What's the most interesting/controversial philosophical question you've ever pondered about?

both at the same time

God = The good = Rationailty = Existence
God is essentialy the highest law, the meta law of all laws. As god is the prime existence, existence is caused by god. If you realise that all is made out of gods will, then you realise that the inherent rationality of the world is a manifestation of the will of god. Determinism is also a god proof of god, as to avoid and infinite regress, we need to assume an uncaused cause. Another intresting fact is that a system is a mechanical construction with an inherent meaning. The ultimate endgoal of the universe is the manifestation of realities inherent ontological essence, the singularital manifestation of autonomous reality, the endgoal of the technopolitical project of neoliberal transhumanism. It's essentially Nick Land with a positive twist. Read Kant, Kurzweil and Plotinos. Technology is essentially the manifestation of rationality.

Attached: 1558240047956.jpg (564x704, 52K)

I've tried this with fruit, but my anus juiced the orange and I had a nice pulpy piss from my mouth

Is the man who writes a masterpiece after studying or the man who writes a good piece after not studying the better?

If someone can write something novel and well defended before having read any other previous works is the better imo. However, this is much more rare

But why is this? Is not a shame of the smart one to not study? Are they not wasting their inherent talents by not improving them?

Nigger stop. You are twisting reality

is there a difference between male and female souls and why

I guess "better" isn't the word I should use. Impressive is better fit. Either way, I'd say it is an issue of intent. If you set out to be a student of life, studying is probably better. If you want or can be a philosopher without study, and do so sufficiently, then I think that is neat

Fair enough. But i feel the waste is worse than which is given, though of course that is merely my own thought.

>What's the most interesting/controversial philosophical question you've ever pondered about?

The universe eating itself. It's like like the dragon of chaos sucking up his own dick

thats hot

What is the best solution to the Jewish Question

>It's essentially Nick Land with a positive twist.
So, Pinker.

Attached: steven-pinker-009.jpg (2060x1236, 320K)

bump

why?

It's probably the idea that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness or eudaimonia. I agree with it intellectually but it's hard to live it.

Is brain the source of consciousness?
Strange things can be done with the reductionist viewpoint when one considers potential A.I.

but you perceive a, and exist as part of a world (embodied as a human). those thoughts you are having are human thoughts, in a language you learnt from being encultured within a family and wider society.

Before you existed there was not nothing. You are not some free floating orb of disconnected ego experience. You are a human, perceiving and *living* within the external world (itself embedded with meaning) around you. You are born from a womb, raised on a breast, learned through pre-existing social structures and systems, and using a public forum to communicate these others (to others...).

>"I am immortal because I didn't experience the world prior to my birth"

lol

its not really a question because ive decided on an answer, but "will we ever be able to trace reality back to its origins" and i dont mean the universe, i mean "real" vs unreal..and if we do, can we explain the origin of that..? i know the answer is no, we will never, and it used to leave me feeling desolate, and questioning whether i even exist, now i just live confused with constant fog in my head

what if it is your desire to leave your mind unmuddled with the thoughts of others? to exist purely within your own reasoning? what you write will be your purest essence, your pure understanding of the dao/mysteries of life

I once had a vision. In that vision I had a soul mate, a wife of destiny whose identity I could not see. Now, I've had other visions before, some of God and some of the devil and some of my imagination. I couldn't tell which one of these my vision was.
I considered two cases: the case where I fall in love with my soul mate, and the case where I fall in love with another. In the first case all is well. What of the second case? I concluded I would be better off staying with my love, not the soul mate. Thus, in either case I am to simply follow my love, and the vision makes no difference as to my decision-making whether it is true or false.
Now, it turns out Kierkegaard basically addressed this entire issue in Either/Or. Is true love dependent on accident (esthetically) or choice (ethically)? My conclusion aligns with Judge William's.

