>>3767
He's right, though.

>>3767
You don't need ph*losophy. In fact, you need to be without ph*losophy. If your anything had ended up being a ph"losophy — retrack your steps.
Basic metaphysics, logics, or etymology are everything you need. Any more and you become a dysfunctional lardass, unless you had been spending efficient effort morphing your cybernetic existence towards The Holy Metabolism, but that's mostly for entertainment. Most people, including those into ph*losophy, never foster a virtue enough for it to grow into multitudes of true virtues, and it shows too much to ignore it. No philo, no sophy, all perfunctory.

He's obviously right, though.

>>3768
>>3770
More souls lost to cold anglo logic..........
>>3769
And this one has been possessed by the shadow of anti-philosophical philosophy............

There is a reason the most genius and influential of modern philosophers, Kierkegaard & Wittgenstein, were generally against philosophy as commonly understood

It took me a bit to realize he meant that option 3 is better than option 2. What a retard. Making Fallout real is obviously a way better outcome than my genetic legacy abruptly ending.

The typical "My life sucks so therefore the life of other people suck so therefore everyone should die" type of thing. At least he's not a politician... or is he?

>>3772
you mispelt Kant.

>>3771
If you think that suffering is bad and should be ended, and don't believe in anything spiritual or that life is just a physical process that begins and ends on purely physical grounds, then he's right. It only takes compassion and an overly analytical mind to arrive to his conclusion.
The apathy of a white person's logic is the only thing that nurtures this conclusion, though, I don't think a chinese philosopher or whatever would think this is rational or necessary. It only takes putting one's own interests first to arrive to some other conclusion... or believing in some afterlife.

>>3777
It also requires believing that the pain of life universally outweighs the value of every other type of experience or goal (not just pleasure), to the point of death being unconditionally preferable for all of humanity
Which is... highly debatable, and raises the question of why not be yourself already, most answers to which betray values opposite to the argument
Checking those trips though

>>3779
I think it just has to be undesirable enough to not be wanted, since once everyone is dead there isn't any experience or value system at all that could be worried about, death becomes a solution. A belief that values matter despite no one holding them would be a strange one. Caring about and pursuing other things in the meantime wouldn't be a contradiction. Although I realize whatever person actually thinks like this might have a more complicated view of suffering that isn't just "it's bad and should stop at the expense of everything forever".

Here's what he says without the funny editing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTUrwO9-B_I

>>3780
>undesirable enough to not be wanted
This is a tautology
Suffering being undesirable is self-evident and a default view across the whole world, a problem to be tackled as indicated by your senses, but death is also bad because it is a cessation of all that is good, so the basic practice (that we see as well in non-humans) is to minimize the bad and at least attain an acceptable level of good, while staying alive
Antinatalists like David Benatar (which is not the OP guy) can argue that there is an asymmetry (pic) which makes existence inherently undesirable, without needing to do any kind of utilitarian math to empirically back up their claims
But this is achieved through a sleight of hand where one absence, one kind of nothingness is given value, but another isn't, and this inconsistent and incomplete claim is actually taken as fundamental, while Benatar considers the experience of anyone telling him otherwise to be unreliable and unobjective, because everyone is a victim of fallacious optimism and if they were realistic they'd be as depressed as he is (i.e., he considers people's judgement of their subjective experience to be wrong, and only his assessment, of something he has no access to + hypotheticals, can be objective and truthful)
That is the level of cope you need to make suicidal inclinations into a philosophical stance, a disregard for people's positive lived experience, very selective usage of overstated examples, and a heaping of sophistry, yet even then he rejects active suicide like a wuss
>>3781
Happy to see he's only paraphrasing pessimists, sad to see he follows Peter Singer

>>3769
Nietzsche said everything there was to be said, people create their own meaning in life, go and create your own.
Over. Everyone after Nietzsche just said the same thing in more complex ways so it won't be as obvious they're ripping the homework off.
Philosophy should have moved to the trashcan of history when psychology was invented, alongside other obsolete sciences like astrology or alchemy.

>>3802
how the flip does psychology replace epistemology, metaphysics, or ethics? how does NEETche's haphazard flippery serve as anything but the foundation of more philosophy?

