Some Christians do this because of faith. There is no way to prove whether God exists or not nor does anyone 'know' God exists or not.

It is faith on both sides of the argument of whether God exists or not. There are assumptions on each side of the argument.

For the existence of God, there is a leap of faith because what is even the instrument for us to prove his existence, first, and, second, reasons for their faith in God is usually due to rearing in the religion, spiritual encounters, reflection or things that have happened in life or things these people have experienced. Third, people may assume that God exists based on the scientific evidence we do know. Why is there a code to DNA? Some people try to use this as evidence that there could or may be a God or a higher being that has programmed us or our DNA. But, even in this case, there is still faith involved.

For the non-existence of God camp, first, where is the instrument, again, for us to even prove that God exists or not. From my knowledge, there is no instrument for this purpose, so there must be faith involved. The reason I claim this is because most of these people presume since there is no evidence of God that therefore God must not exist. But, many things exist without evidence of why they exist that people take as truth. For example, why do certain species have characteristics where there is no recorded origin or explanation of this characteristic. Why do some galaxies appear to exist--through telescope images--but when Einstein's relativity and the speed of light is considered, maybe they don't anymore due to the distance of these galaxies away from our planet but we don't know for sure. So, we have faith in the fact of some evidence that a galaxy might have existed or might exist, but we still don't really know if it exists nor do we have an instrument to tell if it does or not due to the distance away.

So, to answer your question, why do Christians compare God's existence (or lack of) to unrelated true or false statements, well, in my opinion, they do this because they have faith in God's existence based on their reasons for having faith, but, when confronted by a scientific question of evidence or fact, they appeal to other true or false statements to back their faith in God up and not whether or not God actually exists or not.

Anyhow, I hope I am not babbling on anymore. Thanks for posting this, it is surely very interesting. Cheers!

If it's a tempest in a teapot, then it seems to me to be a very small teapot, or as you say, an absurdity. That is, no matter how many or how few my alternatives, or whether a God or anyone else knows, I still possess the possibility and capacity for making a relatively free decision. — tim wood

Very interesting insight. Thank you for replying to my comment. Yes, it is absurd, but we do possess the possibility and capacity for making a relatively free decision in this moment.

Did he think first we should achieve happiness which then will make us virtuous? — deusidex

I think Nietzsche was analyzing and recounted his revaluation of all values. I don't think he was prescribing that all humans are happy and then virtuous or vice versa. I think he was just saying that some humans can operate in this light?

Exactly. I just read The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. This book is 800 dense pages with small text, but I am able to recall almost the entire book because I annotated and took notes on every single page of the text. Additionally, throughout reading the book, I would re-read grand sections with considerable philosophical depth. Then, I would talk to my girlfriend, father, mother, friends, and colleagues about the text--or at least sections of the text--all because I was so fascinated from it. In short, this can deepen your understanding of a philosophical work and also make it more than just words on a page or a prescriptive exercise. Thus, doing so, increases your memory due to the fact that you not only picked a book that interests you so much, but also you have experiences with the book.

Improving comprehension can be done with note taking, annotations, and only reading the authors/thinkers you truly are interested in. Some people will disagree but I believe this is the best way. Why waste some of your time reading texts that are somewhat interesting and not the thinkers that you want/desire to read? If you don't understand some of the texts you are about to venture into fully, that is okay. You can always read up on what thinkers are referring to while you are reading it and read after as well.

Another thought on comprehension, I really think that reading and re-reading texts help. The more I read a text, the more I get out of it long-term. Also, try to summarize or talk to people about the text. In my experience, talking to others about what you are reading helps tremendously.

I see where you are coming from, but it depends on which context us 'being alone' is...Most, if not all, people have to be with people physically for most parts of life. Most, if not all, people are emotionally invested in people for most parts of life as well. Example, even if I hate every person I interact with, I am still emotionally invested in hating them for some reason or maybe I just don't like that person. Even if I love the people that are a part of my life or if I loved a conversation with someone, I am emotionally invested.

About experience, you know your own experience but there is a great possibility that self-deception is contorting your own view of your experience as well--speaking generally about humans here (Mental Illness, difficult life situations, self-doubt/blame, and Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground come to mind here).

Anyhow, I truly don't 'know' anything nor this topic, but I am trying to contribute the best I can since it is so complex and hard to grasp. Thanks for replying to me and keeping the thread going!

We are alone but at the same time we are not alone. Sometimes we are alone and sometimes we are not alone. In my opinion, this is one of the contradictory elements of the human experience. Yes, we can confess our thoughts, feelings, opinions, understandings with one another, but it is very difficult for most people to do so. It is also very difficult for most people to share their raw sentiments toward things.

In addition to raw sentiments, thoughts, opinions, people also have different lives and experiences of human life, therefore rendering peoples experiences different. Two peoples lives may be similar but still are different in many ways. So, yes, we are alone in this sense. No one can know, feel, or understand life in your exact interpretation of it. Again, we are alone in this sense.