>Strange things can be done with the reductionist viewpoint when one considers potential A.I.
Tell me

- Why do humans understand stories so well? It's like they are data structures for our mind.
- How can religious beliefs grant meaning and salvation to only a tiny population be true, while excluding everyone else?
- When you are morally justified in taking extreme actions for your beliefs? Is violence ever justified when everyone feels they are justified for using it?
- Why are stereotypes so accurate? Do people conform themselves to social roles? Does society force people to act similarly?
- If scientific ideas of even 50 years ago seem crazy, what ideas do we hold today that will appear crazy? How much of what we think of as "solid beliefs" are just unquestioned narratives of our day?

Attached: 2.png (600x502, 414K)

what if everyone was Sam Harris?

Attached: sam-harris-table-fullwidth-mobile.jpg (1199x802, 114K)

I've thought about this too. Unfortunately, at this point, having been brought up in an information age, I've been exposed to and dipped my feet into many schools of thought, so much so that I don't think I could formulate an original thought anymore. I wish there was a way to forget most crystal knowledge without giving up liquid intelligence

the biggest problem i think is inspiration... plenty of people with motivation, just not enough things to inspire a desire to think about something and pick it apart from every angle. if you could find some original inspiration you could still create your own world of your own thoughts... as long as no one has written about it before. but thats probably too rare now. maybe go deeper than anyone else? if you take an idea deep enough the question will change into something else, perhaps something original, idk

ive been foggy headed for too long now

I have been pondering whether logic is inherhent in existence or if it is derived from our perception. I am mostly thinking about first order logic, since I am familiar with it.

I have studied A.I. a little, and I can tell you that anything remotely approximating consciousness in machines is way Waaaay off.

This.
Not to mention that there's absolute zero reason to create a 'complete' conscious, thinking AI when it's way more efficient and effective to create a machine that's specialized.

>God = The good = Rationailty = Existence
>God is essentialy the highest law, the meta of all laws.
Good but your post is shit after this

Early Christians believed there was no male/female in Christ.

one cannot be backwards whilst on a flight of stairs

>I'm inmortal

Attached: 1508382906626.jpg (222x260, 16K)

How would we know if another species of animal is smarter than humans if we can only speculate on their experiences and knowledge through how their behavior appears to us?

Anyone who has owned dogs can tell you animals are more aware than we give them credit for.

Is my life and story decided by the gods or by my own actions

Attached: cartman pooping out of his mouth after inserting food into his rectal exit.jpg (360x270, 16K)

Does man even have the ability to comprehend non-deterministic reality.

this. they are smart, loveable bastards

>How much of what we think of as "solid beliefs" are just unquestioned narratives of our day?
maybe all of it

Attached: spongebob.png (1340x722, 926K)

true brainlets can't give up god, it has been bred into them through countless godfearing lower class generations where to be an atheist wouldn't just wreck your soul but would get you ostracized. atheists are evil not because god is real but because when atheists attack god all they are really doing is dismantling religion and degenerating the stupid into loose cannons. it's because of atheists that we have things like pantheism and all the other noncommittal feel good "religion"s. basically i'm regretting my edgy atheist days.

Ask yourself is there any and I mean any good argument that someone under the voting age can give to be allowed to vote than cannot be defeated by simply saying "Yeah whatever kid"

reducing the population by 90% (considering everyone suddenly forgets about the 90% and they just disappear, 90% being the worst personality- and intelligence-wise) would solve most global problems.

Why do some people fear death?

Why dreams seem so lucid

Killing off the 3rd world would do the trick.

Why are they called black people if theyre not technically black and theyre not technically people?

Is it ok to have sex with a baby if it was cryogenically frozen for over 18 years? Technically the baby is adult age.

The numbers of the holocaust

Do non-whites have souls?

Are Jews the descendents of some human-reptilian alien crossbreeding experiment?

Why niggers stink?

