health is a satanic trick of the transhumanist-techno demon feminizer scalping-to-death child-rapist oniric satan.because it turns your body-soul mechanic into matter, because it turns you into a narcissist, because it turns you into a cannibal who consumes other flesh, because it turns your body into moldeable flesh, because it mathematizes you, because it forgoes sacrifice, because it forgoes spiritual values, because it values extension of life instead of the opposite, because it subjugates the mind and body to stupid faggot routines, because it subjugates "food" to stupid scientific requirements, because it subjugates food to satanic transhumanist garbage for demons and thematizes culture that one took for granted breaking down tradition, because it values life, exercising is satanic, cold metallic satanic bloody cold satanism blood satanism steel cage steel cutting through flesh satanic sociopathic calculatory mechanical satanic robo-flesh, narcissistic vain homosexual effeminate robo-murderer unspiritual loveless cruel skin teeth metal cold eyes extracting skin cutting torturing skinning alive eating someone's flesh for youth, capitalist eating alive mechanically crushing chickens in industiral machines, yucky fleshy composites of matter epstein island madonna album gwen stefani cutting through a thigh of flesh of a live woman jerking off inside , creepy paintings, tacky decoration, green LED lights, an elevator in an airbnb, russian drug orgiesdrugs, antidepressants, codes, ladders, brains, humanity possessed by an all devouring demon 144,000 escape nigga
>>84411303Cool delirium, bro. Capitalism is a demon that ingrains itself everywhere, and you're sitting here scapegoating the transhumanists. Perfect. You are still sacrificing your wealth in any case if you spend anything today. People like Peter Thiel are not the only participants at all, actually I'd say they're way far from it. Because what are his antics truly constituted by? (You), and your fellow expenders. Thank you!
>>84411303>all that shit you wrotesee picrel for my opinion on it
>seeing humanity as worthless meat is... le bad!!!Literally why should i care if it's true?
>>84411492Why should you not care if you're worthless meat?
>>84411499Because I'm worthless meat and I don't have to do shit and even if I tried to do anything it'd be worthless because all it would do is rearrange meat on the platter.
>>84411509So keep rearranging it, it's what you're made to do. Worth in excess.If you atomize humanity into just meat, of course you'll see everything as completely useless. But you still eat, drink water, breathe, turn on your computer and speak to people on 4chan. I don't see why none of this would have any worth to you. Well, you're just meat after all.
>>84411534>But you still eat, drink water, breathe, turn on your computer and speak to people on 4chan. I don't see why none of this would have any worth to you. Well, you're just meat after all.It doesnt have any worth. Having worth to me is a stupid question because I am worthless and so are my thoughts and feelings.
>>84411545You're contrasting worth with whatever is useless, aren't they the same thing?
>>84411550Everything is useless becasue there is no productive end to any action or existence. Everything is worthless because there is no goal to aspire to that is etermal. The pot just churns. Your thoughts and desires are just as meaningless as a single cell of yeast circling the air around you. You probably think subjectivity and human emotion makes you special but it actually makes you totally mundane because everything that "matters" to you is contingent on your existence which is fleeting and unnecessary.
>kant to habermasI can already tell this is insufferable shitlib drivel
>>84411545You're right about absolutely everything here, except for when you contrasted uselessness with worth earlier. So, why not participate in the fleeting and unnecessary? You are still thrown into the cycle of non-productive expenditure that incessantly keeps going. You have enough nutrition to live in this exuberance, but, you can still keep shifting everything on your silver platter until you've experienced nothing it will ever offer your tongue. In the end, it will be kept as leftovers, or it'll move to the garbage bin; both to a black hole as it approaches infinity. You can still resolve to keep yourself astray, or you can let yourself live and at least prescribe worth in whatever seems all in all mundane. Not purely a kind of worth to follow for the sake of bliss, but, you can still select that experience of bliss any time, from anything; just like everything else of a virtuous value that you are so desperate to ignore. All for the sake of separating its worth from being useless. Useless, all too useless.
>>84411651>you contrasted uselessness with worth earlieri didn't contrast them i'm saying they're the same. did you mean to say conflated?
