>that feel when used to be into occult reading chaos magic

File: le_silly_masterofreality_thingy.jpg (9KB, 150x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x184px

>>34141594
>believe that there is nothing after death
bull fuckin shit

this reality is so perfectly designed to be shitty that it's very hard for me to believe it just ends. it seems more fitting that this reality leaves everything scared of dying to cause suffering and get motivations going. and once you die, you just go somewhere else to suffer some more. and in that new reality, it will be just like this one. you will wonder if this is it, if you die it's all over and what not. only to die again, and go somewhere else where you will suffer some more

reality fucking sucks, humanity needs to learn how to usurp it or escape it already.

File: 1439419452350.jpg (7KB, 127x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 127x200px

>>34141680
>I take gnostic teachings literally

>>34141708
nigger I don't even know or care what those are

>>34141733
okay then let me explain from an evolutionary pov. the reason that things seem shitty, is because that is the mechanism that makes people motivated to do things. in the distant past there were those who would feel shitty and those who wouldn't and those who wouldn't had no motivation to do anything so they just died out. we have inherited the genes of our ancestors who felt shitty and so we feel shitty.

>>34141793
>seem shitty
no, everything is objectively fucking awful. it was designed to be that way.
there is nothing that isn't a double edged sword. there is no fun without bullshit.
there is no pleasure without pain

the equation is never even balanced let alone with extra on the good side. it's always way, way stacked up on the bad side. so even when you get some moments of good times, it's irrelevant because you just spent 10x that amount of time dealing with bullshit

reality sucks, perfectly so.

>>34141855
>objectively fucking awful.

no. awful is a subjective concept.

>it was designed to be that way.

completely delusional.

>>34141925
things seem too perfectly shitty for it not to be designed as such. if it is pure happenstance that it is this way, that doesn't change anything. actually makes it worse. before it was just some asshole(s) making things bad, if it's naturally bad then shit is just fucked naturally without any help.

>tfw even when VR comes out it will be fucking awful, poorly made shit like everything else related to electronics

>>34141594
Show tattoos or gtfo.

>>34141680
Death is immense and it is undeniable proof of the divine. Death as a phenomenon is something greater than anything you can imagine, it fills you with dread and rightfully so.

Whether something is beyond dying is irrelevant here.

>>34141976
I already explained to why it seems awful to us.

File: 1414495561619.png (25KB, 383x483px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 383x483px

>tfw kids are usually born with an innate sense that things should not be this way
>tfw they rebel as teenagers and the successful ones kill themselves while all the dumb adults boohoo about it
>tfw most of them are quashed and broken by others so they live as either delusional, predatory or servile adults

It doesn't make any sense. How can you hate being in an environment that you're supposedly perfectly adapted for? What is life? This is retarded.

>>34142018
death sucks for sure, but the way reality is set up, I doubt it's the last of the fuck yous. it's probably only the start.
>>34142034
>seems awful
again, it's objectively fucking awful in every way possible.
there is not a facet of life that isn't horrible, that doesn't have bullshit to it, that doesn't make you suffer. nothing just works right, nothing is good, and nothing lasts even if it is good.
it's too perfectly awful.

>>34142034
I'm not that anon but I think s/he already spoke to that. If it's an inherent mechanic of the universe where things have to be shit in order for sentience to survive, then the universe is by necessity and by nature always shit for things that are sentient and survive.

Which, if it is the end-all-be-all of reality, is incredibly sad.

>>34142038
2 things:

1. the social structure of society is different from the tribal one we are evolutionarily adapted to.
2. being dissatisfied is an evolutionary advantage over being satisfied.

>>34142072
>again, it's objectively fucking awful in every way possible.

Again you fail to understand what objective means.

>>34142077
>If it's an inherent mechanic of the universe where things have to be shit in order for sentience to survive, then the universe is by necessity and by nature always shit for things that are sentient and survive.

It happened that way, but it does not have to be that way. If humans come to understand their brain better, maybe they can alter their nature.

>>34142092
>Again you fail to understand what objective means.
nah I understand it. it's just when dipshits say "hurr durr nuffin objective alls subjective" I just ignore it
because you know
that means nothing, you dipshit. it adds nothing to the conversation.
you might as well just say "I disagree"
okay. I'll let'cha know when that's relevant.

