The sweet indifference of the world

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.

The real key is not to retreat into distractions, because resisting that urge is everything; even suicide is just another way of running away, and that’s the central point in Camus’s existential philosophy when he talks about the absurd. You have to endure it, to ultimately embrace the absurdity. It's about embracing life exactly as it is, seeing its inherent beauty and... well, "how beautiful Mary's lips are..."

It's about experiencing the death of everything that stifles life, which honestly feels deeply connected to that Nietzsche idea of saying a resounding YES to life.

Actually, what you wrote here really helped me make sense of something I read a long time ago in an interview with a married couple who were philosophers, something that never quite clicked for me back then, where they talked about how two people essentially save each other's nothingness—not saving one another *from* nothingness, but actually saving the nothingness itself. Now, thanks to your explanation, it all makes perfect sense to me.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

🙏
Yeah, you nailed it. Everything's been said.

Sam Martinez9 said: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.

"Meaningless" isn't the same thing as "pathetic" or "valueless." Heidegger argues that nothingness and battle are intertwined. This sense of nothingness is what actually allows the possibility of understanding the essence of Being. Without it, Being wouldn't even be able to relate to other things, or even to itself. You can't have Being without nothingness.

That said, Being doesn't need to be consciously aware of this nothingness to exist. In fact, most of the time, we spend our lives just coasting through the mundane, everyday grind where nothingness stays hidden from us. It’s obscured. It's tucked away. To actually be jolted out of that average, routine existence, you need anxiety. Nothingness is the very object of that anxiety.

Amanda Flores88 said:🙏
Yeah, you nailed it. Everything's been said.

I'm right there with you. 🙏

Eric Newman75 said: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.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

And yet...
The universe or God doesn't operate on a transactional basis where we trade one thing for another. 😉
It’s because we aren't separate from the universe or the creation; we are part of it, which means our fundamental interests are essentially the same. 🙂

From my perspective, those virtues are an inherent advantage to us, rather than some kind of "sacrifice" we offer up (to the Universe, to God...)
in exchange for getting the perfect world we imagine.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

Disenchantment.
🙂

Forgive me if it seemed presumptuous to comment on parts of your personal confession.

The world isn't inherently indifferent or chaotic, but it certainly feels that way to someone who carries that chaos within themselves.

On the other hand, pinpointing the truth is actually quite straightforward. Truth is objective and logical—not because it’s been packaged into some complex philosophical system, but simply because it is true. At the end of the day, truth serves as the ultimate standard for understanding, far surpassing any personal narrative, fleeting sentiment, or raw passion.

Sandra Murphy33 said:And yet...
The universe or God doesn't operate on a transactional basis where we trade one thing for another. 😉
It’s because we aren't separate from the universe or the creation; we are part of it, which means our fundamental interests are essentially the same. 🙂

From my perspective, those virtues are an inherent advantage to us, rather than some kind of "sacrifice" we offer up (to the Universe, to God...)
in exchange for getting the perfect world we imagine.

Disenchantment.
🙂

Forgive me if it seemed presumptuous to comment on parts of your personal confession.

Don't worry about apologizing to me—just lay it all out there.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The world isn't inherently indifferent or chaotic, but it certainly feels that way to someone who carries that chaos within themselves.

On the other hand, pinpointing the truth is actually quite straightforward. Truth is objective and logical—not because it’s been packaged into some complex philosophical system, but simply because it is true. At the end of the day, truth serves as the ultimate standard for understanding, far surpassing any personal narrative, fleeting sentiment, or raw passion.

But you didn't actually say what the truth is in this context. You can't just leave it at that; unless you define what truth actually looks like here, it’s all just empty demagoguery.

Eric Newman75 said:Don't worry about apologizing to me—just lay it all out there.

But you didn't actually say what the truth is in this context. You can't just leave it at that; unless you define what truth actually looks like here, it’s all just empty demagoguery.

That’s the classic skepticism toward so-called "common sense." As soon as you don't boil everything down into simple, digestible terms, people immediately suspect someone is just trying to pull a fast one on them. Honestly, an online forum isn't really the place to "define truth"—you're better off picking up a book for that.

And maybe defining truth isn't even the main point; it's more about being able to recognize it. When it comes to art, like movies, most people have no trouble distinguishing between good and bad characters or right and wrong actions. But once they step back into the "real world," everyone suddenly reverts to relativism.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

I wanted to know what you *think*, not what you’re certain of. The whole dialectic of certainty and its relationship to truth is a fascinating mess, but let's save that for another time.

