7 ms·

While I understand this approach, it's not that nothing matters, it's that the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Here's a thought experiment: i

While I understand this approach, it's not that nothing matters, it's that the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Here's a thought experiment: if you are able to see a the still mostly full moon tonight, and luckier still if you can actually see some stars, when you look at the moon, consider that you are actually looking down at it. You, as a person are hanging over it sort of perpendicularly to the surface of this sphere. Keep your eyes on it long enough that you see it move just so imperceptibly slowly, until you feel a bit dizzy or get a bit of vertigo from the motion. From this vantage point of hanging off the side of a sphere, it's like seeing the moon for the first time, and once you have seen the movement you will recognize in that moment that you are _on_ a planet, which is suddenly finite with an obvious curvature, and the most immediate question is, what the hell is this thing and how is it possible we can distract ourselves from contemplating it? It is the literal definition of physical perspective, where when you view the moon as downward from you, it makes everything here seem both finite and possible. The stars when you look down or out at them become asymptotic points on a blanket-like manifold. The mistake was that we think these things were merely "up," and things "down" here are the sum of the real. I think when you see how we are situated relative to the moon, other planets, and stars without the narrative filter of a self that looks inward, it's not that nothing matters, it's that anything that obfuscates this sense of clarity you can get about our place in the cosmos just from looking down the hollow space between us and the moon - is necessarily absurd.

layer8 4y ago
> the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Why should the esteem of people you do admire matter? I’m genuinely curious why you added that qualification.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Actually, why should anything matter? Why do people have kids, if in a few generations no one's going to remember anything among millions of humans? Population growth can actually make human life on the planet unsustainable, as garbage builds up and resources dwindle. Coming from an atheist point of view, let's say, what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? Why build anything when in 20 years computers will do it better? All that software you wrote, why even do it? All those stories and art can now be remixed. The hive mind will have the answer to every question better than the people who bicker about stuff they don't even know about. Who cares about their opinion? In a couple decades, who needs them to even work? To tell jokes? To have sex? Do we need to pay the next generation all a UBI to make sure they get their needs met? We may as well build a virtual reality for ourselves to experience whatever we want since it all doesn't really matter, right?
  - meowkit 4y ago
    This is a long winded way to dance around nihilism. Nihilism is much like a hidden tarpit on the philosophical journey. Easy to fall into and get stuck. Necessary in a way, but not the place to dwell. A primary thing to point out is perception of meaning is flexible and not static, and things don't need "to matter". Meaning is an emergent phenomenon of relationships. As an example: Doing meaningful computer work is about the relationship between the coder, the computer, and the emotional/physical rewards of completing the work. If you define the relationship of "computer work now" vs "computer work in 20 years" that edge in our meaning graph is going to have a value bending towards not mattering at all. > what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? Sidebar: this is also probably wrong as far as I understand. Modern wealth is built off of leveraging large populations / economics of scale and has this implied requirement of growth to maintain stability. Until things are completely automated (AKA we have robots capable of matching a human's productivity) a smaller population would imply a population collapse which would not be good in the short term.
  - pronlover723 4y ago
    > what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? It's arguable whether a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off. More people = More specialization and more minds solving problems = faster advancement = better living for everyone. Yes I get you can make your own progression that goes negative. The point is not that more people = better. It's that less people = better is not a fact, it's an opinion or conjecture
  - mathieuh 4y ago
    To me there is a massive difference between “mattering” and “having worth”. I don’t believe anything matters, but I do believe there are things that are worth doing and there are ways of behaving that are worth following. I’m not a philosopher so I’m probably not explaining myself well, but I don’t think anything at all matters in an existential sense. Whether I live or get hit by a bus and die tomorrow or whatever, it’s not important. However, I do think there are many things that are worthy. Helping other people, trying not to harm anything, being kind etc., I believe these things are all very worthy of doing, but I don’t think they matter. I wish I knew what the philosophical terms for what I’m describing as “matter” and “have worth” were
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  Consider it peer review or pair programming for living. If you find people whose judgment you respect, having them call you out can save you pain.
- uwagar 4y ago
  tbh, that dont matter too. they cant stop one's death.
- bluepizza 4y ago
  It doesn't. But it becomes a personal choice to care for it, even if it doesn't matter. If nothing really matters, then you are free to choose what you care about.
rjbwork 4y ago
I have to ask, do you listen to Sam Harris' podcast? His last two episodes have touched on both aspects of your post - the paradigmatic shift that can occur simply by changing the perspective from which you view something as simple as looking at the moon, and the nature of status and the status games humans play.
leetrout 4y ago
I always enjoy how quickly the moon moves across my telescope's field of view. Really solidifies the motion you otherwise don't notice.
noisy_boy 4y ago
> how is it possible we can distract ourselves from contemplating it That's nothing. We routinely ignore amazing things. It is required for us to go about our lives. What I would like is to be able to summon the amazement at will without it losing its sharpness over repeated contemplation.
- leobg 4y ago
  Marriage counselors warn that we do the same thing to our partners. We automate our perception of them, as well as our reactions to them. Hence, at some point, we no longer really see them. Not lack of love, but our brain trying to save energy might be the cause of most divorces and split-ups. (I wonder if there is also Flanderization going on, like discussed here yesterday.)
  - noisy_boy 4y ago
    That is an interesting point. I would also think that the degree of amazing actions from partners isn't uniform; routine actions don't warrant amazement and people doing amazing things for their partners isn't happening every time all the time. Your point stands valid though - we do do that.
thunkle 4y ago
I realized this one evening driving under the stary sky. I had a full-blown panic attack. It's been 15 years and I still have trouble driving under the sky. I guess I'm basically agoraphobic, but after some googling it's probably better described by spacephobia, although I'm not convinced that's it either, I wonder if there is a perspective based phobia.
taylorius 4y ago
> when you look at the moon, consider that you are actually looking down at it. >You, as a person are hanging over it sort of perpendicularly to the surface of >this sphere. You'll get the flat moon theorists all riled up with that sort of talk...
8crazyideas 4y ago
When my son was 19, he insisted on taking a solo trip to New Zealand. As it happens, he hiked around and worked on farms and generally had a great experience. But naturally at the time I was concerned that he have a safe trip and a good experience. After I said goodbye to him at the airport, I went home and wrote a poem. It incorporates the moment when I first experienced this perception of the moon: On Leaving for New Zealand Once on a morning in deep winter I spied the moon almost full but not quite Over the roof of the house where I was delivering the morning newspaper. Between splayed branches Earthshine making its roundness plain To show that it was a rock suspended Like the earth around, solid but floating too. In those days there was no son Or daughter, or wife or plan. I could not guess what things would be Or where my route would take me. Yet now if I stood on the moon’s dark plain And looked down from there, I might see My son standing on the far southern sphere Looking back up at me.
gausswho 4y ago
The video game Outer Wilds (not to be confused with The Outer Worlds) among its many merits is excellent at conveying a sense of falling as you leave orbit from various rocks in space. As a bonus, it's also about time, basically a sci-fi exercise on Groundhog Day.
toss1 4y ago
>>it's that the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Yup! One of the best sayings I heard on the topic of doing anything potentially viewed as odd: "Those who mind, don't matter, and those who matter don't mind"
xtiansimon 4y ago
There is an interesting catalog for an art exhibit whose theme turns on technologies, camera, telescope, microscope, as having altered the imaginative consciousness of humanity. As I recall, the curators argue these technologies diminished our capacity for awe in the numinal when they depict the cosmos as it really exists. Cosmos: From Romanticism to the Avant-garde. Jean Clair, ‎Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, ‎Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona · 1999 I’ve also heard the counter theory from a film professor of mine in college, Charles Chess. He argued film has the power to manifest strong emotional reactions which our mind/consciousness suppresses. Offered as proof of his belief, he related the story of a film class field trip to a slaughter house, followed by the class screening the film “Blood of the Beasts” (Original title: Le sang des bêtes. 1949. 22 minutes). Only the film caused students to feel sick, or so he says.

