/pony/ - Pony

I enjoy exurb1a's videos.

As for Absurdiam, it sounds like when a child finds it cute to ask "why" all the time, no matter how annoying it gets.

If we can break down the universe into a core substance that can no longer be broken down, why? If the universe can continue to be broken down to the point it's a cycle, why?

>>1165270

I see you've not watched the entire video. That's not what Absurdism is as it's more laughing at those questions and saying fuck it who cares I'm doing whatever I want to

Or that you know, there is no meaning and trying to find meaning is pointless

>>1165271
Something of the sorts, it reminds me of Discworld philosopher Didactylos who when it comes to the meaning of life3 and existence, he has summed up an alternative hypothesis as "Things just happen. What the hell."

It's a philosophy I can agree on. Why overcomplicate things more than they already are?

L'etranger was a neat novel

It's interesting to continue to see variations of these topics come up at different places. This looks to be the Gen Z incarnation of an old article I came across about 8 years ago on the topic: https://danielmiessler.com/p/difference-existentialism-nihilism-absurdism/, the Gen Z version being complete with a random YouTuber talking about the topic in the fashionable YouTube style and in an ad-hoc way amidst an onslaught of tangentially-related graphics and background music - the video itself exemplifying absurdism by being an abdsurd YouTube video.

My present thoughts on the existentialist/nihilist/absurdist complex is that, firstly, well... I will begin with nihilism, as it is the most obviously problematic. Nihilism says that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything and it's pointless to try to do anything about it. The "and" part is important because one can feel that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, and this is a perfectly valid feeling or mind-state. The unnecessary part is the "and," as this is a value-judgement of the feeling or mind-state. Feeling that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, or being in such a mind-state, is just that. One need not add anything else to it. Hopefully it is now clear the problem with nihilism.

Next, we move on to existentialism. Existentialism says that we can make our own meaning. I never really bought this idea because it always felt intuitively wrong for some reason. On closer inspection, it becomes clear why. Existentialism is actually just the modern incarnation of the ancient concept of hope. So, in ancient times, hope was seen by the Stoics as a negative thing to have (despite popular opinion to the contrary) because on the flip-side of hope is fear, and there were many tales about such hopes going wrong. In the later centuries, hope was rechanneled into the concepts of "hope in Christ" and "fear of God." In the modern era, hope has taken the form of existentialism. So, where are the two sides of the hope coin now? As HealthyGamerGG once said in one of his YouTube videos, hope is something like standing in the present and looking towards the future. I think this describes existentialism. One is present to what is going on, while also looking towards the future - but why? The reason why, I think, can be explained only by a complex interaction of societal forces, which may be highly individualistic. Basically, one way or another, the normative ethical culturally relative society is where the hope, fear, and, ultimately, existentialism, come from. So, while it may have its uses from time-to-time, existentialism cannot possibly stand on its own as a core philosophy.

Finally, we have absurdism, which establishes that, like nihilism, says that there is no intrinsic meaning, yet unlike nihilism recognizes the validity of the search for meaning. This is probably the hardest philosophy of the three to see through because it seems to be reasonable, in that the ultimate conclusion is to just go on living. But let's take a closer look: So, the philosophy says that there is no intrinsic meaning. This isn't actually nihilism, but rather an acknowledgement of the feeling or mind-state of nihilism - without the "and" part. Looking at the website definitino of absurdism, we see that the search for meaning is then defined as a process. So, what is in conflict with each other? - the intrinisic meaninglessness of life and the process of searchin for meaning. There may be some intellectualization going on here in the person who is applying this philosophy, but ignoring that possibility, the conclusion is to simultaneously accept this dichotomy as well as rebel against the dichotomy. So, this is actually quite an advanced way of viewing things because one has to first assent that there is no intrinsic meaning, then they have to avoid the pitfall of despair, then they have to acknowledge their drive for meaning and hold that against the assented-to intrinsic lack of meaning. The tension is addressed not by mere acceptance of the conflict (which would end in resolution while holding the aforementioned dichotomy) but by adding the tension of also rebelling against the conflict. So, now there is a tension within a tension in the mind of the absurdist - one between the intrinsic lack of meaning and their drive for meaning, and the second being between the acceptance of this tension and rebellion against it, with the ultimate result being an embracing of what life has to offer. With all of this tension in the absurdist philosophy, it likely acts as a spur to provide one the energy to be able to live in the present.

