What's the point of it all?

[Siblesz]

In this modern age of ours', we are finally beginning to understand that there is really no point to anything. The human mind creates a scenario out of any situation, when there is really no situation. Our actions are motivated by our interests. Our morality is fixated by our actions. It's a blank chart, and we've been drawing in it for thousands of years. But what does the drawing signify? Does it mean the same than when it was blank? To understand that life is worthless, that it is just another process of the endless universe, that our pains and our pleasures, our successes and our failures, are all illusions of the mind, is the deepest human disillusionment. To understand that everything is evanescent, even this state of mind of mine, is the most perturbing truth. We are nothing. Yet our minds create the illusion that we are everything.

Over the past several weeks, I've researched peak oil and humanity's impending doom when it comes to happen. I've thought of several conflicting analysis in regards to this theory, from the most utopian outcome to the most chaotic, and in the end, I have found nothing. I stand where I started: with nothing. We are reaching a breakpoint in the infrastructure of civilization itself. The evidence is enormous. It covers climatic, economic, topographic, and political expanse. We are reaching a break point in which the entire structure in which we have survived for the past 200 years will break down, and a new age of darkness will settle in.

At first, I believed 'world controllers', wherever they are or even if they exist, must have a plan of recovery and survival if such a crisis were to occur. They must have understood the consequences of the crisis and they must be taking action before it strikes. But as the evidence mounted up, I began to understand that I was as clueless as the most powerful leader in the world. I begun to understand that the bureaucracy of this world has prevented us as a species to surpass these obstacles and look ahead. In a way, modernity has blurred our progression by forestalling our sight. Red tape has confounded our vision and we are being left defenseless against a giant crisis that will envelop our future with war after war, and tragedy after tragedy.

But then I thought that even though the 'world controllers' idea was probably not possible, humans would learn sooner or later. But they haven't. From Jesus Christ to Dostoevsky, we've been indoctrinated to believe that human will is renewable. We've been indoctrinated to believe that we learn from our mistakes and that we are rational beings. Any irrational outcome of our actions has been blamed on the errors past, when our human nature is left ignored. The truth is that we are not rational creatures. Redemption is not an option for us as a society. As individuals, we may learn from our mistakes by suppressing our instincts, but the intentions and the thoughts will still be there. A mudererer will always be a murderer. A rapist will always be a rapist. A lover witll always be a lover. We never change, we only think we change. And there in lies the second great disillusionment of humanity.

We repeat the errors of the past. When the break point comes, humans will be forced to change, but for now, we will remain the same: unchanged. We will continue on our path to doom. It's as if we're embodied in the mind of a stubborn and spoiled child. The mother tells the child to study in class because he will end up failing and dropping out, but the child thinks he knows best because he doesn't like the teacher and because he thinks he can teach himself. The child fails a subject but continues to ignore the advice. The child fails another subject, but he continues adament in his rebellion. The child fails the third subject and is expelled, and now the child cries. He wants to be given a second chance. Nature, fortunately, will probably give us a second chance, but like the child, we will continue ignoring the advice until the break point comes, and then again, it might be too late, for both the child and for humanity.

But are we really worth saving? What defines us, what makes us important, that we are worth anything in this universe of ours'? When we are driving on our cars on our way to work, we pass tens of thousands of people and think nothing of it. These tens of thousands of people are just like us. They think like us, breathe like us, and feel like us. They are our equals. Yet we dismiss them. We focus on ourselves. We focus on our conscience. To think that we are the focus point of the entire universe is in the instinct of every one of us. It's in our best interest to think of ourselves as primordial, and everyone else as secondary. And we give this illusion no thought. We accept it as it is, without second thought. Yet some of us come to the understanding that in the end of things, each and every one of us is meaningless. We create things out of nothingness and idealize illusions in order to support our existence. We believe that life is worth living for. But why, we do not know. We have the utmost horror of death and even more for suicide, but we give no substance to this unquestionable conviction. "Who in their right mind would want to die?" We ask ourselves. But should we also ask, "Who in their right mind would think of living?" What difference does it make, in the end of things, if I kill a man, rape a girl, shoot myself, or mislead millions. Will this not lead me to the same end? Death? Will this not lead me to where it leads you?

