I address the question within this existentiell identity. The aloneness is in the existential identity.

@Ciceronianus the White @gloaming @Bitter Crank

The point is not one of sollipsism. The point is one of existentialism, a return to oneself. Obviously there are other people. There is the experience of an alterity of my own sort being; another person. The point is that since I cannot completely express myself to another person and that perhaps 90% of myself will never be communicated to anyone, I am in a very real sense alone.

But anyway. I think it is this very fact that binds people together. I have distinguished between an existential identity and an existentiell identity, borrowing terms and conceptions of Heidegger but creating them as well. The existential identity is that which precedes language and expression for an individual. It is the authenticity and truth of a personal existence; this alone-ness. There is only one existential identity for a person... It is their own meaning. It is their own truth.
Furthermore, people have other identities; a multiplicity of identity. These are the existentiell identities, and they are formed by communication. That is... Within language, which is a connection, there is obviously a connection of something with something else. Communication between two people is the connection of two existential identities, which are at base incapable of being made interchangeable. It is precisely this inability to be made interchangeable that creates a new identity contingent upon that discourse.
I have created this in terms of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
When you talk to another person, you are no longer answering your own questions or 'thinking' to yourself, and therefore the configuration is different: the other person assumes the position of what would be the Other, with an uppercase o, which would be the reflection of a person's ego primordially but in my conception would be a reflection of the existential identity. But the position of the Other is, only in relation to the existential identity, the assuming of the other. An existentiell identity is who you are in relation to another delivering and configuring your thoughts but not merely your thoughts, your meanings. Your meanings are changed, contingent on the Other and therefore an exclusive identity is formed. In authentic discourse the goal of communication is interchangeability of consciousness... This is an adaptation of the Socratic dialogue. This interchangeability is only possible if a new, exclusive identity is formed to be that which is within the confines of that relationality.
Thus we are not alone in the sense that we have a multiplicity of identity, and the identity that is not alone is that which is based on Others, our Being-with of Heidegger.

I have had to shorten this down dramatically so I am sorry if it does not make complete sense.

The purpose of this is psychoanalysis. In psychoanalysis the analyst must be careful to not assume the position of the Other, but remain in the configuration of the other, not projecting his or her meanings into the free associative atmosphere. The point is to deliver one's thoughts to themselves in psychoanalysis, not an existentiell identity.

Existentiell is understanding life by living. The existential is more ontological in the sense that it is not a product of the living of life but rather is a priority of being, what experience IS as opposed to what it is as experienced temporally, exclusively.

Well if you feel you are onto something then you probably are.
In any case, every ethics is not perfect or infallible.

DMT is a psychedelic substance, but it is in your brain and functions as a neurotransmitter. You can vaporize it or combine it with an maoi and consume it orally. It is arguably the most powerful psychedelic substance on Earth, and there is research about it in terms of REM sleep.
I have done it. I vaporized it.
When you do enough, you contact aliens. Literally. There are thousands upon thousands of accounts of witnessing other beings that try and communicate with you. Time slows down dramatically and you can feel like you are blasted out of your body into a hyperspace.
It functions as a pseudoneurotransmitter in the brain, and there is research about endogenous hallucinogens in the brain that mediate what experience is or consists of.

In the Amazon rainforest, native tribes have been drinking dmt in a brew called Ayahuasca, and they say they contact their ancestors and the spiritual world. People go there today to engage in ceremonies and the Ayahuasca experience has been shown to be able to alleviate the fear of death for cancer patients, as has LSD, and also people with severe depression, childhood trauma, PTSD, etc have all had extraordinarily positive benefits from Ayahuasca, as well as help with drug dependence...
The psychedelic known as ibogaine can completely take someone off of heroin.

I do not label psychedelic substances in relation to other drugs like opioids, benzos, barbituates, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, etc... They are simply too different. Psychedelic drugs affect the 5ht2a serotonin receptor, and that is very different than cocaine or amphetamines.

Anyway, MDMA or ecstasy was originally used for couples therapy or help with ptsd. It is termed as an empathogen because it literally causes empathy.

I am opposed to a singular purpose and meaning of life as well.

Well, yes. John Mill thought the meaning of life was happiness and so he wrote Utilitarianism.

Yes, they do presuppose to a degree and that is why they are merely ethical theories. But there are always dilemmas that an ethical theory cannot reconcile, and that is because it is not based on an absolute.

If I were to create an ethics I would try to choose somethig proximal and primordial, perhaps like Heidegger, how he bases truth on existence itself, on Dasein. But I would try and minimize the whole subjectivity versus objectivity dualism; and I would try to base an ethics in terms of what existentialism has determined thus far, that the dualisms of subject and object or being and appearance are obsolete.