However, there are some aspects of life that show that people are not alone sometimes. Example, some peoples relationships with their family, old friends, and/or partner. There are some things these people can know and sometimes do know. A great example would be when a mother knows their child is feeling sorrow or a family member has intuition that someone is suffering internally. I don't understand or comprehend why this is the case, spiritually, philosophically, or scientifically, but I know a fact people experience this - me included. So, sometimes when we feel, think we are alone we are truly not even though these people may not consciously know what we are feeling/thinking/going through.

How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei

Logic can't help this scenario due to the absurd nature of human beings, morality, and human experience. There are many things that are illogical that exist.

But, to get to my point on your question, it depends on how we are judging the person. What code of morals are we judging this person by? And are these morals widely accepted or not? I say this because some people judge people good or bad by action, intention, or both.

Every human, if we remain in our lines of desiring good and bad and doing good and bad, is inconsistent or morals can't be widely accepted or judged on people. I have yet to meet or hear of a person who hasn't done good and bad and hasn't desired good and evil at some point in their lives. Do these things make that person wholly good or wholly bad? The fact that inconsistencies do exist--because of the absurd/illogical nature of human beings and their actions--illustrates that this isn't possible nor exists.

Some meanings or meanings for some beings in this world can come from free will or no free will. If no free will, you are the creator of everything that happens to these beings, therefore, meaning can persist in what you program to happen. If there is free will, then those beings can either subscribe to what meaning your program or not, but even in doing that they can then have the OPTION to make their own meaning or not.

The question to me that arises here is: is there free will or not? Are we going to let these human-like beings have the ability to choose what they do and not do or are they going to be given an allotment of choices after every action like a spreadsheet of possibilities?

Meaning, at least in my opinion, will be non-existent unless the creator programs it or the human-like beings create their own meaning...

God or no God, this dilemma appears to be out of human comprehension (absurd).

What about the number of possibilities for each action/choice in one's life? Maybe this changes perspective on the dilemma? If I have millions of variations for my own life based on each choice I have made or not made, isn't there some degree of something like free will? If I have many different paths at the start of my life, then no matter which I choose, I am destined to one of those paths.

You are welcome. Thanks for posting.

I think everyone still acts like a child there are just a bunch of people and societal constructions telling them that they aren't one still. The only differences between our childhood and adulthood are: (1) physical/mental development and growth, (2) parents generally no longer deal with life's stresses around us, we have to, (3) More responsibility, (4) more memory and experiences, and (5) more experiences.

Does anyone really know what the hell they are doing? Does anyone have a clear, definitive answer to the meaning of life, morality, whether God exists or not, and what happens at/after death without any morsel of faith? This reminds me of the fact that people are just overgrown children with differences than a man-made term/concept of a 'literal' child. But, most adults have anxiety and are innocent about their position on the moral scale, the purpose of their lives, and whether they are doing things right or not. Sound familiar to a child's thought processes? When a child is learning about the world, society, and what right and wrong are, there is a lot of trial and error, listening, mimicking, and habits form. Don't adults continue to still do this? Sometimes adults don't do these things, but sometimes children don't either. Children are often impulsive and act rashly, but do adults not do this either? Yeah, we may do so less than children do on a general population scale, but adults still act this way.

Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. Why? There are a number of things in life that, although they are necessary for us, simply because they are necessary, they cannot be goals. — Rafaella Leon

This view is interesting but potentially problematic, in my humble opinion. People are different. People have different goals. People have different philosophies. People have different experiences. People have different views and act in and out of those views. Life is too absurd and complex to live within what you are prescribing. Distancing yourself from people with exclusively material, economic, and social goals that don't serve you will create more problems than not. Why? Because although it may make you feel good or be better for you and your purpose in life, that does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Alienating yourself into a group of one or few with the same goal--going off the implications of your statement--would most likely lead one to a limited state of consciousness. Narrowmindedness, seriousness, lack of experience may be the results for people that subscribe to this.

The human being is the animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular. His mission, his role is determined by this. Man is the animal created to discover what is beyond him, what is beyond the sensitive world, and for him to realize his destiny in this sphere. — Rafaella Leon

Says who? How do you know this for certain? What is your basis for claiming that man's mission and the role is determined by man being an animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular? Provide some premises and maybe this would be more clear? This is still a view or opinion. There is no way for us to 'know' that this is man's mission/role/purpose/meaning. And even if it is, if people act against it that is okay. Why should I distance myself from anyone who is against this even if it is true? You can learn a lot about people from experiencing people themselves. Some of the most interesting philosophical conversations have been with people who aren't educated, don't actively read philosophy or act within it directly, and only cared about making a dime to drink on the weekends. Distancing yourself from people like this and hearing what they have to say based on your view and opinion would not be prudent unless that is your primary goal in life, but even then probably not the best move as you may regret it later in life.

