Your OP exemplifies the folly of a profit driven free market economy.
Capitalism fully supports and maintains the pernicious global plutocracy that the human race currently suffers under. You can choose to be part of it's support, or you can do what you can to help dismantle it. — universeness

True. Easier said than done of course. We have a systematic obsession with material, namely money and thus all that money can acquire.

Its understandable as its hardwired into our fear of death and desire to survive, prosper and live in abundance.

We need material to survive, sure. That is a fact.
How much do we need? That is the next question.

In the face of capitalism, we need as much as we can get because others will always try to take it from us. If we value the same things, we are in endless competition for them. And the competition itself propagates the fear of losing and thus the behaviour of hoarding.

This is seen in nature - competition for mates, food, shelter and reflected in civilisation - competition for social status, physical prowess, health, beauty, power, food and property.

Therefore when we say dismantle capitalism I'm not sure if it needs to be abolished completely. However what it does need is regulation. And government is and should always be about equalising, checks and balances.

Hence capitalism only works when basic needs for survival are met so that people no longer need to fear for their lives if they fall into dire straits financially. Socialism steps in here to ensure that all people have food, shelter and access to health services regardless of circumstance.

The remaining desire for wealth is "healthier." You can live on a base/universal salary and be happy and live a long life or you can play the game and live wealthy and be happy with the same long lived life. Or anywhere in-between.

As in this case capitalism doesn't come at the direct cost of other people's lives. And it can't anyways. Because if it did, if capitalism was 100% pure, the world would be left with the 99% who perished/failing to secure finances to survive, and the remaining 1% which are no longer wealthy because there is no population of workers to hire, consumers to buy and services and luxuries to purchase.

Imagine a world with 1 quintillionaire and no one else. They have stacks of gold and currencies and own the entire planet. But they are alone.

Is their money and property useful anymore? Would you say pure unregulated run-away capitalism served them well?

If the eco cutlery producer expected a free lunch, that's their mistake. There is no free lunch. — Tzeentch

Ironically, we are the only species that "pays to survive".
Nature offers free lunch. All the time in fact. Sunlight is free lunch for plants, plants are free lunch for herbivores and fungi etc.

The only thing any living thing "pays" for lunch is the energy required to capture and digest it. Which must always be cheaper than the energy they receive from that lunch otherwise they are in a "starvation to death" trajectory.

So survival is free according to nature provided you're fit enough to eat. If you're not fit enough to eat, you're still fit enough to be eaten. You become the lunch.
They are your fundamental 2 choices

So no I don't believe it was the mistake if the Ecocutlery company to seek out a free lunch, they saw the value in a waste product. It was a mistake of our economic systems to ever believe it wasn't free in the first place (converting newfound value in waste into a charge/fee to access it)

[

This is how economies have always functioned. — Tzeentch

Economies have not always worked in a capitalistic manner. Economies (the flow of resources, goods and services) predates capital - monetary systems.
Bartering is another economic system as is simply sharing amongst a small tribal community.

Hence as I highlighted before, the modern way economies work hinders environmental consideration/sustainability for a fundamental reason - our attitude towards the world as an object to be owned, mined, deforested etc for objective resources.

But "stability" is a resource too. Its just not a material one - such that you can put in your pocket and sell to the highest bidder.

Stability as a resource is a highly important one as anything that is unstable, or unsustainable eventually collapses. And climate change is exactly the example of how mother nature is demonstrating our economies impacts in action.

The OPs moral kernel, is that a good idea (done with the ecosystems benefit in mind, stability or sustainability ) is strangled by the restrictions of how economy works based on profitability.

Eco-cutlery is appealing to consumers if it is as cheap as fossil fuel plastic cutlery. As no one wants to be at a financial loss but at the same time value anything healthier and better for their conscience.

The error here is that while there is innate demand for eco products, people monetise the means to manufacture the supplies to meet such demand (the guac company charging for avocado pits which they previously saw as a waste product that actually cost them to get rid of).

And that corrupts the innately good idea based on the free lunch (waste products being up cycled or used to make meaningful of valuable products).

To go from "if" to "is" is a conjuring act. — Fooloso4

Of course it is a conjuring act. Because we have "beliefs" in a god(s) . Not facts about God. People's observance of the influence of their gods on the world is on a par with the fact that our mutually agreed belief in the value of a paper note influence the functionality of economies and financial systems.

If everyone tomorrow stopped believing money had any value, it wouldnt have any value.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of beliefs in impacting real life.

