@schopenhauer1 ... the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies, or secularism in general?

Harvey Cox, a distinguished and maybe even popular theologian (he's 95 years old) wrote The Secular City in 1964. This was at a time when the people in the pews had noticed the EXIT signs over the church doors and were leaving the church, mostly to not return, Secular institutions--government, media, entertainment, corporations, education, etc. were becoming more dominant in society, not just in the US, but around the world.

Cox proclaimed that God was as present in secular societies as in any religious one, because God is present at all times and in all places, whether we like it or not. The problem of believers, per Cox, is to discern God, and discern what it means to believe in God, and be Christian in the middle of societies organizing or reorganizing around secular principles.

There is nothing to be done about secularism. It has developed over time and been driven by various processes, like industrialism, technology, and so on. It is a fact of life; it's the world we live in; it isn't going away; it isn't the enemy.

The Secular City made a very big impression on my 17 year old brain in 1964, and it's had an enduring influence. I was brought up in a religious (Protestant) home, and Christianity, whether I like it or not, is the core of my 'operating system'. There were / are conflicts between core beliefs and current realities. When the choice was between physically affirming my gayness and faith, the Christian condemnation of homosexuality--and promiscuous, anonymous, hedonistic sex in general, gay or straight--had to be dumped over-board. Sexuality was the right choice and the church was wrong. (And, of course, more power to those who love monogamously till death do them part.)

Still, God is present in the gay bath house, the brothel, and walks with the street whores (aka sex workers). If God worries about sparrows, God also worries about the well-being of "degenerate" members of the community. The preaching of Jesus is relevant in all places, (brothel or corporate board room) something most of us find quite inconvenient.

Secularism may be accommodating to the least among us, but just as likely, it may be dismissive or punitive--like the neglect of the homeless living on the street. That certainly describes the church's overall approach--cue the pogrom, the stake and firewood, public humiliations, etc. Jesus still stands against all that, even if it is all done in His name.

God, Jesus, and salvation are motivations one won't find in secularism. There are other motivations, of course, and I'm not knocking them.

I've been far more secular than religious for decades. If I am standing up religion here, it is just to say that IF a secularized individual needs some rock solid moral directives, religion does offer them. Just don't get carried away and turn them into cruelty, bigotry and oppression (like stoning apostates to death or burning heretics at the stake).

Religionists argue that these restraints are necessary to prevent civilization from descending into decadence and excessive hedonism. — schopenhauer1

VS

life is hard and punctuated by suffering. — Tom Storm

I have spent years seeking blessed assurance among Christians (and resisting it). Later I sought blessed assurance in secularism. I have spent years reading and thinking about the problems of religion, politics, economy, technology, and so on -- ultimately to no grand resolution. Why not? Per Tom Storm, life is a bitch and then you die.

Well, sometimes life was a bitch and sometimes it was pretty nice; I haven't died yet, and I've been reasonably happy and content in my old age.

The thing is, in reality life is hard and it can get worse -- like, nasty, brutish, and short. That's ground level reality. Over this reality we have endeavored to overlay various schemes to make it seem more meaningful; to keep people in line and at work; to justify the rule of whichever elite happens to be running things; to insure that enough of the right people reproduce abundantly, and so on and so forth.

We expend a great deal of scholarly labor on studying these overlays which cover the bare naked reality, from the ancient ones to yesterday's pronouncements. There is clear evidence that many people are ceasing to find some of the overlays, like religion, as compelling as they once did. Peak religiosity in the United States occurred in 1960, give or take. The hemorrhaging of church membership ensued as millions of members left the churches and never returned.

I just find a lot of what the more intellectual nattering classes chatter on about to be kind of beside the point. Maybe some of them should "get a life" as the saying goes.

But not you, schopenhauer1: you have to keep doing what you are doing!

I read years ago that sexual products and services including production and distribution of pornography generate many times the revenue of, say, sports broadcasting. — Wayfarer

According to Statista, "Market size of the online pornographic and adult content industry in the United States in 2023" was $1.1B. Many 'lurid' claims are made about the porn industry, a lot of which just doesn't sound believable.

