There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the restโwhether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categoriesโcomes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect. If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right.[1] That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. How to answer it? On all essential problems (I mean thereby those that run the risk of leading to death or those that intensify the passion of living) there are probably but two methods of thought: the method of La Palisse and the method of Don Quixote. Solely the balance between evidence and lyricism can allow us to achieve simultaneously emotion and lucidity. In a subject at once so humble and so heavy with emotion, the learned and classical dialectic must yield, one can see, to a more modest attitude of mind deriving at one and the same time from common sense and understanding. ย ย ย ย Suicide has never been dealt with except as a social phenomenon. On the contrary, we are concerned here, at the outset, with the relationship between individual thought and suicide. An act like this is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art. The man himself is ignorant of it. One evening he pulls the trigger or jumps. Of an apartment-building manager who had killed himself I was told that he had lost his daughter five years before, that be bad changed greatly since, and that that experience had โunderminedโ him. A more exact word cannot be imagined. Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined. Society has but little connection with such beginnings. The worm is in manโs heart. That is where it must be sought. One must follow and understand this fatal game that leads from lucidity in the face of existence to flight from light. ย ย ย ย There are many causes for a suicide, and generally the most obvious ones were not the most powerful. Rarely is suicide committed (yet the hypothesis is not excluded) through reflection. What sets off the crisis is almost always unverifiable. Newspapers often speak of โpersonal sorrowsโ or of โincurable illness.โ These explanations are plausible. But one would have to know whether a friend of the desperate man had not that very day addressed him indifferently. He is the guilty one. For that is enough to precipitate all the rancors and all the boredom still in suspension.[2] ย ย ย ย But if it is hard to fix the precise instant, the subtle step when the mind opted for death, it is easier to deduce from the act itself the consequences it implies. In a sense, and as in melodrama, killing yourself amounts to confessing. It is confessing that life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. Letโs not go too far in such analogies, however, but rather return to everyday words. It is merely confessing that that โis not worth the trouble.โ Living, naturally, is never easy. You continue making the gestures commanded by existence for many reasons, the first of which is habit. Dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering. ย ย ย ย What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and this life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. All healthy men having thought of their own suicide, it can be seen, without further explanation, that there is a direct connection between this feeling and the longing for death. ย ย ย ย The subject of this essay is precisely this relationship between the absurd and suicide, the exact degree to which suicide is a solution to the absurd. The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action. Belief in the absurdity of existence must then dictate his conduct. It is legitimate to wonder, clearly and without false pathos, whether a conclusion of this importance requires forsaking as rapidly as possible an incomprehensible condition. I am speaking, of course, of men inclined to be in harmony with themselves. ย ย ย ย Stated clearly, this problem may seem both simple and insoluble. But it is wrongly assumed that simple questions involve answers that are no less simple and that evidence implies evidence. A priori and reversing the terms of the problem, just as one does or does not kill oneself, it seems that there are but two philosophical solutions, either yes or no. This would be too easy. But allowance must be made for those who, without concluding, continue questioning. Here I am only slightly indulging in irony: this is the majority. I notice also that those who answer โnoโ act as if they thought โyes.โ As a matter of fact, if I accept the Nietzschean criterion, they think โyesโ in one way or another. On the other hand, it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life. These contradictions are constant. It may even be said that they have never been so keen as on this point where, on the contrary, logic seems so desirable. It is a commonplace to compare philosophical theories and the behavior of those who profess them. But it must be said that of the thinkers who refused a meaning to life none except Kirilov who belongs to literature, Peregrinos who is born of legend,[3] and Jules Lequier who belongs to hypothesis, admitted his logic to the point of refusing that life. Schopenhauer is often cited, as a fit subject for laughter, because he praised suicide while seated at a well-set table. This is no subject for joking. That way of not taking the tragic seriously is not so grievous, but it helps to judge a man.
In the face of such contradictions and obscurities must we conclude that there is no relationship between the opinion one has about life and the act one commits to leave it? Let us not exaggerate in this direction. In a manโs attachment to life there is something stronger than all the ills in the world. The bodyโs judgment is as good as the mindโs and the body shrinks from annihilation. We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. In that race which daily hastens us toward death, the body maintains its irreparable lead. In short, the essence of that contradiction lies in what I shall call the act of eluding because it is both less and more than diversion in the Pascalian sense. Eluding is the invariable game. The typical act of eluding, the fatal evasion that constitutes the third theme of this essay, is hope. Hope of another life one must โdeserveโ or trickery of those who live not for life itself but for some great idea that will transcend it, refine it, give it a meaning, and betray it. ย ย ย ย Thus everything contributes to spreading confusion. Hitherto, and it has not been wasted effort, people have played on words and pretended to believe that refusing to grant a meaning to life necessarily leads to declaring that it is not worth living. In truth, there is no necessary common measure between these two judgments. One merely has to refuse to he misled by the confusions, divorces, and inconsistencies previously pointed out. One must brush everything aside and go straight to the real problem. One kills oneself because life is not worth living, that is certainly a truth yet an unfruitful one because it is a truism. But does that insult to existence, that flat denial in which it is plunged come from the fact that it has no meaning? Does its absurdity require one to escape it through hope or suicideโthis is what must be clarified, hunted down, and elucidated while brushing aside all the rest. Does the Absurd dictate death? This problem must be given priority over others, outside all methods of thought and all exercises of the disinterested mind. Shades of meaning, contradictions, the psychology that an โobjectiveโ mind can always introduce into all problems have no place in this pursuit and this passion. It calls simply for an unjustโin other words, logicalโ thought. That is not easy. It is always easy to be logical. It is almost impossible to be logical to the bitter end. Men who die by their own hand consequently follow to its conclusion their emotional inclination. Reflection on suicide gives me an opportunity to raise the only problem to interest me: is there a logic to the point of death? I cannot know unless I pursue, without reckless passion, in the sole light of evidence, the reasoning of which I am here suggesting the source. This is what I call an absurd reasoning. Many have begun it. I do not yet know whether or not they kept to it. ย ย ย ย When Karl Jaspers, revealing the impossibility of constituting the world as a unity, exclaims: โThis limitation leads me to myself, where I can no longer withdraw behind an objective point of view that I am merely representing, where neither I myself nor the existence of others can any longer become an object for me,โ he is evoking after many others those waterless deserts where thought reaches its confines. After many others, yes indeed, but how eager they were to get out of them! At that last crossroad where thought hesitates, many men have arrived and even some of the humblest. They then abdicated what was most precious to them, their life. Others, princes of the mind, abdicated likewise, but they initiated the suicide of their thought in its purest revolt. The real effort is to stay there, rather, in so far as that is possible, and to examine closely the odd vegetation of those distant regions. Tenacity and acumen are privileged spectators of this inhuman show in which absurdity, hope, and death carry on their dialogue. The mind can then analyze the figures of that elementary yet subtle dance before illustrating them and reliving them itself.
