To be weak-willed is to suggest that the opposite exists. Weak-willed exists in relation to something else. If it's the state of everyone, then it's not specifically weak. So, if the will of humanity is weak, it suggests the idea of a strong will; the strong will that we could achieve; the strong will of a higher being, etc. — Noble Dust

If you haven't read Tolstoy I highly suggest you do. In A Confession, he explains how he thinks there are four general types of people:

1.) Those who fail to understand the human condition (the ignorant).
2.) Those who understand but focus on maximizing their pleasure (the hedonists).
3.) Those who understand and are able to commit suicide (the strong).
4.) Those who understand and who are unable to commit suicide (the weak).

The minority is definitely in 3.) And personally I would say most people are a combination of 1, 2 and 4.); most people have a vague inkling of their condition but wash their fears away with cheap pleasures. There's a few people who get a little beyond this and try to embrace life or come up with some dumb reason for living but they're usually obnoxious and twat-like.

Also I would like to point out that failing to have any good reason to live does not necessarily mean you have a reason to die. Maybe you don't have a good reason to live or die, but life comes before death so you end up living for a while longer. Or maybe you have a good reason not to die - but that is not an affirmation of life. It is simply what I said earlier, a reason not to die is a reason to kick the can down the road, to procrastinate on suicide.

That is, of course, until you inevitably submerge back under the cultural barrier and forget all about this for a while.

Ah, so "you" really means "most people." I find complaining about what cannot be changed to be rather tiresome. Condemning the masses for their ignorance, myopia, and credulity on a philosophy forum is merely preaching to the choir and makes you sound smug. — Thorongil

By most people I mean to say the vast majority. Not including those incapable of higher-level abstract thought, young children or the occasional and genuine genius. Psychology doesn't just apply to the "masses" that you seem to have a distaste for. But I don't know maybe you have a good reason for living, but I don't have high expectations if I am to be honest. I don't think you or anyone else has a good reason for living because I do not think there are good reasons for living that aren't dishonest, contrived or just plain dumb.

So every death is a suicide? — Noble Dust

Or a failure, yes.

Weak-willed as opposed to what? — Noble Dust

As opposed to not weak-willed? Strong-willed? Idk what you would call it. We lack the guts.

How is the word "satisfied" predicated in that sentence? — Noble Dust

?

I mean sure you can "choose" to live but really what that means is that you choose to procrastinate your suicide.

Trying to find a real reason to live is an exercise in excuse-making. We all do it cause we're weak willed. Pretending otherwise is obnoxious tbh.

There's something twisted yet satisfying in showing people's reasons to live to be empty and shallow. It's twisted because you make them suffer but it's satisfying to see a false idol crumble. It's as if a reason to live is to show that there is no reason to live. mhm

Why do you insist on being a mind reader here — Thorongil

Not mind reading but by studying human psychology which is close enough. Most people live out of habit or because they fear death. There's really no "decision" to live usually.

You can choose to be a carpenter.

You can choose to be a painter.

You can choose to be a desk-job worker.

You can choose to be a scientist.

You can choose to be a philosopher.

But all of this gravitates around the choice to continue to be. You exist, but why do you continue to exist? Presumably because it gives you satisfaction, or at least because you fear death and/or have not really considered life to be a form of momentum. And that's about it really.

There isn't any.

I've been increasingly impressed by Cioran. Reading him sometimes feels like ripping a band-aid off. It's like, y'oww, I was not prepared for that but I'm glad it happened.

But I don't really play favorites, because that's when you narrow your perspective and become one of those insufferable dick-sucking acolytes. :-d

The thing about medication, and if you don't 'need' it, then better live without it than become dependant on it. I might see if I can switch around some of the stuff I am taking and see if some newer medication might help. — Question

Sure but it's probably better than self-medicating with alcohol or some kind of substance.

I've wondered if I have schizophrenia myself. I have been diagnosed with moderate OCD, mostly mental obsessions as well as depression but I notice in myself an underlying paranoia and anxiety that isn't really focused or directed at anything in particular. I've also wondered if I might be on the autism spectrum in any way, like Asperger's. I definitely do not do the "normal" things "normal" people do and obsess over my projects to the detriment of everything else in my life and find it hard to connect or care about a lot of the things "normal" people do.

I've made it this far but I wonder if I wouldn't benefit from some sort of medication.

