Surely it is easy to say that we can always go back to nonexistence, but there is no way to prove this is so. We could come from an entirely different lifeform or plane of existence before having entered into this one. Aside from that small chance though, It is certainly true that we only know of this hemisphere of reality. — chiknsld

I think exactly his point is this habit of ours to think in terms of always a “there” there because once “we” are created there is always a sense of locus of being that we cannot get away from. Hence notions of heaven, other planes, other realities, or modes of existence. Non-sentient being isn’t nothing, but it is a “view from nowhere”. At the end of the day, without a locus of a POV, what’s the difference? People mentioned entropy, which can be metaphorically analogized or reified as something akin to Schopenhauer’s Will but it’s not that. Barring panpsychism, the view from nowhere, from this somewhere where I am, looks like nothing.

Our intuition is that it defies all logic. — chiknsld

“Our” intuition? From Anaximander on, that doesn’t seem to have been the standard metaphysical position. It is a distinctly Christian mythos.

"The absurdity of existence" is an exhortation that nothingness is proper. — chiknsld

Well you are in luck. Existence for the Big Bang ends in a Heat Death. Oblivion Is delivered by entropy in the long run.

Yes! But not being bombed by Russians helps. — Banno

Fuck yeah! Not being in Treblinka is also quite helpful....

But why should the human predicament care about the impersonal entropic suffering? It seems perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned with human suffering and recognizing its source and stopping its perpetuation (onto yet another). — schopenhauer1

"The source", as you say, is the human interpretation of (maladaptation to) "impersonal entropic suffering" and not entropy itself. For example: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. Existence is not "the source" of suffering and nonexistence neither prevents nor ends suffering – for the already born who actually suffer (plus all who have ever suffered), whom it is more "perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned" for than 'hypothetical sufferers'. Besides, what could be more absurd than the antinatal "nostalgia" (Camus) for, in effect, humans deliberately 'to destroy the human species in order to, they hope, save the human species'? :roll: :fear: :sweat:

Why is there existence at all? This is truly absurd. This is the absurdity of existence. There is no reason that existence should exist. There should just be nothing. Nothing existing for all of eternity. Nothing on top of nothing on top of nothing...on top of nothing. And there should never be existence after that. — chiknsld

Actually what you propose is what's absurd. To conceive of the possibility of nothing requires negating the appearance of all that is. This becomes completely absurd, and the possibility of nothing becomes a true impossibility. So pondering the possible reality of nothing is just like pondering the reality of any absurd impossibility, like a square circle, or anything like that. It's just another useless exercise in futility. The proposition of absolute nothing is the most preponderate absurdity, being truly inconsistent with absolutely everything.

Our intuition is that it defies all logic. — chiknsld

This, unless you have access to some very strange intuition, is also the opposite to reality. Intuition surely presents us with the idea that existence is highly intelligible. That is what motivates us in our attempts to understand it. If our intuition was that existence defies logic, we would not be at all inclined to apply logic toward understanding it.

And thus ends philosophy. — schopenhauer1

Only if philosophy consists of being disturbed by something completely beyond your control, in which case--

DIE, PHILOSOPHY, DIE! (copyright Ciceronianus 2022).

There is no reason that existence should exist. — chiknsld

How on Earth can you possibly know that??

Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is already within yourself, your way of thinking. — Marcus Aurelius

Yes! But not being bombed by Russians helps. — Banno

Nah. Today, it's Russian bombs, tomorrow it's tapeworms (talk about needing very little to make a happy life and said thing being already within yourself!).

There's always something. The problem is that one is living in a body that is subject to aging, illness, and death, and yet is fully relying on this body for happiness.

I think exactly his point is this habit of ours to think in terms of always a “there” there because once “we” are created there is always a sense of locus of being that we cannot get away from. Hence notions of heaven, other planes, other realities, or modes of existence. Non-sentient being isn’t nothing, but it is a “view from nowhere”. At the end of the day, without a locus of a POV, what’s the difference? People mentioned entropy, which can be metaphorically analogized or reified as something akin to Schopenhauer’s Will but it’s not that. Barring panpsychism, the view from nowhere, from this somewhere where I am, looks like nothing. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, and more importantly, "the absurdity of existence" is proof that nothingness is more justified.

