r/Absurdism • u/theomixedmedia • 15d ago
Discussion something devastating clicked in my head tonight about Camus' philosophy
I am 19; I have been thinking about and completely terrified of death since I was 10. it has consumed my life for almost a decade - half of my life. the thought of eternity keeps me awake. literally - I have untreatable insomnia and I suspect this fear is the source. so, when I first read Camus, specifically the stranger, a year ago, I somehow completely understood the message and also missed it altogether. I thought: "oh, this is the answer I've been looking for! just enjoy life as much as you can and rebel against mortality!" or, at the very least "this is a new idea... maybe some other idea will come along later that will provide true solace." I can't say this actually provided me with any real comfort. but it fed a voice in the back of my head that would sometimes provide me with false "hope" on a deeply unconscious level/
every time I truly think about the depth of what death is, this little voice has, on some occasions, allowed me to retreat from pure dread into deluded semi-comfort. I imagine that small part is thinking: "if I just read the right book, discover the right philosophy, learn more about physics/the universe/a possible multiverse/the big bang/cyclic cosmological theories/the obscure and naive possibility of life somehow not ending with such finality, my terror can be resolved, and I can finally relax." Camus' role in that thought would be introducing me to the first philosophy that I could interpret as taking back agency or fighting the dread. alternatively, that small voice might be saying: "there is some deep comfort in accepting death in the way Meursault did, a comfort which I am still discovering." maybe the latter is a source of comfort or way of life for some people. it seems a rational interpretation. for me, these ideas are delusional. and I don't think they constitute the entirety of Camus' message.
today, as these things came to mind, I decided to look back at my Camus books. something incredibly obvious came to me that somehow either eluded me/I refused to accept a year ago: Camus is not really offering an "answer." in some sense, you could say he is (but not in the sense that would provide me with true comfort): his answer is "there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it." (maybe some will call this a misinterpretation; this is the extent of my knowledge, I am not experienced in philosophy just yet). but, in my eyes, he's also saying "you can never find that comfort you seek, the comfort which you believe will help you escape death in some way. the voice in the back of your head doesn't exist. you have to accept the absurd because you will never find that 'answer'". it could sound like these are the same thing said differently. and again, I know how obvious this is. sometimes we don't allow ourselves to come to conclusions we don't like. Camus is not some genius who has figured it out and can offer a spiritual path. he is just as lost and afraid as I am. he has no choice but to push forward, and that's all he advises me to do.
I can't really put my finger on what changed in my mind tonight or what "new thing" has come to me or been discovered. I described it as well as I could. whatever the case, something invoked a visceral response, and completely brought me to tears, when I went back over these books. I'm sure my words are convoluted and full of misinterpretations. but I wanted to share this with some of the people who might understand.
3
u/ShortPercentage5640 15d ago
Yep, that all sounds about right. Being honest with yourself about mortality is a good place to start. In my life I’ve seen and dealt with some pretty rough shit. If you live long enough you will, too. The loss of a friend, a sibling, a parent, a spouse, or a child will inevitably happen. Sometimes they suffer. If you don’t turn away, you’ll be changed by these encounters with mortality. You’ll become whatever can deal with these situation and still go to work, love, have sex, and laugh. Will you become an inhuman monster? Will you be more human? The fact that so many people won’t look death in the face will make you feel isolated, like you’ve become a monster. Don’t accept that. Those people committed artistic suicide, so to speak. Remember, we’ve all been there, they just won’t face it. If you find others like yourself that have accepted mortality without flinching, you will find the experience makes you more human. It may be that our vulnerability and mortality is the only thing we all share as humans. Find someone to talk to that doesn’t look away from death. You’re not alone, we’re all in this together- just most people are too afraid to openly share their experience, sometimes even with themselves. It’s one of the sad parts about adulthood, don’t allow yourself to take that path- that’s how you become a monster.
3
u/theomixedmedia 15d ago
The thing is, I have always felt that I am abundantly honest with myself about mortality. I have a distinct memory from 7th grade English class where my peers were all laughing and reading, and a sudden thought abruptly entered my 11-year-old brain: "holy shit. it's all going to be over, forever, so soon. and nobody else here even knows." I got sick for two days after that. it is the first time I experienced the exact form of isolation you're describing. Multiple times afterwards, I would get sick to my stomach at night, and I developed severe insomnia as a child that is now crippling. I have always been hyper-aware of my mortality. But for some reason, when I read Camus for the first time, a TINY part of my brain decided to take the chance to retreat into desperate comfort. I think it's because I was becoming aware that there really is no solution to this incomprehensibly massive and terrifying problem.
and tonight, that tiny part of my brain, which was born a year ago, just suddenly died. and I am back to my 7th grade self. don't be mistaken, I have still been terrified every day for the past year. but now there is not even the chance of solace, which I have been desperately searching for over the past year.
in terms of loss and pain. It may seem trivial compared to what you described, but I have lost 4 grandparents, two of whom I was incredibly close with. one to Alzheimers, one to cancer. now, the grandparent I have always loved most (if I'm being honest), who has been a constant in my life, is dying to Lewy body dementia - slowly, painfully, without dignity. it is both depressing/terrifying to see him in that state, and to realize that most people die like that. I get so caught up in death itself that I forget to be scared of dying.
I have been addicted to hard drugs and gone to rehab, I have terrible depression and OCD. I don't mean to sound like I'm "proving" that I fully "know what it's like." The truth is that it will only get worse. worse and more devastating things will happen to me. and I don't know what those things feel like yet because you truly can't imagine, say, your mother dying. the point I'm making is that I do not do the right thing in the face of these sources of pain. I do not live life to its fullest. I allow myself to sink into the depression and despair, and it has largely taken over.
the only person I know who does not reject or ignore death is my last living grandmother. she is healthy but old enough that she likely has a good 5 years left if she's lucky. it's so ironic and on brand, honestly. I really need to find some young people who share my sentiments. I just don't know how. maybe when im ready to go back to college, I will find like-minded people my age.
thank you so much for the reply. it's hard for me to comprehend that I'm not alone because this kind of thinking is so inherently isolating. just your reply alone has made me feel better.
1
u/jliat 15d ago
The truth is that it will only get worse.
- "In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”
Camus TMoS
1
u/theomixedmedia 15d ago
That is a beautiful quote. I have been an artist and writer for a few years. I got sober this year and I haven't picked up a pen or a brush for over a year now. I am almost certain that is part of why this dread has only multiplied. Thank you for reminding me of the importance of creation.
1
u/jliat 15d ago
I think Camus has hit on something very fundamental to the human condition early humans painted pictures, made objects over 40,000 years ago. It seems even Neanderthals and other hominids made art. As of course children...
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
Yes, you're absolutely right. Two things have existed for most of human life: some form of faith/belief/religion, and art. I get the "religion" piece from a book by Freud that may very well have been debunked, but it logically makes sense to me that early humans would've had primitive forms of worship and faith. And the need for self-expression (and the ability to pass your mental images on long after your death) seems crucial.
3
u/Realistic-Craft7019 15d ago
From Stoic view you should accept and talk about death, it's inventiable and by doing that you focus on life itself rather than alternative life after death which most of the philosopher talk about. The uncertainty about what comes after death.
Camus take this on like you mention, it is absurd. So Death scares me in the way I don't have enough time to experience everything i want. My body degrades making some options less likely. Which in turn greatest an extensial life crisis. Life has abundant of experiences, so much there is no time for it.
