Everything you call "living" is just a massive cope to disguise the fact that your biology is desperately trying to return to the inorganic state it crawled out of. You think you have a will to power or life goals but that's just a mask for the will to nothingness. You are essentially a complicated rock that unfortunately gained consciousness and is now taking a circuitous path back to being a rock. The science is clear that the inanimate existed before us and the only real drive is to restore that silence, meaning your entire existence is just a temporary glitchy detour toward the grave. The universe is indifferent, cosmic extinction is guaranteed, and when the heat death of the universe hits it will be like none of this ever happened, so stop deluding yourself that this life is anything other than a long pointless walk back to zero.
hide & report israeli threads
>>16863396You're definitely that Mainlander cuck I saw on /lit/ and /his/ a week or two ago.
>>16863396>heat deathfake, jewish nonsense.
Goybeamed af..
>>16863396Sounds nice, but somehow I suspect my torment won't end so easily.
>>16863396I would call you a black-pilled edgelord, but you're literally reciting the Standard Cosmological Model that they now tell to elementary students so they don't get it into their pretty little heads that there's such a thing as "Hope" or "Meaning".
>>16863396>you diethanks OP i had no idea
>>16863396You are talking about one of the two major drives according to Freud: Thanatos. Todestrieb. The death drive. But there's also Eros, lebenstriebe or the life drive. Maybe life isn't that perfectly dialectical, but why would it so unidimensional?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive
>>16863396Good thing intellectual pollution like you cleans itself out of the gene pool. Too bad it does so much collateral damage in the process. If only we could speed up things up and deliver you to the conclusions of your own insane ideology. :^)
>>16863396>The universe is indifferentWe are part of the universe, not seperate from it. If we aren't indifferent, then this is objectively wrong. Also you're a faggot.
>>16867044>my poop is part of me, not separate from me. if my poop smells, then to say i don't smell is objectively wrong200 IQ argument.
>>16867045Not that anon, but OP could have said external universe to be more precise. The semantics of the word universe are very special, unlike that of fecal matter
>>16867054> The semantics of the word universe are very special, unlike that of fecal matterI like how you're too mentally crippled to understand what corresponds to what in a basic analogy.
>>16867045But my poop isn't a part of me, and I do smell. This is not an accurate comparison. Why do you think we're not included as part of the universe?
>>16867059>But my poop isn't a part of meIn that case, you aren't part of "the universe", unless you can explain objectively why the relationship in one container/excretion pair is different from the other in this context.
>>16867057What does it matter if it is a falsa analogy. Why is humanity the fecal matter of the the universe in this basic analogy?
>>16867061>container/excretion pairYour analogy is more basic than i thought! You wrote like it was a self/excretion pair (me/my shit). Self is also very special word, would you consider your fecal matter to be part of your being?
>>16867063>a falsa analogy>>16867065>Your analogy is more basic than i thought!And yet somehow you're getting filtered by it.>would you consider ...See:>>16867061> unless you can explain objectively
>>16867067The universe is everything that is. For every x that is, x belongs in the universe. In particular, x=humanity, otherwise we aren't.But i don't know if the self is everything (what?) one being is or just a part (what people call the soul or the mind or c., etc.) and it doesnt matter, because there's at least a body and one could argue that fecal matter never was part of the being because originally it was food than was subsequently transformed, it just passed through the body
>>16867077>mentally ill and retarded monkey can't grasp the most basic relationships or understand the simplest analogiesAverage /sci/ moment.
>>16867061A conscious being with the ability to observe itself and its container is a fundimentally different relationship than unneeded waste products being excreted from the body.
>>16867078Why aren't you willing to explain? I am eager to apparently let my illness and retardation shine. Please enlighten us, i swear it will not be pearls casted before the swine, unlike many people if i come to /sci/ it is because i want to learn and some anons deliver and i'm willing to be proven wrong, why would i care about losing internet points
>>16867080>a fundimentally different relationshipYou can keep chanting it (at least until the day you learn the hard way that the universe, whose processes excreted you as a byproduct, can do without you just fine) but one thing you can't do is elaborate on this objectively. Too bad.
>>16867082I'm not that anon that quoted me, not you. I'm: >>16867081>>16867077>>16867065>>16867063>>16867054 only.I don't get why do you use "you" instead of "us", are you not part of the same byproducts? Why do you think we can talk objectively about metaphysical subjects? Life is a property of matter and matter is a property of the universe, how is humanity more of a (pejorative) byproduct than any star or comet?
>>16867081What is there to explain? Your "argument" was literally:>X is part of Y>X has some property>therefore Y has that propertyWhat's "part of" supposed to suggest here? If it's in the normal sense of composition, it isn't even worth discussing: in 5 seconds you can come up with a myriad examples where a whole displays one set of characteristics, but when you zoom in enough, you find parts with different characteristics that you never would have guessed. The plain interpretation of that argument is a really basic fallacy. But even with maximum charity, if I take it to mean something like the Buddhist idea that humans only conceptualize things as distinct and independent, whereas in reality the boundaries between them are blurry at best and in any case, everything is intrinsically related through dependent origination, the same very naturally applies to you and your literal shit. So why don't you embrace the properties of your shit the way you project your own properties onto the universe?
