Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j640idl wrote

This is essentially Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy. Greek tragedy was the pinnacle of art because it addressed and accepted the pessimism of life for what it was instead of trying to cope or run away from the issue through dissimulation. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, but I do find it compelling.

63

BonusMiserable1010 t1_j64fy51 wrote

Why don't you agree with this Nietzschean assessment?

10

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j64rmf4 wrote

Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy cribs from Schopenhauer the notion that life is inherently painful, tragic, full of suffering. This is a metaphysical view (as all views are) that I simply do not accept. The notion that life is valueless or meaningless (and from this meaningless arrives suffering) is itself a valuation. It's language games all the way down.

Nietzsche in the revisions of Birth of Tragedy writes about how he was still operating with the framework he learned from other philosophers and how he regrets this. Nietzsche's later work does preach about about having life-affirming values, which I agree with and support.

59

salTUR t1_j677s3z wrote

At the risk of potentially sounding like an early 70's hippy pseudo philosopher . . .

I feel like anyone who thinks that life is inherently meaningless needs to unplug from social media and withdraw as much as they can from the modern machine. Maybe they should even try some psychedlic substances (in a responbile way). The notion of human life being inherently "meaningless" is a thoroughly modern idea, and it's exacerbated by our consumerist tendencies toward excessive (or even exclusive) digital interaction.

Before the advent of existentialism, you would be the odd-one-out if you posited that life had no inherent meaning. The subjective life experience is so full of inherent meaning. The only way it's not is if you believe in a mind-body duality (a la Descarte) that separates the subjective observer from the objective observed. In truth, our subjective minds are a part of objective reality. What you feel matters. All you'll ever have is what you feel. Just because we can't find an objective "proof" that the universe was made specifically for mankind doesn't mean the subjective experience of that universe is automatically devoid of intrinsic meaning. The more we distance ourselves from a natural state of being, the more compromised of meaning our subjective experience becomes.

I believe nihilism is only explicable when viewed as a product of the modern dynamic - Baudrillard's "simulacra and simulation" thesis. We're so thoroughly distracted from a natural state of being that we have spent centuries now bending over backwards looking for a reason for existing when a reason for existing was never required. The universe is not a question that needs to be answered! The universe simply is. And so are we.

16

Maximus_En_Minimus t1_j6836do wrote

Persoanlly from several of my psychedelic experiences I came to the conclusion that existence has no intrinsic meaning or purpose. And - while in the West you are correct: you would be the odd one out if you believed as much before the advent of social media - in the East, Hinduism and Buddhism, perhaps Maya, especially the idea of Sūnyata, would indicate meaninglessness.

I hold now more to the notion, less of Intrinsic meaning, but of Intricate meaning: that meanings and purposes are suspended, and substantiated by their relationship to one another. This at least gives me the clarity to investigate the subfocal valences affecting my behaviours.

I think the difference between Modern Nihilism and Spiritual Nihilism can be grounded in the above: the former is a lack of participation with life and relationships to others, which would have interwoven into one another, leading the person to literally feel empty or lacking; the latter is a realisation of relational interwoveness which allows the person to disentangle and detach themselves egoistically from fictional construals - such as ambitions, expectations, reactions, hate - which often lead to suffering.

While I agree that social media has ostensively sucked meaning from people’s lives; I also think it is due to what I coin as vacuity: the distance and separation between things, increasing time to arrive, such as a relationship or even a gym, leading to alienation and eventually emptiness.

6

lizzolz t1_j67k46t wrote

Why does mind-body dualism make life meaningless?

3

salTUR t1_j68xf6w wrote

I don't think mind-body duality makes life meaningless by itself, I just think it helps create the conditions for nihilism. It causes human beings to think of their subjective experiences as something separate and removed from the rest of reality even though those experiences are as inherent to reality as anything else. It's easy to drop into nihilism when the fundamental framework you use to think about your place in the world is built on the assumption that you're somehow removed from it. Descarte's mind-body duality is just another aspect of modernity that further removed the Western World from the innate, transcendent experience of being. Seeking objectivity in all things inhibits our ability to simply experience reality.

Jose Ortega says it best: "I am I and my circumstance."

3

lizzolz t1_j6c96pn wrote

Interesting take. For me, mind-body dualism conjures up anything but nihilism. It suggests to me the excitement of the possibility that not everything can be described in materialist terms, though that may be incorrect. There are tons of arguments both for and against. But it's damn cool to ponder that perhaps consciousness exists outside that pink organ in the vault of our skull.

