Who else feels completely depressed when they think about life in society and routine activities?
I'm not even talking about the whole wagekek meme, this is completely different.
It's just this abhorrent idea of having a well-defined, conventional and mildly happy life.
You get a medium sized apartment, you get used to your neighborhood so you know which restaurants you like the most, you go grocery shopping mechanically, you ride the bus/tube and hear people on the phone talking about their lives which seem to be unimportant, yet are roughly identical to yours. Then you go home, you quickly microwave or order a pizza and get yourself a beer because hey, you feel tired so you deserve it. You turn on your laptop and the TV, drown yourself in this warm, comfortable flow of familiar sounds and information, and suddenly you find yourself wondering if things could have been different at some point.
You feel happy and satisfied with your life. You feel like you've somewhat succeeded, you know? You managed to keep a low profile, you have a source of income, you have a lot of free time.
Yet, there's still a faint sense of unfulfillment, some kind of eerie nostalgia. You try to shake it off as a reminiscence of a childish dream, but it's there, undeniably.
It's that strange, not-quite-sad yet melancholic idea that makes you think that, perhaps, if you had done things differently, something else could've happened - you could have gone somewhere else, far from the "cycle of life" and the incessant buzzing of humanity.
You could have entered a new world, but you chose to stay in this one.
>>24421940
>blah blah blah blah banal prattle
>what if what if what if
>>24421993
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
We lose once we allow the reality of life to define us
Unfortunately, this has already happened, so just by virtue of existing here we have already lost
People who expect their abstract, impossible dreams to come to life just haven't realized this yet
People who let go of those dreams despite their temporary loss, though, damning themselves to an eternity of what is before them, they're the saddest of them all.
>>24422223
So death is the only answer?
>>24421940
I feel like ive lived lives like that a thousand times in my head, its like you know exactly whats gonna happen, its a road everyone goes down, a old beaten path in life with no alternatives. you see it everywhere, other people, fictional television people, etc, theyre all the same. I havent even begun to work my way to that lifestlyle, and im already bored with it, there has to be more to life.
>>24422298
But death is the cessation of all dreams, unless I misunderstand it
There is no answer
>>24422299
>I havent even begun to work my way to that lifestyle, and im already bored with it
I know exactly what you're talking about. I feel the same, like I can accurately predict everything that's going to happen to me if I continue walking the path I'm currently following.
The worst thing is when you start carefully observing other people. At first you feel like you're somewhat superior to them (everyone feels that way), but soon you come to realize that they're exactly the same as you are. They feel strong emotions, they do things that are important to them, and they also believe that there's a higher meaning to all of this (well, most do).
Everyone's the same person because everyone's lives consist of the same routine and cycles.
>>24422330
We don't know what happens after death, although there's a >99% chance you're right. Either there's no answer, or the answer's death, then.
This shit is so numbing.
>>24421999
I just shortened it for you friend :)
>>24421940
That's why life is all about what you do while you're working.
Don't be a wageslave.
Acquire skills
Open your own business
Take control of your own destiny
>tfw you read about the mouse utopia experiment and behavioural sink, then take a walk during noon downtown
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
>>24422539
It's not about being a wageslave, though. It's just the fact that whatever you do, you'll always be stuck in the framework of society. There's no way to lead a "different" life, you'll always end up stuck in a paradigm. You can't change anything.
>>24422573
No, you're wrong. Once you have control of your own life and enough money, you can do whatever you want. There are so many different societies out there man, the world is a big place. You can go somewhere where there are no laws or police. You're merely too limited in your scope of thinking, you lack imagination and drive.
>you will never be a child again, not having to worry about anything
>>24422616
>you lack imagination
Not really. I used to think the same way as you mentioned; I thought I'd just say "fuck it" to everything and spend my life travelling. But that's not the answer, nor is it a realistic plan anyway.
Of course it would be preferable to be a wayfarer rather than being part of the white collar workforce, but then what? There's no higher meaning to be found regardless of where you go.
>>24422695
this anon gets it
he really does
Philip Larkin calls it a "reprehensibly perfect" life.
I recommend either killing yourself or accepting that life will never seem as exciting as it did when you were a child.
>>24422630
you can always join the army and be a child again without any worries, just do as you're told.
>>24422806
>reprehensibly perfect
How so? I don't understand why he'd use the term "reprehensible".
I guess you're right either way. There's no answer and no meaning. You either fool yourself into finding a lesser, insignificant "meaning" to things, or you kill yourself/wait to die.
>>24422616
>>No, you're wrong. Once you have control of your own life and enough money, you can do whatever you want.
So just like everyone else with enough money? Do you think money can buy you something outside society? Does a bird care for money? Does a rock?
>>24422934
This.
Money allows you to have more experiences than the average person. Ultimately, what you can acquire with it stays within the scope of society. Its quality simply increases but it stays meaningless. Sure, you can travel to Patagonia and admire the sunset from the peak of a mountain, but that won't bring you anything else than a temporary state of happiness and deliverance that you could've acquired more cheaply anyway. And when you're done, when you've experienced that thing, things go back to normal and you're likely to feel even more dull and numb than before.
