Grim Realizations

[TWRule]

Okay, you're right, the ultimate end of the universe isn't currently known. It will most likely end, though. And the chances of humanity being somehow wiped out of the universe is pretty high also. It's also nearly impossible for you to be remembered for the entire span of the human race.

How can we speak of likelihood here? As if one had a statistical sampling of other universes that did or didn't end prior to this one? I will concede that if humanity is wiped out, the universe would end, since there'd be no one to perceive it's existence...and humanity being wiped out might be a real threat, though I'd be less worried about universal natural forces doing that than ourselves by degrading into something less than human...

As for being remembered, sure - but any memory is a reinterpretation of the thing being remembered anyway, and I wouldn't say that someone remembering you is what's of most importance on the eternal timescale.

Now what sort of other methodology besides science is there? Science is the only thing which actually provides answers with evidence; it makes claims and supports them. You can't seriously be asking me to have a little "faith," can you? Faith is accepting what you're told, without verification, because you lack the will to do anything else. Unless you have a good reason to ignore science in this case, I'm afraid I can't ignore research and mathematics.

I'm not asking you to have faith, I'm pointing out that you already have it in science (I'm not defining faith like you are obviously). Science has certain criteria for what is acceptable in its methods - the things you mentioned (empirical evidence, etc.). However, the basis of the method can't be validated by its own criteria; it has to be founded on certain presuppositions about the world, how much of the world humans have direct access to, etc. Essentially, those presuppositions which found science have to be taken on a form of faith, and that's true for any method you choose. I'm not asking you to ignore science, but I am saying that you shouldn't take it as the last word without exploring other options (that would be closer to the faith in the sense you defined, eh?).

Off the top of my head, other methods already in existence would be phenomenological methods, hermeneutics, deconstructionist methods (please google these if you're curious because I'd go over a max character limit explaining them - they are usually grouped under the umbrella of philosophy), etc. However, there's no reason we should limit ourselves to the methods already made for us - we can create novel ones, so long as they are consistent and actionable. Which one is the best we'll have to decide among ourselves (by ourselves I mean humanity).

And how, exactly, "should" the human race be? There's no point to existence. We have no given purpose. Life is what we make of it. You can give yourself a purpose, sure, but there's been no one to give humanity a purpose; no human can really do that. And anyone who "gives" us a purpose is just giving us a suggestion for our purpose, or, more specifically, their purpose, not the purpose.

I agree with all of that, which is exactly why I would not suggest that any *single* human try to provide us with that purpose, but rather that it must be a collective endeavor. If humanity agrees on a purpose, it will become the purpose. It need not be handed down by some external power to become valid for the whole of humanity.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

The grimmest realization I will ever have--and continue to have inconsistently--is the realization that someday I will die, and I don't know what will happen. It's absolutely harrowing and disquieting. Particularly the possibility of nonexistence.

When I tell you that I would rather burn in hell for eternity than stop existing, I mean it. To me, anything is better than nonexistence.

Well think of it this way...if there is no such thing as an afterlife and non-existence is what happens when you die then you'll never know about it.

 

[Thistlehart]

So my question was really - how do [you] expect to form and maintain genuine family ties without ever genuinely sharing the concerns of others?

But that's exactly what I was talking about. You did read the Pratchett quote, right? It's in there, your answer. Look for it.

I'll try to put a little of it here, but please after reading this, go back and read over the quote a few times and try to understand what it's saying.

There is something special that is created within a family that no one member possesses. A connection between its members that makes them one.
You steal from my daughter, you steal from me. I'll take back what is hers.
You strike my brother, you strike me. I'll fight you in his place.
You insult my husband, you insult me. I'll uphold his good name.

You attack me, I stab at thee.

Each member of the family claims the rest as theirs. That makes them part of each other. What I would call love. They then seek the best for theirs.

What happens when you extend the definition of self in this way? You begin to include more than simply your wants.

Give the quote another go. See if you can outline it better than I can. I don't know that I'm doing it justice.

My hat's off to you if you can.

 

[Cpu46]

Realizing that the paper you failed to do was not worth a simple 10 points like the grade sheet said but was weighted to 15% of the final class grade. Then getting a shit score in the class.

 

[Comando96]

That I'm suicidal depressed.

This realisation happened when I was crying myself to sleep thinking about how to kill myself quickly and painlessly as I hated life.

I still am depressed to the same extent but am more frightened of death than I am of life so for now I'll keep going... when human civilization is starting to fail us and we're starting to starve then I'll find the nearest gun/police check point, and get myself killed.

Alternatively if we decide to cull the human population in order to keep civilization alive then I'll volinteer as that's a sign the going's good has gone forever.

 

[Reaper69lol]

Worst grim realization for me is realising how much money ive spent on tf2. Specifically how much money ive spent on keys. Oh and how much time ive spent playing tf2.

