Refute this

Refute this.

Attached: download.png (183x275, 5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/FBca33v8oGM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I can't.

Attached: 5CE5CCC4-882F-49F2-8453-56A843BC9566.jpg (333x499, 48K)

It’s shit
>dude le things be like this lol
okay?

this makes no sense

>Counscioness is bad and a problem
>People create a solution to get around and they do this naturally
>That solution doesn't matter for some reason
Besides that it's just some edgy shit that crumbles under 5 minutes of examination

Name one good point it made.

>create a solution

>solution

hahahahahhahahahahahha

It's fucking gay. Only weak fagboys wallow this much.

Last time I checked the average person isn't going through a constant existential crisis so I would say that's fixed

THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT

You can't refute an emotional reaction. If that's how life makes him feel then that's the case I guess.

Ok, who gives a shit?

>average person isn't going through a constant existential crisis

take away their TV and 9-5 and see what happens

They get bored?

This is the great lesson the depressive learns: Nothing in the world is inherently compelling. Whatever may be really “out there” cannot project itself as an affective experience. It is all a vacuous affair with only a chemical prestige. Nothing is either good or bad, desirable or undesirable, or anything else except that it is made so by laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive. How advantageous that we are not coerced into choosing one or the other, neither choice being excellent. One look at human existence is proof enough that our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations. That may be no way to live, but to opt for depression would be to opt out of existence as we consciously know it.

>pseud the post
I agree the universe isn't good or bad or anything else intrinsically. But what does this matter? From my perspective, the only one I have, the universe is imparted with meaning and joy, light and dark and innumerable things to enjoy. What does it matter that I must create that meaning and that joy? What difference does it make that it's intrinsically there or created when it feels and looks the same? You also seem to act as if emotion is some separate entity pulling the strings on us and controlling us but it is not. Emotions aren't separate from me, THEY are me. They are me just as any other part of my brain is me and that view on emotion could equally work on any other part of my biology. It's entirely arbitrary

>tfw

Attached: b.png (500x484, 431K)

It matters because the fact then is that you're just a squirt of chemicals away from having that entire meaning collapse. But the full consequences of that don't really hit you until it actually happens.

castrati, mental midget

blah blah existential reductions, i am Hamlet. Why do you enjoy being depressive so much? Are you slavic by chance? Are you wired for self-destruction?

brainlet

why don't you just kill yourself?

Yes, that's called depression and it's curable. Is the fact that people can get depression really your argument? And again those chemicals aren't separate from me, they are me.

shit i just got utterly BTFO

I can't, of course, but I try to live with my diminished standards through the four anchoring mechanisms. I read this during onset of chronic illness, this following a life of serious injury and many forms of poverty. Ligotti's "This Degenerate Little Town" is the perfect description for the state of being worn by people who physically suffer either a short or extended period.

youtu.be/FBca33v8oGM

Attached: rb3.png (578x329, 323K)

>Yes, that's called depression and it's curable.
Far from always. Treatment resistant depression is thing.

I think what they're trying to say that the arbitrary projection of meaning makes it useless to pursue it, for you could simply change what gives you meaning or joy.

It useless on an objective scale, of course, everything is, but from my perspective, it's incredibly meaningful and fun. Who cares if it doesn't matter in 10000 years? It matters to me and matters to me now that's all a person needs to live.

Ok, but what does this have to do with your original argument? I'm not here to talk medicine

Why would it be incredibly meaningful if it only mattered to you?

>depression is curable
no, its not, because its not really an illness at all. a pseudo-illness cannot be cured

Putting suffering on-par with anything pleasant or neutral is, I guess, fine for academic go-arounds, but it tends to lose it's sting once applied to a thing with a working CNS. There is no subjective suffering in a nursing home. It matters. Suffering matters.

Saying otherwise displays the detachment from humanity that is the watermark of the academic.

Attached: pete_of_heaven.png (303x300, 249K)

Well, I should have added it also matters to other people. The point is the only entitys which people want it to matter to it can. Nobody cares if a rock in the Andromeda galaxy is affected by their life. But they do care if effects their family, friends or community.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder
Suffice it to say the experts disagree with you

So would you accept a situation because the community around you gives it meaning?