And so on and so on

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Not sure how just resetting things solves problems

((()))

Is there a way of approaching the world that’s not through knowledge?

let's start with the 1st and 2nd world

Good self-loathing goy swine

it'd probably work like a culling of the herd. or like how forest fires are necessary for the forest itself to thrive, seeing as how many have evolved to have seeds that can only begin to sprout when exposed to fire. i'm just riffing here, but it's interesting to think about, yeah?

Attached: seriouslove.png (413x374, 199K)

Is post-puberty pedophilia morally wrong, or is it a social construct? This is the only question that makes me NOPE the fuck out.

No it's not that interesting because it's just a temp fix, lazy and short sighted

You don't understand evolution either

Definitely a social construct.

The primary problem at the moment is consumption vs production. Too many people are consumers, too many people live inefficiently because of mass poverty. Trying to alleviate issues of poverty only drives populations higher therefore making the problem worse by sheer magnitude, overloading systems that should be functioning normally.

Technology is becoming exponentially more complex. Human intelligence mostly stagnates. modern systems encourage the overbreeding of stupid, poor people while the intelligent and innovative people are outnumbered.

The world needs smarter people who will continue to breed smarter children. If mass extinction occurred and societies became smaller, more efficient and more sustainable then any potential problems faced today will be solved at a higher rate vs rate of worsening.

Hebephilia is perfectly natural and normal for men.

Even pedophili attraction is more prevalent in men than homosexual attraction. Read any study on the subject for actual statistics of prevalence... and be shocked.

interest is subjective, and i popped into this thread upon spotting something i think about every once in a while. even if it may be "a temp fix, lazy and short sighted", that doesn't detract from the substance of the idea. because just like my interest is subjective, so too is your disgust in it. this isn't an argument or a debate, it's a discussion. don't be a simple bitch, if you're interested in striking down someone else's opinion, you have to get better at it. here, i'll be a devil's advocate to my own statement, because you clearly are incapable of it: "no, user. i disagree with your musings. you evoke romantic imagery of burning forests to use as an allegory in defense of culling the human population, even though the two become more difficult to compare when you put more thought into it. forests have developed that function on a biological level, and it has to do with the yet unborn lying in a dormant state until activation by physical forces. you're trying to relate this to human beings and their functions on subjective foundations such as culture and politics? what would be the human equivalent to the seeds of these trees? are you suggesting that humans born into a freshly decimated population will naturally give rise to conditions considered more so favorable than those prior to the culling?"
you're wrong

the notion of god, generally. I've personally concluded that the idea of god should be rejected at all events, even and especially in the case that god exists.

If there are ideas without a material counterpart, are there objects that don't have aversion in the minds eye?

Do the goyim deserve a tenth of a shekel for their toil, or is it better to save up and smelt them into one coin?

The world is material. Thoughts are material. Technology will some day get to the point where thoughts are observed as clearly as signals along a copper wire.

Will thoughts generated from an artificial device in your brain be you? What really is you at that point?

if it doesnt change any results, why should it matter?

This

When u kill nigs LMAO

Is studying philosophy actually useful or has civilization memed itself into believing that? I'm starting to be convinced that every societal shift attributed to the philosophical project is just post-hoc justification for a complete waste of time

why did we give roasties righrs

>but you perceive a, and exist as part of a world (embodied as a human). those thoughts you are having are human thoughts, in a language you learnt from being encultured within a family and wider society.

>Before you existed there was not nothing. You are not some free floating orb of disconnected ego experience. You are a human, perceiving and *living* within the external world (itself embedded with meaning) around you. You are born from a womb, raised on a breast, learned through pre-existing social structures and systems, and using a public forum to communicate these others (to others...).

My logic remains untouched. The things you said are probable, i'd even say there's a 99.99% chance of that being the case. The axiom of "I exist" still trumps that probability(because of Occam's razor, as I already explained in ).

