If you are not being 'rational' then what are you being? — I like sushi

In this context, "rational" is the opposite of "spiritual". If we agree that there is no rational reason for the existence of life, rationalism will in this context always lead to existential nihilism. This is fine, until it isn't anymore.

a) I do not think the question makes much sense rationally anyway. It just appears to be reasonable to ask about a 'reason for existence'.

b) You now have the task of stating what 'spiritual' means - other than saying opposed to the 'rational' which I was originally asking for to begin with.

It just appears to be reasonable to ask about a 'reason for existence'. — I like sushi

The question does not have a rational answer. That is not a problem for people who have a spiritual answer to the question but it is one for people who are 100% rational.

Since the existence of life is rationally meaningless, rationalism in this field always leads to existential nihilism. Motivation to keep going in spite of the inevitable difficulties will sooner or later start waning. This will eventually have to be medicated with antidepressants, anti-anxiety medication, and an ample supply of opioids and other painkillers. Since there is no rational reason to stay alive in such intolerable circumstances, the final solution is a complete abdication.

There is no hope for the ones who do not "believe" that there is.

Since the existence of life is rationally meaningless, rationalism in this field always leads to existential nihilism. — Tarskian

No. Framing the line questioning as a reasonable one is faulty. The mistake is believing it is a rational question. It makes rational sense to distinguish between the kinds of question being asked and how they can be answered, whether or not they make any sense and if it requires an answer.

In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. — ENOAH

Unlike philosophy being 'metaphysics derived by deductive / dialectical reasoning', religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche)..

[P]hilosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering ...

If by "suffering" you mean folly (i.e. ignorance of one's own ignorance, unexamined living, habits of poor reasoning, magical thinking, reality-denials, etc), then I agree with you.

None of these approaches are apodictic.

Why does that matter?

there is no rational reason for the existence — Tarskian

Why assume "rational reason" is applicable "existence" especially since "existence" (a) cannot be nonexistence and (b) "rational reason" presupposes "existence"?

always leads to existential nihilism — Tarskian

This phrase doesn't make sense. "Existential nihilism" is chosen and not entailed, otherwise it wouldn't be nihilistic. "Rationalism", as you say, assumes that reality – existence – is logical (i.e. inferential, algorithmic, computable) but that logic must be learned (i.e. signals filtered from noise), that the aptitude for reasoning – orderliness / regularities ("laws") of nature – is intrinsic, or "innate", and competence with reasoning – testable modeling ("sciences") of nature – is an acquired set of skills. "Existential nihilism" is the choice to reject "rationalism" as a way of life (i.e. existential project) as well as rationality, or logic, as an epistemic method/criterion of judgment, and therefore, not the inevitable consequence of "rationalism". Spinozism, for instance, does not entail "existential nihilism".

Framing the line questioning as a reasonable one is faulty. The mistake is believing it is a rational question. — I like sushi

There is a scientific answer that should satisfy and will sedate the 100% rationalists, called "oxycontin". When I googled for the term, however, this is what Google showed on top of all search results:

Help is available
Speak with someone today
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
For emotional and substance use support 24/7
Call 988
Text 988

So, the truly scientific answer to the question will instead be provided by the volunteer manning the 988 help desk.

But then again, the volunteer is trained to give spiritual answers instead of rational ones:

Learn how you can help move people from crisis to hope. We provide extensive training to qualified volunteers interested in staffing our Resource & Crisis Helpline or Youth Residential Programs.

So, in my impression, we will just keep running in circles.

They teach these volunteers to give people "hope", while these people want a scientific, rational answer to the meaning of existence!

. "Existential nihilism" is the choice to reject "rationalism" as a way of life — 180 Proof

Since there is no rational reason for the existence of life, existential nihilism is the rational answer.

Furthermore, since there is no valid rational reason to stay alive amidst difficulties and tribulations, there is no rational reason for suicide prevention either. There are only spiritual reasons, but these people reject them, because these reasons are not rational.