If the person does not have this, you should in a word distance yourself from these people. And treat them, of course, with respect, with deference, but with the proper distance. Because they are below what is structurally required of human beings. — Rafaella Leon

What is structurally required of human beings and who is to say that people are below it based on their different views? Again, this appears to be another haughty statement that could lead to alienation and lack of life without much fruitful experience. Also, where is the basis for this claim again? Just because you have read it somewhere doesn't mean that reality is that way. The God presumption comes to mind here, mainly because you are using these philosophical positions to judge and caste different humans and claiming that we should distance ourselves based on this. Interesting yet problematic.

So, do not hesitate to select your friends, because if not, these people who only have really worldly interests, will only disrupt your life, will live by blackmailing: “Oh, you don't like us anymore”, you have to say “I really don’t. So? If you want me to like you, try to improve, occupy the post of intellectual and spiritual dignity given to you by God, do not despise what is superior to you and you will not be despised either”. — Rafaella Leon

Again, I disagree because rather than distancing I think one should embrace the way people are and try to learn from it. Question it, learn about it, think about it, and reflect. Read philosophy and experience humans for what they are. Why distance and protect yourself from how absurd things are? Don't build up walls, knock them down, and embrace what is to come from that...

My position in life is that it is meaningless unless you make your own meaning or subscribe to something through 'faith' that gives you that meaning. Absurdities and contradictions are everywhere, especially when dealing with friends and people. Basing who I select to be around me based on the information you provided came off as we should turn our heads to the absurd and keep ourselves distanced from a part of the human experience: people and their absurd ways. Even if there is or isn't meaning to life, you still miss out on some sort of experience with different kinds of people and interesting characters, which also may lead to narrowmindedness, hermit mentality, and an inexperienced state of mind. A state of mind, that is, mostly knowledge of your own view of the human's meaning/purpose/mission and no having much experience with other individuals that could provide differing goals, opinions, and information that your own. Why not embrace life's absurdities, learn about them, and experience them, especially experience the people in it?

To clarify, I love Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical works. However, I think many try to take what he wrote and apply it more than he intended. I view Nietzsche and other existential writers/philosophers as more thinkers trying to explain how things are instead of what we should do about 'this and that.' This doesn't mean we should apply some of his more clear and wonderful insights to our lives but for matters like this one, where it is too complex and it is essentially unclear which path an individual should take, I believe it would be imprudent to do so, even though he has provided us with a wonderful thought experiment.

For this particular dilemma, I think that some are capable of pulling acting within the bounds of 'the effect outweighs the intention,' however, there are boundaries. Harming others, murdering, beatings, etc. are all examples of where I would say the line/threshold of action would be--there are many more kinds of instances but those are the main ones to get my point across. Nevertheless, there are instances where this may be useful and good for individuals or circumstances that one may encounter. The first thing that comes to mind, in my opinion, is trying to 'help' a drug addict or alcoholic who doesn't want help. Some people would say a good friend would try and fight for this person to realize they need to stop and if you are lazy about this then you are a bad friend. I disagree due to Nietzsche's effect outweighs intention. Suppose your intentions are questionable in this scenario: you are lazy, do not want to deal with them anymore and you're tired of trying to help them even though they still need help. And this person ceases to listen to any of your advice/help and continues to use these substances on a daily basis even though they know they have a problem. Now we have the option to persist in our efforts or let that person come to terms on their own. Being someone with an alcohol problem myself, I believe that the person needs to 'want' to stop on their own for them to stop. People can try to help them but that person needs to want it inside and put it into action for it to work, even if it is incredibly hard. So, suppose we chose to not stop trying. Well, this may cause more anxiety, distress, and depression for the person. Why do I say this? Because it may make the person feel as if their life is 'wrong,' 'bad,' 'worthless,' etc. The constant badgering and reminded of how they have a problem and need help may have a cumulative, negative effect on the person and cause them to drink/take substances to escape these kinds of thoughts and emotions surrounding their situation. So, even if your intentions of stopping may be questionable like being lazy, fed up with a person, not wanting to deal with them anymore, the effect may be good because it gives that person time and reflection with themselves to come up with their own decision for their own life....(Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional or addiction specialist, I simply used this example for philosophical/hypothetical purposes).

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for posting. After some thought, this dilemma seems to bring forth a large gray area.

One, even if someone's intentions are good--like stopping a robbery from happening or potentially preventing a supposed robber/criminal from harming others, this someone is still committing murder/harm to another in the process. This reminds me of something from Beyond Good and Evil. Where do we draw the line? The U.S. President at the end of World War II, Harry Truman, wanted to end World War II with Japan and dropped 2 atomic bombs--in my opinion one of the worst war crimes in history. Since he stopped the war and maybe had good intentions in wanting to stop the war vindicate him from the death of the estimated 129,000 to 226,000 lives taken?