Until recently, I believed the world was an orderly place—everything tied together by cause and effect. I thought being honest, hardworking, decent, and educated actually paid off—that those were values the universe rewarded. I believed there was meaning in suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now, I don't.

That's a pretty common pattern—happens to a lot of people.

Personally, I believe the world is an orderly place where everything is connected, just not solely through simple cause and effect—there are plenty of other ways things link up. Calling it an "orderly place" feels a bit imprecise; I’d say the world is conceptually structured. But unlike you, I never bought into the idea that being "honest, hardworking, decent, and educated" earns you rewards from the cosmos. To me, that idea is just ugly. An universe built on the principle of moral causality? Sounds repulsive.

As for suffering—it only has meaning if the person going through it comes out better on the other side. Otherwise, it's just plain evil.

And courage is still a virtue even when it doesn't beat evil. If courage always won, it wouldn't be a virtue—it would just be a guaranteed result.

The world is chaos ruled by randomness.

Now you sound like you're certain about what the world is.

A single moment decides whether you die in agony—like a six-year-old who hasn't even touched a cigarette or a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own ruin.

Those cases happen, sure, but that isn't proof that the entire world is just pure, random chaos.

Human life is indescribably fragile; there is nothing that can soothe the uncertainty of its existence. Everything is wax in the fire, smoke in the wind, snow under the sun, a dream of the dawn.

It's not helpful to lump everything together like that. Not everyone's life is equally fragile or uncertain. For instance, the life of an average American is a hell of a lot more secure than the life of someone living in poverty in a developing nation.

That’s why I stay quiet. Why I just can't bring myself to talk about it. There are things I want to bury forever—and others I want to hold onto for as long as I live.

Sure, but a person can still speak their mind in a general sense.

Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't buy into the big, empty words.

"Struggle" and "strength"—those are pretty big words themselves. Everyone believes in big words; they just don't all mean the same thing.

It’s the small things that get to me—total strangers whose kindness and smiles leave me speechless. Then I find myself paying it forward to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this driving need to settle the score. It doesn't matter that I've endured unimaginable horror and misery. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, connection, happiness... a genuine respect for another living soul and life as a whole.

Those are standard human emotions we all have—we just don't let ourselves express them for a hundred different reasons.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been to the very end. To someone who hasn't stood at the edge of the abyss. Someone who hasn't let that void stare deep inside them. But it's cathartic—intense. And it sets you free.

It isn't hard to explain at all. Everything you said about yourself is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with some of your philosophical conclusions.

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

Whatever you say. I get that some people don't want to talk about the world, but I honestly don't get how anyone can be interested in philosophy if they refuse to actually discuss it.

By some strange stroke of luck, someone posted a photo on Facebook titled "indifference west." I won't post it here, though, because it’s honestly pretty unsettling. It’s a far cry from the calm beauty of Bruegel's landscape. But the core theme is identical—people just going about their daily business, completely tuning out the desperate attempts of people trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea.

From a bird's-eye view, it really doesn't matter whether we choose to sink into a sweet sense of indifference or lash out with bitter indignation... neither reaction actually changes the way the world turns... from ancient Crete to the modern migrant crisis. If we ever want to try and change the status quo—and please forgive me if I'm overstepping by suggesting what *should* be done—we'd probably need to tap into a different emotion entirely, something else from the palette we have available to us today.

ruggedraven36 said:I wanted to know what you *think*, not what you’re certain of. The whole dialectic of certainty and its relationship to truth is a fascinating mess, but let's save that for another time.

Until recently, I believed the world was an orderly place—everything tied together by cause and effect. I thought being honest, hardworking, decent, and educated actually paid off—that those were values the universe rewarded. I believed there was meaning in suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.
Now, I don't.

That's a pretty common pattern—happens to a lot of people.

Personally, I believe the world is an orderly place where everything is connected, just not solely through simple cause and effect—there are plenty of other ways things link up. Calling it an "orderly place" feels a bit imprecise; I’d say the world is conceptually structured. But unlike you, I never bought into the idea that being "honest, hardworking, decent, and educated" earns you rewards from the cosmos. To me, that idea is just ugly. An universe built on the principle of moral causality? Sounds repulsive.

As for suffering—it only has meaning if the person going through it comes out better on the other side. Otherwise, it's just plain evil.

And courage is still a virtue even when it doesn't beat evil. If courage always won, it wouldn't be a virtue—it would just be a guaranteed result.

The world is chaos ruled by randomness.

Now you sound like you're certain about what the world is.