 

[TWRule]

So my question was really - how do [you] expect to form and maintain genuine family ties without ever genuinely sharing the concerns of others?

But that's exactly what I was talking about. You did read the Pratchett quote, right? It's in there, your answer. Look for it.

I'll try to put a little of it here, but please after reading this, go back and read over the quote a few times and try to understand what it's saying.

There is something special that is created within a family that no one member possesses. A connection between its members that makes them one.
You steal from my daughter, you steal from me. I'll take back what is hers.
You strike my brother, you strike me. I'll fight you in his place.
You insult my husband, you insult me. I'll uphold his good name.

You attack me, I stab at thee.

Each member of the family claims the rest as theirs. That makes them part of each other. What I would call love. They then seek the best for theirs.

What happens when you extend the definition of self in this way? You begin to include more than simply your wants.

Give the quote another go. See if you can outline it better than I can. I don't know that I'm doing it justice.

My hat's off to you if you can.

I've already read and understood the quote (as best as I can without further context), and I'd say your grasp of it is decent enough. However, I'll have to disagree on the nature of the bond shared by family members. Members of a true family don't just protect each others's interests (regardless of what they may be) by taking personal insult at every external transgression (much in the same way a nation might send out the military to protect its citizens or soldiers, no matter how divided the nation is in concerns/interests). Instead, they keep the common interests that are shared a communal fashion where that which is shared stands on its own and all members of the family either share or turn away from (and thus leave the family) those shared concerns. They try their best to keep each other in the fold, of course, but they may morally chastise one another for going astray.

For example, a devout Christian family, united by their faith, might actually chastise one member for defending another with violence instead of turning the other cheek. In this case, what's at stake isn't anyone's ego, but the shared values (Christian religious salvation).

So your family may end up being galvanized by taking personal offense to each threat to a family member (more like a mob clan), but it won't be a true family unless they also have those shared values among themselves. It's within that internal moral/ethical commitment - rather than the commitment to respond to external threats - that love resides, I'd say.

 

[Thistlehart]

I've already read and understood the quote (as best as I can without further context), and I'd say your grasp of it is decent enough. However, I'll have to disagree on the nature of the bond shared by family members. Members of a true family don't just protect each others's interests (regardless of what they may be) by taking personal insult at every external transgression (much in the same way a nation might send out the military to protect its citizens or soldiers, no matter how divided the nation is in concerns/interests).

Those were basic examples. They were not to be taken at face value, but to serve as simple concepts to be extrapolated from.

Instead, they keep the common interests that are shared a communal fashion where that which is shared stands on its own and all members of the family either share or turn away from (and thus leave the family) those shared concerns. They try their best to keep each other in the fold, of course, but they may morally chastise one another for going astray.

You repeat, in different words, most of the point of the Pratchett quote. Well done! In essence, I think, it is meant to convey one taking on the responsibilty of seeing to others' wellbeing by claiming them as one's own and making them part of one's self.

For example, a devout Christian family, united by their faith, might actually chastise one member for defending another with violence instead of turning the other cheek. In this case, what's at stake isn't anyone's ego, but the shared values (Christian religious salvation).

And how is this not an action based in self-interest? They chastise themselves for not properly upholding their moral code. There is disappointment and embarassment among the family that one of theirs did not do what they thought was the proper action, fearing what it could mean for them as well as the family member who was violent. Self-interest is not always based in survival.

So your family may end up being galvanized by taking personal offense to each threat to a family member (more like a mob clan), but it won't be a true family unless they also have those shared values among themselves.

As I said before, those were basic examples meant to be extrapolated.

It's within that internal moral/ethical commitment - rather than the commitment to respond to external threats - that love resides, I'd say.

And again you and I are saying the same thing, but in different ways. I would consider my take a little more honest concerning human nature, but I digress.

Allow me to clear the air here, as I think you are operating under a misconception. Please allow me to correct it: Selfish =/= bad

For the sake of example, let us assume there are two kinds of selfish actions. For simplicity's sake, I'll call them Good selfish and Bad selfish.

A Good selfish action is an action that will benefit more than oneself, but one sees will result in an end benefit to oneself. For example: volunteering at a soup kitchen for homeless youth. That is the donation of a person's valuable seconds, minutes, and even hours of their life to help people that may not even be grateful. However, this will result in feelings of satisfaction at having done the "right thing" within said person's moral code. The end result is as beneficial to the person performing the act as to those being served by it.

A Bad selfish action is an action that fits with what you're thinking. An action that is only good for a single person (or group) and detrimental to all others. For example: Starting a war to keep the price of oil high.

While it is highly debatable since the concept of truth is ultimately subjective, here is a truth I have found. In keeping with the theme of the thread, it too was a rather grim realization...