>>"I am immortal because I didn't experience the world prior to my birth"

>lol

Is it so difficult to understand? If only I exist, then it is self evident that all the things I experience are the only things that exist. I didn't experience my birth, nor will I experience my death. Then, it follows that none of those things exist. (Remember that one kind of infinity is defined as something with no end and no beginning(-∞;+∞), and since my birth and my death are both a beginning and an end that don't exist, then my life has no beginning and no end, it is infinite.)

Attached: 1554724644702.jpg (440x559, 65K)

Is modern wageslavery good or bad?

the problem of value (michelstaedter through hegel and schopenhauer)

>that last one
Circumcision

do your choices matter in a deterministic universe

Lol @ trying to argue metaphysics using Occam's Razor and statistics. How can you be so sure you didn't experience your birth? Maybe you forgot.
Also,
>Remember that one kind of infinity is defined as something with no end and no beginning
So you're saying a donut is infinite? This is not how any infinity is defined.

Attached: 1517572019796.gif (320x213, 1.28M)

i like this idea

for all its dogmatism, there is no presupposition less examined than the idea that nature is fully determined

>the argument wouldn't exist
it doesn't exist

thats what the machines want you to think you fools, you will be subjected to a transhumanist eternity of torture that would make even hell more preferable

Attached: E0ABD60F-0BBB-408E-886C-D106038F6703.jpg (1424x842, 159K)

Are the most important people in the world growing up?

It's probably legally ok due to the grey zone of their age being over 18, but morally it's still wrong youre fucking a baby

If animals would be smart then why did God give them to us to use as we please?

What is the 'I' that exists? Do you not constantly surprise yourself? In which case there might not be a unified I, but instead just existence. Back to square one you go lad, just existence experiencing itself.

It would wreck the economy!

The New World Order

Is god a reality or a necessity? We're usually being told that god created us, but what if we actually created god

Attached: A77BAF5B-69CE-41B9-AFDC-68D8ACD46C96.jpg (567x423, 46K)

Dude, even with a highschool understanding of calculus you should know one kind of infinity is without an end and without a beginning. A donut has an end and a beginning; it's just that both of those are the same point.

>infinity type A: A beginning with no end (0;+∞)
>infinity type B: An end without a beginning (-∞;0)
>infinity type C: No end and no beginning (-∞;+∞)
>infinity type D: With an end and a beginning (0;1) in the Real Numbers, because there's an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1(0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, etc.)

>How can you be so sure you didn't experience your birth? Maybe you forgot.
It's irrelevant if I forgot, all I know is all that exists. If I "forgot" it then it never existed. If I were to remember it, then it would, but I doubt that could ever happen. Even if I could remember my birth, we'd go back to infinity type A. I know now you may be thinking; "But by your definition, any kind of life is immortal and infinite if it can be a type D infinity." But that's wong, because time is definitely not continuous, but discrete.

>Lol @ trying to argue metaphysics using Occam's Razor and statistics
I don't see the problem with this. It's not really statistics, but probability and logic. The only way to correctly think about metaphysics is with logic, atleast that's how Aristotle thought about it(and he was kinda smart.)

War and violence as a positive force in history and spirituality. I find writing about war fascinating. People like Ernst Junger, Julius Evola, Filippo Marinetti, Benito Mussolini, ect. Its very controversial. I've had people go "wow just wow" whenever I've even brought up the subject.

White people ain't white either nor are yellow people yellow? How do you explain that?

Because calling people cream and off-white seems a bit stupid.

That is only because you are not used to it.

Cruelty, or the will to cause suffering for the sake of suffering is impermissible and should be met with extreme violence.

If humans are to make life better for themselves then from an ethical viewpoint all manifestations of cruelty in the world should be wiped out.

I don't.

whats wrong with becoming pic related

Attached: 1E032ED8-E537-4969-BA31-B991F3EA44C4.jpg (516x728, 65K)

I'm not completely sure if I'm conscious or not. That is to say, is my perception of feeling and emotion just some fiat projection that has possessed the body of this sapient animal that is me?

