Have some beauty, you poor thing.

Question it. Who’s to say that existence is pointless? What led you to accept that belief as true? What was the criterion on which you accepted that conclusion? Is your own criterion in that regard infallible?

If existence is pointless then why not create one's own meaning to the fullest possible extent? Replace God with political leaders. Create an enemy to contrast oneself to. Do everything possible to unlearn the bullshit religious morals that one has been taught.

Have some beauty, you poor thing. — unenlightened

At least have the courage to address someone directly. Bad form.

Don't expect meaning, but go for beauty. — unenlightened

I was thinking about that. Life as a kind of art. Mine hasn't been too graceful lately, but it's authentic. All the world's a stage.

If existence is pointless then why not create one's own meaning to the fullest possible extent? — Moses

That's ok. It's still all vanity.

Are you so preoccupied with the idea of the pointlessness of existence that you need to distract yourself?
Can't you just not think about it? There's nothing else to do. Turning your mind to something else is just avoiding thinking about it. In fact, it strengths it up. It's like it is stronger than you and it wins. Being possessed by it, fighting it, and in general opposing it, you make it stronger.

I believe the best "medicine" for something that you don't like and you really cannot do anything about it, is to accept it. Once and for all. You can talk about it as I am talking to you right know, from a neutral, unbound, independent viewpoint. In the same way in which you have accepted and are addressing other things concerning life, politics, society, and so on.

Accepting something as a fact, fully and truly, you make the idea of it disappear.

Are you so preoccupied with the idea of the pointlessness of existence that you need to distract yourself? — Alkis Piskas

No, I'm good.

I never said that meaning and the effect were synonymous. I said that the relationship between some effect and its causes is synonymous with meaning. As such, your interpretation is the effect of the interaction of the observed effect (like words on this screen or tree rings in a tree stump) with your memory and goals. So effects are also the causes of subsequent effects (infinitely?). As such, the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning. — Harry Hindu

If you are saying that an individual's own life experience or/and their own (perhaps even subconscious) bias can influence how they interpret an event and what (and how) the event was caused, then I think there are certainly cases where this is true. I don't think it's true in all cases ( I am not suggesting you do think so.)
Even scientists have been known to push a particular interpretation and downplay any counter-evidence, even if they know the counter-evidence seriously compromises their findings.
This can be a question of your own morality or it could be that the meaning you garnered was just flawed interpretation.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that scribbles on a screen are what is interpreted, and the act of interpreting is discovering the cause of the scribbles on the screen - specifically the idea in the head of the author that produced the scribbles. — Harry Hindu

My comment was based on your use of 'scribbles on a screen,' which invokes a careless attempt at communication. This invokes quite a different image to a term like 'relaying your musings/contemplations/scientific findings to others.'

No, not how meaning becomes knowledge. It's how interpretations become knowledge - another causal relation, or meaning. — Harry Hindu

You yourself stated that 'the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.' This suggests to me that you propose 'meaning' is a composite of two sub-terms, interpretation and 'observed effect.' Meaning is (according to you) an umbrella term. Meaning would then be the term that can become 'knowledge,' not one of your suggested sub-terms.

We don't necessarily need to prove to others our own interpretations for our interpretations to work for us — Harry Hindu

True but we do need to if we require/seek their support.

Common knowledge exists as a result of others trying on others' interpretations, not simply taking others at their word. — Harry Hindu

I agree and I also strongly advocate against 'simply taking others at their word.' Check all sources!

Do you need others to interpret your legacy for your life to have meaning? Are you saying that your life's meaning is dependent upon others' interpretation of your actions? Or can you give your life meaning by interpreting your own actions and their subsequent effects on the world (which includes other people)? — Harry Hindu

Depends on what my personal missions were/are in life. How much my intentions depended on the support of others.
You must always self-analyze your own intent and hopefully resist any temptation at self-aggrandisement or recognise any narcissistic or egotistical tendencies you have.
At times this can be difficult to maintain 100% especially when your dissenters/enemies may be ruthless.
For me, fighting against the nefarious gives me great meaning in my life and is in fact very very life affirming. I will leave the antinatalists and their like to concern themselves about the meaningless lives they sadly feel they are living.

There could also be a paradox of choice going on which leads to an admission of life being unsatisfactory despite all efforts to enjoy it. There are simply too many points, too many avenues, too many possibilities and yet the circumstance of satisfying some needs over others leaves one vacillating over what could've been. There is so much denied or granted to us by absurd historical accident.

The grass is seemingly greener on the other side of the fence and any satisfaction is temporary, attendant on a never ending work to sustain it. Sisyphus rolls his rock against the flows of entropy.

