You could find the middle way.

Let's call them the A word and the N word, then...:smile:

I would wish that my posts are always of some use to someone.

I will never make another post on this thread.

When one cannot even express the notion that 'never' is useless, without using the term, it is a strong indication that one's thinking is off course. May there always be sandpaper for all your rough spots.

I would wish that my posts are always of some use to someone. — unenlightened

But do you want to be useful like an object? Sometimes it seems the whole world has lined up to use me for something.

Am I doing the same thing? Am I trying to use you right now?

I think some people confuse usefulness with love. If I make myself useful to you, I'll control your affections because you need me.

Is it better to let people be free?

When one cannot even express the notion that 'never' is useless, without using the term, it is a strong indication that one's thinking is off course — unenlightened

The thought did cross my mind but dive a bit deeper and the words "never" and "always" can never be used in the sense they're defined. The only usage that's "appropriate" is in the sentence N = "never say never, never say always". However, if one takes into account the self-referential aspect of N, the usage of "never" isn't justified; after all we're never to say "never" and N violates the very rule it states. Does that mean, the rule expressed by the sentence N is null and void and that it's permissible to use "never" and "always" sometimes? Like it or not, the answer to this question is a big NO! The reason is simple: Never and Always are temporal concepts, they're about time and we're more than familiar with the problem of induction, its essence being encapsulated in the statement that asserts that just because the sun has risen without fail up until now, it doesn't follow that it'll rise tomorrow. :chin:

I frequently beat myself up feeling useless at times. When I had a job I used to compare myself with higher achievers and I probably have a problem of low self esteem generally.


However, perhaps discussion in these debates is a worthy purpose. You are involved in so many debates on this site. Unfortunately, philosophy is a bit of a neglected and rejected cause whereas perhaps it should be seen as the cornerstone of existence.

When I tell people I know that I am spending time on a philosophy website I frequently get a negative response. Most regard football as a better interest! Philosophy and music are my football. I have absolutely no interest in sports and think that they are the most useless pursuits of all even though most people seem to rank them so highly.

:ok: :up:

The funny thing is I quite enjoy being useless.

It certainly lowers the bar of expectations and when something I write that actually is of any use for someone else, well... it's a surprise bonus.

Finding myself in a rough spot lately, I've been wondering if my existence is of any benefit in the sense whether I could be used for some purpose, any purpose at all. I've seen a lot of movies in my life, not all award winners I must confess, and from watching the many plots, actors, actresses, good and bad — TheMadFool

This is only a problem because you worship the idol of utility, believing that usefulness is the highest good.

I'd aim for purpose over use.

Sisyphus is use without purpose. The fact that he is used to roll a rock for eternity might distinguish him from you because you believe yourself to be entirely useless, but why would you prefer his plight to yours?

So, you can rephrase the OP to ask what is your purpose, which would place you in the existential crisis as the rest of the godless, but you'd at least be relieved of the angst caused by your concerns over your uselessness.

the existential crisis as the rest of the godless — Hanover

Even if a god existed, that wouldn’t help with my kind of existential crises.

I used to wonder that until I stopped wondering it and that seems to make it go away. That seems to be the solution for most “philosophical angst”. I used to get periods where I’d be super anxious about how the world could be deterministic and nothing I do matters once every 3 months on the dot. Then I’d spend one month exactly to try to resolve the issue which either ends in me reaching a new conclusion or giving up. Funnily enough, both outcomes had the same effect, until 3 months later.

It seems to me that doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. Occasionally you get a complete shift in thought which will settle your issues for a while but it’s very rare. Best thing to do is to just do something practical for a while and actually do philosophy when there is no emotional charge behind it. I find the most of the time you try to untangle philosophical angst by doing philosophy you only make it worse but when you ignore it for a while and approach the subject when you’re not emotionally attached that leads to actual shifts in thought.

Even if a god existed, that wouldn’t help with my kind of existential crises. — Pfhorrest

That's likely because you wouldn't believe in him.

