because “I am deathly afraid of ending up alone”. — MadWorld1

What I may add to this is that "being alone" only matters so long (as it does matter). It might well be you not only do end up alone but that you really will not care about it then. The social needs are an invention of culture or at least lose their weight with time. The thing you may then ask in this forum are if it is a bad thing that you do not care and basically care a sh*t about everything as long as you get your steak on sundays as that really is something existential.

Freud made up for the theories how culture benefits from internalized aggression. So to critique your excerpts of despair: It is really to abstract to be destructive and - thus - satisfying. Too many relativations, too few direct attacks. "Hunter-gatherers"... I'd suggest you google for "Trolling for Beginners" and put things to the test. Think, no, DO Nieztsche:

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity.

What stays on top is right, good and the truth.

Do you have any recommendations? I live in Scandinavia.

Can't say that I do, but a quick glance at Google ("monastery retreat Scandinavia") shows plenty of choice, from Christian to Buddhist to secular.

This is why hytte are big business. Unfortunately solace as a consumption choice is part of the grand madness.

I wish I had suggestions for what to do to be less of a lonely atom, but that's something I'm struggling with too.

I loathe modern society and everything it entails. — madworld

I haven't read this thread, just jumping in with something I know about this, which is that Freud had this same concern. Wild and crazy passionate erotic animalistic humans trying to get through life sitting at desks and wearing suits and being polite to one another. Some of this arrangement seems to be fraying at the seams lately if you read the papers.

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

You can join the anarcho-primitivists in thinking that the only viable future for humanity is a return to hunter gatherer life. However they work within this modern world to disseminate that idea. An abrupt return is impossible; all you can do is prepare the way as best you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=anarcho-primitivism&ref=nb_sb_noss

If you feel drawn to those ideas I can recommend John Zerzan as an erudite and eloquent anarcho-prinitivist author.

I want to get paid well so that I can attract and provide for some girl I’ll fall in love with, as well as to be able to provide for the kids I would want us to have. In other words, I want to make money as to not be lonely. I suppose my sense of loneliness manifests in an urge for romantic love. — MadWorld1

Perhaps by having children you would be continuing the chain of suffering and causing others to deal with the same existential problems. The best way to prevent suffering is to simply not have people that can experience it.

Well, for starters and also as the main course, you must've surely noticed that mother nature herself is the greatest doctor, engineer, mathematician, physicist, chemist, etc. All of what humans have to work so hard to learn through an education system involving years of theory and practicals is done by mother nature to perfection, something even the best among us can only imagine in our dreams. In short, all we're doing, that which you're saying is "unnatural", is nothing more than us, emulating nature. Perhaps your complaint is the poor quality of this emulation/mimickry.

Who says modern civilization is unnatural? Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes. You are doing what you were naturally designed to do.

The idea that what humans do is unnatural stems from the antiquated notion that humans are special, or separate from nature.

I guess I do... I'm not saying my perception of it is objective, though. This is what I wrote to another person:

I’m afraid that the question "what is really natural?" is beyond the scope of my intellectual capabilities, so I won’t even try it. That’s why I asked for books that could convince me to think differently. At the moment I’m just seeing the world through the values I figure to be right, what to me feels instinctively true, and through that lens the modern way of life isn’t natural; multiculturalism isn’t natural, (excessive) individualism isn’t natural, genderless society isn’t natural, our sedentary lifestyles aren’t natural and so on. — MadWorld1

Although, if I may, I think your definition of what's natural - at least as stated here - runs into some serious issues. You seem to be implying that anything and everything humanity do is natural. Is mass-suicide by gassing natural? It could be that we are talking about different things and merely using the same word.

The social needs are an invention of culture or at least lose their weight with time. — Heiko

I fully disagree with the former, but suspect you're fully right on the latter. You're right.

The thing you may then ask in this forum are if it is a bad thing that you do not care and basically care a sh*t about everything as long as you get your steak on sundays as that really is something existential. — Heiko

Yeah. I don't know man, I just feel so damn nihilistic. It's like Nietzsche said:

To lose firm ground for once! To float! To err! To be mad! - that was part of the paradise and debauchery of former ages, whereas our bliss is like that of the shipwrecked man who has climbed ashore and is standing with both feet on the firm old earth - marvelling because it does not bob up and down.