We'd like to think that there is something after life, a place where bad men can be punished, where the suffering can be rewarded, where the experiences of life can be extended, yet we base this out of the same factor that we base our worth of living: on nothing. We base it on the illusion that life is precious, that we are important, that we are the center point of everything, and therefore, that we must matter. But we don't matter. There is no afterlife as we imagine it. We will not survive death. We will be silenced by it and our state of conscience will cease to be. No... we do not matter. We are but a pixel within a pixel within a pixel of the expanse of the universe. So are we worth living? In the universe's sense, no. Is it easier to live with the illusion that we are worth living and that we indeed do matter? Yes. So from one stream of consciousness to another, I say good night. And I'm sorry if this is a virus to anyone's conscience. It's a virus to mine own, so let me discard some of reality unto others so that I'm not living it alone.

[bdh]

The truth is that we are not rational creatures.

Then why on Earth are you trying to reasonably justify our existence?

[HMMcKamikaze]

Very well thoughout post, though i dont share your thoughts on life. Yes we may be a pixel in a pixel, but does that mean that we should stop living? What we experience and what we feel in our lives is all we have, but theres no reason to disregard it. Human beings are omniscient, things may yet unfold to us that were never imagined. We can't ever fully encompass out own existence in the sea of the universe, so we might as well stay as we are.

Human beings strive throughout their whole life for inner peace and happiness, every single person does. That may see selfish or conceited, but it is the way things are. You, and only you can give your mind respite, only you have the power to achieve anything for your self.

I often think to myself that my existence may be meaningless, that i was born and i will die, and the universe will not be changed. I think to myself that once im gone, im gone, its as if i never existed. But at the same time i realize that everything we see, everything we think is from our minds, we can never truly say, think or feel anything withour slandering and shaping it. So how can i trust my own mind to rationalize what i, and all human beings think. To think beyond a human's point of view is to cease to be human, and frankly, we will always be what we are.

Now besides what ive said already, i have my own beliefs on life, though they have the limitations of a human being, and a 16 year old. I truly believe in Newton's third law "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That one sentence contains ,my entire view on life, and the universe. It makes perfect sense. According to that law, the universe must be completely balance, there is and opposite for everything, all things are intertwined beyond all things measurable. But this includes humans in their entirety, since we are part of the universe. Every thing a human being does has a reaction. The good, the bad, all of it. If we kill somone, there is a reaction. Also according to the law, the reaction is caused instantly by the action, its completely balanced. This is where the limitations of the human mind shine through. I believe that time as we know it does not exist. Its just another boundary set by our mind to help easily define our existence, where we can focus onto a point in time, instead of all time.

So that ties into my other beliefs, reincarnation and karma. They go hand in hand. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So whenever you do something, the reaction occurs, but its in what may be called the future, in another lifetime. It would fully explain why bad things happen to genuinely good people. Its the highest form of justice, since theres not escaping it.

Now the conclusion ive drawn from those other beliefs is that our purpose in life is to breach the borders of humanity and become one with everything, everything that has existed. I said it was impossible earlier, but i was saying that from a rational point of view without believing it. So once we reach this state of "enlightenment" we are no longer contained by humanistic ideologies, we see everything for what it is, in a completely unbiased view.
Just the thought of attaining such a thing keeps me going.

So i may be a pinpoint on the face of the universe, i may be just a speck of dust in a cosmic sense, but even if thats all i am, its all i have. Im not going to live life as if it has no meaning, because i feel it does, because i feel that sooner or later everyone will break the the falsities and see and experience things as they truly are.
And sorry if i went off topic, i was merely trying to respond to this post that talked so much about the unimportance of all we know.