Money brings happiness (periodically, at least), but it won't allow you to reach anything higher than that. You won't find anything significant.
Read a few survival guides, buy survival gear and sell all your other belongings. Give all your money to Oxfam and go into the world, like in that book, 'Into the Wild'.
>>24423023
I beg to differ
Scientific progress and our ability to understand this world runs on money, which fuels cooperation between individuals who under ordinary circumstances would not cooperate with each other
Money on its own will not get you there, but it can get you to the thing that will get you there
It's a shit system, but instead choosing to bind cooperation solely by things like loyalty and actual, non-forced synchronization is difficult.
>>24422934
now youre starting to sound stupid
>>24423067
I agree with you for the most part but what "there" are you talking about when you say
>it can get you to the thing that will get you there
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. Happiness can be a goal (although it's evasive), but it's not meaningful. There is no "there", there's no highest floor you can aim for.
>>24423103
He's not OP.
>>24423026
See >>24422695
Into the Wild was nice but self-explanatory. It's a viable plan to want to travel, but it's only marginally better than anything else, if at all
>>24422695
Who said anything about traveling?
Just find something that makes you happy. If you think every life consists of grocery shopping and small talk you're just a fucking loser with no ambition.
>>24423148
>I agree with you for the most part but what "there" are you talking about when you say
I don't think we really know yet
The only way to find out is to continue to broaden our understanding
I'm banking on the idea that, in order to be dissatisfied with whatever is going on here, there has to be something out there to juxtapose it. What are we looking for and how do we find it?
>Happiness can be a goal (although it's evasive), but it's not meaningful
I agree and disagree. I think there's meaning in happiness, but it's not transcendental.
>There is no "there", there's no highest floor you can aim for
In the objective sense, possibly, but if this is true from a subjective standpoint, then why would we feel assed to aim in the first place? And, even if that "there" ends up being just a means to getting to yet another "there", does this devalue it's meaning? I'm not buying the idea that infinity has to be dismal.
>>24423261
Oh and also we have no idea if there's an "end-point" or if there's a highest floor because we haven't reached it yet
Nb
>>24421940
Nothing you will ever do can bring actual fulfillment. Nothing will save you from death, it will come much earlier than you expect, and in the last moments you'll feel regrets for having missed an opportunity to do something else. But there was nothing you actually could have done. If you were God-Emperor of the Earth, nothing of what you've done qould really matter either anyway, it'd be some bullshit built or discussed by primates on a small irrelevant planet lost among billions of billions others (in the visible universe, but the universe is most probably infinite).
>>24423216
>Just find something that makes you happy
This is on the same level as "just be yourself". I also said that happiness wasn't something to strive for anyway.
>>24423261
>there has to be something out there to juxtapose it
Not necessarily, it could just be a fundamental dissatisfaction with existence. Nothing points to a higher meaning within anything. This is not about scientific research, it's about finding a supposed goal or signification to the entirety of consciousness.
>how do we find it
By finding something which brings a complete sense of fulfillment and justification to everything? That's impossible. You can try, but you'd be fooling yourself into believing that something meaningless has a higher purpose.
>there's meaning in happiness
What is it?
What's different, fundamentally, between a person who feels sad all the time and a person who feels happy all the time? Has one of them discovered something the other has not? Does the happy person automatically have a more meaningful life because he feels good?
>In the objective sense, possibly
The objective sense is all that matters, though. Subjectivity leads to confirmation bias. It's not true from a subjective standpoint because we need to feel that whatever we're doing means something.
>does this devalue its meaning
Yes because it that were to be true, you wouldn't even have found a "there". That "there" would just be another illusion of fulfillment.
Infinity isn't necessarily dismal, it's just pointless. Whether or not you feel bad because of it is another matter.
>>24423307
>it will come much earlier than you expect
Good
Anyone else here /curious about dying/? I don't even feel depressed but I'm eager to know what happens after death
>>24424012
Sorry but there is absolutely no reason to even suspect there might "be something" after death, other than putrefaction. Even if there was some sort of God it doesn't really make sense why there would be. It's plain wishful thinking.
Of course noone can absolutely know for sure about it, but in the same way we can't know for sure that on 12/22/15 we won't all wake up from this simulation and return to our 2D manga reality. Yeah it'd be awesome if there was "something", but just because it's a yes-no question doesn't mean there is a 50-50 probability.
So no I'm not really curious; I'm rather afraid and depressed.
>>24424162
>Even if there was some sort of God it doesn't really make sense why there would be
I mean why there would be an afterlife.*
>>24423513
>it could just be a fundamental dissatisfaction with existence
Dissatisfaction implies a lack of satisfaction, which means satisfaction itself exists, at least conceptually. If reality truly is infinite and all things that can exist truly do, then satisfaction must be possible within that infinity.