I'm familiar with gay porn, and it seems like there are fewer gay porn sites now than there were 10 or 15 years ago. Monthly subscription prices seem to be lower. Production values are better than they once were, and there are only so many possible acts and positions to portray (though I did see a remarkable innovation recently... but never mind). The market for straight porn should be much, much larger, but I don't have any experience with it.

It's still over my head, and thanks for the links. I'll check them out at greater length. Had I been born later, say in the 1970s instead of the 1940s, everything else being equal, I would be involved in organizations like EFF and maybe FSF. I definitely relate to the issues they are working on.

In the 1990s I learned how to program HyperCard on the (now primitive model) Macintosh and built two programs, one to tabulate details on an AIDS help line and the other to sort a text into Anglo Saxon origin words and non-AS words. Both programs worked quite well, though the text sorting application was pretty slow, even by 1990 standards, but it did the job. It was a great pleasure to make my own software. Unfortunately, Apple retired HyperCard.

Computing and the Internet are dominated by behemoths like Microsoft, Apple, et al, and AI will make it all worse in terms of user control of systems and devices. "Frontiers" tend to be chaotic, but that's where the most creative stuff gets done, along with destruction. Clearly, the behemoth organizations want to close the frontier.

Thanks for the information, but it is a bit out of my limited technological depth.

It didn't cause huge life-altering events, but I've had that experience--a book on architectural terracotta in a bin that I found fascinating. I had not given terracotta more than a couple of seconds thought prior to this book. Oh, so that's what that building, cornice, entrance way, etc. is covered with! The book sent me on a mission to discover architectural terracotta in downtown Minneapolis which I had a good time photographing. I recently read of a new building in Chicago that was going to make use of terracotta cladding.

Amazon has lots of the equivalent of left-overs, remainders, returns, etc. in digital form; the problem at Amazon is finding them among the 10 billion books in stock.. Using the right, key, search word is the critical piece in unearthing the obscure, interesting, cheap (usually digital) book. Sometimes the results include collections on topics -- urban problems, for example, or westward expansion in the 19th century.

Forgotten Books is a London company which sells really obscure old (no longer covered by copyright) books that have been digitized. Some of the titles are interesting, a lot of it is just obscure.

My own tentative answer is that books look backwards and are a part of life but not life itself. And further, to live a life, a person must at some point turn away from books — tim wood

Well sure. Books don't photosynthesize, metabolize, or metastasize--so not life itself. But like all symbolic things: an arrangement of stones, scratches on a rock, structures, figures drawn in clay, writing, drawing, painting, music, film, dance, metalworking, pottery, ceremonial acts, etc... they are a part of life for which we would be greatly impoverished to do without.

Books are written, made, stored, and read for a future audience, whether the audience is of one's own time or a future time, a century or a millennium hence. WE can look backwards (as we ought to do for purposes of navigating life successfully).

A lot of people do turn away from books. "I haven't read a book since high school, since college..." they say--and it generally shows as a bad choice.

Words on the Internet are just a part of the Internet, which is not a unity but a network of differences. For this reason, I think books have a referential and authoritarian quality that the Internet does not have. — kudos

A printed books is static and stable. The text won't change. The electronic versions of a book are dynamic: As long as one is in contact with the Internet (devices, cables, wifi, electricity, signals, etc.) the book and the distributor are connected and monitored. Your highlighting may be transmitted to Amazon, for instance, which can show how many people have highlighted a given passage. Any digital book on your device could be withdrawn by the distributor, if need arises (like a copyright dispute). If electricity should fail (collapse of technology) your library would disappear once the device's battery was exhausted (in a few hours of reading).

A thief can steal a thousand books on a tablet reader far more easily than stealing a thousand books.

On the other hand, an electronic text delivered by the internet can be easily enriched by looking up information was doesn't have front of mind (or in mind at all). When an author cites a famous bridge, one can (usually) find a photograph or drawing of the bridge by using search--in just a few seconds. Were one reading the paper book in a large library, it might take one 30 minutes to find the book that has the drawing of the bridge in question.

