Worst video game novelisations

I still got that book in my closet-shelf, I'll take a picture of it.
not to blogpost but you guys made my life bearable during those years. thanks.

Pic related

I bought this on a whim. Should I return it?

I wish we could go back to those days when gaming wasn't as hip and cool as it is now.

Cool blogpost though, hope you're doing better

The first one wasn't that bad, it was later when the books became an endorsement for the fucking mormons.

Oh also it turns doomguy into a literal cuck.

How about you fuck off and die instead

But does it have any of those ubermensch features I mentioned?

somewhat related, I've been reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra lately and it's been blowing me to bits. Nietzsche was an absolute madman.

Silly user, you are reading the Quran.

I finished reading it just recently. The majority of the symbolism went over my head, but the parts where I truly understood him moved my soul. I have to return to that book sometime soon.

How the fuck did Nietzsche become known in pop culture as some whiney emo kid who's philosophy could be summed up as "militant apathy"? Was it Jewish perversion and misrepresentation of his work?

Yes. Also butthurt christians.

I remember getting some Ass Creed book for my birthday once.

My memories of the book are hazy since it's been years since I've read it so I'll try to remember as best as I can

>"Ayy don't worry mate. I don't need me cock and balls to function! I'm a real man!"

I expected worse, but still pretty bad. The book sure loved its "I should have killed X for Y, but I didn't because Z" though. Seems like the slightest remark or joke made the protags want to kill someone. Unsurprisingly, the Templar protag was the only bearable one who only started behaving like a cartoonishly evil dick once Injun became the protag. Until then, the Templar behaved pretty much like any other Ass Creed protag, even down to pulling the "I wanted to kill X because Y " because some guy made some joke about him "tasting the fruits of the forest" when he saw his Injun bastard child.

Because nihilism is stupid. Egoism is where it's at.

Every time I see Christians supposedly acting in outrage there's always an obvious Jew leading them so I'm willing to bet there's some misdirection at play here.

The entire value of Stirner's philosophy is as a modern meme and you know it.

Because he got really popular with a bunch of whiney emo kids, who couldn't really understand his work, so he became associated with them. It's like what happened to the fedora.

...

This, but unironically.

This. Dante was so much more of pussy in the book and he and Virgil weren't even brothers. I have no idea what the author was thinking.

Nietzsche : nihilism : : Marx : capitalism

I love that it took a knockoff of a knockoff to get back into a setting that the original knockoff was knocking off had knocked off.

Yet it was better than GoW3.

That's not saying much.

Irony is a spook.

Idiotic atheists made him popular without even reading any of his works, simply because he despised Christianity, and that's what they focus on. They would definitely hate Nietzsche if they actually knew anything about him, but they don't.

Other similar great thinkers didn't get this support because they couldn't be used for this purpose. They needed an 'atheist philosopher', and Nietzsche was one of the only options, and still the most recognizable. Also, Nietzsche preceded fascism, and therefore didn't support it, so they could still use him.

They actually support a complete inversion of Nietzsche's ideas, for the most part.

There is always a Jew leading the Christians because they worship a Jew. It's essentially a religion that turns whites into spiritual kikes, as well as kike and nigger worshipers. Of course, it's also the root of modernity. Failing to destroy it basically doomed us all. Both civilized Europeans and barbarians. All the modern insanity is basically just a secular Christianity.

Nihilism is basically the rebellion phase that kids who have it relatively well go through. It's present in lots of people, though they just don't take things seriously enough to really realize it. A lot of people just go through the world and question why at some point, but come up with really shallow and stupid answers that don't really answer anything except their own very limited set of questions. That's why the Socratic method (if someone plays along with it) is a foolproof method for making someone look dumb. People realize this but don't articulate it, and that's more or less why every generation has its "everybody is a sheep following meaningless idols except for me" crowd, but they are the sheep of their reasoning. This is analogous to Nietzsche's Last Man, a man who cares not and has retreated into whatever convenient shell they found where they're burdened as little as possible. The Last Man is antithetical to the Overman.

At some point you have to accept something as true, or else you just can't orient yourself. If I understand Nietzsche correctly (which would be a huge claim), this is what the Overman was for. Something like someone who lives and breathes meaning and extinguishes meaninglessness by proxy, and other people pickup on that and follow the meaning from the Overman.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Just want to point out a similarity

...

You are 100% right.

People just stop at the first book being his writing style is too THICC to process. "Thus spoke zarathustra" goes over your concept. I just got tired of typing it because stirner posters are just leftist shitposters that don't care about anything and don't understand why YOU care about anything.

...