>>3802
>people create their own meaning in life, go and create your own
this attitude works for a bit, but is revealed to be ultimately unsatisfying as it isn't grounded in anything but personal whim and mood. it is important to have some sort of grounding external principle to 'check' yourself against (ethics, religion, politics) or else everything muddles into a pool of meaningless since, as you note with highlighting its importance, personal 'meaning' is so affected psychology

>>3802
>>3802
Nobody said anything significant since socrates said "I know nothing" aka
>LOOOK, LISTEN, WONDER!

and if anyone said anything significant in 20th century or pretty much since Socrates, it was Godel, who simply drove home the point with incompleteness theorem(s).

If anyone still believes they know jack shit about anything after that, theres no saving them. Maybe they just didn't read that quote from Socrates. Maybe they missed the incompleteness theorem.

But truth be told none of that is necessary unless maybe to *snap* you out of it. Otherwise life experience is beyond adequate since every little piece of evidence points to the fact that were not even a drop in an ocean.

(I did read Zarathustra, nigger was too sure and too in his head, but he's definitely above Heidegger or whatever the others mentioned. Still stupid enough to go insane so we gotta give him props for that
Cool guy tho fr, bet we'd have gotten along)

>>3804
>>3804
Only metaphysics. But that you have to invent yourself. It's ineffable, because at the level of basedness you have to examine it - all known words bleed into each other. Ultimately though language completely fails for the fact that it uses definitions to function, so you can only ever examine a limited part of reality. A portion of it at a time. Never the full picture.

Which is to say you are less wrong just staring into the branches being stirred by wind and hearing the wind and feeling the gust on your skin than you are holding pretty much any definition or word in your head, not that that cannot be useful. It's just not so sharp as to cut into metaphysics.

Metaphysics is a loose term and it's dumb to take anyone who doesn't bother to define it seriously.

>>3809
correct i simply brought it up because it's clearly outside the scope of psychology however you slice it

>>3809
Well, I have news for you, all your/our terms are dumb.

How about this?
>The great magical structure of existence?
Or
>The simple fundamental structure of existence
Or
>It's turtles all the way down
Or
>Love is the master key into my master bedroom where all whores coalesce to breed and be reborn interested younger and yet more beautiful little whores

>>3811
That turned out wrong. But you get the idea. Just like physics describes the underlying patterns and laws by which the physical universe operates, so metaphysics describes that underlying patterns and laws and structure by which the entirety of existence operates.

Ontology, epistemology, who cares what we call it if everyone understands what we're talking about? As much as we can understand one another..

Sorry, I forgot to include anime girl, which makes this discussion worth having in the first place

>>3812
why are you saving and posting screenshots like this
at least crop out the sides man

>>3812
I don't understand what you're talking about because you're making it sound like you believe you're able to invent the underlying structure of existence.

>>3802
Nacho only ever peaked at some parts of Twilight of the Idols, but you may as well read the Diamond and Heart sutras instead for good points without the impressionistic grandiose fluff.
The shared point was even more simple than forcing, rejecting, clinging, reacting to meanings in any way or form.
Also, astrology and alchemy are at least artistic and practically working with some causality, unlike ph*losophy. Psychology also has same issues that ph*losophy has (psyche only through logos? Don't make me laugh).

>>3815
Buddhist detachment only makes sense if you believe in ineffable intuitionistic magic such as Buddha-nature. And even then, people like Nagarjuna do write substantial philosophical texts for the purpose of elucidating the Buddha's teaching, like the raft of the Diamond sutra, which then go on to be read and discussed by other Buddhists.

>>3815
/v/hu coded pic

>>3816
Buddha Nature is something only mahayana buddhists believe in. What you have to believe is that all attachment to experiences either is suffering or eventually leads to suffering, that there is a way out of suffering, and to trust that the Buddha knows the way.

>>3818
>Buddha Nature is something only mahayana buddhists believe in
Sure, but... the Diamond and Heart sutras are Mahayana texts, they're working within that context. Clearly you're not following the Theravada tradition if you recommend those two.