>That's impossible
What's impossible in the here and now is not necessarily impossible in the grand scheme of all that is everything, though it may be impossible given the limiting circumstances of our particular manner of existence
>Does the happy person automatically have a more meaningful life because he feels good?
Happiness has meaning unto itself
It is what it is
Why must meaning point to more meaning in order for that meaning to mean anything? That doesn't make any sense. To deny the meaning of happiness is to deny that it exists at all.
>>24424273
>though it may be impossible given the limiting circumstances of our particular manner of existence
However, I will ad that we don't know this for certain
>>24421940
it's due to industrialization
but you can't talk about it without sounding like pic related, you're just supposed to be a good boy (goy) and accept it.
>>24424162
>>24424182
>no reason to even suspect there might "be something"
>it doesn't really make sense
Why?
I'm not talking about a god or a "place where souls go" or whatever. I'm talking about "something else", whatever that might be. Something else than nothingness, that's all.
>>24423513
>That "there" would just be another illusion of fulfillment
Then you have just found its meaning
>Infinity isn't necessarily dismal, it's just pointless
I beg to differ, instead it's one huge vat of swirling points
>>24424313
>he was even a manlet
ONE OF US, ONE OF US
>>24423513
>The objective sense is all that matters, though
The idea that objectivity is all that matters is subjective
Without subjectivity nothing at all matters, including objectivity itself, because there is no subject to derive meaning from the object
If you were to view the objective interpretation of something as the sum of all subjective viewpoints and the conditions which cause them to arise (very important), then every subjective perception becomes a piece of the puzzle
>>24424334
We know that our minds are the product of our brains. They did not exist before our brains worked, so why would they exist afterwards?
Of course it is always perfectly possible to imagine that there is something else, but no matter what it is, it requires to postulate the existence of many things we have no sort of evidence of (like eternal souls).
>>24424313
How would a non-industrialized society solve this issue, apart in dumbing people down through work and illnesses so that they don't think about it?
People used to live pathetic, tough lives then die like dogs. Now they live pathetic but comfy lives and then die like dogs.
>>24424477
>People used to live pathetic, tough lives then die like dogs. Now they live pathetic but comfy lives and then die like dogs.
you're not thinking far back enough
t b h agriculture was the worst mistake humans ever made
>>24424536
I think not understanding the world would kind of suck, though
It's like wandering through a maze without any map
>>24424547
every other species on earth seems fine with it
>>24424560
It's too bad we're not all them, then
>>24424574
tfw i'll never be a dolphin
>>24424313
It's the case in rural areas as well, though.
>>24424273
>which means satisfaction itself exists
You're picking on semantics. You can reduce anything to duality, but there are some things that exist without their supposed "opposite".
>at least conceptually
Then it's just a pipedream, which doesn't change anything. The concept of satisfaction might be easy to grasp but it's impossible to reach. Have you ever heard such a thing as "existential satisfaction" that wasn't based on some form of ideological walking stick (therefore, a lie/deception/wishful thinking)?
>all things that can exist truly do
Your reasoning is too mathematical, I think. "If the universe is infinite, then there's a planet where X exists", etc. It's logical to assume so, but it's not reasonable. If existential satisfaction existed, it would be all-encompassing, not limited to "somewhere" or "some time".
>not necessarily impossible in the grand scheme of all that is everything
>limiting circumstances of our particular manner of existence
So, satisfaction exists, but the fact that we're human prevents us from experiencing it. Aren't we back to square one?
>It is what it is
So it has a meaning just because it "is"? Then what is this meaning? If happiness is meaningful because it exists, then everything that exists is meaningful, right? Again, what "meaning" do these things point to?
And if all these things point to separate purposes and meanings, then doesn't that make them utterly meaningless by definition, if since we're searching for an universal answer?
>Why must meaning point to more meaning
It mustn't, because existing doesn't give something an objective meaning, just a subjective purpose.
>is to deny that it exists at all
Why? If I deny the meaning of everything, I'm not denying the existence of everything. I'm just pointing out that the things I'm experiencing aren't linked to any higher signification.
And then there's the whole qualia problem.
Read into Taoism and go do some charity/volunteer work, if your'e unable to find happiness in your own time why not focus on helping someone elses happiness in your time? Chances are it'll make you feel more fulfilled too.
You also sound like someone who's never followed their natural creativity, why not try painting or building something? (If your answer is because you think you're too old to get good, or that you're terrible at it. Not everything needs a purpose, stop being a boring dick.)
>>24424588
I don't know
Sometimes I wonder if dolphins are really happy
There's a lot of interspecies aggression that seems to go on with them
Dolphin rape and the like
Also living in the ocean is terrifying mang it's so unpredictable with that whole additional dimension of space to move around in, all those weird creatures
>>24424619
I want to murder you people
>>24421940
I wish I could somehow achieve that mediocre life. Everything but living in poverty and stress. I just want to be comfy in this wicked century.