A single moment decides whether you die in agony—like a six-year-old who hasn't even touched a cigarette or a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own ruin.

Those cases happen, sure, but that isn't proof that the entire world is just pure, random chaos.

Human life is indescribably fragile; there is nothing that can soothe the uncertainty of its existence. Everything is wax in the fire, smoke in the wind, snow under the sun, a dream of the dawn.

It's not helpful to lump everything together like that. Not everyone's life is equally fragile or uncertain. For instance, the life of an average American is a hell of a lot more secure than the life of someone living in poverty in a developing nation.

That’s why I stay quiet. Why I just can't bring myself to talk about it. There are things I want to bury forever—and others I want to hold onto for as long as I live.

Sure, but a person can still speak their mind in a general sense.

Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't buy into the big, empty words.

"Struggle" and "strength"—those are pretty big words themselves. Everyone believes in big words; they just don't all mean the same thing.

It’s the small things that get to me—total strangers whose kindness and smiles leave me speechless. Then I find myself paying it forward to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this driving need to settle the score. It doesn't matter that I've endured unimaginable horror and misery. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, connection, happiness... a genuine respect for another living soul and life as a whole.

Those are standard human emotions we all have—we just don't let ourselves express them for a hundred different reasons.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been to the very end. To someone who hasn't stood at the edge of the abyss. Someone who hasn't let that void stare deep inside them. But it's cathartic—intense. And it sets you free.

It isn't hard to explain at all. Everything you said about yourself is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with some of your philosophical conclusions.

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

Whatever you say. I get that some people don't want to talk about the world, but I honestly don't get how anyone can be interested in philosophy if they refuse to actually discuss it.

But this isn't actually about morality. If you look at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, there's a clear explanation provided. Every craft, every inquiry, every action and pursuit, seems to aim at some kind of good. So, it's fair to say that "the good" is whatever that ultimate aim is.

Morality is just one tiny slice of that definition. The goal of human learning, work, and absolutely every single thing we do, is some form of good—a good that we choose for its own sake. It’s both a metaphysical truth and a practical, everyday guide. When I talk about "reward," I’m talking about bliss, that deep sense of happiness and fulfillment. There’s nothing ugly about that. And let's be real, Aristotle wasn't an idiot. Quite the opposite—he was one of the most sincere, noble, and truth-seeking thinkers to ever exist.

Eric Newman75 said:But this isn't actually about morality. If you look at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, there's a clear explanation provided. Every craft, every inquiry, every action and pursuit, seems to aim at some kind of good. So, it's fair to say that "the good" is whatever that ultimate aim is.

Morality is just one tiny slice of that definition. The goal of human learning, work, and absolutely every single thing we do, is some form of good—a good that we choose for its own sake. It’s both a metaphysical truth and a practical, everyday guide. When I talk about "reward," I’m talking about bliss, that deep sense of happiness and fulfillment. There’s nothing ugly about that. And let's be real, Aristotle wasn't an idiot. Quite the opposite—he was one of the most sincere, noble, and truth-seeking thinkers to ever exist.

I know, I've read the Nicomachean Ethics myself, and I'm with you on this. It's not even debatable that people strive for some kind of good; the real argument is whether you reduce that entire thing to simple cause and effect. If you do that, you lose the concept of free will entirely.

ruggedraven36 said:I know, I've read the Nicomachean Ethics myself, and I'm with you on this. It's not even debatable that people strive for some kind of good; the real argument is whether you reduce that entire thing to simple cause and effect. If you do that, you lose the concept of free will entirely.

See, when I talk about cause and effect, I'm talking about looking at the world through a scientific, critical lens. When I'm describing the universe, I stick to math, physics, and logic. I don't do mysticism. That's why I say the universe is indifferent. Humans aren't—and honestly, we can't be. It's not just because we're emotional, irrational creatures; it's because we've shaped the world to fit us. We molded it to meet our own needs. If you really want to put it that way, we've basically tamed it.

It’s one of those tragic dichotomies inherent to the analytical mind—this idea that a person can "conquer the world" as if they were somehow separate from it, believing they can subdue their surroundings without simultaneously subduing themselves...

In reality, this false dichotomy is doubly tragic. First, there is the sense of detachment, as if an individual stands isolated against a world that is perceived as inherently hostile. Then, there is the fatal illusion that through such conflict, a person—or even humanity at large—can actually "subdue" a world that is supposedly "cold and indifferent."