[Siblesz]

HMMcKamikaze, my views are almost identical to yours'. As a matter of act, I'm surprised to find they are so similar. Recalling an email of mine that was written several months ago:

What is God, to me? To answer this question, I must first ask this: why must God be proclaimed a conscious being? If God is a conscious being, then the aforementioned logic applies. But if unconscious, then a whole new ball game results. God, to me, is not an individual, but the compilation of all of the energy in the universe, including our own selves. We are God. Let me explain. Imagine that the universe is a magnet with two countering forces, the negative and the positive side. These two forces struggle against each other in an immortal and therefore perpetual cycle of conflict and balance. Out of this conflict, the universe takes its force, out of this force, energy ensues, and out of this energy, existence is formulated.

But let’s not say the word ‘formulated’… it is the improper term for such a philosophy, for in order for this philosophy to work, one must abide by two principles: The first is the principle of the conservation of matter. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, if matter stays the same eternal and can only be distributed and morphed according to the present laws of chemistry, then there is no creation and no destruction, only separation and distribution. Second, if this principle is maintained, then the principle of time must also be dismissed. Time is, in essence, a man-made invention. Although nature does coordinate itself according to a somewhat foreseeable pattern of progress, this pattern does not signify that there is a beginning and an end to all matter in the universe. Rather, it means that things are evenly distributed and balanced all over the universe in an orderly manner. Time was created by the human mind in order to keep track of this process of balance, and by this pretense and by the observation of the process that we configured with our human logic, and from what we termed ‘the birth and death’ of trees and animals, to the cycle between the coming of the moon to the coming of the sun, we determined that the universe had to have a beginning and an end. We logically predicted that if humans and nature alike showed this same pattern of 'life and death' in their limited existence, then the universe must also be the same. And therefore, through this logic, we invented God, the creator and destroyer of the universe, for in his absence, the logic would fail to be.

What we failed to take note of was the fact that nature does not have a beginning and an end. Nature is recycled. The beginning is the end and the end the beginning. Our birth is our death, and our death is our birth. When we die, we decay into organic material. This organic material is not dead, for it feeds into the ground and fertilizes it, therefore providing life to the ground beneath us. The ground beneath us feeds the plants. The plants feed the animals. The animals feed the humans. And these same humans die and feed the ground. Spring befalls summer, which befalls fall, which befalls winter. Winter befalls spring, which befalls summer, which befalls fall. And so on... all in a perpetual cycle of energy. And although the process does find an end, it is not an end exerted by itself, but by the redistribution of matter around itself.

This brings up two further questions. The first, is the question of where life comes from if there is no creation, and the second, is the predilection that if we are all but matter within the recycling and redistribution of the universe, then the self and the individual are also man-made pretenses. I will answer the first question first. The question of where life comes from is the one that I hold the most doubt in, for there is little logic explanation. According to this philosophy, life comes from the conflict of forces in the universe and the energy that it creates. Within this solar system’s context, life comes from the sun’s energy. Matter is lifeless or inorganic in every planet but that of Earth (and maybe on the moon Enceladus in Saturn), so how then does life occur? It can’t occur from nothing, but can it be a chemical reaction? If microscopic life forms when a chemical reaction between salt water and other elements and the energy of the Sun occurs, then the question of where life comes from is solved. So far, neither I nor any other person that I know of has been able to find factual evidence to support this claim, but it is logical if true. If there is energy and water, then can life not morph out of these two combinations? But there is no proof to this, so it has to be set aside. The second theory pertinent to this philosophy but of which must abide with the first is the possibility that life was imported to Earth from another planet (Mars may have had life hundreds of millions of years ago or from a meteor containing microscopic organisms that collided with the Earth). But if this is true, then where did that life come from? This is the only issue with this philosophy, for if life cannot be created from the random combination of energy and matter, then it has to come from a divine being. But if it can come from this combination, then all else follows. Evolution is but the outcome of life. It is incredible that out of one microscopic organic particle, we were created... but according to all scientific evidence gathered, this is truly so.

