10 ms·

One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things

by manmal 10y ago

One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe as a well-meaning entity". Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it?

jwilliams 10y ago
It's also about rebalancing your focus on to the things in the "in" of the control bucket. Stoicism ties though to a lot of modern theories. The concept of resilience springs to the front of my mind (and positive psychology in general). Might be a good place to look. Tends to have the same bent so it can be integrated naturally, but more practical in application. Particularly in a modern context, where the psychological demands are quite different.
kapv89 10y ago
I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusion is to not view your consciousness as a unique snowflake. Imagine that a white blood cell in your body has a consciousness of its own, where it, in its own way does its job when needed, hangs out with its "co-workers", other white-blood-cells, and red-blood-cells etc. You are the "universe as a well meaning entity" for this cell in your body. Extending on this hypothesis, its not too hard to conclude that you can be a small part of a bigger, well meaning consciousness.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- FabHK 10y ago
  That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity. This leaves you with two options: 1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general. 2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution. If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      If we achieve consciousness in machines, would that affect your opinion? I feel it is consistent with my stance, that awareness is indeed a property of a configuration of (entirely unconscious) matter. The configuration is extremely specific in the sense that almost all possible configurations have no consciousness, but somewhat general in that there are still infinitely many configurations that do. I still stick to option #1. Similarly, it is the specific configuration of the sand/silicon in my computer that allows it to process information, not individual sand particles or silicon atoms (even though their specific properties make it possible).
      - CuriouslyC 10y ago
        How do you know computers don't experience their existence? We assume because they behave predictably that this indicates they are unaware automata, but assume I asked you if you would like me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You would answer no with extremely high probability. Just because your answer is predictable doesn't indicate that there is no awareness behind it. In fact, there is almost certainly something that it is "like" to be a tightly coupled system of transistors. Of course, that experience is undoubtedly very different from ours. Part of the problem is that consciousness is a nebulous term that conflates awareness, self-awareness and intelligence. Specifically, I'm only speaking of awareness here. Also, when sand undergoes chemical reactions, how do you know that isn't a simple form of information processing?
f_allwein 10y ago
> I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control Really? The laws of physics, evolution etc. are all out of our control. Positive outlook? Yes, I suppose. The universe is 15 billion years old and nothing we do will have a big impact on it. But we can still make the best of the time we have in it and try to make things better for others.
- manmal 10y ago
  I of course accepted things as in "yes it just is this way", but I could not be content with them, as they are not "ok".
Synaesthesia 10y ago
The universe is completely indifferent to our suffering and that's incredibly bleak but positivity still exists because we create the own meaning to our life and find positivity in the usual things, comraderie, being creative, family, friendship.
- TurboHaskal 10y ago
  Hi there Stanley.
dbrunton 10y ago
I'm not a Stoic, but I like your question. Would you mind too much if I slightly re-worded it? "...retained a positive outlook while projecting no intrinsic meaning onto the universe..." I was raised with the idea that belief (specifically, The Belief That Jesus Died To Take Away My Sins) is the source of a positive outlook. I think this kind of a warm snuggle (if you can accept a violent and prolonged execution as such) from The Universe is lovely. But it has not been my experience that it has been particularly conducive to my own well-being. To take this back to your question, rebuking the concept of god is not tied to my well-being either. For me, a positive outlook is largely distinct from cosmology. And a nice side effect of thoughts arranged in this way is that god, the universe, a higher power are un-fundamental. My philosophical approach can constantly grown and change, and that helps me act in a way that is kind and brave. If you agreed to my rewording of your question up above, then my answer is "yes". YMMV.
zipfle 10y ago
The Tao Te Ching spends a lot of words talking about this. I'm partial to the Stephen Mitchell version. Also Ecclesiastes (basically, the Judeo-Christian reimplementation of Buddhism) is pretty vocal on the subject. http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Ephalsall/texts/taote-v3.html http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Ephalsall/texts/taote-v3...
njharman 10y ago
The universe is bleak and uncaring (but it is, probably, deterministic (I'm a pilot wave kind of guy)... getting sidetracked here). And the universe is outside of your control. Therefore you should not let it have any impact on your outlook. Also, wanting a positive outlook is a desire. And desires are suffering. And having a "positive outlook" is pre-judging things, filling up your mind with assumptions. When you should be trying to empty it. But, I'm more of a Taoist than Stoic (although there seems to be fair amount of overlap).
- danielbln 10y ago
  Thanks for the pilot wave mention, that made for an interesting read: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga...
- manmal 10y ago
  The thing is, my outlook IS under my control. I would not want that outlook, but I would create it. If you don't have any evidence as to whether the universe is cruel or ultimately wellmeaning, then you yourself can choose what to believe about it.
Havoc 10y ago
>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part. >I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe as a well-meaning entity". Well it does by necessity lead to a conclusion along the lines of "the world is a cruel place". It's a bit like a lion eating a zebra though - brutal but not inherently evil. It just is what it is.
