They're certainly not based on something that's not one's preferences. — Terrapin Station

How do you explain why anyone has any particular preference? Why do organisms appear to have preferences? And can one confidently say that all preferences are mental and not merely biological?

It's not attaching any valuation whatsoever to that distinction. — Terrapin Station

Sure it is. When you have a synonym specifically for one kind of phenomena that distinguishes it from all other phenomena, and not a similar synonym for any other phenomena, then that use of the term implies something special about it. Can you think of some other phenomena that has a similar synonym?

So philosophy is a kind of religion that singles out mental phenomena as sacred or divine, while all other phenomena are just "meh". This sounds a bit anthropomorphic (subjective).

If most philosophical problems are the result of poorly defined terms and category errors, then we should be looking at how these terms are defined in a more objective way and that is more consistent.

If we can already distinguish a particular kind of phenomena by using terms like "mental", "geologic", "electro-magnetic", etc. then why use terms in a way that is anthropomorphic - as if minds are a special type of phenomena and other phenomena don't deserve that kind of distinction?

It makes sense to talk of my preference for Darjeeling as being subjective, and it makes sense to talk of rising global average temperatures as being objective. — Banno

I dont see the distinction. I can talk of Banno's preferences as an property of Banno, just as I can talk about rising global temperatures as a property of the Earth. One is only subjective if you project your preferences, or values, into things that don't have that property. Subjective statements are category errors.

Perhaps you know the picture is of N because you were told that and perhaps you know that water freezes at zero degrees because you were told it. In both cases, it would be based upon what you heard said (hearsay). Or, both could be based upon direct knowledge, where you actually witnessed N in person and then by picture or you witnessed the mercury fall to zero and then the water freeze. — Hanover

Yes, and one can know "2 + 2 = 4", and that would all entail knowing how to say and write these things but not what the scribbles and sounds actually mean. Knowing how to imitate language use is not the same as knowing what the words mean, or what the words refer to that aren't words themselves. That would require an experience of using the words at the same moment of experiencing the sensory data that they refer to, such as hearing the word, "red" and seeing the color red at the same moment. In that instance, you would know what the word, "red" meant, not just how to form the word with your mouth.

To know something is to have a rule for interpreting some sensory data.
— Harry Hindu

It is? How do you know? — Banno

I provided the answer, but you simply asked the same question again. Your question, not my answer, is circular.

Are you capable of observing your own mental processes of recognition and familiarity, or are you a p-zombie as your response would seem to indicate? Would it be possible to say that a p-zombie knows anything? It seems to me that "recognition" and "familiarity" are the same as "knowing".

Are you capable of knowing anything that you haven't experience before - of having some rule of thumb for interpreting present sensory data (and that rule of thumb is prior experiences)? To say that you know something - what are you doing mentally (other than just making sounds or scribbles) if not some kind of recognition of some present experience based on prior experiences?

To know something is to have a rule for interpretting some sensory data. To know it is him is to have some prior experience which was interpretted in a way that was useful and is recalled when a similar image appears in the mind.

When we see others who resemble people we already know, from our perspective they look like the person we know, not the other way around. Our interpretaions are based on finding patterns from prior experiences that are useful.

I wouldn't frame it as a "duty". Thinking in terms of "goals" seems like a more accurate term to use here.
Moral dilemmas exist because we all have individual goals that come into conflict. Moral dilemmas arise when an individual's goals come into conflict with another individual's goals, or a group's goals. Do the rights of minorities trump the rights of the larger group? Does my individual rights trump your individual rights? Who decides? The dilemma only exists if we see all individuals and groups as equals. If everyone is equal, then what do we do when our goals come into conflict?

To put it another way, the science is consistent with pretty much the full range of philosophies of mind, so we can't use science to decide between them. Whatever theory of mind we come up with, it of course has to be consistent with what we empirically know beyond a reasonable doubt. But that is a very low bar. — bert1

Exactly. In other words, philosophy is a science and conclusions from one domain of investigation should be consistent with the conclusions in another. All knowledge must be integrated.

But there is a big difference between answering the questions "how do we think?" and "why do we behave the way we do" than answering the question "why do we have a conscious experience of things?". The latter is referred to "the hard problem of consciousness" and it's really not easy to get anywhere in that subject. — VagabondSpectre

It's only a hard problem for dualists - not so hard for monists. If the fabric of the mind is the same as the rest of reality (for example, information/meaning is the fabric of reality), then what is the hard problem?