Two, even if someone did prevent someone from doing something bad or harmful to others and they themselves acted Beyond Good and Evil, there will still be internal consequences inside this individual, in my humble opinion. Guilt, remorse, fear of judgement, fear of taking another's life, would most likely pervade this person's thoughts or it would, at least, be very hard to overcome these things (Crime and Punishment from Dostoevsky comes to mind here and his other works where characters act Beyond Good and Evil but still are bombarded with these internal struggles...)

I would disagree. It all depends on what constitutes sadness and happiness within this question. Are people with depression and/or anxiety that struggle for no apparent reason sad or are they depressed? These are emotions and emotions generally are instinctual or come from intuition. So, I think these emotions are more complex than being choice-based. For depressed/anxious people, there is most likely a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them to be sad/depressed or experience highs. There can also be painful/traumatic experiences that can cause sadness out of the blue.

In some cases, yes, we can choose to interpret something differently and this may result in us being happier or sadder than before. But, I believe these emotions cannot be forced or brought on by us bringing them on consciously. They either happen or don't.

If someone dies that we are close to, can we really choose to be happy or sad about their life? Don't those emotions just come on their own (grief and reflection). I just do not understand how one could say there is a choice between the two emotions or either emotion for that matter.

My philosophy on philosophy is that it can be used as a tool in certain areas of life. It is also fun and exciting, but, at the same time, be taken too seriously if not checked.

I view the problem of human freedom as one of contradictory human desires. One the one hand, we want to be free, because we like the idea of being in control of our destiny. On the other hand, however, we do not want to be free, because then we must take responsibility for our actions. Then the question of handing over the gift of freedom becomes more a question of handing over responsibility. — Alvin Capello

Hello, we are really getting some great posts here. Thank you for replying to the thread. I agree with this 100%. Man loves the idea of freedom but then has issues with the consequences. If I choose to skateboard today instead of applying to more jobs, and I am exercising my complete freedom over the situation - where no one else is involved in the decision, I probably will regret it either way. In other words, if I choose to skate, it will bring me joy, contentment, and fun in the short and long-term. If I choose to apply to more jobs instead of skating, I may be content in knowing that I tried my best today and may land a job sooner so I have more money for my girlfriend, myself, and my cat. See what I am saying here? Either way, I will most likely look back and say: "Wow, I probably should've chosen the opposite. Oh, well." There is still some sort of anxiety involved here, especially with larger, more serious dilemmas and choices.

On a more practical note, when society is filled with hope and opportunity then we see people care more about their freedom. People can set goals for themselves and thus won't surrender those goals easily. In periods where it seems like there is no future, no opportunity and no hope, that's when people actively hand away their freedom, the hopeless are easy to control but it's not because they want to give away their freedom it's because they want something better for themselves. — Judaka

I agree with this statement/insight on the matter. However, I think what Dostoevsky is getting at as well is a more subtle hypothetical of the human being afraid of freedom in their own life. More specifically, if an individual has the freedom to do something they are often overwhelmed, regretful, and anxious at some point over the fact that they have that freedom themselves at that moment. The circumstance initially causing anxiety or anxious feelings in general due to the nature of the circumstance of the human having control and freedom over something or some path for their lives. Next, an overwhelming feeling may pervade the person's thoughts on the matter because they don't know which option or decision is the 'right' one for their life and situation. So they basically have to make the decision on a whim or intuition - which also may cause anxiousness. Later, regret may come in merely from the curiosity of the other choice in which they didn't pick. We see this all the time with people: "What if I had chosen the other option? What if that was more prudent of a choice? Ah, shucks..." So, I think it is contradictory but that's the point. Man loves freedom but also hates it. It can bring contentment but it also brings suffering.

So, for the most part, we're content to stay within systems that have set authority figures that dictate the extent of our freedoms — 8livesleft

But what is the source of this contentment? Dostoevsky's observation of the problem of freedom for the human or not? I think what I am driving at is the fact that, for most of the man, we give up our freedom explicitly and more subtle. A better example would be someone seeking advice on a life decision. Even this small hypothetical dilemma with freedom, for most humans, presents itself in the way Dostoevsky is saying. Most people yearn for advice from another person whom they love or look up to. Or this person takes advice from their therapist, doctor, lawyer, you name it. Instead of deciding on their own or even exercising their freedom/choice over their own life, they 'choose' to seek advice or follow the orders from someone else. Even though these people are still exercising 'choice' by seeking others' advice or a societal convention, they are afraid to make the decision on their own and follow their own gut at the moment. This is a very specific and small example, but I see it all the time.

Freedom scares most humans. It also can cause a lot of problems down the road psychologically. It can make people reflect, contemplate, and lament over past choices, mistakes, and freedom. Some children or teenagers that don't have the proper attention or rules growing up yearning for some kind of order. The fact that they are close to being alone in the world figuring it out for themselves scares them and can breed anxiety pretty easily. I think this may also come from man's tendency to have anxiety over freedom.

