I've done this thinking. What it's left me with is, live life to the fullest because why not? And, do not go gently into that good night. EDIT: Incidentally, this is essentially where the logical trail that leads to cogito ergo sum starts, but I'm sure you know that.I've recently stumbled upon a phrase that made me reconsider this question. "There can't be nothing, as having nothing means you have the concept of nothing".
live life to the fullest because why not
I think a big component of happiness and/or peace is finding the strength of will to change the things you can, and learning to accept the things you can't change. I think the latter becomes more difficult the more educated one becomes. But not impossible.There can't be nothing
cogito ergo sum
Incidentally, I used to think Nihilism and Solipsism were the same thing, until I started looking into them a few months ago. Apparently Metaphysical Nihilists actually reject cogito ergo sum, arguing that existence may not be distinguishable from nonexistence.
I get Solipsism, but Nihilism is a little too left-field for me. But still intriguing.
This is something that's actually been bothering me. My interests don't really line up with everyone else's. Yet, I keep finding media that has characters, settings, etc. that match them almost perfectly. I wish I could just jump into one of those worlds and just live out my days in there, instead of in the one I find myself in currently. I can't decide whether solipsism or nihilism describes my thoughts better. Maybe neither, maybe both. It's not quite just one person, but it's not nothing either. As nothing can't exist logically, so nihilism must be false. I had this thought a while back that nothing is simply everything. Like we are all just bits of nothingness. Data perceived in a certain way. Or rather, nothingness perceived in a certain way. As if we are all looking into this nothingness, and this is what we see. Solipsism itself is close to how I see consciousness, but not quite. It's not just one observer viewing a world. But rather a single observer from every observation point. You aren't just nothing to me, you are me. I watched this atheist radio show once (I think it's in texas or something, they are popular on youtube). And they kind of just laughed at a solipsist who called in. I found it amusing what they said. They stated that they guy shouldn't have bothered since he doesn't believe they are real anyway. But really, what is real? Are dreams real? Is this real? What about media? Are fantasies and thoughts real? What about alternate worlds? Is the past real? What if this is a dream? Just made for someone's sleep. Or perhaps we are in a computer simulation. I hear some researchers are working on seeing if we are. Or perhaps a computer simulation inside of a dream? Whose to say what's what? cogito ergo sum seems flawed. I can't stand the thought that I exist. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense. The whole system would work a lot better if I didn't "be". But I know I am because I am. It's not just thinking. I can think separately from my "am"ness. So I really have two trains of thought. My "am" thoughts, and my "not am" thoughts. The thoughts that kind of just flow out of me without me being able to review them. I hate these thoughts. They slip out, and I can't stop them. And they usually cause havoc. It's like a different person but not. To the outside observer these are the same. But to me, or rather my "am", they are clearly different. And then there's the stuff that forces itself into my head. What's that about? That's a third, yet separate, train of thought completely. It mostly is just music or something, but sometimes it's silent. I can't really recall if it ever did anything insightful, but it's there anyway. Are these all "me"? Which one do I need for "cogito ergo sum" to be true? The "am"? Or the "me" that doesn't get reviewed? There's been a few studies that show that the "am" is actually a few seconds behind the decision making process. So that really means I'm just an observer, correct? And I suppose that means everyone else goes through this "am" thing as well. Again, all observers. Which would explain that third train of thought as well. Things pop in, we review them, say which are good, and then send it to the actual "me". And the actual "me" only sends stuff it thinks it needs to review. I'm wearing myself out now, so I'm just gonna stop. I don't think Nihilism is right, but I don't think solipsism is right either. It's some sort of weird mix. Or perhaps neither.and learning to accept the things you can't change. I think the latter becomes more difficult the more educated one becomes. But not impossible.
Incidentally, I used to think Nihilism and Solipsism were the same thing, until I started looking into them a few months ago. Apparently Metaphysical Nihilists actually reject cogito ergo sum, arguing that existence may not be distinguishable from nonexistence. I get Solipsism, but Nihilism is a little too left-field for me. But still intriguing.
Have you read the short story The Egg by Andy Weir? I think you would find it very interesting.a single observer from every observation point. You aren't just nothing to me, you are me.
I've butted up against this line of thought quite a bit, and every time I just let it go and just get on with whatever I'm doing. But it's been nagging me for a while. You say live life to the fullest, but to the fullest of what? The most experiences? What defines an experience? How does one determine what is full and what is empty? I've set some pretty arbitrary and random goals for myself. Stuff that I think might make me happy. At least, it'd surround me with things I enjoy. As to how I get there, I have a rough idea. But ultimately it's all pointless anyway. So I might as well just drift along and do what I enjoy. As for your image, I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to mean. I'm bad with meanings. It kind of makes me thing that it's like those images that I mentioned in my post. That show that it's dark/bad/depressing, and as you gradually go forth it gets better. But as I said, I don't see how that's possible besides resorting back to the ignorance (or feigned ignorance) of the topic. That's not really rational or scientific. Right right. I actually started at cogito ergo sum. My post above obviously started elsewhere, as that's where my mind was at the time of writing. But when I was younger, cogito ergo sum was definitely one of the things I thought about.I've done this thinking. What it's left me with is, live life to the fullest because why not?
Incidentally, this is essentially where the logical trail that leads to cogito ergo sum starts.
I raved and frothed a bit below after I wrote this. I'm thinking a bit. That image is supposed to mean that we as a species are capable of greatness unparalleled, because we are. I think I'm special. I'm human. Humans wrote Principia. Humans split the atom. Humans can believe in things against all evidence, and sometimes they're right. I haven't been alive very long, and I've seen some pretty awe-inspiring things. I trust I'll see more. And if the meaning of life reveals itself somewhere along the way, that's just gravy: if I died tomorrow I would feel pretty good about what I've experienced. I'd like to hang on to that feeling.
In the grand scheme of things, humans are an obvious result. Infinite configurations. Infinite options. Each one with billions of galaxies, billions of stars, billions of planets. Each having the opportunity for life. This life then evolves into what survives. It then develops ways of communicating until it can think about it's own existence. I mean, it has to happen. As it can't not happen. It did, so it obviously must. And it's probably happened billions if not trillions of other times as well. True, but evidence is always correct (assuming it's not forged). Just because you derive the wrong conclusion doesn't mean that the evidence was wrong. I dunno. It's just all kind of bland and boring. I feel like if I had someone to talk to (in real life, not on hubski) things would be different. Perhaps I wouldn't care about this so much. But I don't see much point in seeing any particular awe-inspiring thing, as I'll just forget it in less than 5 years. I can't remember much of anything from before 3 years ago. And hell, I have a hard time remembering what happened yesterday. I guess I'm just looking for satisfaction.That image is supposed to mean that we as a species are capable of greatness unparalleled, because we are. I think I'm special. I'm human.
Humans can believe in things against all evidence,
I haven't been alive very long, and I've seen some pretty awe-inspiring things. I trust I'll see more. And if the meaning of life reveals itself somewhere along the way, that's just gravy: if I died tomorrow I would feel pretty good about what I've experienced.
The greatest baseball player in the history of Japan is named Sadaharu Oh. He still holds the professional record for the most home runs hit in a baseball career. Now, all American professional baseball players spend their offseasons training, running, lifting weights and eating healthy foods, in the pursuit of excellence. Sadaharu Oh, I once read, spent his offseasons meditating under a waterfall. I assume he was after a different sort of excellence. That is not bland. Or boring. I first read about Sadaharu many more than five years ago, and I was just as awed then as I am now. Knowing this satisfies me, as does knowing that there are millions of ideas and truths that I don't yet grasp. We are talking at cross-purposes.