Now, to explain the second question in which the idea of the individual, or the self, is dismissed. If the self is but a fantasy of the mind, it would mean that all individuals are part of the same process, and that in the end of our organic lifetime, we will all rejoin this process and recycle from matter to other matter. This philosophy coordinates itself with the Indian philosophy of the Moksha, or the universal spirit and the recycling of the soul from death unto life and from life unto death. Many questions arise. The most troubling question comes with the denial of the self. If we are but particles of matter awaiting our redistribution, then all ideals of conscious and individuality must be set aside. But this is not so, for although we change from day to day, and we were not the same person we were yesterday, we are the same selves in the here and now. The self exists, but only in the present reality. As redistribution of matter continues, the self changes along with the process, but the idea of the self still remains within the present reality, and as such, it makes part of the process and is an important element for the process itself to work.

I’ll provide two examples in order to explain the logic, one psychological, and the other through this e-mail’s content. The first example comes from a psychology case study which I read a couple of months ago. A woman in her mid 30s experienced massive brain damage that distorted her sensory brain capabilities. After the brain damage, whenever the lady saw a couple kissing, she felt the couple’s kiss in her lips. She had lost her ability to sense her own touch, but gained the ability to sense the touch of others. Through this case study, I begun to doubt reality and the self. Is reality real, or are we living in a mind-created fantasy? The self is a subjective thing. We are not really ourselves, but what our mind tells us that we are. As Descartes says, we think, therefore we are. Now, there are two ways to analyze the question on whether reality is real or not.

The first: No, it is not real within the objective universe, for we are not really ourselves but matter within this charted and balanced conflicting universe. The second:

Yes, it is really real because we think it’s real. A healthy man who’s been taught to think that he’s a cripple since childhood will really believe that he is a cripple and act as such, even though he really is not a cripple and can walk perfectly fine. As such, we all believe that our reality is real, and therefore, we act it out as such, even if it isn’t real. But the mere fact that we think it is real, makes it real to our own selves.

The second example comes from this e-mail. After I send you this email and you read it completely, your mind will assess this information and change some of its pattern of logic. After this change comes about, a few of your neurons will redistribute themselves in order to formulate this new pattern. Therefore, the day after you read this, you will be a different person because of it. Slightly so, but you will still be different. This will make you a different self than the self that you were yesterday. And being a different self means that the idea of the self can be dismissed altogether, for if you are not the same self you were yesterday, then there is no constant self at all, only a self that is temporary and that will join with the ALL as change continues its immortal course.

If one understands all of these factors, then the puzzle quickly formulates by itself. One must see to it that one understands the pace at which the universe changes. Second by second, the reality that surrounds one changes itself. Second by second, the matter within and around one distributes itself. Second by second, the two conflicting poles of the immortal, constant, yet ever-changing universe conflict with each other. I am your matter, you are my matter, we are the matter of nature, nature is the matter of the universe. We are all combined, we are all separate. We are all individual entities within our individual realities, yet we are one combined entity within one combined reality. Immortality… that is God. We are God. God is us.

I hope that you understand this philosophy. It reminds me of the one Beatles song ‘I am the Walrus’… You know… “I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together”. Haha… And to think that the Indians were thinking about this 4,000 years into the past! Oh… humans haven’t changed a bit… our access of information, our technology, and standards of living have expanded, yet our minds have evolved very little in the past 5,000 years. Always look back to history, for all the answers are already there. All one has to do is look, and there lies the answer to one’s question.

If you read this, you'll realize how similar our viewpoints are. But what you failed to understand was that I was trying to deny the worth of our existence from a human standpoint, not from a universal one. From a human viewpoint, we are meaningless. Our human concepts are meaningless in relation to the universe. But from the universe's standpoint, we might be part of the system and therefore meaningful. It's as simple as that.

Furthermore, I'm not implying that we should stop living because living life has no real purpose. I'm just trying to rationalize the process, not cancel it.

Then why on Earth are you trying to reasonably justify our existence?

Am I not being irrational by trying to rationalize it?

You are capable of the most beutiful dreams and the most horrific noghtmares...As Carl Sagan used to say.

I would like you to consider two basic premises here. The first is the sense of discontinuity in history and the second is the conception of the "event".