File: Cmon Son.png (323KB, 466x575px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 466x575px

>>34141733
>He's too stupid to know what gnostic means

>>34142092
>being dissatisfied is an evolutionary advantage over being satisfied.
Not really. If everything was great then people would have a more compelling reason to continue surviving and would work harder (which, in such a fictional universe, wouldn't even feel bad) to do it.

The stick is unnecessary, you could make it all carrot and it would all work out fine.

Also what is depression, what is war, what are historically deadly consequences of dissatisfaction. Pretty sure the idea that unhappy people are better at surviving than happy people is pure conjecture on your part.

>>34142132
I am not saying nothing is objective, I am saying that something subjective isn't objective.

A large nose is bad. - what here is subjective and what is objective?

Large is objective, bad is subjective. If you take away the subject, the nose will still be large, but there will be no one to judge is as bad.

I don't care if it isn't relevant to the argument when it's clear that you don't understand the concept.

>>34142072
I never said that death is bad.
You can't assign any value to death, because it is such an immense thing that permeates all things.

>>34142160
>If everything was great then people would have a more compelling reason to continue surviving and would work harder

No. When people feel great, like they do on heroin, they don't do shit.

>>34142169
But the problem is that there are subjects. There are billions of them. A universe that only functions well when viewed objectively shouldn't have even spawned subjectivity in the first place. But the problem is it has and it is terrible.

File: Snapchat-1648237152.jpg (229KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 720x1280px

>>34142006
Remember Satan is Hebrew for "adversary"

>>34142212
The universe functions whether you view or not. No one can explain why there is subjectivity.

>>34142169
>I am saying that something subjective isn't objective.
k
but reality
it's objectively fucking awful

you can say "muh subjectivity" again
but
I don't care about your opinions on the matter and if all you're going to do is build a wall of "I disagree" you can fuck off as that leads the conversation nowhere.
>I disagree
>okay. well good bye I guess
real fun that is

>tfw just talking about reality is suffering

>>34142184
>You can't assign any value to death
why not? it's clearly awful, even when it's good it's still mostly awful. like most things

File: Snapchat-1075462259.jpg (297KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 720x1280px

>>34142006
Hindu goddess Kali

>>34141855
go to a trampoline park and tell me there's no fun without bullshit , motherfucker
all the rest is pretty gay though, you're right

>>34142192
Yeah, because doing shit in this non-ideal universe hurts and comes with inevitable bullshit. People avoid doing things and do drugs in favor of doing those things because things are painful, not because they aren't. Whereas in an ideal universe doing shit would always be nice so people would be absolutely in love with the idea of doing things by nature forever.

>>34142260
You don't understand what objective means, moron.

Your first post revealed an incredible level of stupidity and delusion, and I tried to help you, yet you keep displaying this completely unfounded arrogance.

No one designed the universe, idiot. Your life seems awful to you because of nothing else than circumstance. That's it. The discussion cannot go any further.

>>34142286
>have to drive there
>have to pay to get in
>have to be careful where you land or else your legs get fucked up
>people can bounce into you, sending you to snap city
>eventually get tiered
>at the end of the day you're just bouncing into the air for a bit and coming down
ye no bullshit there

File: 1415812466284.jpg (151KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x800px

>>34142286
You had to consume other living creatures who spent their last moments in complete agony in order to gather the energy required to jump on a trampoline and have a little bit of fun.

>>34142319
Maybe in the future they'll invent some way to hook you up to heroin 24/7. Then you'll enjoy yourself in your ideal universe.

File: 622d3602621e5089211eb9de86bb1cbb.jpg (133KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 640x640px

>>34142273
Why such a poor quality of tattoos? I can understand Adversary being a word but Kali looks like one of those 20 buck works.

>>34142331
whether designed or not it doesn't change the fact that reality is objectively awful

>>34142372
It is subjectively awful. Nothing can be objectively awful, because awful requires a subject, it means nothing on its own.

>>34142362
It costed $100

>>34142251
Stop defending the universe you faglord you can pretend that feelings and qualitative perceptions have no relevance all you want but it won't make them disappear. You will still have to deal with them and so does everyone else and that makes them relevant.

>>34141594
>there is nothing after death
There's no one thing that everyone is going to get after death. Afterlife is a subjective thing and you'll get what you're going to believe you'll get.