>>84411670Worth falls under what is generally useless, but uselessness does not purely negate the experience of worth. You are treating it as if worth is impossible, as if it doesn't have any worth to begin with, when really it's just useless to begin with. That's why I had an intuition that you were separating the concept of worth from uselessness, which ironically results in them being conflated in specific ways to the point "all is worthless". It did sound like I was pointing to you saying something specific, I didn't mean to say it that way.I see them both as having a specific relationship to each other, where if they're both separated, they could be molded into anything. That's precisely another possible value judgement that makes itself a sure example of how you can see the world differently. I'm sorry if I had a weird lapse in clarity earlier, you are speaking to an autist. But, with the way my head presented this to me, these judgements of worthlessness vs. uselessness usually start off from being separated concepts.
>>84411670>worthlessness vs. uselessnessworth vs. useless *
>>84411735>You are treating it as if worth is impossibleit is. that is what i am saying which is why worth and use are synonymous. Because the use of something is only the exercise in its value.
>>84411756>The exercise in its value.Like the use of your hands to exercise its value of typing here? The use of your mouth to exercise its values of breathing, eating and drinking? The first is a choice, the second is what you need to do every day to live. You are still always participating in whatever is worthwhile to you regardless if you choose something or not, it's just useless on a grand scale. Worth and value are a different story, however so "little".
>>84411756Take for instance, someone who feels it is worthwhile to stack funkopops in their room, eat their own shit, or play the guitar. They can all be useless activities, but the worth still exists, value still exists. But they can only exist out of the principle of wealth and expenditure, for whatever it seems to worth.
>>84411778>You are still always participating in whatever is worthwhile to you regardless if you choose something or not, it's just useless on a grand scale.I literally already refuted this.>You probably think subjectivity and human emotion makes you special but it actually makes you totally mundane because everything that "matters" to you is contingent on your existence which is fleeting and unnecessary.
>>84411822You didn't, you just described it as being mundane. That states nothing about worth, it's your own subjective prescription of something being mundane. This wasn't mundane enough for you to stop talking to me.
>>84411830not the definition of the word i was using
>>84411833How does that make worth any different? Worth isn't a characteristic of life?
>>84411833>>84411852Beyond what's supposedly worth for living at minimum, it becomes a sovereign characteristic. But saying none of it has worth at all is an error. Worth doesn't mean enjoyment, you don't enjoy every task required to live. My final point is that I'm saying you can, and you still have worth in general, even if that worth is enjoyed in a mundane or useless manner, which at this point I'm not going to deny those characteristics either. Worth is too conflated with "something to be enjoyed", I'm speaking of worth immanently.
>>84411852I'm relying on a chain of contingency. I'm saying that anything that is not transcendental has no value. Something's worth is contingent on its purpose which is contingent on its existence. Since everything will eventually not exist, there is nothing that can hold value indefinitely. That means that every single mundane thing will eventually stop being valuable which means it's pointless to hold onto attachments to them. Since there is a very high chance that there is nothing transcendental either based on what we observe from reality, nothing at all has value. We just ascbribe our subjective experiences as something important because the bio-computers in our heads spent billions of years selecting for self-preservation. Subjectivity being used to legitimize more subjectivity used to legitimize more subjectivity. When you die it's all over and when it's all over it doesnt matter anymore to you so you're better off not caring now so that you're ready for death.
fun post
>>84411921>Anything that is not transcendental has no valueValue isn't dependent on whatever is transcendental, especially since judgements are formed without; both fall under the intuitions that require your cognitive faculty. We can only make experience possible out of our cognitive faculties, however much of a non-transcendental judgement of value it ascribes, since it has the inherent capacity of reason and judgement, however erroneous or synthetic it can be. It's the reason why Kant has decided to "leave room for faith", for things that are not validated through transcendental logic, at least I think it's because he recognizes that it still affects people, and it henceforth led to his chapter on the dialectic and his other works relating to practical reason and his critique of judgement. If he were to say "only transcendental logic is what matters at all", it would've been a conclusion that left no room for any further development whatsoever, which would make the purpose of his critique even more useless than it already is.
>>84411984>both fall under the intuitions that require your cognitive faculty.they don't "require" anything because all of these judgements are totally pointless. Every thought I've ever had is going to be annihilated when I die, so every time I choose to think I'm just making sand castles at low tide. >We can only make experience possible out of our cognitive faculties,True. That's why even if a transcendental thing exists humans would have no ability to even comprehend it or influence it, making our lives pointless regardless of the metaphysical truth. We're mortals, so everything we touch rots. None of it will remain, so nothing will ever truly come to be.