>>3818
jesus just kys already

I mean ok, admirable I guess, for the no bullshit approach, but if you're completely disengaged / don't care about experience, phenomenology and any realm or being...
Like bro..
First, I don't think I really want anything to do with you (where's the brotherhood, the love, the adventure?), but secondly and perhaps more importantly, we all know it's hypocritical to anything and everything anyone ever does, says or thinks. And lying to yourself or others is never such a great idea especially if it's like at the core of your compass in life.

Don't see any point in this line of thought. I mean ok cool, but then why say that and do something else completely like a double faced faggot that you are? Different folks diff strokes I guess... but cmon. really? you find that interesting?

>>3820
saw it

>>3814
you invent the verbal/symbolic map of it. otherwise you wouldn't have the means to think about it.

And yes you invent the structure itself as well (or better worded you ARE the underlying structure), but not to cause confusion let's go a step at a time and discuss that later on if any of you fags are even interested in any of that in the first place.

Although to be honest we're probably on different planets and it'd be way too much effort just to get on the same page to begin with. But I like OP. He's onto something. The inherent instability. I like him. He's starting to grasp the width/multidimensionality.

But other than that IDK what the fuck we're even talking about. I agree with OP and have nothing else to contribute.

>>3821
Suicide would just lead to rebirth in a lower realm due to the strong attachments needed to be yourself in the first place. It's very much not about not caring, it's about preventing and alleviating suffering, eventually to the point of escaping all suffering altogether.
>we all know it's hypocritical to anything and everything anyone ever does
It's antithetical but I don't understand how it's hypocritical. Stopping the thing that you've done all your life and countless past lives doing is the hardest thing anyone could ever do.
>where's the brotherhood, the love, the adventure
The love primarily comes from acknowledging other people's hardships and wishing them to end their own suffering as well, although this is more deeply expressed in Mahayana traditions.

>Don't see any point in this line of thought
It's a very minor nitpick.

>>3825
Never mind that the whole premise is ass backwards since running from suffering or in any other way focusing on suffering is what zooms you into it more... Never mind that...

>It's very much not about not caring
This is internal contradiction
>What you have to believe is that all attachment to experiences either is suffering or eventually leads to suffering
>attachment to experiences
We are talking about relinquishing attachment to experience here as the next logical step given the premise that this attachment leads to suffering and the choice is made to forgo attachment and in that way rid one of suffering, no?
EVERYTHING is experience. To disengage from it (forgo the attachment, forgo the engagement) is to not care about it, my lil' nigga. What kind of double speak are we using here?

>I don't understand how it's hypocritical.
If I talk about an idea in a way that gives it great importance and even teach it to others like "oh, it's so important to me I think even you should consider it important to yourselves personally as well" yet that same speaker never gives a gram or a nanogram of effort into that idea yet continues to preach it like it's the most important thing in the world and others should consider it important too, you don't see an ounce of hypocrisy in that? IDK, bro, I don't know what to even say then. We live on different planets I recon, there's no way we can communicate that would make us bridge the chasm.

>The love primarily comes from acknowledging other people's hardships
Oh, ok, so there IS some engagement with, some attachment to the idea of experience then, isn't there?

>It's a very minor nitpick.
Don't understand what you mean by this. What is and in what way?

>>3824
You're right that people invent symbolic maps of things. You're right that I'm the underlying structure as well, but not in any meaningful sense, since the clump of physical material that's typing this post in response to yours doesn't possess all of the attributes of it as well. I am a part of it. And a result of the fact that I can only thing of things in terms of symbols, this part can't invent or interact with it at all. The most I could do is see more clearly what the symbols actually are, into ultimate reality.

>>3828
>You're right that people invent symbolic maps of things. You're right that I'm the underlying structure as well, but not in any meaningful sense, since the clump of physical material that's typing this post in response to yours doesn't possess all of the attributes of it as well. I am a part of it.
Agreed
Although I will say the different layers of you are more connected than you may think based on what you wrote. I mean, the lines and borders are quite blurry. And ultimately the two faces of the klein bottle or the mobius strip is an illusion. It's all one surface...