There is no such thing as altruism. It is a lie. A good lie, and a useful one at that, but a lie nonetheless. No one does anything unless it benefits themselves in some way (this does not mean that what is done is always to one's sole benefit). Many people don't realize they do this, because they accept the lie, and that's fine. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

To quote the great Robert A. Heinlein, "Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception; the root of all evil."

One can be kind, generous, and even a martyr, and it is still serving their interest to be so, because that is what they want to be. That is Good selfishness. The selfishness that brings in others and makes families and communities.

 

[Zantos]

The Power Rangers only ever existed in order to sell you crappy plastic toys. Each sold separately, so you needed to get your parents to fork out 6 times at about £25 a go to get the full Megazord. It ruined my childhood memories when I realised that.

 

[Doclector]

That there's a decent possibility I may have far more common sense than the people in charge of my course at uni.

Then there's the fact that I have to sign on to a dodgy internet credit card to get my credit rating up, because apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't count if you've never borrowed anything in your life (seriously, I've never even borrowed money from friends that I didn't give back after two hours at the most), and if I make a completely original point in one of my essays, I can't make it because I need a reference to validate even the most basically logically sound point, despite the fact that the works I can reference are essentially also just essays that just so happened to be published. Makes me wonder who published those in the first place, because THEY don't always have references.

Basically, I'm struggling with the fact that one of my worst adolescent fears, the fear that I'm not just paranoid and arrogant, that the world and everything that I care about IS in fact run by morons and bearocrats who like nothing better to get in my way, and in the way of any kind of progress.

 

[TWRule]

You repeat, in different words, most of the point of the Pratchett quote. Well done! In essence, I think, it is meant to convey one taking on the responsibilty of seeing to others' wellbeing by claiming them as one's own and making them part of one's self.

I'm not sure what I'm saying was the same - I was stressing that what a family/community follows is something (usually a worldview or set of values) that no one person in the community necessarily ever had. Taking someone's pre-existing interests and internalizing them, which I believe is what you and Pratchett were talking about, is quite a different matter. Maybe someone only cares about survival, for example. I can choose to sympathize with his cause, but that doesn't make me part of his/her family, even if we actively work together for it.

The best analogy I can think of off the topic of my head would be a band of soldiers. Maybe they go to war as part of a loose, impersonal military organization, but they emerge as a band of brothers (even if they no longer care at all about the political values of their home nation). Even further, let's say they decide to hire a mercenary to help their cause - that merc still may not be welcomed into the brotherhood even though they ostensibly fight for the same cause, because his/her values differ, and the soldiers choose their values over his.

And how is this not an action based in self-interest? They chastise themselves for not properly upholding their moral code. There is disappointment and embarassment among the family that one of theirs did not do what they thought was the proper action, fearing what it could mean for them as well as the family member who was violent. Self-interest is not always based in survival.

You could frame it as self-interest, but that oversimplifies the situation. Why do you think they chose that particular moral code over any other? If they were only following self-interest, how could they (or anyone) even arrive at a conception of proper action, let alone one that differed from everyone else's?

*snip*

First off, let's just stop talking about 'honesty' about human nature or any conception of what's true. Let's get straight that we only have our individual bias' and the most either of us can do is convince the other of why they should take up our view.

I don't subscribe to any such simplistic understanding of the value of selfishness or selflessness, though I do tend to see egoistic views as naive and misguided for various reasons. I was never arguing for ethical altruism though (the view that you should sacrifice all you can indiscriminately for others).

So why should I believe in your view, which seems to me to reduce to egoistic hedonism, where humans are basically conceived of as pleasure-seekers with no ability to perceive or strive toward a higher purpose? It allows us to rest on our laurels, discard ethical and philosophical responsibility (maybe killing others makes me feel better than helping them?), and never try to lift ourselves up to noble action? What does that do to give meaning/purpose to human life? I, for one, would never want to be part of a 'family' where the others only treated me well because it made them feel good (they may as well get a pet instead) and not because they want a genuine human relationship with me. I don't want to live in a world full of pleasure-seeking zombies.

Why not believe in a humanity that can lift itself up to nobility, seek higher purposes, not just because it makes them feel good, but because it's what's right, can have consciences that can tell the difference, can have genuine unique interpersonal relationships in which they do not treat each other (consciously or unconsciously) as objects that dispense pleasure?

 

[Thistlehart]

You could frame it as self-interest, but that oversimplifies the situation. Why do you think they chose that particular moral code over any other? If they were only following self-interest, how could they (or anyone) even arrive at a conception of proper action, let alone one that differed from everyone else's?

They wanted to, and they felt that was best for them and theirs. Yes, it is simple, but it's remarkable how simple many things become when you break them down.

First off, let's just stop talking about 'honesty' about human nature or any conception of what's true. Let's get straight that we only have our individual bias' and the most either of us can do is convince the other of why they should take up our view.