If every single person was convinced in a belief that there is a God, then god would be considered fact. If only one person believes in a god, its delusional.

If one starts from the belief that God exists and that God is good, then it follows that good exists. But the same holds for any number of things. If one starts from the belief that God exists and that God is X, then it follows that X exists. Play the old Mad Libs game, replace X with any adjective, and it is clear just how pointless this is — Fooloso4

I think here it's important to distinguish "exists" from "real".
Imagination exists and thus the content of all imagination/creativity is possible to exist.

If God exists, not every part of god that exists need be "real" as in detectable in a physical external reality - like materials, heat, motion etc - all the things in physics and chemistry exist and are real (physical), and emotions, beliefs and dreams exist but are not in the same cohort of real things (as they are immaterial existants).

Some people believe that God is the sum of all material and immaterial existants and thus cannot be definitively proven and yet is everywhere/ everything.

Why god might be "good" as oppose to "chair" or "400 horse power" or "that dream I had last night" is somewhat arbitrary if God is all existants.

However a reason to fixate on "Good" is because its vaguely defined and thus liberated/unrestricted and yet includes all good things and is usually associated with morality/ethics and thus is worthy of worshipping. Its an idealogy of paradise or heaven or nirvana.

So its understandably that given all choices to approach or learn about God (reality and consciousness), people tend to start if with what they know and what they want - that which is 'Good'.

if god exists and is good, then everything bad is his/her antithesis (antichrist), opposite of god - the devil etc. Depending on what faith you come from.

Good cannot exist without bad. They are mutual existants. So either God is not fully good, or there is an equal and opposite bad god (devil) that a benevolent God cannot eradicate.

As eradicating all evil is also simultaneously eradicating all good.

interesting statement. Using people/imposing on others to bring about greater good/benefit or forward society.

How do we know when imposing on people's beliefs is beneficial verses when it is simply oppression of individual freedom?

true it is the case. The general opinion usually is what governs the stays quo unless a new view, innovation, idea or discovery makes waves and stands to critical review

So the everything is the container of all containers in which things can be said to exist — Jamal

I like that explanation. It satisfies my personal curiosity. This was productive.

Maybe. I'd be happier just understanding better all that we already know. — 180 Proof

Well said!

How do you give a definition to everything? We don't. We don't have enough time — Fooloso4

In a nutshell haha.

We only feel as if we were each a center of the universe. — Vera Mont

Ah yes the crux of ego. Me myself and I.

Its very refreshing to converse with a rigorous and measured philosopher like yourself. How you qualify your responses has depth, insight and challenge. These are the discussions i'm here for.

Besides, we prefer to call reality incomprehensible rather than admit the limits of our comprehension. — Vera Mont

Oh how insightful. An eloquent statement. I hadn't thought about it that way before very good.

Daedalus was busy inventing flight; intellectual, practical and spiritual quests used to walk hand-in-hand. — Vera Mont

Yes I think the gods of old were more "human" as in more relatable than the modern concept, especially the modern monotheistic cases.

an excellent answer to the OP. Enjoyed it thoroughly and I agree pretty much in entirety. You articulated it very well.

Now, how do we proceed as humanity with that in mind? If we cannot approach any clear grasp of the whole, if our reasoning capacity innately falls short of the true nature of things due to being a subset of it, what ought we do? Do we persist in understanding more?

Where is the cut-off of futility where there little point in trying to delve deeper, know more?

The more remote from self something (anything - a heavenly body, a cosmic event, a concept, a very big number) is, the less clear its definition in our minds — Vera Mont

Absolutely agree.

The universe, or everything, is a mere nebulous idea that barely registers on my consciousness. — Vera Mont

Quite right. So in our pursuit of meaning, primary mover/god/a theory of everything/ creation, the most fundamental concepts and things, we are grasping at straws. Because they're so far removed from our tiny, insignificant and restricted daily experience that such concepts are truly "nebulous" as you correctly pointed out.

It begs the question, is it even possible to delve into that level understanding? As in, will we ever understand the true nature of reality? Is it worth pursuing? Or is it so incomprehensible that it is innately and permanently shrouded in mystery, a mystery we may never solve.

Personally, if this is the case it doesn't disenfranchise me from my musings. I love a good mystery. As most people do. If there is a God we crave understanding it/him/her.

And if there is no God but rather a set of physical laws, we no less crave to define them and their relationship to all things. If the mystery is basically unapproachable it adds to the zest of life.

Others may disagree. We want to "know it". We try to know it. But we have been trying for millenia to little avail.