>>84412002>they don't "require" anything because all of these judgements are totally pointless.Not true, any judgement requires your system of intuition. It involves space and time, which is a requirement for any experience to be had at all. Take these two things away, and you have nothing. There, something is in front of you at this time.>That's why even if a transcendental thing exists humans would have no ability to even comprehend it or influence itYou are describing the "transcendental thing" as if it were something that isn't phenomenological. There is a noumenal and phenomenal distinction. Objects in the noumenal realm cannot be conceptualized, objects in the phenomenal realm can. The transcendental inquiry is solely within the phenomenal realm, but it still can make synthetic judgements prior to anything happening, not to make judgements about anything that lies outside of that interface of what can be judged at all. The logic of transcendental judgement is the only thing that can't really be "influenced" here, but it can certainly be comprehended as a reliable metaphysics. And so, from this point on, you will have to agree that cognitive faculties have the capacity to ascribe a metaphysics, to ascribe a certain point or value in something, in order to organize its senses and create experience.
We live in a physical world and we are physical beings. There is no evidence whatsoever for a soul or any other kind of supernatural phenomena. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. If you need to believe lies to feel sane that's a skill issue.
>>84412063I was not speaking about phenomena as a supernatural construct, I'm speaking of phenomena as what our experience falls under lol
>>84412036>It involves space and timenot if it's transcendental. that's why i used that word specifically because it includes that concept.>>84412036>You are describing the "transcendental thing" as if it were something that isn't phenomenological. There is a noumenal and phenomenal distinction.Transcendence is contingent on surpassing the human experience. Regardless, the existential question serves no purpose. Just because the way a bug exists is different from the way we see it doesn't mean there is any difference in meaning between the two representations. Usually the information encoded would be similar enough to understand what it is just by observing it for long enough. Why I have a consciousness that experiences the bug doesn't matter to the question why should I care about the bug.>it still can make synthetic judgements prior to anything happening, not to make judgements about anything that lies outside of that interface of what can be judged at all. no it can't, because judgement is a subset of human consciousness. There's no reason to think that subjectivity exists outside of our minds because it's the one thing we can find only in our minds. > you will have to agree that cognitive faculties have the capacity to ascribe a metaphysics, to ascribe a certain point or value in something, in order to organize its senses and create experience.I agree that our senses, experience, and consciousness are all connected on fundamental leve, but there's no distinction for us to make that would be meaningful without a sentient observer. Since we're all going to die, all of those distinctions do not have meaning because they will not have meaning and something cannot have a "temporary meaning" ascribed to it.
>>84412063And yes, there is no evidence whatsoever for a soul or the supernatural, there is only evidence of faith. And we are physical beings! So let's not get too crazy with our heads, we can just atomize experience into nothing but an assemblage of infinitesimals... "only the transcendental matters, here". Only neurons firing in the head has created anything for you at all, so you should respect them until you deprive your soul, deprive your existence, because you are way too strong for that, you will let yourself become a feeble physicalist in the name of such a strength like a man who does not bother going to the gym. Still continuing to mix his meat on the silver platter. Don't play with your food, eat something already.>>84412110>Transcendence is contingent on surpassing the human experienceNo, a transcendental judgement is contingent on thoughts prior to an event, that has necessity and universality for these events insofar as they occur, which surpass the current states of space and time. This doesn't deny that it's still a subset of consciousness; subjectivity is quite literally the only thing we have. But how could you focus so much on pure evidence, if you just said "we are physical beings"? No reason to think that exists either, for that matter.
>>84412123>a transcendental judgement is contingent on thoughts prior to an event, that has necessity and universality for these events insofar as they occur, which surpass the current states of space and time.but it cannot truly have necessity and universality because it can only exist as a relational for as long as we think about it and know what we're talking about. "meaning" is just hallucinations that emerge for a short period of time and then fade. seeing things as objects to relate to one another is just a byproduce of spatial intelligence, there is no underlying foundation to the truth of the separation between things or the relations between them. The relational can only exist atop the substrate of the particular, which is fleeting. Saying that system was eternal would be like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to fly.> But how could you focus so much on pure evidence, if you just said "we are physical beings"? I didn't say that and it wasn't me. My point is more extreme. On all levels it is tautologically impossible for a temporary existence to experience something important because things that are important necessarily exist entirely outside of human consciousness.
