For me and a friend, we'd joke about our existential despair. "What's wrong?" "The Void"
Any philosophy that just asserted that the Universe has meaning was a non-starter, for me. There is nothing that I can see that unambiguously tells me that the Universe ultimately has absolute purpose or meaning. It could, but anyone who tells you they know the fundamental question of why we are here is delusional or a liar. The only overarching framework that could situate me confidently in the world would have to explicitly acknowledge that the Universe could in fact be meaningless.
An English course in college helped me out with this. A lot of the course covered Norse religion and philosophy, which was intensely bleak. Ragnarok, in one version, is the End. There is no rebirth or renewal. The world will be consumed by Fenrir and the chaos wolves, and after, for eternity, the world will be Winter. In that philosophy, this is a fact of life: this future is preordained. Your best outcome is to be invited by the Gods to fight - and lose - in the final battle against the Forces of Chaos and Despair. You're going down, but the highest honor you can bring yourself and your kin is to go down fighting.
Humans create meaning in the face of an uncaring, indifferent Void. It's our superpower. Human-created meaning is arbitrary, but no less real for that. The fact that Vikings chose to create meaning by slaughtering their unfortunate neighbors is a bit beside the point. That was their interpretation, but it's not the only, nor best one.
Hwæt! The Universe might be meaningless, these nihilistic Viking ghosts whispered to me, across the centuries. Live bravely, do not allow yourself to wallow in despair while entropy gathers itself. Make meaning, fight, build, love, stay healthy right in the face of the Uncaring Void. It's the only thing you can do. Entropy will win. Until then, make it meaningful.
To add to this: I grew up with religion and eventually broke away from it. I went on this hyper-realist streak, looking to break down life and reality into its most fundamental parts. I assumed this would include true meaning. It didn't.
What I found is that meaning is like a delicate ecosystem, and I was strip-mining. I thought I was breaking reality down into its most fundamental pieces, harvesting them and learning the truest truth, but it turned out there were important things that couldn't survive the process, and I was destroying them.
It was only by allowing myself suspension of disbelief and embracing the meaning I already knew inside of me that I was able to pull myself out of nihilism and find happiness again. Meaning was there; I simply had to stop getting in its way. It may not have any physical or metaphysical reality, but it has a reality in the human spirit, and that's really all it needs to be. The proper response to "But meaning is just a fragile idea that lives only in our minds!" is "Yes! And that's why it is so precious and so important to guard carefully!"
We must tend to our gardens, not grind them down for their components
Epilogue: I didn't return to religion, though I did come to appreciate how many things religion got right via millennia of accumulated human experience. And a nice thing about knowing that meaning doesn't come from metaphysics is you don't have to subscribe to any one doctrine; you can internalize the pieces that seem true and set aside the pieces that you believe are wrong, morally or logically.
And so did a certain look into Mister Peanutbutter's inner life, which re-contextualized some things, after seasons of his being a goofy and dopey character (though, very occasionally, and tellingly, not—also, thematic/character spoiler warning for Bojack Horseman, I guess?):
"The universe is a cruel, uncaring void. The key to being happy isn't a search for meaning. It's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually, you'll be dead."
And of course there's Frost's "Maple", which, for me, always comes to mind when "meaning" is the topic:
I think the "Universe/life has no meaning" sentence can mean two completely different things:
1. It could have a meaning, but there is none. For example food can have taste, but if it has none, we assume there is something wrong with it.
2. It is not possible for it to have a meaning, because it simply lacks that property. For example: what is the color of running? There is no color, and could never be.
I think "Universe/life has no meaning" falls in the second category, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
"One of the most potent elements in that fusion is the Northern courage: the theory of courage, which is the great contribution of early Northern literature. This is not a military judgement. I am not asserting that, if the Trojans could have employed a Northern king and his companions, they would have driven Agamemnon and Achilles into the sea, more decisively than the Greek hexameter routs the alliterative line—though it is not improbable. I refer rather to the central position the creed of unyielding will holds in the North. With due reserve we may turn to the tradition of pagan imagination as it survived in Icelandic. Of English pre-Christian mythology we know practically nothing. But the fundamentally similar heroic temper of ancient England and Scandinavia cannot have been founded on (or perhaps rather, cannot have generated) mythologies divergent on this essential point. 'The Northern Gods', Ker said, 'have an exultant extravagance in their warfare which makes them more like Titans than Olympians; only they are on the right side, though it is not the side that wins. The winning side is Chaos and Unreason'—mythologically, the monsters—'but the gods, who are defeated, think that defeat no refutation.' And in their war men are their chosen allies, able when heroic to share in this 'absolute resistance, perfect because without hope'. "
Is it even meaningful to say that the universe - everything - has an entropy? Isn't it not even meaningful to talk about the entropy of something that is in a non-equilibriated state? People point to experiments about gas particles bouncing off the walls of closed boxes to prove how entropy is always increasing, but it really makes no sense to transfer that to the whole universe.
