What is the point to life?

What is the point to life?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXyvlKr_Yvo
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/world
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

to thrive

To remind the OP that he is very much a faggot.

but why?

but why?

To bang as much tight vag as you can. Obviously.

To shitpost

to stay alive, fuck, and make sure your offspring don't die. anything else is what you do while you wait on death

To create your own meaning

I really made this thread with the hope that someone would give me some insight or a reason why living life is important. If no legit replies by the time this thread 404's I will hang myself.

My life is literally in your hands Sup Forums.

Sounds like a Cassandra paradox. Destined to shitpost, never able to be concious that your fulfilling your purpose as you shitpost.

you lie

The answer you seek is 42.

To kill.

A dying man speaks nothing but the truth?

do it faggot

I will. I just require one last drop of dopamine associated with the mental stimulation provided by total stranger's comments on a japanese-esue imageboard desu.

feed my brain.

this is the true purpose...life has no meaning and through that you have power, the power to make your own meaning

Jesus fucking Christ, there is No point.

Everything is here because it hasn't died yet, chance is only reason anything at all even exists. If you're going to kill yourself, do it with some dignity and don't start an attention thread..

To live and do stuff that you enjoy to do.

But the basic rules of nature say that you have to fuck as many persons of your opposite sex as you can fuck before you die.

I think every person, at one time or another, has found themselves imagining what it might be like to stop living. Sometimes this can be out of desperation, but other times it's just a way to get back in touch with not being dead. As the saying goes, "Being alive is alright, especially when we consider the alternative." It's healthy to think about life and death, even when we're feeling hopeless. Or perhaps especially then. We shouldn't be afraid to try and imagine what it would be like to kill ourselves. Often times, it can help us get a refreshed perspective and appreciation for the astounding adventure we're part of, and how truly frightening and challenging it would be to really end it all.

These, OP: Underage fag

As far as we're aware, being dead is an impossibly unimaginable experience anyway. It might not even be an experience at all, but rather the total void of non-experience. When I've been in pain, sometimes non-experience sounded pretty good. Whatever it is to be dead, almost all of us have tried to fathom it, and in times of great anguish, we've probably wondered if it might be preferable to the discomfort of daily living. Only the most brazen of believers would unquestioningly assume that the afterlife -- if there is one -- is something we can comprehend and prepare for. And if there is an existence after this one, it would be pretty bold to think we could have the foggiest idea about what it consists of or feels like.

The mystery of the afterlife is part of the fun or terror of what lies beyond death. Death really is -- for better or worse -- the ultimate example of "who knows?" Someone who claims to know what happens after death is probably someone we should be suspicious of -- they might be a ghost. So I say, contemplate suicide all you want, but don't take those thoughts too seriously. Allow yourself to explore your inner thoughts and ideas without fear or commitment. You can think about things and not do them. You can always change your mind about anything you feel.

I don't think you should kill yourself, but it's not my decision to make. Being born wasn't really your choice either, and in most cases, when and how you die is often out of your control. But it seems that if someone wants to end their life, they should absolutely be allowed to do it on their terms. After all, the only thing that each of us truly has ownership of is our body, and if we want to eradicate it, we can -- even if it's against other people's beliefs.

Being happy and shit

As far as dealing with depression, I have a simple suggestion that I think could work like magic to heal your soul and lift your spirits. It's a very simple thing called... Helping other people. Sometimes setting aside your own troubles and focusing on someone else's in their time of need can have an incredibly powerful effect on relieving you of your own despair. This is especially true when you help someone you don't know. Of course it's good to help family and friends, but connecting with someone unknown to you, and being able to simply exercise your good will, can provide a unique and uplifting energy that almost nothing else compares to.

Some might say that helping other people just to make yourself feel good is selfish and not true generosity. But I think the fact that it benefits you is exactly the point. We are all bound together. No matter how much we like to think of ourselves as unrelated and apart from others and their plight, we are, in fact, all in the same boat. God or evolution or both have specifically wired our brains to feel pleasure when we help other people. Our health responds positively to acts of human kindness, whether we perform them or receive them. This reward is meant to be tangible. It's supposed to feel good to do good for others -- we're then motivated to do even more good. To be able to relate to someone else whom you never met before is to be able to relate more deeply to yourself. We're meant to see ourselves reflected in other people -- people we would never imagine we'd have anything in common with. But we all share one thing in common: we're human beings, trying to make the best of this intense thing called life.