As for documents that exist entirely within the Internet -- they are put up on a web sites ranging from pure trash to solid gold. Let the reader be very wary and guarded!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

You ask, "Is self-blame a good thing? Is it the same as accountability? Or is blame just a pointless concept."

Blame is not a pointless concept, but whether self-blame is good, bad, or indifferent seems highly situational.

In the real world, bad things happen -- sometimes by accident, sometimes by acts of commission, sometimes by acts of omission, sometimes just by being somewhere, anywhere, when something unfortunate happens. Identifying yourself as the culprit might be quite appropriate, if you are indeed the agent intending and causing something bad to happen. If you are not the agent, then stop blaming yourself.

If, for instance, you deliberately leave the gate on the pasture open and the cows wander off--you ought to blame yourself for bad consequences.

Often though, blame is difficult to locate. If you mailed your insurance premium 15 days before it was due, but the post office didn't deliver it on time and you lose your insurance, blaming the precise agent of your misfortune might be difficult. You could still blame yourself--you could begin reciting all sorts of things you could have, should have, or would have done, and why you are to blame for losing your insurance.

Blaming one's self can fall into some vague category of neurotic psycho-pathology, or maybe just be totally useless behavior.

If you find that you frequently engage in self-blaming, it's probably something you should stop doing.

IF you have acted to deliberately cause misfortune, then sure, you are blameworthy. Blame and guilt can direct us to examine just exactly what the hell we are doing, and why.

Sometimes people blame themselves a lot because they feel deeply inadequate or deficient. For such conditions, one should get some therapy.

The world was not designed for our continual happiness and comfort. Deliberate acts by conscious, malevolent agents and acts of indifferent nature may bring death, severe injury, or loss suddenly and arbitrarily. Then there are the shortcomings of human intelligence, wreaking havoc left and right. That life deals an unfair hand is an unwelcome problem to which we have to continually reconcile ourselves.

A novelist, playwright, librettist/composer, or poet may offer an enactment of the very bad event which enacts tragedy in a particularly complete and satisfying manner. A successful piece of art acknowledges the unfairness of life and places us in that context.

Why do we derive satisfaction from the tragic art work? Because we must reconcile ourselves to the unfairness of life, again and again -- whether we use art to help us or not.

The pleasure part derives from us having the problem of an unfair cosmos depicted once again, and having our selves positioned as spectators of tragedy, rather than the subjects of tragedy. We'll be the subject of our own tragedies soon enough; we might be helped by remembering that we are also spectators of tragedy.

I prefer to think of the universe as an indifferent cause of suffering, rather than being focused on making my life as miserable as possible, with customized misfortune abounding. One of our tragedies is that our brother/sister sentient beings take care of focussed, customized misfortune.

two points against Hedges' viewpoint:

A very large share of Germans cooperated with the Nazi regime because non-cooperation (let alone opposition) was a high-risk choice. Yes, Post-WWI Germany was hungry, bitter, and resentful and was ready to punish somebody for their loss in the war and their further humiliation in the peace agreement. And yes, after WWII, many Germans sang the I Was Not a Nazi Polka

Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.

Deindustrialization began long before Biden won his first local election. The leather, shoe, and woven textile and clothing industries in New England started outsourcing manufacturing before WWII, and continued after WWII. Other industries followed suit over time. Cheap, non-unionized labor was irresistible. Other factors also contributed to job losses, among them automation. It took fewer workers to run a new, more efficient steel mill. Automation increased the per-man-hour of productivity, so fewer workers were needed. Moving unskilled manufacturing to benefit from extremely cheap labor costs picked up speed in the 1970s.

I don't want to let the political and economic elites off the hook -- their policies devastated broad swathes of America. Did Biden behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Will Trump behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Ditto for Harris.

