I mean, these kinds of work-arounds (in my experience) are conjured up, with the goal of finding work-around. Then the thinkers conceive models of things that they (I should say we) claim matter, ultimately desirable end-goals, — David

Any thoughts? — David

Read Schopenhauer or just read about any one of my posts on Schopenhauer, Philosophical Pessimism in general, or antinatalism.. You are starting to get it :).

The meaninglessness of existence doesn't really bother me. It's the content of experience + the meaninglessness of existence that makes it troublesome. Those who moan about only the meaninglessness of existence are either just simply getting over the initial infantile dream and subsequent disillusionment of reality or a product of the times (such as post-world war), in which case the content of experience creeps back in.

I see philosophies like Stoicism as an idealistic "classroom" philosophy. According to Stoicism, the world is a rational place of order. We can deal with pain because we have a duty to obey. It's all very handy and intuitive, as if it can actually work on the large scale. But as soon as you get out of the air-conditioned classroom, you will see how Stoicism operates as a damage-control system. What I like about parts of Buddhist philosophy is that it doesn't really pretend that everything is alright - according to Buddhism, life is suffering. The surrounding metaphysics may be a bit dubious at times, but the overarching goal of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. It's fully aware that it's a damage-control system.

And, of course, like already said, there's the philosophical pessimists that made their entire philosophical system on the denial that everyone else apparently shares.

So, yes, I agree that most, if not all, of us currently around find ways to deal with reality. Is it full-blown denialism? I wouldn't say it's denialism per se but most likely compartmentalization. At least I have an ever-present understanding of our predicament but manage to enjoy other aspects of reality. I don't deny it to be the case, I simply manage to live despite it. I typically have found that when I pursue other interests, particularly an academic understanding of some analytic ideas, I automatically assume the classroom-Stoic view. It's comfortable. It's reassuring. It's perfectly clean like a laboratory. And yet just as any scientist will tell you, it's better to do experiments in the field than in the laboratory, if not only to see how the experiment connects with the rest of the environment.

It really is quite ridiculous to claim that nothing matters, or for that matter that existence is meaningless, since it's so glaringly obvious that there are things which matter to people, and things which are meaningful to people, and you're no doubt one of them too, David. These are not (all) merely distractions. To call them "distractions" is but one example of the superficial use of loaded language, often deployed by pessimists and nihilists, intended to emotionally beguile the reader to their narrow way of thinking. If anything, ironically, it appears that you are the one in denial. I suspect that you don't actually mean what you claim - at least not without qualification. I suspect that what you really mean is that, in relation to something else, such as "the grand scheme of things" as you see it, what presently matters to us seems insignificant. You might note, for example, temporality and the finiteness of things, and fallaciously jump to the conclusion that therefore nothing really matters. But this is an artificial problem applicable only to those unable to see things from outside of this warped perspective, or for those who simply lack the critical thinking skills required to arrive at the conclusion of a sound argument on this topic.

Alternatively, one could view things from an Epicurean perspective, and come to the realisation that what matters much more than some far removed distant future or past or hypothetical alternative reality is precisely the present, so we ought to seize the day.

This is open-ended, but... — David

If I deny I am in denial, I am in denial. But if I affirm that I am in denial, I am in denial. The end is not open; I deny it.

Anyway, every schoolboy knows that matter does matter, and nothing noths.

If nothing matters then it doesn't matter that nothing matters. Things continue as before entirely unperturbed by such oxymoronic statements.

I suspect that what you really mean is that, in relation to something else, such as "the grand scheme of things" as you see it, what presently matters to us seems insignificant. You might note, for example, temporality and the finiteness of things, and fallaciously jump to the conclusion that therefore nothing really matters. — Sapientia

Instrumentality is the concept that we are doing to do to do. Happiness is often temporary, is often frustrated, and leads to more suffering. The world imposes constraints of survival and unwanted pains and the self imposes constraints of boredom into goal-seeking and pleasure seeking, which leads us to the idea of instrumentality. As I said in an earlier post about the implicit message of society:

By being born, it's telling us that various projects of life are supposed to be followed through and carried out. Thus, suicide, though an option, is not preferred. What is preferred is finding coping mechanisms within the structural and contingent constraints.