Maybe reality is only a personal interpretation and nothing more. Out of reach of out tools to understand it fully.

What do you think?

alright fair enough. I'll be back to this in a few hours as I've some thing to do today but I'll read the whole thing thoroughly :)

Alright i will read the full thing and get back to you. I apologise for jumping the gun, however I do find in my experience that being more concise in OPs tends to reduce the amount of skimming because with wanting to read not only the post but also as many comments as possible, and with limited time and focus, it certainly helps.

I don't really see discussing the usage of the words as a "war" .
I find it interesting that you see it that way.
I'm simply trying to mitigate misinterpretation, an important part of communicating hence why I asked.

But the topic concerns simply the present and if the future exists — invicta

Exactly. And I am asking you what your criterion for existing is? So I can qualify an answer as to whether the "future exists" as you said above.

I think your response airs slightly on the side of defensive/ hypercritical. And seeing as I'm not actively intending or trying to attack you, just being curious, you may want to dial that down a notch or two.
There is no war going on here.

Well, of course I can't give you a definitive answer to that.

I can however offer some considerations.
There's only 3 options really:

1). The universe is truly expanding, but not into anything "else" but rather itself
2). The universe is truly expanding, and it is into "something else"
3). The universe is not truly expanding and its some illusory phenomenon or human error.

As for 3). There's many possible cases:
a). We might have designed our instruments wrong, having not factored in some property of physics and how it interacts with the measurement. The measurement is incorrect
b). The measurement is correct, but we are making false deductions/conclusions because of perhaps some unknown variable yet to be discovered.
c). The measurement is in violation of some law (speed of light/relativity maybe) and the expansion is merely an illusion of perception caused by that.

There are many visual illusions that work on all people (with sight obvs) like mirages, refraction, and all those optical ones you can find on Google images.

All of these possibilities and any I have omitted should be pursued and given due consideration by the scientific community. Maybe we will narrow down the truth. Maybe we won't.

I read portions of it as it seemed a little longwinded. But yeah I agreed with a lot of what you say.

For me what is real and what exists can be seen as synonymous for the purpose of many conversations. But for others real is what is material and what exists has larger scope (material and immaterial things/phenomena). This leads to a lot of confusion and talking cross purposes.

What exactly is your use of the term real vs existing?

the only thing that is "real" in the sense that it currently exists, is the present.

Having said that, the present is dictated by "past present moments" (history) and in turn dictates "present moments yet to be" (the future)

Think of it like a wavefunction of certainty, where the further your scope of study draws away from the immediacy of the present, the harder it is to be certain of those states.

We know more about the 1900s then we do about 700AD and we know more about 700AD than 4,000 BC, 100,000 BC, 4.8millions years ago etc.

There is a natural attrition rate of information through time. Due to change. Information is lost because it is transformed.

This attrition rate is most rapid for specific arbitrary details like names of people and words in languages. And it is slowest for geological phenomena like sediment layers - which can be stored unchanged for millions of years and give indirect account of the climate, flora and fauna of eons gone by.

The same goes for the future. We can be more certain of very general statements due to their stability/constancy. For example there will be high tide in 200,000 years.
But not for specific and highly changeable states like "I will feel scared on July 2nd".

So "realness" and certainty are interlinked. Because we can only say something is real when we are "certain" it exists (in a specific state).

The present is such a directly observable state of certainty.

The future is not. But much of it can be accurately predicted with a large degree of certainty based on historical behaviour.

.
The increased price may prevent some young people from starting the vice, but it does also encourage illegal trade that circumvents the tax. This kind of legislation is relatively easy to pass in elected bodies, because no party wants to be seen as pro-addiction, and a segment of the voters always wants to see the sinners punished.
7d — Vera Mont

Interesting, but as you said, the demand remains (inherent addiction) so means to circumnavigate government instituted penalties abound. So with regard to the inherent demand (addiction) I think upping the price only adds to the financial stress of an addict and the paradoxic irony is that this stress can compound their coping mechanism (alcoholism).

I think the best approach is not to see addiction as something that needs to be fiscally penalised but rather use the revenue generated by the vice to support recovery. In that sense all taxes from smoking and alcohol could be appropriated to rehabilitation and public health campaigns.

In that way the more of the population that drinks, the more funds are available for deterrence strategies from a support perspective rather than a penal one.

an interesting proposition. However if we are to treat alcoholism as a mental illness or vulnerable state, actively endorsing the purchase of alcohol knowing that they are weak and predisposed to succumbing to that temptation could be seen manipulating their vulnerabilities for profit.