Well, you could always do an analysis of faith and perhaps use faith in a non-religious non-dogmatic way... But then again that would just be another valuation of objectivity versus subjectivity, which is a huge snare of language in my opinion.

But, if you can substantiate the idea that a will to immortality is primordial, and you can base it is in something that does not have reference to something transpersonal or fatalistic, I think you may be well based in forming an Ethics.

Exactly, meaning is to be created, not adopted. There can be no 'objective' absolute meaning or purpose of human life (both terms are conflated but are not interchangeable what so ever).

It's an internal negation of subjectivity for the individual, but an objective fact filtered through human perception demands more observers than one and that all those individual observers try and disregard their own subjectivity. — Christoffer

Woah woah woah slow down...

An objective fact filtered through human subjectivity... No... The subjectivity would be the fact: there is no objective fact.
Furthermore, an objectivity is not a disregarding of subjectivity but a labeling of it as bereft of a social utility.

The physical world is what it is, with or without us, — Christoffer

Supposedly...

Those conclusions can never be subjective, therefore objectivity is something outside of our perception. — Christoffer

Not only is the implicated non-sequitur, the implier is wrong. Predicting the world and the events in the world is based on subjective experience, not an objectivity. I know the sun will come up tomorrow not because of an objectivity but because of something that can be understood by consciousness (of) the world. Rendering 'subjectivity' incapable is absurd.
Not that there even is a subjectivity...

If you can predict how matter is going to behave, you are acting on facts about the world that exists outside of your subjective perception. — Christoffer

You call it matter. I call it experience of the world. These are atop two completely different, incommensurable epistemologies... And I think the epistemology that deals with 'matter' is exclusionary and devoid of human meaning.

But in order for science and communication to work practically for us, we need a measurement that balance our subjectivity with what we perceive as objectivity — Christoffer

Or just throw into the trashcan this idea of subjectivity versus objectivity...

And this is what absolute objectivity is about. — Christoffer

Socrates was not talking about not knowing anything about an objectivity. True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing... Knowing nothing... Not not knowing anything... But knowing the truth of being, of consciousness; and knowing everything else is an illusion--all that is truly known 'IS' nothing.

We call it objective since it predicts and behaves according to the world that exists outside of our perception and will long after the subjective viewpoint has died. — Christoffer

It is called objective because it more so resembles an object of our perception that is SEEMINGLY independent and representing some hidden being that is incapable of being apprehended by consciousness. This is a lie.
It is called objectivity in order to denote a transpersonal reference point by which a mundane authority can materialize.
This authority is meaningless.
The goal should be an interchangeable consciousness realizing that conscious is (of) the world.
What can be known by a consciousness transcends any representation of what is known, and has primacy over these representations.
For instance... Those objectivity-ists say that perhaps there is some objective meaning and conflate meaning with purpose or vice versa saying that the purpose of life is to reproduce. This is an absolute disgrace to human intelligence. Why? Because it labels subjectivity as insufficient with regard to an absolute authority.

all the quality of life that we have around objects that humans have invented is based on the understanding of how these objects work. The practical objective understanding of the world, makes people able to form it — Christoffer

No... Objectivity is a representation. It is secondary to experience. It is a replacing of experience for the more, perhaps, 'manageable.' But there is absolutely nothing more manageable than finding one's own existential meaning and priority in life, as opposed to becoming some scientific dilettante seeking absolutely nothing.
The greatest scientific discoveries were influenced by an interest in one's own experience, not by the objective classification of what is real as opposed to what is not.

something that has reduced or erased subjectivity — Christoffer

This would be impossible by virtue of the definition of what would be a subjectivity.
But again, I do not like this dualism Descartes has so cleverly coerced people into unconsciously adopting.

And this is absolute objectivity, which I do not dispute, I'm arguing for a measurement of objectivity that is practical for us as humans, since absolute objectivity is in most regards meaningless for us. — Christoffer

Why keep the word objectivity?

Trump supporters are the most non-philosophical people.

Moralism is obsolete. All there is is ethics.

Personally I like the ethics of Levinas or Derrida's Forgiveness if only the forgiving of the unforgivable.

If it didn't show... Doesn't the villain of the animated Pocahontas movie look like Rene Descartes?

There is no absolute meaning or purpose of human life.
Or to any life.

Speaking of Pocahontas

Trump supporters seem to me the least philosophical people on the face of the planet... Worse than evangelicals.

Not incomprehensible by the one who experiences it.

There is a difference between methodology, principle, characterization, objectivity, etc. and individual psychology.

The psychology that I respect the most is psychoanalysis, because it does not impose upon the individual and tell them how they are. Psychoanalysis explores them.

ROFL your posts are funny.

When you get to that point you simply don't care about anything. What is crazy is it was like rebirth, because I came to grips with my death and I became okay with it and I faced it. When I woke up I couldn't even walk. I thought I had brain damage. And my body was wet with sweat, as if I jumped into a swimming pool.