Then bring in misfortune and suffering. Nature demands that we satisfy our needs all the while denying the means to satisfy those needs. How could the centrality of life become inescapable pain and suffering? Perhaps the default of the human condition is one of want and its itchy and uncomfortable and we are tired of having to put salve on it every morning.

But maybe the salve is like heroin and you're having the ride of your life.

Then bring in misfortune and suffering. Nature demands that we satisfy our needs all the while denying the means to satisfy those needs. How could the centrality of life (thereby its pointlessness) become inescapable pain and suffering? Perhaps the default of the human condition is one of want and its itchy and uncomfortable and we are tired of having to put salve on it every morning. — Nils Loc

Even Jesus felt betrayed by God.

Even Jesus felt betrayed by God. — Jackson

:up:

"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister

Who’s to say that existence is pointless? — Moses

Good question!

This is the paradox: We look for the meaning of life in God, but we believe in human arguments that life is meaningless. That's like loving Jane, but marrying Sarah! :snicker:

There's nothing to teach. — Harry Hindu

It's not like we're at a philosophy discussion forum, Deepak.

Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage". — Bitter Crank

Of course you still engage, but you can do it with a lightness (for the lack of a better word) that people who are still in the rat race can't.

I think this presumes too much that we don't automatically make meaning. Like we are outside looking in, finding not meaning, rather than creatures with preferences, desires,.goals making meaning around these. I don't think or experience the options to be distraction or facing the meaninglessness.

Like we are outside looking in, finding not meaning — Bylaw

That's the vantage point, yes.

"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister — 180 Proof

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport. — Gloucester (King Lear)

Pinocchio the puppet did become a real boy, eventually.

We killed them (Klingon gods). They were more trouble than they were worth. — Lt. Worf (Star Trek)

Cheer up Tate. At least we have the Internet. :party:

Even Jesus felt betrayed by God.
— Jackson
:up:

"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister — 180 Proof

because they don't exist, apart from as projections of human behaviour within our storytelling traditions.

"A group experience takes place on a lower level of consciousness than the experience of an individual. This is due to the fact that, when many people gather together to share one common emotion, the total psyche emerging from the group is below the level of the individual psyche. If it is a very large group, the collective psyche will be inmore like the psyche of an animal, which is the reason why the ethical attitude of large organizations is always doubtful. The psychology of a large crowd inevitably sinks to the level of mob psychology. If, therefore, I have a so-called collective experience as a member of a group, it takes place on a lower level of consciousness than if I had the experience by myself alone."

--Jung

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works)

What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence? — Tate

Human existence isn’t meaningless, so there’s no need to deal with it.

What is meaningless about human existence?
— Harry Hindu

That it's all for nothing. — Tate

Which is an interpretation. If you want to interpret life that way, you’ll find plenty of evidence.

Just as if you interpret human beings are inherently selfish, sinful, and violent.

Or interpreting the glass as half empty.

It’s not that any of these interpretations are wrong— it’s simply that it’s not the whole story. What’s more interesting to me is the psychological aspects of why your mind emphasizes one aspect over another.

At that point we get into temperament, family dynamics, upbringing, culture, attitudes, habit, etc. These factors help explain one’s negative/nihilistic perceptions.

Who says we should take as a given that life is meaningless? Life isn’t meaningless.

Well, I seem to be on the inside, part this whole thing, and in motion with desires and goals.

To me I don't think that existence is ultimately worth it
I think we can add meaning to life and I think we can have a purpose but ultimately I don't see to pros out weighing the cons .

So you had a good paying job and you accomplished a lot in your time , let's say you had a great wife and kids too

But evidently what you did in the work world will be out did or done away with or forgotten and so will you and the things you did

And you might of had the beautiful wife but you had no choice but to watch that beauty leaver her along with her youth as she aged and because a frail old woman and the pain of watching that happen,

And yes you had the joy of raising your kids and seeing them learn as they grow up but you also had to watch them go through all the pain and suffering that is inevitable as a person becomes an adult and then you have only memories of when they were innocent little babies that thought the world of you and your lucky if they don't hate you for some reason once they're an adult

And then you are forgotten about and not included in your grand kids lives because your just to old and eventually you have to see your love and other half die then your alone ,

Then you die

And for what ? How is that justified?

There's no god and no mission for you to do for said God

Life is just life .

How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence? — Tate

Not everyone is bothered by the purported pointlessness of life. Even philosophers - the people who seem most concerned about points points to this, points to that, etc. - seem rather blasé about it. Perhaps the futility of the enterprise has hit home! The consensus being there ain't a point, why look for something that ain't there? That would be madness, oui monsieur?