If alcoholism is a compulsive disorder, where the alcoholic has little control over their persuance of the drug, as relief, then those that enable it for their personal benefit could be seen at least as a partial perpetrator of the crime.

I like this attitude I also agree with the "clan interpersonal responsibility" model.

more or less. However you define your purpose: whether its something purely personal or something with huge transgenerational impact/legacy, you should do your best to manifest that.

And always question whether you want to take on the responsibility of big dreams. Find out what you truly want to do with the voice you have as a human being while you're alive

I think the state has responsibilities to aid "all addicts". Whilst the clerk has the responsibility (if they so choose within the law) to aid "those alcoholics that they encounter in their daily life".

Aid comes at all levels. Which is most potent is difficult to say. The government has the ability to change laws and policies of commerce which affects everyone. But the clerk has the ability to have more impact on an interpersonal and thus emotional level because the government is impersonal and generic. It doesn't know individual people like the clerk does.

So it's a group effort. It is the responsibility of the government to help those in need on a macroscopic level and it is the responsibility of individuals to uphold morality on a microscopic level however they can as someone with good intentions/good will.

The combination of the two, when working together, is a powerful force to be reckoned with. Ideally everyone would reflect the general concensus (democratic process of legislation) but it is the very reason that we don't that we have need for such an institution as government to police our social deviance. And emplore ethics for those that have a loose sense of it personally.

If everyone was an outstanding citizen government would not be neccesary as we would all collectively and unanimously do the most prudent thing.

I hope this answers your question. Healthy government = the collective imagination of what is ideal while the individual is biased and doesn't reflect the collective conscience. Not ideal. We are all flawed in the end but we hope that by sharing opinions we can establish something beyond ourselves that mitigates out individual prejudice.

Like our legacies.

But the longer and bigger the better, is that it? — Jamal

Well it depends on your personal values. Some people have no interest in legacy. Because they're fulfilled by their own individual life.

And theres nothing wrong with that. They are a source of their own enjoyment and general contentedness. The key is that they are fulfilled. They have a "point", a "purpose" according to them and thats all that matters when it comes to mood/satisfaction and happiness.

For others, they're more ambitious. They desire more potency and power and influence. Perhaps they have high self esteem and believe theyre very capable and talented. And perhaps they are. Often the two come hand in hand.

So establishing a point to existence is going to be inherently more challenging for such a person. Big dreams hold big accountability and responsibility and greater vulnerability to dissatisfaction, pointlessness and unworthiness if it doesn't work out because the goal is so high and anything that doesn't reach it is failure.

For those people, legacy is important as it is what gives value and purpose to their life.

So the key for satisfaction in that case is to either lower your expectations or amplify your capabilities. Both are entirely possible.

We dictate what we value. And what we value dictates whether we achieve it or not. Some people are super happy with daily achievements and others are never satisfied by any achievement. It's a balancing act.

because if pointlessness and impotency of your actions is what you want to avoid (as it generally feels disatisfactory) then the aim of a life well lived is to extend the influence of your actions as long as possible through sentient existence.

The "point" of anything is what it does and for how long is it not? Things that are short lived are usually for yourself whilst things that are high impact and long lasting are usually those that influence others because our lifespan is ultimately limited.

To shape the future for generations of people arguably has more "point" than to indulge in a night or personal pleasures that impacts no one else.

specks of dust do things. Thats the reason for doing anything.

Everything in existence has properties, characteristics or in a sentient sense - agency or behaviour.

Being human means you can act in the scope of all actionable by humans. Anything from avolition, feeling pointless and sedentary, giving up and committing suicide to being highly motivated, having a strong sense of purpose and doing productive/constructive things as long as you're alive.

That is the freedom of being human.

It is true that perhaps nothing we do is ever important if we are all just going to become dust again. But because life is a continuity with overlap between lives, legacy and impact on others has inherent continuity of purpose. How you influence those younger and healthier than you goes beyond your own mortality. This is what is known as legacy.

So to answer your question, legacy is something that can be immortalised. Just as we are still enjoying Shakespeare many centuries after his work was created, and we are still referencing plato and Socrates. An even more extreme example of immortalised legacy.

So the point of doing anything is to do it for the collective with the opportunity to influence said collective far beyond your living years.

A purpose that goes beyond yourself in cause and effect is essentially your consciousness and conscious productivity permeating society and becoming something of value even if the contributor doesn't know it because they're dead.