I have been much more convinced that the universe, starting from a maximally structured configuration, tends to even greater structure, as Julian Barbour wrote about in the Janus Point. Structure emergence, as opposed to catastrophic mixing. My perspective used to be like yours but it has become: the game is only starting.
I was thinking about this the other day actually and I believe consciousness serves a higher purpose. If you think about it without any consciousness in the universe, nothing would ever be observed. Without consciousness the universe would just be an empty library, full of history and knowledge but with nobody there to read the books (assuming we are the only conscious life form in the universe). And that's fine I guess, the universe obviously could care less if we read its biography, but at the same time I think about how lucky it is that there is a biography to read at all. We could have been conscious beings in a universe that is truly chaotic and could never be made sense of but here we are in this nice one. That is able to be quantified and one that can be appreciated. One filled with unimaginable beauty and mystery to appreciate. Even if we have no tangible purpose, we still have the ability to observe and in a limited sense manipulate the universe around us and I think that is a highly overlooked facet of what makes being a human not completely unbearable. To me the meaning of life is to just simply to be. Butterfly affect applies here, just simply existing can have an unknowable cascade of effects that ultimately shape the story of the universe. My version is a little different: Entropy will always win. Until then, just exist and enjoy.
"Any philosophy that just asserted that the Universe has meaning was a non-starter, for me. There is nothing that I can see that unambiguously tells me that the Universe ultimately has absolute purpose or meaning. It could, but anyone who tells you they know the fundamental question of why we are here is delusional or a liar."
For Victor Frankl the meaning of life is not an answer you find out in the world but a question the world asks of you, and which you answer in the way you live your life.
The difference I chose to believe because I know we humans are story machines. I prefer being part of a story, as co-author than author of my own pointless story. That is all. What allows me to say "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" is my patience, my faith. I do not know more than you. But I like the story that Jesus started and am willing to be part of it at a personal cost. It is better than nothing.
Yeah, I think one of the issues people have with lack of intrinsic meaning is that they experience it as a loss.
My parents weren't religious, so I grew up an atheist. I never believed that there was intrinsic meaning, intrinsic purpose. That was intimidating in my youth, as I was learning about the vast scale of the universe. Now it seems great. The universe is a blank canvas: we can create meaning for ourselves.
One related thing I especially love is the art documentary "Rivers and Tides", about the work of Andy Goldsworthy. It does a great job of conveying beauty and meaning even when it is transitory. Especially when it is transitory. It's only when give up the belief in vast, universal meaning, that meanings we create for ourselves and one another can be seen in their proper scale.
Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"?
A human (and possibly other animals') instinct to create meaning might be not different from a spider's instinct to make a web. "Meaning" looks like an evolution-selected motivation tool for long-term goals.
If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb.
Still - yes, it might be sad for us that "meaning" does not extrapolate beyond our human psychology.
> Hwæt! The Universe might be meaningless, these nihilistic Viking ghosts whispered to me, across the centuries. Live bravely, do not allow yourself to wallow in despair while entropy gathers itself. Make meaning, fight, build, love, stay healthy right in the face of the Uncaring Void. It's the only thing you can do. Entropy will win. Until then, make it meaningful.
Those vikings are more existentialist than nihilistic to me ^^.
Thank you for sharing this! I’ve wrestled with existential questions my whole life. This is one of the best explanations for our existence that I’ve seen. Simple, and meaningful. I also love that this explanation also gives you a framework to live by. Meaning and purpose are arbitrary, but that’s really the value in them. You choose to make your life valuable. Would you really want it any other way?
I think I'm cool with that. There is no meaning to any of this chaos, but I make an effort to make my life feel meaningful, and that's all that matters. Like clay, on its own has no purpose, but you can fashion it into bricks and build something with it.
> Any philosophy that just asserted that the Universe has meaning was a non-starter, for me.
> Humans create meaning in the face of an uncaring, indifferent Void.
I hope you realize that your assertion, which asserts a complete lack of meaning, is just as strong as the philosophies that assert meaning. To me, both are non-starters.
To make progress one has to question the framing of the problem, which is actually what most of the continental philosophy enlightenment onwards was about.
Maybe meaning already requires consciousness that looks out at the world, so it would be a contradiction to claim the things in themselves has meaning. (subjective)
Or maybe there is meaning in things themselves, but there is an intelligibility problem and we can't have a sufficiently comprehensive representation of it internally. (objective). Think it as the model file not fitting a single machine.