>>24424640
the weird creatures are usually very deep, dolphins don't go down deep enough to interact with those things
the only thing dolphins have to worry about is orca, that's pretty much it. being an orca would probably be better than being a dolphin t b h
>>24424536
That's indeed what pushed us into today's wild ride, but I suspected you referred to that, which is why I talked about illnesses and not just work. Health is just one of the countless domains in which civilization made our lives much better. Contrary to the traditional picture, hunters-gatherers did not live in abundance but could indeed starve. And they did have societies with harsh rules and leaders and so on. Hell, there are still hunter-gatherer tribes today. Do you really think their lives are much more meaningful and amazing than ours? If they are, it is purely out of ignorance, leading them to believe what they do is relevant and important for the cosmic order.
>>24424694
we don't seem that healthy
like more than half the population of america is filled with fat fucks who can't run half a mile without passing out
meaning has nothing to do with it, really, we're just fit to live that life style more than what we're doing now.
>>24424347
>Then you have just found its meaning
No, I have found it to be meaningless, and I'm back to where I started, since I've been unable to find a meaning to anything.
>one huge vat of swirling points
How does that make it not purposeless?
>>24424404
>The idea that objectivity is all that matters is subjective
Objectivity is not the summation of all subjective ideas. It is not processed or formed, it exists unconditionally and represents an idea that isn't hindered or affected by bias.
Objectivity, by definition is all that matters, since it is "above" subjectivity in essence.
>Without subjectivity nothing at all matters
Yes, that's my point. Nothing matters, because we all have our subjective interpretation of what things are, but this subjective viewpoint is an illusion. What I'm searching for (and will never be able to find) is the vantage point provided by objectivity.
>there is no subject to derive meaning from the object
You're saying that judgement done by a conscious being is inherently subjective, which is not necessarily false but leads us to a dead end as aforementioned (qualia, "is the red I see the same red you see")
>then every subjective viewpoint becomes a piece of the puzzle
That is, IF you were to view objectivity as a sum of parts and not as a complete "thing".
>>24424477
>We know that our minds are the product of our brains
Do we? We don't know shit about what the mind is, where it comes from and how it works. We know a bit about the brain but that's all.
And yeah, we won't ever be able to know before dying, that's what makes it exciting.
>>24424747
>meaning has nothing to do with it, really
Isn't that what OP is talking about though?
Btw if you want to live like a beast in the jungle without any sort of modern comfort, you can.
coffee with pizza......for YOU
>>24424619
You didn't read anything I said, did you. I'm not aiming for happiness, nor for the happiness of others, and "feeling more fulfilled" is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. The illusion of fulfillment is much, much worse than existential unfulfillment.
>who's never followed their natural creativity
I draw a lot and write occasionally, makes me feel good for some time but that's all there is to it. It has no inherent meaning either. I can draw or write something nice and be done with it, what did it bring me? A temporary sense of happiness or pleasure, that's all.
>Not everything needs a purpose
Then why exist if you don't have a purpose? How can you tell yourself "I am utterly meaningless, yet I am here"?
>>24424779
Read a bit about neuropsychology (for instance the various changes to behaviour or personality caused by very localized brain damage; or the study showing our brains know and prepare for our actions before we even consciently decide to do something), none of it would really make sense if the brain did not produce our minds.
>>24424885
So the brain produces consciousness?
Shit, it's boring if you can just assume with little change of being wrong that nothing happens after death.
>>24424609
>You can reduce anything to duality, but there are some things that exist without their supposed "opposite".
So you're assuming that satisfaction does not exist, that dissatisfaction is it's own thing that doesn't exist on a continuum. Okay. If dissatisfaction exists, and sentient beings are capable of not experiencing things that do exist, then it would follow that it's possible to not experience dissatisfaction. What would you call the experience of not being dissatisfied?
>Then it's just a pipedream, which doesn't change anything
But it points to the idea that it is within the realm of possibility. The things we imagine are derived from what we experience.
>Have you ever heard such a thing as "existential satisfaction" that wasn't based on some form of ideological walking stick
No, but just because the interior of a cave is dark, doesn't mean the forestry surrounding it is. I guess you can't automatically conclude that it isn't, but you also can't reasonably conclude that it is.
>If existential satisfaction existed, it would be all-encompassing, not limited to "somewhere" or "some time"
Cats exist yet cats are limited to a place and time. Now, if you were to rephrase that to say that existential satisfaction that doesn't have the capability of seguing into dissatisfaction exists, then I'd be more inclined to agree, though I still don't conclusively know. With forethought, this can make the experience of satisfaction dissatisfying, a lie of sorts, but to choose temporary satisfaction as the lie over temporary dissatisfaction seems arbitrary.
The whole of existence can be satisfying and unsatisfying at the same time. Though you're right, satisfaction definitely is not absolute as of right now. Dissatisfaction hasn't been proven to be either.
>Aren't we back to square one?
Unless we can modify our human-ness to more closely represent something that can experience satisfaction, yes.