While quite fascinating how it appears to achieve a meditative or perhaps zen state of mind, I would say the philosophy doesn't stand for two reasons: 1) the initial premise was assented to, rather than simply acknowledged, effectively creating an "and" and value-judgement to the initial feeling or mind-state that life has no intrinsic meaning, and 2) Reasoning simply, if one can hold 1 or 2 dichotomies in their mind in order to achieve mindfulness, why not 3, 4, 5... ad. infinitum? Why hold any dichotimies in the mind at all? It seems to be mental gymnastics, or at least unnecessary. Is there a simpler way?

Some people combine philosophies, such as in existential absurdism. I used to almost consider myself an existential absurdist - "almost," I say, because I don't like to use labels to describe myself. Existential absurdism seems to take the best of all three philosophies and combine them into one. But what does existentialism combined with absurdism look like? Are there any problems with it? Taking what we know about existentialism - that there is an inherent meaning that you can *actually* create, with absurdism that says we don't *actually* create meaning - we just simultaneously accept the aforementioned tensions and rebel against them, and adding to that that existentialism is essentially just a modern incarnation of hope... well, I would say existentialism isn't all hope - there is the societal element which gives it a transmutation aspect. So, I would argue that the combination lends itself to the creation of a process of sorts, in which one acknowledges and gets rid of the bad aspects of themselves while cultivating the good, or, perhaps what is basically a system of virtue ethics.

The universe, as observed by humans, is indeed absurd.  Believing and recognizing this is a uniquely human trait.  A grand majority of organisms do not struggle with with finding meaning, nor the despair that comes with failing to find meaning, because their DNA has not programmed them to do so.  Every feeling we have is constructed from nothing.  This includes our vision, our hearing, our love, our anger, our ennui, our hunger, our need to piss, our sense of time, our sense of number, our sense of belonging and abandonment.  All of it cranked through a primitive meat calculator to determine our next actions.  

Our brain applies concept like a beginning and end to something that may not necessarily have either because doing so was at some point beneficial to survival.  Our brain attempts to apply meaning to objects and concepts and ourselves because sorting sensations into categories allows us to better make decisions.  But none of that was meant to apply to questions like why the world exists or what our own purpose was, it was only useful for deciding which berries were healthy and which shelters were too dangerous.  Further, I believe the brain knows this, and attempts to shield and separate the rest of the minds thoughts and perceptions from these particular veins of processing.  But everyone is different and not all of us work the way we were intended.  Some of us are burdened with the mental disability known as philosophy.  Quite possibly the most absurd state one could be in.

Absurdism, then, is a natural learning response.  The brain has burdened itself with useless thoughts and wrong questions with such focus that it is causing pain to the entity.  If it's able to realize that those questions aren't improving chances of survival or reproduction, potentially requiring external input from other entities, it's able to redirect itself to other ventures.  It may never stop the original thoughts, because those two are natural.  It's only able to add extra calculations to the end that kill the process before it can cause too much harm.

>>1165276

All we are is a bunch of atoms that have formed into a meat and bone puppet being controlled by a brain that has delusions of being special all while we walk around on a big old rock that's floating around and suspended in a giant vast endless void of nothingness

I don't think that we can ever understand it and maybe, just maybe

There is no answer to the question "why are we here?"

Prehaps the answer is that we just are and that's that. There is no greater meaning. We either exist or don't.

>>1165276

5/10

It made for some excellent novels. Everybody attempting to explain it is exhausting. Like. In my experience absurdism stands apart the most from the other schools in that it isn't exactly a complete school of philosophy in and of itself? I feels more like an approach to introspection.

>>1165288

>an approach to introspection

Ah, yes. Insightful.