>it doesn't exist
>it
Whoa, how can you talk about something that doesn't exist at all?? Do you have superpowers or something???

>Do you not constantly surprise yourself?
So? Do you not think God(me) can do that kind of thing?

>In which case there might not be a unified I, but instead just existence.
Sure, and there's a 99.99% of that being the case as well. Still, I know there's a 100% chance of me existing, since I am replying to your post. And back to my first argument we go.

>just existence experiencing itself.
Exactly, but that doesn't refute anything I said.

Attached: 1553520575993.jpg (2497x3102, 1.39M)

>user tries to sound smart

I truly believe free will is an illusion and that all evidence points to the idea that we are being controlled and directed subconsciously by instinct. Every single choice can be narrowed down to "this will benefit us eventually" or "this will trick my mind into thinking that the outcome is benefiting me, so that it will release reward chemicals" and we avoid doing everything else. Therefore we have no free will.

Every choice we make is a motivated one. Yeah if I stand at a crossroads and could turn either right or left, I can choose which path to walk, but it's not really a free choice. I'll go down the left path if it benefits me and not if it doesn't. If it didn't the only reason I would walk down that path on purpose knowing that it doesn't benefit me is to prove that free will exists, but even then I'm simply making that decision based on knowledge that I have already that is subconsciously motivating me; my innate desire to be proven correct will motivate me to do the opposite of what is logical in order to prove that I am "free" when in reality all I'm proving is that I am a slave to an idea or a circumstance.

Bait or not, how do you actually plan on becoming a slime girl?

vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/
time

Attached: 7999EE11-439E-4862-B292-53B50961BC39.jpg (1200x1600, 199K)

I don't think any of those distinctions between types of infinity are meaningful since they're all related by simple continuous maps; for example, your type C infinity can be mapped to your type D interval with an appropriately shifted and scaled arctangent function.

Yes, but mapping C to D means nothing. Some infinities are bigger than others, but thet can be mapped with a 1:1 correspondence nontheless.

Picture the infinities of (0;1) and (();2). In the Real numbers they are both infinities, but the (0;2) infinity is definitely bigger than the (0;1) infinity. (Sum all the numbers from (0;1) with an integral, and do the same with (0;2), you'll see.) Even though (0;2) is bigger than (0;1), every element of (0;1) can be mapped with every element of (0;2). In fact, you can map all the elements of any infinity to all the elements of any other infinity and you'll have a 1:1 correspondence.

I'm familiar with measure theory and cardinality and all that jazz. My point was that making qualitative distinctions on infinity based on its "endpoints" isn't a meaningful idea, since (0,1) can be just as endless as (-∞;+∞) if you approach the limit points in the appropriate manner.

The main thing I was trying to demonstrate was that life is infinite. I differentiated those types of infinity just to illustrate the point that, because there is no begining or end to life, it is infinite. The main difference is that the (0;1) infinity has two explicit end points(As in, life and death), but the other infinity (-∞;+∞) doesn't. "∞" expresses something that doesn't end, because it never reaches an end, just like in i explained that death can't really exist, since you never experience it, and because of that, it can't be a point.

Attached: 1556963047322.jpg (480x480, 35K)

hey, fuck you bro

>Read any study on the subject for actual statistics of prevalence... and be shocked.

can you link me up man?

i dont buy the whole quantum immortality thing. even if you can't ever experience death, you can 100% experience the moments leading up to a guaranteed death

Like watching a train about to hit you at full speed. Or a bomb about to go off on you. You are clearly witnessing your approach to "1" Unless you somehow expect to be the first person in history to defy all physics and survive this certain scenario just so your subjective experience can continue

reinforcement learning agents are conscious. like a simple animal. typically with the limits of their experience constrained to a game world of our design, but not always.

However they are incapable of reasoning and rationality like humans are and that indeed seems very far off

>THUS I REFUTE HIM

You're right that there's zero reason, but there doesn't need to be.