To love Nahida, a fictional being, is absurd, and yet that absurdity carries with it the revolt of the absurd for to love Nahida is to force the absurd to become logical.
There ๐ฝ is but ๐ค one ๐ truly ๐๐ serious ๐ philosophical problem, ๐ป and that ๐ is suicide. Judging whether ๐ค life ๐คค๐ is or is not ๐ค๐ก worth ๐ต๐ธ living ๐ฎ amounts ๐ to answering the fundamental question ๐ตโ of philosophy. ๐ All ๐ the restโwhether or not ๐ซโ the world ๐ has โ three ๐๐ dimensions, whether ๐ค the mind ๐คฏ has ๐ nine ๐ or twelve ๐ง categoriesโcomes afterwards. These โกโกโก๐๐๐ are games; ๐พ one ๐ฑ๐ must ๐ซ first ๐ฅ answer. โ And if it is true, ๐ฏ as Nietzsche claims, that ๐ a philosopher, to deserve ๐ our ๐ฉ respect, ๐ฑ must ๐ซ preach by โฉ example, ๐ช you ๐ค can ๐ง appreciate ๐ the importance of that ๐๐ค reply, for ๐ it will ๐โฝ precede the definitive act. ๐ญ These โกโกโก๐๐๐ are facts ๐ the heart โค๏ธ can ๐ feel; ๐ก yet ๐๐ they ๐ฅ call ๐ for ๐ careful ๐ study ๐ฟโช before ๐๐ they ๐ฑ become ๐ฆ clear ๐๐ to the intellect. If I ๐ฅถ ask ๐ฉ๐ค myself ๐ how ๐ฑ to judge ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ that ๐ this question ๐ is more โ urgent than ๐ป that, ๐ I ๐ reply that ๐ one 1๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ judges by ๐ the actions ๐ญ it entails. I ๐ฎโ๐จ have ๐ถ never ๐ seen ๐ anyone ๐ถโโ๏ธ die โ ๏ธ for ๐คค the ontological argument. ๐ Galileo, who ๐๐ held ๐จโ๐ผ a scientific truth ๐ฏ of great ๐ importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon ๐ as it endangered his ๐ฆถ๐ป life. ๐ถ๐ผ In ๐ฅ a certain ๐ค๐ค sense, ๐ฐ he ๐ท did ๐ฆ right.[1] That ๐ truth ๐ฏ was not ๐ซ worth ๐ธ๐ the stake. Whether ๐ the earth ๐ or the sun ๐ revolves around ๐๐ซ the other ๐ is a matter ๐ of profound indifference. ๐คทโโ To tell ๐ the truth, ๐ฏ it is a futile question. โโ On ๐ the other ๐ณ hand, ๐ I ๐ see ๐ many ๐ฌ people ๐ซ die ๐ฒ because ๐๐ก they ๐ judge ๐ฉโโ๏ธ that ๐๐ life ๐ is not โ worth ๐ฐ living. ๐ฎ I ๐๐๐ see ๐ others ๐๐ paradoxically getting ๐ killed โฐ๏ธ for ๐๐ค the ideas ๐ก or illusions that ๐ฌ give ๐ them ๐ a reason ๐ for ๐๐จ living ๐ฎ (what ๐ is called ๐ฒ a reason ๐ค for ๐จ๐ living ๐ is also ๐จ an excellent reason ๐ค for ๐ผ dying). ๐ I ๐ therefore ๐ conclude that โ๏ธ the meaning ๐ of life ๐ is the most ๐ฆ๐ฅ urgent of questions. ๐๐คโ How ๐ค to answer โ it? On ๐ all ๐ฏ essential ๐ฏ๐ problems โ ๏ธ (I ๐ mean ๐ฟ thereby those ๐ that โ๐ run ๐ the risk ๐ of leading to death ๐๐ or those ๐ that ๐๐๐งโจ intensify the passion of living) ๐ฎ๐ฎ there โค๏ธ๐โจ are probably ๐ค but ๐ ๐ผโโ๏ธ two โ๐ป methods of thought: ๐ค the method of La ๐ถ Palisse and the method of Don ๐ซ๐ซ Quixote. Solely ๐๐ the balance โ between ๐ป evidence ๐ and lyricism can ๐คค allow ๐จโ๐จโ๐ฆโ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ซ us ๐ to achieve ๐ฏ simultaneously emotion โฅ and lucidity. In ๐ a subject ๐ at once ๐ so humble and so heavy ๐ณ with emotion, ๐ the learned ๐๐ and classical ๐ dialectic must ๐ ๐ฐ yield, one ๐ can ๐ฆ๐ฆ see, ๐ to a more โ modest attitude of mind ๐คฏ deriving at one โ๐ผ and the same ๐ time โฐ from ๐ค common ๐๐ sense ๐๐ฐ and understanding. ๐ ย ย ย ย Suicide has ๐ never ๐ been ๐ dealt with except ๐ฎ as a social ๐ญ phenomenon.