- thisiscurio 10y ago
  This is exactly what I believe the universe is. When people say the universe is uncaring, they equate that as bad; I reckon this is because we want control over our lives. True our agency over our lives is increasing as we progress as a society but it's unlikely that we will reach a point that our cumulative progress would give us control over everything. The universe doesn't care who you are the same way a benevolent god cares about his subject; the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way, that is if you do things according to the reality that is already established, then it'll 'care' about you and give what you want. The giving is likely probabilistic.
  - tim333 10y ago
    The "bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning" conflates two things unfairly. Consider a beautiful sunrise on a tropical beach. It's part of the universe and not bleak and chaotic yet you don't have to believe it has a meaning enjoy it. As an atheist, the survival of us and our ancestors for ~4bn years suggests the universe is not so bleak in parts.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      I dunno, I see the continued survival of our species as a cruel joke - certainly bleak - given the amount of harm we do to each other and everything around us.
manibatra 10y ago
Having grown up in a religious household first 22 years of my life I had a lot of trouble with anxiety when I stopped believing in god. I could not continue studying science and believing in god without feeling like a hypocrite (not to say those who do are ). Meditation and being in the moment or at least trying to be in the moment has helped me a lot. There may not be a rhyme or reason to life but that doesn't mean you can't create one and have fun while doing so.
- manmal 10y ago
  Would it be possible that by stopping to believe in god, you stopped believing that you were safe, supported, and being taken care of? Did you stop believing because you wanted to, or was it like science took that belief away because the whole concept is wrong and impossible? For me it was the latter.
  - manibatra 10y ago
    - Exactly. The feeling of safety, that there is someone looking after me no matter what was gone which manifested itself in anxiety. I do not believe in afterlife now so the realisation that this is it was overwhelming at first but now that has given way to increased importance of how I budget my time, increased focus on what I do and being more grateful for little things. - For me it was the latter too. I remember ( I am probably wrong ) that it was Napoleon who asked Laplace that why was there no god in his mathematics ( apparently before Newton had attributed some stuff to god ). And Laplace (or could be someone else ) that he did not need god to explain his work. That has sort of stuck with me.
nurettin 10y ago
Evil god is great and no god is bleak? I'd think the opposite.
- manmal 10y ago
  Evilness/Goodness depends on what utility function you ascribe to god. If you define god's utility function as "avoid all pain in living organisms", then it's indeed an evil or non-cooperative god or universe. I personally can deal with pain (remember, suffering is optional).
  - nurettin 10y ago
    So you can deal with pain, but you simply can't bear the non-existence of the pain-giver. Sounds like a fetish.
    - manmal 10y ago
      Haha I will have to think about that, interesting point!
bathyspheric 10y ago
At times, I have found some comfort in thinking about my personal travails from universal perspective. Can my upset really have any gravity, any impact upon a drifting continent, on a spinning globe, travelling round a spiral arm of a galaxy in an expanding universe? Take a breath, breathe out and move along. Might all be a hologram anyway...
peterwwillis 10y ago
If by 'meaning' you mean "an important or worthwhile quality or purpose", that's subjective. To me, a collection of stars, dancing together around a bigger, brighter star, swirling gases and dust around the ether, until the one large star finally shrinks and explodes, hurtling all that matter out into the universe to become the seeds of new life, is worthwhile. The universe doesn't have a sense of what is bleak, or chaotic, but it probably does have a sense of what it should do, and does it according to a set of laws and principles. On the contrary, it's humans who seek to break these laws and bend nature to its will, seemingly for the purpose of saying it could be so. Honestly, nature seems full of meaning, but humanity not as much. Just enjoy your life. The only real judge is you.
guycook 10y ago
Epictetus, Stoic philosopher says: "Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. Some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions — in short, whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing." From that I take away, whether the universe proves to be a well-meaning entity or a bleak, chaotic, meaningless one, it is not useful^ to attempt to discern its motivations except to the extent you can affect them. As you noted, it is up to you to determine then what really is or isn't in your control. ^ note that this is distinct from the idea of intellectual exploration for your own enjoyment or edification
lowpro 10y ago
You're essentially asking about the difference between active and passive existential nihilism. Or in non-philosophical terms, asking who is resigned to their existence and who actively searches to find meaning in it. Active nihilism is much more beneficial and relates to stoicism. It holds that you must find your meaning, which is really what everyone does anyway, whether through a super natural being or friends, family, or one's life work (read Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. The best book I've ever read that relates these ideas as a holocust survivor).
- manmal 10y ago
  Thank you!
- armitron 10y ago
  Active nihilism is not about finding meaning in objects created by others or transcendent ideas of any kind, but creating (and projecting) your own. It is Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch. If there is one word to characterize active nihilism, it is "Destruction". The tearing down of old symbols, morals and ideas imposed upon the individual by the collective. In some of Nietzsche's writings, Christianity plays the adversarial, collective role. On the other hand and contrary to what you claim Viktor Frankl writes (I have not read his book), Stoicism (and Buddhism) are really forms of passive nihilism, Buddhism of course being the stronger of the two. If there is one word to characterize passive nihilism, it is "Acceptance".
olavk 10y ago
Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act for the benefit of humans, so the universe is not "fair". If something bad happens to you, is it really a consolation that it is because an allknowing and just God wants you to suffer?
- manmal 10y ago
  You actually can construct reasonings in which bone cancer in children might serve some greater good, though such reasonings are very painful to hear for people remotely affected, so I won't try that. I know that I'm stepping on thin ice here, but: My son does not want his teeth brushed. He absolutely hates it, because he does not yet understand that this pain is way lesser than the pain and treatment of tooth decay. So, I still have to do this to him, at least twice every day, because it is necessary. I DONT mean to say that bone cancer might be good for something eventually, but; if it were, then we might not understand it, because we don't have neither control nor insight over the future.
  - olavk 10y ago
    Yeah you can device such a reasoning - theologians from monotheistic religions do that. I guess for some this is comforting. It is certainly a bleak world where anybody can be hit by such a tragedy without any higher reason or justice. I just happen to find your viewpoint ("really, its for their own good") much more bleak and horrible.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes. The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in "The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go it alone, and you can read the various theories on how that has a Universal effect too. To raise the basic Argument from Suffering you really should look past the first-tier argument and present it anticipating The Fall. In my limited understanding suffering appears out of the axioms of free will. To make us human, with the ability to choose to love, choose to care, choose to follow God or not, we require free-will. Otherwise it's just "echo 'i love you'" rather than a genuine emotion. Your question should be "is it better not to create our Universe, with the possibility for love, if there is also a possibility of suffering". You may come to the same conclusion, that a benevolent being shouldn't turn Creator when faced with those possibilities ... but then if they hadn't you wouldn't be here to make the objection. tl;dr "The Fall" and "free will" are the standard, Biblical, Christian counter-arguments that stand against Suffering and allow for a loving, benevolent God to be creator of a Universe such as ours.
johnchristopher 10y ago
> Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yes, I have. I tend to see myself as an existentialist.
costcopizza 10y ago
Just to provide another perspective, no. I can't reconcile the two and inevitably end up in an existential slump that leads to depression.
- sireat 10y ago
  I also have the same problem that if I start thinking about the universe it inevitably leads to depression Indifferent Universe(high certainty of no Abrahamic God) -> Anything Goes/Nothing Matters as far as humans go -> Existentialists: Great, you can find your own meaning -> Psychopaths/baby seal clubbing enthusiasts/Doomsday Cultists/Uber executives can find their own meaning too -> Might makes right -> Do everything for the lolz -> This is getting deppressing For extra depression read about cognitive science (Dennett's "Bag of Tricks") or matrix argument. So you have to say "MU" and just concentrate on more pleasant passtimes. One solution seems to be ala Bukowski "Find something you love and let it kill you" (preferably slowly) Stoicism to me just seems a slight improvement to fatalism. Nice if you have the predisposition but it makes no difference if you are stoic or choleric.
sixo 10y ago
Sure. The error, I'd say, that makes this outlook seem negative is the misguided desire for intrinsic meaning. It doesn't make sense for something to simply mean something - that word takes an object. Something can only mean something to someone. I think this (the idea that there's some inscrutable higher level of meaning) is either a) a natural human intuition that can be broken down and discarded or b) an outgrowth of growing up in a society where there's a continuity of more-meaningful and less-scrutable things that we receive wrapped in packages that say: "this is important", namely, high arts, and the guilt that you feel when they don't move you (unless you happen to have previously received the necessary context). This reception - it's probably a twisted class thing - is what's wrong. The good art should be obviously good. This cultural reception isn't limited to art, there's all sorts of disastrous cultural apparatus that causes a youth to end up thinking they're missing something or the world isn't supposed to make sense to your innate intuition. Ex high school literature, weird jazz, 20th century music in the formal tradition, "modern art", but also lawns, the weird way the king james bible is written, math education, band class, gerrymandering...
krylon 10y ago
Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus had a profound influence on me. Very roughly, Camus says, the universe does not care about you (or anything) at all, and life has no meaning in the sense we were looking for. _But_ we can make our lives meaningful by doing things. We can give our lives meaning through our actions, if we can accept that it is only ephemeral - the moment I stop doing it, it ceases to be. The act of restoring meaning to meaningless life is - to Camus - an act of rebellion against the pointlessness, a refusal to give in. But it takes us back to a place where life is not bleak at all, but something to be savored.
Arun2009 10y ago
> Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? I see many living things around me - kittens, birds, squirrels, lizards, dogs - who happily go on living their lives without bothering with such things as the bleakness of the universe or its impermanence or its meaninglessness. I then remind myself that I must appear just as wonderful a creature as a kitten, bird, squirrel or lizard to some alien observer. I would find it absurd if the three playful kittens in my house suddenly developed an existential crisis. They are kittens! Their purpose is to be happy. But the same principle holds for me too. In other words, the problem of meaninglessness of life is a problem we create by fiat. It's a remarkable fact that we're fragments of this grand, ancient universe that have become sentient. That itself is enough of a reason to be thrilled at our existence and everything around us, including the good and the bad!
Ziomislaw 10y ago
Wouldn't they be executed or something for not believing in the 'right' god?

by manmal 10y ago

jwilliams 10y ago

It's also about rebalancing your focus on to the things in the "in" of the control bucket. Stoicism ties though to a lot of modern theories. The concept of resilience springs to the front of my mind (and positive psychology in general). Might be a good place to look. Tends to have the same bent so it can be integrated naturally, but more practical in application. Particularly in a modern context, where the psychological demands are quite different.

kapv89 10y ago

I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusion is to not view your consciousness as a unique snowflake. Imagine that a white blood cell in your body has a consciousness of its own, where it, in its own way does its job when needed, hangs out with its "co-workers", other white-blood-cells, and red-blood-cells etc. You are the "universe as a well meaning entity" for this cell in your body. Extending on this hypothesis, its not too hard to conclude that you can be a small part of a bigger, well meaning consciousness.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
FabHK 10y ago
That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity. This leaves you with two options: 1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general. 2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution. If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    If we achieve consciousness in machines, would that affect your opinion? I feel it is consistent with my stance, that awareness is indeed a property of a configuration of (entirely unconscious) matter. The configuration is extremely specific in the sense that almost all possible configurations have no consciousness, but somewhat general in that there are still infinitely many configurations that do. I still stick to option #1. Similarly, it is the specific configuration of the sand/silicon in my computer that allows it to process information, not individual sand particles or silicon atoms (even though their specific properties make it possible).
    - CuriouslyC 10y ago
      How do you know computers don't experience their existence? We assume because they behave predictably that this indicates they are unaware automata, but assume I asked you if you would like me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You would answer no with extremely high probability. Just because your answer is predictable doesn't indicate that there is no awareness behind it. In fact, there is almost certainly something that it is "like" to be a tightly coupled system of transistors. Of course, that experience is undoubtedly very different from ours. Part of the problem is that consciousness is a nebulous term that conflates awareness, self-awareness and intelligence. Specifically, I'm only speaking of awareness here. Also, when sand undergoes chemical reactions, how do you know that isn't a simple form of information processing?

f_allwein 10y ago

> I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control Really? The laws of physics, evolution etc. are all out of our control. Positive outlook? Yes, I suppose. The universe is 15 billion years old and nothing we do will have a big impact on it. But we can still make the best of the time we have in it and try to make things better for others.

manmal 10y ago
I of course accepted things as in "yes it just is this way", but I could not be content with them, as they are not "ok".

Synaesthesia 10y ago

The universe is completely indifferent to our suffering and that's incredibly bleak but positivity still exists because we create the own meaning to our life and find positivity in the usual things, comraderie, being creative, family, friendship.

TurboHaskal 10y ago
Hi there Stanley.

dbrunton 10y ago

I'm not a Stoic, but I like your question. Would you mind too much if I slightly re-worded it? "...retained a positive outlook while projecting no intrinsic meaning onto the universe..." I was raised with the idea that belief (specifically, The Belief That Jesus Died To Take Away My Sins) is the source of a positive outlook. I think this kind of a warm snuggle (if you can accept a violent and prolonged execution as such) from The Universe is lovely. But it has not been my experience that it has been particularly conducive to my own well-being. To take this back to your question, rebuking the concept of god is not tied to my well-being either. For me, a positive outlook is largely distinct from cosmology. And a nice side effect of thoughts arranged in this way is that god, the universe, a higher power are un-fundamental. My philosophical approach can constantly grown and change, and that helps me act in a way that is kind and brave. If you agreed to my rewording of your question up above, then my answer is "yes". YMMV.

zipfle 10y ago

The Tao Te Ching spends a lot of words talking about this. I'm partial to the Stephen Mitchell version. Also Ecclesiastes (basically, the Judeo-Christian reimplementation of Buddhism) is pretty vocal on the subject. http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Ephalsall/texts/taote-v3.html http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Ephalsall/texts/taote-v3...

njharman 10y ago

The universe is bleak and uncaring (but it is, probably, deterministic (I'm a pilot wave kind of guy)... getting sidetracked here). And the universe is outside of your control. Therefore you should not let it have any impact on your outlook. Also, wanting a positive outlook is a desire. And desires are suffering. And having a "positive outlook" is pre-judging things, filling up your mind with assumptions. When you should be trying to empty it. But, I'm more of a Taoist than Stoic (although there seems to be fair amount of overlap).

danielbln 10y ago
Thanks for the pilot wave mention, that made for an interesting read: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga...
manmal 10y ago
The thing is, my outlook IS under my control. I would not want that outlook, but I would create it. If you don't have any evidence as to whether the universe is cruel or ultimately wellmeaning, then you yourself can choose what to believe about it.

Havoc 10y ago

>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part. >I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe as a well-meaning entity". Well it does by necessity lead to a conclusion along the lines of "the world is a cruel place". It's a bit like a lion eating a zebra though - brutal but not inherently evil. It just is what it is.

thisiscurio 10y ago
This is exactly what I believe the universe is. When people say the universe is uncaring, they equate that as bad; I reckon this is because we want control over our lives. True our agency over our lives is increasing as we progress as a society but it's unlikely that we will reach a point that our cumulative progress would give us control over everything. The universe doesn't care who you are the same way a benevolent god cares about his subject; the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way, that is if you do things according to the reality that is already established, then it'll 'care' about you and give what you want. The giving is likely probabilistic.
- tim333 10y ago
  The "bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning" conflates two things unfairly. Consider a beautiful sunrise on a tropical beach. It's part of the universe and not bleak and chaotic yet you don't have to believe it has a meaning enjoy it. As an atheist, the survival of us and our ancestors for ~4bn years suggests the universe is not so bleak in parts.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    I dunno, I see the continued survival of our species as a cruel joke - certainly bleak - given the amount of harm we do to each other and everything around us.

manibatra 10y ago

Having grown up in a religious household first 22 years of my life I had a lot of trouble with anxiety when I stopped believing in god. I could not continue studying science and believing in god without feeling like a hypocrite (not to say those who do are ). Meditation and being in the moment or at least trying to be in the moment has helped me a lot. There may not be a rhyme or reason to life but that doesn't mean you can't create one and have fun while doing so.

manmal 10y ago
Would it be possible that by stopping to believe in god, you stopped believing that you were safe, supported, and being taken care of? Did you stop believing because you wanted to, or was it like science took that belief away because the whole concept is wrong and impossible? For me it was the latter.
- manibatra 10y ago
  - Exactly. The feeling of safety, that there is someone looking after me no matter what was gone which manifested itself in anxiety. I do not believe in afterlife now so the realisation that this is it was overwhelming at first but now that has given way to increased importance of how I budget my time, increased focus on what I do and being more grateful for little things. - For me it was the latter too. I remember ( I am probably wrong ) that it was Napoleon who asked Laplace that why was there no god in his mathematics ( apparently before Newton had attributed some stuff to god ). And Laplace (or could be someone else ) that he did not need god to explain his work. That has sort of stuck with me.

nurettin 10y ago

Evil god is great and no god is bleak? I'd think the opposite.

manmal 10y ago
Evilness/Goodness depends on what utility function you ascribe to god. If you define god's utility function as "avoid all pain in living organisms", then it's indeed an evil or non-cooperative god or universe. I personally can deal with pain (remember, suffering is optional).
- nurettin 10y ago
  So you can deal with pain, but you simply can't bear the non-existence of the pain-giver. Sounds like a fetish.
  - manmal 10y ago
    Haha I will have to think about that, interesting point!

bathyspheric 10y ago

At times, I have found some comfort in thinking about my personal travails from universal perspective. Can my upset really have any gravity, any impact upon a drifting continent, on a spinning globe, travelling round a spiral arm of a galaxy in an expanding universe? Take a breath, breathe out and move along. Might all be a hologram anyway...

peterwwillis 10y ago

If by 'meaning' you mean "an important or worthwhile quality or purpose", that's subjective. To me, a collection of stars, dancing together around a bigger, brighter star, swirling gases and dust around the ether, until the one large star finally shrinks and explodes, hurtling all that matter out into the universe to become the seeds of new life, is worthwhile. The universe doesn't have a sense of what is bleak, or chaotic, but it probably does have a sense of what it should do, and does it according to a set of laws and principles. On the contrary, it's humans who seek to break these laws and bend nature to its will, seemingly for the purpose of saying it could be so. Honestly, nature seems full of meaning, but humanity not as much. Just enjoy your life. The only real judge is you.

guycook 10y ago

Epictetus, Stoic philosopher says: "Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. Some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions — in short, whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing." From that I take away, whether the universe proves to be a well-meaning entity or a bleak, chaotic, meaningless one, it is not useful^ to attempt to discern its motivations except to the extent you can affect them. As you noted, it is up to you to determine then what really is or isn't in your control. ^ note that this is distinct from the idea of intellectual exploration for your own enjoyment or edification

lowpro 10y ago

You're essentially asking about the difference between active and passive existential nihilism. Or in non-philosophical terms, asking who is resigned to their existence and who actively searches to find meaning in it. Active nihilism is much more beneficial and relates to stoicism. It holds that you must find your meaning, which is really what everyone does anyway, whether through a super natural being or friends, family, or one's life work (read Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. The best book I've ever read that relates these ideas as a holocust survivor).

manmal 10y ago
Thank you!
armitron 10y ago
Active nihilism is not about finding meaning in objects created by others or transcendent ideas of any kind, but creating (and projecting) your own. It is Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch. If there is one word to characterize active nihilism, it is "Destruction". The tearing down of old symbols, morals and ideas imposed upon the individual by the collective. In some of Nietzsche's writings, Christianity plays the adversarial, collective role. On the other hand and contrary to what you claim Viktor Frankl writes (I have not read his book), Stoicism (and Buddhism) are really forms of passive nihilism, Buddhism of course being the stronger of the two. If there is one word to characterize passive nihilism, it is "Acceptance".

olavk 10y ago

Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act for the benefit of humans, so the universe is not "fair". If something bad happens to you, is it really a consolation that it is because an allknowing and just God wants you to suffer?

manmal 10y ago
You actually can construct reasonings in which bone cancer in children might serve some greater good, though such reasonings are very painful to hear for people remotely affected, so I won't try that. I know that I'm stepping on thin ice here, but: My son does not want his teeth brushed. He absolutely hates it, because he does not yet understand that this pain is way lesser than the pain and treatment of tooth decay. So, I still have to do this to him, at least twice every day, because it is necessary. I DONT mean to say that bone cancer might be good for something eventually, but; if it were, then we might not understand it, because we don't have neither control nor insight over the future.
- olavk 10y ago
  Yeah you can device such a reasoning - theologians from monotheistic religions do that. I guess for some this is comforting. It is certainly a bleak world where anybody can be hit by such a tragedy without any higher reason or justice. I just happen to find your viewpoint ("really, its for their own good") much more bleak and horrible.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes. The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in "The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go it alone, and you can read the various theories on how that has a Universal effect too. To raise the basic Argument from Suffering you really should look past the first-tier argument and present it anticipating The Fall. In my limited understanding suffering appears out of the axioms of free will. To make us human, with the ability to choose to love, choose to care, choose to follow God or not, we require free-will. Otherwise it's just "echo 'i love you'" rather than a genuine emotion. Your question should be "is it better not to create our Universe, with the possibility for love, if there is also a possibility of suffering". You may come to the same conclusion, that a benevolent being shouldn't turn Creator when faced with those possibilities ... but then if they hadn't you wouldn't be here to make the objection. tl;dr "The Fall" and "free will" are the standard, Biblical, Christian counter-arguments that stand against Suffering and allow for a loving, benevolent God to be creator of a Universe such as ours.

johnchristopher 10y ago

costcopizza 10y ago

Just to provide another perspective, no. I can't reconcile the two and inevitably end up in an existential slump that leads to depression.

sireat 10y ago
I also have the same problem that if I start thinking about the universe it inevitably leads to depression Indifferent Universe(high certainty of no Abrahamic God) -> Anything Goes/Nothing Matters as far as humans go -> Existentialists: Great, you can find your own meaning -> Psychopaths/baby seal clubbing enthusiasts/Doomsday Cultists/Uber executives can find their own meaning too -> Might makes right -> Do everything for the lolz -> This is getting deppressing For extra depression read about cognitive science (Dennett's "Bag of Tricks") or matrix argument. So you have to say "MU" and just concentrate on more pleasant passtimes. One solution seems to be ala Bukowski "Find something you love and let it kill you" (preferably slowly) Stoicism to me just seems a slight improvement to fatalism. Nice if you have the predisposition but it makes no difference if you are stoic or choleric.

sixo 10y ago

Sure. The error, I'd say, that makes this outlook seem negative is the misguided desire for intrinsic meaning. It doesn't make sense for something to simply mean something - that word takes an object. Something can only mean something to someone. I think this (the idea that there's some inscrutable higher level of meaning) is either a) a natural human intuition that can be broken down and discarded or b) an outgrowth of growing up in a society where there's a continuity of more-meaningful and less-scrutable things that we receive wrapped in packages that say: "this is important", namely, high arts, and the guilt that you feel when they don't move you (unless you happen to have previously received the necessary context). This reception - it's probably a twisted class thing - is what's wrong. The good art should be obviously good. This cultural reception isn't limited to art, there's all sorts of disastrous cultural apparatus that causes a youth to end up thinking they're missing something or the world isn't supposed to make sense to your innate intuition. Ex high school literature, weird jazz, 20th century music in the formal tradition, "modern art", but also lawns, the weird way the king james bible is written, math education, band class, gerrymandering...

krylon 10y ago

Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus had a profound influence on me. Very roughly, Camus says, the universe does not care about you (or anything) at all, and life has no meaning in the sense we were looking for. _But_ we can make our lives meaningful by doing things. We can give our lives meaning through our actions, if we can accept that it is only ephemeral - the moment I stop doing it, it ceases to be. The act of restoring meaning to meaningless life is - to Camus - an act of rebellion against the pointlessness, a refusal to give in. But it takes us back to a place where life is not bleak at all, but something to be savored.

Arun2009 10y ago

> Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? I see many living things around me - kittens, birds, squirrels, lizards, dogs - who happily go on living their lives without bothering with such things as the bleakness of the universe or its impermanence or its meaninglessness. I then remind myself that I must appear just as wonderful a creature as a kitten, bird, squirrel or lizard to some alien observer. I would find it absurd if the three playful kittens in my house suddenly developed an existential crisis. They are kittens! Their purpose is to be happy. But the same principle holds for me too. In other words, the problem of meaninglessness of life is a problem we create by fiat. It's a remarkable fact that we're fragments of this grand, ancient universe that have become sentient. That itself is enough of a reason to be thrilled at our existence and everything around us, including the good and the bad!

Ziomislaw 10y ago

Wouldn't they be executed or something for not believing in the 'right' god?