Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing...

Why don't more philosophers talk about the obvious inherent weirdness of existing? The fact that it's impossible and so strange to be at whatsoever in the first place like look around man, where are we. The fuck is this.

Attached: pepe writing.gif (498x498, 300.98K)

start with the greeks kid

I read Plato and Aristotle and Epicurus and the presocratics. They barely touched on my point and you saying that makes me feel like YOU never fucking read the greeks, man. They dealt with other interesting topics of their own. Logical questions, paradoxes, ethics. But not this one. Tell me where they talked about this specifically. All I know of is like one or two paragraphs from some of the presocratics that even mention something close to this, but even then don't address it directly.

Youre going to have to start all over and actually pay attention zoomer.

Don't listen to him OP, I'm fully behind you and have wondered the same. Like what the fuck is going on? Why are we enfleshed here? Everybody seems to be taking it for granted. I believe that not feeling this misery is the true dividing line between NPCs and actually observant consciousnesses

Mystery not misery but perhaps both work

Wtf are you talking about? This is literally everything philosophy has ever talked about "wtf is happening?"

No, I can't recall a single text whose sentiment is just total flabergastedness at existing. There's always an underlying sureness about something, even if it's just pure pessimism and negation, because it is deadset in its view of everything being pointless

You doubt your existence?

He's broken through.

No, where did you get that from

Literally Heidegger lol. Read more youngling.

what kind of sentiment would that be? it wouldn't be worth reading. Its fundamental. You want to read someone just going 'hhurr durr wtf is going on ahhhhhhh'
what you are describing is philosophy, you just cant seem to grasp that, but that's on you.

You might enjoy absurdism or existentialism. The former is stressed as futile, repetitive and humorous to an extent, aiming to display life as mundane yet paradoxical. The latter focuses on creating your own meaning or life purpose. Overall both generally focus on authenticity and rebellion rather than conformism or tradition

Catch-22 or Kafka's books as well
This is good for logic and reasoning, you might also enjoy the early rhetoricians/sophists as well

reddit

No. Reeeeeeeaaad it. There.

asking things only things that exist can ask. it can also not exist, but it doesn’t get to ask this question

I would want that. I would want a book that breaks the automatization of experience and actually places the reader in front of the mystery of existence. Because we are taught and conditioned to ignore this fundamental aspect, the utter mystery of existence. People even get mad if someone tries to point it out as this thread shows. I would like a book that only wants to deepen the feeling of mystery, not pile some ontological systems on it and act like it settles it

Wasting your time with books. If you want the experience of mystery go for walk in a graveyard at night. Sit quietly. Silence you thoughts. Sit still. Look continuously at the stars without blinking. Stop being a bitch.

I like this request and I want works about this as well. I'm too dumb to make intelligent posts and the best I can do it say "reddit", but you wrote what I wanted to write.

This guy is pure reddit.

I often go roaming through nature. Used to meditate too, but my practice faltered. Still, it wouldn't hurt reading books which have the sentiments I described. For some reason, people get very defensive when talking about this

>reddit

Read it. Just read Critique of Pure Reason and quit bitching like bitchy bitched bitchable bitch.

I mean, any book about alienation or existentialism deals with this in some form
Nausea by Sartre
The Stranger by Camus
No Longer Human by Dazai
The Trial by Kafka
etc etc

Noo, that is definitely not what we are seeking to find here

Heidegger avoids answering ontological questions by saying that we are beings in a world, and that what the world is, or what the reasons for it existing might be are beyond our possible frame of reference. He sinks into a perspective similar to that of a church priest telling his followers that one cannot question God's intentions because God is a timeless, spaceless Supreme Being who acts in mysterious ways.

Attached: 1649546576974.jpg (554x554, 31.1K)

Because nobody knows the fucking answer to the mystery. Two thousand years of philosophers have spent lifetimes trying to solve this fucking problem. And we're fucking tired, stressed, over worked and then every generation a newfag pops up having barely read a goddamn book on the topic talking about how no one talks about said topic. It's all very tiring and makes you want to fuck some shit up like flip a table or something.

No, this definitely doesn't fit the bill either. I like Kafka, though. Existentialism as philosophy still seems to shirk from standing in presence of mystery

Yes. Thats literally the fucking mystery OP is talking about.

That's what we want, a book which embrace there not being an answer. You seem to got it all wrong

I know what you're talking about. I sometimes catch myself wondering
>why do i have to exist at all and why am i specifically this person?

HOW STRANGE IT IS TO BE ANYTHING AT ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

I see, what about absurdism then? Have you read the The Myth of Sisyphus? Camus sounds like he would be right up your ally, he rejects the existentialists and the nihilists, choosing to rebel against the fundemental nothingness

>solve this fucking problem
It's not a problem, and it doesn't need to be solved.

dude weed, the thread.

Babby's first philosophical thought. It's like when you stare into a mirror for too long and start to question your existence.

Attached: joker.png (940x627, 2.25M)

That would require a fucking book. It would take a fucking sentence. Here: Holy fuck we're here and we don't know how we got here and we don't know why we're here, holy shit holy fucking fuck shit fuck.

There. That expresses what your looking for. My go read some poetry if you want existential feels. Idk read romantic poets or something.

Tell that to the philosophers. And they will laugh at your naivity.

nta but stfu you annoying faggot

Heidegger also runs away from mystery into terminology. We want something like: Reader, there will be no answers here. Only a question. An expanding question subsuming everything available to your thought and sense. What is the structure you are observing? Are you aware that no one knows the answer? Are you aware that at this very moment you are witnessing a mystery of such scope and depth you can barely grasp it? A sense of it appears only in fleeting moments when the floor seems to disappear under our feet. And so on...