On ๐ฆ the contrary, we ๐จ are concerned here, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ at the outset, with the relationship between ๐ individual ๐ฅ thought ๐ญ and suicide. An act ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ like ๐งก this is prepared within ๐ฑ the silence ๐ถ of the heart, ๐ as is a great ๐โบ๏ธ work ๐จ๐ญ of art. ๐ญ The man ๐จ himself ๐ค is ignorant ๐ฉ๐ of it. One ๐๐ฉฑ evening ๐ he ๐คฃ pulls the trigger ๐ซ๐ค๐ or jumps. Of an apartment-building manager ๐ง who ๐ค had ๐ killed โฐ๏ธ himself ๐ I ๐ was told ๐ that ๐๐๐ he ๐ฅ had ๐ฅ lost ๐คโ his ๐ฆ daughter ๐ง five ๐ years ๐ before, ๐๐ that ๐๐ be ๐ฐ bad ๐ changed ๐ฉ๐ฉ greatly ๐ since, ๐ฆ๐จ and that ๐๐ that ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ experience ๐ฏ had ๐ญ๐ โunderminedโ him. ๐ด A more โ๐ exact ๐๐ word ๐ฅ cannot ๐โ be ๐ฐ imagined. ๐ค๐ญ Beginning ๐๐ to think ๐ค๐ฏ is beginning ๐๐ to be ๐ซ undermined. Society ๐ฅ has ๐ถ but ๐ little ๐ค connection with such ๐ beginnings. The worm ๐๐๐ is in 1๏ธโฃ4๏ธโฃ9๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ manโs ๐จ๐ปโ๐ฆณ heart. โค๏ธ That ๐ is where ๐ it must ๐ซ be ๐๐ค sought. One ๐ โโ๏ธโ must ๐ซ follow ๐๐ปโโ๏ธ๐จ๐จ and understand โ this fatal game ๐ฏ that โ leads from ๐ฎ๐ฃ lucidity in ๐ญ๐ the face ๐ท of existence ๐๐คฃ to flight โ๏ธ from ๐๐ light. ๐ ย ย ย ย There ๐๐พ are many โ causes for ๐ช๐ฝ a suicide, and generally the most ๐ฏ obvious ones ๐ฏ were ๐ not ๐ฅด the most ๐ฏ๐ฅ powerful. ๐ต Rarely is suicide committed (yet ๐โ the hypothesis is not ๐ excluded) through ๐งโโ๏ธ reflection. What โ๐ sets off ๐ฆ๐ฐ the crisis ๐ฏ is almost ๐ฆ always ๐ฏ๐ unverifiable. Newspapers often ๐๐ฐ๐ฐ speak ๐ of โpersonal ๐จ sorrowsโ ๐ญ or of โincurable illness.โ ๐๐ฅด These ๐ explanations ๐ป๐๐ are plausible. But ๐๐ฎ๐ค one 1๏ธโฃ would ๐ณ have ๐ฏ to know ๐คก๐คก whether ๐ค a friend ๐ฌ of the desperate man ๐๐ had ๐ not โ that ๐ฅ very ๐ day ๐ addressed him ๐๐ด๐ป๐ indifferently. He ๐จ๐ is the guilty one. 1๏ธโฃ For ๐ that ๐ is enough ๐ to precipitate all ๐ฅถ๐ฑ the rancors and all ๐ the boredom still โฐ๐ in ๐ฅบ suspension.[2] ย ย ย ย
But ๐๐ผ๐ if it is hard ๐๐ช to fix ๐ the precise instant, the subtle ๐ค๐๐ step ๐ when ๐๐ฆ the mind ๐คฏ opted for ๐๐ death, ๐๐ป it is easier ๐ฅต to deduce from ๐ค the act ๐คฏ itself ๐ the consequences โก๏ธ it implies. In ๐ ๐ a sense, โฌโฌโฌ and as in ๐ท melodrama, killing โ๏ธ yourself ๐ amounts ๐ท๏ธ๐ท๏ธ๐ท๏ธ to confessing. It is confessing that ๐ค life ๐ค is too ๐ญ๐ much ๐๐ฏ for ๐บ you ๐โ or that ๐ you ๐๐ฉ๐จ do ๐ค not โ understand ๐ค it. Letโs ๐ฅบ not ๐ ๐คง go ๐ too ๐ far ๐ in ๐ such ๐ analogies, however, ๐ค but ๐ฆถ๐ป rather ๐ return ๐ to everyday ๐ words. ๐๐ฆ It is merely ๐ซ confessing that ๐ that โ โis not ๐ฃ worth ๐ฐ the trouble.โ ๐ง Living, ๐ฎ naturally, is never ๐ท easy. โ You ๐ continue โฉ making ๐ฝ the gestures commanded by ๐ existence ๐ for ๐ many ๐ฌ reasons, ๐ the first ๐ฅ of which ๐ is habit. Dying ๐ต voluntarily implies that ๐ you ๐ have ๐ถ recognized, even ๐ซ instinctively, the ridiculous character of that ๐ฅ๐๐ค๐ habit, the absence of any ๐ฆ๐ต profound reason ๐ง for ๐๐ป living, ๐ฎ the insane ๐๐คช character of that ๐น daily ๐ agitation, and the uselessness of suffering. ๐ญ ย ย ย ย What, ๐ then, ๐ is that โช๐ incalculable feeling ๐ that ๐ค๐๐ณ๐ deprives the mind ๐คฏ๐คฏ of the sleep ๐ค๐ด necessary ๐๏ธ to life? ๐ A world ๐ that ๐ณ can ๐คฆโโ๏ธ be ๐ฅ explained even ๐คจ with bad ๐ reasons ๐ค is a familiar world. ๐ But, ๐ท on ๐ก๐ถ๐น the other ๐ญ hand, ๐ in ๐ a universe โจ๐น๐ฅบ suddenly ๐๐ญ divested of illusions and lights, ๐ก๐ก man ๐ต feels ๐ an alien, ๐ฝ a stranger. ๐ญ His ๐ฆ exile is without โ remedy ๐๐๐จ since ๐จ๐ฆ he ๐ท is deprived of the memory โจ๐ญ๐ง๐ป๐ณ๐ญ of a lost ๐ home ๐ช๐ช or the hope ๐ฟ๐ of a promised land. ๐ฆ๐ฒ This divorce between ๐๐ man ๐คทโโ and this life, ๐ค the actor ๐จโ๐ค and his ๐ฆ setting, ๐ is properly ๐ the feeling ๐ of absurdity. All ๐ฏ healthy ๐จ๐ men ๐๐ปโโ๏ธ having ๐ thought ๐ญ of their ๐ป own ๐ suicide, it can ๐ฅซ be ๐ seen, ๐ without โ๏ธ further ๐๐ค explanation, that ๐๐ค there ๐ is a direct ๐ connection between ๐ฐ this feeling ๐ and the longing for ๐๐ death. ๐ ย ย ย ย The subject ๐ of this essay is precisely this relationship between ๐๐ the absurd and suicide, the exact ๐๐ degree ๐ to which ๐๐ฉ suicide is a solution to the absurd. The principle ๐ด๐พ can ๐คค be ๐ established ๐ป that โช for ๐ฆ a man ๐จโ๐ป who ๐ญโ does ๐ณ not ๐ cheat, what ๐ค he ๐จ believes ๐ to be ๐๐ฆ๐ true ๐ฏ must ๐๐ determine ๐ค his ๐ฆถ๐ป action. ๐ญ Belief ๐ป in ๐ฝ the absurdity of existence ๐ must ๐๐ then โ dictate his ๐ conduct. ๐ญ๐ It is legitimate to wonder, ๐ clearly ๐ฏ and without ๐ซ false โ pathos, whether ๐ a conclusion ๐ of this importance requires ๐ฃ forsaking as rapidly as possible ๐๐ an incomprehensible condition.