As for science/philosophy books that I would recommend:

Steven Pinkers "How The Mind Works" and Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am A Strange Loop"

Is solipsism is the case, then what the solipsist "experiences" is all there is. There would be nothing external, or no causes prior to any "experience".

"Mind", "experience", and "knowledge" become incoherent in such a case. The only term that would apply is "reality".

If anything, the solipsist would have direct access to all of reality, and therefore solipsism essentially becomes a form of direct realism, and solipsism defeats itself, as there are no minds at all. Only a reality.

wasnt that essentially the point of my post? I know that I have a mind. Therefore, if solipsism is true, I would be the solipsist. I don't need to prove to you that I have a mind for me to know that I have a mind.

If solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist and you all wouldnt even be mindless zombies. You all would simply be mindless strings of scribbles on a screen.

If solipsism is true, then why would it seem like I am just another human with a mind in the world? How and why would this illusion of a world with other minds exist?

I notice the list only mentions the brain. I can see the merit of viewing the brain as a kind of computer, but I can’t see the merit of viewing the mind as part of that computer, for the reason I’ve described. That the brain responds to stimuli in “programmed” ways I don’t find contentious; but the idea that the actions we take are programmed into us by evolution I think is pseudoscientific. — AJJ

The brain is the hardware and the mind is the software.

Think about how you learn. Learning is natural selecton shaping your understanding of the world and your place in it on much shorter time scales. When you learn something, what is the learning about, if not some information in, or about, the environment that you then use to produce better-informed decisions and actions that improve fitness? In learning something new, you change the way your mind interprets sensory data until that interpretation is no longer useful and you learn something else.

The Stanford entry you quote does go on to mention, as it had already stated at the outset, that 'there is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.' These allegations of flaws are not necessarily expressed ardently, but they are powerful. Many of them come from people who believe that evolutionary biology provides a more secure basis for scientific progress and that evolutionary psychology bears the heavy weight of biasses that its practitioners hold. — mcdoodle

It would seem to me that any allegation of flaws would be based on biases themselves. Biases that would include ideas that the mind and body are sepearate things, or that the mind is an illusion. Evolutionary Psychology seems to reject that mind is an illusion and rejects the idea that we can explain the mind by referring to only biology while rejecting the psychology, or what it is like, of the mind.

It attempts to answer questions like why do we feel hunger or pain? Feeling hunger or pain is the body's way of being informed of these conditions in order to respond appropriately. Organisms that reponded appropriately to such indicators would have a better chance at surviving. What would be a a evolutionary biologists explanation for the feeling of hunger and pain, or do they simpy reject that such feelings exist?

I read about this first bit in Edward Feser’s Philosophy of Mind.

My limited understanding of evolutionary psychology... — AJJ

Well, that's part of the problem there. If you want to understand what Evolutionary Psychology is, the best person to ask would be an Evolutionary Psychologist, not a Christian Philosopher.

What I believe to be a bit more objective in it's explanation of Evolutionary Psychology from a philosophical point would be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's a link to their article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

In section 2 of the link, they provide the field's theoretical tenets as explained by actual evolutionary psychologists, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Here are the bullet points for ease of reference:

Influential evolutionary psychologists, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, provide the following list of the field’s theoretical tenets (2005):

1. The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.

2. Individual human behavior is generated by this evolved computer in response to information it extracts from the environment. Understanding behavior requires articulating the cognitive programs that generate the behavior.

3. The cognitive programs of the human brain are adaptations. They exist because they produced behavior in our ancestors that enabled them to survive and reproduce.

4. The cognitive programs of the human brain may not be adaptive now; they were adaptive in ancestral environments.

5. Natural selection ensures that the brain is composed of many different special purpose programs and not a domain general architecture.

6. Describing the evolved computational architecture of our brains “allows a systematic understanding of cultural and social phenomena” (18). — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Computers are observer-relative phenomena. Nothing is a computer unless we deem it to be so and use it to compute. In and of itself, a computer is just a bundle of materials and electrical signals; that they constitute a computer is derived from our perception and use of those things. — AJJ

Computers are a particular kind of information processor. Brains are a particular kind of information processor - an environmental sensory information processor.

