Posts by ruggedraven36

Eric Newman75 said:"Satisfy" feels like too heavy a word to use here. I respect the influence, sure, but I also just value the sheer linguistic innovation—in that sense, he’s a lot like Hegel. I actually read somewhere that German students hunt down English translations just to see if they can get a better handle on his original German. That kind of thing? Fascinating. 😁

Look, I value what you know. Really. But it’s tough to have a real conversation with someone who dances around their own take—doesn't matter if it's groundbreaking or recycled. You went on about "the world" as humanity versus "the world" as the cosmos, then pivoted to Heidegger's concept of being-in-the-world... but you still haven't actually told me what *you* think the world is.

Eric Newman75 said:And then there’s Heidegger, talking about the modes of human existence as being-in-the-world. It isn't some passive act of just "finding" oneself in a setting; it's an active presence within the world. This state of being is uniquely human—it implies a specific relationship with yourself and everyone else. The core assumption of our humanity is that we are inhabitants of this world; that's how we get closest to our true bit. In the search for that bit, we’re pushed by anxiety, death, nothingness, boredom, and the call of conscience. Anxiety, specifically, is that deep concern for one's own bit in light of how finite, historical, and mortal we actually are. It’s a feeling that forces you to understand your own bit, even if it triggers a massive sense of unease that makes most people want to run the other way. But, if a person manages to resist that urge to flee from anxiety, they finally grasp their own mortality and the concept of nothingness, which are both essential to reaching their bit. Anxiety and death are tightly wound together because human existence is inherently finite. Death is the ultimate possibility of absolute impossibility for a person, which is why it’s so inextricably linked to nothingness. Through anxiety and death, a person confronts nothingness as a defining feature of their bit, realizing that the whole project is ultimately rooted in nothingness.

Maybe Heidegger does it for you, but he doesn't do it for me. I’ve slogged through his *Being and Time* twice now. Honestly? It's unreadable—even if some of his insights are undeniably sharp. Nothingness isn't what defines my existence, but hey, if someone wants to claim it is, that's their business. I'll just say this: as long as there is hunger, poverty, and injustice in the world, obsessing over your own existential dread and mortality like it’s the center of the universe is just plain immoral. Nihilism is a lie.

Sam Martinez9 said:Precisely.

Rocks, stars, the moon... they don't possess feelings, nor do they think. One might say they are indifferent. Not in the sense that they simply don't care about us, but rather that they lack the capacity to care at all.

Yet, we are composed of atoms that were once part of some distant star. I am not suggesting that individual atoms possess thought or emotion, but without those atoms within us, neither thought nor feeling could exist. And stars, despite containing those same atoms, do not think or feel. I realize, I know—it all depends entirely on how those atoms are organized.

A separate issue is the extent of our own indifference. I regret having to bring up this example again, as some people seem to develop an allergy to it—meaning they aren't just indifferent, but something much worse—but every sixty seconds, a child in a developing nation dies due to the consequences of extreme poverty. We are aware of this. And we do nothing. We simply don't care; we are indifferent. In fact, we often lash out at anyone who dares to mention it. Leave us alone; we have work to do if we want to afford a new pair of Nikes.

I also read somewhere that in previous eras, parents didn't bond with their children because most infants wouldn't survive childhood. They were indifferent to their own offspring. It was a necessity, a survival mechanism, because otherwise, the heartbreak would be unbearable.

Perhaps we are only just now learning how to stop being indifferent. Perhaps we are finally building a world where it is actually possible to care.

Agreed. It seems like atoms are organized totally differently in developing nations than they are in Europe. Pure sarcasm, obviously.

Sam Martinez9 said:But what about atoms? Do they have emotions too?

It’d be pretty ridiculous to claim one atom is head over heels for another, only to get left out in the cold.

Eric Newman75 said:Talking about the world as if it’s just this vast, indifferent cosmos isn't actually anthropocentric. Now, talking about the world in terms of humanity? That *is* anthropocentric, even if you include the entire planet and every living thing on it. If we assume humans are the center of everything—the literal heart of the universe—then you can't really talk about "indifference" anymore. The human race and our specific perspective become the only yardstick that matters. And how do we perceive this reality? We certainly don't see it as some detached, uncaring void. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, it will be opened." That's what Jesus says in the Gospel according to Matthew. You see similar sentiments echoed all over philosophical literature, too. The Earth exists for us, so it can't just be neutral.