layer8 4y ago

> the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Why should the esteem of people you do admire matter? I’m genuinely curious why you added that qualification.

EGreg 4y ago
Actually, why should anything matter? Why do people have kids, if in a few generations no one's going to remember anything among millions of humans? Population growth can actually make human life on the planet unsustainable, as garbage builds up and resources dwindle. Coming from an atheist point of view, let's say, what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? Why build anything when in 20 years computers will do it better? All that software you wrote, why even do it? All those stories and art can now be remixed. The hive mind will have the answer to every question better than the people who bicker about stuff they don't even know about. Who cares about their opinion? In a couple decades, who needs them to even work? To tell jokes? To have sex? Do we need to pay the next generation all a UBI to make sure they get their needs met? We may as well build a virtual reality for ourselves to experience whatever we want since it all doesn't really matter, right?
- meowkit 4y ago
  This is a long winded way to dance around nihilism. Nihilism is much like a hidden tarpit on the philosophical journey. Easy to fall into and get stuck. Necessary in a way, but not the place to dwell. A primary thing to point out is perception of meaning is flexible and not static, and things don't need "to matter". Meaning is an emergent phenomenon of relationships. As an example: Doing meaningful computer work is about the relationship between the coder, the computer, and the emotional/physical rewards of completing the work. If you define the relationship of "computer work now" vs "computer work in 20 years" that edge in our meaning graph is going to have a value bending towards not mattering at all. > what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? Sidebar: this is also probably wrong as far as I understand. Modern wealth is built off of leveraging large populations / economics of scale and has this implied requirement of growth to maintain stability. Until things are completely automated (AKA we have robots capable of matching a human's productivity) a smaller population would imply a population collapse which would not be good in the short term.
- pronlover723 4y ago
  > what's the point of humans having a replacement rate when a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off? It's arguable whether a smaller population can be a lot richer and better off. More people = More specialization and more minds solving problems = faster advancement = better living for everyone. Yes I get you can make your own progression that goes negative. The point is not that more people = better. It's that less people = better is not a fact, it's an opinion or conjecture
- mathieuh 4y ago
  To me there is a massive difference between “mattering” and “having worth”. I don’t believe anything matters, but I do believe there are things that are worth doing and there are ways of behaving that are worth following. I’m not a philosopher so I’m probably not explaining myself well, but I don’t think anything at all matters in an existential sense. Whether I live or get hit by a bus and die tomorrow or whatever, it’s not important. However, I do think there are many things that are worthy. Helping other people, trying not to harm anything, being kind etc., I believe these things are all very worthy of doing, but I don’t think they matter. I wish I knew what the philosophical terms for what I’m describing as “matter” and “have worth” were
galangalalgol 4y ago
Consider it peer review or pair programming for living. If you find people whose judgment you respect, having them call you out can save you pain.
uwagar 4y ago
tbh, that dont matter too. they cant stop one's death.
bluepizza 4y ago
It doesn't. But it becomes a personal choice to care for it, even if it doesn't matter. If nothing really matters, then you are free to choose what you care about.

