What paradoxes keep you up at night?

I was wasted one night and ended up with the conclusion that A was not A.
Really don't remember how it happened, but probably was some retarded logical fallacies.

>when you read too much Kaczynski

That all forms of reason and understanding, and the conclusions thereof, operate because they exist in mental systems that allow them to. This understanding is, in itself, part of such a system.

Conservatism sometimes includes some anti-capitalist critique, but its function is always to save the capitalist mode of production

I'm black yet my skin tone isn't 000000.

Achilles and the hare kinda FUCKS with me sometimes

hmm, wouldn't that make you the "fag", assuming OP is not one and you use it as derogatory term.

If OP is a fag, and you're "not"one, then why would your cock be up at night ? Embrace the reality of your desires user.

Why is Veeky Forums so unliterary?

Bookcucks must be killed to preserve the sanctity of the red pill.

No paradox here.
Yes you are.

When you understand that all assertions are ultimately self-referential, and your experience of reality is, in effect, a strange loop, then paradoxes will cease to trouble you. They're just the result of two reality tunnels interacting.

problem of evil

save bump

The universe is indifferent towards you. Get over it.

Just because human beings must start and end, doesn't mean that everything else does.

Only by fully embracing materialism can you fully appreciate the social value of idealism

Women, gays, and minorities are stronger and smarter than white men, but white men control society.

>hmm, wouldn't that make you the "fag", assuming OP is not one and you use it as derogatory term.
>If OP is a fag, and you're "not"one, then why would your cock be up at night ?

That was the paradox you fucking queer

This. If the Melanoids really did land their interstellar pyramid ships in Egypt, how did their white neanderthal slaves end up conquering and enslaving them? Was it sheer decadence, multiculturalism-induced instability, and the lazy weakness encouraged by prosperity? What drove the spirit of the philosopher-kang out of the noble Melanoid people, and reduced them to a degenerate race of illiterate hut-dwelling cannibals? Are black and white a revolving pair of opposites, locked into a constant cycle of mirrored wax and wane? In three thousand years will the Melanoids have resurfaced, and post on 4kan.gz "what happened to the once-mighty Nordid? What reduced him to a forest-dwelling barbarian?"

A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day.

Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday.

He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday noon, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all.

The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, was an utter surprise to him.

>Veeky Forums - Literature

I know this is trolling, but people like this are actually stomping around on this website and its irritating to share boards with insufferable ideological brainlets.

ditto, m8

how can something not start?

Yeah, like, "Eval"; whatever. Problem? You live inside the belly of a deamon who thrives on suffering and gives you a world with modest amounts of good so to allow you to become even more base - and, like, that's a problem how?

Seriously though. The problem is mostly one of good. And whether good is possible without producing the smallest amount of evil. Abort a burdensome baby because it's life will be miserable,or do not kill, and subject it to suffer.

---

I'm pestered by the paradox of the statement that "existence is violence". Beginning with a definition of existence that encapsulates both the infinitely small and the finitely large, or rather, what is possible and what we can speculate on as existing. You define violence, either by a concept that inanimate objects or "nature" or AI or aliens or winter can perpetuate, or rather as an empty vessel of human communication - and the statement becomes false or true.

Does violence exist? Has there ever been an act of violence? Seems like a stupid language game until you watch nature scenes. You jump from an image of deer being pulled down by a bear to the thought that you shouldn't anthropomorphise the scene in human terms, to a speculated earth exploding from some cosmic event. Then you get to that thought: Was the first instance of the universe a destruction or a creation, and, if this is a language game, then how do we describe the first instances of language or communication in general? This is a sidestep, yes, but it's better than a language game because it's more visceral.