I want to stand on firm ground.

To lose firm ground for once! To float! To err! To be mad! - that was part of the paradise and debauchery of former ages, whereas our bliss is like that of the shipwrecked man who has climbed ashore and is standing with both feet on the firm old earth - marvelling because it does not bob up and down.

I wan't to stand on firm ground — MadWorld1

There is no firm ground; at best you can drop an anchor.

That's the thing; I don't necessarily think that suffering is bad, it's not the suffering that gets to me. I feel like suffering can even be good in that sense, in a tragic sense, as something that cleanses your soul. It's really the alienation and loneliness. It's lifeless suffering, that's what it is. It's something cold, metallic, and static. I don't believe that everyone is doomed to feel in that way, it's not part of the human experience. I feel like we're going post-human.

I don't believe that everyone is doomed to feel in that way, it's not part of the human experience. I feel like we're going post-human. — MadWorld1

But that's part of the suffering too...

But that's part of the suffering too... — schopenhauer1

Going post-human?

Wild and crazy passionate erotic animalistic humans trying to get through life sitting at desks and wearing suits and being polite to one another. — fishfry

Well put.

Some of this arrangement seems to be fraying at the seams lately if you read the papers. — fishfry

You can say that again.

That sounds very interesting, I'll definitely look into it. I've been kind of ambivalent when it comes to anarchism; I like some of what I hear but the almost principal stance against hierarki and stratification of any kind seems unnatural to me - as well as a pipe dream. Granted I know little of anarchistic views.

That's an interesting thought. But what would the end-goal be in such a world? To become all-powerful? I don't want to mimic nature, I want to be enclosed by it and a part of it. I want to live the human experience. I'm aware that it sounds vague, but I really like the to put it like that; it emphasizes that, at least for me, we're not really human in this modern world - we're alien.

One of the central anarcho-primitivist claims (embodied in the very name!) is that anthropological and paleontological evidence suggests that hunter-gatherer societies generally lacked imposed hierarchical structure and that individuals (even children) were free to act as they wished. Selfish or self-important behavior and attitudes were dealt with by the tribe shunning individuals who manifested such traits.

If this is true then hunter gatherer societies were anarchistic, self-regulating, just as other social animal groups are.

That's an interesting thought. But what would the end-goal be in such a world? To become all-powerful? I don't want to mimic nature, I want to be enclosed by it and a part of it. I want to live the human experience. I'm aware that it sounds vague, but I really like the to put it like that; it emphasizes that, at least for me, we're not really human in this modern world - we're alien. — MadWorld1

If you ask me, the end goal is an utopia or heaven if you're the religious type. I haven't done research into it but I have a feeling carnivory is declining in the animal world and I take that as nature's way of trying to achieve its own brand of Eden. Look at the fossil records - big, terrifying, flesh-eating monsters. Where are they now? Also, don't forget humans are the apex predators whose dominion is the entire globe and I don't think it's a coincidence that we alone have evolved a sense of right and wrong.

Is mass-suicide by gassing natural? It could be that we are talking about different things and merely using the same word. — MadWorld1

True. We could be talking about different things. You seem to be implying that mass-suicide by gassing is unnatural, as if because humans do something that other animals don't do that makes it unnatural.

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.

Our complex and diverse behaviors are a product of our evolutionary past and natural selection. Opposable thumbs and large brains had an exponential effect on the number of possible behavioral strategies that opened up to homo sapiens, and each culture and religion is it's own example of one type of strategy.

True. We could be talking about different things. You seem to be implying that mass-suicide by gassing is unnatural, as if because humans do something that other animals don't do that makes it unnatural. — Harry Hindu

Let me clarify: I'm saying that, in my view, what's natural can't be anything and everything humanity do.

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

I'm singling out humans because I am human. But yes, I definitely believe - I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt using science and normal categorization - that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. One example would be that we're the only animal doing philosophy on the internet.

This is my worry with your statement that modern society is natural: it seems non-falsifiable. You're not actually describing the world, you're simply describing relationships between words. You're making, using Kantian terminology, an analytical statement. I'm trying to describe the world.

