>>13228991In order:
Real enough. Not enough to trust implicitly, enough to casually accept. You don't. If you are capable of sapient thought as commonly defined, sure. You can type this pseudo-intellectual garbage, and presumably read the replies in this thread, which along with other defined factors means yes. The previous answer implies yes.
Probably.
Stop being a pussy.
Fuck it, I'm bored.
If nothing is real, if nothing truly exists, then it must therefore also be that nothing truly matters. If nothing truly matters, then it is better to fill that "void," however you wish to define it, with happiness.
It seems safe to assume that others, who look, act, and otherwise have exceeding similarities to the self, are likewise similarly made, whether that be in a "void" or otherwise. Being so similar to the self, and the self being interested in the promotion of happiness of the self, harming others, if indeed "others" they be, becomes repugnant. Arguably, with so fine a line between the self and the other, it is perhaps enough to make promoting the happiness of the other, inevitably, promoting the happiness of the self.
This only becomes more true the more one is a void, or perhaps more accurately, the less everything exists. If the self is a void, and the other is a void, then there becomes truly no difference between the self and the other. Happiness, as it exists, or "exists" if you wish, then observes no difference between either, thus, encouraging as much happiness to as many people as possible, including the "self," becomes what may be defined as an ethical priority.
Alternatively, let us assume the following axiom:
>There is absolutely nothing: past, present, and future. All is void, true and empty.We must also take it that the thoughts and words and so on making this axiom are, themselves, nothing, and it becomes a paradox: if the words were nothing, they would not actually exist, thus, stating the axiom in any way is an act of disproving it.