>The most I could do is see more clearly what the symbols actually are, into ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality - okok. the truth, closer to source, ok sure.
What symbols are? They're just placeholders. they're whatever you define them as. What do you intend to see in more clearly in them. They're chameleons, they're whatever you want them to be, what, how are you going to see more clearly into them? Not sure what you mean here.

>>3827
The Buddha describes it as stopping, not running from suffering. Attachment to the fear of pain is another form of suffering, you will eventually be disappointed when you do feel pain.
>This is internal contradiction
How do you feel about the idea of caring so deeply about other being's suffering that you're willing to spend eternity uprooting their source of suffering, down to saving the last blade of grass? This is central to Mahayana buddhism. The Buddha taught for the sake of other people, purely out of compassion, he did not need to do it. Compassion itself is central to buddhism.
>Oh, ok, so there IS some engagement with, some attachment to the idea of experience then, isn't there?
There is. The Buddha was an ascetic before he figured out that depriving himself of all experience doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering. You need the correct circumstance, sufficient nutrition, sufficient learning, sufficient motivation, so many other conditions to become a buddhist, all of these things are important, without a good enough foundation nothing could happen. Ultimately, all the teachings are meant to be tools to help you in your path, you're eventually meant to give up even the teachings in order to escape. I think the supernatural aspects of buddhism are the hardest part to understand, on the purely rational side, it's not that complicated.

>Don't understand what you mean by this. What is and in what way?
I made my post in response to "Buddhist detachment only makes sense if you believe in ineffable intuitionistic magic such as Buddha-nature". I said that's only true for Mahayana buddhists. In hindsight, I was too focused on the inaccuracy without appreciating the context.

>>3829
>What symbols are? They're just placeholders
I mean that they're ultimate reality and what I base my experience on. That they are my experience, my entire being, and there isn't anything truer.

>>3831
>purely out of compassion, he did not need to do it. Compassion itself is central to buddhism
>How do you feel about the idea
ok, nice. but I'm saying that this is attachment, not detachment, not indifference. Unless you mean that you are so utterly engaged with everything that that itself becomes a form of detachment. That I can understand. But if you're saying the only way out of suffering is checking out of this mortal coil and kinda forgoing everything... Well then you wouldn't actually want or do or want to do or anything anything anything ever, you catch my drift?

>I mean that they're ultimate reality and what I base my experience on. That they are my experience, my entire being, and there isn't anything truer.
well, ok, I understand, but that's not exactly how I was using the word symbol, because if everything is a symbol, the idea looses it's meaning. I meant in a narrower sense - like a word. a representation of something. a definition. a layer of meaning that's a step removed from direct experience of the thing. This is a more useful definition of symbol at least for what I was talking about.

>>3833
Within Mahayana traditions, the fact that each part relies on the whole to exist as a part, and each whole relies on the parts to exist as a whole, that there is no essential being at all, becoming enlightened and escaping suffering is no different from ending all suffering, everywhere. Becoming deeply involved with the world becomes a necessity.
>but I'm saying that this is attachment, not detachment, not indifference
It's expedient means that result in the uprooting of suffering. Really, you're right, it's not total about disattachment to everything. My initial wording was poor and can be interpreted in that way.

>a layer of meaning that's a step removed from direct experience of the thing
The direct experience of the thing would be a direct experience with my mind. I don't believe I can interact with anything deeper.

>>3834
>>3834
ok well it seems we're in complete agreement. What now then?

Let's end suffering? Or let's chat a bit? or create something? or go on an adventure and explore something? Check out ecstasy? Check out power? Check out beauty? Or check out lack of suffering aka ease?

I've felt a state bro. The most fitting word for it would have been ease. I've felt many other profound states that I would have given different words for, but distinctly I remember a case when I felt ease. Rather profound ease. Perhaps even more accurately I'd call it "boundless ease". The kind that is ever evolving and ever unfolding and ever easier. It's not all that it's cracked up to be in my experience. It's cool and there's lots of friends there and they cheer you on for having discovered it!!! A good bunch of folks and there's lots of space. But let's respect one another and not say that just because you like a state of being everyone should also have the same. There's something to suffering, darkness, all of that cool jazz.. In my opinion. You coming to this planet probably means held somewhat of some similar opinions. Let's not judge a book by it's cover. And just because it's pain or suffering doesn't mean it's pure evil, pure bad or pure negative. Surrounded by darkness even a candle light shines with a brilliant light. It offers a perspective that might be quite good and quite interesting and quite useful. A positive thing can be used negatively just as a negative thing can be used positively.