Or maybe meaning is a process that requires both the conscious looker and a meaning in things themselves, and is dynamically loaded. (neither subjective nor objective). It can still be constrained by cognitive capacity or intelligibility, but maybe we're doing a pretty good job at it nonetheless because we are able to conform to reality in an adaptive manner, and survive better than any other species with our modeling. Also we have been coming up with technologies to beef us up on the intelligibility and capacity fronts; like invention of literacy!
So maybe existential depression is a mere stuckness in a local minima of this meaning making process between the conscious looker and objective reality, in no small part thanks to our current philosophical and other institutions really sucking at training us on the dynamic loading process. Nor we have the supporting education to leverage the collective intelligence of the best of the humanity (remember, we've invented literacy, but what is the use if we don't read the most important stuff on this matter?). Without these constraints addressed, "there is definitely no meaning" sounds to me like giving up on looking for one's keys because they are tired and don't feel like they have made any progress. I am not saying there are definitely keys either, but it is a worthy endeavor to try getting better at looking for it at least.
There might not be meaning to the universe, but there is meaning in the human enterprise.
We went from animals, to highly effective and conscious of ourselves and the universe. The human developpement keep pushing forward.
I think that the main cause of meaninglessness is our rejection of our own culture ( mostly Christian). There is good reason to reject them as the bearded magician in the sky seem stupid to a modern science minded person, however if you look at those stories at a second degree there is a lot of parts that make sense.
Theses stories were the bedrock of our civilisation and the spine of our consciousness. We need to update theses stories with what we now know instead of throwing them out because science make them look outdated.
Take a look at Jordan Peterson biblical series, it explain in evolutionary terms how we invented theses stories, what they mean, what we can learn from them.
> It has been my experience that gifted and talented persons are more likely than those who are less gifted to experience spontaneous existential depression as an outgrowth of their mental and emotional abilities and interactions with others.
I read it a while ago. While my initial reaction was "relatable", later I started getting doubts.
Is it that talented people are more prone to depression (e.g. due to social isolation) or that their depression channels into existential/philosophical more often (this sounds even more plausible)? In both cases, I would love to see some numbers.
As a side note, "talented/gifted" is usually considered synonymous with high intelligence. Yet, I bet that it is as strongly correlated with dedication (going to the levels of passion or obsession) and sensitivity. It might happen that it is not IQ that matters in terms of gifted people being depressed.
I'm pretty sure you're unto something. When I think of the few really, really smart people that I happen to have encountered, they're all pretty laid back people. As in, it's like they've figured out the futility of it all long ago, settled on doing something they find interesting, and then sort of just flow through life.
So it seems more likely that pulling the short straw that makes you smart, but also having a personality type that compels you to do and fix things that would lead to people having issues with accepting that there is no inherent meaning to anything, it's all futile, and we're all gonna die sooner rather than later without having 'achieved' anything really.
> As a side note, "talented/gifted" is usually considered synonymous with high intelligence. Yet, I bet that it is as strongly correlated with dedication (going to the levels of passion or obsession) and sensitivity. It might happen that it is not IQ that matters in terms of gifted people being depressed.
I don't think this works. If you look at the strengths/weaknesses chart, there's no way that just passion or obsession matches the strengths or comes with the weaknesses.
"Persons with heightened overexcitabilities in one or more of the five areas that Dabrowski listed—intellectual, emotional, imaginational, psychomotor, and sensual—perceive reality in a different, more intense, multifaceted manner."
It is plausible, but the casual arrogance in that idea is so thick deserves a second pass. It seems very unlikely that there is a 'gifted' class of people who have better access to depression than the rest of us.
It seems more plausible to me that existential dread strikes at random, and the gifted have a different set of coping strategies that leverage their giftedness. Most people just have to sort of take it because (1) existential dread doesn't imply any specific behaviours and (2) if a body wants to be able to feel existential dread tomorrow while living under a roof it has to keep earning a living.
Besides, life being meaningless doesn't imply anyone has to feel lonely or bad about it. We're all in the same boat and there isn't a reason to feel bad about the inevitable.
As someone who was (in my opinion wrongly) labeled gifted as a kid, I think this is because it comes with very high expectations and forces you to think about yourself and your actions all the time. Depression is basically self obsession. Life is only good when you forget about yourself. This is the same reason why social media drives depression as well.
Iirc Allen Watts likened obsessively thinking about yourself to two monitors facing each other (highlighting the discordant feedback).