While I do not disagree with the mounting evidence about peak oil and climatic change (I'm neither totally convinced though), I think that our perception of History relates more with our desire of an orderly past and less with the past itself. By somple inspection of the clasic historiography you will notice our need to put arbitrary limits (as ages, eras and even years) and also to focus on "events" as more then mere occurences but actually as markers or even initiating factors of the historical course.

But there's no continuity in history, we only make it appear like there is continuity. There is no order. Things just happen and we assign order.

Why I say all this? The notion of the critical point has been reached many times before and I'm sure many times after. Each generation has the perverted desire to be the critical or the last generation a kind of schadenfreude turned upon ourselves.
Intuitively, I find hard to accept the notion that what is less than a nanosecond in the history of the species can be adorned (or tarnished) with such apocalyptic attributes.

As for your question. I have no doubt that you deserve to be saved, and what made you important is that I just posted this.

It's true what you say. I'm assigning blame to all of humanity, not to the past.

Salvation will not come for me or you. We are equals. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, you, and me. We are all equals. We are all equally unimportant. :original:

[Garbarsardar]

You are capable of the most beutiful dreams and the most horrific noghtmares...As Carl Sagan used to say.

I would like you to consider two basic premises here. The first is the sense of discontinuity in history and the second is the conception of the "event".

While I do not disagree with the mounting evidence about peak oil and climatic change (I'm neither totally convinced though), I think that our perception of History relates more with our desire of an orderly past and less with the past itself. By somple inspection of the clasic historiography you will notice our need to put arbitrary limits (as ages, eras and even years) and also to focus on "events" as more then mere occurences but actually as markers or even initiating factors of the historical course.

Why I say all this? The notion of the critical point has been reached many times before and I'm sure many times after. Each generation has the perverted desire to be the critical or the last generation a kind of schadenfreude turned upon ourselves.
Intuitively, I find hard to accept the notion that what is less than a nanosecond in the history of the species can be adorned (or tarnished) with such apocalyptic attributes.

As for your question. I have no doubt that you deserve to be saved, and what made you important is that I just posted this.
:wink:

[HMMcKamikaze]

Well i agree with you on that, all things perceived from human beings, is unimportant, and most likely false, which is kind of a paradox as these perceptions that are being posted right now are even biased in some way, but its the best that and closest that we will probably get to being unbiased.

EDIT: After reading that long email its uncanny how we talked about some of the same things , but this is hardly an original philisophy, im sure many have thought and followed this to its end, which would be a release from the inconsistent human views of the universe, and an embrace of all things.

[Siblesz]

EDIT: After reading that long email its uncanny how we talked about some of the same things , but this is hardly an original philisophy, im sure many have thought and followed this to its end, which would be a release from the inconsistent human views of the universe, and an embrace of all things.

Yeap... We're just beginning to breach the top of what's up there but we already understand most of the basis of the ground. Too bad that what we understand today is too vague to be proved, used, or accepted by others.

P.S.- This just proves how similar the human mind works. I thought I was alone in my thoughts, or at least partially unique, but in comes you to show me how even thoughts can be thought alike. It makes part of our universal theorem, though, so I'm happy. :original:

[HMMcKamikaze]

Actually i could find many books that go further and deeper into this idea, though i cant think of off the top of my head. But a common idea is that one way to reach enlightenment is through yoga or meditation, and i support this though im sure there are other ways.

[bdh]

Am I not being irrational by trying to rationalize it?

Nope, I am afraid that you are(were rather) being completely rational. You begin from the 'illusion' and try to rationally circle around to the illusion's beginning. Except it came from nothing.
Based on what you knew, the attempt was reasonable. To continue rationally after having rationally reached a conclusion would be irrational.

So, I imagine all your latest trys at reason would bring you to a better answer. After all, your reason is now irrational.

Its not the attempt, its the persistence.

[Siblesz]

Nope, I am afraid that you are(were rather) being completely rational. You begin from the 'illusion' and try to rationally circle around to the illusion's beginning. Except it came from nothing.
Based on what you knew, the attempt was reasonable. To continue rationally after having rationally reached a conclusion would be irrational.

So, I imagine all your latest trys at reason would bring you to a better answer. After all, your reason is now irrational.