>>34142403
Maybe artist was drunk when he was doing Kali.

>>34142393
But it is objectively fucking awful. there isn't a single thing in reality that is not made up of awful bullshit

>>34142393
What is subjectively awful is derived from objective physical interactions signify awfulness. If I fully replicated the body of someone who is in extreme pain, the cloned body would be in extreme pain too.

It's not like good and bad, pleasure and pain are spooky ghosts that don't exist at all. It's only the perception itself that doesn't in a physical sense.

>>34142417
Stop being an idiot who thinks he will gain something by blaming circumstance. Yes, it is by circumstance that you feel shtity, but blaming it won't change anything,because it's not a person you can hold accountable.

What the fuck are you going to do? Entertain fever dreams about leaving the universe to go to some ideal one instead?

>>34142491
*that signify awfulness

>>34142498
>What the fuck are you going to do?
nothing because there is nothing you can do to escape suffering so long as you are in this reality.
>Entertain fever dreams about leaving the universe to go to some ideal one instead?
yes because that's all one can hope for. jump from the sinking shit ship and hope you land on a better one.

>>34142498
>those mental gymnastics
Merely pointing out a fact bro and that's that things are shitty.
>b-but there's no utility in doing that!
So?

>>34142456
A rock.
>>34142491
>What is subjectively awful is derived from objective physical interactions signify awfulness.

Your brain yes. Since awful derives meaning from what happens in your brain it is subjective.

One brain will think hotdog is awful, and true couldn't possibly think it wasn't awful, but another will think it is great.

On its own the hotdog is neither awful nor great.

>>34142533
>yes because that's all one can hope for.

Hope only prolongs your suffering.

>>34142546
>A rock.
stubs your toe
in the fucking way
ill shaped for any use as a tool til work has been done to it
does nothing for you til you make it
falling down on people and hurting/killing them

I could go on about how shitty rocks are. cunts, the lot of them.

>>34142403
Goddamn. A reputable tattoo place charges around $100 per hour, and I can imagine that only being an hour appointment, yet I suspect you didn't research the artist or read reviews at all...

>>34142560
>Hope only prolongs your suffering.
exactly. but without hope you degrade much faster.
again, the perfectly designed double edged sword. no matter what you do, you have to deal with awful bullshit.

>>34142543
You are not pointing out facts you are telling me to not 'defend the universe'. Like I was aiding a criminal.

>>34142566
Sounds like your (subjective) opinion, bud. The rock doesn't need your opinion to be a rock.

File: 132523567889.jpg (8KB, 200x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x199px

>>34142286
>had a birthday party somewhere when I was a young boy
>entire fucking place consists of bouncing pillows and trampolines and what not as far as the eyes can see
>have never been so hyped in my life
>jump down from a high place
>twist my ankle
>worst pain I've felt at that age
>some autistic fat kid does a half assed somersault and lands on my ankle
>hold my ankle and scream in pain
>fat kid is just confused and continues being autistic
>crawl towards my mom and dad on the bouncy pillows as if my leg just got blown off by a mine
>dodging other hyped kids as I go
>finally reach parents
>dad tells me to try and have fun anyway because they already paid for the entire day
>this happened during the beginning of my party
>all of my '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''friends''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' were having fun somewhere without me

Fuck you for reminding me man.

>>34142617
>The rock doesn't need your opinion to be a rock.
because it is a rock already...

this is why no one likes you subjective people. you take a lot of time to say nothing of relevance.

>>34142651
You insisted on the point when you were wrong.

>>34142684
which point was that? you've taken too long to say nothing and I've forgotten what it is we were talkin about
something about how objectively awful reality is or something

>>34142546
>One brain will think hotdog is awful, and true couldn't possibly think it wasn't awful, but another will think it is great
Both of those are objective phenomenon. There is some physical difference between the two brains that causes one to avoid hot dogs and the other to take pleasure in them. If the vast majority of sentient creatures in the universe seek to avoid the universe, then you can say that the universe is objectively shit, if words like shit and bad can be defined as "things sentient creatures avoid".

>>34141976
>seems

Perception is subjective you fucking pseud.

>>34141733
>he parrots entry-level gnostic rhetoric without knowing what it is

>>34142590
>exactly. but without hope you degrade much faster.