While I still have cringe-moments when I remember things I've done (as a kid, 10 years ago, whenever), I try to remember that I am what I'm doing. For me, it puts legs on the concept of remaining in the present. Whatever self others ascribe to me, that's fine, but I don't have live by those expectations. When I'm folding clothes, brushing my teeth, writing something, taking care of the dogs, etc., I'm no more or less than what I'm doing. It eases my mind and lets me focus on the given task. With practice, I don't have to think of it as much. It becomes the natural way to approach things, but there are still times when I have to remind myself.
While there's something to this claim for common and mild forms of "depression", it's far too trivial a soundbite to truly capture what's going on with depression. If it were true, then volunteering at a soup kitchen or something equally selfless would quickly cure depression, no matter how treatment-resistant. It's simply not the case.
Seems like a problem for folks who try to develop their own understandings -- which probably correlates with "being gifted".
By contrast, folks who don't feel smart enough to question the established-wisdom, and so just believe that it's probably true for reasons beyond them, wouldn't seem to have the same exposure to doubt. Because, surely, someone smarter than them knows the answers; if anything seems off, it's probably just a misunderstanding of the experts' wisdom.
But if you lose your faith in the experts' wisdom, and then struggle in trying to find your own solid answers to big questions -- what do you believe in? How can you feel safe and secure in the world when you're not even sure what the world really is?
I have read some material on how depression was viewed in history. There is at least some work in Christian theology on sloth/acedia which is not only laziness, but also has a lot of signs of what is called clinical depression [1].
While searching this, a very strange coincidence I have found is that the "demon" for sloth is the same as the demon who inspires people to make discoveries [2]. I speculate that the link between depression and creativity was recognized in antiquity.
6:02 - "And that search has led me to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. So stay with me, because it does circle around and back. But, ancient Greece and ancient Rome -- people did not happen to believe that creativity came from human beings back then, OK? People believed that creativity was this divine attendant spirit that came to human beings from some distant and unknowable source, for distant and unknowable reasons. The Greeks famously called these divine attendant spirits of creativity "daemons." Socrates, famously, believed that he had a daemon who spoke wisdom to him from afar."
What got me out of depression was studying the mind and realizing that we suffer because we polarize thoughts. We associate emotional tones/value to thoughts and if we believe these thoughts are ours, then they become our inner reality and we keep fueling the mind with more polarized thoughts. A vicious cycle.
Associating emotional energy to thoughts amplify them. It is acting like a generative energy.
Removing all polarization from thoughts cured my depression. Now when something unpleasant happens, I watch for the negative thoughts and simply observe them with detachment. I don't engage in mental scenarios and don't give them energy. Soon, they vanish, unable to take hold.
I'm halfway through the article and surprised that the quality of being a neurotic person is not discussed yet or even mentioned. I find this post incredibly interesting, especially in the context of books that I've recently read and summarized like: Denial of Death by Ernest Becker (https://www.lostbookofsales.com/notes/the-denial-of-death-by...).
Is there a mistake in this logic: "If you can't figure out how to stop suffering (to no end), you are not actually so smart." ?
In anticipation of objection that the question of one's own suffering is somehow outside the realm of analysis: I am not a Buddhist but having tasted the freedom from emotional suffering that was the result of his (the buddha's) analysis of the situation of being alive and his logical derivation of what then to do about it - from his Program, like Hilbert's, to find the solution to suffering - these days when I think of who is a "genius", I think of the buddha.
That may have been rare genius but in this era you don't need to work the answer out from scratch you only need to be smart enough to notice the problem and research a solution (since at least one exists), hence the claim.
I have recently (in the past couple of years) overcome depression that had been with me practically my entire adult life, and now I have my anxiety somewhat under control.
Depression is such a big problem, mostly unaddressed, and the "tools and processes" out there don't have a high success ratio.
Sounds a great business school case:
Huge demand
Inadequate supply
And yet the problem persists. This is the Unicorn of Unicorns, capturing 1% of the market with 1% success rate would yield a $1B valuation.
For those curious about dabrowski's models, take a look at his 'levels of consciousness'†, where he divides personal driving forces into three categories, which develop in order, if at all: base instincts, societal expectations, and a "third factor" of moral self-direction.
This model describes the repeated breakdowns ("disintegrations" in the form of neuroses) that are required to progress upwards ("positive disintegration") toward incorporating this third factor, resulting in a 'true personality' somewhat reminiscent of Maslow's 'self actualization'.
My new outlook on "meaning" is that it's felt, not rationalized. That is to say, we create our meaning but don't have much control over what feels meaningful to us. If someone told you that a given dull, repetitive task would be good for humanity in a utilitarian sense, it wouldn't necessarily feel any more meaningful. There's a reason the strongest predictor of men's happiness is their work. We like to work on whatever happens to interest us and so much the better if that helps us engage with others, and shows impactful results.