The brain is a biological organ, like every other organ in our bodies, whose structure and function would be shaped by natural selection. The brain is where the mind is, so to speak, and any change to the brain produces a change in the mind, and any monist would have to agree that if natural selection shapes our bodies, it would therefore shape how our brains/minds interpret sensory information and produce better-informed behavioral responses that would improve survival and finding mates.

Dualists would be the most ardent opposition to such a theory for obvious reasons.

It seems to me that both of our takes are based on some level of assuming determinism and no free will vs. Non determinism and free will. I am of the former camp, hence I believe that human brains are just more complex types of (sensory) information processors.

We do not find any practical differences between this water and that water; therefore, maybe Mr. Kripke should come up with a better metaphysics that actually describes how we use our language.” — Richard B

What is a practical difference and how does that differ from some other type of difference? Would we be just talking about kinds of differences at that point?

However, the use of “H20” in a scientific context is not learned by pointing to an object, and not used by pointing to objects. The term requires a great deal of understanding of scientific theory. Like any scientific theory, it can be shown to be false, incomplete, useless, etc... — Richard B

If you arent referring to something in the world when you use the term, "H2O", then what would you be talking about? Would you be referring to a molecule or a scientific theory, both of which are in the world, no?

The object I point to is called “Mom”. That is a “Macro” model. I provide a complete genetic or atomic description of “Mom”. That is a “Molecular” level. Lets say this object changes in some minor way at the molecular level. Is this the same “Mom” or the same person anymore? What if “Mom” lost an arm at the macro level and I did not call her “Mom” anymore? Am I incorrect? Does reference really matter here as long as there is no misunderstanding in any particular case? — Richard B

H2O would be the smallest one could go and still be referring to water - a molecule. At the atomic level of hydrogen and oxygen you no longer have water.

Your mom is to complex to be defined by the behavior of a single atom, molecule, or organ. She would be all of these working together as a whole. Once you reach the size scale of organisms and their behaviors you reach what it is to be your mom. Your mom is a particular arrangement of organs that work together. Beyond that youd be referring to the environment. Is your mom an organism or an environment? Is the building your mom is in your mom, or just a particular organism inside the building?

As for your mom losing an arm, I would say that she is still your mom as part of what it is to be an organism is the understanding that they can change to degree and still be the same thing. How much of a change before your mom becomes something else entirely? I guess that is dependent upon how we define an organism. Organisms are born as an entity and are that same entity until they die. Everything in between is just change that the organism undergoes in its lifetime.

But it is a physical machine that does run a program if it works. It doesn't abruptly change it's software and decide to do something other that the programmer programmed it to do. If a computer would do that, then we could perhaps assume it was 'aware' (and likely pissed off about it's programmer). — ssu

But what if the programmer programmed the computer to change its programming? People only change their programming when they learn something new.

Being aware doesn't entail changing ones programming. It entails have knowledge of some situation or fact. It requires senses. If a robot used the information acquired by its senses to change its programming, would you say that it's aware and intelligent?

Do you always use deduction? How about inductive reasoning? Never tried that? How about abductive reasoning? — ssu

Dont those types of reasoning require the information provided by the senses?

I'll add that humans have a programmer - natural selection.

Some people use the demarcation criterion that a scientific theory is a theory that can be verified through repeated observation by many different people, which they use to label as "unscientific" the theory that God exists, which in fact is already problematic because many people have claimed to have felt God repeatedly. But the bigger problem is that this criterion classifies as unscientific pretty much all theories that are considered scientific, for the simple reason that even if a theory has agreed with observations N times, there is no way to prove that it will agree the next time, there is no way to verify it. — leo

What do these people mean when they say that have "felt God". One doesn't feel, or otherwise observe, God directly, like one observes how other organisms behave in their environment, or rockets blasting off and landing on the Moon. We can all (believers and non believers alike) observe these things and verify that the theories about them are valid or not.

Referring to God would be more like theorizing the existence of atoms or the Big Bang. We dont observe those things, we use them to explain what we do observe, and it has to be logically consistent and coherent. God has yet to be defined in any consistent way, like atoms have. Each person that claims to have felt God may not agree on what God entails except that it can be felt, but how is that useful? How can that be tested?