Another source of purpose is belief in an afterlife or karmic rebirth. In those cases the point of doing things now is because they will influence the trajectory of your essence or soul or whatever when you pass on to the next instance of existence after human death. Not all people ascribe to this belief so of course it only holds value for a few. Again entirely within your freedom of belief

Well a law that prevents it certainly clarifies it as a non-conundrum. You simply do what is legally your duty.

But if such a law doesn't exist (I'm not sure what countries have such a law or don't, perhaps all of them do), but suppose they don't and the onus is on you to decide individually. What do you think is the correct course of action?

. The perceiver cannot put himself before himself on the causal chain. — NOS4A2

Well they can. Self-fulfilling prophecies are an example of where a certain expectation of future outcome causes the resultant future outcome.

For example, if I say, oh I'm stupid, it's no use trying for that job application in a month, I'm not good enough to get offered the position. You then proceed not to prepare or research, and then ultimately because of this ill-prepared state and lack of charisma you do end up failing to get the job. You already knew you wouldn't. The events confirm your belief and the belief itself confirm the events.

You can argue that your belief about the future brought around that future. As an inevitability.

Which way does causality work here? Did the future absolutism behave in the same manner as a past defined absolute. Dictating the impossibility of it ever becoming a reality?

Another example, I say someone is trying to incarcerate me against my will because they don't believe I'm mentally well. A family member is concerned about the unfounded confession and all the anxiety and agitation that comes with it and brings you to a psychiatrist which agrees that you are in need of help. So they involuntarily commit you. Thus confirming your original statement as correct.

The prediction was for all intents and purposes accurate and so further aggravates your anxiety/agitation about what you knew would happen.

No one can say you're wrong. As it did happen. And then that begs the question if your fear was confirmed as valid/real ought that not invalidate the very reason for you to be considered deluded and in need of help?

"The bad argument" is the name Searle gives to what you produced as a throw-away, but which others have taken seriously — Banno

And why do you think many have taken it seriously.

Suppose just as many people take it seriously as take it as a "bad argument". Who do we believe? What's the ultimate consensus? And is the majority even relevant? Does collective stance (based on collective experience) hold more weight than minority stance?

just driven enough to reject someone's pov but not driven enough to provide a well fleshed out counterargument. Weird flex but okay you do you haha

I meant we perceive the action of them perceiving. In the sense that all we have to go on is observing them interacting with the world (perceiving) and articulating what they perceive to us, as well as the resultant beliefs/attitudes.

Because ofc we cannot perceive for them. We can only watch them doing it and hear of the results from what they say.

I perceive my perceptions. You perceive your perceptions. They perceive us perceiving our perceptions. We perceive them perceiving their perceptions.

The universe as a whole perceives all perceptions as it contains all perceivers and all that is perceived.

And what remains? That yet to be perceived, that which may never be percieved at all or that yet to be a perciever. Or all three.

I think if it sort of in the analogy that 0 neither perceives nor is perceived. However 0 can = - 1 + 1 (where - 1 can perceive +1 or +1 can percieve - 1), or both simultaneously.

Because it is the only thing that is certain and I think we have to find some way to come to terms with it. — MojaveMan

Not sure if death is the only thing that is certain. For anyone facing the prospect/realisation of the inevitability of death, their birth was also a 100% certainty/inevitability in that it already happened. They're here afterall and death only applies to those that are living.

Other things are also certain, like your continuing freedom of choice until you die or are discapacitated.

There are many things under our personal control. And many things that are not under our personal control. And many things that ought not be under our control but we can make them under our control if we so wish, and likewise things that are under our control but we can make them not under our control if we so wish.

It's a complex dynamic for sure. Personally fixating on death is no less it more logical than fixating on life. Fixating on the past or future is no less or more important than fixating on the present moment.

Lastly, we did not suffer before being born. We just weren't and then suddenly were. No pain or suffering involved. I suspect death will be much the same.

So why we ought to want a state of total non awareness, is more of a reflection of how we qualify our current awareness. If we have endured an awful lot of suffering and are unhappy, then oblivion, a pure state of unfeeling, does seem quite appealing.

But if we enjoy our lives, if we value them, then death is something to be feared, as oblivion in this case is not as good as the joys and pleasures of awareness

If rebirth is not a thing, and this short and peculiar state of being alive is the only time in the entirety of the existence of the universe where we have agency, then its a no brainer. Might as well milk it for all its worth as we established death will happen regardless of whether we want it to or not. And that state would be much more enduring. 14 billion years of it so far. Why not indulge life while we can. That is our freedom, in such a state of being

Many times we really do live out our lives in habits and roles we "fall into" rather than "take on" which would indeed be as they would say, "bad faith". — schopenhauer1

Well, I think we can apply to animals and plants too. The seed of a tree quite literally "falls into" a specific habit (habitat).

