The sweet indifference of the world

Melissa Stewart6 said:The whole debate about purpose stems from the belief that there's something greater than just the day-to-day experience of living. Rejecting that idea usually leads straight into anti-intellectualism (which, let's be honest, might actually work for some people—philosophy isn't everyone's cup of tea, even if it technically is for everyone)

But what exactly is this supposed "higher" meaning? People crave it, sure, but it's a pipe dream. There is no such thing. Chasing that idea just drags you down into mysticism and anti-intellectualism. It’s a pathetic philosophy built on riding a beast, though I suppose you could try riding a pig instead.

ruggedraven36 said:How is that not clear? A good life is obviously more meaningful than just existing.

It isn't "more meaningful"—it's just better. And that makes it worth the effort. 😁

Meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty—they’re all pretty much intertwined, aren't they?

Amanda Jackson5 said:Meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty—they’re all pretty much intertwined, aren't they?

So, we’re looking at an expanded version of Kalokagatia? Honestly, you aren't the first one to try and reshape that concept—from Xenophanes, Plato, and Aristotle right up through the modern era, people have been twisting it for ages. 😁

Ethan Gomez82 said:But what exactly is this supposed "higher" meaning? People crave it, sure, but it's a pipe dream. There is no such thing. Chasing that idea just drags you down into mysticism and anti-intellectualism. It’s a pathetic philosophy built on riding a beast, though I suppose you could try riding a pig instead.

Actually, I think your take is the one that's anti-philosophical.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Actually, I think your take is the one that's anti-philosophical.

Fair point, but taking an anti-philosophical stance is itself a philosophical move. It's a bit of a Catch-22; no matter how you spin it, you're stuck with the same result. Ethan Gomez82 would only be truly consistent if he just stopped thinking about these topics altogether and, by extension, stopped commenting on them. Because if you aren't thinking, you aren't talking. If you are thinking, yet you insist that thinking is a waste of time, you've already tripped over your own feet.

Lešek Kolakovski puts this much more elegantly:

We can't go around declaring a set of questions perpetually groundless unless we are implicitly relying on some constant standards of rationality.

"The Horror of Metaphysics," p. 8.

Besides, even a resigned admission that philosophy is essentially useless can serve as a way to (only) keep the discipline alive:

For over a century, a huge chunk of academic philosophy has been dedicated to explaining why philosophy is either impossible or useless—or both. In doing so, philosophy proves it can safely and successfully survive its own demise simply by busying itself with proving that it really is dead.

Ibid, p. 9.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Fair point, but taking an anti-philosophical stance is itself a philosophical move. It's a bit of a Catch-22; no matter how you spin it, you're stuck with the same result. Ethan Gomez82 would only be truly consistent if he just stopped thinking about these topics altogether and, by extension, stopped commenting on them. Because if you aren't thinking, you aren't talking. If you are thinking, yet you insist that thinking is a waste of time, you've already tripped over your own feet.

Lešek Kolakovski puts this much more elegantly:

We can't go around declaring a set of questions perpetually groundless unless we are implicitly relying on some constant standards of rationality.

"The Horror of Metaphysics," p. 8.

Besides, even a resigned admission that philosophy is essentially useless can serve as a way to (only) keep the discipline alive:

For over a century, a huge chunk of academic philosophy has been dedicated to explaining why philosophy is either impossible or useless—or both. In doing so, philosophy proves it can safely and successfully survive its own demise simply by busying itself with proving that it really is dead.

Ibid, p. 9.

So true... it's just a defense mechanism—classic sour grapes logic.

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.

Well, what she said was...
I suppose there’s a certain kind of internal wreckage that happens when you finally realize you were dead wrong about everything. It’s almost obvious, isn't it? That something inanimate isn't actually alive. 🤣 A stone doesn't possess emotions, after all. The world just exists as it is. Everything else—all those qualities we project onto things individually—is just us. Objectively speaking, we tend to attribute more to the world as a whole, and I guess we eventually reach a consensus and call that "truth." But in the end, maybe the world is nothing, or perhaps even less than that.

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

The urban half-ape doesn't have a concept of consciousness, let alone a higher consciousness or even Cosmic Awareness. Honestly, they don't care. Consciousness isn't for the half-ape.

For the half-ape, it's all about cheap thrills, toys, mindless grinding, mating, following orders, basic urges, isolation, and staring blankly at a TV remote while listening to whatever noise is playing.

Since they're indifferent, they lack sensibility. And since there's no sensibility, there's no vision. They can't even see when food is right in front of them. So they whine and blame everyone else right before they end up on someone's dinner plate.
Then they stop whining, because, well, the half-ape is gone.

By the way, you have a "higher consciousness" inside you.
Something you actually have to cultivate.

Higher consciousness resonates with the consciousness of the Universe.

Meaning is revealed once that higher consciousness starts resonating.

...

Laura Jones56 said:Well, what she said was...
I suppose there’s a certain kind of internal wreckage that happens when you finally realize you were dead wrong about everything. It’s almost obvious, isn't it? That something inanimate isn't actually alive. 🤣 A stone doesn't possess emotions, after all. The world just exists as it is. Everything else—all those qualities we project onto things individually—is just us. Objectively speaking, we tend to attribute more to the world as a whole, and I guess we eventually reach a consensus and call that "truth." But in the end, maybe the world is nothing, or perhaps even less than that.

But what about atoms? Do they have emotions too?

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.

ruggedraven36 said:It’d be pretty ridiculous to claim one atom is head over heels for another, only to get left out in the cold.

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.

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.

ruggedraven36 said: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.

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.

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.

ruggedraven36 said: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.

"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. 😁

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.

I just can't wrap my head around why mortality has to equate to insignificance.

I’m an atheist, so I don’t hold out hope for some eternal afterlife. I made peace with the idea of death—both mine and everyone else's—a long time ago. In fact, I actually think death is a good thing; an eternal life would probably be quite miserable. But that doesn't mean I view my own life, or anyone else's for that matter, as being devoid of meaning.

ruggedraven36 said: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.

I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.

Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.

That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.

It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.

I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.