Thread 24842822

Meaning is inherently and absolutely never stable, It is always relative thus why Meaning is even stated as being an Idea that wss formulated through means of faculty of reason and put with other ideas and concepts into plurality to be a meaning.

But we as Individuals rule ourselves by concepts and meanings which is the basis of our faculty of reasoning, But this itself is very false because meanings and laws never follow us after Death (There is nothing after death) thus why individuals have this absolution to defend a meaning that is gonna betray them after they die, The Individual does not have any power over the objective reality because it delures itself also, We as Individuals don't have any meanings that we are tied with, We are not chained yet chained to an oblivious life with nothing in it but an asinine absolutely impure reality

Do you believe meanings account for life or are they nothing

Stay in school retard

>>24842833
Yeah you definitely should stay in school retard

>>24842822 (OP)
Painful read reminds me of my journals in 7th grade

>>24842867
What makes you think life has meaning?

>>24842874
Sex with your mom

>>24842822 (OP)
>But this itself is very false because meanings and laws never follow us after Death (There is nothing after death)
Have you died yet?

>>24842878
It's funny because people often say nihilism and existentialism are childish but then are too immature to have the conversation. I suspect it's because deep down they know it's the truth.

>>24842933
>I suspect it's because deep down they know it's the truth.
Everything is merely a psychological projection manifest according to an ex*stentialist, ain't it

>>24842867
>>24842833
Same faggot puts an example on why education is important >>24842878

>>24842933
He wishes to be that deep but he's too dumb to realize he's the one getting it deeper in him

>>24842905
Same question goes for you about your beliefs

>>24842962
What about my beliefs, exactly? Your job is to convince me.

>>24842822 (OP)
i look like that

>>24843586
post feet NOW!

>>24843586
NEED PROOF

>>24842822 (OP)
The meaning of life is to suck toes like hers

>>24842822 (OP)
>Meaning is inherently and absolutely never stable
What the fuck are you talking about?
>It is always relative
How?
>Meaning is even stated as being an Idea that wss formulated through means of faculty of reason and put with other ideas and concepts into plurality to be a meaning.
>meaning is an idea put with other ideas to be an idea
Not even trying to be mean here but I can't tell if you're an ESL, someone who is trying to 'sound smart' by using words they don't understand, or both.
Your writing is difficult to parse because of how scattered and unclear it is.
Don't over-extend yourself in an attempt to sound profound it just leaves the reader confused Write your ideas and arguments in a way that a 5th grader could understand so you at least have a coherent base and then you can edit it with more appropriate word choices from there.

>>24845884
Agree
>>24846683
Filtered retard, Learn how to read

>>24842822 (OP)
>But this itself is very false because meanings and laws never follow us after Death
How did you learn this?

You're essentially making a restricted case for romanticism, which championed the notion that reason is something we project onto reality and that casting reason away is how we experience the more "real" reality. Except you seem to be arguing this slightly circularily:
>meanings end where we end
>so we just seem to make meanings up
>meaning they must end where we end

Meaning is a type of relationship. That's all I can say for meaning in general.
If you're talking about meaning in life, it's a combination of integration (being part of a whole), intentionality (the whole heading somewhere or being about something) and normativity (that "somewhere" being good). If you want to deep dive and split hairs about any single word in this equation, as people tend to about "good", be my guest. You have every right to seek clarity and to be dissatisfied with current formulations. But in the end you're boycotting meaning in your life because you can't figure out some words.

>>24846683
>>It is always relative
>How?
That word means nothing in Russian. It has meaning only within a particular language and syntax cases. So relative meaning.
I'm not OP btw.

aww man i thought that was mira i was gonna goon out and write some smut

>>24846683
Ad hominem, If you could've understood something you would not attack grammatical mistakes but try to tackle what's in there not the means in which the message was used to convey, That's just mere stupidity, If everyone followed your premise then no one would've ever touched Hegel's book.

Try to educate yourself more

>>24846709
>>24846709
>How did you learn this?
What makes you believe that Meanings continue after death ?
>That's all I can say for meaning in general.

Then you don't have the a reason or means to dictate what you don't have, Thus why would you even respond to something you don't know.
>If you're talking about meaning in life
I'm not talking about the meaning in life
>the whole heading somewhere or being about something
There is no heading somewhere, You're reasoning life to make meaning of causality
>But in the end you're boycotting meaning in your life because you can't figure out some words.
What are those words then ? You can't just end a sentence with an appeal to mystery, That's an argument from obscurity without a clear meaning.