I suppose I should apologize two-fold. The bit about honesty may have been going a bit far, sorry if that offended. It was not intended to. Sorry about that.

I'm also sorry if I came across as pushing my beiefs down your throat. I just wanted to explain how I saw things, and maybe you'd get something out of that...

I don't subscribe to any such simplistic understanding of the value of selfishness or selflessness, though I do tend to see egoistic views as naive and misguided for various reasons. I was never arguing for ethical altruism though (the view that you should sacrifice all you can indiscriminately for others).

So why should I believe in your view, which seems to me to reduce to egoistic hedonism, where humans are basically conceived of as pleasure-seekers with no ability to perceive or strive toward a higher purpose? It allows us to rest on our laurels, discard ethical and philosophical responsibility (maybe killing others makes me feel better than helping them?), and never try to lift ourselves up to noble action? What does that do to give meaning/purpose to human life? I, for one, would never want to be part of a 'family' where the others only treated me well because it made them feel good (they may as well get a pet instead) and not because they want a genuine human relationship with me. I don't want to live in a world full of pleasure-seeking zombies.

...at which I seem to have failed spectacularly. Again, I'm sorry.

Why not believe in a humanity that can lift itself up to nobility, seek higher purposes, not just because it makes them feel good, but because it's what's right, can have consciences that can tell the difference, can have genuine unique interpersonal relationships in which they do not treat each other (consciously or unconsciously) as objects that dispense pleasure?

Oh I do. It's why I'm still here, after all. However, a friend of mine once told me, "If you want to be able to move forward, you have to accept where you are. Denial just sticks you in place."

 

[TWRule]

*snip*

I'm not offended so there is no need to apologize - I'm just trying to make sure we are clear here so that additional confusion can be avoided.

Oh I do. It's why I'm still here, after all. However, a friend of mine once told me, "If you want to be able to move forward, you have to accept where you are. Denial just sticks you in place."

Your friend's advice may be sound for everyday life, but I tend to think discussing where we are is generally a waste of time when it comes to philosophy - all that really matters there is where we should be (and to a lesser extent how we'll get there). I commented on this thread in hopes of pointing out to you that the outlook you've been sharing doesn't really accomplish or even allow for humans to lift themselves to nobility as I've been describing, but then I've already said my piece on that.

 

[Biodeamon]

I earlier wrote an entry in my journal (yes, i have a journal, shut up!) that i intended to to write a month later just to see how much changed and i went back to it checked the date and....the journal entry was dated dated back 2 YEARS. It only felt like a couple of months and already i'd gone from grade 9 to grade 11. i really have a bad sense of time...

 

[Thistlehart]

I commented on this thread in hopes of pointing out to you that the outlook you've been sharing doesn't really accomplish or even allow for humans to lift themselves to nobility as I've been describing...

I'll have to respectfully disagree. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Pardon the cliche.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

OK, so grim realizations...well, the depressing usual. Life is ultimately pointless, all endeavours are essentially ways of killing time before time kills us, my inherent pessimism, low self-esteem and laziness means that I'll "fail at life", life was better when I was a child and teenagehood actually aren't the best years of your life.

Life would be better as an animal, being entirely neutral creatures with an arbitrarily set path, or lack thereof, and presumably (hopefully) don't think much about anything in general.

God, Heaven, Hell or any other supernatural bullshit doesn't exist, so what's left for me after I die? Reincarnation? So I'll be stuck in a cycle of living through different bodies until, I dunno, the universe itself dies? Or I'll "wake up" from the dream that is life? Or I'll be "stuck" in an empty body underground or, alternatively, burnt to ashes so I'll be nothing? And the worse thing is: NO-ONE EVEN FUCKING KNOWS AND LIKELY NEVER BLOODY WILL.

Death. I am a depressed human being, and I would commit suicide if not for my family and the fact that I?m afraid of what happens afterwards. So yes, I am trapped. The optimists say, ?It could be worse?, but the pessimist that is me replies, ?But it could be better!?

OK, less depressing things...

In the future, physical books will go the way of the typewriter in favour of Kindles, e-readers, etc. Same with traditional video games, its consoles and controllers.

I?m growing up, and in almost two years, I?ll be 18 and officially adult. And I feel as unprepared as ever. Back when I was a child, I thought that even becoming a teenager was so far off in the future that it was like it would never come.

 

[Dante DiVongola]

My grim realization is just how fragile and frail life can really be. Within a few weeks, my girlfriend dumped me, my best friend is getting sexually harassed and possibly might be raped, I went out with one of my roommates to dinner and they stuck me with a huge bill, my schizophrenia, depression, and insomnia have come back full swing, and I have the looming threat of flunking most (if not all) my classes because I've been getting migraines recently and had to stay home. It's not the roughest situation in the world, but it's still one rough time I'm having now and it all seemed to happen in the blink of an eye.