But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. — fishfry

Right. Incumbency IS very powerful, BUT as the calendar says, the November election is a little over 100 days away. No matter what the POTUS or VPOTUS does or doesn't do from July 23 onward, it's going to be a tough scramble.

No surprise here: our economy and politics are run by overlapping elites. That fact provides so much of the story behind the headlines. That, and the rocket-engine personal drive of people who want to be at the top, be they Democrats or Republicans. It takes a lot of drive to get to, and stay at, the top anywhere.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the prime example of holding on to his high office when he was in seriously failing health. Wilson planned on a third term, too, but had a stroke in October, 1919. Nixon held on till he faced impeachment and probably forced removal from office. Reagan served with diminished faculties. Trump has a now very familiar problem with the reality situation.

Dubai doesn't live of oil today already. — Tarskian

My mistake. Bananas still don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people. — NOS4A2

I disagree with you fairly often, but you are right on the money here.

The global poor want to move there because they can get handouts, i .e. free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on.

Who is supposed to pay for all of that? — Tarskian

If you really thought the poor could get "free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on" you would no doubt be in line to get those benefits yourself!

An only reasonably prosperous state can afford to assist its citizens who have fallen into poverty. How do they do that? Through taxes, of course.

Why do reasonably prosperous, and successful states have poor people? a) technological changes which render some skilled and unskilled labor obsolete; b) the business cycle (expansion and contraction); c) chronic disease and disability (not thinking of drug dependency here, but that's another factor); d) ordinary misfortune--like the Emir's limo runs over Mr. Tarskian, leaving him unable to work for the rest of his life--that kind of misfortune.

Reasonably prosperous and successful states don't have huge numbers of people on the welfare roles collecting general assistance and food stamps. Reasonably prosperous and successful states have most of their adult population of working age in jobs which the workers consider much superior to being either unemployed or on welfare (which in many industrialized states is fairly parsimonious). Reasonably prosperous and successful states are usually operate under some sort of democratic system. Workers and capitalists in reasonably prosperous and successful states are willing to be taxed to pay for the cost of being a civilized society which takes care of people experiencing tough times.

How can citizens in a merely reasonably prosperous and successful state afford to take care of unfortunate people? They can because they produce a surplus of wealth, some of which can be spent on welfare.

BTW, readily available education, housing, and medical care are not a frill -- they are essential components of a successful society--both socially and economically.

And where are they going to grow the food, if they keep expanding? — Tarskian

One might well ask the residents of Dubai where they will get their food when the age of oil is over --certainly not by their own efforts, being in the desert as it is. Bananas don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

A problem of comparing democracy to monarchy is that there are few ruling monarchies with which to compare democracy. There are many more non-monarchical states that are authoritarian or so politically dysfunctional they are failed states. Somalia comes to mind, as does Venezuela and Sudan.

Martin Luther said that people were better off being ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian. A risk of highly concentrated power (despots, kings, presidents) is that there is a large risk that they will be of the "dumb" variety rather than the "smart" kind, like Donald Trump.

"Democratic countries" vary quite a bit in their actual democratic performance. The United States is a prime example of variable (sometimes dismal) democratic performance.

after that, he'd be just fine. :halo: — frank

I'm not quite that generous. Significant brain damage, but recoverable after at least 4 years of intensive therapy for people who have brain injuries. Additional therapy will be needed to rehabilitate his faulty morals and his poor comprehension of the reality situation. Since his misfortunes are self-induced, he would need to pay for this out of his own funds. Once he's impoverished by the medical industry, Medicaid will kick in to cover some (???) level of services.

herd of rabid jackals — fishfry

An apt comparison, but even rabid jackals, never mind healthy ones, form 'packs' or 'tribes'. As in 'a pack of wild dogs'. Jackals are canids.

If Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to run for President; then isn't he too cognitively impaired to BE President? — fishfry

The question should be, "Is he too cognitively impaired to BOTH run for president and be president?" There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected.

I was in favor of him NOT running for another term before the famous debate. Both Biden and Trump are too old, and Trump has even more cognitive problems, particularly with the reality situation, than Biden.