All existence relies on negativity to exist at all. Duality, definition, something rather than nothing. Something is always in opposition to an other. It's inherently divided which is by definition negative. All experience is negative. Positivity unites, integrates, encompasses. Negativity is defined by segregation, separation, loss of understanding and loss of REmemberance.

It's a grand illusion, sire, and that's the way it's supposed to be. Fascinating are it's facets, the multidimensional crystal that it is. Or not. Maybe they're boring an uninteresting. I gravitate more towards the perspective that it's rather magical, rather interesting, which would be an understatement of the century, but let's not get carried away. It's rather something.

I'm not saying ending personal or universal suffering is a bad idea (well universally I like more the idea of respect than imposing my will on anyone since I believe friendship's corner stone is respect, on top of that I believe I'm a retard who hasn't seen even a drop in an ocean yet despite how much I may think I've seen), but I AM saying it's not the only option presented to us, not the only door and not the only gateway we can choose to open or walk down/through.

>>3835
diminishment, contraction.
vs
Expansion, inclusion etc etc.

Existence itself needs at least some separation. If there's no negativity - there's no illusion, there's no experience, there's no existence. So let's appreciate it. Or not. I don't believe we're stuck here. I do believe nirvana is possible. How? I don't know. It doesn't make sense on paper. Everything is here now. Yet I know the universe works in mysterious ways. But as Morpheus said
>Everything begins with a choice
I do believe we're free to check out

>>3836
Nirvana is essentially the opposite of inspiration.

Inspiration relies on lies and illusion

So which one do YOU personally fancy? Closer to truth or further into the dream and into illusion? Perhaps the road to Rome is endless. Perhaps it's a merry journey or perhaps a sad one. Perhaps while being inextricably interlinked we get to choose our own path back home. While we're already home.

I don't know

There are certainly living beings that do not suffer, most prominently the quintillion microbes that exist in the world, but I think a more interesting way to look at it is to frame suffering as something that serves a positive function for life and is thus selected for, like how hunger motivates eating, and that suffering in all of its forms is an eventuality for any kind of sufficiently complex life rather than a freak accident or a mistake
That makes the kind of idea that you find in David Pearce's Hedonistic Imperative for example, to erase suffering from all life through genetic engineering, into something quite absurd, the proposal to not just reshape humanity into something unrecognizable but the whole of the global biosphere as well (e.g. eugenically making all animals into herbivores), especially because it considers the pressures that drove the emergence of suffering to somehow no longer apply or to simply be invalid, and thus wholly negative
I think this instead reveals the inherent issue with basing your morals on mere suffering, how animal rights activists of this sort (like Peter Singer) try to create a new hierarchy of being which determines that the greater a lifeform's capacity to suffer, the more valuable its well-being is, while plants with all of their complexity, beauty, and importance are simply never given such mercy, but why? Because they never had any need to, or any benefit to gain from evolving those mental structures the way vertebrates did
Don't believe me? Look at this
>In 2022, Singer stated that he is not fully vegan because he occasionally consumes oysters, mussels, and clams due to their lack of a central nervous system.
It's nonsense, suffering is elevated into the basis of moral judgement and something to be abolished, simultaneously
Clearly hedonism, and its ascetic antithesis, are both ultimately anti-life absurdity

>>3835
I sincerely believe that all things are empty, prone to change, and that this malleability allows for things to be shifted to the better; that enlightenment is aided by this fact, and it's not something to lament. Understanding the beauty of this fact and the relationship we have with the illusions of our own making is just an expedient means towards a deeper stillness for me. That is all. The major advantage of a human life in buddhist thinking is that it allows a being to see both pleasure and suffering in equal amounts, although neither are more extreme than what's experienced in heaven or hell, the being is more easily allowed to see the truth of what suffering is and develop a deep wish to escape it.