1

yearsofpractice t1_j67n23c wrote

Hey u/VersaceEauFraiche - your answer has fascinated me as I’m living with depression and anxiety and I’m coming to terms with life through the lens of Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) - I think your comment extends on that framework, but I don’t have the experience or academic background in philosophy to fully understand it. Could you reframe it for someone who doesn’t have training/education in philosophy? Context - I’m a 46-year-old married father of two in the UK who has recently been able to start really living again due to (in part) the aforementioned ACT which has given me the following mental tool “Yes, u/Yearsofpractice, this situation or emotion does feel unpleasant, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. Celebrate the fact that you’re feeling something and remember that things change. You’re alive, you’re living to your values, so just accept the experience and look to the future”. Anyway - any feedback welcome.

7

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j694gpl wrote

I wouldn't say that I have an academic experience with these topics necessarily, I've just been interested in history, philosophy for a long time. Honestly what you have said of yourself is great and I think trying to provide these "simple life philosophies" with an intellectual veneer is unnecessary and detracts from the potency of such an outlook.

As for myself, one thing that I feel that I had happened upon during my readings and interactions with others is the notion that, bluntly put, sadness confers intelligence. It feels that many people heard the phrase "ignorance is bliss" and took the contrapositive to heart: "to be sad is to be smart". You can see this notion in alot of media (something like Wednesday the show comes to mind). Again this is my interpretation of the matter, but there seems to be this implicit notion floating around our societal ether that you are intelligent if you find reality to not be sufficient - if you are irritable, if you are morose, if you find life unsatisfying, if you yearn for true meaning yet cannot find it. This interpretation is always taken as meaning that life is inherently boring, full of suffering, meaningless, etc, and instead of these qualms with reality prompting a deeper introspection into one's outlook, investigating why they find aspects of life to be melancholic and valueless, they assign the insufficiency to the external world rather than asking themselves if the insufficiency is internal, in how we view ourselves, life, reality.

This is the conceit of the philosopher, that only simple people can be happy with their station in life while they (Schopenhauer for example) have apprehended the true nature of reality and that reality is one of sorrow and suffering. But these are all metaphysical interpretations of reality, not reality itself. The language games that I refer to in my OP is that as soon as one puts words to reality, it becomes an interpretation and not an accurate description (metaphysics is unavoidable) and in these interpretations is the value judgement that these people would rather cultivate a sense of intelligence than cultivate joy (again, this is operating under the assumption that ignorance is bliss, sorrow smartness). You can be both intelligent and joyous!

There probably is something to the notion that intelligent people are more likely to suffer from some kind of mental illness, and that the more intelligent you are the increased likelihood of it occurring and the more profound its impact upon the person. But these might be just-so post hoc rationalizations, and even if they were immutably true we can still choose our outlook. We are bound by our biology in many ways, but we still have choices in the matter of outlook.

This is a long-winded way of saying that we can/probably have memed ourselves into melancholic dispositions. I did so myself at one point, as all young men are prone to do (Napoleon writes about this in his journals during his time at artillery school). I slowly realized that I didn't have to entertain such a disposition to be actually intelligent, well-read, educated. The Stoics are excellent on this, but their wisdom is lost on young men with few life experiences, as it was lost on me when I read it young and unappreciative.

"You dwell on the vastness of the Cosmos and think yourself small. I realize I am a part of the universe and think myself big. I am up in this bitch."

7

Yaranatzu t1_j66olp8 wrote

Why do we consider it the pinnacle of art? Was it the only culture that portrayed it as such. Plenty of cultures have a pragmatic reflection of life's suffering.

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j66rnyw wrote

It was Nietzsche's thesis of Birth of Tragedy, not my own interpretation.

3

SvetlanaButosky t1_j63l2j0 wrote

hmmm, I think people are more concerned with actual physical and mental suffering than obsessing over the meaning of life.

This is why we have antinatalism vs pro natalism and absurdism vs pro mortalism.

Most people dont really care about the meaning of life, they just want the positive experience while they are here, as little suffering as possible before they become fertilizer. lol

28

HammieBs t1_j64dr27 wrote

>Most people dont really care about the meaning of life, they just want the positive experience while they are here, as little suffering as possible before they become fertilizer. lol

I would argue that's why the meaning of life is important. People want purpose to feel fulfilled in their life. The meaning of life isn't a blanket term everyone should strive for but is unique to the individual. If your meaning of life is to chase good experiences then sure, it would line up, but not for everyone. If people truly only wanted experience the feel good while minimizing the bad, we'd all be doing heroin

9

Apollocreed3000 t1_j65bxp9 wrote

Positive experience for everyone is different. I think both of you are saying the same thing in different ways.

A positive experience for someone may just be a heroin filled couple weeks. Others may be knowing that their name will be on a building after they are gone. Others yet may feel positive knowing their interactions with their community have direct effects on those people.

You could call that someone’s view on the meaning of life or you could call that their positive experience. Seems like two sides to the same coin.