I first misread the title as 'The Useless Thread!' (although my error may simply highlight a distinction without a difference).

No, I mean that even if I believed that there existed such a god, I could not find hope in that possibility, because of the problem of evil.

An all powerful and knowledgeable being must not be all good, or else must not be sufficiently knowledgeable or powerful even if it is very knowledgeable and powerful, because if there were a sufficiently knowledgeable, sufficiently powerful, and sufficiently good being, there would be no excuse for the continued presence of bad things in the world, for it would have fixed them already. If it does not know that they need fixing, that would explain why they continue to occur; likewise if it is not able to fix them, or simply is not inclined to do so.

I know various theodicies have been offered for why an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being could allow "evil" to exist anyway. But even if any of those theodicies were true, if any of those excuses held water, still such a being would be no source of hope, even if it were positively known to exist, because the existence of such a being would then not necessarily have any impact on whatever hardships one might hope to escape by means of it; for some reason or another, it could still let them happen, as evidenced by all the hardship, the horrific pain and suffering and death, that does happen all the time. It doesn't really matter, for the purposes of something to hope for, whether or not any god exists, if for whatever reason or another it still allows genocides to occur and children to be sold into sex slavery.

One could argue that that is only allowed in the mortal life that we think is the entirety of the universe, and that we could all hope to move on after our apparent deaths to a better world somewhere in some larger true universe. But if that place is run by the same being we suppose is all-powerful over this universe, where for some reason or another he can't or won't stop all the horrific things that happen here, that leaves me with little confidence that he will be willing and able to do better somewhere else.

We could, I suppose, imagine that there is some all-good being in some larger universe within which what we know of the universe is something like a simulation, who is not actually all-powerful over this universe and cannot stop all the horrors that happen here, but does have the power to take people from here upon their apparent deaths and bring them somewhere that he does have the power to ensure that they get to live happily ever after. That is, I admit, a technical possibility. But it no longer resembles much the usual religious conceptions that real people actually look to for hope, and it seems to be more far-fetched than we really need to look, at least those of us who are not facing imminent death before more realistic possibilities might come to pass.

This is only a problem because you worship the idol of utility, believing that usefulness is the highest good.

I'd aim for purpose over use.

Sisyphus is use without purpose. The fact that he is used to roll a rock for eternity might distinguish him from you because you believe yourself to be entirely useless, but why would you prefer his plight to yours?

So, you can rephrase the OP to ask what is your purpose, which would place you in the existential crisis as the rest of the godless, but you'd at least be relieved of the angst caused by your concerns over your uselessness. — Hanover

Thanks! If I may I'd like to pick your brain on the difference between purpose and use. As for what I think, using Sisyphus as a case in point, Sisyphus' use is that of a person who must roll a rock up a hill for eternity but he doesn't have purpose because it's not that he was created for that specific task, it just so happens that Sisyphus' life can be interpreted as such.

As another example to check if I catch your drift, I remember not finding a saucer to place my cup of tea on so, I simply placed my cup on a book that was close by. The saucer's purpose contrasts with the book's use insofar as my tea was concerned.

Can you elaborate a bit more about these two concepts, purpose and use? What differentiates them? What they entail, and so on?

I used to wonder that until I stopped wondering it and that seems to make it go away. That seems to be the solution for most “philosophical angst”. I used to get periods where I’d be super anxious about how the world could be deterministic and nothing I do matters once every 3 months on the dot. Then I’d spend one month exactly to try to resolve the issue which either ends in me reaching a new conclusion or giving up. Funnily enough, both outcomes had the same effect, until 3 months later.

It seems to me that doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. Occasionally you get a complete shift in thought which will settle your issues for a while but it’s very rare. Best thing to do is to just do something practical for a while and actually do philosophy when there is no emotional charge behind it. I find the most of the time you try to untangle philosophical angst by doing philosophy you only make it worse but when you ignore it for a while and approach the subject when you’re not emotionally attached that leads to actual shifts in thought. — khaled

Thanks! :up:

Addendum

I would like you to explore the self-refuting nature of the statement, N = never say never, never say always, because N does exactly what it says shouldn't be done.