I think it's possible to find meaning in our work whether we pursue it relentlessly or leisurely, it comes down to preference. Some people are content to live each day like the last and lead low-stress lives.
Great article. The table composed by psychologist May Seagoe fits the description of some of my friends and colleagues who I perceive as gifted perfectly.
So many words for mere conjecture that is ultimately going to be used as a pat on one's own back for feeling bummed.
I especially love the author's self-designation as gifted and not once expanding on this very narrow dimensionality reduction. What happened to the personality traits? What happened to character, adverse childhood experiences, education etc independent of so-called giftedness?
Anyone could have come up with this; a human mind is a terrible thing to waste. Greater the mind, greater the waste. Just like an undertrained, under-exercised german shepherd is going to be much more destructive than a shitzu.
> I especially love the author's self-designation as gifted... Anyone could have come up with this
The author was a chaired professor who wrote several dozen peer reviewed articles and five books on the subject. He was also the chair for his state's psychology association board for several years, an associate dean, and cofounded his university's school of psychology.
I'm not going to comment on the quality of the article or whether 'giftedness' is a meaningful construct, but this isn't a fluff piece written by some feel-good popular science author.
I love how some in the Hacker News community truly believe that their immediate, knee-jerk reaction to dismiss the work of a highly experienced professional in the relevant field, who is applying their lifetime of knowledge and experience to a subject, a reaction that involves neither knowledge nor effort, is automatically correct and important for other people to read about.
My ex-wife (who was with me for decades) tagged me as an existentialist early on, and I guess it was true. I don't really understand how we can see the universe another way, without lying to ourselves: bad things happen, and nothing is done about it. What Christian theologians have called "The Problem of Evil" leads me to see the universe as uncaring, indifferent.
The only way out of it that has worked for me is to care about other people (and animals, etc.) -- to focus on the small things I can try to make better.
Going into this, I'm always wary of the almost romanticised link between depression and giftedness. The 'tortured genius' narrative is not a healthy one to adopt.
As someone who tested as "gifted" as child, I don't think as much naval gazing and self-analysis as this article describes is warranted for anyone, gifted or not. There are lots of productive ways in which to channel "giftedness" (success in school, creative pursuits, etc.), and this article instead puts giftedness on a pedestal, which (I think) is a bit indulgent and counterproductive.
The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why. – Mark Twain
You can't go around like a headless chicken in life. You need purpose or even some abstract goal to attain. We shouldn't be hungup about outcomes and enjoy the process instead, since you are only fighting entropy trying to have the outcome be exactly the way you envision it.
And yet that barren field,
Covered by snow;
Is not bleak
But beautiful.
Clean fresh snow
Presents rebirth and hope
And stark beauty,
The field will grow and flourish
Soon.
With knowledge of space and time
One should be optimistic
About such a vision.
Spring will come
A future will grow.
[+] [-] rendall|4 years ago|reply
Any philosophy that just asserted that the Universe has meaning was a non-starter, for me. There is nothing that I can see that unambiguously tells me that the Universe ultimately has absolute purpose or meaning. It could, but anyone who tells you they know the fundamental question of why we are here is delusional or a liar. The only overarching framework that could situate me confidently in the world would have to explicitly acknowledge that the Universe could in fact be meaningless.
An English course in college helped me out with this. A lot of the course covered Norse religion and philosophy, which was intensely bleak. Ragnarok, in one version, is the End. There is no rebirth or renewal. The world will be consumed by Fenrir and the chaos wolves, and after, for eternity, the world will be Winter. In that philosophy, this is a fact of life: this future is preordained. Your best outcome is to be invited by the Gods to fight - and lose - in the final battle against the Forces of Chaos and Despair. You're going down, but the highest honor you can bring yourself and your kin is to go down fighting.
Humans create meaning in the face of an uncaring, indifferent Void. It's our superpower. Human-created meaning is arbitrary, but no less real for that. The fact that Vikings chose to create meaning by slaughtering their unfortunate neighbors is a bit beside the point. That was their interpretation, but it's not the only, nor best one.
Hwæt! The Universe might be meaningless, these nihilistic Viking ghosts whispered to me, across the centuries. Live bravely, do not allow yourself to wallow in despair while entropy gathers itself. Make meaning, fight, build, love, stay healthy right in the face of the Uncaring Void. It's the only thing you can do. Entropy will win. Until then, make it meaningful.
[+] [-] brundolf|4 years ago|reply
What I found is that meaning is like a delicate ecosystem, and I was strip-mining. I thought I was breaking reality down into its most fundamental pieces, harvesting them and learning the truest truth, but it turned out there were important things that couldn't survive the process, and I was destroying them.