Hey buddy, I think you've got the wrong door, the leather club's two blocks down.
But seriously, good luck organizing a bunch of nihilists. You can pretend the chans are nihilist to their core, but the combined autism is actually the exact opposite of nihilism. The name is praised here, but the spirit is for the most part absent. If you take nihilism seriously you'll find yourself devoid of positive meaning soon enough, then you'll take to some half-baked belief system either out of boredom or terror.

That's kinda funny. I've only read the first 70 pages of zarathustra, albeit I've listened to hundred of hours of discussion. But yeah, what you said about his writing style being thicc is dead on. It takes about an hour for me to somewhat coherently read a chapter from zarathustra, and those chapters are generally around 2-4 pages in a small book with moderate font size.

I'll get around to reading Stirnir, but as far as I can tell, he's a Last Man that became articulate, and other last men flock to him.

Forgot to mention that the half-baked belief system would at most distract from the boredom or terror.

mein neger

Nietzsche's works can be challenging to read even if you aren't a pleb that doesn't read, but that kinda adds to the experience. It forces you to take your time, so it really gets the gears turning. His writing still feels very emotional to me at least, despite its complexity. You can really feel the fury coming out of the pages. It's pretty amazing.

Criticisms of Nietzsche can also very pretty interesting, and definitely a good thing to read (since he inspired all of his good critics in the first place). Heidegger and Evola are the first that come to mind. In fact, Evola accused him of failing to deny nihilism, and of being a nihilist himself. Also, I believe Heidegger said that you shouldn't even read Nietzsche's works before you have a mastery of Greek philosophy, so if you want to listen to him, maybe you should leave Nietzsche for later.

For what purpose.

this meme is getting way out of hand

i keep forgetting to turn off that fucking flag

I absolutely agree with this. Often in Zarathustra it feels like something comparable to watching your parents fight for the first time, even if only in the magnitude of the feeling. Something I heard about existentialists is that they write their whole being into their words, and that seems to be true with Nietzsche.
"All truths are bloody truths to me."

I'm probably just going to continue reading Nietzsche, move onto Dostoevsky and Jung, then something else from there. I'll probably touch on those critics you mentioned. Or tread through Stirner.

You're only adding to my impression.

I want to fuck Erin.

Also, Nihilism is a fucking retarded cop-out, vid related.

...

underrated post

I'm pretty sure you're not serious, but if you are I encourage you to kill yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is it that the Socratic Method reveals to the student the gaps in their own knowledge?

t.riggered

It reveals how shallow someone's reasoning is, and it almost always is unless someone devoted a great amount of effort into doing something then they're questioned specifically about that something.

His writing is THICC because he is too busy trying to understand his own thoughts that he wont/cant break it down in laymens terms for normal people.

The guy went insane from this, I'm pretty sure. He went too far into the cave and never returned.

...

What do you expect of Holla Forums?
Their damn board owner is a fat tranny.

...

Are we talking about two different Socratic methods?
I'm referring to the pedagogical tool where a teacher asks a student leading questions and forces them to think of the answers on their own, so they develop inherent understanding of the subject rather than just rote memorization of key terms and formulas. Please disregard my confusion.

Stirner is the Seinfeld of philosophy. What a fucking waste of paper.

This thread got me interested. Could some of you guys tell me which books to read first or later or which I should read at all?

Of Nietzsche or video game novelizations?

Probably yeah. I was more or less using a colloquial definition, so it's my bad. I basically just meant asking "why" until the person gives up. You could probably accurately take me to mean also that the pedagogical use is limited by how stupid the student and teacher are. You know when you ask someone a very leading question and they still don't get it, so you just answer for them? Kinda like that. You're answer isn't the ultimate answer, and the student's isn't. They're both limited in some way.

On Nietsche and other philosophers.

You're in for a treat, if you can understand their ideas. I don't think many people have that capability, though. Evola in particular is almost otherworldly for a modern person. It takes a little bit of an ancient spirit to really get it. Some people are still born with it, but it's very rare. If you can understand Nietzsche, you should be able to do it at some point, though.

You have a solid recommendation for Thus Spoke Zarathustra from me, but remember to take your time with it. Nietzsche writes really dense. Watch Jordan B. Peterson's lectures, he's good at making things brutishly simple.

Yeah, from reading this thread I wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra already down.
Alright, thanks user!

Beyond Good and Evil. I found it to be more accessible than his other works assuming you're temperamentally predisposed towards his message.

Evola is comfortable to read compared to Nietzsche.

Brainlet pls. The Ego and Its Own is pure philosophical zen.

I don't have any philosophy book recommendations, but the Kingkiller Chronicles is a great book series and you should read it if you're into fantasy books, and the Foundation Trilogy is some of Asimov's best work. I also second Peterson's lectures.