Why would that be a problem for you? You degrade, your disappear, you stop suffering.

>>34142745
That awful could be objective.

>>34142764
Yes, but that doesn't make awful objective. If it did there would be nothing subjective at all. Then the word objective would mean nothing.

>>34142592
>disregarding the rest of my post
Also you basically are desu it's holding every potential existence you could have had hostage by forcing you to have this shitty one.

>>34142783
not when it's objective dough

>>34141976
>my brain has chemical imbalances?
>no, it must be the universe's fault

>>34142362
yeah it's pretty bad
it looks like her tongue is a slug she's eating or something
kali's a mean motherfucker, by the way

>>34142797
You could not possibly have had any other existence.

>>34142796
You're literally just saying that you're not allowed to say you like or dislike things because it doesn't fit in with your worldview. Every perception is relative, objectively nothing fucking exists because you need something to compare a thing to in order to define it. We can only reach near-objectivity and that is what I'm trying to do by broadening the scope a bit.

>>34142796
>Why would that be a problem for you?
because once you die, like fuck that's the end of Mr.Bone's wild ride. it just shifts into second gear probably

thinking life's suffrage ends at death is too good to be true. look at the rest of reality, it's literally never any good. why would it get good at the end? why would there even be an end? just keep fucking everyone other forever because fuck you reality sucks

>>34142828
>reality makes my brain imbalanced
>leads to suffering
>this isn't realities fault
k

>>34142843
Exactly my point. Isn't that fucked up?

>>34142808
So when you think you're right it's objective?

>>34142890
if we're just going to blame everything on "reality" then there's no point discussing anything
you're also retarded

>>34142345
>>34142349
>>34142624
i bent my big toenail back, skinned both knees and one elbow on my one visit to a trampoline park (in rehab for booze hooray)
best time of my life: trampoline dodgeball
fuck those little kids i am dodgeball god

>>34142858
>objectively nothing fucking exists because you need something to compare a thing to in order to define it.

objectivity is that which exist independent of your perception.

>We can only reach near-objectivity and that is what I'm trying to do by broadening the scope a bit.

You are just misusing the word.

>>34142867
okay so you hope to escape to some fairytale wonderland because you are scared of some fairytal shitland that you think you may experience when you die?

you are completely delusional buddy.

>>34142895
maybe we are fucked up and reality is just fine

>>34142915
I'm only right because I realize it is objective
it is not right because I want it so. it just is what it is and I recognize it as such

>>34142919
everything is realities fault so I dunno why you are mad that claiming such is stupid. everything is the way it is because of reality.

you really ready to deny that? deny that reality is, well, reality?

>>34142983
here's the kicker. you are a part of reality. it's partially your fault.

>>34142960
>maybe we are fucked up and reality is just fine
But we are reality. Stop using this dichotomy where we're these magical fairy creatures who defy reality and reality is somehow juxtaposed against us. It's all real and it feels bad.

>objectivity is that which exist independent of your perception.
Like I said, in order to define something it has to be compared to another thing. In order to draw a comparison there has to be something there to perceive it. Objectively everything is formless and quality-less because there is nothing to compare any of it to and no one to make the comparison. Therefore objectively nothing exists.

>>34142960
>okay so you hope to escape
yes because that's all you can do
it's either sit here and just suffer or sit here and suffer while hoping for a better reality

how dumb it is to hope for something better. top kek, just like sit there and suffer and wait til you die I guess

>>34143004
no reality is part of me, thus making me this way. I have some control over it, but that's mostly irrelevant.
the NFL player can't change the rules of the whole game. he can only hope shit changes for the best and do his best in game to make things good.

>>34143008
>But we are reality.

not all of reality. you are a part of reality. you could be fucked up without reality being fucked up.

>Like I said, in order to define something it has to be compared to another thing.

It doesn't need you to define it to exist. It exist before you define it.

>>34143044
So now you are just a helpless subject? and just a few posts ago you were the sole definer of objectivity.

>>34142983
I'm not denying it, I'm calling you retarded for making such a useless claim

>>34143018
If you hope for something impossible you will suffer more.

>>34143075
>So now you are just a helpless subject?
>now
nigga I always was. and I ain't the sole definer of objectivity either.
just someone who knows it when theys sees its

>>34143110
>just someone who knows it when theys sees its

how do you know?