Can we equate all violence as communication? Does punching someone in the face become a signal such as the word "don't"? Are we imprisoned by our languages? And what is communication if it is not in here, received, relayed, sent? Is it instead a thing, out there, in a collective conscious that is speaking through everyone? That's babbling, I'm sure. But how does an intelligence on that scale speak? Is their a violence within a word that is uttered without intent?

but seriously tho
if ur not attracted to men but are to traps what are you
(other than a freak)

A gay guy with a specific taste

we do now the Universe came to be almost 14 billion years ago.
the answer to what existed 15 billion years ago is "that question doesnt make sense, because the universe is younger than that"

Why I am considerably intelligent but have fucked up so many things in my life

The principle uniformity of nature

Rokokos basilisk while not a paradox, does keep me up.

Nihilism

And how heavily deductive reasoning relies on induction-that we call black birds crows becuase we have yet to observe a white one. Doesnt mean they don't or can't exist,

>They're paid shills.

I didn't mean to imply anything.

Literally none since I've lived in psychotic states for large amounts of time and since now I'm back to normal any kind of vapid abstract paradox is literally nothing compared to actually being tormented by my mind in some ways I can't even put into words now, solipsism was just the point of the iceberg

Lack of EI.

What does nothing look like?

>man is the measure of things
>"I am not the measure of things"

Paradoxes are a dualist meme. There are too many dualist ideologues in this thread. Get back in your grave, Hegel!
That isn't fallacious, that is accurate.

Non-problem. God is not subject to your petty logic, or ethics, or whatever else. This 'problem' arose from pagans who could not comprehend of nonsystematic love. Worse, they believed in notions of 'good and evil'. God is good and evil; God is notgood and notevil. Good does not exist. Evil does not exist. What exists is God who makes us weep in our attempts to systematize and divide.
Pagan!

>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.

>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

It's a mystery, why on earth would this keep you up at night?

Nothing doesn't exist. Try to wrap your head around that.

>point of iceberg
somebody had traps on the tip of his tongue didn't they/them/quasar.

Euthyphro Dilemma.

>he still thinks lit is about literature

...

What do you call that?

Care to elaborate? I'm interested.

The big bang occurred 14 billion years ago, but didn't expand from nothing. As far as I can tell the universe expands and contracts unceasingly. Perhaps Nietzsche's eternal recurrence wasn't only a helpful metaphor.

meta to the nth degree

Meno's paradox

You're sexually deprived so you turn to the closest thing that resembles a woman

The limits of propositional logic and language and how they relate to reality/truth. Does truth mean anything or is it all just linguistic fuckery? Is there some systemic limit that I cannot think beyond?

How the fuck does all this relate to the mind/body problem and the popular notion of physicalist reality?

You're gay for dicks and not gay for masculinity

Why is this such a big topic

Το τιποτα δεν υπαρχει.

Münchhausen trilemma. Apparently almost everyone else just pretends it's not a thing.

Ever heard of the term 'axiom'? Fag.

Real infinities are impossible user desu

I enjoyed your post user.

Axioms are necessary evil, not a magic stick that solves the problem.

What is that neechee shut the fuck up

What is it about?

Pair of ducks?

>As far as I can tell the universe expands and contracts unceasingly.
How do you know this?

You're just repeating the same concept and is an incomplete statement. Like describing the sky as "blue blue" or someone's action as a "good good".

its true that there are certain forces of unbelievable power deeply rooted in our mind,basic circuits that function from birth to death,certain biological proclivities that are built on years and years of evolution.That being said,you can,to some degree,supress these natural,instinctive inclinations,or even form new ones.That can generally be done at young age,although its quite hard.

good job, I thought this was pasta

The conclusion may be accurate, but the way I arrived there was an actual drunken fit. It wasn't anything profound, but rather me fucking up the Raven or something.

The big crunch is no longer the favored theory for the universes end, modern findings suggest expansion and heat death are more likely, just a big dark nothing.
Unless super massive black holes are in fact big bang seeds as one fringe theory posits, in which case our universe might have a few children.
This theory also suggest the laws of physics might be a universes 'genetic code,' passed down to it's children with slight alterations.

Laws of physics don't exist. 'favored theory' is code for 'big woowoo'

there are no paradoxes in non-duality.