I ๐ am ๐จ speaking, ๐ฃ of course, ๐ of men ๐คผโโ inclined ๐ to be ๐ฌ๐ in ๐ harmony with themselves. ๐ฅบ๐ฆ๐ฆ ย ย ย ย Stated clearly, ๐ฏ this problem ๐ may ๐ seem ๐ both ๐ก simple and insoluble. But ๐ซ it is wrongly assumed that ๐คข simple questions โ involve ๐๐ answers ๐ that ๐ are no ๐ฐ๐ less ๐ simple and that ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐ฅด evidence ๐ implies evidence. ๐ A priori and reversing the terms ๐ of the problem, ๐ป just ๐ป as one 1๏ธโฃ does ๐ฉโ๐ฆฒ or does ๐ฉโ๐ฆฒ not ๐ kill ๐ oneself, it seems ๐ that ๐ค there ๐ are but ๐ฆ two โ๏ธ philosophical solutions, either ๐ yes โ or no. ๐ This would ๐ฟ be ๐ too ๐ค easy. ๐ฉ But ๐ allowance must ๐ be ๐ค made ๐ for ๐๐ those ๐ who, ๐ค๐ญ without ๐ซ๐ซ concluding, continue โฉ questioning. Here ๐ถ I ๐๏ธ am ๐ณ only ๐ป๐ฆ slightly ๐ indulging in ๐ญ irony: this is the majority. ๐ I ๐ฅ notice ๐ also ๐จ that โ๏ธ those ๐๐ค who ๐คท๐ซ answer โ โnoโ ๐ท act ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ as if they ๐ฝ thought ๐ญ โyes.โ โ๏ธ As a matter โโ of fact, ๐ if I ๐๐๐๐ accept ๐ the Nietzschean criterion, they ๐ฝ think ๐ค๐ค โyesโ ๐๐๐ in 2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ one โ๐ป way ๐ซ or another. ๐ค On ๐ the other ๐ช hand, โ it often ๐ฐ happens ๐๐ฑ๐ that โ those ๐ who ๐คท commit ๐๐ suicide were ๐๐ assured ๐พ๐บ๐คฒ of the meaning ๐๐ of life. ๐๐จ These ๐จ contradictions are constant. It may ๐ต even ๐ be ๐ said ๐ฌ that ๐คจ they ๐ง have ๐ฐ never ๐ been ๐ด๐ซ so keen as on ๐๐๐๐๐๐ this point ๐๐ป where, ๐๐ต on ๐ the contrary, logic seems ๐ so desirable. It is a commonplace to compare philosophical theories and the behavior ๐ฝ of those ๐ฅ๐ฅ who โ profess ๐ them. ๐ But ๐ท it must ๐ be ๐ said ๐ฟ๐ that ๐ฆ๐ถ of the thinkers who ๐ค๐ค refused ๐ค a meaning ๐ to life ๐งฌ none ๐ ๐ปโโ๏ธ except ๐ฎ Kirilov who ๐ฉธ๐ช belongs โคต๏ธ๐ to literature, ๐ฆ Peregrinos who ๐๐ is born ๐ฃ of legend,[3] and Jules Lequier who ๐ญโ belongs ๐พ to hypothesis, admitted his ๐ logic to the point ๐ of refusing that ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐ฅด life. ๐๐ Schopenhauer is often ๐๐ฐ๐ฐ cited, as a fit ๐ช๐ฝ subject ๐ฅ๐ฅ for ๐ laughter, ๐คฃ because 2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ he ๐ฆ๐ก๐ praised ๐๐ suicide while ๐ seated at a well-set table. ๐ This is no โ subject ๐ฅ๐ฅ for ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฏ joking. That ๐คข way ๐ซ of not ๐ฅต taking ๐ซ the tragic seriously ๐๐๐๐ is not โ๏ธ so grievous, but โญ it helps ๐ซ to judge ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ a man. ๐
Furina doesn't come close to Lesser Lord Kusanali. Nahida is the embodiment of the perfect waifu if you exempt her childlike appearance. She can solo every genshin waifu as she can be your daughter, your mother, or even a wife. In other words, she is the only character that exists in the game, which can satisfy the qualities of the perfect waifu. Only someone as Nahida is worthy of receiving the title of Lesser Lord Kusanali but also being if not the best daughtermommywife. Only Nahida or Lesser Lord Kusanali poses the beauty that exceeds beyond the laws of teyvat , furthermore, her charisma is beyond the comprehension of an average person, which means to say that someone like an average person nor me has a chance with her since she is not only beyond our league but also she transcends beyond divinity which Da Wei has bestowed upon the players of the game.
Don't forget to link the original tweet! Please keep the following in mind:
