Let’s consider you still being alive a success, for argument’s sake. Did you have breakfast? Something had to die for you to have that. Let’s just presume that you only had one thing for breakfast?how about an egg? That’s one life traded for yours.
1 (you) - 1 (egg) = 0
Okay, zero sum, right?
It’s 3PM now. Did you have lunch? Let’s say you had another egg.
1 (you) - 1 (egg) - 1 (egg) = -1 (not 0)
And you’ve been alive and successful for more than just one day.
he’s just doing what every 16 year old does when they start reading philosophy: being an intellectual scrub and equating irrationality with meaninglessness. A good majority of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy is about not being that exact type of moron. You’re wasting your time trying to convince him to let go of that crutch, you might as well just tell him to read up on a couple hundred years of literature.
Wouldn’t my life be important if I always did my best to ensure that the people around me lived to the best of their ability, albeit through justice, health and perhaps even happiness?
I think it’d be more difficult to look into yourself and find whether or not life has value or importance. I’m sure it’s possible, monks and other types of people spend their entire lives deep in thought.
But I think for everyday people like us, looking around at the people and things we love should give our lives some “reason”, importance and perhaps even value. We strive to prosper in life by AVOIDING suffering to the best of our ability.
When it comes down to it, the point I’m making is that in-order to survive, we must take advantage of someone/something else. The argument stands if you look at it on a case by case basis. You had to take advantage of each one at each time still making it 1 (you) - 1 (egg) = 0, simply start over when you get to the next thing you need to take advantage of.
You’re just grossly misinterpreting German philosophers now. Deconstructing values and morality was a means of constructing new ones, the blank slate was never the endgame. It’s supposed to create new forms of thought that don’t fall into, ironically, the circular logic that you are using now. Seriously dude, don’t just read half of every book you pick up.
Or perhaps you could actually contribute some thought yourself. Exactly what philosophy have you read? Where am I equating irrationality with meaninglessness? I don’t quite understand where you’re getting this meaningless shit from, as I’ve stated, meaning can be given by the individual, life having no intrinsic value, does not mean you cannot give it meaning. I haven’t seen you even attempt to discuss anything just sling these little jabs about being a teenager who read some philosophy. Which I don’t even see the insult there, but regardless. Tell me your philosophy.
I never really argued against that. Unless you just were just commenting.
No, not obese personally, wouldn’t need to. Do you eat it while watching Oprah?
Human nature, and nature in general is really the cause of suffering. The system itself is built upon it. I think that if we are going to live we should be doing things to eliminate suffering. I’m not advocating some sort of nihilism where I don’t give two fucks what I do because it means nothing. I think suffering is an objective truth, and limiting that suffering on life should be our main goal.
By all means if you believe I’m using circular logic, and you in-fact are aware of something I’m not, care to share? Or is every post going to be an attempt at a “i know more, just saying i’m 41 have lived through the gulf war and you’re 16” kind of post? I have really only dealt with Schopenhauer, not German philosophers as a whole.
Do me a favor and deprive me from any more of your shit posts.
I think that it would be safe to say “Life is suffering”, but life is also many other things. You could say many things in place of suffering in that sentence and they would probably all be correct.
While we aim to avoid suffering, sometimes it is necessary (think standing up to someone who is unjust or cruel or swallowing a mouthful of bitter medicine) to withstand.
Sufferings such as starvation, cold and disease throw us back into a primitive “natural” mode were survival is at the top of the priority list (think Dataika’s posts). In times of better stability, people have the thought processes to try and eliminate suffering, or to create more suffering.
It comes down to what each person wants to do with their given amount of time .
I don’t think I really understand this statement, and if I do, then I disagree. A sacrifice or loss has to be made in order for something/someone to gain? If you are talking about nature, what about mutualism, where both parties benefit from interacting with one another? Can’t mutualism be just as fundamental as screwing something over just to get by in life? How is life more of a design to suffer than to prosper?
Edit: Yes superking, fuck leno. Though I don’t think he sabotaged coco’s career like most people do, I want my conan back.