The experts are experts in a field with as much validity as astrology or alchemy, the only Sciences worth believing at their word are: Mathematics and Physics

everything else is up for debate, Physical Chemistry gets the benefit of the doubt, organic chemistry does not

bio, ecology, CS, eng, economics, phil/logic are basically retarded pseudo-sciences and can just be used for amusement. I'm sorry I don't make the rules. But, this is how things are. If you disagree, go to Veeky Forums and ask them which sciences are real sciences, you like experts, they are indeed your men

If it was also meaningful to me, Yes. If the community around me needed water and I could find meaning in helping them I would regard that as a good scenario. It matters to them and it matters to me.

Holy shit this is the most reddit/stemlord/rickandmorty thing I've ever read

>bio, ecology, CS, eng, economics, phil/logic are basically retarded pseudo-sciences
spot the actual retar
>fields governed by non-contingent law's are pseudoscience
you realize there is a smooth transition between chemistry and biology, right?

Is this pasta from Veeky Forums?

Attached: cline.png (226x244, 135K)

Don't derive meaning from ontology.
Don't think with your head 5 feet up your ass.
Make an effort not to be a total shiftless fag.

It’s embarassing to see this type of posturing in here. Haha, no one thinks you’re cool for your dismissive, vague post you made. You’re all fucking children with zero self-awareness.

>everyone prior to the 9-5 work day and television was in constant existential dread.
You have to be over 18 to post here.

I know for a fact Philipp Mainländer was cyber-bullied to death.

Take the fear of the nuclear holocaust and transplant it into a different scenario, in which death is not physical but spiritual, not due to bombardment but to economic and social mechanisms.

>Haha

>fear of an untimely death is the same as death
Wanna know how I know you are a NEET?

>can’t understand basic ideas conveyed through language
Wanna know how I know you’re a fucking retard?

Actually I'm 100% sure people lived better before the tv

There are many arguments and positions in the book. Which would you like us to refute?

Arguments: Im sad :(
Refutement, your opinion and emotion about how everything is meaningless and uninteresting is based on your ego.

Refute THIS *grabs crotch*

See

Attached: argu.jpg (320x320, 11K)

I don't understand. The book makes clear arguments. Why are you sad about that?

Your second sentence is also unclear to me. First, do you want to talk about Ligotti's positions or those supposedly of people who've read his book? Second, neither I nor Ligotti claims that "everything is meaningless and uninteresting" based on ego.

If you want to discuss Ligotti, then let's first agree to discuss HIS positions and not to erect strawmen.

The qualities of uninteresting comes from the ego, therefore either his argument deconstructing the self is invalid or the universe being uninteresting

>everything is terrible because I'm depressed: the book

There's nothing to refute. Either you feel the same way that Ligotti does about existence or you don't. Ligotti doesn't have any answer to why it's not better to not be a pessimist besides "Eben if ur happy its still a part of muh gunspiracy!!!1!"

Attached: hx4Prda.jpg (228x221, 5K)

Okay. First, Ligotti doesn't think everything is uninteresting. The entire premise of the book is based on the writings of an author whom he finds interesting: Zapffe. Ligotti includes excerpts from philosophers and movies and novels and philosophical horror that he finds interesting. The book is not arguing that things are uninteresting because of our egos.

What he does argue is that what we perceive as a well-constructed self is actually grounded on sand. He argues that we seek desperately to affirm our positions in the world (via Zapffe) through isolating ourselves from bad thoughts, distracting ourselves from our mortality through media, anchoring ourselves to constructions of God and family and nationality, and sublimating our works through creative experience.

Ligotti argues that we believe ourselves to have some intrinsic purpose in the universe and employ every tool we can to avoid the realization that we don't. That's the basic position of his argument, not that the universe is uninteresting or that the ego makes things uninteresting.

What, then, regarding the points above, would you like to refute?

I thought a main part of his argument was about the illusion of the self, doesn't his arguments about constructions of god, family, etc. lead into that?

In some sense, yes. He believes that we don't have tangible, objective, universal selves. He argues that we (usually unwittingly) construct our sense of self through those anchors and feel threatened when people try to unfasten them. He doesn't argue that because we have illusory selves that things are inherently uninteresting. He himself acknowledges in self-aware passages his own anchors and literary sublimation and need for distraction, but never does he argue that things are uninteresting because of them.

I think it is obvious that experience and the self is not universal in contrast to the world, but Ligotti is not firm on this, both stating:
"“Being alive” encompasses such an abounding medley of feelings and sensations that it
means nothing to say one knows anything about it.".

"Writers can make themselves understood only to those who already share their
experience or can coordinate it with their own. For most of them, there exists in any
language a word or two that makes the connection, because billions have undergone
identical emotions and sensations in their lives."
Obviously this is from a light reading, please correct me if I misinterpreted it.
I would also argue that consciousness and the self serve a useful purpose, not just for distraction or comfort.