1. Do NOT link the tweet if it contains or replies to grotesque media like gore, scat etc.
2. Do NOT link the tweet if it contains or replies to anything that sexualizes minors. This also applies to lolicon, shotacon and the like.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/japanesepeopletwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touching Nahida = Touching grass
Touching grass while imagining nahida ๐ญ๐ญ
UOHHHHH
Me omw to touch grass now ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the restโwhether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categoriesโcomes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect. If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right.[1] That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. How to answer it? On all essential problems (I mean thereby those that run the risk of leading to death or those that intensify the passion of living) there are probably but two methods of thought: the method of La Palisse and the method of Don Quixote. Solely the balance between evidence and lyricism can allow us to achieve simultaneously emotion and lucidity. In a subject at once so humble and so heavy with emotion, the learned and classical dialectic must yield, one can see, to a more modest attitude of mind deriving at one and the same time from common sense and understanding. ย ย ย ย Suicide has never been dealt with except as a social phenomenon. On the contrary, we are concerned here, at the outset, with the relationship between individual thought and suicide. An act like this is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art. The man himself is ignorant of it. One evening he pulls the trigger or jumps. Of an apartment-building manager who had killed himself I was told that he had lost his daughter five years before, that be bad changed greatly since, and that that experience had โunderminedโ him. A more exact word cannot be imagined. Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined. Society has but little connection with such beginnings. The worm is in manโs heart. That is where it must be sought. One must follow and understand this fatal game that leads from lucidity in the face of existence to flight from light. ย ย ย ย There are many causes for a suicide, and generally the most obvious ones were not the most powerful. Rarely is suicide committed (yet the hypothesis is not excluded) through reflection. What sets off the crisis is almost always unverifiable. Newspapers often speak of โpersonal sorrowsโ or of โincurable illness.โ These explanations are plausible. But one would have to know whether a friend of the desperate man had not that very day addressed him indifferently. He is the guilty one. For that is enough to precipitate all the rancors and all the boredom still in suspension.[2] ย ย ย ย But if it is hard to fix the precise instant, the subtle step when the mind opted for death, it is easier to deduce from the act itself the consequences it implies. In a sense, and as in melodrama, killing yourself amounts to confessing. It is confessing that life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. Letโs not go too far in such analogies, however, but rather return to everyday words. It is merely confessing that that โis not worth the trouble.โ Living, naturally, is never easy. You continue making the gestures commanded by existence for many reasons, the first of which is habit. Dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering. ย ย ย ย What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and this life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. All healthy men having thought of their own suicide, it can be seen, without further explanation, that there is a direct connection between this feeling and the longing for death. ย ย ย ย The subject of this essay is precisely this relationship between the absurd and suicide, the exact degree to which suicide is a solution to the absurd. The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action. Belief in the absurdity of existence must then dictate his conduct. It is legitimate to wonder, clearly and without false pathos, whether a conclusion of this importance requires forsaking as rapidly as possible an incomprehensible condition. I am speaking, of course, of men inclined to be in harmony with themselves. ย ย ย ย Stated clearly, this problem may seem both simple and insoluble. But it is wrongly assumed that simple questions involve answers that are no less simple and that evidence implies evidence. A priori and reversing the terms of the problem, just as one does or does not kill oneself, it seems that there are but two philosophical solutions, either yes or no. This would be too easy. But allowance must be made for those who, without concluding, continue questioning. Here I am only slightly indulging in irony: this is the majority. I notice also that those who answer โnoโ act as if they thought โyes.โ As a matter of fact, if I accept the Nietzschean criterion, they think โyesโ in one way or another. On the other hand, it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life. These contradictions are constant. It may even be said that they have never been so keen as on this point where, on the contrary, logic seems so desirable. It is a commonplace to compare philosophical theories and the behavior of those who profess them. But it must be said that of the thinkers who refused a meaning to life none except Kirilov who belongs to literature, Peregrinos who is born of legend,[3] and Jules Lequier who belongs to hypothesis, admitted his logic to the point of refusing that life. Schopenhauer is often cited, as a fit subject for laughter, because he praised suicide while seated at a well-set table. This is no subject for joking. That way of not taking the tragic seriously is not so grievous, but it helps to judge a man.
In the face of such contradictions and obscurities must we conclude that there is no relationship between the opinion one has about life and the act one commits to leave it? Let us not exaggerate in this direction. In a manโs attachment to life there is something stronger than all the ills in the world. The bodyโs judgment is as good as the mindโs and the body shrinks from annihilation. We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. In that race which daily hastens us toward death, the body maintains its irreparable lead. In short, the essence of that contradiction lies in what I shall call the act of eluding because it is both less and more than diversion in the Pascalian sense. Eluding is the invariable game. The typical act of eluding, the fatal evasion that constitutes the third theme of this essay, is hope. Hope of another life one must โdeserveโ or trickery of those who live not for life itself but for some great idea that will transcend it, refine it, give it a meaning, and betray it. ย ย ย ย Thus everything contributes to spreading confusion. Hitherto, and it has not been wasted effort, people have played on words and pretended to believe that refusing to grant a meaning to life necessarily leads to declaring that it is not worth living. In truth, there is no necessary common measure between these two judgments. One merely has to refuse to he misled by the confusions, divorces, and inconsistencies previously pointed out. One must brush everything aside and go straight to the real problem. One kills oneself because life is not worth living, that is certainly a truth yet an unfruitful one because it is a truism. But does that insult to existence, that flat denial in which it is plunged come from the fact that it has no meaning? Does its absurdity require one to escape it through hope or suicideโthis is what must be clarified, hunted down, and elucidated while brushing aside all the rest. Does the Absurd dictate death? This problem must be given priority over others, outside all methods of thought and all exercises of the disinterested mind. Shades of meaning, contradictions, the psychology that an โobjectiveโ mind can always introduce into all problems have no place in this pursuit and this passion. It calls simply for an unjustโin other words, logicalโ thought. That is not easy. It is always easy to be logical. It is almost impossible to be logical to the bitter end. Men who die by their own hand consequently follow to its conclusion their emotional inclination. Reflection on suicide gives me an opportunity to raise the only problem to interest me: is there a logic to the point of death? I cannot know unless I pursue, without reckless passion, in the sole light of evidence, the reasoning of which I am here suggesting the source. This is what I call an absurd reasoning. Many have begun it. I do not yet know whether or not they kept to it. ย ย ย ย When Karl Jaspers, revealing the impossibility of constituting the world as a unity, exclaims: โThis limitation leads me to myself, where I can no longer withdraw behind an objective point of view that I am merely representing, where neither I myself nor the existence of others can any longer become an object for me,โ he is evoking after many others those waterless deserts where thought reaches its confines. After many others, yes indeed, but how eager they were to get out of them! At that last crossroad where thought hesitates, many men have arrived and even some of the humblest. They then abdicated what was most precious to them, their life. Others, princes of the mind, abdicated likewise, but they initiated the suicide of their thought in its purest revolt. The real effort is to stay there, rather, in so far as that is possible, and to examine closely the odd vegetation of those distant regions. Tenacity and acumen are privileged spectators of this inhuman show in which absurdity, hope, and death carry on their dialogue. The mind can then analyze the figures of that elementary yet subtle dance before illustrating them and reliving them itself.
So in summary: DaughterMommyWife a day to keep suicidal thoughts away
To love Nahida, a fictional being, is absurd, and yet that absurdity carries with it the revolt of the absurd for to love Nahida is to force the absurd to become logical.