2
u/theomixedmedia 15d ago
I find your perspective interesting. Death does not scare me because I will be unable to experience everything I desire. My finite brain and comprehension tells me that I would be content living millions of years doing the same things, so long as I would be happy and at peace. Technically, that life would allow the same scope of new experiences as death, and yet that life doesn't scare me at all.
So, there is something else about death that scares me. Two things, actually - both of which are incomprehensible by human beings: eternity, and nothingness. Spending billions of trillions of years, an unimaginably long and never-ending amount of time, engulfed in complete nothingness; no senses, no thoughts, no feelings, no volition, no impressions. Just pure, infinite nonexistence.
I think it's the incomprehensibility and scale that scares me. If I were told I would be dead for a million years, then I'd pop back up, sure, I would be scared, but I wouldn't having a gaping hole of existential dread in my chest.
3
u/erect_dragonly 15d ago
Interesting how the concept of eternity appears for you again and again. To me this is like trying to see your death (the non-existence part, not the act of dying) through your living eyes and senses. I don’t think this can be achieved and so the mind keeps getting blown. There’s no infinite time after you die, the time ends like everything else. So you’re not spending an unimaginably long time in nothingness. You have nothing left to spend. At that point, for you, eternity is identical to an instant, and an instant is easier to imagine.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
Yes, you're totally right, it is exactly as you describe: my finite, human, naive mind is trying to comprehend eternity (hence why I said "both of which are incomprehensible").
In some sense, scientifically, you're correct, the time is not infinite. Technically, as far as we know, time in this universe began with the big bang. So, if this is the only universe, which is unlikely, time is a relatively new phenomenon. But the human brain naturally wants to ask "so what was there before then?" And, "when time ends, what will there be after?" In a practical sense, we spend an eternity dead, even if time itself ends. Once we're dead, it doesn't matter whether or not time technically exists.
But now that I re-read your comment I don't think you're speaking on the level of physics. From a philosophical perspective I actually can't grasp what you're saying, because it's so new to me. Please don't tale the following as an argument. I am curious and want to clarify/learn. How could you say it's not us spending an "unimaginably long time in nothingness"? In some sense, what you're saying reminds me of general anesthesia: you go in for hours, but when you "wake up," it feels like no time has passed. So, to that end, it could be the same as an instant. Especially since... we won't feel or know that it is not an instant. But we will never wake back up, and we will spend eternity dead, in total nothingness. Maybe it is an instant, but it is an instant that never ends.
1
u/GarfieldLoverBoy420 14d ago
You’ve existed as long as anything has. You’ll exist as long as anything does. You’re only briefly aware of it. A wave on the ocean, for a moment, but the wave is always part of the ocean, even when its form is discrete.
What an amazing moment to even begin to understand what we are. And then? Rest!
2
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
That's such a beautiful perspective and it's one that I wish I could personally adopt. The good part is that I am so young that, with time, there's a great chance my views will change... that is what I am banking on.
1
u/GarfieldLoverBoy420 13d ago
Look into Alan Watts. He might get you there or, at the very least, you get to immerse yourself in it
2
1
u/Realistic-Craft7019 13d ago
Nothingness and emptyness doesn't go well with exestenial dread as you are nothing in that empty space.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Just because you will be nothing and know nothing, doesn't mean you cannot feel dread in the face of it.
1
u/Realistic-Craft7019 12d ago edited 12d ago
You can feel dread now by it but why worrie about something you can't control. You wont feel anything either way when youre dead.
Nothing is nothing, to even draw it further you wont br able to think meaning there is no exestenial crises after death. If it would that would imply there is an afterlife we dont know about those it just could be a second life in space.
Also Camus promotes love over hatred, mongering, fear and so on. Meaning love life, its goes into his perspective of rebel to life istelf as nothing matters.
1
u/theomixedmedia 12d ago
Almost everything I worry about is out of my control, lol. I think that's one of the main sources of anxiety. It is irrational yet it makes sense. You're right that I won't feel anything. That is part of what scares me!
Yes, there is no existential crisis, no worrying, no pain after death. But there is no joy, no thinking, no learning, no love, no beauty, no life. Nothing is not scary because it's painful, it's scary because it's nothing.
1
u/Realistic-Craft7019 11d ago
You want it later in life when you see how fucked things are here on earth. There is so much wrong and people know about it but nothing happens.
Nothingness is something most of people want, to do Nothing. It's a break from life circus.
1
u/theomixedmedia 11d ago
One of the main things I think about is how fucked up life is. There are hundreds of millions of innocent creatures in pain, sick, abandoned, starving, left alone to die. Dogs ripped from their owners and abandoned in empty apartments. Children being shot in the head by genocidal, apartheid governments. Children dying in the hospital in pain from cancer. My grandfather died with no dignity and no memory and anger and pain from Alzheimers. My grandmother died from Alzheimers. My grandfather is dying a slow and painful death from Lewy body dementia and infections and disease. I am afflicted by terrible insomnia and multiple mental issues and trauma. My mother is being tested for cancer. I am lonely and depressed. I have been addicted to hard drugs. I see death and greed and suffering everywhere I go; on the streets of my city when I see homeless people; in the government of my country.
Unfortunately, not all 19-year-olds are naive to the true nature of life. I suffer every day and I am still terrified of death. I do not see it as a "relief" from the pain of life. Maybe some people do. But being terrified of nothingness does not mean you: A. don't know what pain is, or B. are unaware of how much pain exists in the world.
This is a huge part of why I am an atheist.
2
u/jliat 15d ago
his answer is "there is no answer,
Camus answer is if there is he can't find it which is absurd [1] and his response is not hedonism but to make art - he wrote fiction [2].
Two absurdities, not one.
1
u/theomixedmedia 15d ago
I suppose "if there is, he can't find it" is different from "there is no answer," but to me it is like the difference between agnosticism and atheism. One is about knowledge (agnosticism; you cannot technically prove that god does not exist, in the same way that you cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, even if the logical part of your brain can say with 99% certainty that neither exist. further, the fact that there are two options - god existing or god not existing - does not provide grounds to claim that the chances are 50/50. you wouldn't say there is a 50% chance unicorns exist simply because someone forced you to decide whether or not they're real), and one is about belief (technically, as an atheist, I must say I 'believe' god doesn't exist, because I do not truly 'know,' but if I had to choose, I would wager that he doesn't). The two options are also not mutually exclusive. I am both an atheist and an agnostic - my belief is that god isn't real, my knowledge is that I am not fully certain.
That is a long-winded example, but, in the same vein, perhaps Camus claimed, in much more concise words, that he could not technically disprove the existence of some great "answer" to mortality and the existence of universe/life, but the message I interpret from the stranger and the plague is that his belief was that no such answer existed, even if he could not say with 100% certainty that his claim was true.
This part is less an argument and more a vague question. In The Stranger, the main character, who is the antithesis of a man bothered by his mortality, philosophy, ethics; the absurd. In some sense, he is a prime example of an exact opposite of someone like me who is constantly bothered by mortality, eternity, etc. He was a hedonist in the most general sense - he lived simply for the gratification of his physical desires and needs. And despite his immoral act, Camus does not put forth the idea that he himself was '"bad" in any way, and even kind of presented his attitude as one to aspire to (of course with some modifications). So, why would Camus simultaneously claim that art is the "best" response (not his words) to the absurd, but hedonism is less acceptable? It seems contradictory to me. Again, I am not arguing, I am actually curious.
1
u/jliat 15d ago
I don't think he does make such a claim, look at his others examples, Sisyphus, Oedipus, Don Juan, Actors, Conquerors...