Kamela has more than enough on her plate successfully campaigning, never mind trying to become an experienced incumbent in just a few months.

Just the kind of detailed information I live for!

I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences. — Vera Mont

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in

Could be.

Future generations (if there are any) will have a long list of things about which to judge us harshly. Unfortunately, we will not be able to criticize them for their heinous errors.

I like meat. I do not object to the more traditional farming practices of producing and slaughtering animals for food.

I do object to heavily industrialized agriculture -- for both animals and plant crops -- which is driven by the usual capitalist impulse to cut costs and maximize profits. Two examples: a) producing corn for ethanol as 10% gasoline and b) massive feedlots which are harmful to both ecology and animal health.

The way we produce plant food, requiring heavy inputs of petroleum and chemicals, is a disaster area.

We are in overshoot. — unenlightened

It isn't clear to me, at this point, what a "balance" between our species and "nature" would look like. When were we in balance with nature, and what did that look like? We could at least move toward balance, even if we can't reach it.

Rural life in the 1950s looked more balanced. Farms tended to be quite a bit smaller; herds of beef and hogs were tiny, compared to the huge feed lot operations now. Farming was mechanized, but the equipment was not yet gargantuan. Nostalgia? Probably -- back then agriculture was changing towards what it is now.

Dutch Elm Disease took out elm trees across this continent in the 1960s -1970s, just as another blight took out chestnut trees years earlier. There are some presumably DED resistant varieties available. Two trees of this variety are doing well on my street.

their farts are doing it on our behalf — Nils Loc

It's their belching rather than their farting.

Seems to me I can control what I can or can’t do or decide to do or not do in the future. — kindred

This is the sort of self-confidence that makes the Universe laugh. In my humble but highly valued opinion, we should just shut the fuck up about "free will" -- not because we certainly do (or do not) possess it, but because we can never be in a position to prove it, one way or the other.

Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon

Can a planet be fair and just? Who's asking? Who or what could answer the question? Maybe our planet is indifferent?

'The world' has been in business for 4.543 billion years. Things have changed over time. Life started on earth about 3.7 billion years ago and filled the oceans with lots of microbes. Later, new organisms came along and wiped out the old life (killing it with poisonous oxygen). Fair? Just? The earth got hotter, cooler, wetter, dryer. and so on. Every change benefitted some things and ruined others. The earth is what it is--a dynamic rocky planet among many in the galaxy which is among many in the universe.

Fairness and Justice had nothing to do with it and such ideas didn't come along until VERY recently. Was it fair and just that dinosaurs were killed off? It wasn't their fault, after all. They were what they were. Big rock plows into the Yucatan Peninsula. Climate changes drastically. Sic transit gloria dinosaurs. Lots of other creatures survived. Birds, mammals, insects, plants, fungi....Will it be fair and just when our species dies out?

As allegedly sentient beings who like to toss around terms like "fair" and "just" when talking about planets and persons, we COULD do better. Why don't we? Because we are what we are, and being good, fair, just, honorable, kind, loving, thoughtful, humble, and so on, is not something we are able to be more often than some of the time, Some people have difficulty being good ever. One day we will be plowed under like millions of species before us by indifferent forces.

In any case, it does't matter, because fairness and justness applies to the species that thought of the concept and has spilt much ink on the matter. We could do better, and that would make life on the indifferent planet more pleasant, but don't hold your breath, because we are what we are.

Hidden authoritarianism in the Western society — Linkey

There is a layer of authoritarianism in any society, because "society" requires some sacrifice of personal prerogatives for the benefit of various parts of society. Because people are not robots who readily do whatever they are told to do, a certain amount of force is required to get people to obey at least some of the time. Generally force is used incrementally, ranging from only potential deployment to open deployment of violence.

Nothing new here; it's a long-established practice, going back to.... as @Vera Mont noted, "4000 BCE.