>>84412147>I didn't say thatFuck. I did it again.>but it cannot truly have necessity and universalityThat is why I said "insofar". But at this point, you're shifting gears so much onto whatever is "supposed to be important" to whatever is impossible or eternal that you're frankly being silly at this point. Why not the so-far unchanging and the possible?
>>84412155>you're shifting gears so much onto whatever is "supposed to be important" to whatever is impossible or eternal that you're frankly being silly at this point.that's the whole point though. everything we can do will be undone. just the fact that something is possible proves that it is futile, because it is something that can be changed. Like i said, meat stirring in the pot.
>>84412167Not futile, just finite.
>>84412170>Not futile, just finite.everything finite is futile because they're describing the same thing.
>>84412176right, this conversation was too futile for you respond to anything, just like how it cannot be infinite...
>>84412191This conversation is futile. I am having it with you for literally no reason. The insead of my head is totally empty and this is all generated by my subconscious. I;'m not even looking at the screen while I'm typing this. Does it change anything if I am not even experiencing what I'm saying as I say it? No, because I don't exist.
>>84412200>This conversation is futile. I am having it with you for literally no reasonDo no events have a cause?
>>84412207>Do no events have a cause?No. Nothing has a cause because that implies a seperation between two things. Seperating things which are really the same into seperate things leads to overcounting errors in everything. Consciousness is probably the same. For example, we like to think of our birth and death as seperate events but they are logically equal statements when you zoom out from the present. Everything that has died was born and everything that was born will die. So are birth and death seperate things? Did our birth cause our death? That can't be right, because if it did then our deaths also cause our births. Instead, outside of the framework of temporality there is only existence as we know it. You can't sieve any of it off. So for something to be truly special it must come from outside of temporality. Otherwise it simply exists in totality in connection with every other representation of matter.
>>84412225Every letter you just typed is clearly a separate one. Zoom out as far as you can, they will still be next to each other. Each letter has its respective causes, just like your death and birth.
>>84412228Letters don't have seperate causes. Think about it this way: the k i typed in the word think was already going to be added there when I decided to use the word think. The word think was chosen when I made my sentence. My sentence was chosen by the circumstances I am in and the person that I am and the person that you are. None of these things can be called the definitive cause for any of this stuff. It's all just nested contingencies. There is nowhere that I can create a line where I can seperate myself from the world. Therefore I do not exist and the world outside of me doesn't exist either but instead you and me and the world and everything are all the same thing by virtue of material interaction. Either the relations contain no real information or the relations exist in some meaningful eternal structure that subsumes all of materiality in a consistent way. I don't think human lives are interesting, exciting, or informative, so I belive that it's the former.
>>84412247Respective causes, not separate. Separate objects can indeed have the same cause. Not definitive, but you've still experienced everything as having a causal effect, we only can't be too definitive about it's origin. I'm still confused on why you think something needs to be eternal in order to be meaningful, and why anything finite isn't meaningful. You've never even made a proper case for it. You don't need to think anything is exciting in order to recognize that meaning can be ascribed.
>>84412257>Respective causes, not separate.respectivity implies a 1-1 correspondence, but causality in the material world is definitely not seperable. For example, if I say "i am wearing a red hoodie" You could say that what i am wearing is red and what I am wearing is a hoodie and I wrote that sentence. You could not, however, seperate out the fact the clothing is red from the fact it is a hoodie without losing validity of the relation.
>>84412270I've noticed that every time I make a particular point, you don't say anything about it and focus on something else. No limits to your denial.
>>84412002https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBbEe5mbtQs&t=32
>>84412270grade A retard
>>84412278I was adressing the point you made about seperability, not trying to deny anything.I skipped over >I'm still confused on why you think something needs to be eternal in order to be meaningful, and why anything finite isn't meaningful.Because it wasn't interesting. >>84412281I mean I would allow somebody to kill me as a demonstration of my beliefs because I'm bored anyways but I don't feel any particular compulsion towards suicide. Suffering is also meaningless so there's no purpose to avoiding it. Anyhting that dies is subservient to the universal order, whatever it is. Dying is immediately disqualifying of being meaningful because it implies that it is inferior to death.
