Question with no answer

>>9267273
Who gives a shit

>>9267298
Who gives a shit about what?

It's funny, as I was watching my friend play a video game the other day, an idea came to me. Watching him play this game, and being so devoutly interested in everything he did or saw in the game, I was astounded by how bad the game was. The setting, locations, interactions with characters; none of it was plausible or very resembling of reality. Yet he said the game was great for its immersion. Now the only thing that had remained which was in anyway immersive to me was the very sharp, clear, and well lighted graphics of the game. The frame rate was high and everything rendered fluidly onto screen and into sight when approached and studied. So in that sense, yes it was very immersive. Witnessing this was when the idea found me. Because, I realized, just because the game looked great for my friend it was enough to allow him to lose himself within it. This had me then thinking on the nature of being. My friend had looked into a few aspects about the game until he found that the good graphics and play style of the game was all he needed to lose himself in the game and enjoy his experience. And is that not much like our very own existence? See, that is what watching him made me ask myself. The extent of his enjoyment from the game was simply those very two solid footholds that he could put himself onto. Just the two. Yet, when I came to think about the nature of my very own existence, I found that I could only find one. And far beyond all and everything in the world, the one thing that I found I had to confirm my being is the fact that I am. Everything beyond that, I realized, was an afterthought. Literally. Those two solid footholds he had are two very nonexistent forms of stimulant to another who does not even know of the existence of video games. Yet those two footholds were enough to take his mind away and bring him into existence. And it was there I found the answer to your question. There is no will to be. Only being. Will to be comes only after being, not before it. It is a product of your being.

>>9267407
Or... you know, your friend is a plebeian whose low standards are just easier to satisfy.

>>9267407
>There is no will to be. Only being.
The will is the will.

>>9267474
No, in that sense, will would be being. Being is being. Will is the will to be.

>>9267506
Sorry, let me rephrase. I meant:

>No, in that sense, will would be being. Being is being. Will is the will to be or* the will not to be. Since it may be more than one form of being, it is an extension of being by nature.

>>9267506
What is, is. What is not, is not.
Ask yourself, does the will exist during its constant process of change and becoming?

>>9267533
>What is, is. What is, is not.

You've already contradicted yourself. Tell of any time where you had already been or became before being? Tell of any time while being that you became anything else? Then tell me, if you can even answer, would those moments not have just been footholds for your being? Alternating will is a byproduct of being. It flows from being, not the other way.

>>9267642
What's the will becoming?
I can't answer this question therefore I know nothing.

File: 220px-Nietzsche1882.jpg (14KB, 220x294px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x294px

>>9267642
Become what you are.

>everything is will
>the point of life is to out-will the will
What the fuck was Shopen is even on? Sounds like ideology of someone who just finished reading Naruto

>>9267714
Exactly. You do not know your own will, yet all you know is you are. Of course you know something. One thing--You are. Existence/being is information: information being stated as anything within and including and from space-time. Sorry to circular logic you, but I felt it was the best way to get you to see the answer and your error.

>>9267642
lol wtf lol, did you just create a strawman?

Being is, non-being is not.

>>9268024
You are what you are. Becoming what you are is being. Being is always becoming, become, is, will be, won't be, isn't. There is only being.

>>9268057
Do you know of not being? Or does your being allow you the idea of "before being"? Any understanding of not being, is a form a being. Not being, is still being nothing. There only is. Everything is an extension of being.

>>9268057
It's not strawman because you aren't giving me a logical question to start with. I'm asking you questions in return to help you realize where your fallacy lies.

>>9268090
.>Becoming what you are is being or not being

FTFY

>>9267273
The Will does not become, you are putting it inside time. Have you really read Schopenhauer?

>>9268221
"Not" being is a technicality. You can't imply nonexistence without being. Therefor it is still a 'state' of being. You can not imply, infer, define, or intend something without a 'state' of being. It is because all you know is or isn't; but still, always, "is"

>>9268277
Does the will exist?

>>9268337
Yes.

>>9268448
Are you sure?

>>9268569
Yes.

File: socrates.jpg (1MB, 3012x3131px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3012x3131px

>>9268604
I know nothing and so do you.

>>9268645
Damn, Socrates.

>>9268655
To be or not to be?

I know nothing.