Some people seek out suffering because they believe they deserve it. It's a form of self-harm, which is bad, in the same way harming others is bad.

>>3837
>So which one do YOU personally fancy? Closer to truth or further into the dream and into illusion
There isn't a coherent difference, although some beliefs are wrong-view and lead to greater suffering.

>>3840
I harm myself when I go to the gym, y'know

>>3840
>being is more easily allowed to see the truth of what suffering is and develop a deep wish to escape it.
In my view there's no need for that deep wish, since it just binds you to suffering even stronger if anything. If you don't like suffering, simply don't create it for yourself. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Yes there is inertia at this point and the things that are set into motion will be played out, but you CHOSE this, from a bit higher level, so I see no problem with it. Next time choose another planet or in a different timeframe. Hell even this planet in this timeframe differs so much that it's beyond comprehension. So long as it's a different family, genes and location, theme.. There's plenty to choose from. No one's holding anyone hostage. You found this intriguing for one reason or another, so you came to participate. Fine!
We forget for a reason. We dream for a reason.
>There isn't a coherent difference, although some beliefs are wrong-view and lead to greater suffering.
to shy away from darkness is to shy away from the light. Which is fair. Stillness is fair. Nirvana. Exhale. (hale, hale, hale, hale......)

>>3841
A boddhisatva would rip their eyes out to give to someone else just because they asked and doing so would help the person.
>>3842
Your thinking is disconnected. If you dislike suffering, you'll seek ways to relieve yourself of it, and not creating or acting in a way that might lead to suffering is the fruit of whatever experience or understanding you have. Cause and effect is central to buddhism, something can't be done without there being sufficient conditions. Acting compassionately, self-sacrifice, helping others, not being harmful, even thinking kind thoughts builds up the karma needed to become a buddhist. How could someone stop suffering if they never aspire to it? They'd have to rely on pure circumstance, a slight relief for a reason they have no control over, that could end for reasons incomprehensible to them.

>>3816
>>3818
I don't think you had read the sutras hard if you think the conclusions to be had are specific to any doctrine or terminology...

>>3832
You certainly don't need pain symbols to base your experience on some reality like hitting your toe on furniture, no?

>>3837
Inspiration is opposite to discipline, and discipline overcomes Nirvana also. Too many travelers and too few builders.

>>3839
People think too much of themselves and interpret their suffering as if it has any different role and function compared to a microbe getting hit with salt and trying to avoid it to get some sugar. The interpretation leads only to infantile wishes that someone or something will erase the salt and pour the sugar on them in their stead - fundamental delusional tyranny of a parasite who had missed the forest for the tree; aiming to become a man who was given fish and not a man who learned how to fish. People stuck in suffering-pleasure dichotomy as their compass are only as ethically good as microbes or reptiles, as they had stepped back from not merely being people, but being mammals.

>>3844
>You certainly don't need pain symbols to base your experience on some reality like hitting your toe on furniture, no?
I would in both the sense that I wouldn't understand it if there were no symbols and in the sense that the feeling of pain and my reaction to it is purely mental.
>I don't think you had read the sutras hard if you think the conclusions to be had are specific to any doctrine or terminology.
Different traditions have different interpretations. They don't have to be specific, but differences in belief do exist.

>>3843
you assume suffering is seeking you out. I don't subscribe to this idea. YOU seek it out. So if you no longer fancy it - it is sufficient to stop seeking it out for it to stop being your experience.

>>3846
There may be a requirement of recognition and of greater than usual precision in one's life and one's choices, but you don't have to seek a lack of suffering.

>>3846
I don't think suffering seeks beings. I think it just happens and there are things about a person that might make an experience less or more painful, or not painful at all, and there are skillful ways of preventing it from happening altogether.

>>3848
> I think it just happens
Ok, so you don't subscribe to an idea of free will. Got it. This is where we differ in ontology, friend.

>>3848
Or maybe I worded it wrong. I didn't mean it as in "suffering - an conscious entity is looking to find you" I meant it more as in "there are things that you don't choose, yet they still somehow find you" kind of way.