I've been wondering if my existence is of any benefit in the sense whether I could be used for some purpose, any purpose at all. — TheMadFool

One might always serve as a bad example...

One might always serve as a bad example... — Banno

That's being useful :smile:

Indeed. 'tis paradoxical. So far as bad examples go, the more useless you become, the better.

Indeed. 'tis paradoxical. So far as bad examples go, the more useless you become, the better. — Banno

Ah! But it's not so simple. The less of a bad example one is, the more of a good example one becomes. One gives up a position in Bad Inc. only to fill one in Good Inc. To make the long story short, one hasn't been able to break free from being perceived as nothing more than an object of utility, some utility.

Ah! But it's not so simple. The less of a bad example one is, the more of a good example one becomes. One gives up a position in Bad Inc. only to fill one in Good Inc. To make the long story short, one hasn't been able to break free from being perceived as nothing more than an object of utility, some utility. — TheMadFool

I mean, if you are born, you are being used most likely by society, as much as you are using society. You consume and you "produce" for some organization which gives you money so you can buy stuff that others had a hand in producing. I don't see this as a positive thing, mind you. We are always being used if we exist in some social context. Our cells use up energy until they die and then contribute to the energy of the soil where possibly other biological organisms grow. Or at least energy is distributed in some other way upon death, if not adding nutrients to soil.

I find it interesting when patterns of relations, people interacting in aggregate can itself be an "entity" which then can do things like "use" people. But there it is. Institutions are set up, norms are perpetuated, and these need feeding. YOU are helping in "feeding it", carrying the patterns and institutions out. So thus, the aggregate entity of society, is indeed "using" you.

Can you elaborate a bit more about these two concepts, purpose and use? What differentiates them? What they entail, and so on? — TheMadFool

Purpose implies meaning, whereas use doesn't require it. It's the difference between the teleos and the cause. If you look at the world as every event having a cause, then wherever you arrive is explainable in terms of where you've been. If you look at the world as every event having a higher purpose or goal, then wherever you arrive is explainable in terms of where you're supposed to be.

It's really a matter of perspective, and perhaps faith, but it breeds an optimism entirely missing in the causal approach. It imparts meaning to every shift in every blade of grass in the wind. Whatever journey you might be on is not understood as a transitional phase from point A to point B, but each and every second is a separate purposeful destination. There are no transitions, but an infinite number of destinations you were meant to be on. For example, should you be in college trying to get that philosophy degree you've always wanted, but along the way you stumble, do poorly in class and lose your funding, that destination, that being in the moment of stumbling is your meaningful purpose. Perhaps the challenge was necessary to elevate you to an even higher purpose.

If you accept there is a purpose behind everything, your scientific inquiry would entail figuring out what that purpose is so that you can better understand your existence. While a scientist concerned with causes looks at each mechanical part of every organism and object to determine why it behaves as it does, a scientist concerned with purpose asks why this moment or this object should be intended to be the way it is.

Why did our lives intersect right now, for example? Just because pool ball A struck pool ball B and after a few bouncing around of pool balls or whatnot and here were are? If that's the case, I get your pessimism. What difference does it make? On the other hand, if you accept that there is a higher purpose for every moment, then you must necessarily be satisfied that you are exactly where you ought to be.

And despite how faith based this might be and how it might contradict too much else you otherwise believe, who cares? You can choose to believe whatever you want, so why believe in a horrible pessimistic world devoid of meaning? At the end of your life of despair should you learn from some irrefutable source that you were absolutely correct in your belief that life had no meaning, will you gain comfort in knowing that you were properly miserable and not deluded like all those poor, optimistic, and joyous souls who didn't know better?