>>16863396I entertained this philosophy for a long time but now i think it's incomplete and wrong for sure
>>16867097>X is part of YAs in humans are part of the universe>X has some propertyI'm not following your scheme, the argument was about Y:>Y is indifferent>>16867044Not my argument, by the way. I just quoted your first answer to this argument by saying that it would have been harmless if OP said "external universe" instead,>>16867054Maybe i was puritanical by not wanting excretions in any part of the argumentation but it seems that the argument shifted from an analogy:>>16867045To that the universe literally shat us?>>16867082Maybe i'm adressing different posters
>>16867103You are hopelessly retarded.
>>16867105>X is part of Y>Y is indifferent>Therefore X is indifferent>But X isn't —contradictionThe fallacy is "X has property, therefore Y the superset has property", like you said. But that Y has property, therefore its parts have the property is the most basic silogism of all, Modus Barbara.
>>16867107>that Y has property, therefore its parts have the property is the most basic silogism of allNot only is this completely irrelevant but it's also trivially false. Pretty sure at this point almost every poster on this board is a GPT-3-tier chatbot.
>>16867111>"All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal" is trivially falseI admit Modus Barbara is less relevant that the more explicit Modus Darii.The root of this discussion is the post:>>16867044>We are part of the universe, not seperate from it. If we aren't indifferent, then this is objectively wrong.You are honesty saying that the following scheme is irrelevant in light of anon's argument?>X is part of Y>Y is indifferent>Therefore X is indifferent>But X isn't —contradiction
>>16867111Satanic quints*
>>16863396My biology is desperately trying to crawl into this Shelia, mate. Why don't you go fuck off somewhere else?
>>16867129>"All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal" is trivially falseIn your next post, re-state this in its general form, then show how it applies to our situation using the relevant substitutions. By failing to do this correctly (which will happen, 100%) , you concede the animal you call your mother should have been sterilized before she spawned you.
>>16867103>Maybe i'm adressing different postersYeah, I made the initial post, but none of the replies. Didn't expect it to devolve into a shitflinging fest, but I guess I'm not surprised.
>>16867142Nta, but why are you being such a prick about a trivial discussion?
>>16867184Brainlet fatigue. But to be fair, I go out of my way to read the posts on Brainlet Central, so I don't know. Guess there's something wrong with me. Maybe I have anger issues and it feels justified to hate on brainlets who think they're intellectuals.
This is what the scientism pill does to a man btw.
>>16867142I made a mistake, i identified Modus Barbara right at first >>16867107>show how it applies to our situation using the relevant substitutionsThe Socrates argument is Modus Darii so it doesn't apply, but the scheme i wrote twice is Barbara. The quote rebuttal should have been >"hypothetical syllogism example" is trivially falselike>"All rationals are real, all integers are rational, therefore all integers are real" is trivially falseThe substitutions will be self evident, although you wont find it cogent anyway because from the beginning you didn't agree with 16867044's and my claim that>All H are U (first major premise)there' also>Some H aren't I (minor premise)OP's claim is>All U are I (second major premise)Apply Modus Barbara aka hypothetical syllogism to the first and second major premises>All U are I. All H are U. Therefore, all H are I.But some H are not-I. After modus tolendo tollens, some U are not-I, which contradicts OP's premise.>>16867198I don't think that to admit being a learner and owning one's mistakes >>16867081 is very good 4chan description of a self-appointed intellectual. There's no need for foul-mouthed remarks in logical discussion.
>>16867243>All U are I. All H are U. Therefore, all H are I.See >>16867142>then show how it applies to our situation using the relevant substitutionsYou didn't because its nonsense.
>>16867245>I made a mistake, [...] The Socrates argument is Modus Darii so it doesn't apply>Apply Modus Barbara
>>16867247>mentally ill retard literally mindbrokenI rest my case.
>>16867250I insist, there's no need for foul-mouthed remarks in logical discussion. Are they preemptive attacks?
>>16867252>All U are I. All H are U. Therefore, all H are I.Show how it applies to our situation using the relevant substitutions. You didn't and you won't because its nonsense.>there's no need for foul-mouthed remarks in logical discussionI agree, but this isn't going to turn into a "logical discussion" no matter how many times you namedrop logic. Mentally ill retards seem to be obsessed with "logical discussion" the way incels are obsessed with women. Logic is completely unattainable for you. Let it go.