Viewing the universe through a different lens is a massive leap out of our comfort zone. It's a journey into the great unknown.

Look, I'm not saying it's impossible to view the world just as humanity—Earth and all its life included. Nor am I saying you can't view it strictly as the cosmos. There are plenty of ways to frame it. But they're all limited perspectives. To me, the most logical way to talk about the world is to define it as Everything. If you do that, then every single perspective becomes part of that world. Better yet, those perspectives aren't just external views—they are necessarily the world's own ways of perceiving itself.

Eric Newman75 said:So, how are you defining "the world" here? Are we talking about the cosmos or society?

The universe? It couldn't care less about any of us. Honestly, it doesn't care what happens to humanity as a whole, either. If we all vanished this very second, the stars wouldn't skip a beat. Nothing would change.

But society... that’s something we build and shape ourselves. It makes sense to expect that we can actually impact the people around us. It's reasonable to think we’ll be missed, and that people won't be totally indifferent once we're gone. That doesn't mean their lives stop, though. They’ll just keep moving, dealing with their own struggles, goals, and hopes. That’s just how it works. It would be weird if it were any different.

I doubt anyone actually means just outer space when they say "the world." To me, the world is everything—the universe, society, all the rest—the real, the ideal, the past, the future, what’s here and what isn't. In that sense, "world" is basically a synonym for the absolute. In another sense, it’s just everything we can experience, think, feel, or want... but honestly, I don't see much of a distinction between those two ways of looking at it.

Meaning in life—it’s clearly tied to whatever values you hold dear. What actually makes life worth the effort? What do we even care about? It’s more than just staying breathing to avoid being dead.

Harold Doyle3 said:Your logic is flawed.
I used the example of sacrificing a life for the sake of survival. What is the purpose of that life? Survival!
Survival and life aren't identical concepts. Sacrificing a life can affirm survival (take a parent sacrificing themselves for their offspring, for instance), whereas sacrificing survival cannot affirm life (like sacrificing offspring for the sake of a parent).

Consciousness is just an evolutionary byproduct of natural selection. Any form of life—including consciousness—that lacked a drive for survival (failed to adapt) simply went extinct.

Does that tie back into the whole idea that the actual point of living is just pure survival?

Ethan Gomez82 said:I've never understood this obsession. What "meaning"? You've already got life—now you want a manual for it too? It feels like asking for extra toppings on a pizza you're already full from. What are we talking about here? A user guide? A recipe? If someone is actually desperate for "meaning," they probably shouldn't have been born in the first place. ☕

How is that not clear? A good life is obviously more meaningful than just existing.

Harold Doyle3 said:Maybe even Christians could find common ground with you on this one—that the whole point of living is actually about sacrifice.
I honestly think Nietzsche was actually critiquing the whole thing by celebrating life rather than obsessing over death.
Consciousness? It interprets survival in the theme of man and world relationship as nothing more than a raw will to power.
Let me clarify the distinction I’m seeing here. What does life actually do? Every ounce of its energy, every single action, is funneled toward one solitary objective: survival. It’s what Dawkins refers to as the "selfish gene"—this idea that living beings (and by extension, consciousness itself) are merely tools used to achieve that goal. If an organism doesn't have survival baked into its very purpose, it simply goes extinct. Period.
Consciousness really does provide a massive edge when it comes to survival in the theme of man and world relationship. It’s about that ability to actually anticipate what’s coming down the pike. Being able to look ahead and predict future events? That’s a huge advantage over the competition—or just any other natural trial you might run into out there.
As living beings caught up in that whole struggle for survival in the theme of man and world relationship, we’re basically just data processors. We buy information, categorize it, crunch the numbers, store it away, and then deploy it all again—all just to keep ourselves breathing. It’s a cycle. For creatures with a lower level of consciousness, it’s nothing more than pure instinct or basic automation. But for us? For conscious beings? It’s about understanding the *why*. It’s about being aware of the purpose behind everything we do.