There is no rational reason for giving people hope. That is why suicide prevention does not work on 100% rationalists.

It is (rationally) outlandish to believe that things will get better for no reason at all. Hence, in rational terms, "hope" is just bullshit.

There is no salvation for a 100% rationalist.

Why do they even waste their time trying?

Since there is no rational reason for the existence of life, existential nihilism is the rational answer. — Tarskian

Nonsense. If "existential rationalism", then there can be no "rational answers" for an existential nihilist. :roll:

There are only spiritual reasons ...

Such as?

(Btw, when you say "spiritual reasons", do you mean 'reasons given by spirits'? :eyes: )

There is no salvation ...

"Salvation" from what? 

No. If "existential ratiinalism", then there can be no "rational answer" for the existential nihilist. — 180 Proof

Look at this:

https://afsp.org/story/president-biden-reaffirms-commitment-to-mental-health-and-suicide-prevention

$602 million for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, an increase of $100 million over enacted levels in FY 2023.

They spend over $600 millions per year on trying to give "hope", mostly to people who "scientifically" do not believe in hope.

If they believed in hope, they would have it already!

What a waste of money!

What an incorrigible bunch of idiots.

What an incorrigible bunch of idiots. — Tarskian

:roll: :sweat:

origins of religion, would that be relevant here? — I like sushi

This overall thread? Not for me to say, I don't object; but I see that as an anthropological pursuit; one shared by at least one excellent representative of same on this thread.

As for our very specific exchange, for what it may be worth, I'll try once more and hopefully briefly. Though, to explain it well, would require pages; and I cannot refer you to a source, the information I'm providing comes from hundreds of sources, if not countless.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions.

Though personally, I follow neither the methodology of Transcendental Phenomenology (which was very recently patiently (re)introduced to me by none other than the OP) nor any institutionalized method. The point nonetheless applies to me. I can benefit from the mechanism of religion applied in accordance with its essence, to discover my true nature(s). One, not real, ultimately immaterial in all senses of the word, a fleeting empty system of images to which my true consciousness, the only real nature, has been "attached." And that attachment is our condition and tge condition of our unique suffering. Religion frees us from the attachment, though we remain.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind

Suffering from attachment N and S wrong

religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche).. — 180 Proof

Again, generally I agree with you.

But I'm focused on an essence of religion which is a doing of metaphysics, beyond discourse. To do so with a goal in mind. It might be you persuade me that it is not possible to achieve that goal; that the goal for something like Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is not possible. But I don't think it's fair to insist religion in totality (let alone at its essence) is flawed metaphysics just because (and I agree) tge vast majority of its practice has mutated into flawed metaphysics.

:roll: :sweat: — 180 Proof

The growth in the opioids crisis is exponential:



I think that we could make a mathematical model with input variable the number of people who believe in scientism and as output variable the staggered growth over time of people who rationally decide that there is no good reason for continuing the misery of their own lives.

In fact, the most interesting country to observe and predict would actually be China:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China

More recently, a 2015 Gallup poll found the number of convinced atheists in China to be 61%, with a further 29% saying that they are not religious compared to just 7% who are religious.

China is in the middle of a financial crisis that far exceeds the 2008 GFC in the West. According to internet rumors, 50% or more of the working-age Beijing population is unemployed now. Hundreds of millions of Chinese cannot pay their debts. The banks may or may not keep foreclosing on them. The problem is that the real estate being repossessed, left and right, is virtually worthless now.

Since the official communist propaganda is that fostering or even just having a bit of hope or similar spiritual values is not a legitimate scientific behavior and therefore just outdated bullshit, and since we can all agree that there is no rational reason for life itself, I am now watching with great interest how things are going to work out over there in "scientifically" atheist China.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions. — ENOAH

Reasonable.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions. — ENOAH

Not entirely onboard with this. Husserl was aiming to create a 'science of consciousness' that stood apart from empirical science (a new science) as he saw clearly that psychology was not really doing anything of note in terms of qualitive content falling back on empirical data, as it necessarily had to, being framed as a science grounded in objectivity.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind — ENOAH

I would look at this as an assumption of there being an 'essence' of religion. What strikes me is that religion (in its beginnings) is assumed to be an object. To echo Satre in regards to the 'nature of an object' what if religion is not an object at all? As in possessing no 'essence'.