6

BilliamTheGreat t1_j67bz39 wrote

But we can at least agree on the existence of a positive good and a negative bad, correct?

1

rattatally t1_j67ynez wrote

What would be a negative good and a positive bad?

2

ShalmaneserIII t1_j66ayuc wrote

Yes, but once someone's learned how to handle their suffering and can reliably obtain pleasures, what do they do then?

3

BilliamTheGreat t1_j67bvb4 wrote

Ideally, try to spread pleasure and/or minimize suffering for others. At the risk of sipping hippy-ish; love.

1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j67ri91 wrote

Okay, so why are others important to you, such that you'd want to do so?

Basically, why is this something you would choose to do, rather than do something else instead?

Or, what does the act of loving mean? Why does it matter?

2

magnFLOR t1_j6j7q62 wrote

That's what I've been wondering for a while. Recommending altruism just feels like a cop out, a last ditch effort argument that holds moral high ground. I don't quite get it.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j67q8u4 wrote

lol, there will always be something to fix, godhood is impossible.

1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j67qzgi wrote

So you don't think you'd get bored spending more and more tome fixing smaller and smaller problems?

1

__draupnir t1_j682pin wrote

> This is why we have antinatalism vs pro natalism and absurdism vs pro mortalism. > >

Do we though? Antinatalism and pro mortalism are barely a thing we "have" and barely any philosopher takes these positions. There is barely any "vs" there.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j68c8zx wrote

They belong under the umbrella of existentialism, friend.

Suffering VS pleasure

2

__draupnir t1_j68g41l wrote

> They belong under the umbrella of existentialism

Do they though? They are not positions philosophers take seriously.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j6cez46 wrote

Lol Schopenhauer not serious?

Do you even philosophy friend?

2

__draupnir t1_j6cj4ag wrote

Schopenhaur was a pessimist, not pro mortalist or antinatalist.

1

RedOrchestra137 t1_j641oo4 wrote

Interesting, this is pretty much the way I see things as well. Also not surprising as of course my views are almost entirely based on existing existential writings, combined with real life experience

12

Aztec_13 t1_j64yfpr wrote

“A true nihilist becomes catatonic; and a powerful existentialist finds nirvana”…ofm 2023

10

Aboredkidinreddit t1_j66wnj1 wrote

Satisfaction and desire are root of either pain or meining in life. Nowadays we have the tools to ignore pain with external stimulation, as a painkiller to a headache. In my opinion, the true way is acceptance, not resignation. Acceptance to internalize that life lack of meaning doesnt have to be a barrier or an excuse, but the true emotion of being alive. As the articule said, the human being is, as far as we know, the only living thing to understand and wonder about such a recurrent topic, but the despaire it may cause first shouldnt be a brick wall, but a starting gun. I hope I made myself clear, im not an english native and its the first time I comment in this section. Please argue me lol!

7

Ominaeo t1_j65ulwi wrote

Wow. Nothing I've read has ever encapsulated my belief structure more succinctly.

In order to starve off the terror that comes with cosmic nihilism, you have to be able to eschew terrestrial nihilism...but honestly, the whole "creative" thing seems like the distraction step all over again.

6

Blu3Razr1 t1_j6a3otm wrote

id recommend checking out more sam woolfes stuff, theres a link at the bottom of the article in this post to his website where there is the full version of this article and a lot of more stuff like this (his website is all free). he does some fantastic work.

1

jank_ram t1_j673mrd wrote

Something I never understood is why place any value on survival at all, what presupposition am I missing? Infact wouldn't death just be an easy just as meaningful way out? Honestly sounds a lot easier than trying to survive! Just kill all your desires then yourself? Well the reason I think the authors keep doing this is because of the core concept of pride, which ties in to the whole "make meaning out of suffering" ordeal.
if you think consciousness as a wild sea representing all the possibility, you can cope by 1- closing your eyes. 2- anchoring so that effectively the available part of the sea is a lot more manageable. 3- going with the flow of the tides, that's distraction and hedonism. 4- stand in place at the ocean floor refusing movement, now I argue that's pride, specifically the type that comes before the fall, thinking the ocean can't break you when you are body deep seems extremely absurd, because it obviously won't work, and, wait why are we doing this in the first place? Why are we deciding that we need to cope with ocean? If nothing else wouldn't it simply be better to let it break us? I guess we are too prideful for that!

Now the part about the creative endeavor angers me the most! If it's the thing that should be held at the highest place shouldn't it be clearly defined? What art? One can say "it's art because it's unidentifiable" then how is it different than the ocean? It's the exact same! And I say either 1- it's the ultimate distraction. 2- you believe it is pointing to something higher, above the ocean, you hold that view if you say "art is trying to define something other than itself" pointing at an objective principle!
If I got something wrong I would love corrections

5

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67itgw wrote

"Value" is a myth.