It was only by allowing myself suspension of disbelief and embracing the meaning I already knew inside of me that I was able to pull myself out of nihilism and find happiness again. Meaning was there; I simply had to stop getting in its way. It may not have any physical or metaphysical reality, but it has a reality in the human spirit, and that's really all it needs to be. The proper response to "But meaning is just a fragile idea that lives only in our minds!" is "Yes! And that's why it is so precious and so important to guard carefully!"
We must tend to our gardens, not grind them down for their components
Epilogue: I didn't return to religion, though I did come to appreciate how many things religion got right via millennia of accumulated human experience. And a nice thing about knowing that meaning doesn't come from metaphysics is you don't have to subscribe to any one doctrine; you can internalize the pieces that seem true and set aside the pieces that you believe are wrong, morally or logically.
[+] [-] handrous|4 years ago|reply
The "vacuum the rug" comic went over well in my social group.
https://imgur.com/d9KdAvH
And so did a certain look into Mister Peanutbutter's inner life, which re-contextualized some things, after seasons of his being a goofy and dopey character (though, very occasionally, and tellingly, not—also, thematic/character spoiler warning for Bojack Horseman, I guess?):
"The universe is a cruel, uncaring void. The key to being happy isn't a search for meaning. It's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually, you'll be dead."
And of course there's Frost's "Maple", which, for me, always comes to mind when "meaning" is the topic:
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/robert_frost/poems/731
[+] [-] hungrykoala|4 years ago|reply
1. It could have a meaning, but there is none. For example food can have taste, but if it has none, we assume there is something wrong with it.
2. It is not possible for it to have a meaning, because it simply lacks that property. For example: what is the color of running? There is no color, and could never be.
I think "Universe/life has no meaning" falls in the second category, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
[+] [-] ajb|4 years ago|reply
-- Tolkien, "The Monsters and the Critics"
[+] [-] pizza|4 years ago|reply
I have been much more convinced that the universe, starting from a maximally structured configuration, tends to even greater structure, as Julian Barbour wrote about in the Janus Point. Structure emergence, as opposed to catastrophic mixing. My perspective used to be like yours but it has become: the game is only starting.
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|4 years ago|reply
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=optimistic%20nihilism
[+] [-] bengarrr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|4 years ago|reply
For Victor Frankl the meaning of life is not an answer you find out in the world but a question the world asks of you, and which you answer in the way you live your life.
[+] [-] Xc43|4 years ago|reply
You and I are not much different.
The difference I chose to believe because I know we humans are story machines. I prefer being part of a story, as co-author than author of my own pointless story. That is all. What allows me to say "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" is my patience, my faith. I do not know more than you. But I like the story that Jesus started and am willing to be part of it at a personal cost. It is better than nothing.
[+] [-] wpietri|4 years ago|reply
My parents weren't religious, so I grew up an atheist. I never believed that there was intrinsic meaning, intrinsic purpose. That was intimidating in my youth, as I was learning about the vast scale of the universe. Now it seems great. The universe is a blank canvas: we can create meaning for ourselves.
One related thing I especially love is the art documentary "Rivers and Tides", about the work of Andy Goldsworthy. It does a great job of conveying beauty and meaning even when it is transitory. Especially when it is transitory. It's only when give up the belief in vast, universal meaning, that meanings we create for ourselves and one another can be seen in their proper scale.
[+] [-] stared|4 years ago|reply
Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"?
A human (and possibly other animals') instinct to create meaning might be not different from a spider's instinct to make a web. "Meaning" looks like an evolution-selected motivation tool for long-term goals.
If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb.
Still - yes, it might be sad for us that "meaning" does not extrapolate beyond our human psychology.
[+] [-] johnchristopher|4 years ago|reply
Those vikings are more existentialist than nihilistic to me ^^.
[+] [-] rubicon33|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NL807|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acituan|4 years ago|reply
> Humans create meaning in the face of an uncaring, indifferent Void.
I hope you realize that your assertion, which asserts a complete lack of meaning, is just as strong as the philosophies that assert meaning. To me, both are non-starters.
To make progress one has to question the framing of the problem, which is actually what most of the continental philosophy enlightenment onwards was about.
Maybe meaning already requires consciousness that looks out at the world, so it would be a contradiction to claim the things in themselves has meaning. (subjective)
Or maybe there is meaning in things themselves, but there is an intelligibility problem and we can't have a sufficiently comprehensive representation of it internally. (objective). Think it as the model file not fitting a single machine.