Further proof that this supposed cosmic indifference is merely a human projection lies in the fact that people are becoming increasingly cold and indifferent themselves. They inevitably adopt the very characteristics of the world they claim to struggle against, becoming part of the very thing they seek to master, all while remaining blissfully unaware of the process....

(Of course, I am referring here to the individual within the West, a civilization in its twilight. A Westerner hardly cares to learn about other cultures; most are viewed as barely deserving the title of "civilization," seen instead as part of that "hostile, indifferent" world that needs to be conquered by any means necessary—to be "civilized" until they become just as cold and detached as the West itself.)

I can't even finish that thought—not without getting into a whole debate about how things actually work around here. ruggedraven36 says:
That’s one of those tragic glitches in the analytical mind—this idea that you can "conquer the world" as if you’re some detached observer standing outside the fray. You convince yourself you can manipulate everything around you without actually getting your own hands dirty in the process. It’s a total delusion.

This fake dichotomy is a double tragedy. First, you’ve got that crushing sense of isolation—that feeling like you're standing all alone against a world that’s supposedly out to get you. And then there's the second part, the real kicker: this delusional idea that we can actually "tame" or control a world that’s fundamentally cold and indifferent. Even if you look at it from a global scale, the notion that humanity can somehow domesticate a chaotic universe is just a losing game.

Just more proof that all this talk about the universe being cold and indifferent is nothing more than a human projection—we’re just mirroring it. People are becoming increasingly detached and numb, inevitably picking up the same hollow traits as the very world they inhabit. We’re molding ourselves into the shape of a landscape that doesn't care about us, and the worst part? Most people aren't even conscious they're doing it.

Look, we’re talking about the man of the West here—and let’s be honest, a West that’s already circling the drain. Most people from this side of the pond don't even bother trying to understand other cultures. Why bother? To most of us, they barely qualify as "civilizations" in the first place. They're just part of this massive, hostile, indifferent world that doesn't get us—a world we feel the need to dominate, to "civilize," and to force into submission until they become just as cold and detached as we are.

👍
Spot on. You nailed this one.

"Quote:"

Sandra Murphy33 said:It’s one of those tragic dichotomies inherent to the analytical mind—this idea that a person can "conquer the world" as if they were somehow separate from it, believing they can subdue their surroundings without simultaneously subduing themselves...

In reality, this false dichotomy is doubly tragic. First, there is the sense of detachment, as if an individual stands isolated against a world that is perceived as inherently hostile. Then, there is the fatal illusion that through such conflict, a person—or even humanity at large—can actually "subdue" a world that is supposedly "cold and indifferent."

Further proof that this supposed cosmic indifference is merely a human projection lies in the fact that people are becoming increasingly cold and indifferent themselves. They inevitably adopt the very characteristics of the world they claim to struggle against, becoming part of the very thing they seek to master, all while remaining blissfully unaware of the process....

(Of course, I am referring here to the individual within the West, a civilization in its twilight. A Westerner hardly cares to learn about other cultures; most are viewed as barely deserving the title of "civilization," seen instead as part of that "hostile, indifferent" world that needs to be conquered by any means necessary—to be "civilized" until they become just as cold and detached as the West itself.)

Most of the concepts you lean on are fundamentally Western. Democracy, communism, socialism—even the core principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity—are all products of Western civilization.

Even Hegel was pretty Eurocentric, and honestly, the same goes for Marx.

Sandra Murphy33 said:It’s one of those tragic dichotomies inherent to the analytical mind—this idea that a person can "conquer the world" as if they were somehow separate from it, believing they can subdue their surroundings without simultaneously subduing themselves...

In reality, this false dichotomy is doubly tragic. First, there is the sense of detachment, as if an individual stands isolated against a world that is perceived as inherently hostile. Then, there is the fatal illusion that through such conflict, a person—or even humanity at large—can actually "subdue" a world that is supposedly "cold and indifferent."

Further proof that this supposed cosmic indifference is merely a human projection lies in the fact that people are becoming increasingly cold and indifferent themselves. They inevitably adopt the very characteristics of the world they claim to struggle against, becoming part of the very thing they seek to master, all while remaining blissfully unaware of the process....

(Of course, I am referring here to the individual within the West, a civilization in its twilight. A Westerner hardly cares to learn about other cultures; most are viewed as barely deserving the title of "civilization," seen instead as part of that "hostile, indifferent" world that needs to be conquered by any means necessary—to be "civilized" until they become just as cold and detached as the West itself.)

No. You didn't just miss the shot; you missed the entire game, the stadium, and basically everything else you could possibly strike out on. You missed the mark entirely. But hey, maybe a little wisdom from the Smith Bible will help clear things up for you.