"Should" is a myth.

You're looking at "why" wrong. "Why" is asking for a fellow organism's motive.

The universe does not revolve around us anymore than it did the T-Rex or the dodo hence we are free to kill ourselves individually or nuke ourselves into extinction (e.g. in the 1960s over the Cuba missile crisis) but look at how vast the universe is and how "unlikely" our existence was (the dinosaur extinction etc.).

This universe is this universe (past, present, future) down to the tiniest detail. My lifetime exists just as the Big Bang (or whatever we want to call it) exists and it affects the future. If that lifetime ends with me committing suicide then that is how it affects the future, I cannot remove meaning from things, that is just this silly idea we humans have, that if we misbehave or misstep we "destroy" meaning like dirty fingers smudging the letters in a letter.

Art is essentially an organism trying (or achieving) to spark creativity (innovation, "newness"), even if only in itself. In other words, bats flying today is arguably due to the art of survival.

1

jank_ram t1_j67kin4 wrote

When did YOU learn this? Was it not from the day you were born until now, making observations in your lifespan? Are you saying that's real at all? Infact I think it's more accurate to say that you left no association between whatever is observable and the objective. You are saying everything is a lie so essentially that statement in of itself is a lie, no?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67x9ww wrote

>When did YOU learn this? Was it not from the day you were born until now, making observations in your lifespan?

Of course but I fail to see what you're implying.

>Are you saying that's real at all?

In what sense? That I exist and draw conclusions? Of course I exist, that's one of the half-dozen things I know I even can 100% know to be real.

>Infact I think it's more accurate to say that you left no association between whatever is observable and the objective.

I don't know what you mean by this. Are we talking in a "The Earth orbits the Sun and we live on the Earth." sense or a "How do I know I'm not an entity living in an illusion fed false data?" sense?

>You are saying everything is a lie so essentially that statement in of itself is a lie, no?

How am I saying everything is a lie? Because I say "value" and "should" are myths? Because the latter is just me not being an egomaniac trying to make the universe revolve around us.

1

jank_ram t1_j69f7zy wrote

Let's think of the universe not in terms of the observable universe, rather the potential universe, no just what Is, bit what ever could be in all dimensions, since it is logically the same thing if you take your subjective experience out of it, in what way ever does it resemble where we live that universe? Infact in what way is it differentiated from absolute nothing, if there is no observer which "rules the earth" in announcing to himself what is meaningful pulling a concrete ground in utter chaos. If it doesn't center around you then what does it center around, nothing? That doesn't mean it's all encompassing that just means it has no center even if it wanted, infinite potential is basically the same as nothing, but our existence as experiencing beings makes it so the infinite potential universe is disproven individual tho as it may by if anything can call itself individual the maybe that's great enough for the chaos to bow down and revolve around what it never had.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6aaqil wrote

>Let's think of the universe not in terms of the observable universe, rather the potential universe, no just what Is, bit what ever could be in all dimensions, since it is logically the same thing if you take your subjective experience out of it, in what way ever does it resemble where we live that universe? Infact in what way is it differentiated from absolute nothing, if there is no observer which "rules the earth" in announcing to himself what is meaningful pulling a concrete ground in utter chaos.

There is no such thing as "chaos". "Chaos" would have zero patterns and thus no existence. It's kind like you saying there is a molecule that has zero atoms, I can have a concept of that in my head but it makes no sense.

Your "observer announcing to himself" is irrelevant. Every tiny detail of the universe (past, present, future, alive or dead) plays its role in making this universe this universe and not just a similar potential one, and that is meaningful. The distance between the Earth and the Sun is such a detail and it played a role in you and I having this conversation right now and your "announcing observer" has no say in that.

>If it doesn't center around you then what does it center around, nothing?

That's misunderstanding what I mean by it not revolving around us organisms, bordering on strawman argument. I simply mean that if we had nuked ourselves into extinction in the 1960s or if this planet had never sustained life then the universe would be just as valid as it is now. Just as this universe is valid without 8 billion green Martians living on Mars at this time.

1

jank_ram t1_j6axjyj wrote

I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness. In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies. I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who? Without validation there is no existence. Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding

1

LogMeInCoach t1_j6bvjzx wrote

The sun existed for billions of years before we became conscious. If our entire civilization would be wiped out tomorrow, the sun would still continue to exist for billions of years without a conscience to validate it.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c4wkg wrote

>The sun existed for billions of years before we became conscious. If our entire civilization would be wiped out tomorrow, the sun would still continue to exist for billions of years without a conscience to validate it.

In the sense of "We are not held in illusion", yes, absolutely.

1

Indigo_Sunset t1_j65y83w wrote

Consciousness is a punchline to the deadpan of the universe.