>>16867263>using the relevant substitutions.ok lol>all universes are indifferent>all humans are universes>therefore all humans are indifferentbut this cannot be the case because i care deeply about your mom. check mate atheists
>>16867263The lazy answer was not me, the one you quoted.>All the universe (as in set of all things) is indifferent>All humanity is part of the universe>Therefore all humanity is indifferent>but if there a some humans who aren't indifferent. Therefore, modus tollens, there is part of the universe that isn't indifferent
>>16867279>All U are I.>All H are U.>Therefore, all H are I.Is apparently the same as:>The U is I>All H are part of U>Therefore all H are I... when all your ancestors are siblings going 15 generations back.
>>16867271kek, asshole psude btfo'd
>>16867283>All U are I"The set of all things is the set of all indifferent things">The U is IThis is meaningless. The universe is an indifferent thing? I know thanks to context that you mean that we are not important in the greater scheme of things, but saying "the universe is [adjective of psychological origin]" is essentially metaphorical, there is no clear primary meaning to this arrange of subject and predicate
>>16867320There's really no need to demonstrate the depths of your delusional mental illness over and over again.
>>16867324Indifference is a psychological quality. If there are humans in a set i makes sense to predicate its elements with this quality. Using a moral instead of psychological example, Is Saturn inherently evil? You could say Saturn is indifferent as in outside of moral considerations, but can Saturn or the universe be psychologically indifferent? What do you mean by that?
>>16867330Just take your meds already and make sure your tard wrangler watches over you when you use the internet.>All U are I.>All H are U.>Therefore, all H are I.Is not equal to:>The U is I>All H are part of U>Therefore all H are IThere is no discussion to be had about this.
>>16867324>>16867279 is such a simply stated and accurate portrayal of >>16867044. Why do you think it's incorrect? I'm nta, I'm just curious why you have such a problem with it. It seems like you're just being abrasive for the sake of being an asshole.
>>16867333>Why do you think it's incorrect?See >>16867097
>>16867332My point is, whereas the first scheme is a set theoretic reasoning, the second starts with a linguistic confusion that precludes any reasoning. How is >The U is IDifferent from>The king of France is prime numberWe cant have a logical dicussion without agreeing on the meaning of our terms
>>16867340Just take your meds already and make sure your tard wrangler watches over you when you use the internet.>All U are I.>All H are U.>Therefore, all H are I.Is not equal to:>The U is I>All H are part of U>Therefore all H are IThere is no discussion to be had about this.
>>16867335"The universe" suggests everything that exists in its totality. If a portion of that totality isn't accurately described by the descriptor you've given it, then it's an inaccurate descriptor. You can argue that "most" of it fits all you want, but that would still be an inaccurate description of the whole.Wouldn't we, as the only beings in the universe capable of feeling indifference, having a capacity for empathy disprove the universe's lack of empathy?>inb4 mean name-calling response
>>16867347Wouldn't us**
>>16867347>"The car" suggests everything that makes up a car in its totality. If a portion of that totality isn't accurately described by the descriptor you've given it, then it's an inaccurate descriptor.>Your can't say your car is fast, because the seat is part of the car but you wouldn't say a seat is fast
>>16867342Sure, but there's plenty of discussion otherwise>>16866880>>16867063>Why is humanity the fecal matter of the the universe in this basic analogy?>>16867086>Why do you think we can talk objectively about metaphysical subjects? Life is a property of matter and matter is a property of the universe, how is humanity more of a (pejorative) byproduct than any star or comet?>>16867252>Are they preemptive attacks?>>16867320>The universe is an indifferent thing? I know thanks to context that you mean that we are not important in the greater scheme of things, but saying "the universe is [adjective of psychological origin]" is essentially metaphorical, there is no clear primary meaning to this arrange of subject and predicate>>16867330>Indifference is a psychological quality. If there are humans in a set it makes sense to predicate its elements with this quality. Using a moral instead of psychological example, Is Saturn inherently evil? You could say Saturn is indifferent as in outside of moral considerations, but can Saturn or the universe be psychologically indifferent? What do you mean by that?
>>16867352>you need to talk about 80 IQs getting filtered by a basic analogy
>>16867350The car isn't going anywhere fast when the seat is missing
>>16867356>retard gets completely mindbroken again and devolves into incoherence
>>16867354At first the universe is indifferent. But then the misunderstanding of the analogy lead to the universe not being indifferent at all, if the universe could, it would flush us down the cosmical toilet. But both things are equally nonsensical, the universe itself having psychological states of affairs
>>16867363>incoherent 80 IQ schizo word saladStated-enforce eugenics can't come soon enough.
>>16867363Spinozian clockmaker deism is cringe, just sterilized atheism.
>>16867358Not totallt incoherent, you're just being intentionally rude>car is fast>seat (part of the car) is not fast>car is functionally not fast without the seat>universe is indifferent>humans (part of the universe) are not indifferent>universe is functionally not indifferent
>>16867376Ok. I see what's going on. I'm a fucking retard for replying to an obviously nonhuman spambot.
>>16867377Man, you are a colossal asshole for no reason. I think you're right about those anger issues, hopefully you have that a little more dialed in in your daily life.