Freedom, our desire, our yearning, for it, its irresistible allure, its captivating charm, leads us all, if not in actuality then at least in our imagination, down a long, sometimes painful, sometimes exhilarating, road and where that road ends is, you might've already guessed it, omnipotence - the power/ability to do anything one wants. It's part of what I suppose is the god-complex - to desire to be, or feel like, or act like, a god. — TheMadFool

The man seems to yearn for this, correct. However, the man appears to wallow in anguish and despair sometimes as a result of having freedom - or choice as some people put it.

Everyone wants freedom but...are we fit to be gods? — TheMadFool

This question is very relevant and interesting. I always ponder on this one as well, especially in relation to the text. Ivan's Rebellion - the chapter before the Grand Inquisitor and where he rejects the world in which God has given man as well as his 'ticket' to heaven - touches on this theme in addition to the Grand Inquisitor chapter. Are we fit to be god or gods? What constitutes this? Are we using God's morality to judge the world and him, but by doing so does this make us presume that we are gods already? I have always been puzzled by these concepts and themes in my own life. That is why The Borthers Karamazov is such a joy to me.

Without wisdom and the sense of right and wrong, freedom is just power in disguise and rarely anyone ever says, "I want power" and if there are those who say that, they're usually viewed with great suspicion - they're looked upon, whether true/false, as tyrants in the making. :chin: — TheMadFool

This is a nice insight as well and I agree. Freedom is in a sense just power for man, but it is also his demise sometimes - and I think that is what Dostoevsky is getting at as well. If you pursue power through choice and freedom, where do you end up? Sometimes you can exert power on others by choosing to manipulate them for gain outside the realm of society's accepted morals, but it may alienate you or produce enemies that you will have to conquer later, otherwise, you will receive negative consequences as well...Sometimes having the freedom to choose things can overwhelm a person and cause them anguish. Where do we define the line of this?

In regards to the quote, yeah -- whether it's society and its institutions or organized religion, man is quick to surrender his natural freedom. Freedom -- the unknown -- is scary. What if something goes wrong? Who do we fall back on? Why risk keeping my own money when I can just store it away in a safe, insured bank? We delegate so much of our lives to institutions whether religious or secular because these things are deemed safe and they keep our anxiety at bay. — BitconnectCarlos

This is an interesting take on it. Thanks for posting and contributing. I do find the quote true as well. However, in my humble opinion, I think it signifies the tragedy of human freedom and the contradictory nature of man. We want to be free, but we also really do not want to be 'free' as there are consequences with choice and freedom for the individual. Also, I think you bring up a good point on how fear of the unknown goes hand in hand with being 'free.' Man doesn't like not being able to control his surroundings, subjects, environment, and himself. If he concedes his freedom to someone else, now he has less responsibility or worries over 'the way things are' because he is essentially a slave to something and that is all he knows or is willing to know for the sake of comfort sometimes.

I think your post begs the question or thought of why do some beings choose to be something different - even if it may be more dangerous for them?

I second this reply. This is the most coveted power.

As far as assertions go, it definitely passes the sniff test. I'm of a moral persuasion that only tolerates incarceration as a form of intervention/rehabilitation. Prisons in America are far from places of reform; they're places of suffering we use to extract blood and sweat as a proxy for justice, and which are obviously meant to serve as deterrents to would be criminals.

Given that America's strategy of crime prevention through threat is failing so despicably, there's no good defence for the on-going torture and destruction of millions of people. Imagine being incarcerated for drug possession (addiction), and then being extorted and murdered in prison by the racist gangs that thrive in its system of neglect and deprivation...

That's justice in America... — VagabondSpectre

This is an interesting insight. Thanks for the reply/contribution to the thread. I agree that prisons should be used for rehab/intervention but not just as a deterrent or a deterrent in general.

It seems to me a sentence for a crime should attempt to satisfy four main requirements (and likely a host of smaller administrative requirements). To the degree reasonably possible, 1) The victim should be satisfied, 2) the community should be satisfied, 3) the perp. should be "satisfied," and 4) prospective criminals should be "satisfied." "Satisfied" meaning somewhat different things in each case.

Part of the problem is that the crime usually involves costs that the criminal can in no way in his person repay. - In that sense, perhaps also the victim needs a program of rehabilitation. - A word suggests itself as comprehending the whole problem: "reconciliation." Balancing the books. And depending on the mess, sometimes a grueling process - nothing touchy-feely about it at all. — tim wood

This is a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I haven't thought about it in this way until now. Seems to be a better way to go about it instead of flogging someone and letting them loose or locking someone away from society for long durations of time to satisfy only the victim and government involved...Reconciliation seems to be the better path here rather than pure vengeance or revenge for one side of the crime without any sort of effective rehab for the majority of prisoners, agreed.