Or maybe meaning is a process that requires both the conscious looker and a meaning in things themselves, and is dynamically loaded. (neither subjective nor objective). It can still be constrained by cognitive capacity or intelligibility, but maybe we're doing a pretty good job at it nonetheless because we are able to conform to reality in an adaptive manner, and survive better than any other species with our modeling. Also we have been coming up with technologies to beef us up on the intelligibility and capacity fronts; like invention of literacy!
So maybe existential depression is a mere stuckness in a local minima of this meaning making process between the conscious looker and objective reality, in no small part thanks to our current philosophical and other institutions really sucking at training us on the dynamic loading process. Nor we have the supporting education to leverage the collective intelligence of the best of the humanity (remember, we've invented literacy, but what is the use if we don't read the most important stuff on this matter?). Without these constraints addressed, "there is definitely no meaning" sounds to me like giving up on looking for one's keys because they are tired and don't feel like they have made any progress. I am not saying there are definitely keys either, but it is a worthy endeavor to try getting better at looking for it at least.
[+] [-] thrww20210608|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Feel free to ask me more about Catholicism if this piques your interest!
[+] [-] alfor|4 years ago|reply
We went from animals, to highly effective and conscious of ourselves and the universe. The human developpement keep pushing forward.
I think that the main cause of meaninglessness is our rejection of our own culture ( mostly Christian). There is good reason to reject them as the bearded magician in the sky seem stupid to a modern science minded person, however if you look at those stories at a second degree there is a lot of parts that make sense.
Theses stories were the bedrock of our civilisation and the spine of our consciousness. We need to update theses stories with what we now know instead of throwing them out because science make them look outdated.
Take a look at Jordan Peterson biblical series, it explain in evolutionary terms how we invented theses stories, what they mean, what we can learn from them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
[+] [-] stared|4 years ago|reply
I read it a while ago. While my initial reaction was "relatable", later I started getting doubts. Is it that talented people are more prone to depression (e.g. due to social isolation) or that their depression channels into existential/philosophical more often (this sounds even more plausible)? In both cases, I would love to see some numbers.
The only thing I know that might support a link thinker-depressed is this one: "A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind" (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/932, PDF http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/kil..., HN thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16797947)
As a side note, "talented/gifted" is usually considered synonymous with high intelligence. Yet, I bet that it is as strongly correlated with dedication (going to the levels of passion or obsession) and sensitivity. It might happen that it is not IQ that matters in terms of gifted people being depressed.
[+] [-] jgilias|4 years ago|reply
So it seems more likely that pulling the short straw that makes you smart, but also having a personality type that compels you to do and fix things that would lead to people having issues with accepting that there is no inherent meaning to anything, it's all futile, and we're all gonna die sooner rather than later without having 'achieved' anything really.
[+] [-] ZephyrBlu|4 years ago|reply
I don't think this works. If you look at the strengths/weaknesses chart, there's no way that just passion or obsession matches the strengths or comes with the weaknesses.
Chart: https://dnnlv5ifs.blob.core.windows.net/portals/2/DB/Images/...
[+] [-] joshgree88|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roenxi|4 years ago|reply
It seems more plausible to me that existential dread strikes at random, and the gifted have a different set of coping strategies that leverage their giftedness. Most people just have to sort of take it because (1) existential dread doesn't imply any specific behaviours and (2) if a body wants to be able to feel existential dread tomorrow while living under a roof it has to keep earning a living.
Besides, life being meaningless doesn't imply anyone has to feel lonely or bad about it. We're all in the same boat and there isn't a reason to feel bad about the inevitable.
[+] [-] omegaBroom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grasshopperpurp|4 years ago|reply
While I still have cringe-moments when I remember things I've done (as a kid, 10 years ago, whenever), I try to remember that I am what I'm doing. For me, it puts legs on the concept of remaining in the present. Whatever self others ascribe to me, that's fine, but I don't have live by those expectations. When I'm folding clothes, brushing my teeth, writing something, taking care of the dogs, etc., I'm no more or less than what I'm doing. It eases my mind and lets me focus on the given task. With practice, I don't have to think of it as much. It becomes the natural way to approach things, but there are still times when I have to remind myself.
[+] [-] dlvktrsh|4 years ago|reply
to constantly think about how other percieve me or how they react must be because of some sort of extreme self obsession right?
I don't care what people think of me and I've strayed far off a typical life path but idk how else to explain my social anxiety
[+] [-] naasking|4 years ago|reply
While there's something to this claim for common and mild forms of "depression", it's far too trivial a soundbite to truly capture what's going on with depression. If it were true, then volunteering at a soup kitchen or something equally selfless would quickly cure depression, no matter how treatment-resistant. It's simply not the case.