Its not the attempt, its the persistence.

I wrote and organized the thread in a rational manner, I thought about the thread in an irrational manner.

How did I reach the conclusion? By rationalizing what we consider 'the unknown', true, but by rationalizing the unkown, I was being an irrational being in that I displaced myself from my own human identity.

[bdh]

I wrote and organized the thread in a rational manner, I thought about the thread in an irrational manner.

I don't know how to respond to that statement other than to repeat myself except in a more concise line.
Trying to rationally justify it all is reasonable the first time around. To remain unsatisfied with the answer and continue is irrational. I imagine then, this thread isn't the first time around for you. No need to worry about me then. As long as you keep going, you're initial statement

Am I not being irrational by trying to rationalize it?

is true.

[Siblesz]

I don't know how to respond to that statement other than to repeat myself except in a more concise line.
Trying to rationally justify it all is reasonable the first time around. To remain unsatisfied with the answer and continue is irrational. I imagine then, this thread isn't the first time around for you. No need to worry about me then. As long as you keep going, you're initial statement

is true.

The means by which I achieved that state of rationale was irrational, that is my point. You've got another point, but they are not in the same field.

[bdh]

The means by which I achieved that state of rationale was irrational, that is my point. You've got another point, but they are not in the same field.

I see the distinction, we are talking about two different things.

Twc, where rationality meets irrationality...

That is why people keep coming back.

[HMMcKamikaze]

Twc, where rationality meets irrationality...

[Silver Guard]

I'm not even going to try and forment a constructive critisism/complement at this time, I'm to in shock that here's a thread with no spam, and not one, not two, but four well put arguments +rep to all of you!

[Xiaodun]

I'm not even going to try and forment a constructive critisism/complement at this time, I'm to in shock that here's a thread with no spam, and not one, not two, but four well put arguments +rep to all of you!

Oh great, now theres spam in the thread

--------------------------------

My point cannot be one of philosophy, because personally I too believe in what Sib says and have little to argue against it. However, I don't see any great reason to despair.

As I was killing myself to for the uni exams, I wondered, "So what if I get a good job and lead a good life? What does it matter?" In a nation of 120 million, one's own life seems to pale in humility before society. And even our nation dies, that is just 5% of all humans. And even if all humans die, that is an atom compared to the vastness of space and the beings that must exist in it.

In "the Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe" there was a torture machine that involved showing a being the colossalness of all creation in relation with the insignificance of his own existance. That surely would be a sort of torture if ever devised.

Perhaps some great divine being had set up everything in order to serve a purpose. Perhaps we humans are just the Gondorians or what not in Lord of the Rings. Or even worse, we might just be back ground noise to set the stage for some god's great play. The entire purpose of humans might be akin to the man who brings Aragon and Legolas new horses.

A divine being of such a level must surely have millions of backups in case I, an electron in an atom of a pawn, passes away. If not, its grand scheme must have already broken apart with those who have already given up on life and ended it.

This lead to another even more horrible thought. "What if I was born simply to kill myself by being humiliated by my own patheticness? What if my purpose was simply to die and touch others with my death?"

And of this divine being, so what if its on a dimension of existance greater than us? What will it do after finishing its great game? Does it lead the sort of unenlightened life that we do?

But then again, what does it matter even if our lives were puny and insignificant things? So what if our lives lacked direction and showed little progress?

When we are waiting to see a movie with our friends, do we not joke around and play? Sure the movie itself may be a total let down, but our entertainment in waiting for it will make for fond memories.

Maybe the afterlife isn't all its cracked up to be, maybe there is no afterlife at all. At least we had a fun time before going out. We know nothing about our lives, and thus the best thing we can do to make sure we don't regret living it is to have fun.

And even if we are walking meatbags waiting for death to claim us, that is of no great matter. After all, we have nothing to lose by having fun, and death would bring an end to our misery with eternal sleep. A peaceful process if I ever heard one.

Maybe we are all doomed to suffer some great demon's torture. If so, then why bother being all miserable thinking about how puny one is now? We will have time for it later.