>>34142260
>why not?
Is it really?
You might know what death is on an intellectual level and you might have your own ideas of what death brings, but can you understand what death truly means? God isn't just dead, God is death. Death is true sanctity in the sense that we couldn't possibly grasp it.

>>34143055
>It exist before you define it.
Not really. It wasn't defined as anything so it can't be said to really have existed. As soon as you imagine something's existence before your own you're also inventing an imaginary perceiver (you in a different time) so even that is subjective.

>not all of reality. you are a part of reality. you could be fucked up without reality being fucked up.
If even a small part of reality is fucked up then reality itself is also fucked up and it's definitely fucked up for earth.

>>34143109
Not necessarily. I will only suffer more if we never escape this reality and if death is not the end. if death is the end, my hope doesn't matter. if we escape, my hope was justified. if I die and heaven or some shit is real, my hope might be justified.

>>34143132
>how do you know?
because I do. same with everything else. you either know it or you don't.
how do you know the wind blows? cuz it dew

>>34143145
>It wasn't defined as anything so it can't be said to really have existed
I mean, I would accept you arguing that it had "potential existence" or some other arbitrary phrase. But that would have to be differentiated from regular existence, which is defined.

>>34143145
>Not really. It wasn't defined as anything so it can't be said to really have existed.

Pretty sure a rock on the beach is there even if you don't go there to define it.

The Earth was here before humans evolved to define it. If the Earth didn't exist then humans couldn't have evolved on it.

What wasn't here was the word for the objects and the concepts(proporties), but what the word refers to(the object) was already there.

>>34143140
see shit like that doesn't really mean anything to me
like what are you even on about? death is death, something that happens no matter what and we're not sure what's after it if anything even is after
going on about god and immense things is just like nigger what? sounds like those hippies when they try to explain anything spiritual. going on and on about nothing, over explaining the simplest cut and dry shit

>>34143173
What if I knew that it wasn't awful? We couldn't possibly both know yet contradict each other.

>>34143214
>Pretty sure a rock on the beach is there even if you don't go there to define it.
No it isn't. There is no rock and there is no beach, they are not defined as anything. They're formless blobs of pseudo-existence.

>>34143244
>What if I knew that it wasn't awful?
but it is
so...

>>34143151
With that kind of delusional conviction, I'm surprised you don't play the lottery more often.

Actually that's a bad analogy since winning the lottery is actually a conceivable possibility.

>>34143254
You are wrong. We perceive shape we do not give things shape. If there was no shape we wouldn't perceive anything.

File: 1484247160634.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

>>34143263
I know differently. Don't ask me how I know, you just know when you know.

>>34143266
so having hope is dumb like playing the lottery?
spending a dollar to potentially win a hundred million dollars is dumb?


the potential for hope to cause more suffering is pretty much the same as the chance for it to cause pleasure/satisfaction.

>>34143330
>spending a dollar to potentially win a hundred million dollars is dumb?

When you know the odds, yes. In your case the odds of escaping reality is 0%.

>>34143293
But shape is defined by contrast with the environment and it requires a subject to make such distinctions. There is no shape until there is a subject that can compare the shape to something else in the environment.

>>34143342
>When you know the odds, yes.
but it's a dollar
something you can find on the ground in spare change, or get from others just from panhandling
no matter the odds, so long as there is a chance, how is it not worth it?
going from 1$ to 100,000,000$ at even a .000000000000001% not worth it? it's not like you can gamble on that all day and night. it's a one time bet of one dollar.

>>34143350
Not it doesn't. Lifeforms walked on the planet before they developed the capacity to distinguish the shape of the planet.

They could not walk on something formless. This is a given.

>>34143395
>how is it not worth it?

Because dollars add up. This is how Shekelstein can make a profit baiting people into playing the lottery.

>>34143397
No they didn't. To see whatever mysterious interaction they had with the rest of the formless universe as "walking on a planet", you have to create an imaginary subject that can perceive it as such.

>>34143426
>Because dollars add up
no it's a dollar
a bet
one
singular

sure it's bad if you blow thousands on it over the year
but in this scenario, it's just one bet. of one dollar.

>>34143446
>the world didn't exist before I was born

I can't disprove your egocentric solipsism. I will however suggest that it causes you a lot of unecessary suffering.