[+] [-] _Nat_|4 years ago|reply
By contrast, folks who don't feel smart enough to question the established-wisdom, and so just believe that it's probably true for reasons beyond them, wouldn't seem to have the same exposure to doubt. Because, surely, someone smarter than them knows the answers; if anything seems off, it's probably just a misunderstanding of the experts' wisdom.
But if you lose your faith in the experts' wisdom, and then struggle in trying to find your own solid answers to big questions -- what do you believe in? How can you feel safe and secure in the world when you're not even sure what the world really is?
---
[Obligatory xkcd](https://xkcd.com/2221/ ):
> I feel weird using old software that doesn't know it's being emulated.
The existentialist-concern from the alt-text:
> I laugh at the software as if I'm 100% confident that it's 2019.
[+] [-] sn41|4 years ago|reply
While searching this, a very strange coincidence I have found is that the "demon" for sloth is the same as the demon who inspires people to make discoveries [2]. I speculate that the link between depression and creativity was recognized in antiquity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acedia
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belphegor
[+] [-] triggercut|4 years ago|reply
https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_your_elusive_cre...
6:02 - "And that search has led me to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. So stay with me, because it does circle around and back. But, ancient Greece and ancient Rome -- people did not happen to believe that creativity came from human beings back then, OK? People believed that creativity was this divine attendant spirit that came to human beings from some distant and unknowable source, for distant and unknowable reasons. The Greeks famously called these divine attendant spirits of creativity "daemons." Socrates, famously, believed that he had a daemon who spoke wisdom to him from afar."
[+] [-] remir|4 years ago|reply
Associating emotional energy to thoughts amplify them. It is acting like a generative energy.
Removing all polarization from thoughts cured my depression. Now when something unpleasant happens, I watch for the negative thoughts and simply observe them with detachment. I don't engage in mental scenarios and don't give them energy. Soon, they vanish, unable to take hold.
[+] [-] _uoud|4 years ago|reply
Nonetheless, thanks for sharing!
[+] [-] nopassrecover|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] q-base|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carrolldunham|4 years ago|reply
In anticipation of objection that the question of one's own suffering is somehow outside the realm of analysis: I am not a Buddhist but having tasted the freedom from emotional suffering that was the result of his (the buddha's) analysis of the situation of being alive and his logical derivation of what then to do about it - from his Program, like Hilbert's, to find the solution to suffering - these days when I think of who is a "genius", I think of the buddha.
That may have been rare genius but in this era you don't need to work the answer out from scratch you only need to be smart enough to notice the problem and research a solution (since at least one exists), hence the claim.
[+] [-] SMAAART|4 years ago|reply
Depression is such a big problem, mostly unaddressed, and the "tools and processes" out there don't have a high success ratio.
Sounds a great business school case:
Huge demand
Inadequate supply
And yet the problem persists. This is the Unicorn of Unicorns, capturing 1% of the market with 1% success rate would yield a $1B valuation.
[+] [-] silentguy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smegcicle|4 years ago|reply
This model describes the repeated breakdowns ("disintegrations" in the form of neuroses) that are required to progress upwards ("positive disintegration") toward incorporating this third factor, resulting in a 'true personality' somewhat reminiscent of Maslow's 'self actualization'.
† https://www.positivedisintegration.com/tb2.png
[+] [-] slothtrop|4 years ago|reply
I think it's possible to find meaning in our work whether we pursue it relentlessly or leisurely, it comes down to preference. Some people are content to live each day like the last and lead low-stress lives.
[+] [-] krishvs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acituan|4 years ago|reply
I especially love the author's self-designation as gifted and not once expanding on this very narrow dimensionality reduction. What happened to the personality traits? What happened to character, adverse childhood experiences, education etc independent of so-called giftedness?
Anyone could have come up with this; a human mind is a terrible thing to waste. Greater the mind, greater the waste. Just like an undertrained, under-exercised german shepherd is going to be much more destructive than a shitzu.
[+] [-] zhdc1|4 years ago|reply
The author was a chaired professor who wrote several dozen peer reviewed articles and five books on the subject. He was also the chair for his state's psychology association board for several years, an associate dean, and cofounded his university's school of psychology.
I'm not going to comment on the quality of the article or whether 'giftedness' is a meaningful construct, but this isn't a fluff piece written by some feel-good popular science author.
[+] [-] garyrob|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamc|4 years ago|reply
The only way out of it that has worked for me is to care about other people (and animals, etc.) -- to focus on the small things I can try to make better.
[+] [-] lvncelot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SamvitJ|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sysadm1n|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omega3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pomian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] triggercut|4 years ago|reply