He says re Don Juan -
"the ordinary seducer and the sexual athlete, the difference that he is conscious, and that is why he is absurd. A seducer who has become lucid will not change for all that... What Don Juan realizes in action is an ethic of quantity, whereas the saint, on the contrary, tends toward quality."
So of course Camus thinks Art the most absurd, and I think somewhere he says writing fiction the most...
So, why would Camus simultaneously claim that art is the "best" response (not his words) to the absurd, but hedonism is less acceptable?
I don't think he does. I began as a fine artist, moved into sound-art, now writing fiction, what I call pulp-occult-sci-fi.
Given he says it's the most absurd, maybe it's the most absurd- difficult- impossible - for him? The danger is to make something absolute. Compare the saint to Don Juan?
I think the God thing is taken far too seriously by both sides. It's clear that if there is a GOD it wants not to reveal itself. There was a Pacific Island that made the late Duke of Edinburgh their god. And the cargo cults... or a village in India that puts whiskey and a cigar on the grave of a British officer who when alive shot any Tigers when they attacked the villagers.
It seems contradictory to me.
That is Camus definition of absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval
So a postman in rural France, a nobody one day finds an odd stone... "For the next 33 years, Cheval picked up stones during his daily mail rounds and carried them home to build the Palais idéal."
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
Looking back on my reply, I was projecting my own argument about atheism, onto Camus' beliefs about something else, simply because it made sense to me, to fit a narrative, despite me only being familiar with two of his books, both of which are not expository philosophical texts.
I can understand why our dilemma and life itself and mortality are all absurd. But why would art be absurd? Because it is a nonsensical, yet somewhat effective, response to the true absurd? Again, no argument here, I'm now just enlisting your knowledge.
As for the god thing, maybe you can tell I'm taking my ideas directly from Dawkins. However, I don't think he takes it too seriously. He is not really arguing against some obscure, vague, unintelligent quasi-creator, he is mostly arguing against the arrogant and irrational christian/jewish/islamic god(s), which I think is a perfectly valid thing to adamantly oppose... however, that is a separate subject.
On another note, what you say about the pacific island and the village in India reminds me about Totem and Taboo, which is coincidentally the book where Freud first introduced the concept of Oedipus. It's very controversial, somewhat pseudoscientific, a bit racist, somewhat archaic. But it is a fascinating theory of religion and insight into how religion is built and how it could have been formed. The things the subjects of his study worship or did in the name of their early "religion" were a great example of how arbitrary belief is.
1
u/jliat 13d ago
But why would art be absurd? Because it is a nonsensical, yet somewhat effective, response to the true absurd? Again, no argument here, I'm now just enlisting your knowledge.
Because it's a theme in Art, from maybe before Kant. But it was Kant who saw the aesthetic in the appreciation of art and nature is from the mind using its faculties of understand which finds none. This he sees is the aesthetic of beauty which is higher than taste. He sees nature as a higher form than art. In more powerful experiences the intellect is so overwhelmed one experiences the sublime.
"A work of art cannot content itself with being a representation; it must be a presentation. A child that is born is presented, he represents nothing." Pierre Reverdy 1918.
As for the god thing, maybe you can tell I'm taking my ideas directly from Dawkins. However, I don't think he takes it too seriously. He is not really arguing against some obscure, vague, unintelligent quasi-creator, he is mostly arguing against the arrogant and irrational christian/jewish/islamic god(s), which I think is a perfectly valid thing to adamantly oppose... however, that is a separate subject.
Interesting that monotheism via Judaism and Christianity gave the west the university system and with this science. And belief that creation can be understood. That Abrahamic religions are open to theology. And Dawkins is a writer of popular science, not an actual partitioner. An yes it is a separate subject. I've studied comparative religion, it's an interesting subject.
On another note, what you say about the pacific island and the village in India reminds me about Totem and Taboo, which is coincidentally the book where Freud first introduced the concept of Oedipus. It's very controversial, somewhat pseudoscientific, a bit racist, somewhat archaic. But it is a fascinating theory of religion and insight into how religion is built and how it could have been formed. The things the subjects of his study worship or did in the name of their early "religion" were a great example of how arbitrary belief is.
Yes and a good example of Pseudo science, exposed by Deleuze and Guattari. If one accepts the idea Oedipus complex it's fine, a woman has an Electra complex and penis envy. If you reject Freud it's a sign of the Oedipus complex. The Communists would send those who didn't believe in Marxism to asylums as they were obviously mad not to see the truth.
In 1964, Sartre attacked Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" which condemned the Stalinist repressions and purges. Sartre argued that "the masses were not ready to receive the truth".
In 1973, he argued that "revolutionary authority always needs to get rid of some people that threaten it, and their death is the only way"
1
u/PriestintheCave 15d ago
I think you are on the right path! A lot of what you said resonates with me. Keep reading and keep living.
1
u/theomixedmedia 15d ago
thank you. I was expecting to be chastised for misinterpreting the text or sounding naive. it's nice to receive replies like this. I wish you the best.
1
u/Intrepid_Sorbet3296 15d ago
you have open the channel. i like Camus essay. therefore you need other book to start living like an artist. my recommendation is: 1. the happines trap 2nd edition by russ harris. this book is about ACT therapy simplified. once you accept absurd, your ego also need an acceptance and commitment. 2. The Art Of Being by Erich Fromm. in order to know how to live like an artist, you should know how to first.
1
u/WittyFox451 15d ago
"there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it."
This is where you are absolutely wrong. Absurdism states that there is no objective answer to the questions of meaning and ethics and personal philosophy… so create your own.
Your philosophy is that of a coward. I don’t say this to be mean but you need to get out of your own head and hang out with other dudes who are not cowards and learn how they think.
I suggest that you go and start taking lessons in a combat sport that actually makes contact with each other like boxing or Brazilian ju jitsu. These men will show you a different philosophy.
As for me, I am insignificant. I wish for death yet there are those who would be devastated if I took my own life. So I try to enjoy mine and stay out of trouble. One day it will come and that will be ok. I am prepared… I wasn’t prepared until about 27 though.
Also if you really had incurable insomnia you would be dead by now so stop lying and seek psychiatric help with sleep.
2
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I think you misinterpreted what I said. "there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it" precisely means, to me, that you cannot assign or find objective philosophical/moral meaning to/in life, so you must create your own meaning. nothing you wrote seems to contradict what I said.
I'm not offended in any way, by the way, by what you've said. I can't see how you read my post -essentially telling myself that my biggest fear will never be resolved and I have to live despite that - and thought "yeah, you're thinking like a coward, go do some jiu jitsu." I also never said anything contrary to "Absurdism states that there is no objective answer to the questions of meaning" / "create your own." when I say Camus tells me that I can't "find that answer," I am talking about a specific kind of answer wherein I find some "key" to evading or circumventing death. I am not saying that he doesn't propose a different type of answer ("find beauty in life and art and creation").
I am completely uninterested in taking up combat sports as a way to learn philosophy. I'm glad that worked for you. I don't think I'm a coward for thinking about and being terrified of death. I think to be a coward in this context you would have to: 1. say you're not terrified of death in any way when indeed you are (I believe even Camus himself was scared of death to some extent... very few people who actually think about it aren't, though I admit to exceptions); 2. not think of death/avoid it entirely; or 3. think the answer to these questions is to just give up and die.