>>34143446
And, furthermore, a hypothetical alien subject could "see" what they did as something very different. Objectively we actually have no fucking idea what's going on because all information we get is subjective.

>>34143475
No because you keep clinging to some delusional fantasy, and it only makes the suffering you experience worse.

There is a certain freedom in giving up fantasies.

>>34143480
No I'm arguing that the definition of the universe is relative and relativity requires subjectivity. You can use shame memewords all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you're misinterpreting me.

>>34143520
>keep clinging
maybe in your view of it.
to me it's just "hey maybe it gets better"
the end. I rarely even think about it. it's just there.

like a one time bet

>>34143533
Yeah the definition is. What the definition refers to isn't.

>You can use shame memewords

You seem to be arguing from some platonic idea that concepts precede what they refer to.

>>34143565
I think you should accept that it won't change. Maybe you will feel better when you grow older, but circumstances won't have changed.

>>34142241
>Not getting the actual Hebrew word tattooed

>>34143581
Something that is undefined doesn't exist. If you were slammed with all possible definitions of the universe all at once, then maybe you could assert that you understand it "objectively". But if something is undefined then it can't be anything because in order for it to be something it has to be defined as something in the first place.

>>34143608
>I think you should accept that it won't change.
why?
I made my bet. it was cheap and easy.
eventually it will either pay off and I win, or it won't and I'm nothingness so it doesn't matter anyway

as far as I can tell, it's a win win situation.

>not realising that this is a primitive planet, one of the outcast planets of the universe

Most inhabited planets are occupied by highly evolved beings who live in paradise. The world is shit because we're still essentially cavemen but with pretty tools. The essence of the universe is love and living in the oneness that God is. We live in fear and hence greed.

Also, your experience of reality isn't "life". It's a teeny tiny fragment. Life is dynamic; ever-changing. Unless you're in poverty or something unavoidable like that, you're simply choosing shitty experiences for yourself.

>>34143665
>Something that is undefined doesn't exist.

Sure it does. People just haven't defined it.

Before the first consciousness arose there must have been something undefined that caused it. Undefined because there would have be a conscious observer to make any definition.

Thus is what you are saying is correct, consciousness could never have arisen since nothing existed prior to it.

>>34143687
because it is better to know the truth. I was a stoner for many years and honestly it felt great, but I longed for something else.

now I feel shitty, but I still won't start smoking again.

>>34143702
And how is that true? About the aliens living in paradise?

>>34143775
>because it is better to know the truth.
but I won't know the truth til my bet either comes through or doesn't
and I've already explained how that is a win win situation for me.

so you're doing a really bad job at trying to get me to drop my hopes

>>34143741
You can't inquire into the nature of what preceded consciousness without creating imaginary scenarios in your head that are logically coherent with what you've already subjectively experienced. Seeing what happened before consciousness as "something" STILL requires an imaginary observer and is still subjective.

>>34143702
I really want to believe
Are you familiar with insect people? Are they nice?

>>34143824
>You can't inquire into the nature of what preceded consciousness without creating imaginary scenarios in your head that are logically coherent with what you've already subjectively experienced.

It is a given that consciousness could not have caused itself. Therefore there must be something existing prior to consciousness.

>>34143868
There might have been some proto-existence but nothing actually existed as we understand it.

>>34143813
I guess you have to have the desire to know the truth. I can't force you to give up delusions.

If you think you need them, I'm honestly not gonna say you are wrong, because maybe you do.

>>34143891
>If you think you need them
need is irrelevant
I have hope because there is no reason not too

>>34143792
There is much channeled material on this stuff. Read The Law of One, for example.

It's inevitable, over time, for a race to reach either:

A) Paradise through love and co-operation for the genuine interest of all
B) Destruction of the planet

The way our planet is reaks heavily of primitive thoughts, words and actions, and we're heading towards B, unless the uprising consciousness shift moves us towards A. We've barely evolved over the last few thousand years largely because of shitlords at the top purposely holding us back

>>34143882
>but nothing actually existed as we understand it.

Sure it did. The Earth was here without any humans to define existence. It was here fitting the criteria of existence before we made up the criteria.

>>34143929
There are reasons, but you have chosen to discard them. You do not have the desire to know despite of how it makes you feel.

