121–130 of 236 posts
I am always curious why one continues to believe the beliefs that lead to pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Even if correct is being miserable worth it?
It's morally repulsive to me to believe something just because it makes me feel better.
If you have an equally valid choice to believe something positive or negative, why would you chose the later?
> I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel. This shows when you call both Watts and Vonnegut a nihilist. Absurdism for example is not the same as nihilism.
That quote is weird. In technical fields you wouldn’t read the classic literature (mechanical engineers don’t read Euclid), but there’s no fear of reinventing the wheel since modern books take account of fundamental works; if not by name then for sure in content. I’m surprised how you can get a philosophy degree and then be afraid of “reinventing the wheel”. I suppose the author is self-aware enough to know what he d…
> In lieu of meaning, I mostly adopted the attitude of Alan Watts. Existence, he says, is fundamentally playful. It's less like a journey, and more like a piece of music or a dance. And the point of dancing isn't to arrive at a particular spot on the floor; the point of dancing is simply to dance. Vonnegut expresses a similar sentiment when he says, "We are here on Earth to fart around." Ikigai[0] is worth exploring…
> We are here on Earth to fart around. Except that we're not. We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA. There are some ancillary effects of this (like sex and eating and the internet) but it's not like life doesn't have a purpose at all. It's just not a particularly hifallutin' one.
That's where I find purpose: in being useful to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DNA is not here "for" anything, DNA is a Thing That Happens. I agree, and my point was that saying: > We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA. Just kicks the can down the road. We're not here to make copies of our DNA any more than DNA is here to make copies of us. > Sure, but that's just a side-effect of the process. It's not the purpose of our existence. So, too, are we, as is replication itself. It happen…
I think we're basically in violent agreement here. The only thing I would point out is that there is an asymmetry: reproduction can exist without playfulness (I don't think bacteria do much playing). But playfulness cannot exist without reproduction. That's the reason I think it's fair to put reproduction in a more primary role.
Existence can be fundamentally a lot of things. One isn't taking away from the other.
If the universe is meaningless, and all the things in it are equally meaningless (ourselves included). How is it possible to create meaning? How can a meaningless thing or action within a meaningless system have any meaning? I guess we could just declare that this thing has meaning, but isn't this just a delusion? Like thinking 0 + 0 = 1?
If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…
Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?
> In lieu of meaning, I mostly adopted the attitude of Alan Watts. Existence, he says, is fundamentally playful. It's less like a journey, and more like a piece of music or a dance. And the point of dancing isn't to arrive at a particular spot on the floor; the point of dancing is simply to dance. Vonnegut expresses a similar sentiment when he says, "We are here on Earth to fart around." Ikigai[0] is worth exploring…
> We are here on Earth to fart around. Except that we're not. We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA. There are some ancillary effects of this (like sex and eating and the internet) but it's not like life doesn't have a purpose at all. It's just not a particularly hifallutin' one.
I've found that the antidote to pessimistic nihilism is optimistic nihilism. Going from the "world has no meaning, why do anything" (perhaps existentialist) to meaning the "world has no meaning, why don't I just do a bunch of things?" is a reasonable leap. The antidote to nihilism itself could be to accept lack of free will. Accepting lack of free will means that you get to enjoy the passage of time. Jimmy Carr said…
If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…
> Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?
It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live.
Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything.
As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.
If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…
> Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?