So maybe it's time to turn away from yourself and towards your neighbor. Help people in need. It doesn't have to be traditional charity -- it can be anything that shows your fellow man that someone's there and someone cares. Participate in society to make it a more humane and compassionate place for everyone, including you. You'll be astounded at how powerful it feels to engage in "others-help" instead of just "self-help."

The experience of connecting with someone through shared understanding can put you in direct contact with the miracle of life. It's truly the sensation of love -- not just an idea or an emotion -- but the very feeling and expression of what it is to be a person alongside another person. It is the feeling of God. And if you're someone who doesn't believe in God as an entity, you can experience God as this unbelievably simple yet infinite thing called "love." God is love. And you don't have to be religious to still think of God as just the word that best describes that indescribable and infinite feeling of total love. Love is the most fundamental part of being a living, breathing, and caring person. Give your love to the world and you'll get more purpose and meaning back in your life than you ever imagined possible.

Pugs.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXyvlKr_Yvo

also this is called nihilism or absurdism......its called something help me out!!

If digits then suicide is the answer to lifes problems.

That depends op. Do you want the truth or do you want to feel good? Actually stop and think about that.

Truth is that meaning is a human construct. The purpose of life however is pretty much:
>to stay alive, fuck, and make sure your offspring don't die.

If you want to feel good then something like these:
There is no objective meaning to life because meaning is completely subjective.

I don't think there's much. But, honestly, having the option to kill yourself seems infinitely better than being doomed to a miserable life. I think that considering suicide saved me from losing my mind at least a handful of times.

Read some philosophical Pessimist literature and mull it over. Continental philosophy usually concerns itself with the best way to live life. It's worth the time investment, if you're willing to put in the effort to try and "get" it. If not, listen to summaries of different philosophers. They're not the same, but close enough.

-Your friendly neighborhood /lit/ faggot.

To kill jews

thats what i said dumb ass

No you didn't. Can you read and comprehend language?

Figure it out yourself

There is {{no objective meaning to life}} because meaning is completely subjective.

this is the true purpose...{{life has no meaning}} and through that you have power, the power to make your own meaning

ref. {{}}

You implied that life's purpose was to create meaning. That's bullshit.

It's Existentialism.

Although many Existentialists are also known as Nihilists or Absurdists. Nietzsche and Camus are the biggest names of either, respectively. Though Camus wasn't really an "Absurdist," per se. Absurdism is usually applied to the arts. Not Philosophy.

why is that? .....if there's no meaning and you want some, just create your own. whats wrong with that.

mmmkay thanks must have scene rick and morty philosophy

...

Well that depends do you understand the difference between your imagination and reality?

I'm not the guy who you're responding to, but I'll say this:

The point of that philosophy is to give people the choice to determine their own values. In the absence of an objective meaning to life, (God, Ethical Empiricism, etc) you have the opportunity to decide meaning for yourself. You have to make choices, and those choices more or less say what you think the meaning of life to be.

Your actions, and the way you live your life are an effect of the way that you understand this freedom. They are, implicitly and subjectively YOUR "meaning of life."

kys ayy lmao

To check em

>They are, implicitly and subjectively YOUR "meaning of life."
Yes but objectively absolute bullshit.

>I believe the grass is orange! I BELIEVE
So what that's bullshit.

If you're interested, Paul Strathern does a nice series summarizing different Philosophers lives and their work. Much, much better.

well if science is right then simulation/nonexistence so if there is a copy of something the originality(as in what is real like the ship with the parts replaced and such) becomes illusory........but if not science then idk maybe were all one and consciousness

To die, duh. Every successful person in history has died. And killing yourself just helps you accomplish that goal sooner.

nice! ill check it out ty

>stopped talking in coherent sentences
>talking unproven hippy retarded nonsense
(thumbs up)

i dont like writing books.

what can be proven beyond what you see here now....on top of that how many witnesses dose it take in court to prove something, and how far will people go to lie...never underestimate how far people will go

Actually, Existentialism presupposes that sort of thinking. It came out of German Phenomenology--which basically said: Let's assume the objective world exists, philosophy needs to focus on ethics, rather than trying to prove that things exist.