>>24421940
What's the solution?
>>24424758
>Then what is this meaning?
The meaning of whatever inspires happiness is happiness. Happiness IS the meaning. If you're asking what the meaning of the meaning is, then you're going to find yourself in an endless spiral of deriving one meaning from the next. The chain lacking an end point (which is something we're not certain of) does not mean the chain has no meaning, only that it has no resolution.
>Why? If I deny the meaning of everything, I'm not denying the existence of everything. I'm just pointing out that the things I'm experiencing aren't linked to any higher signification.
If something had no meaning you wouldn't be able to percieve it. The perception itself is the meaning. It might not be linked to higher signification, but this does not make it meaningless.
>And then there's the whole qualia problem.
I don't know what this means
Can you explain?
>How does that make it not purposeless?
It contains all purpose, so how can it be purposeless?
>Objectivity is not the summation of all subjective ideas. It is not processed or formed, it exists unconditionally and represents an idea that isn't hindered or affected by bias.
I beg to differ. The only way to understand something is to know what that thing is like under all conditions and from all viewpoints, at once. A subjective viewpoint is just a fragment of the truth, or, oftentimes, the truth when it is masked under a lie.
Something can't exist unconditionally, existence is defined by condition.
> but this subjective viewpoint is an illusion
It absolutely is not
It is its own truth
If you were to look at a cube from one side, you would see a square. You might think the cube itself in its entirety is a square, that is an illusion. But the fact that one side of a cube is a square is not. It's only illusory when you think your subjective experience represents entire truth.
>>24424758
>That is, IF you were to view objectivity as a sum of parts and not as a complete "thing"
A complete thing when viewed as individual parts IS the sum of its parts.
>"is the red I see the same red you see"
I'd answer this by saying things that are red appear as the red I see them in when I am under the existential conditions that I am under when I see that red, and same goes for you too.
>>24424942
I'm assuming it does not exist because of its nature: "existential satisfaction" cannot exist if "existential dissatisfaction" exists, just like there can't be nothing if there's something, for example.
Absolute, objective concepts can't be treated the same way as subjective, relative things. Sentient beings, by default, experience existential dissatisfaction, which they mostly (consciously or not) drown with a temporary and/or illusory sense of fulfillment. And thus, I can't agree with
>it's possible to not experience dissatisfaction
since dissatisfaction is all we can experience. We can fool ourselves but not change how things are.
>points to the idea that it is within the realm of possibility
Again, the fact that it's conceptual makes it impossible. Sure, what we imagine is derived from experiences since we need a basis. Still, there are a lot of things I can imagine which cannot, and will not, ever exist, precisely because there are already existing concepts that prevent such things from existing. I don't know if I'm being clear.
>doesn't mean that the forestry surrounding it is
I have yet to see a man who claims to have discovered the answer and isn't a madman, a charlatan, or a delusional individual. That's because such a man doesn't exist: there can't be one satisfied individual. It's either everything or nothing.
>Dissatisfaction hasn't been proven to be either
You're confusing (dis)satisfaction in the literal sense and absolute, existential (dis)satisfaction.
>Unless we can modify our human-ness
Then we wouldn't exist anymore. The human condition is fundamentally defined as unsatisfying.
>>24424986
Wishful thinking, which still hides fundamental dissatisfaction, or death (which isn't an answer in itself). Unless there's something after death which is absolutely not linked in any way to our current state of existence, then there's no answer and there will never be one.
>>24425100
>It is its own truth
And that truth would be when you look at a cube from one side and have normal human sensory functionality, you would see a square
This isn't untrue
>>24425161
>I'm assuming it does not exist because of its nature: "existential satisfaction" cannot exist if "existential dissatisfaction" exists, just like there can't be nothing if there's something, for example.
You can flip this on its head by saying existential dissatisfaction cannot exist if existential satisfaction exists, just like there can't be something if there is nothing. You can't say that dissatisfaction absolutely exists, either, if existential satisfaction, whether temporary or not, also exists for even a single moment for a single individual.
Instead, I'm saying there can be something over here, and nothing over there, and that both something and nothing can co(not)exist
>Sentient beings, by default, experience existential dissatisfaction, which they mostly (consciously or not) drown with a temporary and/or illusory sense of fulfillment
Or is the temporary sense of fulfillment reality, and existential dissatisfaction the illusion? Do sentient beings, by default, experience temporary fulfillment interspersed with temporary moments of unfulfillment?
I agree that the lack of permanency of fulfillment is unsettling, but unfulfillment is also impermanent if temporary "distraction" exists to erase it.
>Still, there are a lot of things I can imagine which cannot, and will not, ever exist, precisely because there are already existing concepts that prevent such things from existing. I don't know if I'm being clear.
No I think you are. I'd add, though, that there is no evidence those concepts that prevent those things from existing are universal.
>Again, the fact that it's conceptual makes it impossible
Makes no sense. We manifest concepts into reality all the time, though with the set of conditions given in the rest of this sentence I understand what you're saying.