No. fuck you and fuck you

That's more or less the usual "Don't ask any questions" quietist stance that most major philosophers have adopted from Hume's time onwards. It's not even entertaining any possible explanations for the question.

You can ask the fucking questions, but good fucking luck finding an answer everyone can agree on.

Do you see how you can only approach this through irony? Why are you scared to truly feel the depth of the mystery? I understand you, it's the scariest thing there is.

Because mystery entails uncertainty and uncertainty is very bad for a living organism trying to stay alive. You know what's the biggest fucking mystery? Death. You know what causes fear? Ignorance. Until that mystery is solved, as an animal lacking instincts to guide us, we are fucked, as the history of the human race demonstrates and it's obsession to secure certainty by collectively and individually accepting uncritically accepted narratives and metaphysics just so we can get by day to day demonstrates.

Good, very nice thinking, it is scary, yes. But we shouldn't be like animals, running away from a strange sources of light. We should acknowledge it. Even death would become a minor issue if we acknowledged the totality of mystery. For human death is only a small part of the whole

I don't like to think about it. Maybe they don't either. Even if you posit there's levels of reality higher or lower or whatever, or the eternal God, it only pushes the question aside temporarily because everything must have context. You're asking what's outside of the context. The only place it can lead ultimately is to a self-referential feedback loop.

It is acknowledged. It is fucking acknowledged. The fact that two thousand plus years of trying to solve this mystery have resulted inconclusive is a testament to that fact. We would not try so fucking hard to solve it if it wasn't so fucking important to human beings. It's literally a matter of life and death. Without the answer to that question we are left with only pleasant and unpleasant as the guides to our life without a greater reason to live than to pursue the pleasant and avoid pain. But what happens when there is too much pain? What happens when humam existence is suffering? Then you stop giving a fuck about the FACT of the mystery, and start looking for a solution. Because, unless there is a greater reason to live, unless there is an answer to the mystery, to the question of a greater meaning and purpose, then when human life ceases to be enjoyable it ceases to have a reason to exist.

You might like something called absurdism
Don't get too caught up in it though

Who says everyone needs to agree?

I don't think it's acknowledged at all. Those two thousands years were mostly spent in complete cultural confidence of what is happening. Today still everybody is selling absolute confidence and grand answers, but anyone somewhat honest would see they are empty. The mystery has nothing to do with human life and death. Humans are a tiny fragment of it. Perhaps there are moments of suffering in human existence, but I don't see how does that make the mystery any lesser. I don't really follow your point anymore, it is all over the place and contradicting also. Could your repeat your point calmer and clearer

THE ONLY GIRL I'VE EVER LOVEEEEEEEED
WAS BORN WITH ROSES IN HER EYEEEEEEEEEES

Fucking Science says. Jesus. Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always. Any persone with a correctly functioning brain could be demonstrated this truth through some deductive proof. If it's empirically true it can be shown to any one with the same type of functioning sensory organs and cognitive organs. Truth is either showable or provable or both. But deductive proofs gotta start somewhere so they start with what can be shown directly, or seen directly, by anyone willing to look. If everyone looked at a scientific object they would in principle agree at least on the existence of the object. That's the point I'm making. Not that we do- that's another problem, but only that we can't even make any headway, at all, AT ALL, until we can ALL agree on some point of departure from which to attempt to solve the mystery. And even then, we're still not in the clear bc we could all just be retards in a collective delusion we've all for some reason failed to notice.

>Those two thousands years were mostly spent in complete cultural confidence of what is happening.
Jesus fucking christ. Read more books.

Exactly, Jesus Christ served as the answer among others

>a self-referential feedback loop
I'm a turbobrainlet. Does this have anything to do with Kant's thing in itself?

This question also pops up in my mind from time to time. It's weird.

>Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always.
Reality is different for hylics. Some things are true for them that are not true for others.

Science is nonsense, kid.

Plato- Phaedo, Meno, Symposium, Republic
Aristotle- De Anima, Metaphysics
Plotinus- Enneads
Iamblichus- De Anima, De Mysteriis
Proclus- Elements of Theology
John the Scot- Periphyseon
Deascartes- Everything
Spinoza- Everything
Leibniz- Everything
Locke, Berkeley, Hume- stuff on human mind
Kant- three critiques, inaugural dissertation, dreams of spiritseer
Fichte- Wissenchaftslehre
Schelling- Everything
Hegel- Everything

There that's only the beginning. Now go.

It's a coincidence if it does, because I haven't read Kant. I'm just trying to describe my experience of contemplating what's beyond the context of existence. My mind rebounds off the unknown. Where can it rebound to? Itself.
It gives me a sinking sensation, sinking into myself, the mind turning inside out and projecting outwards so that it is the universe and can't therefore conceive of what's behind it. It might be a question impossible for philosophy to address.

Science is knowledge, kid. Truth, kid. Scientia, kid. Learn some fucking Latin, kid.

I said necessarily and universally. Objective truth not subjective. Is there such a thing? Idk. I rest my case.

A lot of people who couldn't just accept the fact they don't know t

Socrates tried tho

No retard. YOU don't know. They MAY have known or at least tried to establish whether or not it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to know and then HOW it can be made actual if it is possible. Read books.

>Look if something is necessarily and universally true, then it is true for everyone everywhere always
Incorrect
>they would in principle agree
And you're entire rubbish worldview comes down to this little error. In principle (which is to say, something I consider subjectively objective) everyone would see the same thing, where by "everyone" I mean "everyone as myself." Truth and mutual agreement are fundamentally at odds with each other. The highest truth is subjective and in its subjectivity, it becomes objective.

Damn, vro, it's true i don't know, but I have no idea why are you mad and what's your point, but if those books made you like that maybe i should steer clear from them