I don't subscribe to either. I think you choose stuff, you create stuff based on your choices and your state of being, which is a choice.

>>3850
I don't understand how you arrive to that conclusion.

>>3851
If you don't believe that you cause things in your life, that they are a result of your choices, then you must believe that these things find you on their own, without your own input. Does that make sense? What is the alternative I mean. You got to believe that the cause is outside of you if you don't believe that it is within you. Or I guess you could believe that it's all just some kind of random chaos. But then why do anything in the latter case?

>>3852
This is too simple for me to understand what you're talking about. It's random chaos with higher probabilities for certain outcomes based on the choice and structure of a being or thing. In the same way that a piece of cloth might be picked up by the wind if we're both rolled up into a ball if it were flat, given sufficient wind both objects can be picked up but the greater surface area of a flat object allows for a greater probability of that happening. The "choice" of being a flat cloth or the "choice" of being a ball.
In the case of humans, there's choice but it's dependent in the environment, your physical structure, and even your disposition, which all must exist at the same time. Free will is a semantic confusion.

>>3855
Hard to understand, but this tells me that you believe suffering is like the wind. It just blows and there's a chance you'll be influenced by it. That is - you believe it seeks you out, finds you, influences you without you ever calling for it.

A pretty defeatist way to live, but if it's what your heart of hearts tells you and a lifestyle you wish to live, then more power to you. Sail away, sailor of the wind 🪷

>>3860
I think the question you're asking is fundamentally flawed and there isn't a real answer that I could give to it. I don't believe what you're describing at all.

>>3863
flawed question. Oh well. I guess we'll never know. Good day to you, don quixote, sire.

You remind me of Tate. He's always fighting against something or someone. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not necessary either. Was my entire point to you sir. Relax. Chill out. You're already home. The only way to get stumped is to spend time trying to avoid it.

And there's more to it than that especially in practical terms because you need to purge all erronious beliefs that that one is built on, which we could get into, but we don't seem to be able to maintain even the most basic conversation, so for now let's just call it a day. cya

>>3865
You make assumptions too quickly. I'm answering and replying as literally as I can, that you view it as one thing or another isn't something I control.

>>3866
It's that new teen with the drug addiction and emotional issues, I don't think you will achieve anything more than feeding the mental illness.

>>3866
>I think the question you're asking is fundamentally flawed
>So I can't answer
And then not say anything about what the flaw is
Yeah, maybe I jump to a conclusions too fast, but unless you are disinterested in the discussion at this point, I do see you as a little bit of a low intelligence individual. Which makes the discussion a little bit boring for me too. I mean how would you continue this. You basically just threw away what I said. If I say, okay, I agree. That ends the discussion. If I say, no, I don't agree, while you already kind of threw away everything that I said, so it's not like I'm going to feed you the same bullshit that you just threw away. You see what I'm getting at? How can we continue this discussion? And if we cannot, then why not poke each other a little bit and say adieu...

I tried asking the same thing multiple times in multiple ways, but you are not engaging me in the discussion, and that's okay, you don't all have to be on the same level. Maybe I'm too stupid for whatever you are on. And that's okay. I think it's normal and natural that philosophy can only be discussed in small circles and a person from one circle cannot easily transfer to another circle. Because people in one circle have to be on the relatively the same level as the other people in that circle. Unless you intend to stay silent, then you can be in all kinds of circles I guess. But if you're going to talk... You'll either find it incomprehensible or extraordinarily boring in most of these circles.

But back to what we were talking about, I know bro, I really making enough for to understand, I think I'm asking such a simple thing. Multiple times, multiple ways. You really have no idea what I'm asking about? Sorry if I disappear. I'm glad that you are doing your best to reply literally and all of that. It's appreciated. But so far it hasn't been helping you very much.

>>3866
Maybe I'm just causing too much of a cognitive dissonance in your current belief system, so much so that even if you wanted to you wouldn't allow yourself to answer. Maybe not. But a possibility.