I completely disagree that the purpose and meaning of all life is immortality. This is absurd.

No... I mean...

If I say, "This tea tastes like grass," and then you taste the same tea and say, "I agree," even though we both agree on this we can both not be sure that we both mean the same thing. We, objectively, mean the same thing... But this objective same is merely a faith.

Furthermore, if you cross check other points of view to determine some objectivity about something, you will be, regardless, imposing upon these 'other points of view' your point of view, your interpretation of these other points of view, the supposed objectivity.

But if it is bs then this is blind.

But these other points of view will inevitably be your point of view.

Subjectivity and objectivity seems closer to be about singular perspective vs combined perspective. The singular cannot show the entire truth, but the objective can and with higher probability of objectiveness, the higher level of probability for it being true outside of our perception and anyone's perception. — Christoffer

The objective says nothing about truth. It merely acts as truth. It is a transpersonal truth, which is absolutely meaningless. Would you die for these supposed objective truths?

Its interesting in an academic way, but if we are talking about objectivity and subjectivity, undermining the entire language by saying that trying to define "objectivity" more clearly in language, is futile, makes it almost impossible to continue searching for a good answer — Christoffer

Objectivity is an illusion... As is subjectivity. There is no world of truth that we are incapable of ascertaining alone... Furthermore, there is no truth that can only be ascertained by means of an objectivity. There is no subjectivity trying to find the truth OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. The perception of something is not just a mere perception. The experiencing of the world is the world revealing itself in truth. The experiencing of the world is the experiencing of the essence of the world... The essence of the world is no longer to be understood as hidden.

For me you can't be objective only through a collective, since the collective can be just as corrupted as the subjective. Even more so, the collective can be so corrupted that individuals subjectivity gets indoctrinated into the collective delusion. Practical objectivity, the one which we can define has it's roots in logic and scientific methods, are still not through a transpersonal perspective, since you on an individual level use deduction, induction and proper methods of science to reach a conclusion that has stripped away as much as you can on an individual level, of your subjectivity. It's a process and way of thinking that cannot include subjective thinking, but even then it can be influenced by the individual, that's why we have peer reviews and why we combine findings and research with others. Only when this is done can we reach practical objectivity. — Christoffer

It is not that a person is objective through a collective. An objectivity is not merely the collective understanding. It is an internal negation of subjectivity for the collective.
These conclusions of science, for instance, that an atom exists or that a color exists or whatever... These conclusions do not make objectivity any different. They are still transpersonal abstractions.
And objectivity does include subjective thinking, but the truth of what would be something subjectly, which is the only place a truth could possibly be for "Dasein is the foundation of truth and essentially is in the truth" (Heidegger), is transformed into a representation ONLY SAID to encompass that subjective validity. The fact is that there are no facts, only interpretations. And I agree with Socrates that the only true knowing is knowing that you know nothing.

If two people gets to know the definition of a word that is wrong and they both gets the task of defining that word, they will not have an objective conclusion just by combining their subjective opinion of the definition of the word. But if they did research on that word, asked what other people define it as and combine their individual research, they would reach the correct definition of that word and make it objective. It's the process that makes something objective, both on an individual scale and on a collective scale, combining the two makes it even stronger. — Christoffer

Sure, but this definition is still impoverished of meaning, because it is by virtue of so many configurations and alterations; of a reference point that does not encompass the truth of a subjective meaning. Regardless of everything, a word will always mean something different for you and I and everyone else. And the same is with experiences. It doesn't matter what the objective establishment of anything consists of; love, orgasms, colors, sounds, a poem, gold, silver, lead, God, Dr Pepper, medieval alchemy, etc. will always have different subjective associations attached to them. It doesn't matter that science can objectively define what taste is... Taste will always be subjective and nothing will ever suffice to replace its truth. It does not matter that science can objectively define Mercury or wax... When I melt the wax and it is still wax... No objective explanation can ever give me that experience and that continuity.

I am also gay.

Since then I have found someone I love more and whom loves me much more. So I didn't lose the love of my life, but at the time I thought I did!

Ever thought of writing a book?

I wrote one about 80,000 words. I lost about half of it back in the blast but I am planning on making it way better. You should write one.

