What are some books that explore the idea that we are nothing more than physical bodies moving about space and that any...

What are some books that explore the idea that we are nothing more than physical bodies moving about space and that any categorization imposed by humans are just abstractions that don't actually exist (even the concept of "physical bodies" and "space" doesn't actually exist; it's "just mass" - but human language isn't capable of expressing such a concept)?

your diary desu

>what book can provide me with edgy, psuedo-rational scientific knowledge of why subjective mental experience is completely irrelevant in the cosmos even if I have no idea how to define it and/or explain how it works?

I unironically love this joke

Runners up
>my mommies diary
>my diary

>Runners up
You mean "runner ups"?

This made me laugh wayy more than it should have

No, there are multiple in the 'race of my rankings' so multiple runner(s) in this race.

Don't tell me you think human categorizations are actually real.

get some dick

>human categorizations are not real
>explains this in human language were literally every word corresponds to a human categorization
>wants to claim things explained by categorization and that he cannot express if not by categorization and may actually not even exist outside of categorization are more real than the categories that make it possible to have experiences in the first place

>tfw everything you just said (and everything that I am saying now) is meaningless

Is math real?

>abstraction invented by humans
What do you think?

>i can't understand Calculus
>therefore it's just a bunch of random meaningless sign and equations rather than a very intricate mechanism by which certain aspects of existence's reality are made coherent to us by their formulas
you are just another failing pupil in the decaying schhol of resentment

are houses real

But it certainly has a profound and materially manifest effect, no? One so important that were we disregard it for being invented boogaloo language, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Well... that depends on what you mean by "real".

This is why people think philosophy is retarded.

That's true. Unfortunately, the very ideas of "us" having "conversation" are spooky as fuck.

>uses the mathematical abstraction of "oneness" in order to distinguish one object from the other and call it "something"
>would just have the experience of indistinguishable blending of things if his mind was not capable of categorizing oneness and, as repetition of oneness, multiplicity and number
>calls it abstraction as if it was abstracted from things and not used in every moment of his life by his own mind to constitute experience

>calculas is real
>implying the perfect circle is real

>Also implying human contructs of numbers are as perfect as the reality it represents

That's what I'm getting at, though. We cannot escape the tendency of the human mind to categorize things, thus we have a warped understanding of reality-as-it-really-is. This is how we get e.g. people discussing morality as if it were a real thing when it's just an invention of the human mind.

>not realizing the meaning to polar aspects

>not realizing that time has no polar
>not realizing that time exists, but outside human conception, thus proving a higher power
>not realizing our minutes, seconds, days, years etc are based of our interpatation of strictly our environment, thus proving that the self is but perception inside the environment, thus proving God is inside all of us

>any categorization imposed by humans are just abstractions that don't actually exist
>the concept of "physical bodies" and "space" doesn't actually exist
>human language isn't capable of expressing such a concept
everything you said is nonsensical

read wittgenstein

Ah but concepts them selves are created inside ones mind, thus showing there is indeed a split in the duality.

>*some bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with God*
>"Therefore, God exists."
Why do Christians always do this?

Where does sight come from user? Sight depends on environment, Light is outside our environment.

Light, provides beauty.
Where does beauty come from user?

>Light, provides beauty.
Light also reveals your ugly face so that I may have the displeasure of experiencing it. Light does not always provide beauty.

>What are some books that explore the idea that
>literally no book suggestions in this thread besides wittgenstein

kek

>someone mentions god
>must be a christian

ameritard spotted

you're describing post-structuralism, so Derrida and his crew.

Beauty is subjective user, where does the pinnacle of your idea of beauty user?
Surely you don't think you are the source?

From a mix of biological impulses and the ideas of beauty and ugliness that society portrays.
(WARNING!!! I am speaking in highly abstract terms so that humans can understand what I am saying. "Biological impulses" and "society" don't actually exist!)

Ah but modern art is a anti-thesis from your entire idea, as it's about grasping at the invisible and finding the beauty in the not.

>morality as a real thing
First of all, what do you mean by a real thing? Do you mean something that is mind-independent?This is mostly due to the metaphysics of theology. You won't see any secular views express morality as something "real" in this sense. However that doesn't mean you have to abandon then notion of morality. You seem to imply that the idea of morality being an invention of the human mind makes it any less real.

Christ, I think you just read it to us.

the position is called "eliminative materialism" and most proponents of it seem like autists so it's not taken very seriously

>Well... that depends on what you mean by "real".
TFW you realize that Bill Clinton is in the thread with you.