You didn't present anything synthetic to the argument

>>24846739
>What makes you believe that Meanings continue after death ?
Seeing many things die and their relationships continue.
>why would you even respond to something you don't know
To get to know it.
>There is no heading somewhere,
How did you learn this?
>You're reasoning life to make meaning of causality
Yes, with quite a lot of success. That all my (and everyone else's) success is illusory is something you're going to have to work very hard to establish.
>What are those words then ? You can't just end a sentence with an appeal to mystery, That's an argument from obscurity without a clear meaning.
I gave an example.

>>24846708
If you knew how to read you’d know that it’s incoherent nonsense, nigger.
>>24846715
Literal retard
>if you could’ve understood something…
That’s literally my point, OP’s text is incoherent
>try to tackle what's in there not the means in which the message was used to convey
Can’t do that when it’s incoherent
>That's just mere stupidity
Blow me
> If everyone followed your premise then no one would've ever touched Hegel's book.
You’re not Hegel and furthermore that is probably the worst person to imitate in terms of prose.
If you can’t state your ideas in a comprehensible way that’s the fault of the author not the reader.

Tú tuviste que usar conceptos y palabras para decir que los conceptos y palabras no tienen sentido, y si algún día mueres, los conceptos y palabras que usaste seguirían existiendo y se seguirían usando, al igual que una persona antes usó los conceptos y palabras que usaste y luego murio, y tú los sigues usando, porque sirven. Hay significados que no tienen sentido, eso sí, se le llama neolengua en resumen a esas palabras, te recomiendo investigar si te interesa, ¡Suerte! La vida no solo se reduce al individuo y su circunstancia

>>24846792
>That’s literally my point, OP’s text is incoherent
Can't blame the OP if you're dumb
>Blow me
How do you even manage to sit or walk with a brain in your ass

You're very fucking dumb lmao and you can't just defend yourself or even provide anything inherently substantial to the argument so you reside to ad hominem

>>24842822 (OP)
Feeeeet

>>24846768
>Seeing many things die and their relationships continue.
So by that standard you conclude that there is an absolute causality that never changes ? You never know the thing in itself, And even if you know it by will then that's a false assumption.
>To get to know it.
Then be my guest and try to know more
>How did you learn this?
What makes you believe that Life has a teleological end ? What do you believe that we will achieve that will exactly suspend our craving to an insoluble end? Nothing, It's just an insatiable craving for a satisfaction that never meets its true desire but always keeps stretching unto nowhere until we inevitably die.
>Yes, with quite a lot of success. That all my (and everyone else's) success is illusory is something you're going to have to work very hard to establish.
What is success in your premise ? If you give me your definition of success then I have to ask another person for what is his definition of success too to actually grasp the objective meaning of success but then it becomes only your own subjective definition if he disagrees but by chance if he agrees I have to find another person and ad infinitum, Thus there is your meaning of success which is relative and not even a true meaning.
>I gave an example.
You didn't, the Word Words are a didn't lucidly state what you tried to convey

>>24846834
The retard cries out in pain as he strikes you

>>24846851
>So by that standard you conclude that there is an absolute causality that never changes ?
No.
>>How did you learn this?
>What makes you believe that Life has a teleological end ? What do you believe that we will achieve that will exactly suspend our craving to an insoluble end? Nothing, It's just an insatiable craving for a satisfaction that never meets its true desire but always keeps stretching unto nowhere until we inevitably die.
Thanks for the rant. But where did you learn that 'there is no heading somewhere'?
>What is success in your premise ?
Making meaning of causality that causally works.
>Thus there is your meaning of success which is relative
I am fine with that, since I at no point claimed my definitions were complete.
>not even a true meaning
Non sequitur.
>>I gave an example.
>You didn't
Ok.

>>24846852
Why do you strike me then, retard ?