If there were only nothing, no justification would be needed, but if we assume that existence also does not need justification, then automatically nothingness becomes more justified: Occam's razor.

Only if philosophy consists of being disturbed by something completely beyond your control, in which case--

DIE, PHILOSOPHY, DIE! (copyright Ciceronianus 2022). — Ciceronianus

THE, PHILOSOPHY, THE? :D

Philosophy might be defined as just that, especially anything beyond ethics or applied ethics. What is X? What is a truth statement? What justifies X action? Yeah.

Existence is not "the source" of suffering and nonexistence neither prevents nor ends suffering – for the already born who actually suffer (plus all who have ever suffered), whom it is more "perfectly reasonable that a human is concerned" for than 'hypothetical sufferers'. — 180 Proof

It certainly is the source of suffering if we agree there is some form of inherent dissatisfaction with the animal and (amplified many times via) the condition of being a human.

However, if you speak of contingent suffering being circumstantial and stochastic, well, can you deny that plenty from rich to poor, tribal to industrial peoples get their fair share of trauma, troubles, and woes? If you deny this, then we can just stop talking cause I just won't believe your statements as true to what is going on and no further discussion can be had.

Besides, what could be more absurd than the antinatal "nostalgia" (Camus) for, in effect, humans deliberately 'to destroy the human species in order to, they hope, save the human species'? — 180 Proof

It is the "waking up" to "being burdened thus" by this shitty, really tedious, inescapable (except through death/game over) video game we call existence that we can at least communally recognize. There is aesthetic value in this realization. The ethical implications for those who are born are to not take it seriously and to try to burden others as little as possible. It is impossible for sure, but at least keep it as a guidepost.

And of course for future beings, we not creating onto others more burdens that are entailed inherently (dissatisfaction) and contingently (all the harms that befall us from circumstance and interactions with the world over time).

But don't worry, you will again make the Optimist Fallacy, over and over..

If there were only nothing, no justification would be needed, but if we assume that existence also does not need justification, then automatically nothingness becomes more justified: Occam's razor. — chiknsld

Well, absurdity though only has impetus in how it affects us. I see it affecting us in the patterns of constant sameness, and yet novelty is also absurd.

The sameness in the turning of the globe, the getting up to make your way in a society for survival, comfort-optimization, and entertainment pursuits, and doing this over and over and over and over again. Even the so-called "novelty" being just a part of this dissatisfaction or inherent boredom in the species. Boredom is like the flat-bottomed proof. It is the feeling itself of the absurd. Being is just one long tiring game that has come out of billions of years of interactions.

However, as I said earlier, a view from nowhere as a non-sentient universe would be, is basically "nothing". The animal is a dissatisfied universe. A universe that cannot handle nothing.

Well, absurdity though only has impetus in how it affects us. I see it affecting us in the patterns of constant sameness, and yet novelty is also absurd.

The sameness in the turning of the globe, the getting up to make your way in a society for survival, comfort-optimization, and entertainment pursuits, and doing this over and over and over and over again. Even the so-called "novelty" being just a part of this dissatisfaction or inherent boredom in the species. Boredom is like the flat-bottomed proof. It is the feeling itself of the absurd. Being is just one long tiring game that has come out of billions of years of interactions.

However, as I said earlier, a view from nowhere as a non-sentient universe would be, is basically "nothing". The animal is a dissatisfied universe. A universe that cannot handle nothing. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, but the issue is that the absurdity I am alluding to, seems to differ from that of Schopenhauer's reference in one vital way. The absurdity of existence is discovered by man but extends even further out to declarative, logical inference. One of these declarations is based on Occam's razor that "nothingness" is indeed more justified than existence itself.

One of these declarations is based on Occam's razor that "nothingness" is indeed more justified than existence itself. — chiknsld

Can you explain this? I saw that earlier, but can you say it differently or expand?