The terms "Left" and "Right" in US politics at least, can be quite misleading. The two parties generally support capitalism, the class structure, privilege for the rich and duty for the poor, the military, the church (as long as it's useful), and so on. Donald Trump is notable for a remarkable level of tasteless behavior and a poor understanding of what being Chief Executive means in a civil society. But in a lot of ways, he is no renegade. Democratic and Republican Presidents have been hated long before Trump came along.

I don't know what you mean by "middle class". Most people throw the term around with zero precision. Here's what I mean: The "middle class" is composed of professionals who are entitled to operate relatively independent once they have a license (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.); successful entrepreneurs whose businesses employ 50-100 employees (receiving standard wages); higher levels of management, below the highest levels; and so on. The Middle Class composes the wealthiest 10% of the population, give or take a couple of percentage points.

The "middle" class is between the ruling class (possessing the most power and wealth - 2%of the population) and the working class, which ranges from prosperous but not wealthy at the top end to destitute at the low end, and receives an income in exchange for labor. Note: The richest and most powerful layer of the population do not depend on labor for their wealth. The goal of many middle class is to accumulate enough wealth to retire early and live quite well after retirement.

The Middle Class, as defined here, is not being squeezed out of existence. The group that is being squeezed is the working class, which is being squeezed for more and more to support the middle and ruling class.

As for consequential greed — FrankGSterleJr

When is greed not consequential? The love of money (cupiditas) is the root of all evil (radix malorum). Or we could say, the unending search for financial growth opportunities is a big root, if not the tap root of evil.

One big profitable pollution case is in my back yard and in your blood stream: 3M is/was a leading manufacturer of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which are used in a myriad of products--Teflon for example, and fire fighting foams) and which do not readily break down in the environment. The PFAS products were profitable; people got paid for making them; the profits were distributed among stockholders, including employee profit sharing; the wastes from PFAS production were externalized -- dumped in land fills. All par for the course.

Evidence appeared by the 1970s that PFAS accumulated in our bodies (and in other animals). As a general rule, industrial chemicals should not be released to bio-accumulate. Never mind. They were and they did.

Now, 50 some years after first signs of bio-toxity started to be found, PFAS is found pole to pole, around the world, just about everywhere. It doesn't degrade, so every molecule released circulates in the environment forever, aka a long time. Should you worry?

It is perhaps too late; 'the cat is out of the bag' and has been out for quite some time. Its various biological effects (like its resemblance to hormones) are happening.

Perhaps 3M will pay out huge sums in penalties and will stop making the product. That would be considered justice, but no amount of penalties will call the chemicals back. The same can be said for many toxic chemicals (in pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) that are sprayed all over the place.

I'm 23 and have a rather nonexistent collection of social relationships. Workaholic coworkers... — substantivalism

A possibly useful idea I can share: It takes time to become a person situated securely 'in the world'. 23 is too soon to arrive. You've had some immediate success in school and work, and that's good. But don't be too impatient. Our brains aren't even fully formed till around 25 or 26. After that, it's a slow process to build a good life--one in which we know where we are going, we know what we desire to achieve, we have some kind of plan, and we are on our way. There are no guarantees that one will be successful.

It took me quite a while to figure all this out--I have had just the last few years to enjoy knowing who I am, understanding where I have been, what's coming up (at 77, one is into the last few chapters (maybe pages) of the book). I'm not complaining; my life was, over all, good. I had good friends; I loved and was loved; I had pretty good health; I was reasonably happy much of the time. Regrets? Sure. Mistakes? Absolutely.

So, good luck to you.

Judging by your post of 3 days ago, you are performing at a perfectly acceptable level. That's an important element in judging one's state of mind.

I love The Seventh Seal, and several other Bergman films, but he's not your go-to director for sunny up-lift.

The maddening nothingness that others attempt to intellectually obscure with manufactured certainty and the absurdness of continuing on. To play chess with death rather than give in to his beckoning call. — substantivalism

Gloom and doom can be as manufactured as certainty and absurdity. I don't know whether you are clinically depressed or are just doom-looping. If it's the latter, well... stop doing that. Depression gets tossed around too much. IS someone really clinically depressed, or are they lonely and angry? Tired? Isolated? Frustrated? Burdened with too many problems to deal with? Antidepressants will not help those sorts of things.