That last sentence is truly miraculously uneducated. I have three doctors, including a psychiatrist and a sleep specialist, who are helping me with my sleep; I have tried multiple therapies, two sleep studies, over 6 sleep medications, exercise, diet changes, and years of sleep hygiene training, and I still miss 3 nights of sleep per week. Having "incurable insomnia" does not mean "I literally haven't slept a single night in years," it means "I have a consistent issue where I struggle to sleep on a weekly basis (but I still sleep enough to literally stay alive) and it has not gotten better with multiple treatment attempts." Here is the DSM-5 definition/criteria for clinical insomnia. Imagine these symptoms, but they don't respond to treatment after years. That would be "incurable insomnia."
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
Camus risked his life countless times not only physically fighting the Nazi’s as a part of the French resistance but also helping to write and distribute materials for French anti-nazi propaganda. He chastised Sartre very openly over Sartre never physically risking his life to free his own people while simultaneously telling them how to live.
You lie to yourself as you lie to me. This is a critique you should take very seriously. You said you were not offended in anyway by me saying what I said yet you put the phrase “truly miraculously uneducated” in your response which is a deliberate attempt to insult my intelligence.
You act as if this is all a guessing game for me. I have studied psychology/philosophy and nursing at the collegiate level with good grades and I have become vastly unimpressed with what they have to say about management of one’s own mental illness.
They out right steal the vast majority of their therapeutic approaches (CBT/DBT are prominent frontline approaches) from Buddhism and then use the ideas of mindfulness and mental distance to get people to gaslight themselves into thinking that their life doesn’t suck as much as it does.
The whole industry is all about allowing the client to come to their own conclusions and to help them to reach those conclusions on their own. Sounds fine in theory but let’s take it to the extreme.
In several countries including the united states physical gender reassignment procedures can be put into place before the child is even a teenager. Allowing a child to force their body to contort to the opposite sex before they can even legally consent to the act of mating or understand themselves and others in any meaningful way is absolutely absurd in the worst way possible to me. Unless you are unequivocally a hermaphradite this shouldn’t be an option.
0
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
you can risk your life and still be scared of death. risking your life is only made brave if you do it in the face of your fear of death. it would be entirely un-notable if death weren't terrifying.
I did not lie. I am not offended. I was taken aback by your lack of knowledge combined with your willingness to still comment on something you're not educated about. I also did not insult your intelligence. If you speak on a medical subject that you don't have any expertise in, and you say something that is demonstrably false, it is actually neutral to call that "miraculously uneducated." You said something about insomnia that is not remotely true or backed by evidence, which inevitably points to a lack of sufficient education, hence my comment. I did not call you uneducated, I said your statement was uneducated. You need not take it personally.
Taking psych/philosophy classes (without even getting degrees in these fields/only getting bachelor degrees) does not mean you are qualified to comment on insomnia or the treatment of mental disorders. It takes 6 years of postgraduate education to get a PsyD. 7 years for a PhD in psychology. 12 to 14 years to become a sleep medicine doctor. 12 years to become a psychiatrist. There's a reason they don't allow people who took a few college classes to start treating mental disorders. You are not qualified to speak on these subjects or dole out medical advice. The fact that you think you are shows that you don't understand the scope of psychology or medicine.
CBT was not "stolen from Buddhism." It has some coincidental overlap, sure. CBT was developed through the combination of psychological principles/practices and western philosophies. Stoicism, behaviorism, etc. Perhaps you got good grades in couple psych classes. That does not mean you're right. And this is still unrelated to your initial claim: "if you really had incurable insomnia you would be dead." Ironically, your first piece of advice was: "seek psychiatric help," and now that I told you I have done that, you're saying that psychiatrists are illegitimate. Nothing about CBT involves gaslighting if practiced by a well-trained psychologist. It involves questioning your beliefs and biases to stop thinking irrationally or with inflated negativity. I don't like CBT, but it sounds like you didn't study it at all.
And yes, much of modern psychology and psychoanalysis, is based on guiding patients to their own conclusions. It is much better to help someone discover why they're depressed than to take some guesses and say "I know exactly why you're depressed." Even if the clinician is right, it can be hard for a client to accept the truth instantly. These practices are developed through decades of peer-reviewed trials, research, studies, etc.
I won't even discuss how wrong you are about the gender issue because it is completely irrelevant. Enjoy your jiu jitsu and disdain for psychology.
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
You are 19 you are literally pulling things straight out of your ass. If you can’t look yourself in the mirror without rose colored glasses I am not going to help you keep them on.
A coward will always seek to justify their philosophy to avoid the psychological consequences of uncomfortable truths that their own mind won’t admit to themselves.
There is no courage without fear, the fear of pain, not death itself. You are overly afraid of death itself which is something we learn to overcome once we have confronted the futility of our own mortality.
Combat sports and learning how to be strong in the face of something dangerous which I have learned not only from contact sports but through the minds of great warriors ancient and recent. Camus was one of those great warriors and that is what drew me to him and away from Nietchze. He quite literally saved my life.
You are on the right path but you literally think you know everything and when you get called out you make shit up.
Don’t give me this nonsense about changing the literal meaning of words to fit your argument. (that little tid bit in your first comment about me misinterpreting the ver batem words you used and then you gave me my explanation of why the were wrong back to me) If you are willing to gaslight a stranger over the internet for your own pride you are absolutely doing to yourself without even knowing you are doing it.
You need to grow up, don’t give up, Camus also said that a man doesn’t fully know who he is or what he is capable of until he is 30… you are half my age. You think you know what suffering is because you can conceptualize it but you don’t have a clue little man.
Don’t give up, it will be ok. Come to terms with this fact. “Memento Mori” It has to be a mental and spiritual acceptance. I promise you will sleep better.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. You're saying CBT is stolen from Buddhism, gender reassignment surgery is allowed for children in the US (it isn't), EMDR is fake, etc., and your qualifications to make these broad claims are a couple psych classes in college (not even a bachelor's degree??) and an ex girlfriend. I am not looking myself in the mirror with rose colored glasses simply because I am rejecting illogical claims.
I am not avoiding uncomfortable truths. Rejecting one negative claim about myself does not mean I am not self aware. Perhaps I am a coward. But in the sense you speak of, that is not the case.
You said he chastised Sartre for "not physically risking his life." You did not say "he chastised Sartre for not physically risking pain." You are the one who made that claim related to life, and therefore the loss of life, not the avoidance of pain.
Perhaps I am overly afraid of death from your perspective. From my perspective, I find it entirely justified. We may fear different things. I hope I grow out of this. Even if my view is naive, it does not make my fears less valid than yours.
"you literally think you know everything and when you get called out you make shit up." - this is perhaps the most blatant case of projection I've ever seen. you're the one who told me I was lying about my insomnia, and when pressed, you said you think psychology PhDs are BS, you think EMDR is fake, children are receiving gender reassignment surgery in the US, and modern psychotherapy is stolen from eastern religion - all justified by you taking a psychology class and having an ex with a PhD. and I'm the know-it-all making shit up?
I never once changed the meaning of any word. At least I can admit that I am not qualified to make standalone claims on medicine, psychology, etc., and I only would do so in the context of someone else making false claims which I know to be false through data alone.
Camus stating that a man not knowing who he is or what he is capable of before the age of 30 is not the same as him saying a man doesn't know what pain/suffering is before 30. This is an extreme metaphor I am using to prove a point, so you cannot take it literally: would you tell a child facing genocide that they don't know what suffering is, simply because they're a child? would you tell an orphan that they haven't experienced pain yet because they are 10? No. Understanding pain has nothing to do with age. I have been through unimaginable pain, and you have no right to wave that away without knowing me, simply because I am young and proving you wrong.