>>34143953
No it didn't. The Earth didn't exist because nothing could have defined it as the Earth. You'd be contradicting yourself if you asserted that the Earth could both exist and be undefined, because if it is undefined it cannot have even be defined as Earth or anything else.

>>34144005
*been defined

>>34144005
What we have defined as the Earth did not need to be defined to be what it is.

>You'd be contradicting yourself if you asserted that the Earth could both exist and be undefined, because if it is undefined it cannot have even be defined as Earth or anything else.

No, because I understand the difference between nomina and object.

>>34143979
>There are reasons,
well you tried to post some
but I discredited them all so
no
there really aren't. I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore this fact.

>>34144066
You discredited them by claiming that your hope makes you feel better.

What this means is that your beliefs are based on your feelings.

Not everyone is like this.

>>34144052
Yes it did. For something to be something and not another it has to exist in contrast with something else. Contrast requires a subject.

>>34141594
i think there is another life, just you forget about it, into another person's sperm, egg.

>>34144156
Although I'll agree that it did not need to be defined to be what it "proto-is". But this idea that our perception of the earth as a spinning blue rock is "the truth" is absurd.

>>34144156
Sure, for the distinct idea to be made, but that distinction is based on something. That something's existence preceded being defined.

Otherwise our senses couldn't pick up anything and all distinctions would be arbitary.

>>34144228
What it proto is, is infact what it objectively is. What we think it is, is only a reflection of what it actually is.

>>34144237
No it didn't, because existence requires definition.

>Otherwise our senses couldn't pick up anything and all distinctions would be arbitary.
Our distinctions are arbitrary. They're (most of the time) internally consistent but outside of that they are completely arbitrary.

>>34144344
If I hit you in the head with a club, I wonder if you would still insist that the club's existence is arbitary.

>>34144369
I never said I was the one arbitrating. Not consciously, at least.

>>34144269
Yeah, and that's nothing at all because in order for it to be a thing it needs to be defined as such.

>>34144493
No, but you are saying that the clubs existence is arbitary objectively doesn't exist.

You will see that the statement is completely meaningless when you experience that being hit with a club is different from being with an imaginary club.

Obviously there is something not arbitary that the definition of the club is based on.

any recommendations for books on the occult, magic and rituals and stuff?
i dont believe in any of it but i find it interesting

>>34144655
>when you experience that being hit with a club is different from being with an imaginary club.
Well of course it's different. They're both defined as two different things. Each is as subjective as the other but they both have different meanings.

>Obviously there is something not arbitary that the definition of the club is based on.
No there isn't. It can't be a thing because a thing is defined by differentiation from other things, and that requires a subject. If there was no "me" to hit with the club, or even see it as a club, then objectively nothing has actually happened at all. The entire notion that something even happened is based on subjective interaction.

>>34144685
The best way to do magic is to just be yourself. I'm super serious. You need to be a lot more yourself than you are right now.

>>34144839
yeah, but as you claimed the definitions are completely arbitary.

it's a shame we defined bacteria huh, before we did that, no one was dying of diseases.

>No there isn't. It can't be a thing because a thing is defined by differentiation from other things,

Yes, but existence precedes definition.

>>34144901
>it's a shame we defined bacteria huh, before we did that, no one was dying of diseases.
We defined bacteria through vague sensory data before we defined them through language. If we couldn't have defined disease, death and bacteria through sensory data then no one would be dying or diseased.

>Yes, but existence precedes definition.
Nope. They're simultaneous.

>>34144990
>We defined bacteria through vague sensory data before we defined them through language

We have reached the core of your error. Your sensory system is not perfect. It doesn't pick up on everything. It not unthinkable that someone at some point was killed by a disease without ever sensing it.

You are also conflating sensing, which is entirely unconscious with definining which is a conscious action.

>>34145128
>It not unthinkable that someone at some point was killed by a disease without ever sensing it
Only by retrospectively observing this person could you ever determine that they were killed by a disease. It objectively never happened, it only subjectively happens once a different subjective understanding of the situation occurs. Someone with a different set of sensory equipment might see the millions of "tiny people" who are killing you as waves, or as something else entirely. It objectively is neither.

>You are also conflating sensing, which is entirely unconscious with definining which is a conscious action.
Sensing is unconscious definition. To sense something is to define it. Something you can't sense is undefined, relative to you. Something you can sense is defined, relative to you.