I understand why you would think that, but existentialism isn't necessarily total relativism. Although I'm sure there are relativist philosophers who could be called existentialists. There's a hard logic implicit in a lot of Sartre's arguments on existentialism, and the same is true of Heidegger.

The point is to offer a way of living--it's not a systematic philosophy that solves everything.

>Well that depends do you understand the difference between your imagination and reality?
so what were you gonna say, i got of topic

you guys are really talking a bunch of fucking nonsense lol.

Don't kill yourself. Because that's dumb and you're smart. Work out. Get a cool car. And fuck chicks. Don't worry about a thing you're gonna be alright.

lol why

let me know what is not nonsense pls tell em

Because I'm about to terminate my given intelligence as well as the meat sack that comes with.

Yeah a bunch of ideas based on other ideas, NOT based on observable evidence (ir. Reality).

Where is the point in your ramble? I can't find it, excuse me.

A short kek was given while reading your post.

You deserve to know this.

to suffer for 70 years and then die

These three kinds of reasoning are Abduction, Induction, and Deduction. Deduction is the only necessary reasoning. It is the reasoning of mathematics. It starts from a hypothesis, the truth or falsity of which has nothing to do with the reasoning; and of course its conclusions are equally ideal....Induction is the experimental testing of a theory....It sets out with a theory and it measures the
degree of concordance of that theory with fact. It never can originate any idea whatever. No more can deduction. All the ideas of science come to it by the way of Abduction. Abduction consists in studying facts and devising a theory to explain them. Its only justification is that if we are ever to understand things at all, it must be in that way.

?

The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.

Jackin it to skanky porn

Blowin dro
Vidya
Tobacco products
Fine wine

>Cat
Why are you bitching? Your guy won the election.

We have no vocalist anymore!!! DEAD killed himself two weeks ago! It was really brutal, first he cut open all the arteries in the wrist then he had blown off his brains with a shotgun. I found him and it looked fucking grim, the upper half of his head was all over the room and the lower part of his brain had fallen out of the rest of his head and down on the bed. I of course grabbed my camera and made some photos, we'll use them in the next mayhem LP. I and HELLHAMMER Were so lucky that we found two big pieces of his skull we have hung on necklaces as a memory. DEAD killed himself because only for the true, old black metal scene and lifestyle. It means black clothes, spikes, crosses and so on. You know, bands like old Hellhamer, Bathory and so on... but today there are children in jogging swit and skateboards and hardcore moral ideas. they try to look as normal as possible. This has nothing to do with black. This stupid people must fear black metal! But instead they love shitty bands like Deicide, Benediction, Napalm death, Sepultura and all that shit!!
Death to false Black Metal or Death Metal!! Also to the trendy hardcore people...aaarrgghh!!

It sounds as though you're arguing against logic, and for subjectivity (personal experience), when you just did the opposite.

You and a schizophrenic could take in the same sensory input, and have wildly different subjective experiences as beings. Which one of you would be objectively "right" about that sensory input?

I really don't have the time to explain Decarte and John Locke to someone who mostly wants to shitpost and make strawman arguments.

To investigate whether anyone has free will, we must first be clear what we’re talking about and looking for—the conceptual nature of freedom and free will. Philosophers have put forward various accounts of what constitutes some conditions of human freedom: lack of constraints, open- future choice, reasons- responsiveness, capability of being held responsible, and so on.2 However, following J. L. Austin and some others, let’s generalize from these more focused suggestions and say that freedom in general always requires two interrelated components of ability and opportunity (or opportunities—more about this in a moment).3 The idea here is roughly that one can be free if and only if one is able to be free in some relevant way, such as being able to think, speak, move, and so on, and one has a course of thought or action open to the exercise of such abilities, so one isn’t unduly distracted, one’s lips aren’t duct- taped, one isn’t superglued to the floor, and so on. Note that freedom in general then is a state of affairs where one has some sort of internal capacity or power, and one has as well an external situation so that that capacity or power can complete its function. Only when both these internal and external conditions obtain can one be said to be truly free to think, to speak, to move.