>>24846865
>But where did you learn that 'there is no heading somewhere'?
From realizing that when you do a thing or an action and that thing or action is fulfilled or done, The chain of causality ends and therefore something must be done afterwards, Then what exactly is heading somewhere?
>Making meaning of causality that causally works.
And are you fulfilled by that which works ?
>Non sequitur.
What is it that proves it to be a Non sequitur or just an unwise choice of words

>>24846883
>The chain of causality ends
Nope. It transforms. The cells in your body are using amino acids from dead people bodies' in the past. The chain of causality goes on. It's just one type of concept (a personal life embodied in a single coherent body) that ended.
>And are you fulfilled by that which works ?
Sometimes. Fulfillment isn't the argument on my end.
>What is it that proves it to be a Non sequitur or just an unwise choice of words
It's a non sequitur because it doesn't follow. That my definition is not complete doesn't mean it's not true. Otherwise your objection, which omits thousands of aspects of what I said, would be untrue.

>>24846892
>It transforms
>The chain of causality
>that ended.
See ? There you answered your question
>Sometimes
Wise answer
>which omits thousands of aspects of what I said
I think we agree to disagree

>>24846904
>There you answered your question
My question was "where did you learn that 'there is no heading somewhere'?" My answer was that specific concepts may end, which answers a different question altogether. So where did you learn that 'there is no heading somewhere'?
>>which omits thousands of aspects of what I said
>I think we agree to disagree
You disagree that your objections only select a few aspects of my speech? Surely you don't think your objection addresses my spelling, my choice of spacing, the etymology of my word choice, the political mindset associated with my position.... there are thousands of aspects of my posts that are left untouched. And that is fine. As long as you don't argue that completeness is the pre-requisite for truth.

>>24842822 (OP)
I wonder what her feet smell like, haha.

>>24846915
>>There you answered your question
>From realizing that when you do a thing or an action and that thing or action is fulfilled or done, The chain of causality ends and therefore something must be done afterwards
I already stated and won't state again but to make it more clear on why I mentioned your fallacies
You said
>It transforms.
Which indicates a present relativity of the thing which is universally acceptable and I won't go into further refuting
>The cells in your body
I'm talking about the Individual's subjective existence, His own phenomena is not of interest because it submits to the Principium Individuationis (Space,Time and Causality) which dictate the phenomena (And i'm not here stating blatant information but building up on your premise so you can see the chain of logical reaction that indicate that there is nothing)
>It's just one type of concept (a personal life embodied in a single coherent body) that ended.
Here you state that it ended which itself states that there is an end to that concept which has run its course, So by that premise let's return to the cells that are using the amino acid, They're constantly on a chain of causality to transform into an idea which will become the plural body or the food of the other things.

So by that logic it is only constituted for what is being held in that specific timing that posits for space to accumulate for causality to create such event, But such event is only active for that circumstance thus the only somewhere which you speak of (which definitely is from a theological ground) is the idea or the plural objective idea

>>24846972
To add more from experience, If you move your feet without any faculty of reason present to give it meaning then you will perceive it normally as moving your feet without any emotional changes which universally accepted as moving your feet

But if you moved your feet but with the faculty of reason condoning it as something that is sinful then that means the somewhere as you mentioned is the End of that action which is sin, As giving meaning to that action which you condoned (which is most cases for mentally ill)

So notice how both constitute for nothing but purely on socially constructed axioms

>>24842822 (OP)
i wanna suckle those toes

>>24842822 (OP)
It really is impressive how OP managed to fit as much philosophical jargon as humanly possible while still sounding like an Indian

>>24847033
Thanks you Saar

>>24843586
>>24843670
>>24845846
>24845884
>24846712
>24846840
>24846931
>24847006
All of you are gay. op pic is literally a troon--pariah the doll.

>>24847212
N-not gay! NOOOOOOOO

>>24846972
>>It transforms.
>Which indicates a present relativity
Correct. My point is relativity doesn't establish cessation of a causative chains. Relativity is just that - a relationship that depends on something.
>>The cells in your body
>I'm talking about the Individual's subjective existence
Which includes his body. If you're uncomfortable with this example, we can take pretty much any other, since virtually all aspects of human existence show this pattern.
> there is an end to that concept
Correct. End to the concept. Not to the causative chain.

Maybe I'm being too verbose but the over-arching points is that you leap from relativity to a bunch of things that relativity doesn't necessarily imply - namely that causation "ends" and that meaning is "false". This does not follow from relativity.

>>24846980
If I get what you just said, you showed an example where an uncertain interpretation was drawn. This doesn't necessarily relate to relativity or anything else. It just relates to people sometimes making leaps of judgement. As I think is your case.

>>24847212
No she's not gay, @isizzly

>>24842822 (OP)
The teacher caught you not reading the book huh? and you found out a mix of nihilism and post modernism garbage on goygle.