rjbwork 4y ago

I have to ask, do you listen to Sam Harris' podcast? His last two episodes have touched on both aspects of your post - the paradigmatic shift that can occur simply by changing the perspective from which you view something as simple as looking at the moon, and the nature of status and the status games humans play.

leetrout 4y ago

I always enjoy how quickly the moon moves across my telescope's field of view. Really solidifies the motion you otherwise don't notice.

noisy_boy 4y ago

> how is it possible we can distract ourselves from contemplating it That's nothing. We routinely ignore amazing things. It is required for us to go about our lives. What I would like is to be able to summon the amazement at will without it losing its sharpness over repeated contemplation.

leobg 4y ago
Marriage counselors warn that we do the same thing to our partners. We automate our perception of them, as well as our reactions to them. Hence, at some point, we no longer really see them. Not lack of love, but our brain trying to save energy might be the cause of most divorces and split-ups. (I wonder if there is also Flanderization going on, like discussed here yesterday.)
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  That is an interesting point. I would also think that the degree of amazing actions from partners isn't uniform; routine actions don't warrant amazement and people doing amazing things for their partners isn't happening every time all the time. Your point stands valid though - we do do that.

thunkle 4y ago

I realized this one evening driving under the stary sky. I had a full-blown panic attack. It's been 15 years and I still have trouble driving under the sky. I guess I'm basically agoraphobic, but after some googling it's probably better described by spacephobia, although I'm not convinced that's it either, I wonder if there is a perspective based phobia.

taylorius 4y ago

> when you look at the moon, consider that you are actually looking down at it. >You, as a person are hanging over it sort of perpendicularly to the surface of >this sphere. You'll get the flat moon theorists all riled up with that sort of talk...

8crazyideas 4y ago

When my son was 19, he insisted on taking a solo trip to New Zealand. As it happens, he hiked around and worked on farms and generally had a great experience. But naturally at the time I was concerned that he have a safe trip and a good experience. After I said goodbye to him at the airport, I went home and wrote a poem. It incorporates the moment when I first experienced this perception of the moon: On Leaving for New Zealand Once on a morning in deep winter I spied the moon almost full but not quite Over the roof of the house where I was delivering the morning newspaper. Between splayed branches Earthshine making its roundness plain To show that it was a rock suspended Like the earth around, solid but floating too. In those days there was no son Or daughter, or wife or plan. I could not guess what things would be Or where my route would take me. Yet now if I stood on the moon’s dark plain And looked down from there, I might see My son standing on the far southern sphere Looking back up at me.

gausswho 4y ago

The video game Outer Wilds (not to be confused with The Outer Worlds) among its many merits is excellent at conveying a sense of falling as you leave orbit from various rocks in space. As a bonus, it's also about time, basically a sci-fi exercise on Groundhog Day.

toss1 4y ago

>>it's that the esteem of people you don't admire doesn't matter. Yup! One of the best sayings I heard on the topic of doing anything potentially viewed as odd: "Those who mind, don't matter, and those who matter don't mind"

xtiansimon 4y ago

There is an interesting catalog for an art exhibit whose theme turns on technologies, camera, telescope, microscope, as having altered the imaginative consciousness of humanity. As I recall, the curators argue these technologies diminished our capacity for awe in the numinal when they depict the cosmos as it really exists. Cosmos: From Romanticism to the Avant-garde. Jean Clair, ‎Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, ‎Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona · 1999 I’ve also heard the counter theory from a film professor of mine in college, Charles Chess. He argued film has the power to manifest strong emotional reactions which our mind/consciousness suppresses. Offered as proof of his belief, he related the story of a film class field trip to a slaughter house, followed by the class screening the film “Blood of the Beasts” (Original title: Le sang des bêtes. 1949. 22 minutes). Only the film caused students to feel sick, or so he says.