I think that if you see suicide as a good thing, at least in some cases, it can help make it less of a scary thing to think about. Sometimes death is precisely what is needed to solve a problem. Also remember that most suicide attempts are failures, I think the statistic for adults is like 1 in 25 attempts are successful, and for younger people it's something like 1 in 200 or 300 or something ridiculous like that. Part of what makes suicide so tempting is how easy it seems to be to do, like you take a gun and pop yourself in the head, or chug a bottle of pills, no big deal or anything. But apparently it's a lot harder to kill yourself than your imagination makes it seem.

That being said I think if we lacked psychological repression techniques and were perfectly rational beings we would probably all be lining up for euthanasia.

I've found suicidal thoughts are easier to tolerate if I usually have them. It might be easier to live life without suicidal thoughts but it's a lot harder to deal with them when they come back randomly and with greater force. And they always do. Better to be comfortably numb to these thoughts than crippled with a sudden drop.

No.

But is it ethical for you to do so? It seems you likely had to actively search out such a file, as opposed to it falling into your lap. — Thorongil

Believe it or not it actually did kinda fall into my lap.

I'm not violating copyright law simply by reading what someone else has uploaded. If they hadn't uploaded it, I probably would not have read it.

David Benatar - The Human Predicament

Better-than is not equivalent to good. That's it.

yeah probably he's smart af when it comes to biology

damn it's been too long since I've heard the word symmetry, I had no idea how much I needed it until now

hey, apo's back, nice

But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred. We aren't throwing garbage into it, we are putting a satellite into orbit that will eventually be consumed by the Sun. Perhaps this satellite will return useful data that will save lives. Who knows. I highly doubt NASA is just half-assing it and assuming the probe isn't going to screw something up with the Sun.

It's like putting flags on the top of the Himalayas. Long after humanity has gone, the flags will flap away and the mountains will stand on the own once more. If you think about it, the elements used to create the probe came from stellar explosions in the past. The elements are just being returned back to where they came from in some sense.

Does the Sun care what gets tossed into it?

My autobiography.

by me of course

Your namesake would have made the distinction between essential, or natural, pursuits and artificial pursuits. Natural pursuits being those like acquiring food, water, shelter, intercourse (but that is debatably essential), artificial pursuits being those imposed and constructed by society, like money, fame, and power.

Individuality really is a myth. A great majority of the things we do, we do because we care about what others think of us. Our self-esteem is largely dependent upon the status given to us by our peers. We know from developmental psychology (such as Rank and Becker) that people are symbolic objects to others before they begin to see themselves as individuals. We are molded and shaped by others, not even by them maliciously imposing their values on us but by simply providing nurture and care for us when we are young, and come to understand that in a system of symbols, every person must play their part, represent their symbolic role. A few fit into the heroic archetype and help knit the society together.

Even Schopenhauer, the old cranky fart, secretly perused the footnotes of the newspaper for any mention of his name, and late in life found great satisfaction in the attention given to him by the public at large. For as much as Western civilization has promoted the individual, I think it more likely that "individualistic" people are really just very good at performing an act of deception - they act removed and individualistic yet pride themselves on this image. Without anyone else, there would be no real value to being an individual - a hermit is a hermit in relation to the rest of society. Our heritage (Heidegger) is rooted in the surrounding culture, heritage is literally part of who we are even if we don't like it.

This is, I think, one of the issues I have with Heidegger's "existentialism". He takes it as a given that we are social beings with an irreplaceable heritage, and in many cases promotes and values this. His authenticity is all about creating individuality within the parameters of one's social bubble, like making a circle in the sand is saying "this is mine" while simultaneously living in society as well. It's very conservative and, in my opinion, non-radical. I see his emphasis on heritage as an escape from the "nothing" - Heidegger isn't willing to see "nihilism" to it's end. He wants to save meaning and purpose by simply turning his gaze away. It's quite inauthentic. At least that's what I interpreted it as.

I think anyone who devalues getting intoxicated by alcohol or some other substance might not have experienced the things that typically motivate getting intoxicated.

Is it inauthentic? Sure, but who the fuck cares? Life hurts and alcohol helps with that.

Weltschmerz by Frederick C. Beiser

I'll pay you

Hey can someone please do my programming assignment for me

Buddhist reincarnation isn't really like re-starting anew but with the same "ego", it's more like the transferal of the flame from one candle to another candle.

I think any "religious" view of science stems from a misunderstanding of what science is and an ignorance of its methodology and limits.

The average person's knowledge of "science" comes from superficial encounters with its products, which are things that have gone through a large filtering process before they reach the front headlines or the store shelves. When most encounters with science are these positive, progressive moments, it is no wonder scientism is on the rise.

