itself.

Nothing matters to whom?

>>1861829
Women prefer(red) taller men because tall men have the potential to be stronger. If they build a lot of muscle mass then they have a greater chance at protecting themselves, their family, and their tribe. Women are feeble and cannot protect themselves along with their children. They must rely on the men. We return to the biological imperative; to survive and reproduce.

We're not going in circles. We got the the end. There's is nothing subjective about wanting to survive. It's the biological imperative. It's biologically inherent within humans and is therefore objective.

>>1861915
It's pretty funny the epin scientist man is trying to get me to believe in this really dubious utilitarian calculus all women supposedly perform on potential mates, instead of you know, a girl seeing a strong male and getting the tingles.

Is a woman influenced by her status as a woman with X and y attractions conditioned by millions of years of evolution? Yes. Is this what the woman, ultimately, is and reducible to? Fuck no.

>>1861965
What I understand by that post is that you now want to talk about general consciousness. That's not what our discussion was about.

Christ matters

File: 1462872731891.jpg (26KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x250px

>>1860903
>the fact that nothing really matters
>fact

I dunno OP, it really seems to matter to drink, eat, sleep, and reside somewhere with a reasonable temperature, to begin with

>I bet your parents taught you, that you mean something. That you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson. Dieing in the gutter. For no reason at all. They taught me the world only makes sense, if you force it to.

This fragment from Batman resolve all the questions of this thread.

File: s2wdyaxszkrx.png (2MB, 2160x1438px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x1438px

>>1860903
>follow a random religion (any religion, really - from Christianity to Buddhism), but do it seriously, not just like a hobby
>or just don't overthink anything - live in the here and now, be as happy as you can
>or try to be "empty", avoiding painful thoughts and emotions. There is no pain if there is nothing to feel pain.
>or live for others. Try to help people - you'll be happy if they are happy. And when you're long dead, they're going to remember you.
>or live for your family. Build a strong clan, make your children strong and creative. You and your family will be one. Your offsprings will remember you as a great man.
>or live for science / arts. Give something to the world. Find new paths. Go where no man has gone before.
>or try to reshape your way of thinking, the entire structure of your mind and try new way of living / thinking / feeling. Try not to be "normal". Maybe you'll become something... new... and interesting. Maybe you'll realize in this new state of being that there is something to live for.
>follow weird, uncommon belief systems. (An example: the cult of Santa Muerte, aka Holy Death. You literally worship Death itself.)
>Etc, etc...

Sooo many options, Anon.

>>1861147
Have you ever lived forever? If not, how can you even think that it would be a negative thing?

>>1862073
Not the anon, but try to think this way: you cannot talk about nor know nor feel anything that is not relative to you, therefore "subjective" in some way or another; in the end subjectivity is irredutible, we can find correlations between emotional states and biological processes, but one cannot be reduced to another.

>>1860903
>How do you deal with the fact that nothing really matters?
How do you deal with the fact that all you really know for a fact is that you, alone, exist? You know of everything else through your senses and those are subject to manipulation a la "The Matrix". It's all up for grabs except for your existence. And if you think I exist because I'm telling you this, it could be that you are telling it to yourself.

>>1860903
Everyone matters just in different ways to different people and times and situations ull mean everything to some people one day op hang in there.....

>>1861186
Probably some of the best advice one might find in this conversation. Its so simple yet that stament holds so much substance

>>1862638
some sage like advice anon

File: 1368391183006.jpg (56KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 512x512px

>>1860903
>you can self-assign meaning to things

>implying