2

jank_ram t1_j674msg wrote

Ascribing everything to a comedy. Surly the must be a great deal of meaning in comedy in that interpretation. Since consciousness in turn spawned comedy again.

2

Boo-urns1 t1_j66jkzm wrote

Love how this theme was explored in the movie Everything Everywhere All At Once

2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j64zaua wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j65if0d wrote

That's silly. The world is not meaningless. Meaning is everywhere we look.

Also, we have no "need" for meaning. "Necessity" is an egomaniac's myth to make the universe revolve around him.

1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j66b8i6 wrote

The world is meaningless in itself. People make meaning- the entire notion of meaning is a human concept. Ants don't care, cats don't care, rocks and trees don't care.

10

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67givg wrote

Caring is irrelevant. Ants and cats navigate reality just as humans do, trees follow the seasons and rocks meant something to dinosaurs long before humans came along.

EDIT: I'm curious, thought. When you said "The world is meaningless in itself.", what was your notion of what meaning is exactly?

2

ShalmaneserIII t1_j67rb4t wrote

Meaning is what you create right after thinking, "What's the point of this?"

Cats and rocks and ants don't reflect on that. Inanimate matter doesn't.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67tpp4 wrote

But there is no "the point" of anything.

Are you thinking of the myth of "purpose"? Cats and ants aren't egomaniacs like humans are so yeah, they don't reflect on that myth.

1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j67xfdy wrote

Then what are people doing when they consider there to be a point to things- the things they do and the things all people do?

It's not something intrinsic in the world, it's a creation of humans.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67y84o wrote

>it's a creation of humans.

​

The myth of "purpose", yes. The myth of "importance", yes. The myth of "value", yes.

​

Meaning? No. Because none of those things are what meaning is. Meaning is intrinsic in the world. You cannot make the distance between the Earth and the Sun "meaningless" even if you invent a time machine and some means to make organic life existing on Earth impossible and go back in time with the former and use the latter on an Earth still forming because guess what? The distance between the Earth and the Sun plays a role in the Earth now never giving birth to life via your time traveler existence. This is what meaning is. Meaning exists as an intrinsic part of existence, even in a universe that yields no stars or planets this would reman unalterable fact.

​

Meaning is among the most real things there are. It is the basis of a dinosaur sensing danger. It is the basis of trees changing with the seasons. It is the basis of your eyes reacting to some parts of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than all of it. It is the basis of you even having a mind to even doubt its existence.

​

>Then what are people doing when they consider there to be a point to things- the things they do and the things all people do?

​

Being egomaniacs trying to make the universe revolve around them, that's what they're doing. Makes me wish mankind had gone sterile a very long time ago and rid the universe of such stupidity.

−1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j685s45 wrote

Yes, yes, those are things. But why do they matter to you at all?

And see, you're making meaning- humans are stupid. There's your meaning for you. Do you think a cat would agree, or a rock?

0

EducatorBig6648 t1_j68iwk2 wrote

>Yes, yes, those are things. But why do they matter to you at all?

That's now how 'why' works. 'Why' is asking for a fellow organism's motive. You don't ask a rock why it is affected by gravity or the Sun why it emits deadly radiation in your direction or a thermonuclear explosion why it can come from something as small as atoms splitting or the Earth why it formed in orbit around the Sun. Those are questions of How (physics) and How It Came To Happen (history).

>And see, you're making meaning- humans are stupid. There's your meaning for you. Do you think a cat would agree, or a rock?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's my meaning for me? Are you thinking in terms of like "What's YOUR truth, dear friend? Here, have some ganja while you ponder."

1

Crotchrocket2012 t1_j6779b2 wrote

Tell me what this 'meaning' is. This makes about as much sense to me as the idea that God is self evident.

3

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67fxip wrote

Have you heard of consequences? And patterns? Meaning is omnipresent, it always was and always will be. "Meaninglessness" is an utter impossibility. If the distance between the Sun and the Earth was half of what it is or twice what it is, we would not be having this conversation over the Internet right now. You cannot make the distance between the Sun and the Earth "meaningless". Every little detail of this universe (past, present, future) makes it this universe and not a very similar story (e.g. a tiny little detail is different in Act 1 of Romeo and Juliet so in the end Romeo and Juliet lived happily growing old together).

Scientists, poets, painters and sculptors use meaning. Our eyes and ears and brains use meaning. Because clues are everywhere whether detectives exist or have not evolved from primordial ooze yet or nuked themselves into extinction.

1

jank_ram t1_j675amx wrote

Well everywhere? Be careful? Is there meaning in heroin? Maybe you think that I just want you to understand that you think that. Also if we have no need for meaning is statement that can only be paired with "we don't have need for anything" otherwise is necessarily false.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67dvuv wrote

Yes, heroin means something e.g. if you find a lot of it in a dead man's bloodstream it either means cause of death was overdose or he was about to die from an overdose. Or do you mean heroin mean something in a vacuum? There is no vacuum.

