/abs/ - Absurdism

We won't ever even agree what those questions are, I'm out.

>where did we come from?
I just got out of bed, idk about you
>where are we going
Probably to the shop, again, idk about you
>Where did you come from?
COTTON EYE JOE

>COTTON EYE JOE
his eyes wuz crossed and his nose wuz flat
and his teef wuz out, but wat uv dat?

>>427
>is sitting naked in a wagon cool?
The rhetorical questions can be the toughest to answer.

It's cooler than sitting clothed, but probably not as cool as sitting in a cooler.

Physically, or culturally?

It can be fun to rant incoherently, but generally a question needs some degree of parsable coherence to actually have an answer.

>>441
It sounds like a chatbot trained in 4chan to me

>tough questions
>a chatbot trained in 4chan
Why is it that chatbots still need to lurk moar so badly? I was under the impression that this was The Future®, but chatbots still can't speak without a heavy uncanny valleygirl accent?

>>438
Have fun making $0.00 on your video game!

>>427
>where did I come from ?
I don't know my mom's boyfriend won't tell me.

GF of Theseus.png
[Hide] (68KB, 789x341)

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (241.4KB, 474x355)

If I implement the Ship of Theseus thought experiment with my body, can I evade my previous identity's debts.

its not that the questions are tough.
just that the answers are hard to understand

>>513
You don't have to do anything, your cells are constantly replaced.

>what is the purpose of life
biologically it is to reproduce and pass on your genes, but philosophically it varies a lot more. I personally believe, and although it's a bit of a copout, that you need to find your own life purpose, a goal in life that you strive towards. Also hedonism is for losers

>>516
Is there no meaning to life for the sterile?

>>517
in the biological sense they are dead ends, but you can still adopt 
im pretty sure you can still have your biological kids with modern technology though

>>517
What defines a person consists of nature and nurture. Nature is in the blood, nurture is made up of ideas.
If you can't create new blood, you must draw up ideas that reproduce just as fruitfully.

2f39a242b105740d6a82ee4ea898183850470816.jpg
[Hide] (884.8KB, 1400x712)

>>516
You've got it completely backwards. Biology has no purpose. Wings did not evolve so that birds can fly. Birds can fly because they have evolved wings. Flying is not the purpose of the wings, but how birds make use of them. In the same way, reproduction is not a "biological purpose". You see living beings reproducing not because they have a calling, a mission to reproduce, but because the ones that did not reproduce, or not at a sufficient rate, are no longer with us. But there's nothing wrong with that. There's no shame in extinction just as there's no glory in reproduction. It's just the way it is.

>>520
>biology has no purpose
Birds can't fly because they randomly evolved wings, over time the birds that had better wings banged more and as such those wings were passed on to their offspring
The only objective of any species is to continue existing, and that's why i said through a biological lense that is our only real purpose, to have kids. I should've elaborated to raise those kids as well. The goal being to pass on your genes to the next generations and future generations to come. This is evident through a bunch of stuff, think of European family Houses like Hohenzollern, or even the basic family structure, which usually puts priority to caring for your own children before others, even if it would be better for the species as a whole. 

tldr is that the basic goal of every species, including humans, is to reproduce, that was my point

>>522
>The only objective of any species is to continue existing
nope, that's your personal moral evaluation. It's like sayin that goal of chemicals is to continue existing and less stable ones are BAD because they don't do that. Do you even see the logical conclusion of your ideas. Static, dull world where everything is so good at existing they do nothing else.

>>523
>that's your personal moral evaluation
It's not though. If we look at evolution and reproduction, it points to what I'm saying.
>comparing species to chemicals
This is a terrible arguement. Atoms and molecules aren't sentient, they don't reproduce, they don't have any purpose because they can't do anything, the environment interacts with them.
>static, dull world
But this is wrong. Existance is always a struggle. Improving life is adding onto passing on your genes, because you want to have your offspring be successful as well, so you improve their life. Humans have been the best at adapting, demonstrated by their ability to improve society while having life remain somewhat stable. But if we look in nature, these creatures aren't building civilizations or empires, merely surviving against the conditions.

>>523
If you reproduce, it means you are succeeding at the "survival of the fittest" part of evolution.
Of course this happens in groups, depending on place and situation.
But at the very least, reproducing means your genes are more fit for the environment you live in than those of someone that died in that same environment.
At the moment survival of the fittest is being curbed, due to breakthroughs in medicine now the genetically unfit are given chances to reproduce, which harbors uncalculated consequences.

kropotkin-mutual.jpg
[Hide] (42.2KB, 450x489)

>>524
>>525
You are still starting from the conclusion. Survival of the fittest is a description of what happens. It does not prescribe any kind of goal whatsoever. It does not say what is good or bad or desirable. It just simply states what is happening. Animals don't "succeeding" at it. That would be like claiming that they are succeeding at gravity because the Earth exerts gravitational pull on them. Complete nonsense.