The most we can do is try to have fun in our lives while not blocking the entertainment of other humans as well.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Meaning as I see it is redundant. It is a concept, a product of the evolution and advancement of the human consciousness. It allows us to scrutinise and question natural mechanisms and manipulate that which is around us, and hence aids our survival. However, it is not applicable to the universe as a whole.

When I came to the personal realisation that purpose and meaning have a tangible biological purpose of their own.. well, it was an immense relief.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Take a ****ing pill, Sibelsz. If sentient being genuinely is immaterial to the cosmos, then glooming about it doesn't mean jack either, in which case you must necessarily be wasting your own time by writing 1,200 word essays on the subject to find the most comprehensive way to depress yourself and gradually inculcate mental illness as a result. For my own part, the ontological strangeness of there being such a thing as being is more than enough reassure me that I don't even NEED an opinion on such matters, but that I should just ignore it and let it take care of itself while I do what I can with what's in front of me.

Vast ineffability and complexity are beautiful. You're talking like someone afraid of the dark trying to describe the night-sky, or a hydrophobe standing on a pier facing the Atlantic. It is out of human hands - **** it.

"This ocean of being has come from the Obscure, none have pierced this jewel of reality, each has spoken according to his humour, none can define the face of things."

Plus, all this talk of the end of the world is nonsense:

First, it's self-refuting because it demonstrates that you have an interest and concern in the further progression of the Human Project and recognise that it is something greater than yourself (which you know in your guts, however much you try to mope your way into thinking that the exploration of human-values and systems and the advancement of individual potential is all an illusion and that nothing has any meaning), and if YOU do then so do plenty of other people (there's nothing special about you).

And second, climatic and resource problems will can ALREADY be overcome with technological and social adaptations - it simply requires the political will to make them grow in momentum as realisation of the need to do it overcomes public selfishness about their how high their taxes are and whether or not they'll be able to afford that second car or that boat they've had their eye on (and yes, there is time for this to happen, if takes a century or more, because there are an awful lot of people in the world and however low the population dipped from any kind of crisis there is no chance that it would unrecoverable - that is just a joke), and furthermore global political stability is most definitely NOT at an especially low ebb - it is at an especially HIGH tide - you've let yourself be lulled into a state of fear by media propaganda, as is clear when you compare the actual likelihood of anything like general warfare worldwide TODAY compared to just forty years ago when the USSR and USA were building up weapons stockpiles, or seventy years ago when the whole of Europe and East Asia were ready to slit each other's throats at the first sign of weakness, or a hundred years ago as vast European empires were beginning to weaken and fall apart and colossal arms races were underway for decades between the Great Powers.

Get a sense of perspective. And a grip on yourself, before you end up on anti-depressants.

[Siblesz]

Take a ****ing pill, Sibelsz. If sentient being genuinely is immaterial to the cosmos, then glooming about it doesn't mean jack either, in which case you must necessarily be wasting your own time by writing 1,200 word essays on the subject to find the most comprehensive way to depress yourself and gradually inculcate mental illness as a result. For my own part, the ontological strangeness of there being such a thing as being is more than enough reassure me that I don't even NEED an opinion on such matters, but that I should just ignore it and let it take care of itself while I do what I can with what's in front of me.

Vast ineffability and complexity are beautiful. You're talking like someone afraid of the dark trying to describe the night-sky, or a hydrophobe standing on a pier facing the Atlantic. It is out of human hands - **** it.

"This ocean of being has come from the Obscure, none can pierce this jewel of reality, each has spoken according to his humour, none can define the face of things."

Plus, all this talk of the end of the world is nonsense:

First, it's self-refuting because it demonstrates that you have an interest and concern in the further progression of the Human Project and recognise that it is something greater than yourself (which you know in your guts, however much you try to mope your way into thinking that the exploration of human-values and systems and the advancement of individual potential is all an illusion and that nothing has any meaning), and if YOU do then so do plenty of other people (there's nothing special about you).