We don't have "need" for anything. All life on this planet could have died out before there were even dinosaurs. "Necessity" is a myth, it never exists outside the imagination.

1

jank_ram t1_j67ihik wrote

I don't see a reason to assume anything at all is outside of imagination, do you?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67j318 wrote

It's not a question of assumption. There are at least seven things that we can literally know for a fact exist outside the imagination. Sartre identified one, meaning is another.

1

jank_ram t1_j67l33p wrote

What are those seven things? I am unfamiliar

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67oow0 wrote

As Sartre points to, there's the self (the doubter), that's one.

Concepts exist since that is what the self 'communicates' to itself and patterns exist since in the end that is all the mind and the senses consist of.

The truth exists since even if the self is held in illusion, there would still be the reality that the self exists experiencing the illusion so the truth itself (reality vs fiction) cannot be doubted.

Consequences exist since patterns exist.

Meaning exists since consequences exist.

Been wracking my brain but for the life of me I can't recall what the seventh one is, it's been so long.

1

jank_ram t1_j67pga4 wrote

On what basis are we saying that the self consists of patterns? How do we know anything, let alone that the mind and senses consist of patterns?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67uw4e wrote

What other attributes does the self have? That's rhetorical since any answer you give would just prove you haven't pondered the nature of "patterns".

What is the one thing your eyes do? They react when certain patterns 'hit' them (the visual part of the spectrum) and they don't when other patterns 'hit' them (the rest of the spectrum).

The mind gets these reactions and, since these reactions have patterns, the mind runs them in its own pattern and this results in a pattern that it can run in another part of itself in its own pattern. This is Sherlock Holmes walking into a room, opening his eyes, his brain gets impulses and forms a "picture" which his conscious and subconscious can play with and be the basis of where he will move his eyes around the room.

That Sherlock Holmes may in fact be a naked man in Jello in a a robot-womb fed an illusion by Agent Smith so there is no room is just outside circumstance.

1

jank_ram t1_j69b5bi wrote

A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly. But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a5q71 wrote

>A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly.

Much more accurate than what? And what do you mean by "relations"? You're being very vague.

​

>But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.

Now you're confusing yourself. What I am myself is one thing and that is simply that I do exist.

My mind, on the other hand, is, just as you point out, questionable as to not being illusion. You are correct that I had not yet addressed that but you are incorrect that what I've just described is made irrelevant. I described patterns reaching the eyes and the patterns reaching my brain and the brain working with patterns and the person consciously and subconsciously engaging with those patterns and make the decision to move the eyes to the left or to the right.

Now... The eyes, the brain, the conscious and the subconscious, even the "free will" decision to move the eyes left or right can all be illusion. That can all be AI magic designed to trick you into thinking you're a free person and not a machine "puppet" (this is exactly what Gary Oldman was doing in the awful reboot RoboCop movie). What I cannot stress enough is this: What cannot be illusions is you (what the AI magic is tricking) and THE PATTERNS (what it was tricking you WITH).

1

jank_ram t1_j6avq9m wrote

Yes I agree that the self is outside all of that, and that if we can be sure of anything, is that it exists, at least one knows he himself exists. Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept, but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all, in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists. How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there. Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c2gin wrote

>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,

No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.

>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,

Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.

>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.

I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.

>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.

I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?

>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.

Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.

You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?

1

jank_ram t1_j6c5yib wrote

Okay I might have wildly misunderstood what you mean by patterns, I think of it as mathematical pattern, as In any thing that can be represented mathematically would be a pattern, have I got that wrong?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6cb9bq wrote

Yes, you go that wrong. I gave you an example above: Your eyes respond to certain patterns (the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum) but not to other patterns (the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum).

That is itself a pattern; Your eyes do not "randomly" respond to different parts of the spectrum or to electromagnetic fields, they function consistently hence you can see which is a reliable means for you to examine your surroundings for patterns within the patterns your brain instantly interprets for you.

Can that be represented mathematically? Possibly, maybe, probably, but in terms of this conversation, I wouldn't care if it can't.

A key thing to note above is that your eyes reacting "randomly" would mean confusion. There's a "relation" to keep in mind: confusion and patterns. Bringing in mathematical representation is redundant

​

Clarification: I put "randomly" in quotes because as far as I can tell (while not being an expert on quantum physics etc.) objectively there is no such thing.

1

jank_ram t1_j67plt7 wrote

Now I actually hold the point that consciousness is fundamental at least over material and pattern, and at least until proven or assumed otherwise.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67v5pr wrote

I don't follow. I didn't mention anything material. And you say consciousness is "fundamental over pattern", how would that work? To me that's like saying... I don't know... "Molecules are fundamental over atoms" or "Heat is fundamental over energy" or something.