As an aside, being an engineer you sound well positioned to lead a digital nomadic lifestyle close to the outdoors

One of the central anarcho-primitivist claims (embodied in the very name!) is that anthropological and paleontological evidence suggests that hunter-gatherer societies generally lacked imposed hierarchical structure and that individuals (even children) were free to act as they wished. Selfish or self-important behavior and attitudes were dealt with by the tribe shunning individuals who manifested such traits. — Janus

Interesting. I agree with the gist of what you're saying. I like the thinking that it lacked "imposed" hierarchical structure, because of course there's also innate hierarchies that are perfectly natural. We as most other mammals have them. I mean, could I child really set the brought home game ablaze every time and not be punished? When the tribe where to take an important decision of where to go next, did the children get a say as influential as the tribes chief? As long as anarchists oppose imposed, unnatural hierarchy and not the natural kind, then I'm all for it. I also fully agree that obvious or excessive selfish behavior would be shunned, which is kinda funny given that most of us in modern society are taught to be like that.

Let me clarify: I'm saying that, in my view, what's natural can't be anything and everything humanity do. — MadWorld1

Then what is natural cant be anything and everything any other animal does.

I'm singling out humans because I am human. But yes, I definitely believe - I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt using science and normal categorization - that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. One example would be that we're the only animal doing philosophy on the internet. — MadWorld1

What scientific theory states that philosophy and mass-suicide are unnatural?

Other animals don't have unique behaviors that define them as a species? Are all of these behaviors unnatural?
https://www.science101.com/bizarre-animal-behaviors-prove-nature-metal/

This is my worry with your statement that modern society is natural: it seems non-falsifiable. You're not actually describing the world, you're simply describing relationships between words. You're making, using Kantian terminology, an analytical statement. I'm trying to describe the world. — MadWorld1

How is the statement that modern civilization is unnatural falsifiable? It seems to me that we are simply categorizing the world. It's just that your categorization isn't consistent because it is subjective, and it is subjective because you think humans are special because you're human.

Then what is natural cant be anything and everything any other animal does. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I've never claimed to objectively know what's natural - quite on the contrary. I thought that was your position?

What scientific theory states that philosophy and mass-suicide are unnatural?

Other animals don't have unique behaviors that define them as a species? Are all of these behaviors unnatural?
https://www.science101.com/bizarre-animal-behaviors-prove-nature-metal/ — Harry Hindu

I don't know, and I never said that. I'm saying that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. You seemed to be doubting that. In my view the behaviors listed are natural in a way that sharply contrasts to, say, using a rocket to go to space. If chimpanzees started doing that I would feel the same way.

How is the statement that modern civilization is unnatural falsifiable? It seems to me that we are simply categorizing the world. It's just that your categorization isn't consistent because it is subjective, and it is subjective because you think humans are special because you're human. — Harry Hindu

No, seriously, you're not saying anything about the world. You said exactly that "Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes.". Go through it step by step; you've defined humans as natural outcomes of natural processes, and then stated that very relationship.

If you actually think you're saying something objective about the real world, then give me a hypothetical, an actual change in the world whereas you're sentence would be falsified without redefining your terms.

Don't shoot the messenger, man.

Sure, I've never claimed to objectively know what's natural - quite on the contrary. I thought that was you're position? — MadWorld1

If you actually think you're saying something objective about the real world, then give me a hypothetical, an actual change in the world whereas you're sentence would be falsified without redefining your terms. — MadWorld1

"Natural" and "unnatural" are just words, but words need to refer to consistent and non-contradictory things and relationships for them to mean anything or to be useful. We could use any terms that you like, as long as the terms are applied consistently. That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. What is the relationship between humans and the world - natural or unnatural?

I don't know, and I never said that. I'm saying that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. You seemed to be doubting that. In my view the behaviors listed are natural in a way that sharply contrasts to, say, using a rocket to go to space. If chimpanzees started doing that I would feel the same way. — MadWorld1

No. That was my argument - that humans have unique behaviors, but then I also showed that other animals do to, and that was a link that I tried to show in that humans really aren't different than other animals in that each species has unique behaviors that define it as a species. Chimps building rockets to space would be unnatural in that their biology doesn't allow for those types of behaviors. So "unnatural" would actually mean "impossible" or "imaginary".