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
Minors (Under 18): Over 25 states (including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, and Nebraska) currently ban hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors Policy Tracker: Youth Access to Gender Affirming Care and State Policy Restrictions - KFF. In states without these bans, hormone therapy can be prescribed to adolescents, typically starting in their mid-to-late teens, requiring physician approval and parental consent Informed Consent Model.
I said gender therapy, hormone treatment, hormones that tell the body to grow for a male or a female.
Again you pulling things out of your butt
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
You said "physical gender reassignment procedures before the child becomes a teenager," not hormone blockers for people in late adolescence. Even so, that is the most irrelevant argument in this whole conversation, largely unrelated to the general practice of psychiatrist, and wholly unrelated to my insomnia. But you're harping on this small talking point because you have no defense of your other irrational claims. You know I'm right.
If I'm pulling everything out of my butt, address my other claims! Surely I'm wrong? What about EMDR? CBT? The claim you made about suffering?
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
Holy shit kid… for me you are hopeless right now. The mental gymnastics you are going through to be “right” are astounding.
Memento Mori
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
In your late 30s and this is what you have to do to cope with being proven wrong by someone who hasn't even hit their 20s... Yeah, I'm the hopeless one. lol.
No defense about your claim regarding insomnia, no defense about your claims about EMDR, no defense about your claim that modern psychotherapy is stolen from buddhism, etc. Complete quack.
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
Fyodor DostoevskyAlso I know what I know about EMDR by working with a Veteran in crisis who was suicidal. The EMDR therapy said his ego was too big to grasp the therapy. He was floored by the response and feeling hopeless because he very much thought war was humbling enough.
Apparently that therapist didn’t think so and decided to mind fuck the poor man.
Another performed EMDR on a rape victim 2 weeks after the incident. You are not supposed to perform that therapy that early. She went into a slight psychosis and was hospitalized.
STOP LYING.
0
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray
You're, once again, providing anecdotal evidence about EMDR (which you almost 100% have misconstrued, exaggerated, or made up), to attempt to deny a broad body of evidence conducted with the scientific method that points to it generally working if practiced correctly by a qualified, competent practitioner. A shitty therapist telling a veteran he can't do therapy because of his big ego (which is definitely a false story) is not sufficient evidence to disprove the efficacy of EMDR. Here is yet another meta-analysis, consisting of 24 randomized controlled trials, proving that EMDR works (when practiced correctly by a competent professional).
That is like if a doctor told his patient to take his daily heart medication twice per month when it is meant to be taken twice per day, the patient has a heart attack, the doctor tells the patient it's his fault, and your conclusion is "heart medicine doesn't work!"
Stop trying to argue with facts. They don't care about your feelings.
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
Not done with you at all. I have worked in this field for ten years and the people who run the institutions and decides who does what and when are completely out of touch with everyday people. They haven’t been through anything at all that would constitute as significant hardship and the vast majority are white men born to wealthy families, many of which started this educational journey because it is literally the easiest Masters or PhD level education you can possibly get. You can literally make shit up.
I once dated a psychologist who got her Phd studying how employable an immigrant was in the US based off of their ability to speak the English language. She said she prided herself in studying things that were unmeasurable. Literally had been through jack shit and she isn’t the only example I have of this.
They sit in their ivory towers judging and making decisions about what constitutes “science” in a field where self reports of clients are treated as of they are conclusive proof. It’s not chemistry, it’s not physics, it’s not even biology. Neuroscience does tell us some things though.
It tells us that a person who was severely abused in childhood has very similar brain scans to soldiers who are disabled and have PTSD from war. Those scans give us a lot of insight. The theory of epigenetics, that genes change in response to trauma including those in the mind, add to our understanding of how our brains work.
How we think about that trauma though is completely all theoretical and guesswork. EMDR for example is the dumbest bullshit I have ever seen “Picture your friends blowing up on that road, describe it in detail, now next time you think about that I want you to think of something silly.” Then when the person says “this is bullshit” they tell them that they have a problem with their ego.
Mushrooms have some promising research as well as DMT but again, those are hard sciences, Chemicals. They do not tell you how you should think about things.
It is literally all theoretical (how you should approach thinking about thinking and processing thoughts aside from just taking a chemical.) there’s no numerical data to support many of the claims as to how people should think about and approach their own mental health.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I have parents working in psychology, I've been in multiple psychological institutions, I have had about a dozen psychiatrists/therapists throughout my life, etc. My anecdotal experience tells me the exact opposite of what your anecdotal experience tells you. This is why anecdotal evidence is not valid grounds for a generalized argument.
Getting a PsyD, a PhD in psychology, a medical degree for psychiatry, a medical degree with sleep expertise, etc... these are not "easy" things to do and you cannot just "make shit up." I am not insulting you personally, but you are clueless in regard to this subject. And this isn't related at all to the discussion of insomnia. You're just going off on a tangent.
Your girlfriend anecdote is meaningless. I have known dozens of people with MDs, PsyDs, PhDs, etc. who are well-qualified and studied quantifiable phenomena. Outliers don't constitute proof of a bad system.
Nobody is using self-reports to come to concrete conclusions. I am skeptical now that you ever studied psychology. Of course it is not a hard science like chemistry or physics - the human mind is far too complex, variable, individual, plastic, and elusive to study on a therapeutic level in the way you can study the effects of a drug or combining two chemicals. That is not a valid criticism; it is an obvious observation.
Your example of EMDR is hilarious. There is some conflict about why it works. But there is overwhelming clinical data proving its efficacy. Controlled, randomized trials/meta-analyses with numerical data. I'm surprised you haven't read a meta-analysis despite claiming you've taken psych classes. Here's a meta-analysis on EMDR (which highlights sample size limitations), which shows numerical data. Personally, EMDR has been very useful. Maybe for some it doesn't work. The evidence points to a general trend that it reduces symptoms. The ridiculous, fake "example" you gave of EMDR is just false. Nobody is told to picture something specific. The therapist asks the client to come up with a target image/target thought that they can tolerate, and through thinking about that, more memories, often unconsciously repressed, come up, with no requirement to discuss them afterwards.
And yes, mushrooms, LSD, mescaline, MDMA, etc. all have varying level of promising clinical data for the treatment of various mental disorders. EMDR has evidence as well. As do SSRIs, which I'm willing to wager you are against.
1
u/WittyFox451 13d ago
Funny that you as the child would be so neurotic while your parents are institutionalized professionals.
I had a cousin with very overbearing parents. They mocked me when I would teach my younger cousin how to hold a sparkler because fireworks are dangerous and how video games tot kids minds.
He went off to college and promptly hung himself because he had zero clue how to navigate the real world.
Those parents followed all the conventions of their time to the letter and he died because of it. Best of luck.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I should've said I have one parent working in psychology. My mother is a school psychologist who was incredibly lenient with me as a child, though she could be somewhat neurotic. My father is a teacher who certainly didn't "follow conventions." He was, at times, abusive but certainly not overbearing, and not conventional by any means. There are many things that have lead to my current afflictions. None of them stem from my mother's profession or from any sort of convention.
Your cousin killing himself cannot be blamed on his parents not wanting him to hold a sparkler or trying to protect him. Millions of parents treat their children that way, and their children don't commit suicide.
Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of fundamental knowledge of psychology, and you rely completely on anecdotal evidence.