Veeky Forums is about not being so fucking pedantic, my man.

matter can't be destroyed but eventually the universe will experience heat death from being too spread out/general entropy

to me this eventual lack of existence of energy implies that maybe there was a lack of energy before the existence of the universe as we know it.

I found it helpful to think of causality as a machine that operates within 'these axiom groups'. The world isn't necessarily objects, and time isn't necessarily as we perceive it.
>event A, then event B
What proof do you have for their order, aside from experience/perception?
Now that we can change our experience with a wide variety of methods, what counts as 'real'? All of them? Then do they compete? Which one wins - or rather, which one is the winner?
>Era
>Habits
>Friends
>Mass Media
>Ads
>Memes
>Psychedelics
>Philosophy
>Religion
>Art
>anti-art
All of them shape us and we shape the world.

The existence of evil doesn't make sense if there's no God.

A lot of people say evil is just "bad things" or "stuff that hurts," but those definitions don't work. Having a cavity filled or being punished for a crime you committed hurt, but they aren't evil. In fact, these are examples of good medicine or good law enforcement. On the other hand, there can be instances of evil that don't cause pain. A man who fantasizes about raping children but never acts out his fantasies doesn't cause pain, but obviously the man has evil thoughts, not good ones. Here's a better definition: Evil is what we experience when things are not the way they are supposed to be.

Rape, murder, cancer, and other bad things are evil because they distort the way the world should be. Sex should be an act of love, not an act of violence. Cells should grow into body parts, not tumors. If evil refers to the way things are not supposed to be, then good must refer to the way things are supposed to be. But if things are supposed to be a certain way, then that means there is both a cosmic plan and a cosmic planner.

I know this is late as fuck, but in simple terms analysis of background radiation shows a wavelike dispersion that could not have begun at what we believe is the galactic center at anywhere near the region of time we now believe the Big Bang to have occurred - looks like it came from roughly the same area but was compressed, and had originated much earlier.

As far as we can tell, the Universe will eventually experience gravity collapse at some unknown point in the future, regardless of heat death (unless the Universe does infinitely expand, but that's unlikely) and all matter will eventually be pulled back towards the singularity state of Big Bang conditions. The resulting extreme physical and quantum physical reactions would then presumably cause a second (nth) Big Bang and activate all that inert matter.

Nietzsche's proposal of the cyclical universe appears to be increasingly correct.

I'm having trouble following. How do you get to 'the universe is cyclic' from the observation that background radiation didn't begin at the center?

It's probably from the 'constricting Universe', rather than the background radiation.
Think in principles.

Can you explain what you mean?

Do atheists even have a response to this? They always talk about evil as being a reason not to believe in an all-good God but this presupposes that evil is even a meaningful concept in a universe without a God. If materialism is true and the only thing that exists is matter then what is evil?

mobile.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

What are you asking me to read?

Materialism is true and evil is just personal preference. No contradiction.

If God is real then evil is no longer personal preference but is defined as opposition to God which he does not will into existence which is a contradiction. Contradiction => false premise

You've defined evil as a personal preference so how would that be a contradiction to Gods existence? How do you get to evil being a personal preference to evil being in opposition to God? It sounds like you're saying that free will is contradictory to Gods existence.

conservatism, or any right wing philosophy, is about protecting hierarchy. Capitalism is less hierarchical then fuedalists that is why it was progressives who ushered in capitalism and conservatives who aimed to protect the land owners and the aristocrats.

God is true neutral because they allow individual will to be separate from itself. This isn't a contradiction.

The fact that an infinitely bent line which appears straight is fundamentally different from a straight line of the same length.

>spiders song
>radiohead

the first few bars of the song are chord for chord a ham of the first few sung parts of Pink Floyd's "Nobody's Home" in The Wall

youtube.com/watch?v=JZkERB6dU_Y

sexuality is a spook

just because the hanging is on a friday doesn't mean it's not a surprise, it's just that the surprise will not ocurr in the moment the guard steps in the room, it will happen att thursday 23:59

Read this part before the thread. Shook me pretty good but after some thought it's not impossible to know concepts and to then try to find a more precise definition of them.