By being socialized to find reproduction as worthwhile, it is telling us that these projects must continue in perpetuity. The reasons to have others and have them pursue projects is tricky as it ranges from "having a little one that one can influence" to hoping for the possibility that future people may discover more scientific and technological understanding (which itself may be a reification of forms of knowledge).

By being taught to sublimate and concentrate on various tasks-at-hand one is socialized to avoid feelings of angst or dread. One cannot have time or inclination to see our nature striving-at-nothing if one has something to concentrate on. All the better if the concentration embodies the socio-economic values of the embodied culture, as at least it will probably give one a good reputation- mine as well pursue that which provides status and good health if one is going to pursue anything (good worker, good family man, good performer, good athlete, healthy eater, healthy habits, etc.).

Of course with all this is the notion that life is instrumental. We do not want to think goals are chosen out of a desire to not face angst. Rather society, which gave us this language-brain, (which comes with it the ability to feel angst) wants us to then take that feeling and sublimate it with goals that are supposed to be taken as given (guilt is a great tool to ensure this sticks). Do not look passed the socially prescribed goals (of family, work, legally-deemed entertainment, and maintaining one's living environment) as this may then see the angst itself below the surface.

Now, people will mention the awareness of instrumentality, and then go on to discuss how the notion of absurdity and embracing the charade is the mentality one needs to carry on. Sometimes that just does not do the trick.

Sometimes angst is appropriate, but there's other shit to feel too. If that one's your favorite then to each their own, but I like diversity.

Instrumentality is the concept that we are doing to do to do. — schopenhauer1

What? That phrase of yours is vague and ambiguous, and if it means what I think it means, then it's not a concept which accurately reflects all behaviour or (arguably) behaviour in general. There are many things we do to achieve some end which we value, and, of course, being naturally goal-seeking beings, this is a continually reoccurring behaviour. But, as I've told you before, instrumentality in itself is not evidence either for or against the worth or meaningfulness of life; it's merely an aspect of life, and is purely descriptive with no pessimistic implications, lest you read that into the concept.

Happiness is often temporary, is often frustrated, and leads to more suffering. — schopenhauer1

Happiness is always temporary, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. If anything, its temporary nature makes it more valuable. And what's the alternative? Permanent happiness is impossible, so the alternative must either be to live an unhappy life or to die, neither of which are preferable, so why are you complaining?

Happiness doesn't lead to more suffering any more than it leads to more happiness. Suffering and happiness are just things that we inevitably experience from time to time for various and complex reasons. That's just life.

The world imposes constraints of survival and unwanted pains and the self imposes constraints of boredom into goal-seeking and pleasure seeking, which leads us to the idea of instrumentality. As I said in an earlier post about the implicit message of society:

By being born, it's telling us that various projects of life are supposed to be followed through and carried out. Thus, suicide, though an option, is not preferred. What is preferred is finding coping mechanisms within the structural and contingent constraints.

By being socialized to find reproduction as worthwhile, it is telling us that these projects must continue in perpetuity. The reasons to have others and have them pursue projects is tricky as it ranges from "having a little one that one can influence" to hoping for the possibility that future people may discover more scientific and technological understanding (which itself may be a reification of forms of knowledge).

By being taught to sublimate and concentrate on various tasks-at-hand one is socialized to avoid feelings of angst or dread. One cannot have time or inclination to see our nature striving-at-nothing if one has something to concentrate on. All the better if the concentration embodies the socio-economic values of the embodied culture, as at least it will probably give one a good reputation- mine as well pursue that which provides status and good health if one is going to pursue anything (good worker, good family man, good performer, good athlete, healthy eater, healthy habits, etc.).

Of course with all this is the notion that life is instrumental. We do not want to think goals are chosen out of a desire to not face angst. Rather society, which gave us this language-brain, (which comes with it the ability to feel angst) wants us to then take that feeling and sublimate it with goals that are supposed to be taken as given (guilt is a great tool to ensure this sticks). Do not look passed the socially prescribed goals (of family, work, legally-deemed entertainment, and maintaining one's living environment) as this may then see the angst itself below the surface.