>>3871
I don't care enough to tell you my view on free will to the smallest detail because I feel you're blind to context and that I'd just be rephrasing the answer when I've already been straightforward. The question is flawed because it assumes there's a self capable of making choices. There is a person and his choices are dependent on his environment. There are different parts of a person which contribute to his decisions. There is no essential person, meaning that there is no immutable part that definitively makes him him, so whatever choice is made is done by the interplay of many forces at once. It is a similar to asking someone whether they chose their fingers to resemble a monkey's. He didn't, that's just the result of shared ancestry. It's the classic problem of nature vs nurture except the two are indistinguishable from each other, they only exist as semantic concepts.
That I'm replying at all is due to a desire to share information. I don't care if you don't reply. I think this reply chain has strangled what once was a funny thread, and I feel bad.

>>3875
Don't feel bad. Thank you for the response. I think I understood most of what you said. Yes, there isn't a clear immutable self. I agree, I was asking on any level basically.

Thanks for sharing the information. I took the thread pretty seriously. I think Opie is serious. I think he's on to something.

I also think you subscribe to determinism which is where we fundamentally differ and that's why perhaps we can't find the same language, we can't find a common ground in terms of some of the things we've been discussing.

But yeah, don't feel bad. Yes, the discussion is boring, because for me it's unengaging and for you you feel like you're talking to a retard, which is fair. But that's not a reason to feel bad. We just have to acknowledge that for the two of us the discussion doesn't go anywhere interesting. And that's all right. I cannot share information with you and you cannot share information with me. We are too far apart. The information doesn't make it over the chasm.

Tbh this whole chan sounds like it's populated by 18 y/o seniors, but who am I to judge. I do like the cute anime girl larping though, even if it's grown men on the other side of the screen. I'm not so sure about yous guys capability and capacity for humor, but maybe I'm the one lacking in that department. Anyhow, farewell. I actually do admire Buddhists. Good on you to explore those systems. They ARE kind of rad.

For the record:
>If you dislike suffering, you'll seek ways to relieve yourself of it
This is the idea that I didn't agree with and tried to enlighten you on. That led to this long and pointless discussion that saw both of us get bored with.

But think about it in your own time. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you have to look for ways to rid yourself of it. You are not it. You don't contain it. You don't have to run from something in order not to have it. It's enough to go towards things you do enjoy. You do fancy. That's my whole point. I don't have any arguments for it, because our metaphysics are too disparate to bridge.

You are light my friend. You basically don't contain anything. And that's the beauty of it. You're free to choose the contents. And none of it you will contain or have, but you can choose what passes through you. You can steer the ship. You can choose the flow. You can choose the channel. So long as you don't resist the other channels, which only tunes you TO them, not against them.

In our reality you can wage war against something and destroy it. That's not how it works on a more fundamental level. If you wage war on something - you tune into it. You zoom into it. You create more of it.

Wowza I'm a retard who can't stop talking even when no ones listening

>>3875
I, for one, didn't think this thread was funny, just amusing.
>>3876
>even when no ones listening
There are more lurkers than you think.

>>3876
Correction - you don't have to walk towards something else even. Not necessarily. Not if you don't fancy it. It's enough to just not engage it anymore. It'll Peter out, fizzle out all by itself. It's that fucking simple. Whatever it is that you don't like. You don't have to resist it, you don't have to seek ways to avoid it, it's more simple than that.

>>3875
I mostly agree with this, but we have to recognize that a lot of the free will debate is secularized Christian theology, still grappling with the problems of God's grace and how His judgment can assign moral responsibility for salvation/damnation
I myself consider a choice to have been made whenever a being autonomously consults their mental model of the world and then picks one path of action out of many possibilities based on whatever they think would be best
This does mean choices are being made all the time even if they're inescapably conditioned or part of a conflux of forces, and it applies to more than just humans

>>3884
It is a Christian idea and I wanted to write something about that in my post but it would've added unnecessary detail. There isn't any need to reconcile a benevolent God with a malevolent creation by separating man's choice with God's will, so free will as a question doesn't matter. Ignoring whether it even makes sense. Whether things can be changed for the better is more important.
I don't know how I view choices. There's absolutely a subjective feeling of a choice being made.