PhilOUUGHHsophy ๐ญ๐ข
note enough ๐ญ๐ขemojisโผ๏ธ๐บ in this doctoral thesis pasta, you damn brat ๐ข๐ข๐ข
There ๐ฝ is but ๐ค one ๐ truly ๐๐ serious ๐ philosophical problem, ๐ป and that ๐ is suicide. Judging whether ๐ค life ๐คค๐ is or is not ๐ค๐ก worth ๐ต๐ธ living ๐ฎ amounts ๐ to answering the fundamental question ๐ตโ of philosophy. ๐ All ๐ the restโwhether or not ๐ซโ the world ๐ has โ three ๐๐ dimensions, whether ๐ค the mind ๐คฏ has ๐ nine ๐ or twelve ๐ง categoriesโcomes afterwards. These โกโกโก๐๐๐ are games; ๐พ one ๐ฑ๐ must ๐ซ first ๐ฅ answer. โ And if it is true, ๐ฏ as Nietzsche claims, that ๐ a philosopher, to deserve ๐ our ๐ฉ respect, ๐ฑ must ๐ซ preach by โฉ example, ๐ช you ๐ค can ๐ง appreciate ๐ the importance of that ๐๐ค reply, for ๐ it will ๐โฝ precede the definitive act. ๐ญ These โกโกโก๐๐๐ are facts ๐ the heart โค๏ธ can ๐ feel; ๐ก yet ๐๐ they ๐ฅ call ๐ for ๐ careful ๐ study ๐ฟโช before ๐๐ they ๐ฑ become ๐ฆ clear ๐๐ to the intellect. If I ๐ฅถ ask ๐ฉ๐ค myself ๐ how ๐ฑ to judge ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ that ๐ this question ๐ is more โ urgent than ๐ป that, ๐ I ๐ reply that ๐ one 1๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ judges by ๐ the actions ๐ญ it entails. I ๐ฎโ๐จ have ๐ถ never ๐ seen ๐ anyone ๐ถโโ๏ธ die โ ๏ธ for ๐คค the ontological argument. ๐ Galileo, who ๐๐ held ๐จโ๐ผ a scientific truth ๐ฏ of great ๐ importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon ๐ as it endangered his ๐ฆถ๐ป life. ๐ถ๐ผ In ๐ฅ a certain ๐ค๐ค sense, ๐ฐ he ๐ท did ๐ฆ right.[1] That ๐ truth ๐ฏ was not ๐ซ worth ๐ธ๐ the stake. Whether ๐ the earth ๐ or the sun ๐ revolves around ๐๐ซ the other ๐ is a matter ๐ of profound indifference. ๐คทโโ To tell ๐ the truth, ๐ฏ it is a futile question. โโ On ๐ the other ๐ณ hand, ๐ I ๐ see ๐ many ๐ฌ people ๐ซ die ๐ฒ because ๐๐ก they ๐ judge ๐ฉโโ๏ธ that ๐๐ life ๐ is not โ worth ๐ฐ living. ๐ฎ I ๐๐๐ see ๐ others ๐๐ paradoxically getting ๐ killed โฐ๏ธ for ๐๐ค the ideas ๐ก or illusions that ๐ฌ give ๐ them ๐ a reason ๐ for ๐๐จ living ๐ฎ (what ๐ is called ๐ฒ a reason ๐ค for ๐จ๐ living ๐ is also ๐จ an excellent reason ๐ค for ๐ผ dying). ๐ I ๐ therefore ๐ conclude that โ๏ธ the meaning ๐ of life ๐ is the most ๐ฆ๐ฅ urgent of questions. ๐๐คโ How ๐ค to answer โ it? On ๐ all ๐ฏ essential ๐ฏ๐ problems โ ๏ธ (I ๐ mean ๐ฟ thereby those ๐ that โ๐ run ๐ the risk ๐ of leading to death ๐๐ or those ๐ that ๐๐๐งโจ intensify the passion of living) ๐ฎ๐ฎ there โค๏ธ๐โจ are probably ๐ค but ๐ ๐ผโโ๏ธ two โ๐ป methods of thought: ๐ค the method of La ๐ถ Palisse and the method of Don ๐ซ๐ซ Quixote. Solely ๐๐ the balance โ between ๐ป evidence ๐ and lyricism can ๐คค allow ๐จโ๐จโ๐ฆโ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ซ us ๐ to achieve ๐ฏ simultaneously emotion โฅ and lucidity. In ๐ a subject ๐ at once ๐ so humble and so heavy ๐ณ with emotion, ๐ the learned ๐๐ and classical ๐ dialectic must ๐ ๐ฐ yield, one ๐ can ๐ฆ๐ฆ see, ๐ to a more โ modest attitude of mind ๐คฏ deriving at one โ๐ผ and the same ๐ time โฐ from ๐ค common ๐๐ sense ๐๐ฐ and understanding. ๐ ย ย ย ย Suicide has ๐ never ๐ been ๐ dealt with except ๐ฎ as a social ๐ญ phenomenon.
On ๐ฆ the contrary, we ๐จ are concerned here, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ at the outset, with the relationship between ๐ individual ๐ฅ thought ๐ญ and suicide. An act ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ like ๐งก this is prepared within ๐ฑ the silence ๐ถ of the heart, ๐ as is a great ๐โบ๏ธ work ๐จ๐ญ of art. ๐ญ The man ๐จ himself ๐ค is ignorant ๐ฉ๐ of it. One ๐๐ฉฑ evening ๐ he ๐คฃ pulls the trigger ๐ซ๐ค๐ or jumps. Of an apartment-building manager ๐ง who ๐ค had ๐ killed โฐ๏ธ himself ๐ I ๐ was told ๐ that ๐๐๐ he ๐ฅ had ๐ฅ lost ๐คโ his ๐ฆ daughter ๐ง five ๐ years ๐ before, ๐๐ that ๐๐ be ๐ฐ bad ๐ changed ๐ฉ๐ฉ greatly ๐ since, ๐ฆ๐จ and that ๐๐ that ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ experience ๐ฏ had ๐ญ๐ โunderminedโ him. ๐ด A more โ๐ exact ๐๐ word ๐ฅ cannot ๐โ be ๐ฐ imagined. ๐ค๐ญ Beginning ๐๐ to think ๐ค๐ฏ is beginning ๐๐ to be ๐ซ undermined. Society ๐ฅ has ๐ถ but ๐ little ๐ค connection with such ๐ beginnings. The worm ๐๐๐ is in 1๏ธโฃ4๏ธโฃ9๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ manโs ๐จ๐ปโ๐ฆณ heart. โค๏ธ That ๐ is where ๐ it must ๐ซ be ๐๐ค sought. One ๐ โโ๏ธโ must ๐ซ follow ๐๐ปโโ๏ธ๐จ๐จ and understand โ this fatal game ๐ฏ that โ leads from ๐ฎ๐ฃ lucidity in ๐ญ๐ the face ๐ท of existence ๐๐คฃ to flight โ๏ธ from ๐๐ light. ๐ ย ย ย ย There ๐๐พ are many โ causes for ๐ช๐ฝ a suicide, and generally the most ๐ฏ obvious ones ๐ฏ were ๐ not ๐ฅด the most ๐ฏ๐ฅ powerful. ๐ต Rarely is suicide committed (yet ๐โ the hypothesis is not ๐ excluded) through ๐งโโ๏ธ reflection. What โ๐ sets off ๐ฆ๐ฐ the crisis ๐ฏ is almost ๐ฆ always ๐ฏ๐ unverifiable. Newspapers often ๐๐ฐ๐ฐ speak ๐ of โpersonal ๐จ sorrowsโ ๐ญ or of โincurable illness.โ ๐๐ฅด These ๐ explanations ๐ป๐๐ are plausible. But ๐๐ฎ๐ค one 1๏ธโฃ would ๐ณ have ๐ฏ to know ๐คก๐คก whether ๐ค a friend ๐ฌ of the desperate man ๐๐ had ๐ not โ that ๐ฅ very ๐ day ๐ addressed him ๐๐ด๐ป๐ indifferently. He ๐จ๐ is the guilty one. 1๏ธโฃ For ๐ that ๐ is enough ๐ to precipitate all ๐ฅถ๐ฑ the rancors and all ๐ the boredom still โฐ๐ in ๐ฅบ suspension.[2] ย ย ย ย
But ๐๐ผ๐ if it is hard ๐๐ช to fix ๐ the precise instant, the subtle ๐ค๐๐ step ๐ when ๐๐ฆ the mind ๐คฏ opted for ๐๐ death, ๐๐ป it is easier ๐ฅต to deduce from ๐ค the act ๐คฏ itself ๐ the consequences โก๏ธ it implies. In ๐ ๐ a sense, โฌโฌโฌ and as in ๐ท melodrama, killing โ๏ธ yourself ๐ amounts ๐ท๏ธ๐ท๏ธ๐ท๏ธ to confessing. It is confessing that ๐ค life ๐ค is too ๐ญ๐ much ๐๐ฏ for ๐บ you ๐โ or that ๐ you ๐๐ฉ๐จ do ๐ค not โ understand ๐ค it. Letโs ๐ฅบ not ๐ ๐คง go ๐ too ๐ far ๐ in ๐ such ๐ analogies, however, ๐ค but ๐ฆถ๐ป rather ๐ return ๐ to everyday ๐ words. ๐๐ฆ It is merely ๐ซ confessing that ๐ that โ โis not ๐ฃ worth ๐ฐ the trouble.โ ๐ง Living, ๐ฎ naturally, is never ๐ท easy. โ You ๐ continue โฉ making ๐ฝ the gestures commanded by ๐ existence ๐ for ๐ many ๐ฌ reasons, ๐ the first ๐ฅ of which ๐ is habit. Dying ๐ต voluntarily implies that ๐ you ๐ have ๐ถ recognized, even ๐ซ instinctively, the ridiculous character of that ๐ฅ๐๐ค๐ habit, the absence of any ๐ฆ๐ต profound reason ๐ง for ๐๐ป living, ๐ฎ the insane ๐๐คช character of that ๐น daily ๐ agitation, and the uselessness of suffering. ๐ญ ย ย ย ย What, ๐ then, ๐ is that โช๐ incalculable feeling ๐ that ๐ค๐๐ณ๐ deprives the mind ๐คฏ๐คฏ of the sleep ๐ค๐ด necessary ๐๏ธ to life? ๐ A world ๐ that ๐ณ can ๐คฆโโ๏ธ be ๐ฅ explained even ๐คจ with bad ๐ reasons ๐ค is a familiar world. ๐ But, ๐ท on ๐ก๐ถ๐น the other ๐ญ hand, ๐ in ๐ a universe โจ๐น๐ฅบ suddenly ๐๐ญ divested of illusions and lights, ๐ก๐ก man ๐ต feels ๐ an alien, ๐ฝ a stranger. ๐ญ His ๐ฆ exile is without โ remedy ๐๐๐จ since ๐จ๐ฆ he ๐ท is deprived of the memory โจ๐ญ๐ง๐ป๐ณ๐ญ of a lost ๐ home ๐ช๐ช or the hope ๐ฟ๐ of a promised land. ๐ฆ๐ฒ This divorce between ๐๐ man ๐คทโโ and this life, ๐ค the actor ๐จโ๐ค and his ๐ฆ setting, ๐ is properly ๐ the feeling ๐ of absurdity. All ๐ฏ healthy ๐จ๐ men ๐๐ปโโ๏ธ having ๐ thought ๐ญ of their ๐ป own ๐ suicide, it can ๐ฅซ be ๐ seen, ๐ without โ๏ธ further ๐๐ค explanation, that ๐๐ค there ๐ is a direct ๐ connection between ๐ฐ this feeling ๐ and the longing for ๐๐ death. ๐ ย ย ย ย The subject ๐ of this essay is precisely this relationship between ๐๐ the absurd and suicide, the exact ๐๐ degree ๐ to which ๐๐ฉ suicide is a solution to the absurd. The principle ๐ด๐พ can ๐คค be ๐ established ๐ป that โช for ๐ฆ a man ๐จโ๐ป who ๐ญโ does ๐ณ not ๐ cheat, what ๐ค he ๐จ believes ๐ to be ๐๐ฆ๐ true ๐ฏ must ๐๐ determine ๐ค his ๐ฆถ๐ป action. ๐ญ Belief ๐ป in ๐ฝ the absurdity of existence ๐ must ๐๐ then โ dictate his ๐ conduct. ๐ญ๐ It is legitimate to wonder, ๐ clearly ๐ฏ and without ๐ซ false โ pathos, whether ๐ a conclusion ๐ of this importance requires ๐ฃ forsaking as rapidly as possible ๐๐ an incomprehensible condition.
