>>91621Sisyphus learned English from age three with a demented Mary Poppins. Chips are fine too.
>>91564I maybe am pushing absurdism and nihilism (to a lesser extent existentialism) but thats my studies polluting the thought process of /out/. I gave that one as an example, it needs editing, for sure. Also, i have a typo "Camus' question".
Lastly i think that nature has rejected us in the sense that we have evolved, but (unlike other animals) haven't evolved to adapt in nature. Or in other word, man has evolved, but put him dead smack in a forest naked and he's dead within days.
>>91616Im going to start a new thread an systematically post several questions a day and then catalog them accordingly. As far as graph results go that a bit too formal for a philosophical paper, we are going to do it with critical method i.e im people will contribute, i will write it down, segment it, and than we will go one by one and revise it if needed.
>>91633>By going /out/, you can easily disconnect with social constructs.This, i feel is key! The thought that will be the backbone of the paper.
The rest is valuable and plays well with your first statement, i will do my best to expand it and add others thought to it.
>as to purge myself of useless shit.This is the primitivistic view, that i feel, cannot be denied. You know how people say that everything is put in perspective when you get terminally ill? Well i think that nature can do that in a certain sense.
>>91677>Humans are inherently social animals, that's our biology.This is a huge philosophical problem, and one many would disagree with (me as well, but thats not the point). The question we need to ask is:
>If its our nature to be social, than being social shouldn't be a burden. This is like the first screening process when discussing human nature.
By all means do not see this as a rebuttal, i just want you to expand your thought further, if you can please. I value your contribution!