I definitely agree, although I feel that unlike other BS methodologies and fads that (((education companies))) often peddle, the Socratic Method can still work well if one participant is dumb. A dumb teacher may not be asking good questions, but as long as the questions don't literally contain the answer, a good student would still be able to figure out what the teacher is looking for and produce an adequate response. Likewise, a good teacher with a dumb student would know to change tactics and ask different questions to accommodate what the student knows and how they think. The only real problem with it is that you can't use it in a lecture hall, and lectures are how education works is done these days.

I joke about being older than I am, so I think I may have some sort of ancient spirit. There's also Jung's Archetypes, which to me seem to be distinctly ancient in nature, and some understanding of Archetypes has already done me worlds of good. I don't know, man, we'll see. This is the first time I've had some sort of conversation with a well read man like you and not been shouted out, so I just want to express some deep gratitude.

JBP is on youtube (and he's already been posted in this thread), so he's really accessible.
I can't give a full backing for any of these other authors, just a passing recommendation. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud (not actually retarded, contemporary academics just like to point out his now obviously incorrect assertions, which weren't that many), Victor Fankl. Figure out the whole Aristotle and Plato thing. Tao Te Ching. Think about evolution and such. Go on, explore that world. Godspeed.

Nigger, you're supposed to read Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard before Nietzsche, then finish off with Tillich.

A lot of where one should start is heavily dependent on the temperament of the reader. For some Evola will be absolutely incomprehensible whereas to others he'll have virtually put their thoughts to paper for them.

Hahaha

Cynicism is the one true philosophy.

Actually, considering the nature of Nietzsch's writing, you should probably look into Turgenev's Fathers and Sons first. It provides a commentary on early nihilism that's quite useful before going in and look at how Nietzsch tackles the topic.

I see what you're saying, and I half agree. My point still stands that even if one is smart and the other stupid, the answer that is reached will be limited by one or the other. I've always found education to be most efficient when the student was the one asking questions and being guided as little as possible by the teacher.
>lectures are how education works is done
lmao

No. Only in increasing complexity, if at all. Also, read Nietzsche and Dostoevsky at the same time.

ITT: A bunch of fucking nerds tbh

Good point. This is also a good idea with Dostoevsky as well since he parodies Turgenev in The Possessed.

I just thought it would be a good idea because it shows how dialog regarding nihilism evolved over the years.

Truth be told, I'm not a fucking nerd so I only subscribe to ethnonationalism.

Meant to say nihilism/existentialism.

Yes, and so is Heidegger (he goes so far that it's remarkable that he didn't drive himself insane), but Nietzsche's ideas are still modern. Not nearly as distant, even though he does favor ancient ideas.

I think Evola says in (or just about) Revolt Against the Modern World that the book was written 'for the others that are also stand outside of this world', or something like that. Not necessarily entry-level, though. I don't think any of his books can be called that, since all of them require you to already be prepared for his ideas. And of course, the occult if a huge part of his texts. Hard for modern people to even consider trying to understand. A lot of people that influenced him are also very interesting, so it will lead to even more material.

That was my case. I very frequently tend to unknowingly read books that express uncommon ideas that I already have reached through my own thought and understanding of Greek phisolophy (and then push them even further). I can frequently predict most of what they will say. They still blow my mind quite a lot, though. Evola in particular took things further than I expected, and I already knew that he had extreme ideas (that I agreed with). Probably because I didn't have his knowledge of the occult. One of his major influences.

There's a difference between asking questions to get an answer and asking questions to confirm a theory. A good Socratic dialogue normally has the teacher ask a question, the student answering and asking a new question extrapolating from the answer, and the teacher asking a question back.
The end goal is for the get question-answer-new question loop the student experiences to be done without external teacher feedback, and bam your student can now think for themselves.

sage because this so offtopic it's even offtopic to the offtopic topic

The true path to enlightenment is via the Rhodespill.

Cynicism and absurdism are not mutually exclusive though.

I've been reading a couple of classics and I can say pretty conclusively that I have no idea what makes a good book. Granted, I never really liked reading and did barely any of it until maybe a year ago, but some books just click while others just don't. Take HG Wells and RA Heinlein for example: similar styles in that they just gloss over the immediate action and then go madly in depth into something that can give an insight into what the setting holds. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land has a tonne more dialogue, often spilling off into monologues, while Wells' War of the Worlds has basically none. Yet despite all these differences in content, both are done in a kind of conversational style as though someone is retelling the story.
I'm currently going through Asimov's I, Robot and really enjoying it so far too. I can't really tell what makes all of these writers' works really good and what makes some amateur works that you'd get on kindle for free complete dogshit. So many books with good concepts in the blurb that are just so badly written that I can't even get passed the first chapter. Even though I have this huge difference in response to "shit" books and "good" books, I can't pinpoint anything that makes one good or shit.