No, seriously, you're not saying anything about the world. You said exactly that "Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes.". Go through it step by step; you've defined humans as natural outcomes of natural processes, and then stated that very relationship. — MadWorld1

So saying that humans and other animals possess unique behaviors that define them as a species isn't saying anything about the world? If the processes that created humans and all other animals is natural, and the things that animals do is natural, and humans are animals, then what use is the word, "unnatural"?

If we discovered aliens that also have large brains and opposable thumbs and they also had instances of mass-suicide and practiced philosophy, would you then agree that those things are natural - as in natural behaviors given our biology?

Lemmings have been known to jump off cliffs to their deaths in mass migration. Is a mass-suicide not similar in that the people are trying to mass-migrate to the after-life, but are ignorant of the fact that their destination is real and safe?

Why the fallacies?

1.

No. That was my argument - that humans have unique behaviors, but then I also showed that other animals do to, and that was a link that I tried to show in that humans really aren't different than other animals in that each species has unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

That wasn't the argument you made, that's a blatant ad hoc modification. You said:

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

I responded by saying that yes, I do believe that humans have unique behaviors that define it as a species. If one reads your quote they see that you said "... for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.". Common man.

2.

So saying that humans and other animals possess unique behaviors that define them as a species isn't saying anything about the world? — Harry Hindu

I never said that. I clearly stated which of your statements I was talking about. Why the straw man?

3.

That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. — Harry Hindu

Where? Quote me being inconsistent with my view on nature as applied to animals. I've never even talked about what I believe makes other animals natural or unnatural outside of our discussion. If you can find any animals that go to space in rockets or mass-suicide with gas (obviously poisons gas), then I'll reconsider.

Let's discuss in good faith.

"Natural" and "unnatural" are just words, but words need to refer to consistent and non-contradictory things and relationships for them to mean anything or to be useful. We could use any terms that you like, as long as the terms are applied consistently. That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. What is the relationship between humans and the world - natural or unnatural? — Harry Hindu

I agree with you that words need (or at least ought) to be used consistently and in an non-contradictory fashion, and I'm not saying that your analytical statement is an invalid one. It's valid just as the statement "all parents have children" is, but it still doesn't say anything descriptive about the world - the validity of the statement stems from the definitions entailing each other. It's really somewhat of a tautology. Your issue is that your statement doesn't refer to things other than what defines the words and their relationship. That's what makes your statement analytical.

You can read more about it here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-proposition

Chimps building rockets to space would be unnatural in that their biology doesn't allow for those types of behaviors. So "unnatural" would actually mean "impossible" or "imaginary". — Harry Hindu

Yes! That's exactly it. Given that your analytical statement dosen't say anything about the world, there is no possible world where you can be wrong. That's what I meant by your analytical statement being non-falsifiable, and that I want to describe the world. I've never claimed that I'm describing the world in a objective, perfectly true way. I'd leave that to the gigants.

If the processes that created humans and all other animals is natural, and the things that animals do is natural, and humans are animals, then what use is the word, "unnatural"? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly what I claim will happen when we look to the consequences of your non-falsifiable, analytical statement - that's all I've been saying.

If we discovered aliens that also have large brains and opposable thumbs and they also had instances of mass-suicide and practiced philosophy, would you then agree that those things are natural - as in natural behaviors given our biology? — Harry Hindu

This is where you've misunderstood me. I would think that they're unnatural as well! For example: if humanity went extinct and some population of chimpanzees evolved to be similarly intelligent to us now in, say 20 million years, and they started doing what were doing - mass destroying forest, forcing themselves to be sedentary even though they feel bad from it etc. - i'd be there calling them unnatural. I've been consistent on this, I've been consistent on my subjective understanding of naturalness lol

I like the thinking that it lacked "imposed" hierarchical structure, because of course there's also innate hierarchies that are perfectly natural. — MadWorld1

Yes, exactly, a common mistake is thinking that anarchism necessarily rejects all hierarchy. Rather it rejects all hierarchy imposed from above, that is it rejects institutionalized hierarchies.

I also fully agree that obvious or excessive selfish behavior would be shunned, which is kinda funny given that most of us in modern society are taught to be like that.

Yes, it's widely tolerated if not even glorified. Look at the Trump phenomenon for a classic example. One of the tragic aspects of modern life, and another manifestation of this absurd phenomenon, is that the people apparently cannot muster the intelligence and will to unite in effectively opposing and ejecting the financial elites that are screwing us so royally.