Look into the void (nihilist thread)

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Look into the void (nihilist thread)

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

i am jizzing into the void

i am watching my hot globules float away

down

down

down

goodbye my little cosmonauts

good luck, wherever you are

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:22

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Amarcarts posted:

We make fun of Russia a lot, but GBS is like the eastern European derelict apartment courtyard of the internet. A whole bunch of intoxicated people in striped shirts in a verbal twerk cypher day in and day out.

squatting

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:07

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Narciss posted:

In early elementary school I came up with the theory that I was the only "real" person (i.e./e.g. a conscious individual with subjective experiences) that existed. Nowadays I know this is an extant theory called "Solipsism", but I had invented it independently of any outside philosophical influences.

goes to show you the intellectual maturity of solipsism

AVOID THE VOID

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:07

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Nathilus posted:

i think he stands as a pretty prime example of what not to do. thought is an asset but it can also be a trap, and a cage. if he hadn't spent all of his time up in nihilism orthanc and had instead explored the vastness of middle-earth he might not have turned out as such a douche.

lol wait wut nietzsche is pretty much the frodo of philosophy, fucker carried the ring of nihilism all the way to mount doom and it destroyed him

e: HAVE SOME RESPECT

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:18

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

he took one for the team by wrestling with the horrible venomous snake of resentment and, in killing it, was killed by it; the life-affirmation he constantly sung about was not for him but for the future, his tiny experiences of it were the exhilirating and painfully joyous gasps of air a drowning person gets while being slowly exhausted and finally pulled under

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:22

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Tautologicus posted:

I like this

yeah but you shouldn't since his work is not superficially systematic and is very personal, which disqualifies it as "philosophy," also he spits whenever he says "logic" and keeps eating the cake of "truth" even though he knows it goes straight to his rear end

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:30

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Tautologicus posted:

Fine by me, he was a polemicist and that's what matters to me.

you are funny because one never knows when you will take something either seriously or as a joke

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:33

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

ugh i hate having to take the mask off

i was parodying cardio's POV, and i think nietzsche is more a philosopher than a cruise ship of logicians

that dude who invented solipsism in elementary school was more a philosopher than any logician

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:36

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

unless logic gets your dick hard your oval office wet your rear end in a top hat loose or whatever it is, it has almost no philosophical relevance

AT LEAST I.M.O.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:38

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

or rather i should revise that stance:

logic as a primary drive is largely irrelevant, logic as a secondary rigor is often needful and "good"

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:40

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Solid Poopsnake posted:

Correction: I am too busy lollin at philosophy talk in gbs to walk anywhere because i will fall down

from laughter

ya but it's edgier n sexier than r/phil, THAS THE MAIN DRAW

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:40

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Cardiovorax posted:

Good effort, but be less flowery next time. I prefer to be laconic when I'm making fun of people.

i've noticed that! i am not the best mimic, when we had to do it in acting class i was in fact THE WORST

ijdgaf, really...

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:45

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

ah-h-hem:

Nietzsche... can sniff my butt.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:46

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

i actually almost always refer to nietzsche as nutzer IRL, just goes to show ya!!

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 22:46

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Sakarja posted:

Whenever someone denigrates Kant, I just assume that person worships either Ayn Rand or some 20th century French charlatan already forgotten by History.

lol you are the slave of your categorical imperative BITCH

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 01:18

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

kant was a coward who turned his back on his own conclusions because they terrified him, just like you and JUST LIKE EINSTEIN

also lol cardio bro, tautologicus is troll-proof, at first i thought in a "bad" way but i've come around to it, he's a breath of fresh air in this shithole

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 01:22

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Cardiovorax posted:

I'll remind you of that statement at some point.

i have a very short memory so this will be a big favor

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 01:30

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

u could probably discourage them with garlic or something? i dunno about all this poo poo

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 01:57

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

don't they eat your poo poo and then you get really comically mad and throw down your trowel in a grand but frustrated gesture like zeus before the unpredictable whims of his playthings?