Well OP we live to thrive to ask these question (Just like you did) to know what is and what is not. To decide what we want to be and make our own meaning of life. Is there a true meaning? a God or a saviour? I don't fucking know but I know I can choose what to do with my life even if it means shitposting on Sup Forums

Applying this picture of freedom to the specifi c issue of free will requires a bit of explanation. To begin, philosophers are for the most part divided into two mutually exclusive camps that are at odds on the question of how human brains and/or conscious minds function. The question here is whether the basis of consciousness is only an immensely complex system
Freedom and Worldviews in The X-Files 39
of causes and effects, such as a purely biological account of thought might provide, or whether consciousness might include deviation from the strict rule of cause and effect, for example by appeal to quantum physics or supernaturalism. These two views are respectively termed determinism and indeterminism. To begin to understand the relevance of these views to the question of the freedom of minds, note that one main difference between them is that by determinism the future of such a mind’s function is locally (in the next moment) “closed,” and by indeterminism the future of a mind is locally “open.” That is, by determinism a given state of mind at one present moment causes one, and only one, state of mind in the next future moment as an effect. All other conceivably different future states of mind relative to the present one are “closed” off by the present causal one. By contrast, the indeterminism of a given present state of mind that is not causal is “open” to at least two alternative local future states of mind. One can see that these two views have one immediate tie - in to opinions about the freedom of such minds. If our minds’ futures are always closed by determinism, then those futures based on our “choices” only go one particular way and no other.

By indeterminism, on the other hand, our futures are at least sometimes open to this future and that future—as the 1980s Modern English song Melt with You goes, “the future’s open wide!” So it may seem that determinism robs us of a free will to choose between distinct futures and indeterminism restores it.4

...?

I study math and science.

You study philosophy?

You are obviously educated but to me seem still stupid or doing an elaborate troll (a great troll).

The question was: What is the meaning to life.

I said objectively there is not one.

Are you arguing with that?

Unfortunately, things are more complicated than that in part because, depending on what exactly “freedom” means, each of the determinist or indeterminist views of minds can lay claim to free will, and one can be made to exclude it as well. It all depends on what free will ability is supposed to be, and what opportunity or opportunities are additionally needed, and what determinism and indeterminism can provide in terms of these components of freedom.

You're not talking to the right person.

well you wanted concert evidence so im just throwing some stuff out there

>The question was: What is the meaning to life.

>I said objectively there is not one.

>Are you arguing with that?

Say, for example, that a determinist interprets an ability to make a free choice as weighing options and coming up with the best one. Sophisticated computers can do this, and they are essentially causal mechanisms (their functional states are such that their futures are always locally closed). So a determinist view of mind can accommodate such an account of ability and thus regard our minds to be a form of mechanistic supercomputer. Say then also that the determinist puts forward an additional account that states, for example, if a mind is caused to select the best it can in a situation, and that selection is objectively correct, proper, and satisfactory (by some measure), then it is properly freely chosen because no other possible future course of
40 V. Alan White
that mind would make sense. Such a view combining deterministic ability with the sufficiency of just one future opportunity is in fact called a compatibilist account of freedom, and some like- b ieving determinists dub themselves thus.5

But what if, to the contrary, such a closed future is deemed insufficient for freedom? (That the future, to be freely chosen, should be “open wide.”) For example, what if the best a mind can select in a situation is a fifty - fifty proposition of heads or tails, without any further preference between the two? A determinist account of this mind says that one actually is preferred, for one is finally caused to be selected over the other. But here indeterminists cry foul—how can that one be truly freely chosen if the other is equally preferred?6 Truly free choices in these circumstances demand that both future alternatives are available for choosing. This means that any such choice requires plural opportunities in the future—and real ones, in a genuinely open future way.

And if that is correct, determinism is false, at least for minds that are conceived as free in this way (so they can’t be supercomputers). So for philosophers that demand such a plurality of future opportunities for any stated ability of mind to choose freely, freedom is incompatible with a determinist account of the locally closed future. Such philosophers of freedom are termed incompatibilists; they hold that the necessity of the plurality of opportunities for choice cannot be reconciled with locally closed future determinism. Incompatibilist indeterminists— sometimes called libertarians—believe that minds at least sometimes function in indeterminist ways, and when they do, the plurality of future opportunities assures that this free will to choose actually exists.

