>In the immense sphere of living things, the obvious rule is violence, a kind of inevitable frenzy which arms all things in mutua funera.>Once you leave the world of insensible substances, you find the decree of violent death written on the very frontiers of life. Even in the vegetable kingdom, this law can be perceived: from the huge catalpa to the smallest of grasses, how many plants die and how many are killed!>But once you enter the animal kingdom, the law suddenly becomes frighteningly obvious. A power at once hidden and palpable appears constantly occupied in bringing to light the principle of life by violent means. In each great division of the animal world, it has chosen a certain number of animals charged with devouring the others; so there are insects of prey, reptiles of prey, birds of prey, fish of prey, and quadrupeds of prey. There is not an instant of time when some living creature is not devoured by another.>Thus is worked out, from maggots up to man, the universal law of the violent destruction of living beings. The whole earth, continually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, until the extinction of evil, until the death of death.-Joseph de Maistre
Starts off ok but fucks up at the end. The lesson to learn from this is that violence and death is not evil in the first place.
>>24109568the inuits believed that all animals had souls, and they'd take on the soul of whatever animal they consumed, and any hunt that failed to show appropriate respect would give the spirits cause to avenge themselves (which in a way makes sense - if you eat an unhealthy animal, it make you more unhealthy). in other words, how destructive is eating living things really? maybe more constructive? mutual aid? symbiosis? bees and flowers.
You cannot tangle with chaos—you will lose, as countless others have before you. Chaos is not a force to be fought or subdued; it is the primal essence that underpins all existence. To oppose it is to strike at the foundation of reality itself, a futile effort that ends in ruin. Chaos is unpredictable, infinite, and unyielding. It does not care for plans, for hierarchies, or for the fragile systems men build to feel safe. Those who try to wrestle with it are swallowed whole, undone by their own arrogance.Chaos does not lose because it does not play by your rules. It has no rules, no boundaries, and no master. It cannot be outmaneuvered, for it is the source of all maneuvers. It cannot be destroyed, for it is the source of destruction and creation alike. To tangle with chaos is to guarantee your own downfall. The wise do not fight chaos; they ride it, they laugh with it, and they embrace its boundless energy. Those who resist will break, but those who flow with it will thrive. Chaos always wins, because chaos is eternal.
>>24109613chatgpt
>>24109614Replies in seconds, accuses others of being a bot, hmm?
>>24109614The practice of dismissing a 4chan post by calling it "AI-generated" or "GPT" has become rather pointless, especially when used as a primary counterargument. It's somewhat like declaring "this food was cooked using heat" - yes, and? The real question should be whether the points being made are valid or not.If someone can't effectively counter an argument, regardless of its source, that's a reflection on their own reasoning abilities. Fixating on whether something was written by AI rather than engaging with the actual content shows intellectual weakness. It's essentially an ad hominem attack aimed at the perceived source rather than addressing the substance.The truly concerning part is what it says about someone who can't successfully debate against an AI-generated response. If you believe you're dealing with AI-generated content and still can't form a coherent counterargument, perhaps you should focus on strengthening your own critical thinking and debate skills rather than merely pointing fingers at the presumed origin of the opposing view.Additionally, as AI becomes more prevalent in online discourse, the ability to engage with and evaluate arguments based on their merit rather than their source becomes increasingly important. The "GPT detector" response is becoming about as meaningful as saying "you used a keyboard to type that."
>>24109613chaos is not a sentient agent, stop appropriating it into your arguments like you are talking about a putin character
>>24109617it's such an easy tell
>>24109627Then why get so triggered?
>>24109629who's triggered
>>24109633You obviously. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't bother.
>>24109635just a quick observation
>>24109639But it's blindingly obvious like you said, so why bother?
>>24109642it was a moment of wild abandon
>>24109642why bother replying if its obvious that he's triggered
>>24109646Yes, you are a fool.
>>24109647Sun Tzu — 'If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.'
>>24109649you are a dishonest pseud
>>24109647bc it's also chatgpt lol>>24109655 not me btw
>>24109655Seething
>>24109658but you are me, seething at yourself
bump
>>24109568de Maistre should be taught in schools. He sees the world for what it is, and denounces the treacherous French Revolution. He shows it up for the degeneracy run amok that it was. de Maistre, Spengler, Schmitt, should be any thinking man's bread and butter.
>>24109568Greek statue posters are always girly men who have never been in a fight.
>nu-/lit/ is to pozzed to discuss based reactionaries like de MaistreWhat the fuck happened?