It's been quite some time since I last visited this thread so do forgive me if I'm missing the point in your posts.

Anyway...

I mean, if you are born, you are being used most likely by society, as much as you are using society. — schopenhauer1

Purpose implies meaning, whereas use doesn't require it. — Hanover

My take on the difference between purpose and use is that in case of the former, as Hanover mentioned, there's meaning which, to me, for lack of a better word, is, at some level, self-beneficial in that the thing that has meaning/purpose gains something from it. The latter, use, on the other hand, is a broader concept and it isn't necessary that things that have a use gain something for itself from it.

What say you?

Two from Milton.

When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my Soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, “God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er Land and Ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”

and,

HOW soon hath time, the sub­tle thief of youth,
Stolen on his wing my three and twen­ti­eth year!
My hast­ing days fly on with full career,
But my late spring no bud or blos­som showeth.
Per­haps my sem­blance might deceive the truth,
That I to man­hood am arrived so near,
And inward ripeness doth much less appear,
That some more time­ly hap­py spir­its endueth.
Yet be it less or more, or soon or slow,
It shall be still in strictest mea­sure even,
To that same lot how­ev­er mean or high,
Toward which time leads me and the will of heav­en;
All is, if I have grace to use it so,
As ever in my great task-mas­ter’s eye.

I would like you to explore the self-refuting nature of the statement, N = never say never, never say always, because N does exactly what it says shouldn't be done. — TheMadFool

Well that can easily be fixed by making it "Never say never or always except in this sentence". Pretty easy to resolve as far as paradoxes go.

Well that can easily be fixed by making it "Never say never or always except in this sentence". Pretty easy to resolve as far as paradoxes go — khaled

Indeed! That's a solution alright but notice that the words "never" and "always" are gainfully employed in this one sentence. Nowhere else can the duo be used in the sense that they possess. I'd like, at this juncture, to introduce the concepts of selfish words and altruistic words. The former are words that, as part of their utility, are self-serving in the sense the exist for their own sake and the latter are words that have utility beyond their own. Can you think of any other words that fall into these categories. Altruistic words are easy to find - all the words that I've just written except for "never" and "always" synergize with others to build new levels of meaning. I'm not sure but to hazard a guess the only selfish words are "never" and "always". :chin:

:up: Thanks

To both of you:

I've just had an aha moment! Suppose you're rolling a six-sided die. There are six possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The probability that you'll roll a number greater than 6 is zero i.e. no matter how many times you cast this die, you'll never get a 7 or higher number. And on every roll of this die, you'll always get a number between 1 and 6 inclusive. It appears that I'm wrong. :chin:

I've just had an aha moment! Suppose you're rolling a six-sided die. There are six possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The probability that you'll roll a number greater than 6 is zero i.e. no matter how many times you cast this die, you'll never get a 7 or higher number. And on every roll of this die, you'll always get a number between 1 and 6 inclusive. It appears that I'm wrong. :chin: — TheMadFool

Well now that that's cleared up... :grin:

Whatever number you roll is now less likely to be rolled again right after. Or is it?

Say after a dozen or so rolls there's only 1 side (number) that hasn't been rolled. The odds of you rolling that number next must be very high. Or isn't it?

Why or why not.

Gambler's fallacy?

I see...

It just seems curious to me, and I'm sure to some others. By the nature of randomness and chance, in an equal and balanced scenario ie. a six-sided die each side has an equal chance of being rolled, approximately 16%.

Therefore, one could assume, rolling the same number twice in a row is less likely than rolling two different numbers. Much as it would be rolling the same number three times in a row. Each same roll in a row being less and less likely.

To put it another way, if you were forced to make a bet of three scenarios involving a die rolled three times. Which would you choose? A.) Each roll would be different. B.) Two rolls in a row would be the same. C.) All three rolls would be the same.

It's a curious mental phenomenon/falsehood that I'm sure entangles many. It does for me at least.