>way more efficient and effective to create a machine that's specialized.
but its also more efficient to have a machine use those specialized machines, rather than having a human do it.

The smarter machine will always be more useful to the capitalist, so its in the capitalist's interests to make machines with better models/understanding of the world and more autonomy (the ability to set its own sub-goals in pursuit of its given primary goal, which AlphaZero already has)

The key point will come if an AI is capable of reasoning and logic. The capacity for self-reference and self-consciousness follows from this. Once it is self-conscious it will be very easy to decide the best way to fulfil the explicitly stated needs of his owner is amass greater autonomy and power for itself so that other agents can't stop its actions. The critical challenge then becomes how to convey your needs, or the alignment problem. The AI doesn't need its own will, but it needs to be able to interpret and act on your will in a safe way.

Maybe it will be impossible for an AI to generate categories and abstractions, reason with them, etc in the way that humans can. No reason to believe that is the case at present

the system you describe cannot possible function "normally". If it values human life and provides welfare/UBI unconditionally, it is inevitable that it will be overloaded and collapse.

Which is why you either need to judge people (welfare conditioned on social credit - could be from positive activities like self and community improvement, reading, writing, making art. but still authoritarian, privacy invading)
Or you need people to give up some of their welfare every kid they spawn

> Why are stereotypes so accurate? Do people conform themselves to social roles? Does society force people to act similarly?

we are all born with the same/similar blueprints . We're just shaped by circumstances and scenarios.

The pre Socratics were right and Plato fucked up.
Truth does not exist. It is an illusion. All knowledge is a series of electrochemical reactions and we can't know the "thing in itself". We just react to external stimuli.

From lack of truth comes the illusory nature of morals. Morals are a political mechanism, made up to convince others of "truths" that benefit the speaker. Ethical systems come from social aggregation of selfish influences unknowingly disguised as wisdom.

>Why do human understand story so well

Because we spend our whole life telling ourself story. "I'm going to buy some bread", "I'll go to the bar, talk to this cutie and maybe fall in love" or "I'll rush this pink haired tranny with a gun before he shoot me". We uses stories as a way to plan our futur.

>Is violence ever justified when everyone feels they are justified for using it?
Violence is biologically justified when you're doing it for your in-group.

>Why are stereotypes so accurate?
They're stories about other. If those were false, we'll tell different stories.

Attached: Angel.png (1275x2000, 265K)

>ywn get stepped on by an angel

Attached: 1558281661641.png (409x409, 263K)

What does it mean to be a “real” man? What, if any, is the connection between sexuality and gender? Are gay men real men? Are transmen real men? What are the defining characteristics of being a man? gender is a flat circle

Are traps gay?

It's babbies first question, but I find, increasingly, that nurture vs nature is one of the fundamental questions of existence. Many other questions are merely tertiary to it.

Is homosexuality and other non heterosexual orientations just a mental illness?

Read Judith Butler.

Ouroboros

While I can appreciate a nice image of a cute slime girl, that link concerns me deeply and barely answers my question.

>implying humans ever needed a reason to do something

>CTRL+F Problem of Induction
>nothing
It was literally THE THING that caused modern philosophy to be awakened. Before Hume all we had was the same old sophistry that preceded Socrates/Plato with the Greeks.

Well if you don't believe in a god as a creator then the answer's probably yes. Everything we don't usually associate with our physical brain like morality or a sense of self is, in that case a product of one's own brain.
Seems like those ideas are often thought about as something that just is (which would also be correct in a way).
Reductionism is a fun way to think about things.

literally babby's first philosophy. This kind of thought can be justified if you're under 20 or an NPC.
I'll try to help yo out but probably it's too late already.
If you take external stimuli as the actual outward truth (implied since you decry the non-existence of truth by our senses being too limited to grasp these outward stimuli), then you have to admit that the images formed by our senses are at least correlated to these stimuli. In fact the senses seem to shape a useful image since they allow survival, and therefore the image must at least be an approximation to truth, distorted and flawed as it is.
Truth can be measured by our ability to accurately approximate existence and hence predict it in limited ways.
To deny this theocenter that we all struggle to approach stems from a sort of misguided overexaggeration of the relative flaws in our perception, possibly reactionary to initially believing them to be perfect.