99% chance this is actually Holla Forums.

"DELET THIS MONTRESOR!"

I win.

I really like Heidegger, the English translations are easy enough to read. Greek philosophy is also good.

The only game novelisation I read was Assasin's Creed book. And boy, it was so awful I stop reading after two chapters. I felt like I was reading summary of game cutscenes. Chapters were extremely short, eveything felt rush, there was little to no descriptions and dialogs were just cringeworth.

Max Stirner is a fucking retard but you are absolutely correct about nihilism.

I think Stirner memers miss an important thrust of his works and his reputation suffers for them. He argues that the socialists/democrats who decried the crown and church for deciding on one and only one acceptable worldview, and who supported the revolutions to topple them and essentially "free their minds," immediately turned around and applied Marxist ideology as objective meaning. He didn't mind the self-determination of revolution, he just hated the hypocrisy.

What the fuck.

He probably got big bucks for this

You had me going there for a second

Generally speaking, you could pick five aspects you like about books and rank each book based on how they fit those criteria.

You could apply this to anything really. Video game reviews used to be like that before they just said fucking it and picked a single number so they didn't have to justify a breakdown.

nihilists are faggots lol

What's with all this philosophical psychological crap? I just wanna play videogames.

When all that people have to say is that they are an 'ist', and about how their 'ism' is the best, you know that you are dealing with plebs, that don't understand anything and have no actual ideas.

They are stones that know only momentum and inertia. Where they rest and where they roll. In that way, they are stuck in the fight, flight, freeze of thought.

>>>/neogaf/

Figured out what I was saying. It's just plain better to read than to not read, and trying to read in a specific order could result in added motivation to not read. I'm really fond of existentialism, so I may investigate how it started.

Exactly correct.

It has to have the proper balance of being in it. Chaos vs Order, Structured vs Unstructured, Expected vs Unexpected. Proper balances for those spectra and many others. It has to be same enough that you can get it enough that it means something but different enough that you haven't already encountered the same book or set of ideas before.

I liked it but then again I'm not a bookfag.

brainlet detected. Also reminder Evola based his entire philosophy on imaginary super men from Atlantis, yes Atlantis, that fictional city Plato made up as a plot device in his book. Also Evola died from getting shelled by a mortar by talking a fucking walk during a military attack.
Enjoy your spooks, nigger.

t. Living Church.
Nice try bolshevik, being a forest nigger sure is superior!

He didnt die from that though.
Also not an argument.

VIDEO

GAMES

ultimately everything you're interacting with is the fiction conjured up by your own mind lmao

That crap with pig and the sjw bitch was based on a novel from Nietzsche?

LMAO

...

finish that shit nigger, war of the ancients and the last guardian are probably the best thing blizzjew has done in ages
don't read lord of the clans though, that's just metzen's BLM wet dream

I don't read books, i'm retarted.

It's ok, you're on Holla Forums, you're in good company.

Nitzsche wasn´t even a nihilist. He was a critic of christian nihilism.

That is a lot of ass hurt and autism.
Nihilism literally just means you believe meaning is man made rather than objective.

no no no, nihilism is the belief that meaning doesn't exist. Existentialism is closer to what you're describing. Although it more closely claims that meaning must be found first, not so much that it's man made.

kys

Y-Yeah but I like it so it MUST BE TRUE!!! SPOOK SPOOK SPOOK!!!

See every tabletop game ever made in the history of man. It is a god send that video games have replaced those fucking dice rolling travesties.

...

That's, like, just your opinion man.

>>>/britpol/

no u spook

Ah, an enlightened snowflakist, too unique to be categorized.

Recognize the mind traps men set for others, ignore the message that is communicated, and understand the intent behind it.

He literally did.

It's cancer, fam.

There's a difference between your bitch cheating behind your back and someone sitting in the same room jacking off to watching their bitch get fucked by another man.

?

Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, actually read his work.

The hell do you mean "these books?" How could you even stand to keep reading after finishing the first one?

Jewgle won't meme /our/ girl to death.

VIDEO GAMES?!

I think you missed the joke
he lived until the 80's kiddo. Also I don't think (you) understand Platonic Idealism.

VIDEO GAMES?!

Stirnerkids are fucking retarded and only Holla Forums likes him.
I bet those soyboys never even read his garbage in the first place though
Sage for not vidya.

J. Peterson's recommendations on what to read (author list at 17:40)

Zombieshit is a passing fad i say, kids these days are all about meinkraft.