>>24425100
You're saying the meaning is the meaning. But that doesn't make sense. You can't have a meaning be its own meaning, that's incorrect on several levels. Furthermore, a chain that does not have a resolution is a chain without meaning: if you can't resolve a problem, then the answer to this problem can never be known. If you cannot figure out what the problem entails, then it has no purpose and its existence is meaningless.
>If something had no meaning you wouldn't be able to perceive it
You're saying perception is the meaning of things. That the experience of consciousness is self-fulfilling. Isn't that a huge assumption?
Things exist simply so that we can perceive them?
It it is not linked to any signification, then it's just like the problem I mentioned above. If you can't resolve it, it has no meaning. You can try to give it a meaning by saying "well, the fact that this problem exists means something", but then what does it mean? It's inconclusive, and therefore purposeless.
>Can you explain
If we narrow down meaning to perception, we very quickly reach a point of no-return because of qualia. Since it's impossible to perceive what another person perceives and say with certainty "I experienced this from X's point of view", then you can't say perception is meaningful. Being able to experience things in different ways would make the experience of consciousness objective and self-fulfilling, thus meaningful. Which it is not.
>It contains all purpose
Does it? I thought we said that purpose was absolute.
Infinity in the physical sense is purposeless because of physical limitations. If you want to discuss the conceptual meaning of infinity then it gets much more difficult. Can you really grasp the meaning of infinity in a conceptual way?
>The only way to understand something [...]
Can you do that, though? Can you gather all subjective viewpoints and combine them? How can you be sure that what you've gathered is complete?
Cont.
>>24425161
>It's either everything or nothing
But it's quiet clearly neither. We live on a water covered rock suspended in void. Do you see the void as absolute simply because there isn't enough water-covered rocks to eliminate it?
>absolute, existential (dis)satisfaction
It cannot be said that there is absolute dissatisfaction when any one individual is satisfied, as per your manner of thinking. Can you prove that not a single individual is satisfied with existence?
Existence is dissatisfying because dissatisfaction exists, I understand that. But can it not also be said that existence is satisfying because satisfaction exists? I don't know if there's an absolute to begin with, but I wouldn't point to dissatisfaction as that absolute, when experiences, however small muted they may be, point to that being untrue.
>Then we wouldn't exist anymore
Well we would, just not as our pain-ridden selves. We'd move from one place to another.
>>24422695
>>24422741
Still there is a lot of fulfillment to be found even then.
Hang out wit people you like - if you dont have them go out and find them.
BUt basically yes - there is no higher or lower meaning in pursuing A or B - just do what makes you feel content.
>>24424162
The story behind that picture was one of the few things to make me sick.
I felt strange emotions when learning about it. Changed me as a person.
>>24425100
Cont.
I mostly agree with your description of subjectivity, but I disagree when you say it's necessarily a part of objectivity. You're saying objectivity is an analysis: it's not, it's an axiom. You can't combine several parts to get an axiom, it's nonsensical.
Objectivity is impossible to reach precisely because it exists unconditionally, then.
>the fact that one side of a cube is a square is not
>It's only illusory when you think your subjective experience represents the truth
You're basically confirming what I said, though. When you think your subjectivity is objective, you're in an illusion. When you realize it's not, you're fundamentally dissatisfied because you know you can't grasp the entirety of things.
>>24425111
You misunderstood what I said. Objectivity is impossible to divide since it's axiomatic. You can't deconstruct it as a sum of parts if it's already complete by itself.
You're stuck in a loop there. What you said is true, but it doesn't answer anything. You perceive that red as you do because of existential conditions, sure. Now can you say that these existential conditions can be shared?
>>24425346
>if existential satisfaction, whether temporary or not
That wouldn't make it existential satisfaction. If it's temporary, it's not absolute. If it's not absolute, it's not objective and can be perceived conditionally.
>for even a single moment for a single individual
Same argument here, if it's "selective" then it's not all-encompassing. If it can be deconstructed, manipulated, restricted, analyzed, if it can be shared (which implies it isn't omnipresent unconditionally), it is not absolute and is not existential (dis)satisfaction.
Something and nothing can co(not)exist if they're not absolutes.
>>24425404
>if you can't resolve a problem, then the answer to this problem can never be known
This operates on the assumption that a problem is unsolvable simply because you cannot solve it. The problem itself still has meaning, in any case, even if that meaning is to cause you to seek greater meaning. A chain that does not have a resolution has meaning that trickles through the entire chain, even if that meaning is that you don't know what the meaning is, or that you think it has no meaning (which is paradoxical, because that itself is a meaning).
>You're saying perception is the meaning of things
It is how we derive meaning. I don't see how this is an assumption. Most of the things we sense might have very small amounts of meaning to us, but if we were incapable of deriving meaning from it we would not see it at all.
>It's inconclusive, and therefore purposeless.