I think we do have to be open to a lot of speculative thought here as we only know of religion through our modern lens and from where our modern schematic of religion came (the current Institutionalised edifices). From my own instigations I am convinced that the core of "religion" (or perhaps it is better to say religiosity) preexisted our current views, historic views (literally) and even societal views too. Undoubtedly there are numerous examples of religious rituals and such that expose known methodologies for inducing altered states of consciousness. eg. prayer, trance dancing, repetition, hyper-focused attention, hyperventilation and fasting - all intrinsic to religious passages of rite. Then there is memory and knowledge accumulation that predates written forms of data storage.

I think today the power of religiosity has been reduced to a shadow of its former self.

I think today the power of religiosity has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. — I like sushi

It is the atheists who will prove the power of religiosity with their suicide rates during the next financial crisis, which is imminent now.

The sense in which I am using 'religiosity' has nothing much to do with theism. My perspective is anthropological/psychological in the sense I use that term.

The sense in which I am using 'religiosity' has nothing much to do with theism. My perspective is anthropological/psychological in the sense I use that term. — I like sushi

In my opinion, the power of religiosity, theistic or not, is almost surely not being measured in a correct manner. The following is a much better context to measure it:

Help is available
Speak with someone today
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
For emotional and substance use support 24/7
Call 988
Text 988
...
Learn how you can help move people from crisis to hope. We provide extensive training to qualified volunteers interested in staffing our Resource & Crisis Helpline or Youth Residential Programs.

The power of religiosity will become apparent when the $600 million allocated to this program will fail to yield results in the absence of its users having developed any prior capacity to have hope, which is invariably acquired through religiosity.

Allocating $6 billion instead of $600 million won't make any difference either.

It is just not realistic to attempt to teach these users a crash course on how to harness the power of hope when they completely lack prior exposure. That is simply too late in the game.

In these circumstances, it is in my opinion preferable to just scrap the program, go back to the drawing board, and design something more realistic. Just throwing money at the problem won't help.

Not really interested in anything you are saying. So I won't waste your time or mine.

I am not keen on religious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness, nor am I inclined to side with mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts (albeit somewhat essential in its role on mental stability).

The path to woo woo is the way. The destination of woo woo is delusion/madness. — I like sushi

Heidegger looks to history and language: There is no truly foundational truth, neither in science nor in traditional religion nor in philosophy. Truth emerges out of historical settings. Not even remotely mystical.

But it does present a serious question: Take an ethical problem, a serious one to make it clear: I am prime facie ethically bound not throw my neighbor into a vat of molten rock. It is not a question of what to do in the face of conflicting circumstances; it is a question of the primordial injunction not to do it. Why not? It hurts; it hurts and I know it. Now we face a different question: what is it about hurting that makes for an ethical prohibition?

Simple as that. Now you face the world not constructed out of language at all. Heidegger still maintains that the understanding of this is still historically and linguistically bound, and he is right, right up until you realize that while language constructs meaning, the essential "givenness" of the world "gives" meaning as well, and this is supposed to be impossible. One is not supposed to be able to observe in-the-world something that produces a meaning independently of the language that is deployed to understanding it. There world is "there" but it dos not "speak".

But being tossed into boiling lava "speaks" in the most certain terms, terms that exceed the authority of language, which is contingent and contextual. It is a certainty that is apodictic, and by this I simply mean it is beyond contradiction, as with the formal logicality of modus ponens. Ethics, at the level of the most basic questions (philosophy's purview) is apodictic. This is the basis for the OP's essence of religion.

