Atheism and universal loneliness

[Grumpy]

wynn

How can there possibly be happiness and meaning in a part of a whole, where the whole has no meaning?

The happiness is found in the relations you have with others, the purpose is in the goals you set for yourself, often related to your relations to others and your desire for their happiness(which is the path to your happiness).

I don't know for sure, but gods seem rather silly in concept, I haven't accepted their existence since I figured out the monster under the bed was actually living in my head. Meaning is not to be found in the Universe as a whole, but like the Buddha taught, it is to be found within yourself. That is also where happiness is to be found. And the only meaning in life is the meaning you give it, Nature and the Universe couldn't care less(they CAN'T care).

Grumpy

 

[Balerion]

wynn



The happiness is found in the relations you have with others, the purpose is in the goals you set for yourself, often related to your relations to others and your desire for their happiness(which is the path to your happiness).

I don't know for sure, but gods seem rather silly in concept, I haven't accepted their existence since I figured out the monster under the bed was actually living in my head. Meaning is not to be found in the Universe as a whole, but like the Buddha taught, it is to be found within yourself. That is also where happiness is to be found. And the only meaning in life is the meaning you give it, Nature and the Universe couldn't care less(they CAN'T care).

Grumpy

She's just repeating the same tired arguments ad nauseam. This makes the millionth time someone has explained to her that a god is not required for people to be happy or life to have meaning.

If she was interested in anything other than trolling, she'd have moved on from this by now.

 

[BWE1]

I dunno who to trust guys. this site is all topsy turvy and I dont know what makes a troll here.

You really think wynn is trolling?

 

[tchomp tchomp tchomp]

Tell us!

that is not the answer

Somewhat.

Why do you ask?

Obviously you aren't because then you'd know that the root of suffering is attachment.

 

[wynn]

Because happiness and meaning are defined by the individual for the individual.

This does not require any overarching meaning or any overarching happiness (which sounds silly when you say it).

That may be the case if the individual is genuinely ignorant on the matter of whether there is a greater meaning to "life, the Universe and everything" as such or not.


But if the individual is starting off with the premise:

Are you saying that you can't see how one can pursue happiness even while one is sure that the universe has no larger meaning?

then

1. the individual is being inconsistent in trying to define meaning for themselves,
or
2. presumes themselves not to be part of this Universe.
(This latter assumption is actually quite common; rarely stated, but often implied - that humans are somehow aliens in this Universe.)

For instance knowing your husband is cheating on you will cause you suffering.

That depends on what the cheated wife believes the meaning of life is.
For example, if she has set her meaning of life to be all about her relationship with her husband, then she will suffer when she finds out he has cheated on her.
Not every wife builds her life around her husband, though.

You're just pulling our chains. Surely you don't think "Ignorance is bliss" became such an oft-repeated maxim without millions of people discovering it the hard way? George Michael said it well in "Careless Whisper."

And in "Faith," he said "I gotta have faith."

Furthermore, it's often been hypothesized by my crowd that religion arose originally because it's too painful to accept the truth that this is all there is.

Or perhaps "your crowd" is accepting as truth something that isn't actually the case.

Of course some of us don't find that painful at all. Personally I find "this" to be awesome, marvelous and inspiring.

Was it a choice of yours to "find "this" to be awesome, marvelous and inspiring"?

If it was a choice of yours, how did you make it, based on what did you arrive at it?

 

[wynn]

Then why does it cause suffering to have it challenged? If you have a truth, how does a challenge affect alignment with how things really are?

You seem to be talking about the holding of views, not of truths.

So, is the suffering caused by not knowing? Because that seems easy to fix.

??

Obviously you aren't because then you'd know that the root of suffering is attachment.

Who is your source for Buddhism? Jon Kabat-Zinn?

 

[wynn]

The happiness is found in the relations you have with others, the purpose is in the goals you set for yourself, often related to your relations to others and your desire for their happiness(which is the path to your happiness).

I don't know for sure, but gods seem rather silly in concept, I haven't accepted their existence since I figured out the monster under the bed was actually living in my head. Meaning is not to be found in the Universe as a whole, but like the Buddha taught, it is to be found within yourself. That is also where happiness is to be found. And the only meaning in life is the meaning you give it, Nature and the Universe couldn't care less(they CAN'T care).

Can you provide references from the Pali Canon for your claims about what the Buddha taught?

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

Can you provide references from the Pali Canon for your claims about what the Buddha taught?

Probably could, but it is irrelivant anyway. Whether he said it or not it still stands on it's own merit.

1. the individual is being inconsistent in trying to define meaning for themselves,
or
2. presumes themselves not to be part of this Universe.
(This latter assumption is actually quite common; rarely stated, but often implied - that humans are somehow aliens in this Universe.)

Or 3. the meaninglessness of the Universe means it is only from ourselves that any meaning can arise. If we, being part of the Universe, have self-selected meaning in our lives then can the Universe as a whole actually be called totally meaningless? Rather than meaning being imposed from the Universe down(something not in evidence), we impose meaning on the Universe(or, at least our own individual part thereof)from the bottom up.