Perhaps you should go deep into the wilderness with a tent for a few days, alone. Or maybe to a mountain. Alone. No technology. Bring food and water and whatever you will need to survive for a few days without hurting yourself. Bring a phone but do not use it unless an emergency. And just be there. Think about your life and what is truly meaningful to you. and then come back to the world where you can put into practice what you learned.
Maybe bring something to write on and with. Write your thoughts. Be in isolation. That is the truth

@Posty McPostface @Heiko

I was in a relationship with a person whom I loved very deeply. It was the first time I really knew I loved someone in that kind of way. I screwed up do to my impulsive behavior and I lost their trust. I could not forgive myself. And though I did everything I could possibly do to try and get that trust back and prove to them that I did love them and would probably never feel that way about anyone ever again... It didn't work. They abandoned me at the lowest point of my life, having had no family and becoming homeless, while also being addicted to drugs.
Since I was 12 I was depressed due to too much thinking about my life, and realizing the troubles of the world, and realizing my impotence. I suffer from PTSD as well, due to childhood abuse.
I thought the world could get no worse and I attempted suicide. I woke up a few days later on the verge of death. I am not sure how I survived... I took 180mg of oxycodone, 15mg of Xanax and about 30 other pills that were prescribed to me. And I did a few shots and chugged a beer on top of all that.
After I woke up I was still depressed. But I realized through this depression and through all of this how strong I really was, being able to take care of myself ALONE after I should have been dead.
I realized that these emotions that had been affecting me... I never accepted them. I never accepted their reality. I always could not come to grips with their actuality.
In integrating these emotions into myself, I empowered myself and I become autonomous and independent. I realized that I could conquer my own world, and I didn't have to be chained and unfree like a prisoner to my experiences. I realized that my experiences were me. I realized that my emotions were me. I no longer held onto this ideal me that I knew now to be an illusion.
I remember staring at myself in the mirror. I remember hearing music like I had never heard music ever before. So much then came to me and overwhelmed me. Tears of joy and happiness came to me realizing that I could be and that I didn't need anything but me in this life. I could become to be and be okay with that realizing that I am the final cause of my life.
I grew.
I stumbled a few more times but ever since then I have realized to always accept my desires, regardless of how contradictory and strange they are, or how irrational they are. We are at base irrational. We are emotional... No... We are arational!
I lost everything and I woke up to realizing that I had everything that I would ever need. And now I am a completely different person. I have all of my past within me, but it does not define me. Nothing defines me. I am indefinable. I am all of my possibilities. I am radically free. This is what diverted my life from depression.

Lol!!! Agreed. SBL needs to be diagnosed more frequently.

That would be apathy... Which is often a result of the struggle of depression... But does not define depression.

And in thinking like that you will never change to experience something different. You will be constantly in the determined configuration of needing something beyond you to lift yourself out. It is you that will have to grab the rope to pull yourself out of the hole.
Depression is the result of strong emotions. Strong emotions are inevitably an expression of the depth of a person. There is much a person can do with depression. Just because you have not personally witnessed a benefit to 'depression' does not mean that there is absolutely no benefit. The benefit will be in pulling yourself out. You are in a hole and you can beat yourself up about it and say that you do not have the ability to get out... But once you find a way out you will not be downing yourself anymore. You will premise, pre reflectively, your totality and realize your strength.

I am very reluctant to say that electro shock therapy does anything other than Force one out of their feelings and thoughts altogether. This is not a therapy as much as it is an imposition by people who want to make money.

I'm not buying this theory — Bitter Crank

No one asked you to buy it. No one asked you to completely adopt it.
Perhaps you could elaborate on it and tell how it could be false or incomplete or not taking into consideration other important factors of a depression.

Yes, depression has a lot of will. I will reference Freud again. "Depression is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign one has been trying too hard for too long."

And btw, I have based this conception not on my own accord, but on personal experience in helping my own depression. And this was done by an analysis of Freud, Jung and Lacan.

I could provide a personal example, but I am very reluctant to post my own experiences.

I understand your point. But hear me out.

Explaining life in terms of 'our everyday lives' implies the following: Who is 'our'? and 'What everyday life?'

If an understanding of life has to be boxed into this characterization of it... Then an understanding of life is completely nonspecific. Furthermore, this idea of an every life of ours implies that the experiences of people are interchangeable and the same. They are not. Our experiences are incomparably personal and unique.
The point is to say that in communication or expression of life tere is only abstraction and faith in an understanding. There is only a knowledge as if it is knowledge.

Willing it further is the result of the inability to accept the emotion. It is the result of finding more meaning in the emotion, the reference by which life is understood. Negative emotions become a reference of meaning, and the willing further of depression is essentially an outcry. It is the fact that one cannot find meaning elsewhere, and they cannot find a will to integrate it and empower the personality.

It is a spiral out of control for the personality, for the personality which would be a lack of totality in relation to the negative emotions that have more power and more of a control on the personality. Nietzsche would say to empower the personality by all means... Which would be the integration of emotions into the totality of the personality, empowering not emotions themselves but that which they become a part of constituting, namely the personality.

Changing away from depression is a realization of benefit. Thus changing from a depression is finding a way it benefits you.

Refute me please lol. I don't like the idea of being alone.

Yes, agreed! It is not so much an alleviation as it is a stopping of a sinking.