• dermanhuby
    12
    Hi,

    Note: I apologize for my lack of background knowledge, and layman terminology in advance, but hopefully I can explain myself well enough to be either pointed in the right direction to helpful literature to read or perhaps get some explanation about how my idea does or does not work.

    OK, so I've been largely unable to intellectually climb out of a nihilistic outlook, no matter how optimistic I am emotionally.

    But recently I was considering two different possibilities about our significance. For the sake of my thought process, I'm splitting the possibilities into these two broad categories.

    (A)One possibility being that existence is measurable, that the universe/multiverses are infinite, but that there is no greater purpose or divine order to things.

    (B)The second is that there is something else, something that means there's a reason, that the question of "why" is as relevant as the question "how".


    In trying to be hopeful about a continuation of experience after we die, I followed both possibilities to an end that infers we have more to experience than our human life. (I am purposely ignoring the complications of my reliance on "time" to simplify my way of understanding continuation.)

    So if A is the case, and there's no divine reason, but infinity is real, then does that mean that we transition from the last moment of this life directly into an infinity of alternative continuations of experience? Or that there's an infinite number of superior god like beings, who take us into something more? Or all the other infinite potentials for us to be continued? (not an atom-for-atom version of us, but us, the me typing, the you reading...)


    On the other hand, if B is the answer, then just by virtue of us being no more significant or insignificant than any other thing, should we breathe relief that we won't be overlooked? Because if there's infinitely more complex/sentient life or matter,and infinitely less significant things in existence, why would one point on the line be more or less worthy? (might mean that we should pray that all dogs go to heaven, along with everything else)


    I have considered that perhaps the point on the line of significance which a thing is, could be a centre point of a sphere that represents the parameters of that thing's eternal significance. So for example a tree on this line represents its life on earth. The sphere around it would then be the total allocated existence of the tree, which could be infinitely expansive, but only within the sphere. A person then would be further up the line of significance, and with their own sphere of allocated existence.
    (I'm trying to use visuals to explain an idea that explores infinitely more complex structures than is perceivable, and they are basic even at a human level, as am I)

    NOTE:
    I hope that if anyone makes it to the end, that you use the analogy of a child trying to understand something that is as of yet beyond them. The child's nonsense is not invalid, but rather a collection of millions of little things that make perfect sense. And without being introduced to cognitive constructs that equal in complexity to the thing they are trying to understand, then the information can not be comprehended.

    Thanks
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    Hi, welcome to the Forum. Your post is quite poignant, really. I obviously don’t know anything about your circumstances beyond what you’ve written here, but will venture that what you experience as ‘nihilism’ is due to a lack or absence in the culture in which we nowadays live. Without saying what kind of purposes one ought to consider, or whether there really even is one, the fact that individuals are obliged to wrestle with the question in the way that you clearly are, indicates a gap or shortcoming in the cultural narrative in which you’ve been raised.

    And I think your proposed solution to it is consistent with that. The kind of thought-experiments you’re considering are quite consistent with the views of those in an educated, technocratic culture.

    But I think what you’re actually trying to reach for, or what you sense as a possibility, is a genuinely transcendent or spiritual dimension to existence - which, however, I don’t think your intellectual view will allow you to consider.

    I don’t quite know what to suggest, but something I was reading last night comes to mind. You might have heard of John Stuart Mill. In Britain, in the 19th and early 20th century, Mill was indeed regarded as a very important pulblic intellectual and political theorist. His On Liberty is a still a classic of modern liberal theory. But the point about Mill was that, as a young child, he was subjected to an intensive educational programme by his father. He was able to read Greek at a young age, and by primary school age had read all of Plato’s Dialogues. He mastered the classical curriculum whilst still a teen.

    And then he had a nervous breakdown. This is understandable, given the intensity of his up-bringing and the way he had been force-fed information. For several years, he was in a state of depression. And what brought him out of it was reading the poetry of Wordsworth, who was the first of the Romantic poets. At that point, he suddenly realised the importance of aesthetics, and also of the ability to find beauty in nature. Anyway, as is well known, he succeeded in becoming a mature and integrated person and had a long and fruitful career.

    Anyway, my feeling is, that you’re in need of something similar to what the young Mill experienced, with Wordsworth. I’m not actually suggesting romantic verse, as we’re in a dramatically different cultural context now, and it seems very olde worlde. But something with an aesthetic and, if you like, spiritual dimension. Because such things do exist. There are, as the well-known line from Shakespeare says, more things in heaven and earth than our philosophy has dreamed of. And that is especially so now, where philosophy has been to all intents elbowed aside by a technocracy that, despite it’s dazzling technical prowess, is totally lacking a sense of the transcendent.

    Human beings are more than the products of physical evolution. But because of the esteem in which evolutionary biology is held, we loose sight of that. Current culture sees us as another species, but we’re much more than that; we’re beings, and beings who are able to know and understand many things, for which there doesn’t seem any obvious biological rationale. But again, because of the shallowness of modern culture, we’re kind of ‘marooned in the present’ - we seem to have landed here almost by chance, in a world that has no intrinsic meaning, and are obliged to make our own, to spin them out of our own selves with no real cultural narrative of meaning against which to do so.

    There are many ways to navigate that maze of meaningless. I won’t suggest any in particular, beyond assuring you that there are some.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.