Surely it is easy to say that we can always go back to nonexistence, but there is no way to prove this is so. We could come from an entirely different lifeform or plane of existence before having entered into this one. Aside from that small chance though, It is certainly true that we only know of this hemisphere of reality. — chiknsld
Our intuition is that it defies all logic. — chiknsld
"The absurdity of existence" is an exhortation that nothingness is proper. — chiknsld
"The source", as you say, is the human interpretation of (maladaptation to) "impersonal entropic suffering" and not entropy itself. For example: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. Existence is not "the source" of suffering and nonexistence neither prevents nor ends suffering – for the already born who actually suffer (plus all who have ever suffered), whom it is more "perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned" for than 'hypothetical sufferers'. Besides, what could be more absurd than the antinatal "nostalgia" (Camus) for, in effect, humans deliberately 'to destroy the human species in order to, they hope, save the human species'? :roll: :fear: :sweat:But why should the human predicament care about the impersonal entropic suffering? It seems perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned with human suffering and recognizing its source and stopping its perpetuation (onto yet another). — schopenhauer1
Why is there existence at all? This is truly absurd. This is the absurdity of existence. There is no reason that existence should exist. There should just be nothing. Nothing existing for all of eternity. Nothing on top of nothing on top of nothing...on top of nothing. And there should never be existence after that. — chiknsld
Our intuition is that it defies all logic. — chiknsld
And thus ends philosophy. — schopenhauer1
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is already within yourself, your way of thinking. — Marcus Aurelius
Yes! But not being bombed by Russians helps. — Banno
I think exactly his point is this habit of ours to think in terms of always a “there” there because once “we” are created there is always a sense of locus of being that we cannot get away from. Hence notions of heaven, other planes, other realities, or modes of existence. Non-sentient being isn’t nothing, but it is a “view from nowhere”. At the end of the day, without a locus of a POV, what’s the difference? People mentioned entropy, which can be metaphorically analogized or reified as something akin to Schopenhauer’s Will but it’s not that. Barring panpsychism, the view from nowhere, from this somewhere where I am, looks like nothing. — schopenhauer1
Only if philosophy consists of being disturbed by something completely beyond your control, in which case--
DIE, PHILOSOPHY, DIE! (copyright Ciceronianus 2022). — Ciceronianus
Existence is not "the source" of suffering and nonexistence neither prevents nor ends suffering – for the already born who actually suffer (plus all who have ever suffered), whom it is more "perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned" for than 'hypothetical sufferers'. — 180 Proof
Besides, what could be more absurd than the antinatal "nostalgia" (Camus) for, in effect, humans deliberately 'to destroy the human species in order to, they hope, save the human species'? — 180 Proof
If there were only nothing, no justification would be needed, but if we assume that existence also does not need justification, then automatically nothingness becomes more justified: Occam's razor. — chiknsld
Well, absurdity though only has impetus in how it affects us. I see it affecting us in the patterns of constant sameness, and yet novelty is also absurd.
The sameness in the turning of the globe, the getting up to make your way in a society for survival, comfort-optimization, and entertainment pursuits, and doing this over and over and over and over again. Even the so-called "novelty" being just a part of this dissatisfaction or inherent boredom in the species. Boredom is like the flat-bottomed proof. It is the feeling itself of the absurd. Being is just one long tiring game that has come out of billions of years of interactions.
However, as I said earlier, a view from nowhere as a non-sentient universe would be, is basically "nothing". The animal is a dissatisfied universe. A universe that cannot handle nothing. — schopenhauer1
One of these declarations is based on Occam's razor that "nothingness" is indeed more justified than existence itself. — chiknsld
Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1
Good point. One thing I noticed is that there's a common idea among these different school of thoughts -- capitalism, which fosters greed and power, is absent.For examole: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. — 180 Proof
there could very well just be an existential plane of nothingness — chiknsld
But judgements are made not by the universe. Nothing is "inherently absurd". It is just absurd when an observer (the human) reflects upon it and points out the inanity that there is something at all rather than nothing. — schopenhauer1
Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1
Therefore, according to Occam's razor nothing should actually exist. The way that I am wording it is simply confusing though, hence...if we say that either nothingness or existence is more justified to exist, it must be the case (according to Occam's razor) that nothingness is more justified to exist. — chiknsld
I didn't say you "did not answer", schop; you "answer" but without replying to, or addressing, what I've actually written.Where did I not answer you? — schopenhauer1
I didn't say you "did not answer", schop; you "answer" but without replying to, or addressing, what I've actually written. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.