Meaning and satisfaction in life (as opposed to meaninglessness and nothingness) comes out of relationship with others. The deeper and more complex the relationships, the ore meaning and satisfaction. There are many ways to relate beside the primary love/sex connection. Friendship, co-workers, colleagues engaged in common cause: politics, the environment, participation in sport, religious activity... whatever.

Just for reference, how old are you now? What kind of connections do you have with other people, at work and outside of work? Family? Friends? Romantic partner?

Many of my 77 years have been shadowed by what was diagnosed as depression. Looking back, I'd say some of the depression was self-inflicted by ignorance and bad decisions about life, work and romance. I was at times too stupid to figure out how to live a more satisfying life. Now that I'm an old man, it's much clearer what I should have done -- 20/20 hindsight about 50 years too late.

I don't know if this helps. Does it?

Contrast death with life which can not end--living forever--in this world, not in some afterlife.

I view death as either unfortunate (if it happens too soon and is brought about by accident) or a release (if it happens to old people who are ready to die).

I'm 77; I'm not quite ready to die yet, but my brother (83) is in hospice and will be released from multiple sufferings. I expect that in due time I will be in the same boat. If I should die suddenly (heart attack, stroke, run over by truck, etc.) I do not view the prospect as regrettable -- I've lived a reasonably long, reasonably good life.

All life ceasing to exist is a matter of vastly greater weight than our individual death. I'm in favor of life. The anti-natalists are welcome to not reproduce if that's what makes them happy.

I read the same version you read. I modified my narrative for narrative purposes and to harmonize with what Vera Mont had said (about sailing, volunteering to help abused donkeys) and so on. Flights of fancy are a drug I abuse periodically, but I never abuse donkeys.

it can be hard to feel loved — Tom Storm

That's how bicyclists feel when they get rained on a lot -- "It always rains on the unloved!"

an emotional imbalance or ennui. — Shawn

I'm not quite sure what an "emotional imbalance" is. Say more.

Ennui does not seem like a sufficient cause. Ennui -- listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.. "he succumbed to ennui and despair". The definition (and many synonyms) don't seem to be sufficient to cause a flight to hard drugs for escape: boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, enervation, malaise, dissatisfaction, and so on. Someone who is "sluggish" would be more likely to resort to coffee than meth, wouldn't they? (They would if they were good Methodists, but I suppose a lot addicts are not Methodist.)

Despair, though, that seems like a sufficient cause. Despair, anomie, untreated major depression, extreme poverty (not by itself, but in conjunction with other factors), intense loneliness, feeling abandoned, the sense of not having a future worth living for (but not leading to suicide), and so on.

emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. — Shawn

So yes, emotional regulation as you say.

Thrill seeking is probably a driver too -- one that can trap the thrill seeker into coming back rather regularly for more thrills.

Let's not overlook the fact that drugs are not only sought out, they are also pushed. Methamphetamine wasn't called into common usage by thrill seekers always whining about there just not being any exciting drugs around. Meth was introduced to communities across the country by motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels) who had an interest in developing a market. Same thing goes for cocaine and heroin. People in small towns didn't wake up one day and say, "You know, we need heavy duty uppers and downers here in this fine small town. Let's help our good neighbors out by setting up contacts with a Mexican drug cartel and start a business here."

No. It was the other way around.

Indeed, one could almost say that hard drug producing countries (Myanmar, Afghanistan (opiates), Columbia (cocaine), China and Mexico (fentanyl) are engaged in biowarfare by flooding the United States and Europe (and other places) with drugs whose long term (or in the case of fentanyl--short term) use may result in death or disability.

getting drunk — Tom Storm

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. Full disclosure: "flat out drunk" is something I have not achieved frequently. It usually ended poorly. Sociability is enhanced while one is getting drunk. One is livelier, wittier, more easily amused, etc. Once one is drunk enough to fall off the bar stool, lively wit is down the toilet (literally and figuratively).