That may be the case if the individual is genuinely ignorant on the matter of whether there is a greater meaning to "life, the Universe and everything" as such or not.

But we do know the answer to "life, the Universe and everything". It's 42. You waste your time and effort trying to find answers when there are none. The Universe is. And we are because the Universe is. We are just a species of incredibly lucky apes who are trying to describe reality using a system designed by evolution to tell each other where the ripe fruit is.

Knowing a truth about, say, the chemical constitution of planet Saturnus is most likely not going to contribute anything to a person's happiness or misery, unless they are an astrophysicist or something like that.

You, yourself, just admitted that happiness is relative, that purpose and meaning are self-chosen by the individual and that what makes you happy and unhappy is different from that which produces happiness in others(ie astrophysicists). Game, set, match.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

Probably could, but it is irrelivant anyway. Whether he said it or not it still stands on it's own merit.

In this case, the exact reference is pertinent, as it counters your point.

I can think of several suttas in the Pali Canon where a similar content is stated as the one you stated - however, those suttas also say a lot more, to the point of radically relativizing your notion of "seek happiness within, be a lamp unto yourself."

Or 3. the meaninglessness of the Universe means it is only from ourselves that any meaning can arise. If we, being part of the Universe, have self-selected meaning in our lives then can the Universe as a whole actually be called totally meaningless? Rather than meaning being imposed from the Universe down(something not in evidence), we impose meaning on the Universe(or, at least our own individual part thereof)from the bottom up.

How can we possibly do that, if we are part of such a Universe, the product of such a Universe?

But we do know the answer to "life, the Universe and everything". It's 42. You waste your time and effort trying to find answers when there are none. The Universe is. And we are because the Universe is. We are just a species of incredibly lucky apes who are trying to describe reality using a system designed by evolution to tell each other where the ripe fruit is.

If this is all there is to life, then why are there people who sometimes aspire higher than the next banana tree?

Why are there people who want more than what is offered by life as it is usually lived?

You, yourself, just admitted that happiness is relative, that purpose and meaning are self-chosen by the individual and that what makes you happy and unhappy is different from that which produces happiness in others(ie astrophysicists). Game, set, match.

I have admitted no such thing.

:shrug:

 

[tchomp tchomp tchomp]

Who is your source for Buddhism? Jon Kabat-Zinn?

Never even heard of the guy. But if you're at all familiar with buddhism, you should know that the 4 noble truths pertain to suffering, its origin, and how it can be overcome. The second noble truth is perhaps the important point for discussion here.

 

[DaveC426913]

You, yourself, just admitted that happiness is relative, that purpose and meaning are self-chosen by the individual and that what makes you happy and unhappy is different from that which produces happiness in others(ie astrophysicists).

I have admitted no such thing.

I wasn't simply an admission; it was you who offered the example:

Knowing a truth about, say, the chemical constitution of planet Saturnus is most likely not going to contribute anything to a person's happiness or misery, unless they are an astrophysicist or something like that.

There is no refuting that you gave an example that knowing the chemical constitution of Saturnus [sic] could contribute to an astrophysicist's happiness.

You do see how happiness can be relative and self-chosen. This would be a good time to concede the point.

 

[wynn]

I wasn't simply an admission; it was you who offered the example:

You are reading into that example something that is just not there.

There is no refuting that you gave an example that knowing the chemical constitution of Saturnus [sic] could contribute to an astrophysicist's happiness.

To be clear: "being an astrophysicist" is merely a job, not the complete definition of what a person is! A person is not their job.

For someone who works as an astrophysicist, knowing things such as the chemical constitution of planets is satisfying in the sense that it helps them to do and keep their job. People generally value if they can do and keep their jobs. Beyond the job of an astrophysicist and related fields, information about planets doesn't seem to have any value.

You do see how happiness can be relative and self-chosen. This would be a good time to concede the point.

You keep ignoring my point, and instead you go for simplistic explanations.
A person is not their job.

If happiness could really be self-chosen, then a person could say "Such and such will make me happy!" and it would happen. And yet people generally seem to know that things don't work that way - that one cannot determine what will make one happy or not. One's likes and dislikes seem to precde one's choice.

 

[wynn]

Never even heard of the guy. But if you're at all familiar with buddhism, you should know that the 4 noble truths pertain to suffering, its origin, and how it can be overcome. The second noble truth is perhaps the important point for discussion here.

How would you like to state the Second Noble Truth?

 

[gmilam]

To be clear: "being an astrophysicist" is merely a job, not the complete definition of what a person is! A person is not their job.

While I agree that a person is not their job, I don't think one becomes an astrophysicist because it pays the bills. I think someone has to want to be one. The point stands - happiness is relative.

You may continue with your trolling.

 

[DaveC426913]

To be clear: "being an astrophysicist" is merely a job, not the complete definition of what a person is! A person is not their job.