I've felt that for lots of crimes that an option of flogging should be in play. Short, brutal, humiliating, punishing, and done. All the details of which to be worked out and in part dependent on the crime. It's a guess on my part, but I think many criminals would prefer it to years in a cage, and that likely flogging, done right, would be more likely to prevent further crimes. — tim wood

This is an interesting view I have not heard yet. So, thank you very much for sharing your post/views. I have not visited a prison or been in one, but I've read up on it and have heard stories from others. I don't think most of them enjoy living in a cage for long periods of time at all. But, on the matter of flogging, this is an interesting take. Would offenders of the law or individuals with criminals acts actually prefer floggings over long durations of being trapped in cells? I guess it would be short and painful, but it would short and would probably still deter crime from people. I guess the next question would be how humane is this form of punishment relative to living in cages for long durations of time? Which is 'worse' for the prisoner?

I think virtually everyone can agree with prison reform in theory, it's when it gets brought down to the practical level of actually providing more funding or putting prison guards through "bullshit" training that can result in some pushback. — BitconnectCarlos

Prison guards can find different work within a humane prison system. Obviously, there will be some pushback, but we should spend less money on upkeep and hiring guards and more money on mental health specialists, educators, etc. for prisons, in my humble opinion. Also, we should not be using prisoners for free labor. Slavery ring a bell? Prisoners are cut off from the world as it is, most of them can't vote, and in some places, they are used for free/slave-like labor. This seems to be a problem too. I feel like there would be pushback more from individuals who aren't even in prison.

It's a difficult issue because prison guards aren't the cream of the crop. After you've had piss thrown at you or been attacked several times, your attitude changes. There are some genuinely terrible and mentally ill people in prison so sometimes when these idealists from outside come in with their grand solutions I get a little skeptical. I do believe in providing the basics though, but I would imagine bringing in increased funding would be an uphill battle in local communities. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with this. But does the funding have to be increased? Can budgeting be properly executed to allocate money more toward rehab rather than the way things are? I guess we'll see with the new administration coming into office - through grants in federalism.

Sure, until some kid gets too high (I mean REALLY high and overlooks a traffic light or sign and ends up making a seemingly minor yet incredibly consequential driving or operating error resulting in injury to property or persons. Or even, quite literally smokes his whole life away. Wasted potential. Or someone takes a little too much coke and has a heart attack -- or thinks he is lol. Ambulances are expensive. Or takes too many mushrooms or LSD and thinks the lady next to him is a shape-shifting creature and punches her in the mouth. Or screams and runs, disturbing the peace at least. — Outlander

These are interesting hypotheticals. If this was the case, which sometimes happens, I still do not see how throwing someone in a cage with a potentially poor standard of living does anything positive for the person or the victim. It may make the victim feel better by getting revenge through the criminal justice system. But what good does it do? Clearly, there are moral principles that are implied in your post and mine that we both presume to be true when examining prisons and crime. So are we to just satisfy the revenge of victims and throw human beings behind bars and hope they get better? I just don't really see how this fixes anything. This happening to some people may make others not act this way, but I think that doesn't solve the issue or get at the meat of the point of disagreement, which is a proper punishment that is still humane.

So just because a person isn't shot to death it's "non-violent" -- no the trauma can last a lifetime. Total withdrawal from society, PTSD, flashbacks, etc.

People can receive trauma from all sorts of things not even related to crime. Should we meet the potential trauma of a non-violent robbery victim by throwing the guilty into a cage for many years and potentially giving this person trauma? Still don't see how this is okay. — Outlander

Feel free to get specific or general. Just want to hear peoples' initial thoughts and then we can all discuss further as the thread grows as well!

You're not the first case I've met. But I find it hard to believe that you have never felt that the real world is indifferent or hostile to your most human desires and that this has not made you feel a sense of helplessness. This is absurd. — David Mo

It is indeed absurd, but that's my point. It is relieving to 'know' or 'believe' in the view that life is meaningless, and yet it also lends itself to feelings of helplessness when met with great suffering, anxiety, conundrums. But, in my opinion, it may actually provide more relief than the other than does not believe that life is meaningless. Let's suppose we have two hypothetical people. One believes, and is convinced, that life is meaningless. One believes, and is convinced, that life is not meaningless. When met with unexpected news or situations that may be negatives, the one that believes that life is meaningless will most likely be, at least, a tad bit more prepared and equipped for the negative. Now, this is all possible. Obviously, many other factors may contribute to the opposite taking place, but, in my humble opinion, this is what I believe to be true. Therefore, sometimes, it can be and may be relieving.

Hey, thanks for the post and engaging in my replies, I truly appreciate it and all the insights you have given here.

By the way, do you have any opinions on what kinds of prejudices might've affected Camus? — TheMadFool

I do not proclaim to know of any prejudices Camus may have had with certainty. So, I wish not to speak with fervor on the issues as I do not know too much of Camus's personal life yet. I do know that he analyzed and pondered on the atrocities that were rampant in the early to mid-20th century European conflicts, such as Stalin's use of violence in the name of bolstering his state, as well as Hitler's nihilism and the atrocities he committed to bolstering the strength of his state as well. I think World War II definitely had some sort of influence on Camus and Sartre in particular. I heard once that Sartre and Camus also disagreed on their support or non-existent support for Communism with means of violence. I know Sartre was more lax with the notions of the ends justify the means for statesmen carrying out violence to bolster their state or regime. Camus, on the other hand, did not support this and was against it. Do you know of any prejudices that you'd like to share?