This should be clear, at least in the basic claim. Hard to bring Husserl, Heidegger and the competing ideas into this without getting technical. The above does have the beginnings of this technical discussion.

I am still not really getting a clear idea of what is being pointed at by the phrase 'essence of religion'. Are you just saying that Ethics is the essence of religion? Are you saying the unconscious is the essence of religion? What do you really mean by using the term 'essence' and what reason do you have to do so?

But really. Signifier only of the inherent meaninglessness of all signifiers until meaning has been assigned. — ENOAH

Well, not assigned, but appearing historically and producing signification.

Being too shares that origin. Inherently meaningless. That I know is ultimately what you are saying. It is implied that in uttering being, I have already accepted that my utterance is only as good as how far I can throw it; and, I can't ever throw it outside of Mind's reaches.

And yet, I use the tool to point at the moon, knowing it's not the moon, but the finger. — ENOAH

But take one step further: the event in which you know it is a finger and not the moon, then pull away from this to ask about the language that produces this very insight and one is taken to the moment itself. But whatever transpires in that moment can be spoken: it was received in language and by language. Language's references DO NOT POINT. Rather, language is part and parcel of the event itself, which we CALL pointing.

Your objection about an "outside" of mind's reach is itself a "performative contradiction": there is no "outside" in this manner. And by this, there is no inside either. All that occurs is simply there (phenomenology). I would argue that it is the assumption of inside/outside talk that makes the very barrier in question a problem.

Well, not assigned, but appearing historically and producing signification. — Constance

Yes

I would argue that it is the assumption of inside/outside talk that makes the very barrier in question a problem. — Constance

Quite possibly, I'm digging up the dirt to clear the way but am jumping right into the very hole I'm digging. A thing always cognizant of, and yet being pushed back to make room for hypothesizing.

But I know, you're saying the "dirt" is part and parcel of the "way." That it neither can, nor need be cleared.

But if that leaves the Subject in tact...

Much to consider. A very interesting thread which you are managing so well. Thanks

I am still not really getting a clear idea of what is being pointed at by the phrase 'essence of religion'. Are you just saying that Ethics is the essence of religion? Are you saying the unconscious is the essence of religion? What do you really mean by using the term 'essence' and what reason do you have to do so? — I like sushi

Yes, I am saying in order to understand the essence of religion, one has to look to the essence of ethics. Religion is an "ethical" matter one has between one and the world, though one is free to quibble about applying the terms.

The term essence just refers to what a thing is free of the entanglements of its instantiations. Think about what Kant did with reason (whether you are a Kantian or not is besides the question): you look a judgment in the world or about something in the world, and ask about the structure of the judgment itself, a judgment qua judgment kind of inquiry. He discovers apriority in judgments about the world and asks how is this possible? Apriority is supposed to be a property of logic, not things in the world.

Here, I ask, what is ethics? and also discover apriority. But ethics is NOT vacuous logical form. It's essence is value, that is, entanglements in the world that deal with pain and pleasure and this is really a dimension of everything: the very event of this trivial occasion to write is saturated with value. Pull me away and I care that I am being pulled away. A glance at the time is implicit interest and meanings subtlety in play.

This is where the proverbial question of the meaning of life has its answer at the basic level of inquiry. It lies in the apriority or apodicticity or indubitability of the nature of value, and hence ethics/aesthetics, itself.

Kant came up with intuitions for knowledge. Are you suggesting there are intuitions for ethics/morals? I would argue that if there are they are sitting directly on top of knowledge not springing from the same point.

Here, I ask, what is ethics? and also discover apriority. — Constance

You discover judgement before ethics? Sorry, the more I look closely at what you have written the less it makes sense.