People always mix up "describing how it is" with "describing how one should act".
From a nihilistic materialistic standpoint, nothing has intrinsic value.
That does not mean one does not care, since caring about something is subjective. Yes, my life has no "objective" value in the grand scheme of things, there is no reason I am here and no one will give a rat's ass about my life in 10000 years, but that does not mean I don't/can't care about myself.

Same with people throwing a fit when you mention that morality is subjective. Of course it is. A society that has slavery/death penalty/… usually sees nothing wrong with it. Thinking that morality is subjective does not mean you hold the opinion that everyone should do what he thinks is right.

You'd be better off reading erotic fanfiction of doomguy fucking every demon.

...

I have this on my shelf, never read it, why is it shit?

STOP

Read it and find out.

user, please.

It is Big Bang Theory: The Book

wew

There's probably more, but I can't be bothered to remember.

...

Doesn't sound too bad.

Christ, I'd forgotten that.

As in he stalks a girl who already told him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

Ho boy.

You never had to teach anyone, did you? In my experience its much better if stupid questions get asked and people talk about their theories, no matter if right or wrong.
If everyone keeps quiet because they don't want to sound like an idiot (=what I meant with fragile ego), their stupid ideas will never get challenged and they actually stay idiots (longer).

...

...

yes, fag, you should go read plato and aristotle and then from there make your own fucking decisions on what philosophy interests you for further reading
starting with nietsche is literally reading the refutation to a centuries-long argument you are totally unaware of and would therefore be fucking pointless for you

...

Since we are talking Vidya and books

HOW FUCKING STUPID WAS METRO 2035

Not so much a passing fad in literature however
I LOVE my shitty zombie novel series, I read so fucking many of them

But yea max brooks got in on a time when zombies kicked off and wrote one of the most basic dumbed down zombie novels

I actually think that morality is both subjective and objective. There is a best way for things to happen, and that best way changes depending on each situation.

Of course descriptions of what things are and prescriptions of how one should act are different things, but there's certainly a deep relationship between the two. Nowadays, there's very little difference between someone's worldview and someone's political orientation. This is part of why communication is so important.

You can infer someone's cares by observing their actions, though this is much easier the more superficial the claim is, and people are generally terrible at it. I would argue this makes caring objective.

I disagree

Maybe no single reason, but one could find reasons. for 3.5 billion years all your ancestors managed to survive enough and reproduce enough that you're here. You exist objectively, people don't get to choose to not experience your image.

Yes, I agree that there is an (unknown) best way for everything to happen, but only according to some subjective standard. The question is how you define "best" way. Avoiding pain? Death? Anguish?
Is killing baby Hitler okay or not? Etc.

I meant "caring is subjective" in the sense that even if it does not matter if I throw my childhood teddy away or keep him in good care is based on your subjective decision of what things are important and what things aren't. There is no/only negligible objective value in the teddy, but there might be a huge a subjective attachment.
For a non-sentimental person the Teddy has its money value at most, for a sentimental person it could be the most important possession.

Yes, but the chain of life that led to me is self-servicing. It started with the first lifeforms that were just slightly complicated, stable chemical "factories".
Then you have bacteria, up to simple insects who are just biological robots. And then you go up to mammals and humanity at the top. All this (at least in my worldview) "just happened because it could". And if an asteroid, gamma burst or something else eradicates every trace of life on this planet, what would change in the universe? Basically not a thing.
And after billions of years, the universe will end, either forever or to begin anew.
What use did my life have? None.
You are right, there is a reason I am here, but it amounts to little more than the "well, we could, so we did" of my collective ancestors.
But this does not mean I don't love life! I care for the people around me, have goals and dreams.
Your last sentence is also interesting, btw.

Then what happens when multiple subjects are present? If an outcome is good for one and not the other, or if good for neither, then is is worse than if the outcome is good for both. If the amount of subjects is practically infinite, then if something is good for all of them, then I would argue that that outcome is objectively good.

This is where people generally just give up, because since everybody is limited and people can't cognate everything all at once, assumptions have to be made in the form of axioms, or fundamental presuppositions. Since best and worst exist on opposite ends of the same spectrum of qualitative judgement, the definition of one begets the definition of the other. As far as I can tell, it is MUCH easier to figure out what is objectively bad than it is to figure out what is objectively good, so defining things as bad is a good first step towards that which is good. The fundamental presupposition that I go by is that existence is good. It is better to be than it is to not, and that is true for everything. You can make the argument that a world were terrible things happen shouldn't be, and that would be a compelling argument, but as far as I can tell, that would lead to unnecessary suffering, as negative meaning is intrinsic to life, but positive meaning must be found. Suffering, pain, and death are qualitatively sophisticated, meaning the moral qualities of these things can and do vary. I distinguish between good suffering and bad suffering by whether or not that suffering was necessary or not.