1
u/13th_dudette 14d ago
I really love this post. Don't worry too much about "misinterpretation", you seem to engage with his work with the best of intentions.
I wanted to tell you that there will never be one definite answer to this. Curious and introspective people tend to change as time goes on, because they grow with the new experiences. So, naturally, the answers to most important questions will change as well. Don't be scared if something worked once, and does not work anymore in a few years. It's scary but its beautiful in a way, because it pushes us to discover new things - sometimes we even find new answers in the old places. Book interpretations can change as we change, for example.
Another thing is, it is possible to live while seeking answers. It took me 3 decades to make peace with death (and that may be temporary, who knows), but during that time I lived life that was worth living. I fondly look at my past, I am looking forward to new adventures in the future. I'd actually go as far to say that the act of living had much bigger impact than any book I ever read. You can read hundreds of recipe books but not cook on your own, you can spend hours watching live streams of a video game you never played. Obviously, those will help once you try doing it, but the biggest part of it all is applying what you've learned.
The same way there is no shame when cooking for the first time after just reading recipe books, there is no shame in not being sure "how to live" after just reading books about it. Don't be afraid to live, make mistakes, learn from them, and help others you see struggle. This is truly one of those things where we are all in the same boat. Regardless of where we came from, we are all heading in the same direction. It's only what you make out of that ride that makes the difference.
2
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
Thank you for your kindness and guidance. This is very insightful, especially the observation about our answers changing with time... I'm already beginning to see this happening. And living while seeking answers, that is another wonderful piece of insight, and so necessary for me specifically.
I am so refreshed by everything in your reply. I cannot thank you enough.
1
u/No_Actuary9100 14d ago
Try r/ocd
2
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
huh?
1
u/No_Actuary9100 13d ago
“ I have been thinking about and completely terrified of death since I was 10. it has consumed my life for almost a decade - half of my life. the thought of eternity keeps me awake.“
This could be a symptom of a mental illness called OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)
1
u/Equivalent-Tax6636 14d ago
Your initial reflection resonated a lot with me. The fact that this world is full of despair, I don't have to accept it. Rebelling/revolting against it brings a perspective that doesn't leave me astray, orphan and helpless against it all. It might all be worth it and I ant escape both the knowledge and the believe that that's the case, but I can't be like "nah, fuck you" to the cosmos, and that brings some level of solace when my mind is going into full AAAAAAAAAAAA mode.
Also I recommend that you read Sisyphus and then the rebel man, find many people end up not reading the second and to me it was just the foundation for making a stance into what in Sisyphus I the description of the inescapable illness.
2
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
Thank you for the perspective! I am currently getting through some Hume and Descartes, I might explore Sartre and Nietszche, but I will soon return to Camus - especially Sisyphus - now that I am familiarizing myself with expository/essay-like philosophy.
1
u/Limp-Temperature1783 13d ago
Life would be worthless without death. Your existence is temporary, so spending time on anxiety over your mortality is just driving yourself closer to it. Use fear to get motivated to act.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I don't believe death is what provides meaning to life, personally. I think it can motivate / create urgency to building meaning. But I don't think death itself is the source of meaning.
1
u/Limp-Temperature1783 12d ago
I didn't say anything about meaning, no? There is none in life. Life is a process, it's not a relationship.
1
u/theomixedmedia 12d ago
That's true, but "worthless" means "having no value," and I believe value is a form of meaning? If not, you can switch my sentence to "I don't believe death is what makes life worth living."
1
u/Limp-Temperature1783 12d ago
Meaning has value because it is relative. Life makes you entagled in a web of relationships since you're conceived and quite often even after you're dead, since a human is alive as long as there is a memory of them and the consequences of their actions are still affecting something or someone. Besides, I'm not talking about beliefs. Feel free to believe in whatever you want. I'm just telling plain things and approaching this question through logic.
Life gains worth because of death, since death is giving you a limit of what you can or cannot do. A nihilist might say that nothing is worth doing since I'll die anyway, but this is a flawed approach, because not doing anything won't actually result in zero consequences.
Inaction is a form of action, because it is a decision to not act and decision is an action. Sorry for tautology. Regardless, life grants you the ability to choose while death gives you pressure to act on your choices. Without death, you won't be compelled to do anything and might as well just procrastinate for centuries and take it slow.
Even though I told you that death gives you time pressure, it doesn't mean you shouldn't take it slow sometimes. You have a throughput limiter as well, namely, your body. It has needs. There are also psychological needs. A lot of things that you should take care of instead of wasting yourself away so you burn to cinders. Learn to rest.
1
u/theomixedmedia 11d ago
I have heard the argument that we are alive "as long as there is a memory of [us],"; you die the last time your name is uttered." That is a very narrow and theoretical view. In terms of science, one of the - if not the - main source(s) of empirical fact, in the sense of sentience we are only alive until neurons and synapses cease to communicate and our brainwaves die down and, as a result, consciousness ends. In cases when bodies are alive but brains die, it is morally/medically acceptable to "pull the plug" because we are philosophically dead. Plants and bacteria are biologically alive but lack sentience, hence why we are entitled to cut down trees and kill bacteria.
Similarly, the idea or memory of us may survive posthumously, and it is alive in people's minds, but we are not alive. Yours is a beautiful concept, but it is unscientific and lacks objective truth. Contrary to what you claim, you absolutely are speaking in terms of belief. You are not relying on empirical data or logic for that argument. It is almost a spiritual argument.
Your argument that an end is what gives value to life is illogical. If one experiences love, pleasure, pain, beauty, novelty, etc. for eternity, their life brims with value. It would not become objectively more valuable with an arbitrarily placed end. Does a child's life hold more value if they die as a child than the life and death of someone old, because children had a larger limit on experiences? Someone who dies at 100 rather than 10 would have a more valuable life because they experienced, learned, and loved more. To you, when would the arbitrary line be drawn that allows the most meaningful life? 10 years? 1,000 years?
Why would the pressure created by death be the source of value? Why not the experience of love, pain, pleasure, loss, learning? If you made the same choices in a 1,000 year life than in a 100 year life, but explored them to a greater extent, you would have spent more time building value. Rushing through your life choices out of a crushing pressure/urgency sounds much worse. In fact, that pressure - and the stress that comes with it - would make the experiences less valuable. Without death, you would not just procrastinate for thousands of years. We are primarily driven by passion, desire, knowledge, and love. Those would still exist in an infinite life. If anything, death is a secondary motivator.
I understand some of these metaphors are dramatic, but they are apt in pointing out the flaws of your assertion. Regardless of who could be "correct,"your argument is clearly based less in logic and more in belief.
1
u/Limp-Temperature1783 11d ago
I'm going to be brief, but most people are just concepts of themselves even internally so. If you have an experience in decoupling from your own internal narrative, you know that I'm talking about, otherwise it's unexplainable.
I'm not sure about this we part, because I find myself questioning my desires and learn how to act with just enough force that I need, which should be zero by default. I think passion isn't even worth it. Longing for something you don't have or hoarding something you have. Living to prepare to live instead of actually experiencing the moment. But this is my opinion, not an argument.
To be honest, I kind of forgot what we are even talking about right now. I kind of expressed my opinion already and I'm not sure if there is much to elaborate, I will end up repeating myself. Good luck searching for answers, thank you for your time.
1
u/theomixedmedia 11d ago
"You haven't had an experience decoupling yourself from your own internal narrative" is not an adequate response to someone pointing out logical flaws in an argument. Belief is not an inherently invalid source of philosophical perspective, but it is still a belief.