Ligotti also thinks that is obvious and wonders why other people don't. He spends large portions of his book probing how people deceive themselves into thinking their experiences are universal. I think the quote you offer is an extension of that thought. Being alive, Ligotti argues, is so obviously loose and rocky, so how can people believe that they know about their positions in it, the meanings of their selves, the "truths" of their cultures, etc.? He thinks we all have a subconscious interest in deceiving ourselves so that we can get along without recognizing that our "feelings and sensations" are, in fact, "nothing."

Regarding the second quote, doesn't it, in some sense, reflect our own discussion? We are speaking past each other, my understanding of Ligotti being different from yours while I believe I have the clearer view and you believe the same. Again, Ligotti thinks we bring in untold amounts of bias and subconscious anchoring and disillusion into what we consume.

To go back to your original point, then, Ligotti argues that we can find things interesting or uninteresting, but those things surely don't have any meaning outside of that which we construct for them.

Everyone now who has that stuff was dirt poor and had no time to do anything else except work reproduce and sleep

boredom leads to depression quite quickly. with no distractions we are confronted with ourselves and our mortality

ITT lifelets

>user realises that people care more about medicine, money, etc, than sub atomic particles and nebulous equations

Existential crisis is manifested in the origins of culture itself.

>we know nothing, except this thing I'm about to tell you

Least I'm not a dicklet

I haven't read it but from what I've heard here it's supposed be basically like Schopenhauer?
The point of the book is to say that life is inherently boring and painful?

Yet nobody realizes nor cares about it. It has the same effect on us as if it wasn't there.

So your argument is that if people do absolutely nothing they will get bored and maybe think too hard?

>they don't think it be like it is but it do

Computer science is a formal science, it can't be pseudo-science. Holy shit you are dumb.

Drugs and therapy.

The realization that you don't have to put a premium on getting pleasure and avoiding pain, you just do those things often enough not to go insane so you get the time to do stuff that you want to get done.

The set of techniques and the body of knowledge we largely recognize as "Computer Science" can easily be abstracted and further translated into a subset of Mathematics. I am pretty sure that poster is talking about "Information Technology" and other such buzzwords.

Note that, in your defense, that guy is indeed a massive faggot

>Ligotti argues that we believe ourselves to have some intrinsic purpose in the universe and employ every tool we can to avoid the realization that we don't.

And how the fuck does Ligotti know that with such certainty? At least one could say "I don't know". The universe has been here for so long and we have no idea what it (the reality) is about.

Nihilist garbage refutes itself. It is born from the contention that flamboyant and ostentious claim of belief in the objective meaninglessness of human existence is objectively meaningful.
Because it makes them feel high-IQ or something.

But don't the quotes contradict each other? He states there is no similarity in experience and then goes on to say there is. Humans are similar, and doesn't that come with similar experiences? Obviously that is not universal but there are common experiences due to the underlying mechanics of consciousness.

My argument isn't based on the clarity or understanding of Ligotti, just on the merit of the arguments themselves. Of course there is miscommunication and misunderstanding, but to say that people do not change or gain something from discussion.

Since the industrial revolution. Before that people had shitloads of free time. Medieval folk had like 150 holidays a year.

Life was way more slowly paced before the steamcunts came along.

>mfw both

Attached: 14900523288.png (800x600, 460K)

>projecting this much.

Meant for the user this user was replying to.

It's okay, user. Just pile it on the dicklets. We can take it, we can take anything. I bet Ligotti is small down there as well. It really kills any chance at optimism from the outset. Oh well, at least I get to die someday!

Attached: a hero betrayed.jpg (480x596, 109K)

>People interested in facing the world as it is are big dumb pretentious babies
t. The biggest baby

What, culture would have the same effect on us if it wasn't there? It's a coping mechanism ffs, it's the root of our avoidance of real problems like immortality.

Nah, like Jordan Peterson says, it's the avoidance of responsibility, which holds the temporary meaning of life.

I'm saying that even if culture is a coping mechanism that's is not a bad thing since nobody realizes that we are coping with it. It feels the same as if we did not need to cope with it. It's not like the average Joe realizes some deep existential problem and knows he's lying to himself. But that's assuming that we even need to cope at all which I doubt.

>like Jordan Peterson says

stopped reading there

horror writer is depressed yet narcissistic, wants everyone else to die.

the problem was solved thousands of years ago, it's called religion.

Why? It refutes itself

Sophism