Now, people will mention the awareness of instrumentality, and then go on to discuss how the notion of absurdity and embracing the charade is the mentality one needs to carry on. Sometimes that just does not do the trick. — schopenhauer1

Your analysis is lacking. Yes, no doubt some goals are chosen out of a desire to not face angst, but this is evidently not the whole picture; just a part. It's like there's a painting on a canvas, and it's entirely covered with a sheet, except for a part near a corner, and you are judging the painting based only on that part. Then someone comes along and says that there is more to it than that, but you only see what you want to see.

Life cannot accurately be summed up as "coping" or "avoiding" or a "distraction" from "angst".

In addition to the significant shortcomings in your analysis, you dismiss a worthwhile philosophical outlook merely on the basis that it is not a "cure": which is an awful reason to reject it. It isn't meant to be a "cure". It won't always "do the trick". There neither is nor can be a "cure" to the inevitable hardships, inconveniences, and obstacles that accompany life. And who would really want such a "cure", even if it did exist? Be careful what you wish for, because this hypothetical life without any hardships or striving or hunger or pain or failures does not seem to me to be superior to typical life in the real world. But, importantly, we are not powerless to think or act in a way which is conducive to living a life worth living, despite the downside, which you predictably emphasise and exaggerate because it suits your argument to do so.

This is open-ended, but my take on it, first: — David

I rather agree here with unenlightened... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

I am suspicious that a large number of people who have thought about it enough (particularly the kinds of people that participate on forums like this one) arrive at a philosophical undoubtable that nothing matters and then go on to build philosophies which find ways around that, despite the fact that they know deep inside that really nothing matters, and they are just in a sort of denial because that kind of a view of the world is entirely unacceptable to us from an emotional standpoint. — David

WOW!

... and that's just one sentence.

Anyway...

Questions are as followed:

1) How much is "enough" and how do you know when it's"enough"?
2) Why are you assuming that such people who meet this criteria of "enoughness" haunt this Forum?
3) Why do you feel there must be "ways around" rather than just taking it as it happen to be?
4) What's really wrong or bad about knowing "deep inside that nothing really matters"?
5) In what context do you mean that nothing really matters?
6) Why should this at all be unacceptable?

I mean, these kinds of work-arounds (in my experience) are conjured up, with the goal of finding work-around. Then the thinkers conceive models of things that they (I should say we) claim matter, ultimately desirable end-goals, and they distract us for the rest of our lives because humans are pretty robotic and we can care immensely about the tasks we participate in, so we can stop thinking about the fact that nothing matters because we mark the issue solved by whatever "point of life" we come up with and seal the question off, occasionally failing and getting into an existential depression, but generally being able to go on with life. — David

How's this?

What if one has no "ultimately desirable goals"?

What is so "good" about making or asserting anything as "ultimate" (I assume here) for all time and space experiences one could possibly have?

Why must there even be an "ultimate desirable goal"?

If I'm not mistaken, we have an experience of life where we are spatially mobile, but we are locked in a temporal direction... the arrow of time... in that time moves forward and we simply cannot rewind. This leads to an accumlation of experiences and information. That subsequently leads to an adaptation/refinement of intentions, purposes, agendas, goals, meanings, understandings and desires. This sort of relativity of experience leads to a lack of ultimate assertions taking hold.

In short...

... the meaning of life as a fixed point of ultimate status is replaced by a meaning of life as a relative point of adaptive process.

"Pointlessness allows a great freedom to actual live rather than just be alive; to experience rather than just fulfill; to investigate rather than just to be told to know; to adapt rather than just stagnate" - MoS

I fail to see where this is a denial, but rather an embrace of there being no ultimates or fixed points in desires (or purposes, meanings, agendas, intentions, goals or understandings).

The notions of a value of fixed and ultimate status does not match up well with the relativity of accumulation/adaptation; thus I'd suggest that the notions of value that are fixed and of ultimate status are indeed errors. Any notions of value that are relative and open to the adaptive process of accumulation of experience/information are not in error, but in investigation.

In addition to this, I'd be a bit careful about making generalizations such as, "because humans are pretty robotic" or "the world is entirely unacceptable to us from an emotional standpoint".