For both, however, I can see how knowing of concentration camps, gulags, violence against political opposition, and witnessing some of these atrocities could strengthen their views that life is meaningless and how the world or state in which someone may live would be hostile directly to its human subjects (Man's Search for Meaning?). So, I would like to know more about Camus and Sartre's prejudices, opinions on certain matters outside of their philosophical works that may have contributed directly or indirectly to their overall philosophical views on things.

Combining their views, Camus' truth, his assessment of true reality, is that life is meaningless but this, if it is a truth, if it is true reality, according to Plato has a value despite what it says and is in that sense meaningful. To get to the point, the Camusian truth that life is meaningless is Platonically what a meaningful life is. :chin: — TheMadFool

You bring up a great point here. If Camus' truth, is that life is meaningless, if this is true, then it would constitute it as 'true reality.' Then, I guess according to Plato, this would then be meaningful to leave the cave and arrive at the conclusion/knowledge that life is indeed meaningless. From thinking on this, I guess it would be meaningful to 'know' that life is indeed meaningless. About my comments earlier, to know that life is meaningless is somewhat meaningful since you would then 'know' that it is meaningful and you may be ahead of the curve then, thereby preparing yourself or bolstering your understanding of 'human life.' Plato leaving the cave? Learning that life is meaningless, is still learning something 'true' of life if it is in fact 'true,' but I still stand by my earlier dilemma that there is no way to know for certain if life being meaningless is 'true reality' or not. There is still some sort of faith here, even if someone learns this after leaving the cave, I guess? Help me out here. My mind is definitely perplexed by your insight here, and I love it, but it sure is hard to wrap my head around.

My take on this is that no one can, more accurately, no one has answered the questions, "why do I exist?", "Why am I here?" That there are no answers to this question is the basis for Camus' claim that life is meaningless. — TheMadFool

I agree. However, there is still some jump that life is meaningless - although I agree with Camus since there is no way to truly know this about life, I guess?

Anyhow, thanks for replying to my post and leaving some great insights. I enjoyed it very much and would love to discuss more, mate. Cheers!

Oh, I have definitely have felt that the real world is indifferent and hostile to my most human desires and that this same reality has made me feel helpless. This has happened quite often, but for the sake of my conversation, I should have qualified that it 'can' be relieving. This is what I meant, sorry for not qualifying even more specifically. I am not perfect, haha! Thanks for pointing this out.

Knowing that my impulses and desires are often pitted against by the real world being indifferent or hostile towards them has been difficult and has made me helpless on countless occasions, especially with the death of loves ones. But, in other areas, it can be relieving, especially when you accept that there is not a list of meaningful actions or achievements one must meet in their life - like what many people in American society seem to 'need' to have a 'great life.' Living in this way can make someone more miserable in my opinion because they will eventually be met with the absurdity of the 'real world' being indifferent or hostile to their aims.

In short, Plato's take is that life in true reality is meaningful. A truth as per Camus is that life in true reality is meaningless. Paradox! :chin: — TheMadFool

I pose a question to you: how does anyone know if there is meaning or not? Is the sole fact that we can make up our own meaning even if it is illusory from the 'true' meaning of life? What are your thoughts on this topic?

In short, Plato's take is that life in true reality is meaningful. A truth as per Camus is that life in true reality is meaningless. Paradox! :chin: — TheMadFool

I think Camus's 'true reality' would be to acknowledge that there are paradoxes in nature as well as from our relationship between our desire/impulse for clarity and the universe, therefore, meaningless. How do we know if there is meaning or not? That is such a bold claim for any philosopher or any thinker, and it is merely a view on either side. I lean on the camp that states it is meaningless unless you make your own meaning - as everyone human does due to the desire/impulse for there to be meaning. Yet no one is God, and no one is all-knowing. Therefore, there is faith in any view of meaning in life from the lack of evidence or a system that everyone would subscribe to that gives a written natural law of the meaning of life. This topic is surely complex and a Mindbender. Thank you very much for posting this!

Here's the problem.

In Plato's mind, the true reality, whatever it maybe, has an intrinsic value that makes it worthwhile. Plato makes no mention of the impact of true reality i.e. it's safe to say that true reality, in and of itself, is, arguably, priceless no matter what that truth is, or what it entails. In other words, living a life that's true, experiencing true reality, is meaningful.

Camus, in his philosophical investigations, arrived at a truth, managed to grasp true reality, the true reality of our meaningless existence.