>>34145128
>>34145243
Also being killed by a disease is still a subjective interaction in the first place even before retrospective analysis so I'm not sure how you can even pretend that it objectively happened.

>>34145243
>Only by retrospectively observing this person could you ever determine that they were killed by a disease.

Indeed, but whether you determined it or not, the person was dead.

>Sensing is unconscious definition.

Conflation. Sensing is a reaction to external stimulation.

>To sense something is to define it.

Conflation. We can build a machine that senses obstacles, it doesn't define them, it just reacts to stimulation.

To define something is a conscious act. It creates a definition.

>>34145338
Because objectively, millions of people die to disease every year.

>>34145373
>Indeed, but whether you determined it or not, the person was dead.
Relative to him/herself, me, or anyone else who could perceive it. Objectively, though, nothing happened.

>Conflation. Sensing is a reaction to external stimulation.
If sensing and definition weren't synonymous then our reality would be undefined right now and we would all be philosophical zombies.

>We can build a machine that senses obstacles, it doesn't define them, it just reacts to stimulation.
But we do define reality through our senses before we consciously think about our reality. There is either something different between us and other machines that prevents us from being philosophical zombies or machines actually aren't philosophical zombies themselves and they too define through sense in some kind of bizarre alien way.

>>34145401
No, that's subjective. There needs to be an observer or many observers to come to that conclusion.

>>34145575
>Objectively, though, nothing happened.

Objectively he died. The biological motion is his brain ceased. His heart stopped.

>then our reality would be undefined

How so? Why would sensing and defining have to mean the same in order for you to perform both? One unconciously, one consciously.

>But we do define reality through our senses before we consciously think about our reality.

Not if you define, definition as a conscious action. To understand a distinction you must be conscious. If a domino hits another domino there is no understanding on the part of either domino, the domino simply reacts to be hit by falling over. A physical reaction is distinct from a conscious understanding.

>>34145600
No one has to come to any conclusion for it to happen.

>>34142286
>trampoline park
>never saw the videos of people being snapped in half by those things

Regardless of where you stand on this whole nihilism debate, that was a poor fucking example.

>>34145954
He's showing how anecdotal their argument is with his weak argument

>>34145954
It's not even a debate on nihilism, but something more autistic whether suffering is objective or not

Hey guy I have been talking to. I would have liked to continue our discussion, but I'm going to bed. I don't know if you plan on responding to my last post, but I'll check to tomorrow to see if you did.

>>34145817
>Objectively he died. The biological motion is his brain ceased. His heart stopped.
Brains, hearts and motion are all artifacts of a subjective interpretation of reality. In order to narrate what happened to the man you have to create an imaginary observer. It's still subjective.

>No one has to come to any conclusion for it to happen.
Yes you do. If there's no one around to define what people even are then people obviously can't die.

>How so? Why would sensing and defining have to mean the same in order for you to perform both? One unconciously, one consciously.
I didn't consciously decide that my computer is shaped like a rectangle yet I still sense it as one. Of course I consciously assign the word "rectangle" to it but before that I have an unalterable sensory definition to work with. It is the senses themselves and tangential systems relating to those senses that define what I see. I am conscious of that definition but forming it is not itself a conscious action. Anyway you seem to be agreeing with my original point, and that is that sensing is unconscious definition.

>>34146177
Goodnight, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite.

t h i s i s a u n i q u e p o s t

>>34142260
k
but really
that's really just your opinion

you can say "muh objectivity" again
but
I don't care about your opinions on the matter and if all you're going to do is build a wall of "It's objective because I say so, damned if you disagree" you can fuck off as that leads the conversation nowhere.

>>34143263
>>34143173
holy shit you aren't the brightest crayon are ya

File: 1484264530039.jpg (75KB, 795x704px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 795x704px

>>34141680
>this reality is so perfectly designed to be shitty that it's very hard for me to believe it just ends.

It blows my mind some people actually think this is sound reasoning. It's not limited to normies either.

Embarrassing

>>34141680
Typical self centered human-centric view point.
>the universe must be designed for us blah blah bullshit excuses to make me feel special blah blah

The universe doesn't care about you, me, or anyone else. We are an anomaly. Nothing more.