Trauma does seem to be a factor -- trauma from childhood, trauma in battle, trauma in one's life... And some people (a fairly small percentage of the population) seem to be predisposed to addiction. For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver.

One abused donkey left the ship, joined up with a herd of elk and found happiness at last. Should @substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? (Story was in today's Guardian)

Perhaps volunteer to take a ship of abused donkeys on a hike?

I already do those things. — substantivalism

Great. So you get that part.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

"Management of the mind" is a critical part of finding interest, meaning, or bliss in life. It is quite possible to think/read/talk one's way into a dead end of unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and depressing ideas. Sometimes we have to give our books notice that they just aren't being very helpful, and go look elsewhere for inspiration.

Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

Of course governments, as deliberative, law/regulation/rule making, data-gathering, society managing agencies, have a negative view of drugs. Agents within the government see large numbers of people very negatively affected by their use of meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco. They see large amounts of money going down the drain on untaxed products, and they see the costs of medical care for alcoholism, lung cancer, addiction, and general dysfunction. (Yeah, cannabis fits in there in various ways.).

Magic mushrooms might be useful as a means of therapy or enlightenment. But nobody thinks that narcotics are therapeutic or enlightening. They are essentially cash cows by means of rapid and strong addiction. Tobacco and alcohol are also addicting, of course, Neither of them are "healthful" in any way, but people can get away using these drugs without immediate severe consequences (which arrive decades later).

Do people find relief in using tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl...? Sure -- they get "relief" from the addictive craving. Tobacco smokers swear that smoking is relaxing, It isn't. Nicotine is a strong stimulant. But when one's body is due for another dose 10 to 30 minutes after the last dose, it feels good. The craving is relieved, but the CNS is not relaxed.

So, an addict overdue for the next dose is not in a state of homeostasis. The next snort, injection, pill, glass, smoke, dose, etc. brings them back to their normal state, but It is NOT NORMAL to require cocaine, meth, or heroin to feel OK.

We need not judge addicts as immoral, and we need not call their need for a drug normal.

I still don't understand what I'm to do aside from get it over with — substantivalism

What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time.

Does this sound bleak and unsatisfying? It might be dreary at times, but another task waiting to be done is finding ways of making your life meaningful and interesting as an adult.

Based on my 77 years of experience, I recommend that anyone NOT expect life to be meaningful and exciting all or most of the time. Life doesn't work that way because maintenance is necessary, time consuming, and is not all that exciting. Meaning and interesting experiences ARE possible, though. Look for the opportunities as you go along.

Does this help?

were on anti-psychotics — Outlander

Had they stayed on anti-psychotics, maybe many of the victims would still be alive.

Actually, I don't know how many mass shooters were or were not on anti-psychotics.

therefore our very biological apparatus is not actually "made" for the modern world. — merloz

I wasn't around 50,000 years ago, but I would imagine that life was not perfect then, either. There were 4-legged killers lurking behind 3 out of 7 trees; there were sneaky, slithery creatures with fatal fangs--good luck if you got bitten; people were then, as now, extremely annoying; the weather was atrocious at times. Glaciation, dust storms, volcanos, tornadoes, floods, cold snaps, heat waves, cancer, etc. One could never be sure of finding enough to eat, or somebody else would take it away from you,

My guess is that our cave-dwelling Neanderthal cousins and Homo sapiens predecessors would have happily accepted an Rx for anxiety, depression, and the occasional psychosis had they been offered.

Here's a thought: perhaps the future of humanity will continue to be linked to the consumption of psychiatric medications, not only for those who actually have mental illnesses and disorders but also to help the average person navigate a modern world that is out of sync with our natural way of living from an evolutionary perspective. — merloz

Bear in mind that psychotropics haven't been around for very long, Barbituates, tricyclics, benzodiazepines, and the major anti-psychotic phenothiazines (like thorazine) were invented in the 20th century (except for barbituates which were first formulated in the late 19th century, though barbiturate use did not become common until 50+ years later).