I'm not too sure what you mean by "pretty robotic", but it has a ring of superiority to it and reducing everyone to emotions... the same shared emotions... is a bit hasty at best.

Emotionally speaking I find ultimates or fixed points in meanings to be rather totalitarian. I'm quite emotionally happy about the relativity and the pointlessness of it all. IT grants me the opportunity to assert and attribute meaning; thus leads me to have the option of how to make a life that is meaningful rather than being dictated how I'm supposed to live and supposed to understand and supposed to have lived.

This pointlessness sheds me of any existential crisis.

Meow!

GREG

5) In what context do you mean that nothing really matters? — Mayor of Simpleton

This is the key question. Depending on the context, I either agree and find it rather trivial, or completely disagree. Is there some purpose, meaning, and significance to anything beyond the ordinary sense in which we have purposes and find things meaningful and significant? Well, I can't think of a single good reason to think so. This doesn't mean that I am in denial on the subject. There are two distinct contexts at play. In that sense, it is true that nothing really matters, although I wouldn't word it that way, because it assumes that an extraordinary interpretation of purpose, meaning, and significance takes priority over the ordinary sense in which we understand and speak about these things, and that the ordinary way in which we experience these things is illusory.

Happiness is always temporary, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. If anything, its temporary nature makes it more valuable. — Sapientia

That's not much of a consolation when someone is not happy. Good try though.

Permanent happiness is impossible, so the alternative must either be to live an unhappy life or to die, neither of which are preferable, so why are you complaining? — Sapientia

Actually, it was better never to have lived in the first place, but now that we are here, it is not bad to recognize the situation. Those are false alternatives. Rather, we will live and strive as we normally do, sometimes achieving a level of happiness, but with all the caveats I explained. This does make it better to have been, it just makes it that we can cope with reality, meaning we can make do.

Life cannot accurately be summed up as "coping" or "avoiding" or a "distraction" from "angst". — Sapientia

How is it not? Besides, you are reworking my more nuanced argument effectively making it weaker (and basically making it a strawman). By dulling the force of the argument you can weaken it, and thus provide what "appears" to be a stronger reply. Here is what I actually said:

By being taught to sublimate and concentrate on various tasks-at-hand one is socialized to avoid feelings of angst or dread. One cannot have time or inclination to see our nature striving-at-nothing if one has something to concentrate on. All the better if the concentration embodies the socio-economic values of the embodied culture, as at least it will probably give one a good reputation- mine as well pursue that which provides status and good health if one is going to pursue anything (good worker, good family man, good performer, good athlete, healthy eater, healthy habits, etc.). — schopenhauer1

But, importantly, we are not powerless to think or act in a way which is conducive to living a life worth living, despite the downside, which you predictably emphasise and exaggerate because it suits your argument to do so. — Sapientia

There are constraints to our freedom imposed by the world and ourselves. We have some freedom to choose, but the fact of our goal-seeking, dissatisfied nature should give some pause to simply saying "Look, I can choose goals and pursue them- yay!"

That's not much of a consolation when someone is not happy. Good try though. — schopenhauer1

It wasn't intended to be, so you've misunderstood. I was just pointing out a fact about the temporary nature of happiness, and sharing my opinion that it is precisely this quality which makes it so valuable. Not everything I say is an attempt to console or cure.

Actually, it was better never to have lived in the first place, but now that we are here, it is not bad to recognize the situation. — schopenhauer1

No, that's just your misguided opinion which you're projecting onto the rest of us, as if you are the mouthpiece of humanity. But even assuming that you're right that it was better never to have lived in the first place, it isn't good, but rather unproductive or even foolhardy to excessively dwell upon a situation you cannot possibly change, and it is clear from the amount of time that you spend talking about this subject that it is something that you don't just dwell upon, but positively obsess over.

Those are false alternatives. — schopenhauer1

No, they're not. Unfortunately for many, unhappiness and suicide are, or can be, a stark reality.

Rather, we will live and strive as we normally do, sometimes achieving a level of happiness, but with all the caveats I explained. This does make it better to have been, it just makes it that we can cope with reality, meaning we can make do. — schopenhauer1

You should speak for yourself. We don't all arrive at your bleak conclusion, and that doesn't make the rest of us wrong, it just means that we evaluate the situation differently.

