Schopenhauer1. I like your references to Sartre with regards to the fundamental human situation and more specifically life in respect of purposefulness versus purposelessness. At present I am busy with a similar discussion in the Ethics Section of this forum under the heading "Life and Meaning". I want to invite you to have a look at what has been discussed so far and to consider joining the discussion. I am of the opinion that you will be able to make valuable contributions - if you are interested. Thank you for considering this invitation. Daniel C

Schopenhauer1. I like your references to Sartre with regards to the fundamental human situation and more specifically life in respect of purposefulness versus purposelessness. At present I am busy with a similar discussion in the Ethics Section of this forum under the heading "Life and Meaning". I want to invite you to have a look at what has been discussed so far and to consider joining the discussion. I am of the opinion that you will be able to make valuable contributions - if you are interested. Thank you for considering this invitation. Daniel C — Daniel C

Cool, I'll take a look!

Back to the outputs we go. — schopenhauer1

All that we have left of note is experience, if that's a benefit.

All that we have left of note is experience, if that's a benefit. — PoeticUniverse

At the end of the day we only have the point of view of ourselves. We can try to fit ourselves into some grand plan, but it still goes down to the individual person being acted upon and acting upon the environment. In a world full of generalized purposelessness we are extruded into the confines of the outputs we consume and create. That de facto defines our individual lives- the embodied self. To lift the veil of the attention on only outputs would be to reveal a stark angsty existence, full of nothing, chaotic sound and fury, signifying nothing. We need to be directed by the angst of small things (outputs) so we do not get suffocated by the angst of the big things (general purposelessness).

Thus ironically, we have no general goal or purpose, but each day is a sort of bad faith in output expectations due to our initial conditions of survival, boredom, and comfort. This requires social organization to shape us to value the daily outputs we create. This becomes a de facto goal. It is an odd squashing of a general purposelessness into detailed output. Faux mini-goals masks the general purposelessness. What happens when it is stark individual purposelessness? Angst, uneasiness, disorientation. Back to the outputs we go. — schopenhauer1

I will not clutter up your thread with my opinions beyond this. We've discussed this numerous times before. It's just a new verse in your anti-natalist song. A song I find off-key and discordant.

I will not clutter up your thread with my opinions beyond this. We've discussed this numerous times before. It's just a new verse in your anti-natalist song. A song I find off-key and discordant. — T Clark

Well without some reasoning behind your words, it would be just a comment indeed.

Generally there is no purpose to human existence. What does this mean? — schopenhauer1

It means human existence - and existence in general - is unnecessary, merely decorative, an exuberant overflowing.

We also tend to gravitate towards what is most comfortable. — schopenhauer1

Some do, but others play soccer (the beautiful game). You know that the search for comfort is a purposeless purpose, yet you keep presenting it as the only possible one. And as it leads inevitably to greater discomfort, you end up with a negative view of life. Go for the burn instead; overcome the pain barrier; give blood - play rugby.

If you want to have a purpose, don't make yourself comfortable, make yourself useful - make yourself beautiful.

Generally there is no purpose to human existence. — schopenhauer1

Generally this is not so.

I was kind of following you but then your post became increasingly murky to me.

There are no objective goals/purposes, only subjective ones. We agree on that.

And there are social facts that we have to adapt to in order to survive. We agree on that.

But then I'm not following you re the implications you're drawing from that.

For one, some people like working. And not just when it's "dream work" like what I lucked into. My dad, for example, does very blue collar work, as did his dad, and he loves doing it. At 80 years old now, he still goes batty if he has too much time off, and he starts creating all sorts or work-like projects for himself. He'll never retire. He doesn't want to. His dad never retired, either, because he was just the same way.

And take something like exercise. I don't always feel like exercising/working out before I start, but I get into it once I start, and I always feel way better on days when I do significant exercise, so I try to do it every day.

The same thing is true for stuff like housecleaning, home maintenance, etc.

I understand that some people don't like doing that stuff, some people hate their work, etc., but it often seems to be people who have an overall disposition of being miserable, complaining etc. in general--people who will always find something to complain about.

Some do, but others play soccer (the beautiful game). You know that the search for comfort is a purposeless purpose, yet you keep presenting it as the only possible one. And as it leads inevitably to greater discomfort, you end up with a negative view of life. Go for the burn instead; overcome the pain barrier; give blood - play rugby.

If you want to have a purpose, don't make yourself comfortable, make yourself useful - make yourself beautiful. — unenlightened

I did mention entertainment. Soccer would fit under there. Comfort are things not out of boredom or survival. For example, people generally prefer clean clothes, clean environments, comfortable temperatures etc. It is not absolutely necessary to survive, but people do it because they would uncomfortable otherwise.

If you want to have a purpose, don't make yourself comfortable, make yourself useful - make yourself beautiful. — unenlightened

But the point wasn't comfort vs. discomfort. Actually, in another thread I wrote all about this idea of "growth-through-adversity". See here:

Growth-through-adversity is defined by challenges faced by someone in order to attain a particular goal. For most people this at least involves survival/work along with goals involving entertainment/family-pursuits outside of survival/work.

Undue harm would be overriding illnesses, circumstances, accidents, disasters, etc. that otherwise would not be asked for outside the usual growth-through-adversity.

To be concise in these posts I am going to call growth-through adversity GTA and undue harm UH.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". There is no escape from it outside suicide. But no one asks why this is good for someone who doesn't exist in the first place to put this reality onto a new person. Oddly, the parent is an existential missionizer force-recruiting new people who, like religious families tend to do, try to enculturate the new recruit into identifying with the GTA-UH model so as not to regret being recruited.

For one, some people like working. And not just when it's "dream work" like what I lucked into. My dad, for example, does very blue collar work, as did his dad, and he loves doing it. At 80 years old now, he still goes batty if he has too much time off, and he starts creating all sorts or work-like projects for himself. He'll never retire. He doesn't want to. His dad never retired, either, because he was just the same way.

And take something like exercise. I don't always feel like exercising/working out before I start, but I get into it once I start, and I always feel way better on days when I do significant exercise, so I try to do it every day.

The same thing is true for stuff like housecleaning, home maintenance, etc.

I understand that some people don't like doing that stuff, some people hate their work, etc., but it often seems to be people who have an overall disposition of being miserable, complaining etc. in general--people who will always find something to complain about. — Terrapin Station

Well that's the point, the imposition is not direct, it is inculcated through social norms and simply by the way social institutions shape expectations for what we should be doing. What would humans do without focusing on outputs? It would be an angsty, uneasy existence. You can say it is "inbuilt" in people, but you know as well as I that "selves" don't form in a vacuum- it is the interaction with social expectations, norms, institutions, other people, etc.

You see we need to generate power, we need to manufacture stuff, we need to get shit done. We also need to focus our liquid fray of general awareness on "something". Combine these, and we have society shaping our attention on generating stuff. What we cannot stand to do as a species is allow us to remain in the liquid unbounded general inattention to outputs. This would not make for continuation and "growth" of individuals, species, and the self-perpetuating social institutions themselves.

What number is this one? 74?

I did mention entertainment. Soccer would fit under there. — schopenhauer1

No it wouldn't.

Someone said to me 'To you football is a matter of life or death!' and I said 'Listen, it's more important than that'. — Bill Shankley

Entertainment is shit you don't give a shit about.