It also does not say anything about medicine. A population that is capable of healing its sick is certainly more fit for survival than one that cannot. Simply because they survive more. Just because it does not fit into your war of all against all worldview does not mean that it has anything to do with reality. Taking care of your fellows is a perfectly valid survival strategy and a pretty effective one.

>>526
That's where it would focus only on survival, lacking the "fittest".
If you don't procreate, your blood line ends and you have been deemed a failure. An evolutionary error.
Intellectual means of creating a legacy also exist, but if your genes were never carried on because you chose not to then you're practically a dead end.

>>524
>Atoms and molecules aren't sentient
neither are most living things
>they don't reproduce
what do you call it when a big lump of atoms and molecules called an "animal" reproduces?
>But this is wrong. Existance is always a struggle.
I disagree. Existence is sometimes a struggle and sometimes not. Wild animals have playtime and naps too.
Anyway, constant struggle does not equal excitement. Millions of people are struggling every day through painfully dull problems like mortgages and rent and office politics.
>But if we look in nature, these creatures aren't building civilizations or empires, merely surviving against the conditions.
Isn't that what most people do?

1627353714134-2.mp4
[Hide] (636.9KB, 720x900)

>>527
How is it lacking "fittest"? If you survived, you were fit to survive. No matter how you did it. Nature does not care about what you think "fittest" should mean. If you survived, you were the fittest. Even if your survival strategy was taking medicine.

> An evolutionary error.
Again, that would be like a gravitational error. Evolution is a description of what happens. You can't err against it.

Look, it is okay to think that the goal of life is to reproduce and that life is a war of all against all, but don't try to blame it on nature or evolution. You are the one who consider those who do not reproduce as failures, not nature or evolution. So don't try to claim that it is some objective truth and not the result of you reading some "inspirational" Nietzsche quotes on reddit.

>>529
Sure, nature doesn't care how you survive. But if you only survive to live in an iron lung that's not exactly survival of the fittest, that's just keeping the weak alive. Nature may not care for it, but it will have consequences.
>Evolution is a description of what happens. You can't err against it.
You can stop happening.

>>529
mmm, I *do* like that video.
>>531
>that's just keeping the weak alive.
suppose that weakling was someone sickly yet intelligent, like a Stephen Hawking type. That is a net boon for everyone.
Way Back When Men Were Men and Women Were Women, practically nobody could do intellectual pursuits because they had to scrounge all the time and fend off viking raids or whatever, and a lot of people who would be predisposed towards intellectual pursuits tend to be fairly sub-average physically and die of diseases anyway. Medicine and public education do two things: they increase the overall size of the gene pool (you're more likely to randomly get a genius out of 1 billion people than 1 million) and they allow people to focus more on things besides their next meal. It's not random that the scientific and technological explosion in the 20th century was directly correlated with increasing global population, something that would not have been possible without modern medicine and advanced farming practices.
If Bernhard Riemann were alive today he wouldn't have died of tuberculosis.

>>530
This. Map is not the territory, "the survival of the fittest" didn't exist before darwin but the thing it's supposed to describe did. While nature has rules it isn't a videogame designed to twist out all the dopamine out of a persons brain with all the objectives, score, and completition percentages.

Bicycle_pedal_animation.gif
[Hide] (1.2MB, 600x480)

>>531
> Nature may not care for it, but it will have consequences.
I'll take this as an admission that you were wrong, completely misunderstood evolution and that everything you have said so far were actually based on your personal prediction that there will be a point in history where our current strategies of adaption will become insufficient.

>>534
lmao go jump off a bridge you dumb cunt

1630448815126-0.jpg
[Hide] (304.4KB, 2196x2000)

>>535
how droll

>>536
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBPvLXLsEU

>>528
>>526
truly putting the absurdism in this board

Jacques Derrida and peers' pre-deconstrucitonist assertion that words only have meaning through a "violent hierachy" of juxtaposition can be disproven by counterexample through the concept of a discordian Pope, a concept with no complement. Using the DUMP cabal assertion that not only ever man is a Pope, but everything is a Pope, there is no possible Antipope, yet the word Pope is not rendered meaningless.

What I'm saying is I don't care what Derrida says about deconstruction until he's decomposing.

>>865
>I don't care what Derrida says about deconstruction until he's decomposing
Well, I think you did a good job of helping to break him down right there.

IMPROTANT!!.png
[Hide] (77.6KB, 282x288)

gun.jpg
[Hide] (366.4KB, 1024x872)

The question on everyone's mind - how should we deal with the moon?

>>1344
We've been shooting at it since 50s and it shows no signs of exhaustion. To defeat the moon we need to use cunning.

100360586739.jpg
[Hide] (904.5KB, 1024x768)

>>1345
>To defeat the moon we need to use cunny
This.

873844.png
[Hide] (640.4KB, 576x512)

>>427
Here's a tough question for you pickles

If bears do shit in the woods, does that mean frogs shit in the water?

6671368ac5314a6f33b0bd10d1682e24.jpg
[Hide] (131.9KB, 645x860)

>>1344
We must find sailor moon!