And like I've said before, there's more to life than coping. You yourself just acknowledged that we can and do achieve a level of happiness. This is no small thing. You're just choosing to emphasise the aspect which suits your pessimism.

How is it not? — schopenhauer1

Because there is more to life than that. There is also pleasure, happiness, satisfaction, accomplishment, contentedness, indifference, determination, optimism, appreciation, and so on and so forth. You repeatedly mischaracterise life based on the narrow interpretation you pedal.

There are constraints to our freedom imposed by the world and ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Of course, I'm not going to deny that, but my point that we are not powerless stands.

We have some freedom to choose, but the fact of our goal-seeking, dissatisfied nature should give some pause to simply saying "Look, I can choose goals and pursue them- yay!" — schopenhauer1

There you go again mischaracterising human nature by placing undue emphasis on dissatisfaction. And what, pray tell, happens when a goal is accomplished? That's right: satisfaction. There is nothing inherently bad about choosing goals and pursuing them. It's clear that you're suggesting something of the sort, but that demonstrates only your own pessimistic outlook, not anything about instrumentality or goal-seeking behaviour or its value.

Besides, you are reworking my more nuanced argument effectively making it weaker (and basically making it a strawman). By dulling the force of the argument you can weaken it, and thus provide what "appears" to be a stronger reply. Here is what I actually said:

By being taught to sublimate and concentrate on various tasks-at-hand one is socialized to avoid feelings of angst or dread. One cannot have time or inclination to see our nature striving-at-nothing if one has something to concentrate on. All the better if the concentration embodies the socio-economic values of the embodied culture, as at least it will probably give one a good reputation- mine as well pursue that which provides status and good health if one is going to pursue anything (good worker, good family man, good performer, good athlete, healthy eater, healthy habits, etc.).
— schopenhauer1 — schopenhauer1

Yes, I simplified a more lengthy part of your post to succinctly strike at the key points in your reasoning. That doesn't mean that I misrepresented your argument in any significant way.

My criticism stands. What do you think that this longer passage does to escape my criticism? Terms like "striving-for-nothing" can be added to the list of exaggerated language used to paint a one-sided picture of life.

I grant your point about social conditioning, the influence of typical cultural aspirations, the part which distraction plays in life, time constraints, and so on. However my criticism is that you exaggerate, place undue emphasis on, and paint a one-sided picture. Your conclusions are based upon a narrow and impoverished interpretation.

Why do you presume that happiness is temporary? I don't think it is.

It's only temporary to those that don't understand what happiness is. Or to those simply are sad or unhappy about their life, which usually makes them hate people who aren't equally sad and think that the happy ones are clueless, superficial and incapable of understanding the futility of life.

And things matter only to people and to living creatures. It's a question we have invented ourselves for ourselves. The vast amount of stuff that the universe is made of, things that aren't living, the question if something matters is an illogical question.

There's definitely some semantic issues regarding what happiness is. For most people, especially in the West, happiness seems to be in line with having a purpose, accomplishing a goal, rising to the stars, feeling great pleasure, having the resources to spend on whatever you want, etc.

But, at least in Buddhism, this aforementioned experience of "happiness", although being pleasant, ends up being a form of suffering. Nothing is enough to satisfy the thirst. Fundamentally, all elements of this kind of happiness require some amount of effort or exertion.

Now, in the Buddhist sense, happiness is what you feel when you do not suffer. When a Buddhist talks about your "inner peace", they are talking about the experience that happens when one is not suffering or striving. According to Buddhism, when we aren't suffering, we aren't in a neutral state. We're in a positive state, a state of peace and understanding.

So we don't necessarily have to strive for pleasure or gains for happiness (according to Buddhism) - we just have to strive to eliminate suffering. If you eliminate suffering, everything else will fall into place naturally and easily, leading to peace.

Pleasure and happiness are indeed two different things. Far often the goal of being happy is confused with hedonism in this age of individualism and consumerism.

Why do you presume that happiness is temporary? I don't think it is. — ssu

I don't "presume" that happiness is temporary, I know that it is, and you're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. No one lives happily ever after except in fairy tales.