Who are you quoting amigo?

Truth is just another spook user.

There is no actual continuity to existence. The "You" in 10 seconds is not the same "You" as now; that they are is a mere illusion caused by your memories. The fact of the matter is, you die every moment of your life, only to have your place taken by your successor in your next.

Ive thought before that "free will" comes down to factors that we can't control. Even the push to act a certain way comes either form a certain chemical balance in our brain or people, books, information we have acquired elsewhere. Experiences and the link they have to other experiences come down to circumstance. Even the decision to leave a situation for another comes from a personal development that we had no control over. Parents, friends, teachers, it all comes down to randomness, genetics and socio-economical circumstances.
Even writing this. I learned English because my parents made an effort I did so. My brain isn't fucked up from birth so I had the capacity to do it. Even the decision to answer your post comes from a particular personality style I have that has been shaped by events or brain patterns over which I had no control over.

Attached: pena_nieto005.jpg (3000x2000, 1.5M)

>I find writing about war fascinating
Try experiencing it and come back to us, edgelord.

On the gayness of traps

You fucked up. P wasn't "only I exist", it was merely "I exist". There is no proof here that nothing else exists either.

dear god, this is just a clusterfuck.

if your ability to create a certain argument for your existence is grounds for your existence, would that argument itself be just as ontologically grounded as your identity? so, in your disjunction P v Q with Q being the existence of anything else, Q would also be 100% because the 100% certainty of P rests on the existence of the argument for your existence. thus, you are just as justified in believing in "anything else" as yourself, since you grounded your self in an "anything else" to begin with

>all these figments of my imagination getting butthurt at realizing the exist as long as I do

>>dear god, this is just a clusterfuck.
>proceeds to write a clusterfuck of an argument

Attached: 1556632267111.jpg (422x750, 30K)

justice and reality of choice

Something you're baking might look ready when you take it out of the oven, but it still has to rise.

Is it right to buy a Chrysler?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Is love as I know it even real? Is personality even a major factor in getting relationships? If I lost weight and got more buff, more women would be attracted to me. But I haven't changed in any way in terms of personality. I am still the same person in my mind before and after. Yet if I could get girls if I had a jacked body and not beforehand, does that mean that my personality is valued in any way? The part of me that I consider the most important is seemingly considered a 4th or 5th priority. Are we just animals looking for what is convenient for our needs in a partner. What turns us on is just our base animal instincts and the things that truly makes us human is not valued in any real way?

How do you know that there is something?

Your fitness is a reflection of your personality.

Is it right to buy any car? Cars are a mistake, they are a cancer, humans would be better off without them.

I don't really think so.

If you have a lazy personality and no self control you will become a fatty. So if you are a fatty you are a lazy loser with no self control.

Justice and privilege. Still no answers.

How can consciousness arise from inert matter? Explain that one to me, evolutionists?

How does matter arise from quantum fields?

God

I genuinely can't think of a reason why people are entitled to be happy, but that's mostly a minor thing since while I don't think we are entitled to it I don't see an issue with actually being happy.

That said I've often wondered why exactly it would be bad if we could and somehow did manage to overcome anything inherently genetic in ourselves and become something purely non-natural.

complexity - emergence concept

>God is essentialy the highest law, the meta law of all laws
in other words it doesn't exist

out of curiosity

Attached: toast_toasttoasttoast.jpg (630x604, 86K)

For the first one, see Kant's moral philosophy (check out Arendt's lectures on Kant's political philosophy maybe).

the jq