Existentialism is less interesting than what I ate for dinner. Discuss.

[Ender]

have ub een getting my late-night instant messages?

[Chavo]

Haha, yes!  I've been incredibly busy though.  I'll get around to leaving you a poorly thought out, extremely long reply one of these nights.

Oh, and

(05:49:21) ender: only God Euler can tell
(05:49:32) ender: wow that was so atheistic of me
(05:49:38) ender: though I didn't say God couldn't tell

You excluded God with the word only, unless you want to indicate that God and God Euler are the same entity.  Pascal would be ashamed of you.

[d&q]

(2:29:05 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(2:29:08 AM) Ender: u there?!!?!?!?!?afdads
(4:00:46 AM) Me: ?
(4:00:56 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(4:00:57 AM) Ender: AADSASDADFS
(4:01:10 AM) Me: what?
(4:03:07 AM) Ender: iono

[Ender]

Haha, yes!  I've been incredibly busy though.  I'll get around to leaving you a poorly thought out, extremely long reply one of these nights.

Oh, and

(05:49:21) ender: only God Euler can tell
(05:49:32) ender: wow that was so atheistic of me
(05:49:38) ender: though I didn't say God couldn't tell

You excluded God with the word only, unless you want to indicate that God and God Euler are the same entity.  Pascal would be ashamed of you.

iono. 5am yo.

edit:Actually, now that sleep has illuminated my thoughts, I realize that I was criticizing the arrogance of reason, as well as the limits of reason. That which you pointed out is a false contradiction, as Pascal would say, since we cannot through reason understand the nature of God, or even prove that God exists. In fact, if God doesn't exist, the statement is vacuously true. And since you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove me wrong. You can't use Pascal's Wager, because even though that says it is best to believe in God, it does not prove that God does exist for a fact, hence not proving the contradiction. Even if God did exist, we still cannot assume that contradictions apply to his decisions. Though I think Spinoza would firmly disagree, with the God-nature equivalence submitting God to certain laws. Cartesian thought also disagrees, as it hypothesizes that deceit is an imperfection and thus God cannot be deceitful, so he would not allow his decisions to be contradictions. But we're talking about Pascal, not Spinoza or Descartes.

FURTHERMORE, this serves to highlight the obscurity of the one true religion, Christianity, and thus support it.  One may think that showing a religion to be oscure would be to its discredit, but in fact it is only the combination of obscurity and light (e.g. redemption) that make it sound; for if there were too much obscurity there would be no hope, and if there were no obscurity and everything was illuminated then we would not realize our inherent corruption.

Need I go into what Hume would say...?

[Ender]

(2:29:05 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(2:29:08 AM) Ender: u there?!!?!?!?!?afdads
(4:00:46 AM) Me: ?
(4:00:56 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(4:00:57 AM) Ender: AADSASDADFS
(4:01:10 AM) Me: what?
(4:03:07 AM) Ender: iono

lies. i never wrote that. nvm, i did. but you left out the part where you called me a dysfunctional 5cm chode. i was simply responding to the hurt i felt.

[Chavo]

edit:Actually, now that sleep has illuminated my thoughts, I realize that I was criticizing the arrogance of reason, as well as the limits of reason. That which you pointed out is a false contradiction, as Pascal would say, since we cannot through reason understand the nature of God, or even prove that God exists. In fact, if God doesn't exist, the statement is vacuously true. And since you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove me wrong. You can't use Pascal's Wager, because even though that says it is best to believe in God, it does not prove that God does exist for a fact, hence not proving the contradiction. Even if God did exist, we still cannot assume that contradictions apply to his decisions. Though I think Spinoza would firmly disagree, with the God-nature equivalence submitting God to certain laws. Cartesian thought also disagrees, as it hypothesizes that deceit is an imperfection and thus God cannot be deceitful, so he would not allow his decisions to be contradictions. But we're talking about Pascal, not Spinoza or Descartes.

FURTHERMORE, this serves to highlight the obscurity of the one true religion, Christianity, and thus support it.  One may think that showing a religion to be oscure would be to its discredit, but in fact it is only the combination of obscurity and light (e.g. redemption) that make it sound; for if there were too much obscurity there would be no hope, and if there were no obscurity and everything was illuminated then we would not realize our inherent corruption.

Need I go into what Hume would say...?