And second, climatic and resource problems will can ALREADY be overcome with technological and social adaptations - it simply requires the political will to make them grow in momentum as realisation of the need to do it overcomes public selfishness about their how high their taxes are and whether or not they'll be able to afford that second car or that boat they've had their eye on (and yes, there is time for this to happen, if takes a century or more, because there are an awful lot of people in the world and however low the population dipped from any kind of crisis there is no chance that it would unrecoverable - that is just a joke), and furthermore global political stability is most definitely NOT at an especially low ebb - it is at an especially HIGH tide - you've let yourself be lulled into a state of fear by media propaganda, as is clear when you compare the actual likelihood of anything like general warfare worldwide TODAY compared to just thirty years ago when the USSR and USA were building up weapons stockpiles, or sixty years ago when the whole of Europe and East Asia were ready to slit each other's throats at the first sign of weakness, or a hundred years ago as vast European empires were beginning to weaken and fall apart and colossal arms races were underway for decades between the Great Powers.

Get a sense of perspective. And a grip on yourself, before you end up on anti-depressants.

Again, you misunderstood the post my good man. My thread is not an "we're all gonna die" theory, it's a "there's likely to be a major depression and billions of people will die because of it" kind of thing. And considering every single piece of evidence that has been gathered in the past 30 years, I'm 100% on track. Third world countries don't have the necessary infrastructure to adapt to other means of energy. The U.S. and Europe might be on their way to implementing such changes, but even they are in a primitive level of development. Whether you ignore it or not, the likelyhood that there will be a major depression in the next 50 years in ENORMOUS. All indications point to it. Most third world countries that will fail to adapt will collapse economically. People will die of famine and thirst in China, India, sub-Saharan and Saharan Africa (though that's a given), and even South and Central America. It's gonna hit us. And I'm not despairing over it. I'm desparing over human kind's unwillingness to see the crisis and react to it. I'm desparing over humanity's will, over our sloth, our illusion of greatness. And even then, it is not despair, it is a realization. I've been despairing over humanity for well over 6 years, but now I realize what Kamus and Frankl realized: that it's a cycle. We don't change.

We would like to think that humans evolve, but we have evolved very little since civilization began. We are still animals. Tamed animals, at that, but still animals. Futhermore, if what I wrote were to depress me, then I'd be one depressed mother ****er. I've been thinking such things since a long time ago. I've had my periods of depression, yes, but I'm not depressed, I'm actually quite satisfied with myself and my situation. I'm very satisfied. I learned to understand that I, too, am a human. That I, too, have thoughts that can't be unthought. So I let myself think them. There's no limit to what I think, and some days, I have the will to express those thoughts. Yesterday was that day.

You try to refute these thoughts. Try to refute them, because even you know I'm absolutely right in the existential sense. We as humans often think that there's a bright future ahead of us. It happened before WWI, it happened before Napoleon, it happened during Roman times. During a period of stability, we fail to ignore most great crisis that will involve us. Why? Because we are not prophetic creatures. We are not one entity, we are all individuals who lack a sense for future organization. If you begin thinking of how humans have worked on civilization since Mesopotamia, you begin to understand that humans don't plan for major catastrophes, they react to them when they happen. Few forsaw the mass invasions of Barbarians during Roman times, and those who did were ignored and laughed at. Few foresaw Hitler's rise, and the ones who did, Churchill being one of them, were laughed at and ignored. Sure, there have been plenty of apocalyptic scenarios and there are many who believe them, but try to find people that are willing to prepare for them? They just accept it and dismiss it, like it never existed. It's not until humans are FORCED to react that we react. We will be forced in the break point, but as I said, that might be too late for a few billion people in this world. We humans don't understand consequences as a species. We are limited to the now, to what we can see now, not what we can think then. That is my argument. So no, I will not take a ****ing pill, Cluny.

[Bwaho]

I have stopped asking myself questions such as: "what's the point?" or "why am I here?"

I realized that even if I found the answer it wouldn't make me much happier. I also stopped thinking about what happiness really is and all that, instead of just wasting time pondering these things I just decided to enjoy life and take things for what they are.

Sure I like getting all philosophical every now and then, but it's important not to let it control your life.

So basicly my motto is: "shut up and have fun"