The fact that it's inconclusive is its meaning, from that angle, under the given circumstances by which it is perceived. Is this its absolute meaning? It's a part of it. But how can you assume that it has none at all just because you have judged it not to?
>Being able to experience things in different ways would make the experience of consciousness objective and self-fulfilling, thus meaningful
So maybe the solution is to figure out how to do that, instead of assuming it's impossible?
>Does it? I thought we said that purpose was absolute.
Does the transience of an experience negate the absoluteness of it when it is experienced? Whether or not something is absolute depends on frame of reference, if we were to zoom out and view all things at all times from all angles at once, everything would be absolute. Again, just because we only have tiny slivers of the puzzle, it doesn't mean that the sliver itself is nothing
>>24421940
>It's that strange, not-quite-sad yet melancholic idea that makes you think that, perhaps, if you had done things differently, something else could've happened - you could have gone somewhere else, far from the "cycle of life" and the incessant buzzing of humanity.
>You could have entered a new world, but you chose to stay in this one.
I tried to chase after this girl I loved. I really felt that she was the one for me. Perfect for me.
Didnt work out of course. Now im here. Life is generally a sad experience. Nothing to great so far.
I thought about this a lot. I know that the things I want are impossible now, I know I cant be truly happy in this world.
Its some kind of joke. Or nightmare. You are born into a world that denies and abuses you only to die with nothing beyond that.
No true love, no paradise, no life after death, no meaning, no reason to it all, no understanding of why things happen, nothing.
Its all just nothing for no reason.
The human soul is immortal. When the physical vessel dies, on a karmic level, the soul searches for a new suitable vessel from within the ethetic astral realm - Or "otherworld" as some would call it. You are not here by chance. Nothing happens by chance.
Accept providence and strive for perfection. Always.
95% of people, with the higher percent in women, have just no personality
They don't have hobbies, they don't craft anything, they don't pursue any idealistic or obsessionary things. They're just dull, numb, boring, going through their life as happy as can be and it pisses me off.
>mfw I'll be a doctor and my life will be dominated by patient drama, hospital politics and being a professor at uni
could be worse, better than a NEET or the average wagekek
>>24425929
>You are not here by chance. Nothing happens by chance.
But then why?
Why didnt she love me? Why did my dad have to suffer? Why did it all have to be this way? Why?
Why did all those that came before me have to suffer? The billions of lives spent in pain and misery. For what purpose?
What reason do we exist? Why would something create us? So we could worship it? So it could laugh at us? Why?
Why do good people suffer? Why are there no answers?
And most importantly, if I really will be reborn in an eternal cycle of life and death, how do I escape it?
>>24426066
>Why didnt she love me
because love is can only bloom on from companionship and mutual support in hardship (ex. on the battlefield), not you getting in heat and wanting to put your weenie in her
most probably she was as mediocre as any girl could get
>>24425346
>and existential dissatisfaction the illusion
But you say that it can be erased by temporary "distraction". By definition, that makes those distractions illusory, and the underlying unfulfillment the real, true problem.
>there is no evidence those concepts are universal
That's precisely what I'm searching for, though! If they're not universal, then where is the answer that exists beyond those relative, subjective concepts?
There's no evidence that they're universal, sure, and I'd like if they could be relative. But everything seems to point to their absolute nature.
>>24425412
No, I see the void as absolute because it makes no sense for it not to be.
One single man, or even one single planet, cannot be the only "subject" of existential satisfaction, that would be completely irrational.
>Can you prove that not a single individual is satisfied with existence
Oh, but plenty of people are satisfied with their existence. But their satisfaction, as I said earlier (and the original post puts it into perspective), cannot be anything else than a lie. People are satisfied because they have a big house, or a loving family, or a steady job, or an interesting hobby. Does that distract them temporarily from their fundamental lack of purpose? Yes. Is their satisfaction absolute, "existential", and linked to a higher meaning? Certainly not. If it were, how do you explain that there are still billions of individuals who are still unfulfilled? If someone had discovered the door to the answers and opened it, do you think he would just walk through the door, and close it behind him, or that the door would let itself be shut anyway?
I understand what you're saying and I can't disagree with your way of thinking, but it's the state of things that makes me think dissatisfaction is absolute. The world isn't a good place, fundamentally speaking. You can wade through waste to find diamonds, but that doesn't make the waste enjoyable. I know it's irrational, but can you relate?
>>24425412
>We'd move from one place to another
And good luck finding that place. If we have to remove ourselves from the human condition to do so, isn't it pointless?
If I told you I could kill you, then, using your brain, make a machine which acts exactly like you do, has the same memories, experiences, feelings, thoughts, opinions, tastes, ambitions, dreams and fears as you do, would you tell me that machine was you? Would I have "remade" you or would I have made something beyond human, but completely separated from you?
That was just an example, but can we evolve past humanity without dying in the process, making the entire thing pointless anyway?
>>24425841
>You're saying objectivity is an analysis
No, I'm saying viewing the objectivity of something requires synthesis. The objective truth is already deconstructed into several parts that on their own seem illusory. To reach that truth you combine those parts to make the whole that only makes sense when combined. Your right, this is why an individual subjective experience is always nonsensical on its own- you're attempting to divide the indivisible.
>Objectivity is impossible to reach precisely because it exists unconditionally, then.
The combination of all conditions would create unconditionality because no condition would be limiting any other
>When you realize it's not, you're fundamentally dissatisfied because you know you can't grasp the entirety of things.
This assumes that your experience of existence is the whole of existence, that because you can't grasp the entirety of things then the entirety of things must be ungraspable. The truth is that when you are under the conditions you are under, the entirety of things is ungraspable. That IS an absolute, if the existential conditions causing this perception were repeated over and over again, following causality, the results would be exactly the same. When you are under different conditions, the entirety of things may become graspable.
>Objectivity is impossible to divide since it's axiomatic
Which is why none of us see it when we attempt to divide it, of course.
>>24425841
>Now can you say that these existential conditions can be shared?
If you were in those exact same existential conditions then that exact perception would reveal itself. Is there a way to combine all of them? Why would it be an impossibility?
>That wouldn't make it existential satisfaction. If it's temporary, it's not absolute.
It is absolute given the conditions from which it arises. If those conditions are repeated, the perception will always be the same.
>Same argument here, if it's "selective" then it's not all-encompassing
It is all encompassing, because if any part of the all became the individual that is "selected", as in if the exact same circumstances that envelop their scope of perception occur, then they too would have the same perception.
>Something and nothing can co(not)exist if they're not absolutes.
They never do coexist in the same moment in space and time.
>>24425867
>>24426427
>>24426451
I have to leave so I'll answer later, if the thread 404's perhaps you could leave the archive open? Even though I don't agree with most of your points I still want to continue the discussion.
>>24426310
>No, I see the void as absolute because it makes no sense for it not to be.
There are things other than void that exist, that makes no more sense than saying everything that isn't void is absolute.
>That's precisely what I'm searching for, though!
No, I was saying that there is no evidence that the concepts that limit the ability of your imagination to coincide with reality are themselves universal. There is no universality to the idea that you can't understand universality, though it is highly improbable.
>But you say that it can be erased by temporary "distraction". By definition, that makes those distractions illusory, and the underlying unfulfillment the real, true problem.
If it can be erased then how is dissatisfaction not also an illusory distraction from satisfaction itself?
>Is their satisfaction absolute, "existential", and linked to a higher meaning?
This relies on generalization. You didn't offer any proof.
>The world isn't a good place, fundamentally speaking
But the world itself and humanity itself do not follow your definition of absolute, so I don't know why it bothers you.
>I know it's irrational, but can you relate?
Yeah I do but I refuse to believe that my limited perceptions are the end all and be all of the universe and that something else cannot be attained.
>>24426648
>But the world itself and humanity itself do not follow your definition of absolute, so I don't know why it bothers you.
Oh wait no this response is bullshit
No, I mean to say, how can you know that your perspective has no meaning when you have no idea whether or not it is being combined with exactly what would be required for it to have meaning?
I mean, it probably isn't. But what makes a partial truth worse than no truth at all?
I'm a little confused, at this point, I'll admit, but you actually changed my mind on a few things (I think)
>>24423307
quite true
That's why I never understood the lust for power in most people...
But in any case - enjoy this rock and other primates who are worth to be around - even r9k.
And in the so called end - why should you have any regrets if nothing is more significant than anything else.
What could have you aimed for that would have made you more fulfilled than what you have actually chosen.
Regrets don't fit into your picture of the world if you're consistent in following what you have wrote - so just chillax and enjoy!
>>24425810
What's the story?
>>24426849
Some guy burned by radiation was kept alive artificially despite the pain so that doctors could study his case which was a first.
>>24422630
Why does this picture make me so sad?
Why, robots?
>>24428434
Because it makes you realize you'll never be that happy anymore
You have to take care of your "adult responsibilities" and have to face the harsh reality of the world
Also you have no gf
we are nothing but mammals, why dont we all just live life like on the discovery channel?
In speaking of this desire for our own far-off country, which we find in ourselves even now, I feel a certain shyness. I am almost committing an indecency. I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you-the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism and Adolescence; the secret also which pierces with such sweetness that when, in very intimate conversation, the mention of it becomes imminent, we grow awkward and affect to laugh at ourselves; the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell, though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something that has never actually appeared in our experience. We cannot hide it because our experience is constantly suggesting it, and we betray ourselves like lovers at the mention of a name. Our commonest expedient is to call it beauty and behave as if that had settled the matter.
Wordsworth's expedient was to identify it with certain moments in his own past. But all this is a cheat. If Wordsworth had gone back to those moments in the past, he would not have found the thing itself, but only the reminder of it; what he remembered would turn out to be itself a remembering. The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things-the beauty, the memory of our own past-are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.
>>24429659
>news from a country we have never yet visited
Fuck...