Pascal would say that you don't need to prove God exists.  If you agree with the reasoning behind his wager, then it does not matter whether God exists or not.  If it doesn't matter, there is no need to prove it.

Also, good job getting me to actually talk about religion online, something I normally have a very strict rule against.

[Ender]

edit:Actually, now that sleep has illuminated my thoughts, I realize that I was criticizing the arrogance of reason, as well as the limits of reason. That which you pointed out is a false contradiction, as Pascal would say, since we cannot through reason understand the nature of God, or even prove that God exists. In fact, if God doesn't exist, the statement is vacuously true. And since you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove me wrong. You can't use Pascal's Wager, because even though that says it is best to believe in God, it does not prove that God does exist for a fact, hence not proving the contradiction. Even if God did exist, we still cannot assume that contradictions apply to his decisions. Though I think Spinoza would firmly disagree, with the God-nature equivalence submitting God to certain laws. Cartesian thought also disagrees, as it hypothesizes that deceit is an imperfection and thus God cannot be deceitful, so he would not allow his decisions to be contradictions. But we're talking about Pascal, not Spinoza or Descartes.

FURTHERMORE, this serves to highlight the obscurity of the one true religion, Christianity, and thus support it.  One may think that showing a religion to be oscure would be to its discredit, but in fact it is only the combination of obscurity and light (e.g. redemption) that make it sound; for if there were too much obscurity there would be no hope, and if there were no obscurity and everything was illuminated then we would not realize our inherent corruption.

Need I go into what Hume would say...?

Pascal would say that you don't need to prove God exists.  If you agree with the reasoning behind his wager, then it does not matter whether God exists or not.  If it doesn't matter, there is no need to prove it.

Also, good job getting me to actually talk about religion online, something I normally have a very strict rule against.

Yes this is true, but what I was getting at is that in order to technically prove that I wrote a contradiction, you have to first prove that God exists. He would agree with that, as it's just logic.

[Ender]

(2:29:05 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(2:29:08 AM) Ender: u there?!!?!?!?!?afdads
(4:00:46 AM) Me: ?
(4:00:56 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(4:00:57 AM) Ender: AADSASDADFS
(4:01:10 AM) Me: what?
(4:03:07 AM) Ender: iono

YOU ARE CONFUSED

young deuceling.

BUT DO NOT WORRY.

there is REDEMPTION and LIGHT.

[leet_muffin]

[23:32] sparky71989: wtfru?
[23:33] sparky71989: wtfru?
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU

Also note: only time I've ever recieved an I.M. from you.

[Ender]

o

that's who that person on my buddy list is

i think i just randomly added sn's of people on this forum once upon a time

[Explicit]

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

[Ender]

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

I've read a little Nietzsche, but not about his views on Christianity. We will be reading Genealogy of Morality in the Spring in my Humanities class.

Specifically, I read "The Problem of Socrates" in Twilight of the Idols, while reading Plato's Dialogues. The Problem of Socrates is really funny

[Explicit]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

I've read a little Nietzsche, but not about his views on Christianity. We will be reading Genealogy of Morality in the Spring in my Humanities class.

Specifically, I read "The Problem of Socrates" in Twilight of the Idols, while reading Plato's Dialogues. The Problem of Socrates is really funny

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

[leet_muffin]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

I see that that is a reasonable problem with it, but if other people choose to live their lives to a self-purpose you find to be not meaningful, how does this harm you? My self-purpose would probably seem unmeaningful to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with it.

[iago]

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

Are you saying that you disagree with it because you don't like the consequences of agreeing? That's not really a valid argument.

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

I see that that is a reasonable problem with it, but if other people choose to live their lives to a self-purpose you find to be not meaningful, how does this harm you? My self-purpose would probably seem unmeaningful to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with it.

You're arguing something completely different. I'm not arguing the application of the philosophy--if you want to create something meaningless for yourself, so be it, I won't pity you. However, I object to the validity of the school of thought itself, which therefore leads me to harbor distaste towards it.

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

Are you saying that you disagree with it because you don't like the consequences of agreeing? That's not really a valid argument.

Well first off, I really have not presented any arguments for my case. Also, if anything, its more of the opposite; The lack of legitimacy in the original will extend towards all of its derivatives.

[Ender]

You're arguing something completely different. I'm not arguing the application of the philosophy--if you want to create something meaningless for yourself, so be it, I won't pity you. However, I object to the validity of the school of thought itself, which therefore leads me to harbor distaste towards it.

Big words! Spoken like a true high school senior

My TA once told me a story about a professor she was TAing for. A student stayed after class to complain to the professor that Kant was wrong and that there was nothing of value in reading Kant. The professor replied: "But he's Kant, and you're a college freshman!"

[d&q]

You're arguing something completely different. I'm not arguing the application of the philosophy--if you want to create something meaningless for yourself, so be it, I won't pity you. However, I object to the validity of the school of thought itself, which therefore leads me to harbor distaste towards it.

Big words! Spoken like a true high school senior

My TA once told me a story about a professor she was TAing for. A student stayed after class to complain to the professor that Kant was wrong and that there was nothing of value in reading Kant. The professor replied: "But he's Kant, and you're a college freshman!"

I don't use flowery/verbose words, I use words that express exactly what I am trying to convey. I don't know if you're trying to be condescending or not, but either way, your comment was not appreciated.

And by the way, I'm not a senior.

[Ender]

You're arguing something completely different. I'm not arguing the application of the philosophy--if you want to create something meaningless for yourself, so be it, I won't pity you. However, I object to the validity of the school of thought itself, which therefore leads me to harbor distaste towards it.

Big words! Spoken like a true high school senior

My TA once told me a story about a professor she was TAing for. A student stayed after class to complain to the professor that Kant was wrong and that there was nothing of value in reading Kant. The professor replied: "But he's Kant, and you're a college freshman!"

I don't use flowery/verbose words, I use words that express exactly what I am trying to convey. I don't know if you're trying to be condescending or not, but either way, your comment was not appreciated.

And by the way, I'm not a senior.

I was joking (<3), but the clause "which therefore leads me to harbor distaste towards it" made me cringe. And that word choice is definitely overkill, over the less pretentious "which leads me to dislike it" or more precisely "which makes me find it distasteful".

My second point (story) is more interesting though.

[Explicit]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

The stance you're taking is not unreasonable, and is one that is indefinitely assumed by many.

In its application though, especially for me being that I'm not so fond of the idea of some God or other dictating, it has its appeals. Not that I'm a hardcore existentialist or anything.

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.

The stance you're taking is not unreasonable, and is one that is indefinitely assumed by many.

In its application though, especially for me being that I'm not so fond of the idea of some God or other dictating, it has its appeals. Not that I'm a hardcore existentialist or anything.

I'm not in favor of an "ultimate truth", regardless if its a deity or government, but rather, I don't understand why someone would rather delude themselves than accept reality.

Example:

Person #1: I believe in God and I therefore, I accept the reality of actions being objectively good and bad.

(Religious Non-Existentialist)

Person #2: Although I reject the validity of an impartial creator, and and an all-encompassing definition of right and wrong, I shall effect my own version and live by it accordingly.

(Existentialist)-Ugh!

Person #3: I repudiate any and all claims to objectivity, I believe in wholeheartedly that God is in fact dead, and I won't effect personal views to live by because I know fully well that no action, including murder, rape, altruism, and "love", have any intrinsic value. Therefore, I understand that to hide myself behind a personal flawed perspective would be an insult to my existence.

(

Also, I believe that to take a stance similar to that of Person #3 you do not have to be atheist, donc I would rather prefer that you refrain from including religion too much in your response, since I hate religious debates.

[Explicit]

To believe in anything at all is ultimately living in delusion, wouldn't you say? That encompasses fabrications of the mind as well as what we perceive to be reality.

Ah well, enough is enough. Thanks for sharing your perspective, Deuce.

[d&q]

Lemme just quickly address that. A tenet of existentialism that I accept is that "existence precedes consciousness". Meaning, that first and foremost, our existence, our world, and our perceptions are realities, and our consciousness can be derived from this (or rejected, by some). I think it's best expressed as the converse of Descartes famous statement: "I am, therefore I think."

So no, what we perceive to be reality is not a delusion.

[Explicit]

That tenet is still contingent upon consciousness, because in order to accept existence as a truth, you must be conscious.

I'm seeing this as something that can be swung both ways.

[Ender]

I DID NOT MEAN FOR MY THREAD TO BECOME AN EXISTENTIALIST DEBATE!!!!!

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!

[rabbit]

THAT'S VERY EXISTENTIALIST!  ON-TOPIC!