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd.

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1

But judgements are made not by the universe. Nothing is "inherently absurd". It is just absurd when an observer (the human) reflects upon it and points out the inanity that there is something at all rather than nothing.

However, my point to this was that brute "something" is pretty much like "nothing" unless there is a POV, because "something" without sentience just "is"(being), and you can call "being" absurd, because its there in the first place, but its the implications of how the reflector (the self-reflective being) assesses what is going on. This assessment is what makes the "absurd" take place. The POV has to be in the equation.. Otherwise, again, being mine as well be nothing without sentience.

For examole: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. — 180 Proof

Good point. One thing I noticed is that there's a common idea among these different school of thoughts -- capitalism, which fosters greed and power, is absent.

there could very well just be an existential plane of nothingness — chiknsld

Consider: there could not.

But judgements are made not by the universe. Nothing is "inherently absurd". It is just absurd when an observer (the human) reflects upon it and points out the inanity that there is something at all rather than nothing. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, but the human here, is what makes all the difference. :) As a human, our logic becomes part of the universe. We discover mathematics, but it is still quite useful. Even the body uses mathematics, in a way our life is dependent upon mathematics. Tis the same with logic.

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1

More importantly, if nothingness were to exist, it would not need a justification. Because it would be nothing, there would be no logic to exist in the first place. Simple enough right?

But nothing does not exist, instead "something" exists. But if we decide that existence does not need a justification either, then nothingness would actually be more justified to exist, at least according to Occam's razor.

Let's make it more simple:

We have x which has no justification (nothing).

We have y which could have a justification or could not have a justification (something) but we decide that for argument's sake that it has no justification.

Now I am saying that let's say we decide that either x or y needs to exist. That is, either "something" will exist or "nothing" will exist. And we will use Occam's razor to decide which exists. Whichever needs the least justification will (according to Occam's razor) be the one that exists.

Well nothing needs the least justification. In fact, if nothing existed a justification wouldn't even be possible. So nothing does not need a justification.

Therefore, according to Occam's razor nothing should actually exist. The way that I am wording it is simply confusing though, hence...if we say that either nothingness or existence is more justified to exist, it must be the case (according to Occam's razor) that nothingness is more justified to exist.

And you still can't reoly to what I have actually written. 'Dogmatic mindset' dulls the pain, huh?

Where did I not answer you?

Therefore, according to Occam's razor nothing should actually exist. The way that I am wording it is simply confusing though, hence...if we say that either nothingness or existence is more justified to exist, it must be the case (according to Occam's razor) that nothingness is more justified to exist. — chiknsld

I get what you are saying, and I agree. I am just adding the fact that the absurdity of the unjustified existence is only gotten at by a sentient observer such as ourselves. In other words, its a post-facto epistemic understanding, though it just "is true" metaphysically. The epistemically is what matters here though because I am claiming, a non-sentient universe of "existing" amounts to about the same as "non-existing", again if there are no sentient beings in that world. What is "being" in a non-sentient universe? Is it atoms whizzing, and forces forcing? That would be an odd way of describing being.

I think the word “absurd” is better applied to your conception of existence and not so much to existing things. This is why we ought to rid ourselves of such mental containers—“existence”, “universe”, and so on—to make room for the less contrived. Any set of things is not itself a thing.

Where did I not answer you? — schopenhauer1

I didn't say you "did not answer", schop; you "answer" but without replying to, or addressing, what I've actually written.

I didn't say you "did not answer", schop; you "answer" but without replying to, or addressing, what I've actually written. — 180 Proof

And I asking how I did not do that. Right now you just seem itching to troll me or start a fight and not a dialogue.

Once more, the absurdity of existence ... I thought we had all agreed on that ... :smirk:

By not responding to what I've actually written you are guilty of what you accuse me of. I'm calling you out, not trolling. This exchange, however, is now pointless.

This is indeed petty. Point out what didn’t respond or get off the pot.

Now who's trolling?

Trolling for what? I responded. You said it wasn’t responding to you. I’m asking how. Not trolling.