In short, Plato's take is that life in true reality is meaningful. A truth as per Camus is that life in true reality is meaningless. Paradox! :chin: — TheMadFool

I can see the problem here and where it arises, but it sure is perplexing to think about. If there is meaning in a life that is lived with congruency to the 'true reality' Plato is referring to, how would we know? Since our minds lend themselves to illusory understandings of things in life, even if we are freed from the 'chains of the cave,' how long would we go on without slipping into existential despair? I think this is what Camus is driving at in response to some of these earlier insights from Greek philosophy on the meaning of life. I think Nietzsche's insights from Beyond Good and Evil in the Prejudices of Philosophers part can be of use here. What insight comes to mind is when Nietzsche discusses the ever-lasting desire/impulse for the human to seek clarity/explanation (Camus also touches upon this in Sisyphus). So, if there is meaning in living a life in 'true reality' what makes this true? How are we to judge whether it is true or not when we do not have enough knowledge of whether it is truly 'true' or not? There still seems to be illusory makeups of meaning in life here, even if we think we are congruently living in 'true reality.' Also, 'true reality' has paradoxes to this human desire/impulse for clarity and explanation. And 'true reality' seems to have these contradictions and paradoxes. But, we still do not know if this is just an illusory view from the human as a consequence of the absurd relationship between the human desire/impulse for clarity, control, and explanation with a universe that is sometimes pitted against them naturally. Thoughts?

An intellectual pleasure and personal concern. 'Joy' is too strong a word that I reserve for personal relationships and other special circumstances.
In any case, it is not a book you can overlook. — David Mo

Very interesting. I definitely had an intellectual and personal pleasure from reading it, as well as joy. I 100% agree that it is not a book you can overlook.

Why? The only way to overcome the anxiety produced by a vital desire that cannot be satisfied is to stop having it. But I believe that this recipe cannot be maintained for too long. May the stoics forgive me. There are desires for justice, for love, for the absence of pain that one cannot suppress without amputating a part of oneself. And this would be bad faith. If a man is as impassive as a lettuce he is not a man, he is a lettuce. At the very least, a lettuce is not happy. And it is happiness we are talking about. Isn't it? — David Mo

I am not a stoic, but knowing that life is meaningless and there are no overarching principles or meaning in it is relieving. I say relieving because it can allow oneself to not be subject to other peoples' meaning in their own lives. Sometimes, in society, there seems to be pressure on children and teenagers to accept the world around them and conform to its meaning. However, as we know from human nature, humans are extremely unpredictable, impulsive, desire-filled, sometimes immoral, irrational, etc. As these children/teenagers enter the world upon adulthood they will soon realize this if they have not already. Yet, when they were growing up, there is a possibility that they witnessed many judgements on people that didn't conform to society's social constructs or meanings of life that we are 'supposed' to live up to.

This can be extremely troubling for a person. Why? It can lead to the anxiety of not living up to society's and certain social groups unrealistic expectation of the 'good individual.' The contradiction starts here in oneself. Most likely there are not many humans that can live up to these unrealistic/perfect standards, yet most in society judges them if they have missteps in life. So, accepting life is meaningless, can bring someone joy and relief, in my opinion, and it definitely has for me. I am only 25, but I have had a roller coaster of a life so far. I have been sober for a year now, but I have had my running with alcoholism. For addicts, they have seemed to have a conspicuous struggle that is pitted against these societal standards. While drinking all the time was depressing and anxiety-inducing so was being sober for the first 6-8 months. Why? Most people around me drink for pleasure, on the weekends, during the week at dinner, and any get-together or parties. If I want to be around family and friends, I have to be around people drinking. At first, it was uncomfortable and I had to overcome my urge to drink with these people. But becoming sober also decreased my list of friends in life. Nearly all of the friends I had when I drank soon disappeared. This made me feel as I was making a bad decision since I have always been a person to value friendships and hanging out with people. This then made me question the trust, loyalty, and support of those around me, thereby furthering the anxiety. Eventually, this lead to me just being depressed that I even had an alcohol problem in the first place. I started asking questions like: "How and where in my life led me to have a drinking problem? Where did my life go awry? Where did it all go wrong? Should I keep drinking and not stay sober? Why did God allow me to have this problem and hurt others along the way because of my drinking? Is it always going to be this hard, being the sober guy at the part this boring and annoying?" I then became angry about the entire drinking problem ever existing in my life and my self-contempt grew further. But, then something amazing happened, I became re-acquainted with reading existential philosophy and reads like The Myth of Sisyphus as well.

Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Ambert Camus, Jean-Pual Sartre, Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and their conclusions that life is meaningless all brought me joy. They gave convincing cases of paradox, contradiction, and absurdity of life and human existence. Absurd shit happens and there is nothing we can really do about it. People do crazy shit, no matter if we like or not, and that is just a part of life. This was comforting to me, especially with my drinking and my past knowing that people, and people just like me, are not perfect, and they do not live up to standards that societal groups/constructs try to pressure us to be. We are different, but also the same. We have a drinking problem that we hate and love, and we cannot get rid of it even if we wished it to go away. Knowing this and being reminded from existentialism how insane life and all human's desire for clarity and explanation really are was and are a relief. And this why I state that Camus and other existential conclusions have 'calmed' my anxiety and depression.