/abs/ - Absurdism

I am not a reptile

I AM NOT TO BE SUSPECTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SO WITH THE LONESOME FLOATING POOP IN THE TOILET

>>1207
Indeed, I have many friends down here in the 'bowl.

>>1205
>philospwhores
great name, because what Descartes did with
>I think, therefore I am
is really making a whore out of philosophy. How can he know that "he" was thinking? Descartes completely discarded the argument of The Matrix. ALL of his thoughts can be given to him  by a great daemon and no thought is certain to be his own. We should exhume Descartes' corpse and desecrate it, for the greater good of mankind, fuck him

>Others try to define us by what we are: Two legged no feathered things
What is "us"? I'm not a two legged no feathered thing, since I'm not a plucked chicken. I can tell you that much.

>all we really need to do is deduce what we are by listing everywhat we aren't
Now that's absurd. We can go at it till the end of time. I'm not bacon, I can tell you that much.

>>1211
>ALL of his thoughts can be given to him  by a great daemon and no thought is certain to be his own
yes, but what is "being"? Wouldn't that still fall into the concept of being? Technically, all you thoughts are given to you by a machine (your brain) and none are metaphorically your own because we aren't immaterial entities

Hypocrite_that_you_are.jpg
[Hide] (104.1KB, 480x608)

>>1212
>Wouldn't that still fall into the concept of being?
That's where I'm one step ahead of Descartes.
I am
and I don't need to think to justify my existence
>Technically, all you thoughts are given to you by a machine (your brain)
Do you trust the thoughts you experience to tell you they're coming from the brain? See picrel
>we aren't immaterial entities
I'd like you to prove that one

>>1213
>I'd like you to prove that one
Eris made us carnal because chaos cannot exist upon immateriality, simple as.
This is also why I trust science and everybody's chemicals when they tell me they are chemicals. This is a axiomatic reality of chaos

>>1214
>chaos cannot exist upon immateriality
Why not? The thoughts that I'm receiving seem to be immaterial chaotic mess. Thank you, Eris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1_RKu-ESCY

>>1213
>Do you trust the thoughts you experience to tell you they're coming from the brain?
The alternative to trusting your own perception of reality to be overall accurate (if sometimes unreliable) is solipsism, which is the greatest "perisj like a dog" philosophy ever invented. 

Anyway who gives a shit about intrinsic value?

>>1216
>The alternative to trusting your own perception of reality to be overall accurate (if sometimes unreliable) is solipsism
Solipsism (according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism)) is
>a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing
One can be a solipsist and trust one's own perception of reality (One is the only One)
I'm not a solipsist

True alternatives to 
>trusting your own perception of reality to be overall accurate (if sometimes unreliable) 
are skepticism or epistemological nihilism

Why do you think solipsism
>is the greatest "perisj like a dog" philosophy ever invented.
?

>who gives a shit about intrinsic value?
I dunno

confused.png
[Hide] (119.6KB, 474x600)

>>1216
my sister cares about it. ill ask her.

>>1215
I've always enjoyed this song ever since it came out seven years ago. The satire is hidden under the surface, a piercing critique of the modern 'small town' rural demographic's crippling dependency on the identity of the globalized mega-state (rising to violence over the mere symbolism of rebellion and freedom from it). The ironic elements are crystalized with the blatant contrasting between an idolization of a police force juxtaposed against mod vigilantism. It's unmissable, and it's an embarrassing shame that the recording company pretended they missed all of it to cater to those complainers who thought someone would seriously believe what the song was about. 

>>1244
>>is the greatest "perisj like a dog" philosophy ever invented.
>?
I agree, see image.

>>1244
>One can be a solipsist and trust one's own perception of reality (One is the only One)
They'd have to do some award-winning gymnastics to justify why they believe they have an accurate understanding of reality while they constantly make decisions to do things like eat, fap, move around, etc. in a world they believe does not exist.

>True alternatives to 
>>trusting your own perception of reality to be overall accurate (if sometimes unreliable) 
>are skepticism or epistemological nihilism
Both of which result in solipsism (or related strains of idiocy) if you don't admit some amount of understanding to the subject.

>Why do you think solipsism is the greatest "perisj like a dog" philosophy ever invented?
Why would you stand and fight if you don't believe there is anything to fight, or anything to fight for?

>>1247
>in a world they believe does not exist.
Solipsism is not a belief in nonexistence of the world. See the definition posted earlier.

>Why would you stand and fight if you don't believe there is anything to fight, or anything to fight for?
For fun

778861.jpg
[Hide] (124.1KB, 1102x382)

>>1205
>>1205
I am not a noun. 

How's that for philosophifing?

>>1248
>Solipsism is not a belief in nonexistence of the world.

"the self is the only existent thing" implies immediately that "the self is the whole world", which, when it becomes clear from the senses that parts of the world aren't me, results in "the world that I sense doesn't really exist".

>For fun
So solipsists fight themselves because they want to feel good. Makes sense, for a masturbatory philosophy.

>"the self is the whole world", which, when it becomes clear from the senses that parts of the world aren't me
That's contradictory. If self is the whole world how can parts of the world not be self?

>Which aren't thou?!
An idiot sandwich…

>>1251
>If self is the whole world how can parts of the world not be self?
Exactly, everything about subjective experience of not-being-everything contradicts solipsism. Therefore the solipsist must deny their subjective experience's reality.

>>1253
How do you define reality?

>>1253
>everything about subjective experience of not-being-everything contradicts solipsism
No. Such an experience can be just a hallucination
>the solipsist must deny their subjective experience's reality.
Only if the solipsist experiences the solipsist as not-being-everything

>>1211
>ALL of his thoughts can be given to him  by a great daemon and no thought is certain to be his own
that does not contradict the commonly assumed definition of the self. A daemon giving you your thoughts isn't incompatible with the self, and more specifically it doesn't invalidate your own conscious experience, even if it fully simulated or piloted by a daemon

>>1255
>No. Such an experience can be just a hallucination
Calling your experience a hallucination is what we call "denying the subjective experience's reality"
>Only if the solipsist experiences the solipsist as not-being-everything
Well yes, I suppose solipsists are generally pretty stupid.

I'm kinda opposite os solipsist. If I ever figure put who's the fucker dreaming this all up I can find them and make this nightmare stop.

>>1258
The universe is our prison. To break out is our hope.

>>1205
>What aren't you?
I'm not sure

>>1205
If I am I because you are you, and you be you because I be I… Then how can we be any thing but each other? Like can only be know by like, maybe. 
It is the way we are perhaps that we find the difference
It is the way we act that maybe we find the similarities
I wonder sometimes if individuality is a convenient illusion that makes the play more fun
What I'm not though maybe I am not.
I know not much but maybe therein I found a hole?
I am not sane but possibly blessed