Hitler caused necessary suffering. Would it be nice if suffering didn't exist in the first place? Sure, but we don't get to act like suffering doesn't exist.

For the most part, correct, but you're missing the part where you don't really get to choose what emotions you feel.

I wouldn't say that the teddy would only have it's monetary value, even for a non-sentimental person. A teddy could be put to use in the name of humor or comforting another person. Making someone like you more has a lot of potential for value.

But it's not self servicing, and this is BECAUSE it lead to you. It's in service of you and your entire potentiality, which is really quite a lot.

It's also supported by the substrate that supports the entirety of existence.

I disagree. Even if you can think from a frame of perspective so large that your effect is practically negligible, it is not negligible in so far as you, or anything comparable to you, are concerned. There was, is, and will be utility to your life, even if only for mothers to teach their children a negative model of being.

More than that, it was also "because we needed to, so we had to, and so we did"

So you act in contradiction to what you say. If there is no ultimate meaning, then there is no meaning at all. You act as though meaning exists (or so you proclaim), so you do not truly believe meaning to be

Just want to say I'm enjoying this conversation. I appreciate your participation.

shoot me lmao

So you do not truly to believe meaning to be completely subjective. Negative meaning sure isn't. Positive meaning may be objective insofar as different situations can be validly compared to each other.

Ah I see, but is the optimization of all subjective views truly objective?

I agree with your way to find an optimal solution and I would propose to do the same, but again, I would argue it is not truly objective.
It depends on how much you value greater good and personal liberties.
See all the moral dilemmas (trolley experiment).

Yes, but that is not intrinsic to the teddy. It is a heap of atoms, that "incidentially" has properties that can lead to pleasurable experiences for us.

An interesting perspective.

Which is, again, a subjective thing.

Hm, I don't feel that hits the spot.
Let it put me this way:
Even suffering is not objectively negative.
And with objectively I don't mean our collective agreement on it. (See: first part)
We are just atoms, chemicals. Every higher meaning "This is a person" "I feel pain, this is bad" "I love you" "I like Sherlock Holmes books" - they are all subjectively attributed.
We can now come together and try to align our subjective experiences.
This will result in "Pain is universally regarded as bad".
But there is still instances where pain is necessary: Healing, drug therapy, enduring pain to help others. - So there is no objective, 100% "pain is bad".
Raw physics has no meaning in itself, it just.. exists.
If an asteroid wipes out earth it would be only bad because we collectively don't like not existing anymore.

I try to clarify my views even more:
- objective/intrinsic meaning does not exist
- only subjective meaning is generated by beings that can evaluate their environment (e.g. fire=pain=bad)
- we can try to compare/align our subjective meanings to find similarities. The more basic they are (pain, death, …) the easier it is to do so. The more complex it is (honor, right/wrong, crime, freedom, moral), the harder it is to reach an agreement.
- but even with simple things there are as many exceptions as they are rules (killing an attacker in self defense, assisted suicide, tyrannicide, abortion,…)
- we can postulate some rules like "existing is better than not existing" and most would agree, and even call it objective, but that does not make it TRULY objective as in "this is encoded in the fabric of the universe"
- just because nothing has any intrinsic meaning it does not mean I can fully enjoy my subjective experience of things. It does not matter if I sort my fridge magnets, but I like it sorted by color.

Likewise!

Pragmatically, yes.

If something is universally true, it is objective.

I agree
All negative meaning manifests in suffering, but not all suffering is a manifestation of negative meaning.

Atoms are the substrate of molecules, molecules are the substrate of cells, cells are the substrate or whole constitution of biological entities, thus cells are the substrate of neurological systems, and neurological systems are the substrate of consciousness (and more), consciousness is the substrate of ideas. So, a=b=c=d=e=f (or something like that I'm not actually counting). If atoms are objective then thoughts are objective, as ultimately atoms are the substrate of thoughts.

Raw physics is a straight line of determinism (until you start talking about quantum physics), what's more meaningful than that?

The vast majority of people act as though they'd rather continue to exist, so it's pragmatically objective that it's a bad thing.

Pragmatically it does

Just want to point out that things don't evaluate the environment, they evaluate their relationship with the environment.

