User Controls
Perhaps you can answer the 1 question that has plagued thinkers for all time.
-
2016-10-01 at 3:54 PM UTCWhat doth life?
-
2016-10-01 at 3:55 PM UTCAre we just fleshy blips in some meaningless stew of cosmic oblivion?
-
2016-10-01 at 4:03 PM UTCMalice once responded to this question by dropping his plate of food on the floor and asking what the meaning of it is.
-
2016-10-01 at 4:18 PM UTCGimme your dad's e-mail addy and I'll tell you the answerThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2016-10-01 at 4:54 PM UTCLife in it's simplest form, is a self-sustaining chemical reaction.
-
2016-10-01 at 7:57 PM UTCi beleive in green adn everyting tht is green is life
-
2016-10-01 at 8:33 PM UTC
Life in it's simplest form, is a self-sustaining chemical reaction.
Much like a nuclear detonation. -
2016-10-01 at 9:09 PM UTC
Life in it's simplest form, is a self-sustaining chemical reaction.
Viruses are non-living yet seem the meet that definition, no? -
2016-10-01 at 9:56 PM UTCA bunch of scientists, for sake of classification made specific requirements to fall into the category of 'life'. A lot of people still debate what life is.. I mean, look at a virus who needs a host cell to reproduce and brings with it nothing but DNA or RNA. But it'll sometimes wait for the right opportunity to reproduce.. Which makes me, as well as other people question if we just set up the requirements for what we want life to be.. And maybe viruses should be considered living. Idk. For the sake of argument as we have it viruses arnt considered living, but I believe should broaden what we consider life.
-
2016-10-01 at 10:05 PM UTC
Viruses are non-living yet seem the meet that definition, no?
Certainly, a virus is simply a less complex self sustaining chemical reaction. -
2016-10-01 at 11:43 PM UTC
Malice once responded to this question by dropping his plate of food on the floor and asking what the meaning of it is.
Close, I wouldn't waste food and make a mess like that, although it could have more of an impact. Then again, the simplicity of my original version may create a better association between a lack of any inherent meaning.Something I've thought of is dropping something to the ground and asking "What meaning does this have?" in response to what may be my most hated question, "What is the meaning of life?"
To answer the question: Life is something that should never have arisen. Any happiness you achieve, anything you discover or create, the striving to maintain and better life, only fulfills a need that had no need to exist. And at the end, every cradle is shown to be a grave, death erases all, and no matter what purpose in life you may have decided, if you strived to better the world or help others, for you, which has ceased to exist, it will mean nothing, you will be in no better place than the beings you considered the most reprehensible, for in a state of non-existence there is nothing to experience existence.
No suffering, no striving, death, the cycle of samsara enmiring you in a constant cycle of unease always attempting to move forward on a hedonic treadmill, a cycle that's readily forgotten along with the countless minutes of every day you never think about again for the present demands your attention, chasing fleeting moments without questioning what it amounts to and the philosophical implications of crude hedonism, the concern of what lies at the end, even immortals having to heed the concern of destruction and what lies at the universe's end. At the end there is only a return to what you were before you were born: The truest form of eternal peace and immutability; the perfection of non-existence.
To be human is a very sad thing. -
2016-10-01 at 11:57 PM UTCI love your posts on the human condition
-
2016-10-02 at 12:11 AM UTC
Life is something that should never have arisen. Any happiness you achieve, anything you discover or create, the striving to maintain and better life, only fulfills a need that had no need to exist.
Happiness exists in forms beyond satiation of needs, not all worthwhile acts are performed out of necessity.if you strived to better the world or help others, for you, which has ceased to exist, it will mean nothing
Existence is not a claim about experiential access. Cessation of subjective consciousness doesn't change anything about the external world.you will be in no better place than the beings you considered the most reprehensible, for in a state of non-existence there is nothing to experience existence.
This doesn't seem like a real objection. I breathe the same air as people I find reprehensible, it doesn't bother me, sharing some state is not intrinsically a problem.chasing fleeting moments without questioning what it amounts to and the philosophical implications of crude hedonism
Human motives are not exhausted by "crude hedonism", whatever you think that is.
Really malice, this anti-natalist phase is getting kind of emo. It's not an intellectual exercise anymore, it's you dragging a handful of stock lines and non sequiturs into a bunch of threads. -
2016-10-02 at 12:17 AM UTCI am a tortured artist, something posted without any real effort on a message board is not meant to be taken as a serious philosophical treatise. And you're still repeatedly misinterpreting what I'm saying, you perverted autist.
It wouldn't surprise me if you were just jealous since your posts tend to be so boring and lifeless. I recall you once saying that speaking to me was like speaking to a robot and that you found it refreshing, but your writing/discourse style is far more robotic!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-10-02 at 12:27 AM UTCI'm sorry if I hurt your feelings mal mal.