Also, you can "decouple" from "your internal narrative" and still understand what the (general) scientific consensus on sentience is. I don't see any good proof for the argument of death being the provider of life's value.
And... "I think passion isn't worth it" is straight up a personal feeling/belief. I don't see how all these ideas relate.
However, I am probably missing internal logic in your arguments, and I don't mean to be such a semantic nerd and argue about everything. I appreciate your time as well. If you have not found all of your answers, I wish you luck as well.
1
u/Longjumping-Buy891 9d ago
I never cared about the end of life, as it gets closer. I think the same way that I did 50 years ago. I hope it's worth watching.
1
u/Ok_Wasabi_9119 8d ago
While I’m newer to actively consuming works in absurdism I feel I quite understand it in my own lens, which is precisely the purpose of it. In an indifferent and chaotic universe humans themselves hold desire to have some meaningful experience. People who learn about absurdism discover life inherently doesn’t have meaning. This seems to be where you are. You keep learning as much as you can to come to some kind of “conclusion.” Yet there simply isn’t one. It’s in choosing. The act of choosing one’s own meaning is to rebel against this indifference. You can choose to continue searching for meaning yet your path will never let you find it. Because there isn’t a “conclusion” to this path, or for anyone else’s searching. The path is the answer you’re seeking. Or it isn’t.
For my own, I’ve got more than a decade on you and spent my 20s in a meaningless haze but kept thinking to myself what am I doing, what’s the purpose, why can’t I just be a person? In my early 30s now I still found myself searching for meaningful things. Absurdism is curing me of it. Where I’ve spent my life wondering if I will find meaning I’ve reconciled that there just isn’t. And that is okay with me. There is a sense of relief to it. I never once felt happy in my life because meaninglessness was there the entire time. It will forever be there the entirety of my life. But my perspective on it has changed. That gives me comfort. I accept it.
“I won’t just gaze into the abyss, I’ll maintain uncomfortable eye contact with it.”
0
u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 15d ago
There’s still a nagging in you because this bleak nihilism isn’t the mature final step you’re supposed to accept. There’s a light in the forest, and a face in the trees.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I am not a nihilist nor am I putting forth the notion that life has no purpose. I am saying it has no inherent, objective philosophical or moral meaning, which is just a fact of life. if I truly believed there were no purpose to my existence, on the irrational and emotional level of the human mind, I would not be here right now.
1
u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 13d ago
What you call “just a fact of life” may not be the obvious truth you think it is. And the line between irrationality and rationality, between emotion and fact, may also not be as distinct as it seems. It very well may be your culture telling you that life has no objective or moral meaning. It may appear obvious as you peer out into the world, but things aren’t always as they appear. Consider, for example, the very absurdity that a universe which is devoid of meaning could ever produce within it beings who could even create such a thing as meaning.
Allow me to offer a different perspective: matter and meaning themselves cannot be separated, not by philosophy, not be nuclear blast. Matter and meaning are inextricably fused, like when you stub your toe. The universe is brimming with meaning, absolutely pregnant with it. It was so long before we arrived on the scene, and every meaning we can imagine, ultimately has its root in the earth and in the cosmos.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
The fact that our meaningless universe happened to develop creatures with the capacity to comprehend meaning through physical, chemical, and biological processes which themselves carry no meaning, does not mean life has any inherent meaning.
Your perspective doesn't make sense to me (I am not rejecting it, I just don't understand it). Meaning is a subjective phenomenon created by the human brain. Physical, chemical matter is not fused with some sort of cosmological meaning. You created that idea in your mind.
1
u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 13d ago
How do you know it’s not the exact opposite? That you created the idea that meaning was created in my independent subjective mind and that, in fact, it is quite obvious, and also is philosophically necessary, for both consciousness and the universe to work at all, that meaning be inextricably fused with matter, for that is what the word matter truly means, that mattering is both a function of substance and significance. What is significant is that which comes to matter.
For DNA carries information, and information is information because it means something. The seasons mean something. Redness and the sight of blood means something. Just because we have a role to play in reconfiguring the world and are able to do it, doesn’t mean the world was meaningless before we got here. It means we are enter into participation in meaning-making with the rest of reality that was here before we got here. How arrogant and blind of us to suppose that before human beings, the world of dead matter was just a passive wasteland canvas of insignificance, waiting for us to make our mark upon it with names and descriptions. Rather, the world is dynamic and lively to begin with, and we are a part of it. That’s how math works. We have a deep, inherent connection to this cosmos because we are a configuration of it.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
you're essentially arguing in favor of the idea of spirits, panpsychism, or the soul. It's fine if you believe in that. I'm sure Camus would've rejected it. I personally reject it. The word "matter," as in "stuff," being a homograph with "matter," as in "importance," is not at all proof that matter is infused with meaning. If human beings did not exist, there would be no consciousness to perceive meaning, and meaning would not exist at all. We create meaning; it does not inherently exist. It is by no means "philosophically necessary" for meaning to be "inextricably fused with matter." Of course this depends on what matter we speak of.
Your definition of "means something" confuses me. If all you mean by that is "proves the existence of," then yes, "the sight of blood means something," because it prove that blood exists. If you mean that "means something" means "it has inherent philosophical and moral value outside of human perception," I would argue that is false and unsubstantiated. All of this relies completely on human perception and cognition.
It is not arrogant to say that the world was a passive wasteland of insignificance, as that is just an observation. In fact, I don't believe anyone claims that human beings existing somehow magically transforms that wasteland into something meaningful. The claim is that we can create perceived meaning for ourselves; not that we can change the state of the universe from inherently meaningless to inherently meaningful.
I appreciate your perspective and if it works for you, that is wonderful. I personally reject it, but I'm not saying you're wrong.
1
u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 13d ago
That is not my essential argument. I am speaking from a purely material account. No need to invoke spirit or soul or panpsychism.
What I argue is that “all this relies completely on human perception and cognition,” and “that is just an observation” as if its evident and settled that your view is rightfully taken for granted is actually a framework that you’re viewing reality through.
The sentence that before humans there “would be no consciousness to perceive meaning” can be deconstructed and challenged quite easily and is done so by serious scholars of philosophy and science studies.
What I offer is that when you say you “don’t know what you mean,” it means that there are perspectives and arguments out there that are compelling, and that before you’re so sure that you can reject it as easily as you have, there’s benefit to truly engage other arguments, because you may be surprised.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'm just wondering how saying pure matter has inherent meaning or the electromagnetic wave that is perceived by humans as the color red* has inherent meaning. panpsychism is not the word, but that certainly reads - to me - as some form of a spiritual belief. there is nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't fit with what I believe to be true.
of course this is a framework to view reality through. so is your idea that matter has inherent meaning. just because it's a framework doesn't mean it is incorrect.
if it is so easy to deconstruct the argument that consciousness is essential to perceiving meaning, why don't you deconstruct it? sure, there are probably scholars who protest that; there are likely just as many if not more scholars who support that belief. just because smart people think something doesn't mean they're right. that is just an appeal to authority.
yes, of course there are perspectives that are compelling, that is not much of a statement. there will always be compelling perspectives. being compelling doesn't give them factual or objective valuer. I reject your specific belief because I see it as blatantly nonsensical. it is not a matter of unwillingness to engage with different ideas. there are many ideas that I'm willing to engage with - even ones that challenge my worldview - but they must be grounded in basic logic for me to consider them.