It's only temporary to those that don't understand what happiness is. Or to those simply are sad or unhappy about their life, which usually makes them hate people who aren't equally sad and think that the happy ones are clueless, superficial and incapable of understanding the futility of life. — ssu

That's simply not true, as many people will attest. How can I have experienced happiness, and be aware of that fact, yet not understand what happiness is? There have been times when I've been happy and times when I've not been happy. Sometimes it's brief and other times it's more lasting, but never is it permanent, nor, realistically, can it be.

And things matter only to people and to living creatures. It's a question we have invented ourselves for ourselves. The vast amount of stuff that the universe is made of, things that aren't living, the question if something matters is an illogical question. — ssu

I agree with the gist of this, although I'm not sure about that last part about the question being illogical. It is a question which doesn't make much sense except in an ordinary, human, relative context; and outside of that context, it perhaps receives undue focus and consideration as a philosophical enquiry.

I would think that happiness is more a relation than a condition or attribute. Thus I find I am not happy or unhappy in a vacuum, nor in an absolute, unconditional way. Rather, I might be happy with this post, and at the same time unhappy with the general level of debate.

Likewise I could sensibly claim that plate tectonics matters to evolution, or the distance of the moon matters to the tides; meaning it has an effect. This by way of depersonalising a bit. Mattering also being relational.

So when the op says:

...really nothing matters... — David

, I feel entitled to ask what or who it doesn't matter to? And there is no possible answer, because everything is on the other side of the relation.

What the OP is saying, which I think is generally true, is that there is no specific purpose we can attribute to our existence. Considering the secular, contemporary explanation for the existence of the universe is couched entirely in causal, scientific terms, it would make little sense to attempt to provide a teleological explanation for it.

That is, the universe arose through the big bang and that matter then formed in various random ways and then life arose and evolution did what it did, and here we are. How could you expect to derive a teleological explanation from that? That was never your inquiry anyway. You were asking the "how" question, not the "why" question.

Keep in mind, though, that we can in fact answer the why question just as we can answer the how question; it's just there is a limit to the answers we can give. We can never give a first cause answer whether we're speaking in terms of causality or teleology. Why is it more troubling that I cannot fully explain my reason for existence than it is I cannot fully explain how I came into existence? It's not like offering a vague explanation of the Big Bang that spontaneously occurred to eternally existing matter (whatever that might be) is any better a first cause explanation than simply asserting a first cause teleological explanation that I exist to fulfill my pre-existing eternal purpose (whatever that might be).

The rain falls because the clouds fill with the moisture that evaporated up into the air and it precipitates out. A meteorologist could provide cause after cause for how that happens, and at some point, he won't know. The rain falls because the plants need nourishment so that fruit will grow and animals will eat and so that animals will reproduce. I could keep giving teleological reasons, but at some point, I won't know.

1) How much is "enough" and how do you know when it's"enough"? — Mayor of Simpleton

Enough is what you have and always will have if you never stop to check but just believe. (L)
Like the philosophy that the Roadrunner taught us in chasing the Coyote. The Roadrunner never looked down to see if he had 'enough' ground to keep running on, so his forward momentum and belief that he would have 'enough' kept him alive.
Where as the Coyote who was chasing the Roadrunner, would question whether or not he had 'enough' and when he did stop to check his belief, he lost his momentum and ran out of 'enough'.
Moral of the story? Believe that you will have 'enough' by the time you need 'enough' and keep on moving forward. 8-)

Don't try this at home, kids. Roadrunner is a trained professional, (and total fiction).

despite the fact that they know deep inside that really nothing matters — David

This can easily be turned on its head. How do you know you're not in denial about how everything does possibly matter? All you're doing is expressing the fashionable nihilism so prevalent in the world today.

We are animals to which, some things matter. To arrive at a notion that nothing really matters (I hear a dying Freddie Mercury singing) is to have failed to notice what sorts of creatures we are.

Don't try this at home, kids. Roadrunner is a trained professional, (and total fiction). — unenlightened

unenlightened, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? You are my sage, my mentor, my guide, my life coach. I know you didn't ask for the job but I hope you stay.