They wouldn't agree with me; they’d be agreeing with you. When I asked you to explain the difference between life itself and the *meaning* of life, you gave me this:

Harold Doyle3 said:Look, we see this play out all the time—take a parent sacrificing their own life for their child, for instance. They do it because that kind of instinct provides an evolutionary edge for the species to survive. It follows that survival *is* the meaning of life, seeing as one life is traded away just to ensure the next generation keeps going.

Claiming "survival is the meaning of life" is a total non-starter—it's a circular argument. Survival *is* life. It's like saying "breathing is the meaning of breathing." So, based on what you wrote, there are only two options left: either there's zero distinction between life and its purpose, or the purpose of life is simply sacrificing it.

Sam Martinez9 said:From an evolutionary standpoint, though, self-sacrifice isn't some grand philosophical choice; it’s just a reflexive mechanism hardwired into organisms through the process of evolution.

Exactly. That’s why I can’t help but wonder what they mean by the "meaning of life"—it’s a completely useless concept if you're looking at things through a strictly evolutionary lens.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The world is fundamentally indifferent to us. We simply can't afford to be.

Is that actually true?

Harold Doyle3 said:Look, we see this play out all the time—take a parent sacrificing their own life for their child, for instance. They do it because that kind of instinct provides an evolutionary edge for the species to survive. It follows that survival *is* the meaning of life, seeing as one life is traded away just to ensure the next generation keeps going.

Either way, I don't see the distinction you're making between living and the "meaning" of living—unless, of course, the whole point of being alive is just to throw it all away.

Harold Doyle3 said:When I imagine Sisyphus happy, all I see is a dung beetle rolling a ball of crap just to eat it.

Surrendering to the "cold indifference of the world" is just a fast track to dying.
The whole point of living is survival through adaptation—either changing yourself or changing the world around you.
Consciousness is nothing more than an evolutionary advantage, a tool that helps us win the game.

So what’s actually the difference between living and having a "purpose" for living? If survival is the goal, then just staying alive is enough—we don't need all this extra fluff about meaning.

Everything is connected—us and the universe included. It’s a two-way street. If we approach the world with pure cold logic, don't be surprised when it stares back at us the exact same way. People talk about this "phenomen indifference world" like it's some inherent trait of existence, but honestly? That "indifference" is just a mirror. It's a reflection of our own coldness. We fall into this trap of thinking the world is inherently meaningless and that we're the ones supposedly injecting value into it. We try to strip its value away just to feel like we have some sort of control, but it backfires every single time. Instead of feeling at home, we just end up feeling like total outsiders in a place we should belong.

If you want to dive deeper into this, there's a solid chapter on it in the book presence myth by Lešek Kolakovski—it's titled "phenomen indifference world."

mistyridge3 said:Interesting enough.
And here I was thinking math was a science—one of many—and part of the natural sciences group, which makes it a doctrine.
I mean, does a geometric shape need a circle, and does a circle need a geometric shape? Would a geometric shape even be anything more than alchemy if it didn't have a circle? What about a triangle? Would fauna be at the level of alchemy if it didn't have the deer? Or the trees? The liquids? The dew-covered fields?

Does a bear need animals, or does an animal need the bear?

👍 Now those are some real philosophical questions.

hollowpuma762 said:It’s buried in some vague, chaotic circus.

Fine. Next time I won't waste the brainpower trying to explain things to you.

And how exactly can you be so sure about that?

@Eric Newman75, look, I've read his "philosophical inquiry." Still—thanks for taking the time to break it down for me.

hiddeneagle98 said:Honestly, that sounds more like a pathology to me. Maybe
Buddha
actually had it right all along. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...ered_questions

I don't see it that way at all. It just means that real philosophical problems can't be proven—but they aren't unspeakable either. They’re baked right into human nature. They'll always be relevant, regardless of Wittgenstein's "wise" advice to just shut up about them. At the end of the day, you have to philosophize if you want to be human.

In my book, philosophy is just going to keep circling back to the same fundamental questions—and you'll always have those same few core perspectives popping up over and over again.