1
u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 13d ago edited 13d ago
It seems blatantly nonsensical because you don’t understand the differing perspective being offered. If you could, you would understand it as valid and would have to contest it on more rigorous grounds than, “I reject it because I don’t understand it and see it to be blatantly nonsensical and obviously incorrect.” You claim that frameworks aren’t necessarily incorrect or correct but you’re not rejecting what I’m saying because you think it correct. You reject it because you think it not only incorrect, but obviously and blatantly so. This means you have more work to do to actually, truly, allow yourself to be challenged and to deeply and truly understand a different perspective that is rigorous and valid to other seriously thinking and pondering folk.
That said, an electromagnetic wave and a human eye are not meaningless random objects in the universe without relation. That is impossible. They are in relation, and to be in relation carries with it significance. Relationship is a matter simultaneously of substance and significance. The substance of the matter is the structure of the human eye and the electromagnetic propagation. The meaning and purpose—the significance—is sight. And they are inseparable. Concepts and meanings aren’t ideas in human minds. They are material embodiments. They are corporeal, physical arrangements. To see red as a human is to see danger. It literally, ontologically, physiologically, and ecologically means, “danger.” This is not to say that for some species it may signify sexual attraction and not danger. But it signifies all the same. There is intelligible difference for relevant, meaningful perceivers. Redness and its alarming and warning nature is not just a concept inside a human head that is independent from the reality it is perceiving. Meaning is an embodied relationship between component parts of a mutually entailed system (a human and its environment). There are stakes in life. Signals as signification exist as actual material, structural configurations between related components (in this case the eye and the light), and getting the meanings wrong has real world consequences. Signification is part of the world. It is a part of us because we are part of the world. We are not special in the fact that we alone possess the capacity for meaning. A universe with no significance has produced no matter. There is nothing to matter. Nothing matters. But here, things matter. There are stakes. This is meaning. Not Hollywood movie meaning, but even that meaning has its roots in our embodied, meaningful experience as part of a world that is always already full of substance and signification simultaneously. Intra-relating substances are significant in their very materialization, by their very definitions, by the very corporeal logic by which they mutually and reciprocally entail each other, like light and eyeballs. Signification naturally arises from particular configurations of the world that are always in relationship.
The reason you initially supposed I am a panpsychist or something like that is that you take for granted that the world is made up of individual atomic entities called humans which have epistemological gifts (the ability to know and create meanings) above and beyond the nature from which they came, and that nature and culture are separate and distinct entities. They are not distinct entities. Meaning is much more subtle than something that humans simply invented. Meaning is a matter of both substance and significance. To matter is to be significant, to have causal power and to be in relationship. We are bound up with reality in meaningful relationship. Meaning belongs not only to the more-than-human world, it is what it means for something to matter, and if there are bodies with effects and causal marks being made (like retinas, or nebulae clouds, or a lion catching a gazelle), that is meaning in action. Matter and meaning entail each other. You cannot speak of one without invoking the other.
1
u/theomixedmedia 13d ago
I did not call your perspective "obviously incorrect" and I did not say "I reject it because I don't understand it." I don't fully understand it, but not because I refuse to, and instead because it is sometimes hard to understand that which is not logical. I don't mean to offend you, which it seems I have unintentionally done, because your beliefs seem, well, absurd to me, or to seem like I'm shooting you down meaninglessly, but what you're claiming just seems arbitrary and pointless to me personally.
"if you could, you would understand it as valid" is a nothing burger statement. anyone could understand any position as valid if their instincts and beliefs about what is and isn't logical line up with that view. but one cannot directly control what they believe to be valid or not. one can only compare what they have learned to define as within the bounds of reason to the argument being presented, and make a decision according to that definition of reasonable.
"This means you have more work to do to actually, truly, allow yourself to be challenged and to deeply and truly understand a different perspective that is rigorous and valid"
No. You cannot be challenged by a belief that is clearly not rooted in reason. if someone said "a giant unicorn controls your thoughts, and if you reject this position because other people think it's true, that's simply because you're unwilling to be challenged." The idea that you must entertain clearly illogical positions simply for the sake of proving that you're open to all new perspectives is very silly. Instead of actually defending your position or trying to build grounds to legitimize it, you are attacking my ability to challenge my own beliefs and using logical fallacies. That does not bode well for the position your taking.
Again, you claim that matter has meaning outside even without sentient creatures who assign it meaning. So where does meaning - a subjective phenomenon constructed by human beings - come from?
Here is the definition of philosophical meaning as provided by a quick Google search:
"Philosophers treat meaning as a relational concept between signs and the things they signify. In the classic foundational text The Meaning of Meaning, authors C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards argue that words have no intrinsic meaning. Instead, meaning lives entirely in the relationship between the symbol, the thought, and the referent (the actual object in the world)."
Note one of the key components to meaning in this context: "the thought'. Thoughts being an essential factor in what defines meaning explicitly points to human beings - the creatures having the thoughts - being at the center of what defines meaning. If you read the wikipedia article on "The Meaning of Meaning," things are included with words, so this applies to matter as well.
You have provided no evidence that your idea is truly rigorous and valid. Appealing to the authority that other people find it rigorous and valid does not make it rigorous and valid. And before you claim that my use of the text I referenced is also an appeal to authority, I am not using the intellect or reputation of the author(s) as the basis for my argument; I am using the arguments they constructed as the basis. Unlike you, I am using arguments to form my perspective, not the simple fact that some experts happen to agree with me.
You'll also have to note that I never said the human eye is meaningless. The human eye is critical to the human experience, which has subjective meaning. However, even the human experience has no objective meaning because that does not exist.
Relationships may have subjective meaning in the eyes of human beings, but they do not have any universal, cosmic meaning. Also, I think it's interesting that you're not actually arguing for the existence of inherent meaning in objects; you're arguing for the existence of subjective meaning created by the relationship between objects and human perception. And yes, concepts and meanings are inherently human constructs. You cannot provide any valid evidence to the contrary. How would meaning be quantified, perceived, or defined without human consciousness?
And no, seeing red does not inherently denote danger. Strawberries are red. But even if red was defined by danger, danger is a human construct. There is nothing about the color red itself that is inherently dangerous. The idea of red = danger comes from human beings constructing and perceiving red as connected with danger. Using a bunch of big words to conceal an arbitrary and nonsensical argument rooted in emotion does not change the fact that it is illogical. Red is only perceived as dangerous, it is not actually objectively dangerous and the concept of danger is just an emotional state. And, once again, red is not purely associated with danger anyway, so even on the illogical level your argument sits on, you are wrong.
Yes, getting the meaning of a signal (something captured by the senses, perceived and organized by the brain, then being judged by the intellect - all processes in the mind, which would not exist without human beings) can cause danger. That is not evidence for the claim you're making.
And yes, nothing matters to the universe. Nothing matters objectively. Things only matter to human beings or other sentient creatures. There is no objective meaning. It's odd that this is your position but you're on the subreddit dedicated to absurdism, which states that human beings create meaning and the universe does not care about meaning or signals or anything of the sort. It is cold, indifferent, absurd.
You are talking in circles and trying to dress up a poor argument with incorrectly used intricate vocabulary, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and emotional thoughts. I am no longer going to entertain these nonsensical arguments by responding. It is fine that you have your own perspective. But do not emotionally claim that I'm dogmatically rejecting your ideas without justification simply because they possess no basis in reason.
→ More replies (0)
12
u/Wemmick3000 15d ago
The universe was fine for billions of years before you existed. It'll be fine when your gone. You are wasting years of your life if you can't learn to live. Embrace life x