Because we simply know how in the end a very mechanical device called a computer works. That's the answer. We surely can make that leap. — ssu

This isn't what I was trying to get at. We also know many things about the brain and can make predictions about what you experience based on a your brain scan. Damage to a certain area as the result of a stroke can limit one's use of language or erase memories. My question is more about what is a computer really like "out there" - separate from our experience of it being a "physical" piece of hardware running software (which is basically hardware states). What is a brain really like "out there" - separate from our experience of it being a "physical" piece of hardware (the brain) running software (the mind - which is basically brain states)? Brains and computers are made of the same "physical" stuff. So how is it that we can say brains have consciousness, and computers don't?

What does that mean that 'you are aware' and how is it philosophically different from the problem of consciousness? — ssu

I would say that awareness and consciousness are the same thing. "Consciousness" is a loaded term.

What it means to be aware is that there is an aboutness to my experience - of having a perception about a situation or fact.

Complexity of an algorithm doesn't change the definition of an algorithm. Sorry, but this is mathematics. Definitions do matter. Look it up: algorithms have a quite clear definition. — ssu

An algorithm is a set of steps to follow intended to solve a specific problem. Mathematical equations are algorithms; so are computer programs. Algorithms are closely related to logical thinking. They are like an applied version of deductive reasoning. Algorithms are for problem-solving. If you aren't trying to solve a problem, then are you using your intelligence? The Turing Test is a test for intelligence, not consciousness. Can you have one without the other?

My 2 ¢s.

H2O is a model of water.
And such a successful one that we occasionally use the two interchangeably.
Even though the model is not the modeled. — jorndoe

Or, to be more precise, H2O is a model of water at the molecular level. Water is a model at the macro level.

in all of the replies in this thread there is still something that is the same in the world we are referring to. The term we use depends on the context, but we're still pointing to the same thing. We are still talking about the same thing. You refer to your mom as "Mom", but others may refer to her with her proper name. Does that mean she is two seperate people?

Another thread about meaning without a clear definition of meaning. Life has meaning. Your actions have meaning. Anything that has a causal relstionship has meaning. Its just a matter of finding the causal relationships that you want to create for yourself. Make friends. Get married. Have kids. Help others that deserve it. The choices are many.

I serously contemplated suicide when i was a teen. I was ready. Life sucked. Now im 46 and glad i didnt. Why didn't I do it? Fear of the pain of death. Fear of losing the potential I had with life. What helped me through my recovery was the realization that pain and suffering are required in order to appreciate pleasure and beauty. Yin and the Yang.

Harry, how does your mind work? How do you prove rigorously that you are conscious? What is consciousness? It's evident from philosophical debate that we don't exactly know these issues. Yet we make these astounding leaps of faith that we indeed are conscious. — ssu

Exactly, so how can you make the leap to say that a robot with a computer brain isnt conscious?

I am aware. Does that mean I'm conscious? I have goals, or intent. Does that mean I'm conscious? If a robot was aware and possesses goals are they conscious?

I think consciousness could be an information model of the body's sensory feedback loop. The fabric of consciousness is the same as the rest of reality. That isn't saying that reality is really a mind, like an idealist would. That would be an anthropomorphic projection. What it is saying is that fabric of reality is information.

What we know is how Turing Machines work: they have an exact definition of themselves and how they work. They follow algorithms... — ssu

As I stated before, humans can't do something else either. They can only assemble information that they already possess, not something that they don't. Thinking out of the box entails assembling existing information in new ways, and as I said again, most of the time, these new bits of assembled information are useless. It isn't until they are tested in the world, do we find out whether or not they are actually useful - not until the information is used and the results observed, can we say that something was useful. Algorithms can vary in complexity, and the mind could be using a very complex algorithm that we haven't been able to crack yet.

Have you read about the computational theory of mind?

Could a machine think? Could the mind itself be a thinking machine? The computer revolution transformed discussion of these questions, offering our best prospects yet for machines that emulate reasoning, decision-making, problem solving, perception, linguistic comprehension, and other characteristic mental processes. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Why do you think that computers have provided us our "best prospects yet for machines that emulate reasoning, decision-making, problem solving, perception, linguistic comprehension, and other characteristic mental processes"?

Where are language games played - out in the world, or on one's mind? Is the internet posts and the forum out in the world or in your mind?
— Harry Hindu

Both :D. — schopenhauer1

Then youre saying that language games have an ontology themselves, no? An ontology of being in the mind and being on an internet forum.