"And God created the beasts of the Earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the Earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree which doth contain seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that moveth upon the Earth, that hath life in it, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

There’s no dichotomy here, really. What we’re looking at is just a plain old observation of how things have played out on Earth since the beginning of time. Judaism and Christianity aren't some radical departure; they’re just the natural progression of humans deciding—one way or another—that we deserve the starring role in this big world around us. This isn't some hallmark of modernity, and it sure as hell isn't "alienation." It’s actually the exact opposite. It’s that constant, built-in human hunger to mold reality to fit our own shape. I mean, where exactly are you seeing this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" you keep talking about? Because I don't see it anywhere. There isn't a trace of it. There’s zero fear involved, and our future isn't even remotely in question. In fact, it's secure from every single perspective you could possibly dream up. And that is my whole point: the world isn't indifferent. The world exists to joyfully and passionately serve humanity. It’s been that way for ages, and it’ll stay that way.

Is that kind of picture even any good? That’s the second question. But then again, it's just baked into who we are. Thinking outside the box isn't exactly in our DNA—not as individuals, anyway. An individual can still break away from the herd, sure. They can push back. But humanity as a whole? No way. Not in a million years.

Eric Newman75 said:No. You didn't just miss the shot; you missed the entire game, the stadium, and basically everything else you could possibly strike out on. You missed the mark entirely. But hey, maybe a little wisdom from the Smith Bible will help clear things up for you.

"And God created the beasts of the Earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the Earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree which doth contain seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that moveth upon the Earth, that hath life in it, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

There’s no dichotomy here, really. What we’re looking at is just a plain old observation of how things have played out on Earth since the beginning of time. Judaism and Christianity aren't some radical departure; they’re just the natural progression of humans deciding—one way or another—that we deserve the starring role in this big world around us. This isn't some hallmark of modernity, and it sure as hell isn't "alienation." It’s actually the exact opposite. It’s that constant, built-in human hunger to mold reality to fit our own shape. I mean, where exactly are you seeing this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" you keep talking about? Because I don't see it anywhere. There isn't a trace of it. There’s zero fear involved, and our future isn't even remotely in question. In fact, it's secure from every single perspective you could possibly dream up. And that is my whole point: the world isn't indifferent. The world exists to joyfully and passionately serve humanity. It’s been that way for ages, and it’ll stay that way.

Is that kind of picture even any good? That’s the second question. But then again, it's just baked into who we are. Thinking outside the box isn't exactly in our DNA—not as individuals, anyway. An individual can still break away from the herd, sure. They can push back. But humanity as a whole? No way. Not in a million years.

I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛

Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?

There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...

"Simple observation" doesn't exist.
That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference...
The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉

Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.

Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.

And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦

And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛

Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?

There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...

"Simple observation" doesn't exist.
That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference...
The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉

Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.

Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.

And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦

And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.

Oh, really? Your entire perspective is purely Western; I don't think you've written a single word that doesn't belong to the West. And that "sweet indifference" toward the world isn't some Eastern theme either, so I'm not sure why you're shifting the goalposts now. Our discourse has been rooted in Western civilization from the very start. But you're making a mistake if you think people in the East are fundamentally different. They aren't. Sure, they generally seek balance, have a better grasp of nature, and maintain a more harmonious relationship with the world around them, but Eastern thought isn't some monolithic, one-dimensional block. There's egoism there too—if we define egoism as placing man at the center of everything. Why did Nietzsche pull Zarathustra out of thin air? Why do Islamic scholars say that insan is God's creation—that we aren't just products of chance, and that Allah created everything on Earth specifically for us? What is "typical" of us there that isn't typical of them? Let's be fair: some Eastern thinkers do think differently, especially practitioners of Hinduism and Buddhism, but that's by no means the whole picture.

And since you want to bring up a "historical moment"—look at the Burigang river in Bangladesh or the Citarum in Indonesia; they are constantly cited as the most polluted rivers on the planet. With the Citarum, you can't even see the surface of the water because it's so choked with trash. You can find examples like that as far as you can reach. It would be lovely if the West were the only boogeyman in town, but things just aren't that simple.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛

Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?

There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...

"Simple observation" doesn't exist.
That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference...
The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉

Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.

Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.

And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦

And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.

Actually, according to the Bible, the world was entrusted to us for stewardship. We aren't the masters here... people are meant to be guardians of the planet—part of nature itself, but as self-aware beings, we're responsible for its well-being and our own.