Here, I ask, what is ethics? and also discover apriority. But ethics is NOT vacuous logical form. It's essence is value, that is, entanglements in the world that deal with pain and pleasure and this is really a dimension of everything: the very event of this trivial occasion to write is saturated with value. Pull me away and I care that I am being pulled away. A glance at the time is implicit interest and meanings subtlety in play. — Constance

Well, I do believe we can use moral/ethic mostly synonymously but in this instance I would have to argue against this as ethics is about analysis of moral positions, and thus is more about the reasoning behind a moral stance than being anything like a means of valuing (other than by unearthing faulty logic and reasoning).

If am I more charitable then, okay, we may call moral positions a means of persuasion to personal will active within a given social framing. Clearly religious moral are part and parcel of something like views in Christianity that we are all familiar enough with.

If your conclusion is something like stating everything is valued ... so what? What kind of value are we talking about? Moral values? What is prudent?

Ethics is not a vacuous logical form because it is dealing with morals. Furthermore, the medium of language in which we deal with them is irreducible in terms of pure logical forms. Ethics applies logic, as best it can, to infinite terms (rather than something like finite numbers).

Obviously there are parts to your thinking you do not fully know how to state or even understand. What parts do you have a clearer means of expressing? Perhaps start there? Otherwise it feels pretty much like I am playing a guessing game unfortunately.

Thanks for trying to clarify though :)

You discover judgement before ethics? Sorry, the more I look closely at what you have written the less it makes sense. — I like sushi

ethics is about analysis of moral positions — I like sushi

And the analysis of ethics is the analysis that is about the analysis of moral positions. This is metaethics, and religion is about just this metaethical analysis.

It's not about Kant and the apriority found in judgment. Kant's deduction was an attempt to discover the apriority in judgments about the world. The idea here is the attempt to find apriority in ethics. Here the similarity ends. One could talk like Kant does, though: Take a judgment about ethics, not about reason and logic, and give analysis. What is there that makes ethics what it is? This is logically prior to, that is, it presupposes, as you say, persuasion and social framing and prudence and anything one has to say about how ethics plays out in actual situations. This is, again, logically prior to all of this. It is a question of ontology: the question of the being of ethics, a question that is begged in all subsequent thinking about how to think about ethics.

One is now a scientist, if you will: observe an ethical matter and identify its properties. There are issues of entanglement that are unique to each case, but these presuppose the essence of ethics. One has to look specifically for this essence in inquiry. Kant's emphasis on duty, for example, steers us directly away from the very feature of the world that all ethical affairs deal with. This is, and Wittgenstein uses this term and it seems to work very well, value, the value dimension of our world. Ask, why does Witt insist both that the divine is "the good" and ethics/aesthetics is beyond analysis? See his Lecture on Ethics and the Tractatus (and with Philosophical investigations, Witt still holds firmly to the finitude of language, but never second guesses his earlier views on ethics). Also see his Culture and Value. He talks like this because "the good" is not an empirical or analytical concept. It is not among "states of affairs."

The OP introduces the idea that ethics is, in its foundational analytic, impossible. It is a transcendental term, and Wittgenstein knew this. How? Ask: What IS ethics? Not anything beyond the simplicity of the apriori "observation". This is to ask, What is the good and the bad in ethics? It is a metaethical question.

The "sense" of it lies in the simplicity of discovery. Put a lighted match under your finger and observe. Now ask the ontological question. Religion is ALL about this.

I wrote "This is logically prior to, that is, it presupposes," and should have written "...is presupposed by..."

And the analysis of ethics is the analysis that is about the analysis of moral positions. This is metaethics, and religion is about just this metaethical analysis. — Constance

Surely you can see why I have problems untangling the meaning/position you are trying to convey here?

Take a judgment about ethics, not about reason and logic, and give analysis. What is there that makes ethics what it is? — Constance

Morality and the interplay of reason to distinguish poorly constructed views/arguments (using logic in language). Then there is also the stance that ethics is generally referring to the application of moral principles to society at large - as a means of analysis.