I am by no means trying to diminish science and replace it by some traditional religion. But the fact is that, when one actually does science, or when one actually reads real scientific papers, it becomes very obvious that the popular notion of science is wildly skewed. For one thing, most of the time science is incredibly boring - the science that is shown in a documentary or a magazine is only a small portion of the wider ocean of research, most of which is rather unimportant, repetitive, and disappointing.

Another thing is that scientists are human beings too, and have biases and irrational thinking patterns. Some of the research papers I personally have read were obviously bent in some direction, or the conclusions derived did not follow from the data. Science is not perfect - everyone agrees with this - but not everyone realizes just how imperfect it actually is, just how shoddy a job some scientists do. And just like before, this quality of science is obscured by a confirmation bias - nobody wants to read about the failures of science. So only the successes are filtered through - which makes science seem like some magic methodology that provides answers to everything we want to know.

A third thing, and one that I've increasingly found to be true of myself, is that scientism seems to depend on a naive Cartesian worldview, the duality between the res cogitans and the res extensa. The res cogitans acts as some kind of "unexplained explainer" - which is precisely how things like eliminative materialism crop up. And it literally makes science out to be like some sort of magic, and scientists as modern wizards and miracle workers. Even if a theory is outlandish and implausible, stamping the label "science" on it automatically makes it the next big thing. It puts science on a pedestal, and some of its crazy theories start looking like magic tricks - the magic is "because science." It sounds like it explains things but it really doesn't at all.

Finally, I think modern phenomenology has made a convincing case that there are some things that cannot be studied by the common notion of "science" but which require us to think philosophically, or to do phenomenology. The unexplained explainer, the "god's eye view", is a complete myth that is impossible to attain.

As for truth and meaning, I can only speak of my personal experience. Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back. — daldai

So, you're a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning "out there", but not a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning whatsoever? Because, to be sure, the former is coherent while the latter is not.

I think it can be scary and difficult to come to terms with, but once you do manage to accept the rather futile nature of organic existence, everything makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Really, I think you should be more scared about the meaninglessness of pain, especially extreme pain, rather than just existential meaninglessness itself.

What bothers us the most probably usually isn't despair but hope.

Welcome.

The "leap of faith" is a problem for me, as I have had a sceptical, scientific approach to understanding the world for as long as I can remember. I hope we can all agree that this approach can only lead to nihilism, but for a long time I was naïve enough to equate truth with meaning. — daldai

What do you mean by "leap of faith"? Soren Kierkegaard would have seen science as requiring a leap of faith itself.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say truth does not equate to meaning. Surely the pursuit of truth is itself a form of meaning? Or do you mean to say that the pursuit of truth results in disillusionment or something like that?

There is a quote which, if memory serves, is attributed to Socrates - "all I know is that I know nothing." Well, that might have been true 2,400 years ago but with all the knowledge science has given us I now claim to know everything - in the wide sense of course. What I mean is that I can now close my eyes and see, generally, how everything fits together from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang right up to now and, even in this age of specialization, I know I can't be the only one - that really would be absurd. — daldai

Remember also how Socrates said knowledge itself is useless?

How has science really helped you see how "everything hangs together" (the general goal of metaphysics)? Certainly it can add valuable information but it still hangs on metaphysical views itself.

Anyway, this isn't about justifying nihilism (ha!), it's about finding a way to cure it, because I no longer care about the truth and I am lonely. — daldai

Get a girlfriend.

This is not a joke, I want to cure myself of nihilism and would consider hypnotism or even brain surgery in order to become someone capable of taking a "leap of faith." — daldai

Or, alternatively, go study phenomenology and purge yourself of some of that "scientific" reductionism. 8-)

Consciousness is inescapably subjective. It will always be meaningful, it will always be becoming, it will always be revealing and obscuring. The idea of a perfect "god's eye view" of the world, impartial and unbiased to everything, is a myth.

I'm cool too with space exploration, but why would you fucking go to the moon? — Bitter Crank

Because I'd like to be able to see something like this.

I'm cool with space exploration, hell, if I had the opportunity I'd fucking go to the moon! Space colonization is what is nauseating. I'd like to be aboard a spaceship that simply watches.

