Let's show the world that kindness is infectious. We can change the world through kind words. You are a lovely person...

I wish you guys the best in life. Thank you for the rare positivity on here. :)

You're not supposed to take the metaphor too literally you literal autist.

very interesting. thank you for educating me about the life of plants, my erudite friends.

this is a lovely sentiment OP. might i suggest that you only create threads that relate to literature on this board? your post might be better suited to /soc/, or possibly Yea Forums if it does not fall in any specific category that you can find.

>You are a lovely person
You don't know that.
>I respect what you must be going through
You don't know what I'm going through.
>I hope you have a nice day
Why?

Yes but they don't ruin their mind and performance with obsessive thoughts and being meme'd into muh competition and social approval. They just do it because that's as they are. Same with all creatures barring humans.

>A flower does NOT think of COMPETING with the flower next to it
They absolutely fucking do, they literally compete with each other access to resources like light and water as much as humans compete with each other for access to food and shelter, god damn it I think just reading OP caused my IQ to drop by a few points. I thought buddhists were supposed to be intelligent.

Attached: Plants+compete+with+themselves+and+others.jpg (960x720, 96K)

That's just what they're conditioned to do though. They don't dwell on it, they're just doing their best.

Holy based

Kys faggit

if they were as smart as me they would retard

How is that any different from how humans operate?

Attached: ST_20190126_PMSOROS26_4579452.jpg (780x520, 63K)

It's honest to goodness true. Everything in nature is trying to kill everything else 95% of the time. Trees compete to be higher up in the canopy to maximize surface area access to sunlight, vines in an attempt to proliferate choke out the trees. There's even an entire class of parasitic plants such as mistletoe that derives all its nutrition by draining other plants.

Humans are not preconditioned to compete because sentience, they have different strategies available which can be viable, competition is just one of them and not necessarily the better/most effective one.

>trying to kill
Well it would be more accurate to say that everything is attempting to survive and in the effort to do so snuffs out whatever gets in its way or whatever feeds into the chain of steps to continue survival.

As a matter of fact we owe much of the kindness and compassion and easygoingness that we do find in humanity to "unnatural" facets of its development such as civilization. With out the advanced features and logistics of civilization people resort to the most primitive and natural tendencies such as violence in order to maintain.

It's a doggy dog world user. Life and evolution and the local defiance of entropy are predicated inherently on the annihilation of the weak to the benefit of the strong, who are then themselves annihilated by the stronger still, and so on and so forth. The point is that the act of killing is fundamentally synonymous with attempting to survive.
Humans are preconditioned to compete; we are animals too. Cooperation and competition can go hand in hand, but this does nothing to alter the zero sum nature of existence.

Fuck yeah this. "Nature", whatever the hell that is, is by default brutal, relentless, and entirely indifferent to the subjective experience of suffering. For all of its mistakes and misdeeds, society/civilization/domestication is at least an attempt at defying the ruthlessness of the natural, non-artificial world.

Attached: allied-tanks-advance-through-normandy-1944-colourised-21503687.png (500x576, 156K)

The question is as to whether plants THINK about competing with one another, not whether or not they actually compete. The answer of course can only be that, indeed, plants do not THINK of competing, but only because they do not think at all. Thus, it is still not clear whether competition is discouraged--merely that one should not think of doing so. Accordingly, in following the advice of the quote in the OP, I might stretch out my arms and legs while riding on the bus, "blooming" as it were, willfully negligent as to the vicinity of my fellow passengers, who will not mind my egregious impoliteness due to the fact that I am "not thinking of competing" with them but am merely doing my own thing, as per the blooming of a flower.

consciousness is a propriety of all living things, plants think about what they do and enjoy it

Life is suffering. First tenet of Buddhism.
Suffering sets the rules of the game.
Everyone's story is tragic: the hero dies in the end.
Rule of nature: might makes right.
Rule of thieves: might makes right.
Ethics, morality defy the rule and are unique to (some) humans.

>He thinks the mighty don't dictate what constitutes moral behavior XDXD

Apparently they do not THINK of competing with their neighbor, however, which does not answer the question as to whether or not competition in general is to be permitted so long as one is not thinking about it. So far I can only extract from the quote in the OP the maxim: everything is permitted so long as one is not thinking of competing with one's neighbor.

u don't understand
also: you'd make an equally bad awful lawyer and scientist

That pic isn't true though.

>consciousness is a propriety of all living things
where r proofs

how do they respond to their environments while having no dimension of awareness?

how does a mechanical motion sensor?

hmm i guess the problem is that i suspect that anything might have awareness, and that's why i'd say that the mechanical sensor has it too, on top of its mechanical components. these r just my beliefs though and i don't claim them correct

>i suspect that anything might have awareness,
it's a reasonable position. Personally i dont know what to think because there doesn't seem to be a way to verify it.

thanks for respecting me. yeah i don't know either, nor how we should proceed with this in future. are we to merely "assume" that awareness is everywhere, and then cement this belief as a fact moving forward in our sciences? is there no way we can proceed with the systematic, experimental rigor we previously have been using to establish the nature of a system, incrementally identifying each property of it? and personally myself i spend a lot of time trying to study the nature of my own self and my awareness, and using it to try and better understand the nature of what's being discussed here. practising meditation and such. i can't say that i've thus far reached any possible answers though

Not the guy you're talking to. But i guess it could be viewed that way to explain the fact that humans have awareness, sentience, or conciousness. Our awareness remains unexplained. My own predisposition, though, is to believe that it stems simply from the complexity of our physical machinery, and not that conciousness is a "supernatural" (i quote because if it was so it wouldnt be supernatural but part of nature) quality that could then be said to be held by a motion sensor when no one has built it with whatever croquis or design conciousness requires to arise.

I will bloom on the bus whenever I can now. I know it will only naturally urge my fellow passengers to bloom too in unconscious competition. A brighter world is coming.

Let's do it OP.

Attached: 5881962-6362929-This_astonishing_photograph_shows_the_smiling_Nazi_leader_embrac-a-42_1541596360521. (962x722, 217K)

Are you certain?
youtube.com/watch?v=yWOqeyPIVRo