Where are language games played - out in the world, or on one's mind? Is the internet posts and the forum out in the world or in your mind?

go back and read the part of the post you quoted.

I knew that you knew what I meant with the Sisyphus reference. You even readily acknowledged your feigned ignorance. Then you fault me for ignoring the question, and go on to suggest that pretending to be ignorant is a good method in philosophizing. — praxis

So now youre claiming to be able to read minds. I didnt get what you meant. Really. Because it is logically inconsistent. If what you meant was so easily obvious then why not explain it instead of wasting your time with what you typed.

Your arguments are pathetic.

Speculative Realism tries to counter the epistemological turn that they see in represented by Kant's transcendental philosophy. One of the main ideas is science cannot help but prove something is going on beyond humans, that humans can roughly grasp what is the case, and that it is showing something that is beyond human conception, though human conception is always a factor in understanding this ontology. — schopenhauer1

How can one be skeptical of what goes on beyond humans if other humans are part of the epistimological language game that one plays in their own mind? How can someone be skeptical of the world but not other humans when other humans are part of that world?

It would make more sense to say that science cannot help but try to prove something is going on beyond the mind. It isnt logically consistent to be skeptical of the ontology of the world but take the ontology of other humans as a given.

And that is quite different from a Turing Machine which basically uses simple math to follow an algorithm. What we do extremely well and are masters in, and computers might do in the future, is recognizing patterns. — ssu

Computers do recognize patterns of on and off logical gates. What I see you doing is making a lot of claims about what humans can and what computers can't do, but no explanation as to why that is the case. How and why do you recognize patterns? How and why does your mind work?

And typically you need the human to choose just what is useful. In a nutshell, computers have a really big problem of 'thinking out of the box'. It really is a theoretical, logical problem for them. I think that people are simply in denial about this because basically they don't understand just how a Turing Machine works. — ssu

In order to deem something as useful, you need goals or intent. Computers can be programmed with goal-oriented behavior and use the information that they receive through their sensory devices to achieve that goal. Something is useful if it accomplishes some goal.

By pointing out the error in the claim, of course. — praxis

For one, I never said there were errors in your claims. I said that they were incoherent, hence the follow-up questions that you avoided.

How is something that is successful, bleak? — Harry Hindu
Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party: — praxis

I dont see the bleakness in the above quote. — Harry Hindu

This isn't an error that I pointed out and you ignored?

I haven’t claimed to be avoiding your questions. — praxis

:roll: I never said you "claimed" to be avoiding my questions. You don't need to claim avoid a question, you actually do it. Actions (or inaction in this case) speak louder than words.

I didn’t assume that you cared. I simply pointed out an absurdist when you inquired about the meaning of the absurd. — praxis

Why would you assume that I didn't care if I was participating in the discussion? Again actions speak louder than words. My actions speak for themselves, so how you assumed that I didn't care, I have no idea. When someone abandons the discussion, then that is when they show that they no longer care.

Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think?
— praxis

I think that you have just described the God of the Gaps.
— Harry Hindu


Nonsense, I’ve made no metaphysical description or claim whatever.

What do you think? — praxis

You made a claim about why people think life is absurd. I pointed out that is equivalent to a God of the Gaps argument. Some people aren't comfortable with not knowing something, so they create their own answers, or meanings for their existence. That is fine, as it is what I said in the my first post in this thread. One can create has meaning in their actions. It is when they project that same meaning onto others - as if they have the same meaning - is when we run into debates like this.

Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter. — praxis

What exactly does this mean - that philosophy doesn't provide answers or even knowledge to such questions, so we should keep in the philosophical domain to never be answered?

For a biological organism, success is reproduction. With mammals this includes child-rearing. With humans one could argue it includes "culture". — yupamiralda

Exactly. How can a human reproduce without participating in culture?

This type of talk also exemplifies the limited way in which most people view reproduction. What does reproduction entail - just sex? Did one successfully reproduce if the child is never born, or the child dies before coming of reproductive age themselves? What if the child becomes a mass murderer? Is that a successful reproduction? It seems to me that "being a good parent" is just another way of saying, "successful reproduction". If one finds meaning in being a good parent, do you get to tell them that that is meaningless? Who, or what, defines one's own meaning? What is "meaning"? I gave my take in the first post of this thread because as always in these philosophical discussions, the terms we use need to be clearly defined.