Where I'm really critical of progress, is the idea that 'the next step is outer space'. It's total bollocks, in my view, and dangerous bollocks. We have a vessel, equipped to carry vast populations through space for millions of years - it's called Earth. And we have to look after the one we have, otherwise the human race won't live long enough to build any kind of 'starship'. — Wayfarer

Don't get me started on my aversion to expansion into space. It's delusional to think that we'll fare any better on another planet when we can't even take care of the one we already have.

I can just imagine it now - a McDonald's every ten miles on Mars. They don't show that in the movies!

Nobody ever seems to acknowledge it or own up to it, but a lot of thinkers, it seems obvious to me, filter everything through a faith in a perpetual improvement in the human condition with our tool that can make or fix anything, our trump card in our game against the entire universe: reason. Scientists. Feminists. Objectivists. Progressives. Transhumanists. Neoliberals. Republicans. Democrats. Libertarians. Almost all of academia in the West, dissenting postmodern theorists notwithstanding. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree. I'm increasingly vexed and nauseated by the large amount of different worldviews that all seem to be saying the same thing but which fail to actually fulfill their promises. Not only do each of these worldviews have to see all the other numerous competing worldviews as misguided, but they have to renounce all of history, or re-interpret history has culminating in their specific worldview. It's incredibly narcissistic and short-sighted. These movements and acolytes will never go away. If it's not x, then it'll be y that will finally save humanity. If it's not y, then it'll be z that will finally redeem our condition. After a while it just gets really annoying and pathetically delusional.

I think it likely that there is a limit to progress. I think we've made some undeniable progress in many places, medicine and hygiene being the most prominent, as well as communications and a general understanding of the world. To make progress in the way these progressives dream of is to fundamentally change the human condition - look at the transhumanists, they explicitly endorse this. If we are to escape the problems that have plagued us since the beginning of time then we might as well just accept that if it will ever happen, it'll only be through a radical change in our nature. So radical that we might not even be recognizingly human. So it won't be humans we save, but rather humans that we replace with something superior.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

What exactly is the meaning of "spirituality" in your formulation? — Reformed Nihilist

Basically just any sort of feeling of belonging in the world or serving a higher purpose that is not immediately concrete and accessible but rather overarching and "cosmic", something that permeates everything and anything. That there is some "other" order to the universe that makes it all "make sense", justifies injustices and to which the aesthetic provides access to.

It's the feeling of being almost-at-home, but not quite, as if you're approaching some big discovery and part of the deal is that it's mysterious, and that once you finally arrive it'll all make sense, including why it had to be mysterious in the first place. Most likely this understanding would seem to reside after death, in some other realm or mode of existence, and which the journey to is life.

I'd say it's a deep, primordial desire to belong and see what it "all" is about, how everything hangs together, to comprehend the necessity of every thing that exists and grasp some grand, metaphysical mosaic of meaning. It's natural and inevitable but I think it's also commonly formed from desperation. It's not just a desire but a need, a demand, that the universe be welcoming and recognize the person. Or at least "open up" to their questions.

So basically it's a feeling that one might be finally getting some answers to the questions that have haunted and plagued humanity since it first started philosophizing.

To be devoid of spirituality is to be homeless. At least that's what it seems to me.

The Death of Ivan Ilych by Leo Tolstoy

Consent is a huge moral and legal issue yet life is not founded on it. — Andrew4Handel

Right, affirmative ethics eschews harm and manipulation of other people but fails to account for the single instance of harm and manipulation that makes the rest of harm and manipulation possible (and affirmative ethics as well).

It's unreasonable to think someone has to be consciously aware at the present state in order to qualify for respecting consent. For consent has to do with what a person would like to have done to them, which implies a future instance of that person, even if this person has no instances at the present.

If a person is born and finds they do not like existing, and wish they had never been born, it is coherent for them to say that their capacity to consent was not respected, even if it is true that, if it was respected, they would not exist in the first place. The situation can be revealed in a different way: had this person actually existed before they existed, would they have consented? So it's really actually less about the actual action of violating consent and more about avoiding a problematic situation in which someone feels as though their consent has been violated.

The same "issue" can be seemingly applied to instances of obvious wronged births, such as people born with Tay-Sach's disease. Does it really make sense to say these people are not harmed when coming into existence? Perhaps - but perhaps we can just say that those who exist with Tay-Sach's disease are harmed, and therefore to exist with Tay-Sach's disease is to be harmed.

Existence being the base conditional requirement for a harm or a manipulation does not make it less problematic. It actually makes it more problematic. And these qualms about non-existence are easily solved with some language analysis.

I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe. — Thinker

No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO