6 ms·

Thank you for sharing this great piece of wisdom! Recently, I read Self-Reliance by Emerson, and its modern “translation” https://www.youmeworks.com/self_relian

Thank you for sharing this great piece of wisdom! Recently, I read Self-Reliance by Emerson, and its modern “translation” https://www.youmeworks.com/self_reliance_translated.html https://www.youmeworks.com/self_reliance_translated.html and try to base my way of living on that foundation. As our existence seems ultimately meaningless, and there is no universal compass to drive us through life, it is difficult for people and personally for me to keep deeply motivated about my work and other activities. On the surface, I may be driven by money, work achievements, desire to have a happy family, having fun, but often I find myself facing the deep dark emptiness of lacking a deeply ingrained purpose I would be happy to follow wholeheartedly. I read an interesting thought from Jordan Peterson that a great purpose is to reduce suffering in the world. It sounds deep and great, but I think it will be hard for many people to connect their day to day activities to this noble meaning. I sometimes envy of people from previous centuries, when Christianity was strong, and many found their purpose in serving God. God is dead in the Western civilisation now, and it is very hard to fill the void.

RubenSandwich 7y ago
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" - Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125 I too look at the social coercion afforded to religion and envy. The idea of moving almost anywhere and having a weekly community event with like minded people is unparalleled.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  But Nietzsche probably broke down because of the expectations he imposed on himself. At least that is what I take from how his writing changed over time and the end of his biography. I like coke and fatty burgers btw... I meant the drink...
  - RubenSandwich 7y ago
    From my understanding it's hard to know too much about his latter years because while his health was deteriorating his sister took over his estate and started publishing his fragments in an order that supported her antisemitic worldview[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche#Nietzsche_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche#Ni...
- denverkarma 7y ago
  I think you meant “cohesion” not coercion. But also, while “cultural Christianity,” the idea that everyone is a Christian and follows some pseudo-Christian values has mostly gone away, actual religion (of many varieties) is alive and well. You can still move almost anywhere and find a Catholic Church that is pretty consistent around the world, and likewise many other denominations. Speaking of my own experience in non-denominational Christian churches from here down: The people in them would probably be a lot less like-minded than you would expect. The church (collectively, even if not every congregation) is wildly diverse, and is one of the few places you can still go and build relationships with people from all different income brackets, ethnicities, jobs, etc. Lastly, you don’t need to believe in God (or Jesus) to attend and be welcomed in. Not everyone there does, and actually in most churches they’d be very interested to talk with you and hear why you’re there etc. Yes, they will teach you about their beliefs, but they’re quite simple, as summarized by Jesus himself in “the great commandment”: love God, and love your neighbor. While all believers wrestle with what God is and what it would mean to love God, the focus is largely on the second commandment - love your neighbor as yourself. That, choosing a life where you genuinely try to support and take care of the people around you, is a pretty good way to live. Now, I expect some HN hate for posting this. I don’t mean to claim that everyone who has ever called themselves a Christian lives as described above — I myself have been disgusted by the behavior of people who claimed Christian slogans or shove a few bible verses on poster boards and then twisted them for political purposes, completely failing to follow the actual teachings of Christianity in the process. Bad churches and misguided church-goers exist in every religion, unfortunately (Christ himself often called this out). You have to think critically, never follow anything blindly. And I think that “cultural religion,” where the mainstream state government adopts the trappings of a religion and then uses it as a cudgel to enforce their agenda has been quite harmful. My point in posting this is not to gloss over any of that. Rather, my point is that spiritual life (of many different traditions) is still alive and well among thoughtful, caring, and intellectual people. If approached with an open mind you might be shocked at how pragmatic they are, and how open they are to deep skeptics who are more interested in how to have a meaningful life here on earth than whether or not anything beyond that exists. In fact, many of them fit that description themselves.
  - RubenSandwich 7y ago
HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago
What you describe is the core issue in existentialist philosophy. Being free means having the freedom to choose the meaning for yourself. That kind of freedom of purpose and ultimate responsibility can be horrifying. " Meaning is everywhere. There is always meaning. Or at least all things show a disturbing tendency to have meaning ascribed to them when intelligent creatures are present. It’s just that there’s no final Meaning, with a capital M. Though the illusion that there might be is comforting for a certain class of mind. " -- Iain M. Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata
thrav 7y ago
The Ethics of Ambiguity was the most important book I’ve ever read to this end. For me, reduce suffering is not the best way to think about it. Simone De Beauvoir suggests our aim should be to will the freedom of others / increase the autonomy of the many. Things can only have meaning when people are free to make their own decision. It’s much harder to judge actions as good or bad if there was never a choice. The trolley car outcome can only be evaluated if the switch is available in the first place.
- panarky 7y ago
  > our aim should be to will the freedom of others It used to be that every individual didn't have to figure out for themselves what to believe, they just believed the same as their family and neighbors. It used to be that every individual didn't have to figure out for themselves what their life's work would be, they just continued the same occupation as their father or mother. Unlimited freedom is a lot of work, and it doesn't make everyone happy. Americans now live in a time and a place in which freedom and autonomy are valued above all else and in which expanded opportunities for self-determination are regarded as a sign of the psychological well-being of individuals and the moral well-being of the culture. This article argues that freedom, autonomy, and self-determination can become excessive, and that when that happens, freedom can be experienced as a kind of tyranny. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5044/cf122d8903a8506871d67fc4887f20275a76.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5044/cf122d8903a8506871d67f...
chr1 7y ago
Reducing suffering doesn't seem to be a good criterion, because it has a trivial solution of reducing all life. The pain, the process of suffering itself is not bad, it is just a signal that what one wanted to do will not be possible to do. So suffering is just a messenger. A better heuristic for a purpose is to increase the future freedom of action https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence?language=en#t-2357 https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...
- playing_colours 7y ago
  This is what the comments above from HONEST_ANNIE and thrav mentioned as well. It's a promising territory to explore, but also going down the path of absorbing existentialists literature feels terrifying to me, based on my past experience of reading Nausea by Sartre. What I liked in Emerson's Self-Reliance is the idea of trusting ourselves in finding or deciding on the meaning of our own life, cultivating this ultimate freedom to decide and take responsibilities on our own.
yters 7y ago
If suffering is ultimately caused by this existential despair, it's unclear how making 'eliminate suffering' a life purpose eliminates existential despair. For example, let's imagine we've turned the entire world into a utopia and no one suffers anymore from disease, famine, war, homelessness, etc. If everyone thinks life is still ultimately meaningless, then the elimination of suffering will allow them to look this reality full in its face. I remember in Joss Whedon's Serenity one of the characters talks about a planet of perfect utopia, which is also perfectly secular, and the planet ultimately succumbs to despair and suicide. In which case, people may miss their suffering, because their need to survive took their minds off the emptiness. On the other hand, let's say we discover there is some kind of ultimate meaning, perhaps even some of the worse suffering becomes less significant if those suffering understand the meaning of it all. So, the question of ultimate meaning appears more fundamental than 'eliminate suffering,' and we will be unable to eliminate suffering without tackling the more fundamental question.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  I think we can try to differentiate: There is struggle and there is suffering. A human needs (to pick) struggles to overcome in their lives, and they can give us so desired meaning. I cannot imaging a life without any struggles. Even in a society where all the basic needs are satisfied, there will be struggles of higher order - to love and be loved, to be recognised, to create art, etc. Overcoming struggles empowers, trains mentally and physically. On the other hand, suffering seems to affect our most essential needs - food, security, health, it severely limits our choice. Eliminating suffering expands our freedom to choose our meaningful struggles.
  - yters 7y ago
    What I mean is that the necessary struggles related to suffering keep people from thinking about whether there is ultimate meaning. If we eliminate these struggles of necessity, then people can reflect that all the voluntary struggles you mention are meaningless, and so despair (unless the question of ultimate meaning is resolved). So, elimination of physical suffering perhaps will increase the psychological suffering due to meaninglessness. On the other hand, if someone has ultimate purpose locked in their mind, then perhaps even the sufferings of necessity can become more bearable and even easier to overcome.
dan00 7y ago
> I read an interesting thought from Jordan Peterson that a great purpose is to reduce suffering in the world. It sounds deep and great, but I think it will be hard for many people to connect their day to day activities to this noble meaning. I think that people get demotivated by thinking too large, that only if they've reduced the suffering of the whole world, only then it would be noble and meaningful. If everyone would just take care of the people around him, reduce their suffering or at least not increase it, then a lot would have been achieved.
andrepd 7y ago
>I read an interesting thought from Jordan Peterson that a great purpose is to reduce suffering in the world. Hardly a novel thought, is it? :p But anyway, the issue remains, right? Why reduce suffering. What's the point. We will all be dead anyway. Etc, etc. If you struggle with finding a purpose/reason to do your life, then how does that help? >God is dead in the Western civilisation now, and it is very hard to fill the void. Still far from dead, but it would be for the best anyway. All things considered, religion probably wrought more misery and did more damage that it did good. Myself I'm much more content without a god than with. It's liberating. Well, at first it's scary. You realise than nobody is there, nobody is listening. There is no cosmic justice. Nobody is going to come down from the heavens and save you. Then, all of a sudden, when you think of it... it's liberating! Nobody will save you. So what? You will save yourself! You will roll up your sleeves and do things. You don't have to pay tribute to a lord. You don't have to follow his laws. There are no limits to you, or what you can achieve. There is nothing else. There are just humans. There's just us.

RubenSandwich 7y ago

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" - Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125 I too look at the social coercion afforded to religion and envy. The idea of moving almost anywhere and having a weekly community event with like minded people is unparalleled.

raxxorrax 7y ago
But Nietzsche probably broke down because of the expectations he imposed on himself. At least that is what I take from how his writing changed over time and the end of his biography. I like coke and fatty burgers btw... I meant the drink...
- RubenSandwich 7y ago
  From my understanding it's hard to know too much about his latter years because while his health was deteriorating his sister took over his estate and started publishing his fragments in an order that supported her antisemitic worldview[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche#Nietzsche_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche#Ni...
denverkarma 7y ago
I think you meant “cohesion” not coercion. But also, while “cultural Christianity,” the idea that everyone is a Christian and follows some pseudo-Christian values has mostly gone away, actual religion (of many varieties) is alive and well. You can still move almost anywhere and find a Catholic Church that is pretty consistent around the world, and likewise many other denominations. Speaking of my own experience in non-denominational Christian churches from here down: The people in them would probably be a lot less like-minded than you would expect. The church (collectively, even if not every congregation) is wildly diverse, and is one of the few places you can still go and build relationships with people from all different income brackets, ethnicities, jobs, etc. Lastly, you don’t need to believe in God (or Jesus) to attend and be welcomed in. Not everyone there does, and actually in most churches they’d be very interested to talk with you and hear why you’re there etc. Yes, they will teach you about their beliefs, but they’re quite simple, as summarized by Jesus himself in “the great commandment”: love God, and love your neighbor. While all believers wrestle with what God is and what it would mean to love God, the focus is largely on the second commandment - love your neighbor as yourself. That, choosing a life where you genuinely try to support and take care of the people around you, is a pretty good way to live. Now, I expect some HN hate for posting this. I don’t mean to claim that everyone who has ever called themselves a Christian lives as described above — I myself have been disgusted by the behavior of people who claimed Christian slogans or shove a few bible verses on poster boards and then twisted them for political purposes, completely failing to follow the actual teachings of Christianity in the process. Bad churches and misguided church-goers exist in every religion, unfortunately (Christ himself often called this out). You have to think critically, never follow anything blindly. And I think that “cultural religion,” where the mainstream state government adopts the trappings of a religion and then uses it as a cudgel to enforce their agenda has been quite harmful. My point in posting this is not to gloss over any of that. Rather, my point is that spiritual life (of many different traditions) is still alive and well among thoughtful, caring, and intellectual people. If approached with an open mind you might be shocked at how pragmatic they are, and how open they are to deep skeptics who are more interested in how to have a meaningful life here on earth than whether or not anything beyond that exists. In fact, many of them fit that description themselves.
- RubenSandwich 7y ago

HONEST_ANNIE 7y ago

What you describe is the core issue in existentialist philosophy. Being free means having the freedom to choose the meaning for yourself. That kind of freedom of purpose and ultimate responsibility can be horrifying. " Meaning is everywhere. There is always meaning. Or at least all things show a disturbing tendency to have meaning ascribed to them when intelligent creatures are present. It’s just that there’s no final Meaning, with a capital M. Though the illusion that there might be is comforting for a certain class of mind. " -- Iain M. Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

thrav 7y ago

The Ethics of Ambiguity was the most important book I’ve ever read to this end. For me, reduce suffering is not the best way to think about it. Simone De Beauvoir suggests our aim should be to will the freedom of others / increase the autonomy of the many. Things can only have meaning when people are free to make their own decision. It’s much harder to judge actions as good or bad if there was never a choice. The trolley car outcome can only be evaluated if the switch is available in the first place.

panarky 7y ago
> our aim should be to will the freedom of others It used to be that every individual didn't have to figure out for themselves what to believe, they just believed the same as their family and neighbors. It used to be that every individual didn't have to figure out for themselves what their life's work would be, they just continued the same occupation as their father or mother. Unlimited freedom is a lot of work, and it doesn't make everyone happy. Americans now live in a time and a place in which freedom and autonomy are valued above all else and in which expanded opportunities for self-determination are regarded as a sign of the psychological well-being of individuals and the moral well-being of the culture. This article argues that freedom, autonomy, and self-determination can become excessive, and that when that happens, freedom can be experienced as a kind of tyranny. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5044/cf122d8903a8506871d67fc4887f20275a76.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5044/cf122d8903a8506871d67f...

chr1 7y ago

Reducing suffering doesn't seem to be a good criterion, because it has a trivial solution of reducing all life. The pain, the process of suffering itself is not bad, it is just a signal that what one wanted to do will not be possible to do. So suffering is just a messenger. A better heuristic for a purpose is to increase the future freedom of action https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence?language=en#t-2357 https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...

playing_colours 7y ago
This is what the comments above from HONEST_ANNIE and thrav mentioned as well. It's a promising territory to explore, but also going down the path of absorbing existentialists literature feels terrifying to me, based on my past experience of reading Nausea by Sartre. What I liked in Emerson's Self-Reliance is the idea of trusting ourselves in finding or deciding on the meaning of our own life, cultivating this ultimate freedom to decide and take responsibilities on our own.

yters 7y ago

If suffering is ultimately caused by this existential despair, it's unclear how making 'eliminate suffering' a life purpose eliminates existential despair. For example, let's imagine we've turned the entire world into a utopia and no one suffers anymore from disease, famine, war, homelessness, etc. If everyone thinks life is still ultimately meaningless, then the elimination of suffering will allow them to look this reality full in its face. I remember in Joss Whedon's Serenity one of the characters talks about a planet of perfect utopia, which is also perfectly secular, and the planet ultimately succumbs to despair and suicide. In which case, people may miss their suffering, because their need to survive took their minds off the emptiness. On the other hand, let's say we discover there is some kind of ultimate meaning, perhaps even some of the worse suffering becomes less significant if those suffering understand the meaning of it all. So, the question of ultimate meaning appears more fundamental than 'eliminate suffering,' and we will be unable to eliminate suffering without tackling the more fundamental question.

playing_colours 7y ago
I think we can try to differentiate: There is struggle and there is suffering. A human needs (to pick) struggles to overcome in their lives, and they can give us so desired meaning. I cannot imaging a life without any struggles. Even in a society where all the basic needs are satisfied, there will be struggles of higher order - to love and be loved, to be recognised, to create art, etc. Overcoming struggles empowers, trains mentally and physically. On the other hand, suffering seems to affect our most essential needs - food, security, health, it severely limits our choice. Eliminating suffering expands our freedom to choose our meaningful struggles.
- yters 7y ago
  What I mean is that the necessary struggles related to suffering keep people from thinking about whether there is ultimate meaning. If we eliminate these struggles of necessity, then people can reflect that all the voluntary struggles you mention are meaningless, and so despair (unless the question of ultimate meaning is resolved). So, elimination of physical suffering perhaps will increase the psychological suffering due to meaninglessness. On the other hand, if someone has ultimate purpose locked in their mind, then perhaps even the sufferings of necessity can become more bearable and even easier to overcome.

dan00 7y ago

> I read an interesting thought from Jordan Peterson that a great purpose is to reduce suffering in the world. It sounds deep and great, but I think it will be hard for many people to connect their day to day activities to this noble meaning. I think that people get demotivated by thinking too large, that only if they've reduced the suffering of the whole world, only then it would be noble and meaningful. If everyone would just take care of the people around him, reduce their suffering or at least not increase it, then a lot would have been achieved.

andrepd 7y ago

>I read an interesting thought from Jordan Peterson that a great purpose is to reduce suffering in the world. Hardly a novel thought, is it? :p But anyway, the issue remains, right? Why reduce suffering. What's the point. We will all be dead anyway. Etc, etc. If you struggle with finding a purpose/reason to do your life, then how does that help? >God is dead in the Western civilisation now, and it is very hard to fill the void. Still far from dead, but it would be for the best anyway. All things considered, religion probably wrought more misery and did more damage that it did good. Myself I'm much more content without a god than with. It's liberating. Well, at first it's scary. You realise than nobody is there, nobody is listening. There is no cosmic justice. Nobody is going to come down from the heavens and save you. Then, all of a sudden, when you think of it... it's liberating! Nobody will save you. So what? You will save yourself! You will roll up your sleeves and do things. You don't have to pay tribute to a lord. You don't have to follow his laws. There are no limits to you, or what you can achieve. There is nothing else. There are just humans. There's just us.