Sacred entails non human. Fully valorizing what isn't human, and fear of autonomous history or time without subjecting it to abolition and recreation. In a way, prehistory or the Golden Age could be considered sacred. It doesn't make sense to attach special importance to recorded, additive time, lineal historicity, or to treat modernity as more advanced. It isn't more advanced for all we know. — Anthony

Cockroaches and viruses are non human. Are they sacred?

Animism is more the opposite of what you say here. — Anthony

I also said that it is an anthropomorphic projection of a human mind onto the universe. I gave the definition per Wikipedia in that same post, where it is believed that everything has a spiritual essence. What is the difference between the spiritual and the mental, or the spirit and the mind?

The Enlightenment has led to transhumanism, the most human-centered orientation ever; to be sure the post human thinks he is the focus of creation. It's already an anthropocentric view to think in terms of a creation, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. — Anthony

You're forgetting how modern science has taken humans off of their pedestal and placed them squarely within the natural domain, as a product of natural processes, and moved human's home - Earth, from the center of the universe to a remote place in the universe. Science is what has shown us that we aren't as important as we think, and it is science that the religious fear because it removes humans special place in reality. Science humbles. Religion inflates one's own self-importance. Just look at the haughty claims made by the religious and spiritualists. They make claims of truth and don't question it. Science constantly questions its own claims.

what does it mean to be creative, to have a new idea? Did someone tell you exactly how you should get a new idea? — ssu

It means that you can create amalgams of previous experiences or ideas. All new ideas consist of previous experiences. A purple polka dotted people eater can't be thought of without having the concepts of purple, polka dots, people, and eating prior to creating it in your mind.

Most new ideas arent useful unless they apply to the world in some way. Computers can be programmed to assemble information in unique ways and then try to apply it to some goal in the world, and its usefulness is dependent upon how it relates to some truth in the world.

I wouldn't make the effort with those who aren't interested in the subject.

I've been on internet forums for around ten years now, and most discussions of religion are what I call 'coconut shy arguments':

Coconut shy
noun BRITISH
a fairground sideshow where balls are thrown at coconuts in an attempt to knock them off stands.

:smile: — Wayfarer

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't be wasting my time asking the question.

I've been on internet forums for about 15 years and I have found that all religious claims are simply a use of loaded language.

Great point. :up:

If you can find an error in any of my “claims” then please point them out — praxis

How can I find error in your claims if you don't answer my questions? You error would be in avoiding my questions. They should be questions you should be asking yourself.

I don’t think anyone will care if I declare life or the universe absurd. — praxis

Then why did you seem to care, and think that I cared, that Camus declared that life is absurd?

Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter. — praxis

Is there a point to your feigned ignorance? — praxis

Exactly. Practicing philosophy in an intellectually honest way requires us to feign ignorance of our own beliefs that we often take for granted - to look at our beliefs in a more objective light. This is what I did when I was a Christian that eventually led me to a "180" in my worldview. I questioned the beliefs that I took for granted.

Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think? — praxis

I think that you have just described the God of the Gaps.

(although I also acknowledge that there's a lot of fallacious religious beliefs and delusions.) — Wayfarer

How do you distinguish between fallacious religious beliefs and non-fallacious religious beliefs? Is there more evidence for your religious beliefs than say a belief in Odin?

Because you are incapable of answering my questions with coherent answers, it seems to me that you have a feigned understanding of your own claims.

Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party: — praxis

I dont see the bleakness in the above quote.

As opposed to what? — praxis

As opposed to the fact that life is actually absurd, which is why I asked why life is absurd. Is it actually absurd, or do some people just think that and why?

You've seriously never heard of absurdism? — praxis

I asked why life is absurd. It seems to me that youre saying its simply a way of thinking.

Whichever one defines, "successful" or what entails "success," I assume. — praxis

How is something that is successful, bleak?

Yes, certainly, but without the narrative it sounds rather bleak. — praxis

A narrative can be bleak. Which narrative?

How is life absurd?

Your ideas are not absurd, you're merely now facing the absurd as, hopefully, we all do eventually. — praxis

What does this even mean? What exactly are you saying that is absurd?