So there are determinists who believe that compatibilist freedom exists, and indeterminists who believe that incompatibilist freedom exists. But now for a moment think hard (so to speak) on this matter of incompatibilism. Incompatibilism as a belief is only a very abstract conceptual view about the philosophical need for locally plural open - future opportunities for freedom of choice and does not commit to whether such a future exists. Thus there are some determinists who agree with this view, and since they are also determinists about minds, reject any belief in such freedom of mind and will. For them the truth of determinism rules out such incompatibilist free will. They are called hard incompatibilists—determinists who do not believe that the opportunities form of free will exists.7

fuck bitches, get money (smoke weed nigga)

Philosophy majors are some of THE most illogical and stupid people on the planet

pop some LSD into your mouth and find out

There appear to be at least two discernible components to an idea of a world (or universe, which is the expansive sense we take “world” to mean). One is metaphysical or ontological. That has to do with what ultimately is real in this world, or what kinds of entities are found in it

What philosophy has shown us in these more topical explorations of worldviews is that this interplay of existence and value is one of mutual infl uence in constructing a picture of the world and its parts. From the philosophy of science, for example, a convincing argument was made by Norwood Hanson that although we tend to sharply distinguish acts of observation from theories we might have about reality more generally, in truth we can’t divorce observation from theory, because observation r equires interpretation, and theory provides the background for interpretation.

One of his examples of this involves the Renaissance fi gures Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe, respectively a Copernican heliocentrist and a Ptolemaic geocentrist, who both might look at the same sunrise. Kepler sees Earth racing east in the direction of the relatively still sun, while Brahe sees an unmoving Earth being overfl own by a moving sun. They both in any case see the same thing, which amounts to a new day, yet, what produces that dawn is viewed from very different theories of how the sun and Earth work.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/world

Wrong. That's me putting it politely and simply in this context.

Thomas Kuhn (and in a different way, Larry Laudan) argued in a ddition that one factor infl uencing which of helio- or geocentrism is held to be correct is itself a function of values the one might hold dear or reject.14 For example, it seems clear that one reason geocentrism lasted so long was that it was consistent with the traditional value - laden belief that humankind was the center of God’s creation, whereas heliocentrism was willing to sacrifi ce at least a literal interpretation of that belief. Later, an accumulation of other observations from many people (with their own attendant values) swelled into a tsunami of evidence that swamped the anthropocentrism behind geocentrism. That human - laden value could no longer be rationally and literally expressed in terms of the fact of Earth’s nonrotation

living
(Also this is the only correct answer in known existance)

What’s interesting here is that what is taken to be a fact is a function of what one values, and one’s values are in turn influenced by what one takes to be the facts. The additional factors of influence are indisputably what is taken to be “out there”—what our experiences directly show us as we interpret them and how we take into account the reported experiences of others. As we tend to see our experiences and these reports as commensurate with our values, our worldview is stable and verifi ed, and as making sense, rational

I hope for your sake this is a troll

5/8

But as our experiences confl ict with our values, something has to go, or we risk sliding into incoherence and irrationality. Either we must adjust the facts as we take them to be within the system of values we
hold (e.g., we surrender geocentrism for heliocentrism), and/or we reorder or jettison parts of the system of values itself (e.g., we abandon belief in God as the basis for anthropocentric values, or, more likely, we retain belief in God and dismantle our strong appeal to anthropocentrism).

Life is insanity we do the same shit over and over again thats why is call the circle of life

Van Inwagen has long argued for the truth of libertarianism, by his own admission as an essential feature of a theistic worldview requiring that view of free will. One of his most familiar defenses for the incompatibilism that libertarianism posits is known as “the consequence argument.” Though the particulars of this argument need not concern us here, suffice it to say that van Inwagen concludes that closed- future determinism of mind cannot be compatible with what we need for an adequate concept of free will. In other work van Inwagen held that only indeterminism of mind, along with its essential commitment to the need for plural future opportunities of choice, could provide for free will.

That is, until recently, when van Inwagen stirred up the philosophical world by declaring that it appears that indeterminism of mind is incompatible with free will as well. His argument essentially shows that given that a mind can choose between at least two different alternatives, there can be no possible way to guarantee that that mind fully controls its fi nal selection

Because it's there. If you don't get it, quit. Nobody can make you get it. You have to find the want within yourself.

Van Inwagen argues roughly as follows. Assume that indeterminism is true. Then stipulate that someone makes a choice among some group of alternatives, and furthermore allow that the final choice actually made is the most rational one among those alternatives. Can the chooser have good reason to assure anyone (including herself) before (or after) the actual choice that the choice is genuinely hers in the sense that she was able to prevent any other possible decision?