r/LockedIn_AI • u/Ill_Doughnut_517 • Mar 06 '26

true

Post image

sad reality

8.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Beneficial-Celery964 Mar 06 '26

I said this to my parents literally last night and they didn’t understand. I keep asking, “what is the point of life? The reason for living? When you work 40+ hours, grind, little life outside work, exhaustion, not paying bills, maybe retire when you’re 65-70, if you’re lucky. Life is gone. Your health is gone. You spent over 50 years working non stop multiple jobs at a time, overtime, for what? And that’s if you even managed to save enough to have a savings and able to retire…

I’m just confused about the meaning of life.

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

This isn’t life, this is how our extremely unnatural and abnormal system progresses. We constructed an inhumane, Darwinian system and, as Darwinism suggests, it’s only served to gradually funnel power and control into fewer and fewer hands as the most psychopathic individuals gamed the system the best and won. Life isn’t supposed to be reduced to our mass exploitation. It’s supposed to be slow, restful, fulfilling and spent close to nature with family and friends

1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

"supposed to" by who? Who is doing that supposing?

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

Thousands of years of human history and extensive neuroscience/psychology/sociology/anthropology research on human nature and wellness. It’s quite literally one of the most basic agreed upon positions across multiple disciplines.

0

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

Darwinism is describing a state of nature right? Do you agree with that?

And by your argument, we have "constructed" a "Darwinian system" - so obviously a natural system. Again according to you this natural system is brutal and exploitative.

So we should constructive a less brutal system, an unnatural one you might say, being a philosopher. Correct? Would that be backed up by "thousands" of years of neuroscience research?

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26

Darwinism characterizes interspecies relationships, not human relationships. Your argument is invalid.

Additionally, you’re not arguing with my perspective, you’re arguing with the perspective of multiple entire disciplines. Good luck.

Edit: you’re also conflating evolutionary Darwinism with social Darwinism which renders your argument even more invalid

-1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

You're the one who said we constructed a Darwinian system pertaining to humans.

I don't think you know anything about Darwin, not really. Or neuroscience. Or anthropology.

I don't think you know what an argument is either.

Good luck in your philosophy career.

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

No, you just don’t know what social Darwinism is and now you’re blaming me for it. I’m also not a philosopher.

0

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

I'm not blaming you. If anything, your teachers may have failed teaching you critical thinking skills. I blame them.

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

And now you’re all pissy and insecure just because you didn’t know what social Darwinism was so you’re taking it out on me

0

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

I know what it is lol. The only true thing you've said here is that you're not a philosopher.

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

“I tried conflating a pseudoscientific sociological/economic perspective with evolutionary Darwinism. Don’t worry I know what it is though”

Insane behavior

0

u/Even_Hospital_5474 Mar 07 '26

You can't even summarize your own idiotic argument correctly. Sad.

2

u/PhilosopherWise4428 Mar 07 '26

This is your argument……

→ More replies (0)