4 ms·

> I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do

by eshvk 13y ago

> I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. I have several problems with that: 1. The whole idea that you can actually with your belief systems decipher what is good for all and then actually do it. History is littered with people who have terribly damaged the world; everyone of them (from the African dictators who slaughtered for freedom) probably thought they were doing good. 2. Why does humanity need to continue? Why of all the species that have come and gone and will keep doing that are we so special? Are we particularly nice to each other? God, no. Are we particularly more brutal than other species out there? I think probably not; more inventive, yes; but about the same in terms of brutality. 3. Does the Universe particularly care about whether you the snowflake exists or not? Probably not. It is unfeeling, uncaring and simply is. Ultimately, life is absurd and finite. The finiteness everyone is aware of; even those who are too wrapped to be aware of the absurdity. There are a few options then why people continue: 1. The promise of an afterlife; sadly not convincing any more. 2. Reasoning like that of Camus - he says that the only way to deal with the absurd is to revolt against it; live in the moment, enjoying the pleasure and the pain of the fleeting. That is one way to approach this problem, but is it enough?

md224 13y ago
Good points... I like point number 2, as I have often thought that there is nothing intrinsically "good" or "bad" about the existence of life in the universe, it is simply a beautifully complex arrangement of atoms, one that pleases us to contemplate and behold. I do feel like some historical figures that damaged the world did so not out of a feeling of doing what was "good," but more like what they felt was right for them, based on their priorities and worldview (perhaps this is what you meant). Selfishness could fall under this category, if these people felt that certain levels of selfishness were acceptable to them. Indeed, all of us attempt to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness... some people just have balances that tip toward destruction. This is not to forgive them for their crimes, but I've become increasingly skeptical that everyone thinks they are doing "good" in the sense of "good for humanity." Anyway, my personal goal is to try to live an enjoyable life while doing my best to avoid harming others in pursuit of that life. I feel like this is a pretty common stance.
- javajosh 13y ago
  The laws of physics, as we currently understand them, describe a universe where it is mind-bogglingly difficult to spread life between the stars. There are literally no science fiction movies (although a few stories) that capture the level of this difficulty. We move through life thinking that some physics break-through is going to give us hyperdrives. I don't think we'll ever get hyperdrives. If any sentient species invents them, then it will be possible to destroy stars with them. Indeed, I suspect that life is fairly common in the universe, and that countless intelligent species have arisen and died off without leaving their home-planets. The difficulty of the endeavor is like a gigantic challenge, a gauntlet thrown down by the universe that asks, can you do it? Some people want to climb Everest to see if they can do it. I want to see if humanity can build self-sustaining colonies on other worlds. It just so happens that my Everest ensures that all of the hard work we do on health, justice, technology, etc doesn't die out with us.
javajosh 13y ago
> The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. Ah, but at least I'm trying. And as for those others who have tried, failed, or even done harm - I'm glad that they tried, too. The major pitfall that I see people falling into is not having any real, positive goal that is bigger then themselves. Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.
- eshvk 13y ago
  > Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly. Why? I am not antagonistic; I am merely curious.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    No antagonism taken. Why is a life with purpose (a synonym to "with aim") better than one without? The simple answer applies to your selfishness: because you'll be more confident in your dealings with others, you'll be calmer, and you'll sleep better. Knowing who you are and what you're really playing for gives you a perspective that puts you above the fray. It lets you pick your battles. It helps you make hard decisions (particularly with relationships). Indeed, it lets you see your day-to-day struggles inside the context of a much greater goal. The drawback to larger purpose, of course, is that it's easy to lose patience with it. It's easy to lose your way - to forget your purpose, and to get drawn into the petty, pointless status contests that dominate most peoples' lives (note that you may need to take part on such contests, but when you understand them for what they are, games, then you can get better at and win.) The reasons living your life with purpose are better than without are much like working on a software project with purpose vs without. The latter is difficult, almost impossible, and extremely painful. Purpose in the context of software should be defined by leadership, and it can be very arbitrary. But it must be there or you will flail and fail.

by eshvk 13y ago

md224 13y ago

Good points... I like point number 2, as I have often thought that there is nothing intrinsically "good" or "bad" about the existence of life in the universe, it is simply a beautifully complex arrangement of atoms, one that pleases us to contemplate and behold. I do feel like some historical figures that damaged the world did so not out of a feeling of doing what was "good," but more like what they felt was right for them, based on their priorities and worldview (perhaps this is what you meant). Selfishness could fall under this category, if these people felt that certain levels of selfishness were acceptable to them. Indeed, all of us attempt to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness... some people just have balances that tip toward destruction. This is not to forgive them for their crimes, but I've become increasingly skeptical that everyone thinks they are doing "good" in the sense of "good for humanity." Anyway, my personal goal is to try to live an enjoyable life while doing my best to avoid harming others in pursuit of that life. I feel like this is a pretty common stance.

javajosh 13y ago
The laws of physics, as we currently understand them, describe a universe where it is mind-bogglingly difficult to spread life between the stars. There are literally no science fiction movies (although a few stories) that capture the level of this difficulty. We move through life thinking that some physics break-through is going to give us hyperdrives. I don't think we'll ever get hyperdrives. If any sentient species invents them, then it will be possible to destroy stars with them. Indeed, I suspect that life is fairly common in the universe, and that countless intelligent species have arisen and died off without leaving their home-planets. The difficulty of the endeavor is like a gigantic challenge, a gauntlet thrown down by the universe that asks, can you do it? Some people want to climb Everest to see if they can do it. I want to see if humanity can build self-sustaining colonies on other worlds. It just so happens that my Everest ensures that all of the hard work we do on health, justice, technology, etc doesn't die out with us.

javajosh 13y ago

> The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. Ah, but at least I'm trying. And as for those others who have tried, failed, or even done harm - I'm glad that they tried, too. The major pitfall that I see people falling into is not having any real, positive goal that is bigger then themselves. Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.

eshvk 13y ago
> Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly. Why? I am not antagonistic; I am merely curious.
- javajosh 13y ago
  No antagonism taken. Why is a life with purpose (a synonym to "with aim") better than one without? The simple answer applies to your selfishness: because you'll be more confident in your dealings with others, you'll be calmer, and you'll sleep better. Knowing who you are and what you're really playing for gives you a perspective that puts you above the fray. It lets you pick your battles. It helps you make hard decisions (particularly with relationships). Indeed, it lets you see your day-to-day struggles inside the context of a much greater goal. The drawback to larger purpose, of course, is that it's easy to lose patience with it. It's easy to lose your way - to forget your purpose, and to get drawn into the petty, pointless status contests that dominate most peoples' lives (note that you may need to take part on such contests, but when you understand them for what they are, games, then you can get better at and win.) The reasons living your life with purpose are better than without are much like working on a software project with purpose vs without. The latter is difficult, almost impossible, and extremely painful. Purpose in the context of software should be defined by leadership, and it can be very arbitrary. But it must be there or you will flail and fail.