1

jank_ram t1_j699xyy wrote

That's I subject I am very interested in and have been for a long time, and so far I've come to the conclusion that consciousness is a logical fallacy, it simply shouldn't exist, yet if I can know anything for sure it's that I am conscious (no way to truly know if anyone else is in this example though) and the that automatically leads me to believe that consciousness is fundamental over logic, and patterns presupposes logic, is that not what patterns are?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a2p1h wrote

Well, everything becomes about patterns in the end and you're not wrong that logic becomes about patterns quicker than most things as its academic in natute, but also, logic goes into arguments and testing and things so it's not this "Patterns exist so the ancient wise ones applying logic mapped out a rigid picture for us that's either 100% the truth or 100% false!" as you imply.

You say you are conscious but without patterns how do you figure a consciousness would have any... existence to it (for lack of better terms)?

I'm also curious what you meant by saying consciousness "shouldn't" exist since "should" is what doesn't exist, it's a myth.

1

jank_ram t1_j6b2qbu wrote

there is no such thing as existing, however In consciousness there is existence, so consciousness doesn't exist, but rather, existence is that which is being known with consciousness

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c4qof wrote

Are you trolling me?

1

jank_ram t1_j6c4xoy wrote

No?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c51g9 wrote

Then what was that nonsense?

1

jank_ram t1_j6c6uyx wrote

How is it nonsense? It's a hypothesis, one which I find very convincing, I would actually really appreciate it if you can tell me how it doesn't hold, If I could know that, I would be enlightened compared to now!

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c959x wrote

Do you exist, yes or no?

1

jank_ram t1_j6e03ac wrote

Depends on what you mean by me. does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable. Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)? I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes. In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not, you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning, which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gj5lx wrote

>Depends on what you mean by me.

No. The fact that you'd be trying to quantify it like that proves it is yes. If you did not exist it would be simply be "No, in no way, shape or form do I exist."

>does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable.

The answer is yes, you do exist. You're conscious (to be perceiving) as part of you existing, not the other way around (hence me calling it nonsense).

>Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)?

I did not ask about those things and that you think I might proves you haven't understood what I've been trying to explain.

EDIT: To clarify, I have consistently held that the self is "the doubter". Suggesting that I am talking about memory, about things like molecular activity and gravity or about the physical body is arguing in bad faith.

>I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes.

"Necessity" is a myth. It is a fictional relation, like you saying another person is your "property" i.e. that you "own" them. It has no reality,

>In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not,

There is no such thing as an unmeaningful world. It cannot come into existence.

>you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning,

No, that goes against what I've been saying: I know meaning exists becaue it's one of the seven things that (to simplify) without I would not exist in the slightest.

>which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

So you are trolling me. You either have no interest in understanding my conclusions or you do understand and pretend otherwise. Note I say understand my conclusions, not agree with them or accept them as infallible or take it on faith that I'm smarter than you since I'm sure a troll would start acting as if I was.

EDIT: To clarify, that I call something nonsense does not mean I am saying you are to agree without discussion.

0

jank_ram t1_j6gtb3j wrote

No, no trust me I am trying to understand. I have been thinking about this discussion for a lot of today actually.

You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Also implying "necessarily" is a myth? As In we established there is actual ground reality? Isn't this what this is about? What ISN'T a myth? Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon? That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gysi0 wrote

>You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Are you conscious i.e. perceiving? Yes. If you did not exist you would not be doing anything e.g. perceiving i.e. being conscious. If you were a non-conscious thing, e.g. a rock, you would still exist. You cannot be a conscious rock that doesn't exist or a conscious person that doesn't exist because consciousness spawns from existence and not the other way around.

>Also implying "necessarily" is a myth?

I did not imply, I stated. "Necessity" is a myth we made up. It is a fictional relation. If you chain me up and tie me to the Titanic on the ocean floor, I can want air in order to breathe air and I can want air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse. I cannot "need" air in order to breathe air and I cannot "need" air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than a drowned corpse can "need" air in order to breathe air, "need" air in order to avoid becoming a living person or "need" air in order to become a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation or "need" air in order to avoid becoming a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation.

"Necessity" affects nothing except via the imagination, it never exists outside our imagination. It's just ego that the universe revolves around us so when we're chained to the Titanic we can do more than just want to survive, we can SOMEHOW "need" to survive. Reality is we never "need". We are all like a 120 year old man on his death bed riddled with cancer and we are all like an outwardly healthy-looking child diagnosed with terminal cancer.

>What ISN'T a myth?

At least seven things that I know of, six of them I can recall. I would remember the seventh but I have memory issues.

>Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon?