Agree, though I'd probably use different terms. The more "empirical" (instead of basic) things are… The more "specific" (instead of complex)

If you consider the specifics, yeah. There will always be exceptions, but you can't treat the whole as those exceptions. Therefore, step up one level of abstraction and figure it out from there.

agree :^) (I assume you meant "it does not mean I can['t] fully enjoy my subjective experience of things.") In which case, that may be true for you, but it wouldn't be true for me. If I sit down and think about how small my role is in comparison to the size of the universe, I become overwhelmed with the meaninglessness, which is really not fun.

You could say that outside of human experience meaning doesn't exist, but you could not possibly ever prove that because you cannot step outside of human experience.

I will continue to combat the statements that intrinsic meaning doesn't exist, because nobody acts as though that's the case. That is a human universal, so for all intents and purposes it is objectively true that meaning exists.

There we would disagree.
But I can see that one could view it as "for all intents and purposes" objective.
We are basically that meme where one dude goes "well, TECHNICALLY…" :^)

Not sure if the nature of consciousness allows this transitiveness (see: qualia problem)
But interesting interpretation

True, I tried to imply the "we only have imperfect sensors to sample an basically unknowable exterior" with "evaluation". Nice that you noticed that problem.

I can understand that. But it came with a sense of relief and freedom for me, too.
There is no great plan I am expected to follow. All hard times that befall me are just like pebbles in the way of an ant, as insignificant as my success.
I don't get worked up about someone calling you an idiot, or how other people don't like me.
I can concentrate on giving my best in life and making me and others happy, because that is what is fun to me.
And if that is not enough, there is nothing I could have done.
No need to cry over spilt milk.

I will go to bed now, I don't know if I will be able to see any of your answer.
If I can't: It was fun talking to you, I wish you all the best in life! Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

goodnight my man.

Just in case you do see this, I'll continue arguing a bit.

If something is universally true, then how would it not be objective?

Checking rn

It did for me too, but only initially.
After a couple years, things started to change.

I can only hope that's true. Godspeed in that endeavor.

Back at ya.

I can't decide if this sounds like the worst or best.

I love that guy.

Hey, the thread lives!
It is universally _regarded_ as true.
Assume the following: A race of sentient beings and one deranged single being are alone in the universe. The race thinks not existing is worse than existing, the individual being thinks otherwise.
What would the objective truth be here? Probably that existing is better than not existing.
What if that individual killed everyone and he is alone now.
Does the objective truth change now?
Was it truly objective then?

Maybe it is a problem with wording.
I mean the following:
objective=intrinsic, independent from any sentient observer/evaluator
subjective=evaluation by a individual that can evaluate its relationship to its surroundings

It probably depends a lot on the circumstances in life and what one needs in life. If one needs to feel protected in life, religion is probably more comforting than nihilism, for example. The nihilistic approach helped me a lot in the past decades, to become a better person not because of external forces, but because of the subjective will to be the best person I can be.

Is there a translated version?

As one of its jacket quotes puts it: "It's Harry Potter for grown-ups."

So it's to the original book (at least; haven't read 2034) what Last Light was to the original game? Figures, I guess.

Iirc last light was made before 2034 was finished but share a few elements the same but not many given 2034 focuses on 3 new characters
2035 goes back to Artyom being the main character
the new metro game will be based around 2035 how 2033 was based on the book pretty heavily, I actually think I read they will be ignoring most of last light since its irrelevant anyway

But yea if this is true expect the new metro game to be far more realistic, there is quite a bit of above ground though so im sure plenty of mutants will show up

Friendly reminder this book and MMO's in general are part of a concentrated effort to push virtual communism into the minds of children both young and old.

People don't have to regard things at all in order to accept them as true. They do that by acting.

By continuing to exist he is contradicting the belief that not existing is better than existing. Why would he take others out of existence against their will if not to get revenge against existence?
Okay, so then he kills himself to resolve that contradiction. Does the objective truth change? No, or at least it doesn't invert into "not existing is better than existing", and because then he would have just quietly died before doing anything else in his entire life. He is/was still just an individual and not representative of the totality of human potential (or at least until he did away with it)

I've gotten into arguments like this because people had screwy definitions of subjective and objective. I don't think that's what's happening here.
There is an objectivity to subjects, or universal commonalities. Without any evaluation, there is an intrinsic quality to people. Of course people are subject to extreme variation, but there's universal commonality regardless.

If you really mean this, then you do not understand the purpose of religion. Religion is a metaphysical description of the world and a prescription of how to act in it. It does make you feel "protected", but not in any arbitrary sense, and that is not the primary purpose of religion.

In what ways, may I ask?

Well, what if he killed himself right after the deed?
In that few seconds, him being the last living being, actively committing suicide, did objective truth invert?