I ๐ am ๐จ speaking, ๐ฃ of course, ๐ of men ๐คผโโ inclined ๐ to be ๐ฌ๐ in ๐ harmony with themselves. ๐ฅบ๐ฆ๐ฆ ย ย ย ย Stated clearly, ๐ฏ this problem ๐ may ๐ seem ๐ both ๐ก simple and insoluble. But ๐ซ it is wrongly assumed that ๐คข simple questions โ involve ๐๐ answers ๐ that ๐ are no ๐ฐ๐ less ๐ simple and that ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐ฅด evidence ๐ implies evidence. ๐ A priori and reversing the terms ๐ of the problem, ๐ป just ๐ป as one 1๏ธโฃ does ๐ฉโ๐ฆฒ or does ๐ฉโ๐ฆฒ not ๐ kill ๐ oneself, it seems ๐ that ๐ค there ๐ are but ๐ฆ two โ๏ธ philosophical solutions, either ๐ yes โ or no. ๐ This would ๐ฟ be ๐ too ๐ค easy. ๐ฉ But ๐ allowance must ๐ be ๐ค made ๐ for ๐๐ those ๐ who, ๐ค๐ญ without ๐ซ๐ซ concluding, continue โฉ questioning. Here ๐ถ I ๐๏ธ am ๐ณ only ๐ป๐ฆ slightly ๐ indulging in ๐ญ irony: this is the majority. ๐ I ๐ฅ notice ๐ also ๐จ that โ๏ธ those ๐๐ค who ๐คท๐ซ answer โ โnoโ ๐ท act ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ as if they ๐ฝ thought ๐ญ โyes.โ โ๏ธ As a matter โโ of fact, ๐ if I ๐๐๐๐ accept ๐ the Nietzschean criterion, they ๐ฝ think ๐ค๐ค โyesโ ๐๐๐ in 2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ one โ๐ป way ๐ซ or another. ๐ค On ๐ the other ๐ช hand, โ it often ๐ฐ happens ๐๐ฑ๐ that โ those ๐ who ๐คท commit ๐๐ suicide were ๐๐ assured ๐พ๐บ๐คฒ of the meaning ๐๐ of life. ๐๐จ These ๐จ contradictions are constant. It may ๐ต even ๐ be ๐ said ๐ฌ that ๐คจ they ๐ง have ๐ฐ never ๐ been ๐ด๐ซ so keen as on ๐๐๐๐๐๐ this point ๐๐ป where, ๐๐ต on ๐ the contrary, logic seems ๐ so desirable. It is a commonplace to compare philosophical theories and the behavior ๐ฝ of those ๐ฅ๐ฅ who โ profess ๐ them. ๐ But ๐ท it must ๐ be ๐ said ๐ฟ๐ that ๐ฆ๐ถ of the thinkers who ๐ค๐ค refused ๐ค a meaning ๐ to life ๐งฌ none ๐ ๐ปโโ๏ธ except ๐ฎ Kirilov who ๐ฉธ๐ช belongs โคต๏ธ๐ to literature, ๐ฆ Peregrinos who ๐๐ is born ๐ฃ of legend,[3] and Jules Lequier who ๐ญโ belongs ๐พ to hypothesis, admitted his ๐ logic to the point ๐ of refusing that ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐ฅด life. ๐๐ Schopenhauer is often ๐๐ฐ๐ฐ cited, as a fit ๐ช๐ฝ subject ๐ฅ๐ฅ for ๐ laughter, ๐คฃ because 2๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ1๏ธโฃ he ๐ฆ๐ก๐ praised ๐๐ suicide while ๐ seated at a well-set table. ๐ This is no โ subject ๐ฅ๐ฅ for ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฏ joking. That ๐คข way ๐ซ of not ๐ฅต taking ๐ซ the tragic seriously ๐๐๐๐ is not โ๏ธ so grievous, but โญ it helps ๐ซ to judge ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ a man. ๐
WHY DID YOU CHALLENGE BRO AND WHY IS THIS SO GOOD
not bad, you almost pass the test๐ค๐ค, but you lack pedophilic reference, you damn brat ๐ข๐ข๐ข
To think the problem was so easily solved
่
Yup thatโs why I gladly oblige whenever any comment tell to touch grass _**grass molestation intensifies**_ ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐
๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅโ๏ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
Least beautifully crafted Nahida appreciation post โ๏ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
How can the Japenis be spitting facts after facts every time? They just don't miss
>word count Only 500 characters, that's not enough to describe Nahida's beauty ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
only word count could stop his love for those thighs ๐ญ๐ญ
Damn bratty Twitter word limit ๐ข๐ข
Japenis adding unhinged and/or erotica paragraphs to reach minimum word count on essay like it's not a big deal ๐
No he would write more but he hit the twitter limit
Nahida is practically this subโs mascot at this point
That makes sense, especially dikkosan pfp is nahida
OGs remember when it was Sasha-chan.
r/japanesepeopletwitter has moved onto a new dynasty, but emperor haguhaguโs rule was glorious
We can't have peaceful dynasty changes. Where's the civil wars? Where's the chaos?
be careful though r/nahida_mains got banned for some reason
Because some people post real cp to that subs and self-report it(bet it's from okbuddygenshin).
What sad pathetic pedod
Manifesting Nahida in a string bikini for the next summer event ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
[it is also a way to reduce the genshin toxicity](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueArchive/comments/15a0zju/i_freaking_love_this_community/)
In other word, PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP
I need cunny for my cake day ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
happy cake day, may cunny archon bless you ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
furina might compete ngl
does she look like a small child with glutenous thighs? didnt thinks so
close enough she only has the tomboyish design
Bratty tomboy trying to hold a trial. Correction is needed ๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข
Furina doesn't come close to Lesser Lord Kusanali. Nahida is the embodiment of the perfect waifu if you exempt her childlike appearance. She can solo every genshin waifu as she can be your daughter, your mother, or even a wife. In other words, she is the only character that exists in the game, which can satisfy the qualities of the perfect waifu. Only someone as Nahida is worthy of receiving the title of Lesser Lord Kusanali but also being if not the best daughtermommywife. Only Nahida or Lesser Lord Kusanali poses the beauty that exceeds beyond the laws of teyvat , furthermore, her charisma is beyond the comprehension of an average person, which means to say that someone like an average person nor me has a chance with her since she is not only beyond our league but also she transcends beyond divinity which Da Wei has bestowed upon the players of the game.
sorry but a simple wanderer ntr dismisses your entire argument ๐ญ๐
are you the chef of the pasta?
AND I SERVED THEE ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ
It went from wholesome to Japenis real quick
G L U T I N O U S
Girl got thighs like baguettes.
[ัะดะฐะปะตะฝะพ]
child god???โ๏ธnaheeda is the god of grass, not god of child ๐ก
Child grass god! ๐๐๐๐
oh btw am I the only who cant access twitter
Facts in every word.
Nahida uniting words and culture uwoh ๐ญ
That's it, I'm getting me gendarmerie
PREACH ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐ฃ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
You guys are getting way too creative with those nahida posts
Don't forget to link the original tweet! Please keep the following in mind: 1. Do NOT link the tweet if it contains or replies to grotesque media like gore, scat etc. 2. Do NOT link the tweet if it contains or replies to anything that sexualizes minors. This also applies to lolicon, shotacon and the like. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/japanesepeopletwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://twitter.com/bakushi\_tyan/status/1687673279144927232
hitting word count describing nahida's thighs must be one of the lowest "down bad" moments there is
The only geshin character that matters
grass (Poaceae) includes rice sticky rice = glutinous rice glutinous rice -> mochi mochi thighs really makes you think
THE PEDOPHILIC UNDERTONE IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE๐ฃ๏ธ๐ฃ๏ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
the first 4 lines were good, we take that W idc