Everything. You yourself gave four examples; coherence, your memory, the consistent world around me and your body itself. If you're trying to ask how doubting works, I've already covered that: That's us looking at patterns and consequences and meaning. That's consciousness perceiving. That's you going "What does this mean? What does this entail? What are the consequences here? What does studying the patterns reveal?"

>That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

No, (in that regard at least) not a different definition. But, as I go into above, there is more to it than simply stating "meaning is the base for doubting". Also, you're contradicting your earlier thinking about "an unmeaningful world" since you've essentially just agreed to part of what I've been trying to explain: Doubting cannot be doubted hence meaning cannot be doubted.

1

jank_ram t1_j67pu0z wrote

Also consequences emerging from patterns, is a big leap and seems to be predicated on rather shallow observation based analysis. I might be wrong but that's how I understand this

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67wcod wrote

I didn't say consequences emerge from patterns, I'm more saying that we know consequences exist since we know patterns exist. Kind of like saying you know life exists if you know humans exist but it's not that humans brought forth life, humans could be just a recent addition to many lifeforms you are unaware of.

Consequences exist (just to give one aspect of it) because you, as the self ("the doubter"), can look at patterns and not just follow them as they are (trace them with your finger), you can apply your mind and see the consequences (e.g. this pattern exists in this thing consequentially a similar pattern may exist in this similar thing I only glimpsed at but have yet to examine as closesly as this thing). The fact that you can do this proves that consequences exist like a "layer" of "potential" over patterns (that are not potential in nature but actual).

In this sense consequences are the basis of the mind we usually mean by "our imagination". Because potential is not a pattern.

1

jank_ram t1_j69cywo wrote

I think you are just building on a basis that's heavily supported by the top. In the trying to understand something out of nothing you have to somehow prove from no basis, now, you use the word "know" as if we have established that it even exists, but does it? How can we know that we know? Were in all of this is the concrete ground? Because you can't just assume the "knowing" and the build up to the self which is what "knows"

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a84dw wrote

Yes, I can. I know I exist. I can't HAVE existence without patterns so patterns exist. That is a consequence (one thing existing thanks to another thing's existence) so consequences exist.

That we can apply our mind and see consequences proves that this is so. Even if our MIND is ILLUSION it wouldn't change that fact because our self can use it to go "Hm, this is pattern A. This is pattern B. A consequence of that could be that my mind is an illusion but I do not want to leap to conclusions. I will investigate further."

0

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c4jwr wrote

@jankram >I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness.

But that argument I have already discounted elsewhere; Even a single consciousness existing proves that at least six other things exist as well. The five I remember are patterns, consequences, meaning and the truth (i.e. what is reality and what is non-reality/illusion/fiction/deception) and concepts.

None of these five exist only to the single consciousness.

>In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies.

I do not see what you mean by this. Let's say you are real and I am just an illusion and pretty much everything around you (matter etc.) is an illusion. What is death? With none of the five things I mention above, how would death have any existence? Death would be a change of state, how can you have that when you have no patterns and meaning and the truth and consequences as these are all involved in another state even being a potential? And without the existence of concepts what were you conscious of before death? If your existence involved having no concept of anything, how were you a consciousness?

>I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who?

That is a very strange notion of what a pattern is, focusing on a "middle dot" like that. Kindly elaborate on that for me.

0

DarthBigD t1_j6acj9n wrote

poetic, brooding nonsense pretending to be philosophy

1

finalmattasy t1_j66opcd wrote

It's a perfect world, deal with it.

0

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67wkro wrote

I would say that is incorrect and that "perfection" and "imperfection" are two sides of the same myth.

1

finalmattasy t1_j6889gg wrote

Is is, is is perfect. Otherwise, fix it, how not connected?, same. Congrats. Universe, non-locality everything, perfect.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j68jsu7 wrote

The Sun is neither "perfect" or "imperfect" nor can it ever be either. You can do whatever you want with it, make it last longer or not last as long, but it won't change that all the stars are just stars.

The same goes for organisms and the entire universe.

1

finalmattasy t1_j68menf wrote

A person saying that "anything" is just "something" does not qualify its value. All is perfect. If an asshole thinks it can make the star last longer, the asshole is crazy.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j69732q wrote

"Value" is a myth, it never exists outside the imagination. Nothing is "perfect" or "imperfect", that is also myth.

And you can make a star last longer with sufficient technology but no amount of technology can make something more "perfect" or more "imperfect". We can't even make a "perfect" sphere, the closest we can get is make it the most spherical sphere ever.

1

Eifand t1_j66m8kh wrote

The existence of God is the only defeater of Nihilism.

−2

EducatorBig6648 t1_j67gbmk wrote

Stuff and nonsense. Nihilists and cultists are equally stupid.

−3