And how does this negate anything at all?

If someone pursues astrophysics, it may be because its pursuit makes them happy. As you say, a person cannot snap their fingers and make themselves happy - but they can certainly determine for themselves what pursuits will bring them the most happiness.

 

[Balerion]

Beyond the job of an astrophysicist and related fields, information about planets doesn't seem to have any value.

To you. Again and always: To you.

You are seemingly oblivious to the fact that you are not the standard model for everyone. Your aimlessness is not shared by all, nor your apparent depression. Information about planets has tremendous value to the people in those fields, and not just because that's their job. Let's remember that there is a difference between a job and a career, and that a career can be someone's passion. No, one can't snap their fingers and decide to be happy about something or find meaning in it, but they certainly can and do discover the things that make them happy and give them meaning as they journey through life.

For an astrophysicist, say, their very identity may derive from their study. They may define themselves by their work. I know professional writers who do the same, who derive their sense of self-worth at least in large part by their output.

What you're doing here (again) is assuming that because something like the chemical composition of an exoplanet has no intrinsic value to you, that it must have no intrinsic value to anyone, and that those who do care about those numbers could only do so for the sake of completing their job. But while these things are abstractions to you, they can mean everything to someone else.

And of course there's also family and children and friends, and all of the other things that make life meaningful for human beings. I wonder why you find no meaning in those things?

 

[SciWriter]

If one wants to comprehend why there is no inherent meaning in the Cosmos, one must find out why and how it exists. I have done this.

The meaningless is a liberation, as then one can make their own meaning in life, somewhat, within their form. However, one is still a puppet of cause and effect, but at least all is understood, and that is what one is after.

 

[BWE1]

How would you like to state the Second Noble Truth?

1. Life's a bitch.
2. It's a bitch because we want it to be different.
3. It doesn't have to be a bitch.
4. There is a method which can help you make it not a bitch.

How's that?

 

[SciWriter]

If one wants to comprehend why there is no inherent meaning in the Cosmos, one must find out why and how it exists. I have done this.

The meaningless is a liberation, as then one can make their own meaning in life, somewhat, within their form. However, one is still a puppet of cause and effect, but at least all is understood, and that is what one is after.

What is​

1. A First and Fundamental Supernatural Being is not possible. Lessor parts must precede composite complexities, all the more for a Composite Complexity. This is proof of no ‘God’ by self-contradiction. Look to the future for higher evolved forms, not the past, for that is the complete wrong direction.

2. Nothing (a lack of anything as nonexistence) is the only source for existents. There is nothing to make anything of, literally.

3. If the base existents were always around, then there would have been no point at which its total amount or its form and properties could be made, so, “forever stuff” cannot be.

4. The idea of ‘God’ is not Nothing or Forever Stuff, the only two choices.

5. Nature is indeed seen to be made of a zero-sum balance of opposites

6. A lack of anything, then, must be the source of All, and so it has to be without constraint, having no laws but a law of no laws; thus, anything goes, and so everything goes (happens).

7. If there can be one universe there can be another. We actually see that the universe is even greatly accelerating. Thus, what fueled the universe is the fuel that keeps on giving. So, again, other universes are possible from this fuel, which is that of nothing dividing and creating. Therefore there will be a universe in which the amount of dark energy and dark matter is right enough for galaxies to form. So then there will be suns and planets there (as here), some of which are in the right ballpark for life. We can only find ourselves in a universe that has the right properties. In other universes there is no one around to remark about about how ‘remarkable’ it is.

8. Anything and everything happening is not meaningful, nor is Nothing. They both have the same information content: zero.

9. While one is liberated from a Designer pulling the puppet strings, there are other strings which cannot be any other way. This that the will and all nature’s events depend on prior things. It’s not just that we wouldn’t want a worthless will that doesn’t depend on anything—we wouldn’t, but that the will must depend on inputs, memories, learnings, and associations.

10. There is still an undeniable sense of enjoyment in living and discovering within our small and overall meaningless parentheses within all of time beyond it. Is is kind of like being in a wonderful play, although scripted by the Cosmos. Nothing more could be asked for, since it cannot be had.

11. Infinities and eternities cannot happen, for they are that which can never be attained. Our universe had a beginning. All supposed past forevers and everywheres must begin with Nothing, for that is where the buck has to stop.

12 So now we know why the Cosmos exists. It has to, because Nothing is the only source. So, then, because a lack of anything did not persist, then it is that it could not; so then, it has to be unstable state, and cannot be or remain as such.

13. There is no more “What if they are right?” about made-up desires and wishes for ultimate meaning or for a ‘God’.

14. Even if one doesn’t accept either From Nothing or Stuff Forever, remember that one or the other must be correct, and, so, even taking them both together without knowing which one, neither have ultimate meaning nor is either one ‘God’.

15. The only prize is that one exists.

 

[BWE1]

So I guess that means the second one is that life's a bitch because we want it to be different.