In that the exact conditions faced by that little sapling are unique to it. A little bit different to the other trees nearby or far away. Different soil quality, different light exposure, different access to water, protection from the wind etc. They must grow in a specific way to maximise the conditions they fell into if they are to compete adequately with any of the others for resources.

Sone are lucky and have little pressure to survive easily, others are not so lucky and everything is a battle for them to make it. Some are adaptable and some are not.

But in the end every organism faces unique spatiotemporal dynamics and conditions that they had no choice in, all they have is a set of instructions (genetics) to make do the best they can.

It's the nature verse nurture argument a bit. Does what any given human does with their life, who they meet, what career they take, what decisions they make, depend on circumstance, or on their inherited genes?

Who is to say we aren't doing exactly what is personally instinctual all the time?

Well said. I agree.

Furthermore, it seems like the very neccesity of evolution in the first place is because simple steady state survival is incomplete. Not yet possible. Nor may it ever be. The only other option, is to improve and approach some fully complete, nth degree of complexity that really liberates an organism and by that I mean they become immortal.

If survival of the fittest is the game. Immortality is the trophy. The greatest degree of fitness.

And individual genes do this much better than we do as holistic collections of thousands of genes. As one gene can be passed from parent to offspring for thousands of lifetimes. There are genes in our bodies which have been protected from mutation for millenia by the sheer volume of other genes insulating it, and instructing the machinery neccesary to copy them all, with many not making it, getting damaged or mutated along the way, or simply deleted.

But few, maybe a tiny percentage, perhaps by sheer odds, lick or maybe by inherent fitness, have managed to stay relatively the same for a very long time indeed.

Whatever those more immortal genes are, they likely govern the most conserved and vital parts of our organism, and the operations that we see across most of the animal kingdom, for example the maintenance and function of mitochondria, or the hemoglobin in our blood, or the membrane proteins that allow our heart to spontaneously contract. Those functions have been around from the earliest multicellular complex organisms and continue to be essential to our on going survival.

Blue eyes, earlobes, being able to roll our tongue, we'll, not so much. So maybe they are not as old and wise veterans as the other genes.

It is a game of opportunity.

In a selfish, individualistic and inherently distrusting society, egalitarianism gains potency. Such a state of affairs favours good will as it is unusual, and the general populous are ill equipped to deal with it. It easily overpowers as it has the advantage of being unfamiliar, understated and insidious/covert.

In an egalitarian, co-operative and trusting society, selfishness, manipulation and exploitation gains traction in much the same way.

Whatever is more difficult to detect and contend, becomes the more influential force.

At the end of the day, balance is always the go to.

Just as when everyone is Conservative, a Liberal ideal is new, fresh, appealing and a clear demonstration of potential for change, and when a society is overly Liberal, Conservative values become the hallmark of progress.

The majority is stagnancy, a stalemate, uninspiring, boring and unworkable. The minority is the forefront of innovation.

This pendulum has been swinging to and fro for millenia.

We commit suicide for personal and even existential reasons. What's the point? I don't like this game anymore. That sort of thing. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. Well said. And this is quite defining of humanity. Albeit a sullen/sombre distinction. But we have a say in our existence that I'm not sure other animals have as much autonomy in. And that is quite remarkable.

I agree that we really have transfigured to a nature that is based more on symbolic value (accompanying our highly sophisticated and nuanced languages) than innate biologic values - like sex, food and competition.
We can be asexual, anorexic, and passive. And importantly we have the choice to do these things. Instinct does not grip us as it does the rest of the animal kingdom.

As humans, we are conceptualisers. We differ from animals in our ability to not only develop sophisticated enquiries (philosophy), but also in being swayed by them - adjusting our behaviour with them.

In essence, we think beyond. And sometimes that's our greatest merit, in other cases its our greatest flaw.

The printed word still carries a certain authority in our psyche, while the screen flashes visual images directly into our brain, bypassing critical judgment. They have different kinds of influence — Vera Mont

They certainly do. The written word is much less prescribed than cinematography. Imagination and interpretation can arguably run wilder with writing than with imagery.

I think this is why generally speaking we favour literature as the influencer of film and not the other way around.