If you will, Moral Laws are morality and Ethics is the investigation into the application of these laws and judgement of them using reason. Meat Ethics is more or less the questioning of the existence of Morals (validity) and the (mis-)use of concepts therein when partaking in this kind of discussion (ie. mistaking what is prudent for what is based on moral beliefs).

This is, again, logically prior to all of this. It is a question of ontology: the question of the being of ethics, a question that is begged in all subsequent thinking about how to think about ethics. — Constance

Ah! So we are looking at the essence of morality then rather than ethics (as I outlined it)? The 'being' of morality rather than ethics? I will need confirmation here.

This is, and Wittgenstein uses this term and it seems to work very well, value, the value dimension of our world. — Constance

I would have to say we are then looking for the root of judgement rather than ethics, as ethics is a judgement as is prudence. Morality is not intrinsic to value. Valuse can emerge in areas that have no prominent claim to ethics or morality.

. He talks like this because "the good" is not an empirical or analytical concept. It is not among "states of affairs." — Constance

I think I am beginning to see what you might be talking about now. I will see if I can articulate this in latter conclusion ...

This is to ask, What is the good and the bad in ethics? It is a metaethical question. — Constance

It is to ask about practical use of rather than an emotional judgement of 'right or wrong' flavoured values.

The "sense" of it lies in the simplicity of discovery. Put a lighted match under your finger and observe. Now ask the ontological question. Religion is ALL about this. — Constance

I cannot even begin to see where/how/if you are trying to insert religion into the scheme, or what you actually mean by religion if you are essentially stating it is synonymous with 'ethics'/'moral laws' (which I still need clarity on also.

Conclusion

I saw an instance where you referred to 'good' in a non-moral/ethical sense. This is certainly a pure value. We can value something as being 'better' or 'worse' by our intentions and direction. If I am thirsty then moving towards water is 'better' but certainly not Moral or Ethical.

The Morals and Ethics proceeds from human interactions in the truest sense that we use the terms Morals and Ethics. At a proposed deeper level the Moral/Ethic begins in the individual. The question is then HOW can Morals/Ethics emerge from an individual in relation to societal interactions? There are obviously some quite basic and intuitive answers to this question that all lead back to the 'better' that stands outside of Morals and Ethics (as presented above with thirst - the prudent).

Note: I am pretty sure I am not hitting the mark here with what you are trying to articulate but hopefully it will allow us to get closer?

Thank you for taking the time to respond :)

The OP introduces the idea that ethics is, in its foundational analytic, impossible. It is a transcendental term, and Wittgenstein knew this. — Constance

Part of common sense is knowing when there is no rational answer.

The OP introduces the idea that ethics is, in its foundational analytic, impossible. It is a transcendental term, and Wittgenstein knew this. How? Ask: What IS ethics? Not anything beyond the simplicity of the apriori "observation". This is to ask, What is the good and the bad in ethics? It is a metaethical question. — Constance

Is it really that difficult and elusive? We live together as community and this means holding values. It's impossible not to. Ethics emerges from the resulting conversation just as surely as poo comes from eating. We couldn't avoid the subject of morality even if we wanted to and the only magic or transcendence inherent in such moral conversations (that I can see) is there if we confuse morality with mysticism. :wink:

We live together as community and this means holding values. It's impossible not to. Ethics emerges from the resulting conversation just as surely as poo comes from eating. — Tom Storm

Yes, but there is a secondary process ("entropy") that sabotages the main process ("preservation of energy").

The ruling mafia can successfully increase its power by lifting the constraints imposed by the main process that seeks to define justice. Therefore, there will always be a continuous process in the direction of degeneracy and depravity ("entropy"). This second process will increasingly seek to justify injustices.

This phenomenon is truly universal.

When the creating power decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence, the original nothing started pleading for justice.

What about me?

I was here before the universe started expanding. Can I also seek to keep existing?

The answer is "yes". There shall be no exception to the law. In order for you to reappear, the entire universe must disappear again. Hence, I hereby confirm your right to attack and destroy the entire universe and everything that it contains, including all its living creatures.