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 02:00

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

gently caress those snails and their uppity sense of self importance, like they're the only game in town!!

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 02:04

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

Quickscope420dad posted:

People argue over all philosophy because it helps develop the ideas. It's like a jam session.

o god no don't induct me into your loving drum circle w/o my consent

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 03:14

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

pfffffffffft posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWH_9VRWn8Y

this is one of the most memorable moments of herzog or really any film i've seen... that penguin... his magnetic poo poo probably got broken.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 16:17

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

i like that wittgenstein would run records at the "wrong" speed and then decide which speed was best and tell everybody "no you're listening to it wrong"

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:03

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

i said i like it that he did that

i didn't say it was wrong to do that

i said i like it

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:06

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

quote:

66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?�Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "�but look and see whether there is anything common to all.�For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!�Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ballgames, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.�Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear.

And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.

67. I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.� And I shall say: 'games' form a family.

And for instance the kinds of number form a family in the same way. Why do we call something a "number"? Well, perhaps because it has a�direct�relationship with several things that have hitherto been called number; and this can be said to give it an indirect relationship to other things we call the same name. And we extend our concept of number as in spinning a thread we twist fibre on fibre. And the strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one fibre runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres.

But if someone wished to say: "There is something common to all these constructions�namely the disjunction of all their common properties"�I should reply: Now you are only playing with words. One might as well say: "Something runs through the whole thread�namely the continuous overlapping of those fibres".

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:28

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

quote:

217. "How am I able to obey a rule?"�if this is not a question about causes, then it is about the justification for my following the rule in the way I do.

If I have exhausted the justifications I have reached bedrock, and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: "This is simply what I do."

(Remember that we sometimes demand definitions for the sake not of their content, but of their form. Our requirement is an architectural one; the definition a kind of ornamental coping that supports nothing.)

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:29

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

quote:

107. The more narrowly we examine actual language, the sharper becomes the conflict between it and our requirement. (For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement.) The conflict becomes intolerable; the requirement is now in danger of becoming empty.�We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!

oh man that bit about "logic was not a result but a requirement"

lol owned

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:33

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

PI is the only thing i've read but is basically a home run

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:40

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

o i meant to post these ones but forgot BU TNOW i remembered!~

quote:

71. One might say that the concept 'game' is a concept with blurred edges.�"But is a blurred concept a concept at all?"�Is an indistinct photograph a picture of a person at all? Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn't the indistinct one often exactly what we need?

Frege compares a concept to an area and says that an area with vague boundaries cannot be called an area at all. This presumably means that we cannot do anything with it.�But is it senseless to say: "Stand roughly there"? Suppose that I were standing with someone in a city square and said that. As I say it I do not draw any kind of boundary, but perhaps point with my hand�as if I were indicating a particular spot. And this is just how one might explain to someone what a game is. One gives examples and intends them to be taken in a particular way.�I do not, however, mean by this that he is supposed to see in those examples that common thing which I�for some reason�was unable to express; but that he is now to employ those examples in a particular way. Here giving examples is not an indirect means of explaining�in default of a better. For any general definition can be misunderstood too. The point is that this is how we play the game. (I mean the language-game with the word "game".)

quote:

88. If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly? And cannot every other one fail too? But isn't it an inexact explanation?�Yes; why shouldn't we call it "inexact"? Only let us understand what "inexact" means. For it does not mean "unusable". And let us consider what we call an "exact" explanation in contrast with this one. Perhaps something like drawing a chalk line round an area? Here it strikes us at once that the line has breadth. So a colour-edge would be more exact. But has this exactness still got a function here: isn't the engine idling? And remember too that we have not yet defined what is to count as overstepping this exact boundary; how, with what instruments, it is to be established. And so on.

We understand what it means to set a pocket watch to the exact time or to regulate it to be exact. But what if it were asked: is this exactness ideal exactness, or how nearly does it approach the ideal?�Of course, we can speak of measurements of time in which there is a different, and as we should say a greater, exactness than in the measurement of time by a pocket-watch; in which the words "to set the clock to the exact time" have a different, though related meaning, and 'to tell the time' is a different process and so on.�Now, if I tell someone: "You should come to dinner more punctually; you know it begins at one o'clock exactly"�is there really no question of exactness here? because it is possible to say: "Think of the determination of time in the laboratory or the observatory; there you see what 'exactness' means"?