I could critique it as poetry if you like? -
2016-10-02 at 12:35 AM UTC
Happiness exists in forms beyond satiation of needs, not all worthwhile acts are performed out of necessity.
Existence is not a claim about experiential access. Cessation of subjective consciousness doesn't change anything about the external world.
This doesn't seem like a real objection. I breathe the same air as people I find reprehensible, it doesn't bother me, sharing some state is not intrinsically a problem.
Human motives are not exhausted by "crude hedonism", whatever you think that is.
Really malice, this anti-natalist phase is getting kind of emo. It's not an intellectual exercise anymore, it's you dragging a handful of stock lines and non sequiturs into a bunch of threads.
1.) I do not dispute this, the commas denote separate items. Honestly, this is so self-apparent, as if I would commit that manner of error.
2.) Duh. I'm not a solipsist. What I was stating is that for you, which no longer exists, it does not and is incapable of making any difference. That is, at that point there is no reward, death erases all, from the abstract vantage point of your identity.
3.) This is simply tied to the previous point. You do not deny that many people seem to believe in some independent system (The moronic misinterpretation of karma seems to be popular among leftists. IIRC ArmsMerchant once described it's common use/interpretation as being a form of "God's going to get you for that.") that will reward them after death. I am attempting to illustrate the vanity of life in a manner that is readily relatable to the masses.
My philosophy is 10ccs of naloxone straight to the dome. (Get the reference? You seem to have a difficult time grasping humor.) (I'm going to remember that line (The first sentence in this line, you autist. I am marvelling at and basking in my own artistic brilliance.))
4.) Once again, duh. And by crude hedonism I mean a poorly developed (subjective) philosophy on which one manners their lifestyle after.
God I hate arguing with autists. -
2016-10-02 at 12:44 AM UTC[greentext]>I am marvelling at and basking in my own artistic brilliance.[/greentext]
Thus spake Malice, Prosopopoeia of Self Aggrandizement. -
2016-10-02 at 1:19 AM UTC
God I hate arguing with autists.
1.) I do not dispute this, the commas denote separate items. Honestly, this is so self-apparent, as if I would commit that manner of error.
I didn't treat the content between commas as the same item. I took the phrase "only fulfills a need that had no need to exist" as pertaining to the list containing the three items "happiness you achieve", "anything you discover or create", and "the striving to maintain and better life".
If that was not the way you intended your sentence to be parsed then you wrote it wrong. Specifically if "only fulfills a need that had no need to exist" only pertains to one of those items then the other two form sentence fragments, noun phrases floating out in the void. I think you actually do this more than you realize, it's not uncommon to see you start listing things and then just end the sentence without making it as much.
If that was the way you intended your comment to be read then my response is valid: if there exists happiness that doesn't represent fulfilling some need then your statement "happiness you achieve ... only fulfills a need that had no need to exist" is false.2.) Duh. I'm not a solipsist. What I was stating is that for you, which no longer exists, it does not and is incapable of making any difference. That is, at that point there is no reward, death erases all, from the abstract vantage point of your identity.
That doesn't seem like a very natural reading but, uhh, ok. Could you explain why it (that is striving to better the world or help others) doesn't mean anything. Indeed, people who undertake such endeavors seem convinced it means quite a lot.3.) This is simply tied to the previous point. You do not deny that many people seem to believe in some independent system (The moronic misinterpretation of karma seems to be popular among leftists. IIRC ArmsMerchant once described it's common use/interpretation as being a form of "God's going to get you for that.") that will reward them after death. I am attempting to illustrate the vanity of life in a manner that is readily relatable to the masses.
Then why offer it here? Who reading you post do you think believes in some kind of post-mortem reward for their deeds? Why would this serve to convince anyone the anti-natalist position is valid?4.) Once again, duh. And by crude hedonism I mean a poorly developed (subjective) philosophy on which one manners their lifestyle after.
Well OK, "duh", but it doesn't change the fact that your statement doesn't do anything to advance your thesis, just unrelated nothing thrown out there. Anitnatalism represents the refutation of any argument that concludes one or more human lives are justified, attacking one such argument (that no one here seems to represent) doesn't do anything.
It would be like if took the argument "ducks imply no life is worth living; ducks; ergo no life is worth living" and illustrated a some sort of flaw in it, and then declared that any human life is worth living. It's absurd. -
2016-10-02 at 1:53 AM UTCRrrrrrgh, AUUUUUTIIIIISM!!!
-
2016-10-02 at 10:12 AM UTC
Rrrrrrgh, AUUUUUTIIIIISM!!!
.
