We are largely if not completely aligned. Boredom is an aristocratic vice. We write within a peculiar intoxicating genre. Undecidable poisoncure blisspuke. — plaque flag

Lamenting the aristocratic vice of aristocratic vice tracks with aristocratic vice too. Hopefully pessimism is accessible to all.

Lamenting the aristocratic vice of aristocratic vice tracks with aristocratic vice too. — schopenhauer1

:up:

To be clear, though, I'm not lamenting. I feel good, bro. For now.

at what point can we distinguish between consolations and telling it just how it is? — schopenhauer1

That's a tricky one. If we say it's all just consolations (lies we tell ourselves), then that itself is such a lie. I hold myself to rational norms, and so do you. I think there's something noble in that, even as we question the ugly origins of this noble conformity in a demonic and irrational will-to-live. In my view, people were rightly freaked out by Darwin. That was maybe the intellectual revolution. The current AI one is perhaps comparable though, as it makes explicit what Darwinism gently implied, that we ourselves are machines, despite the glory of our intellect.

And yet and yet the problem of the meaning of being... of wondering at a tautology. Something is here.

We can define sin as doing something against the will of God. — Art48

Yes, but how do we know whether or not god cares about what humans do? We have no source for sin except for the words of people regarding a particular version of god. So if we doubt that we can know what god wants for us - as you argued earlier - how can we know the idea of sin is even a thing for a god?

We can define sin as doing something against the will of God. — Art48

IME, stupidity, or maladaptive habits which incorrigibly undermine oneself, is the only "sin".