"Inexact" is really a reproach, and "exact" is praise. And that is to say that what is inexact attains its goal less perfectly than what is more exact. Thus the point here is what we call "the goal". Am I inexact when I do not give our distance from the sun to the nearest foot, or tell a joiner the width of a table to the nearest thousandth of an inch? No single ideal of exactness has been laid down; we do not know what we should be supposed to imagine under this head�unless you yourself lay down what is to be so called. But you will find it difficult to hit upon such a convention; at least any that satisfies you.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:57

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

quote:

If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly?

quote:

If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly?

quote:

If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly?

quote:

If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly?

quote:

If I tell someone "Stand roughly here"�may not this explanation work perfectly?

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 18:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:22

nomadologique: Mar 9, 2011; DUNK A DILL PICKLE REALDO

quote:

THE thoughts which I publish in what follows are the precipitate of philosophical investigations which have occupied me for the last sixteen years. They concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning, of understanding, of a proposition, of logic, the foundations of mathematics, states of consciousness, and other things. I have written down all these thoughts as remarks, short paragraphs, of which there is sometimes a fairly long chain about the same subject, while I sometimes make a sudden change, jumping from one topic to another.�It was my intention at first to bring all this together in a book whose form I pictured differently at different times. But the essential thing was that the thoughts should proceed from one subject to another in a natural order and without breaks.

After several unsuccessful attempts to weld my results together into such a whole, I realized that I should never succeed. The best that I could write would never be more than philosophical remarks; my thoughts were soon crippled if I tried to force them on in any single direction against their natural inclination.��And this was, of course, connected with the very nature of the investigation. For this compels us to travel over a wide field of thought criss-cross in every direction.� The philosophical remarks in this book are, as it were, a number of sketches of landscapes which were made in the course of these long and involved journeyings.

The same or almost the same points were always being approached afresh from different directions, and new sketches made. Very many of these were badly drawn or uncharacteristic, marked by all the defects of a weak draughtsman. And when they were rejected a number of tolerable ones were left, which now had to be arranged and sometimes cut down, so that if you looked at them you could get a picture of the landscape. Thus this book is really only an album.

Up to a short time ago I had really given up the idea of publishing my work in my lifetime. It used, indeed, to be revived from time to time: mainly because I was obliged to learn that my results (which I had communicated in lectures, typescripts and discussions), variously misunderstood, more or less mangled or watered down, were in circulation. This stung my vanity and I had difficulty in quieting it.

Four years ago I had occasion to re-read my first book (the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus} and to explain its ideas to someone. It suddenly seemed to me that I should publish those old thoughts and the new ones together: that the latter could be seen in the right light only by contrast with and against the background of my old way of thinking.

For since beginning to occupy myself with philosophy again, sixteen years ago, I have been forced to recognize grave mistakes in what I wrote in that first book. I was helped to realize these mistakes�to a degree which I myself am hardly able to estimate�by the criticism which my ideas encountered from Frank Ramsey, with whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during the last two years of his life. Even more than to this�always certain and forcible� criticism I am indebted to that which a teacher of this university, Mr. P. Sraffa, for many years unceasingly practised on my thoughts. I am indebted to this stimulus for the most consequential ideas of this book.

For more than one reason what I publish here will have points of contact with what other people are writing to-day.�If my remarks do not bear a stamp which marks them as mine,�I do not wish to lay any further claim to them as my property.

I make them public with doubtful feelings. It is not impossible that it should fall to the lot of this work, in its poverty and in the darkness of this time, to bring light into one brain or another�but, of course, it is not likely.

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own. I should have liked to produce a good book. This has not come about, but the time is past in which I could improve it.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 19:24

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Look into the void (nihilist thread)