"Encoded" in what? The fact of their existence alone?
I could see how one could argue for that, interesting…

Oh, nonono, don't get me wrong. I just meant that people who long for protection probably have a higher probability of being drawn to certain religious aspects (god = a loving father figure in some interpretations).

Success in school was easy for me, even though my parents were working class with limited education. I pushed my self for the "optimal solution" and was distressed by "doing things wrong", since I did not want to disappoint anyone (teachers/parents/friends), even if they would not have been. That (and some other factors) led to depression and anxiety issues, especially when things got harder in university. Nihilism helped me realize that I am not disappointing anyone if I do things wrong at first, as long as I'm giving my best.
It also made me a lot calmer in regard to things I can't change.
Missed the bus? Lost at a video game? Well, why get (real) angry about it? There is nothing I can do about it, and also it is such a trivial thing, it doesn't make sense to get angry.
You could say I mellowed the fuck out.

Answered that. "No, or at least it doesn't invert into "not existing is better than existing", and because then he would have just quietly died before doing anything else in his entire life." Since he went on to take other people out of existence, it would be more accurately to interpret him as getting revenge on existence for being so low quality instead of just deciding it better to not exist. If something is objectively true, then it's true regardless of time or place. Objective truth is not retro-active, but the ways people learn things can be(your spouse cheats on you, you were dumber than you thought)

More or less. The limits of their existence as well. It would be fairly correct to define people as the limits of their potentiality (people are generally terrible at performing this task), and to define humanity as the limits of its variation and then the probability of wherever whoever lands in between/among those limits.

It seems to me that you embraced the nihilistic approach in a way similar to the "don't sweat the petty things" cliche, which I would argue is real close to what I would consider the correct approach (voluntarily bear the suffering of life and try to do right). In that sense, it is detrimental to be overcome by the negative meaning that makes itself known by the potential of a situation to make things worse, which happens often enough that anxiety is actually pretty reasonable.
I just don't think that saying "the outcome doesn't matter" is the answer, since obviously it could. An outcome could be negative, neutral, or positive. And it could be not just negative, but so negative that you just drop dead or spend a long time suffering with every fiber of your being. It could also be not just positive, but so positive that everything gets better and everybody becomes happier (I find it harder to argue for positive meaning without using religious terms, bear with me). The vast majority of the time, outcomes are somewhere between those two, and figuring out exactly how to think about outcomes is extremely hard, and it's easier to see negative meaning than positive meaning.

What if he (somehow) rather reasoned that it is an act of mercy to end existence?
For example he could argue, that no experience is better than the possible experience of positive and negative things, since no experience has no possibility of suffering.
Very anime-endboss-esque, but still, he has some kind of point.
You say "Objective truth is not retro-active" but also agreed that "the optimization of all subjective views is pragmatically objective".
So what if, at one point in time the, the set of subjective views is so small, or consists of so unusual opinions, that everyone agrees that something horrible is okay now?
In that scenario your model as a contradiction.
Except you define the the optimization of all subjective views always on the current morality.
Which is questionable in my opinion.

Yes, the outcome absolutely matters, but only subjectively. To me, of course. To my loved ones, because they would be sad if something happened to me. But each is a thinking being that has a subjective opinion.
Objectively (and we seem to disagree on the exact nature of this term), it does not matter:
If all life on earth suddenly disappeared and I was the only being remaining, my soon following death would matter only to me. The dead ball of rock dirt orbiting the sun would be uncaring, as would be the rest of the universe.
Again, I argue from a pure materialistic and atheistic standpoint, for simplicity's sake (I am agnostic).

That's just a specific manifestation of "existence is so low quality that it should not be"

I already answered this with " He is/was still just an individual and not representative of the totality of human potential (or at least until he did away with it)" Yeah sure, things can get so bad that there's no way it could get better. My model would be a contradiction there, but that's fine by me because such a situation does away with morality being relevant anyway. Morality in the world is more or less what I'm arguing for, not morality in an isolated and dying individual. No such thing as an isolated person, anyway. Isolated you go insane and then you die.

I'm tired and I have to write a 6-ish page essay, I've got to save some energy and thought for that. Thanks for your time m8. Check back in 2 days if you want.

how is this game rerlayted

I'm tired and I have to write a 6-ish page essay, I've got to save some energy and thought for that. Thanks for your time m8. Check back in 2 days if you want.
Thank you, too! Best of luck.

That's why we use sage.

Figure out something that's been bothering me. I May have agreed that ""the optimization of all subjective views is pragmatically objective"." in words only, but I don't think that to be so.

It's more so that there's no situation in which you could act as though some things aren't true, and even if you can, then that situation is devoid of meaning anyway.

Ah, okay!
We could continue arguing about truth, but I guess the thread will be dead before we finish.