quote
follow
I remember reading a really thick book entitled 'sense of life' a few years ago. Of course, it didn't carry any answers. It was mostly a collection of thoughts where the sense of life couldn't be.)))
Googled the topic of existential depression few times recently. Didn't find much to read either in English or in Russian. So I decided to write on the subject to fill this informational vacuum))
Here is an 'encouraging' resume I found though:
"Existential depression has not been widely researched and no specific therapeutic approaches have been shown to work better than others in its treatment." (source link)
And also an interesting article on existential depression in gifted young people.
The reason the subject has not been studied enough might be that the phenomenon is not wide-spread enough. I say 'might' because I can't know for sure, it's just my impression, and every subjective impression is not relieble, you have to do a research to have any certainty.
Of course, the core existential questions have been covered by many philosophers in different times. See existentialism. The point is, psychologists don't appear to be very interested in this topic nowadays.
On the other hand, people may be reluctant to bring such problems to specialists thinking no one could really understand them. And hey - not without reason! I run a psychological portal (ukrainian) where lots of psychologists hang out. Part of the 'hanging out' is answering users questions online.
And you know what, they don't do so well on abstract existential worries people sometimes (rarely though) express.
Answering one of the questions about suicide one of the counsellors said something like 'life has been given to you as a gift and you have no right to end it'.
Relieving, isn't it?)) Not to say it is a totally subjective view on life that a specialist of our field has no right of imposing on clients.
My friend, who is a practicing therapist, a very good one and highly recommended among collegues, said she had a client with existential depression but could never understand how a person can be depressed over such abstract things.
So it also may be that psychologists do not 'dig' existential depression because many do not fully understand it. After all, they are only people themselves. And finally, a wild idea: 'psychologists are subconciously afraid of this topic themselves'! Lol. How fun would that be? ;)
Still I am inclined to think the majority of people never experience this kind of depression. True, most of us have the moments when we question the sense of life, ask ourselves the eternal questions about the finality of life, the reason for evil and sufferring in this world etc. But few seem to be trapped in that inner philosophical quest for a prolonged period of time. Most seem to succeed in switching to other topics before going too deep into existential ponderings.
Also I think, if there were many incidents of people turning to psychologists with existential problems, this would translate into more extensive research of the topic. So I guess it's not a frequent phenomenon.
Perhaps the majority of people find 'patches' for such annoying and somewhat painful questions. I would say a 'patch' in this case is either a strong belief in some higher meaning which includes religions of all kinds and all sorts of vague nontheistic concepts about the presense of the sense even if it is hidden from humans (e.g. 'I'm not sure what the major plan is, but I'm sure it exists') or a strong indifference towards the subject (e.g. 'life is fun, why should I waste my time thinking about its meaning' or 'i gotta worry about how to feed my kids, no time to ponder the higher meaning').
But for some the 'patch therapy' fails and they develop what psychologists call 'existential depression'.
Now look, if you are reading in search of a cure for that - you're out of luck here, close the page and have a good life! The only advice I would give to those seeking a solution is to find a good existential therapist and never read this blog again because it is not meant to have a curing effect, I'm just thinking here and my thoughts often aren't too optimistic))).
Although it is sometimes helpful just to know that someone else understands the problem and have been in the similar place.
What I wanted to say here is that the existential kind of depression or anxiety is not supposed to be perceived as something extra-weird or abnormal. While it may be occurring not as often as depression caused by personal failures, it is just as 'normal'.
After all, we decide what is normal and what isn't ourselves. We review our position on norm every now and then through time. There is no ultimate norm. Only what the majority proclaims norms to be today.
In my biased view , there is nothing wrong with those people who are too curious or concerned with the abstract questions like 'what's the f%cking point of all this'?
And it is not always because the person has some personal issues, hasn't found his way in life or something like that.
Some people are just too curious. Some people are just too sensitive. Some are just too honest with themselves. That's it.
Some people turn off the tv and stop thinking of sick and dying children. Some continue asking themselves why does shit has to happen.
The first group usually tries to cure the second.
Is it normal? Perhaps. From the point of view that it is wide-spread. Is it moral? Perhaps not really. But it is best for survival and survival comes before morality.
This reminds me of a term we use to describe the psychological troubles soldiers are experiencing after coming back from war. We call the state a 'post-traumatic stress disorder'. But if you think about it, being in anguish and sufferring from all sorts of negative thoughts and emotions after having seen innocent people blown to pieces and dying slowly in front of your eyes or after having killed another human being yourself is anything but a disorder. Not having any post-traumatic stress is more of a disorder from a moral standpoint.
So the idea of norm and pathology, or disorder is very relative. And the reason I'm making this point is to say that we should be more accepting of existential worries people around us might have. The society as a whole likes cultivating 'happiness at any cost', implying that all people should feel happy or at least fine most of the time. If you're sad for a day or two - that's fine, but the longer you stay in that state the less normal you are considered to be. Now you're sick, you need a pill for that. Or two. Or three. Because happiness is the norm, sadness is the pathology.
Well, it's true people are driven towards pleasure and away from pain like all living organisms, and it is great to seek help when you're in pain. But in the same time, I think it would help those experiencing pain to know it is perfectly normal to. The world is not all good and pleasant, and nor should our emotional states be. I mean, sure, wouldn't that be great if no one had to be depressed at all? I'm all for that, but this is just wishful thinking while the reality is less jolly.
The problem people with existential kind of depression face is the negation and disbelief of the friends and relatives: 'You can't possibly be that concerned about such abstract matters'! Such reactions make the person feel even more alone and 'not normal'.
In the end, even though I promised not to give any recipes for overcoming the existential depression, I will give one small tip that may help some people.
As I said, existential challenges are not always the result of person's not finding their way in life. But sometimes, or maybe even oftentimes this may be the root cause. When you are not living your life according to your very own dreams, desires and even passions and impulses, the emptiness inside you is torturing you day by day. Lots and lots of people live their lives without living. Caught in the web of social expectations, competitions and fears. Doing something they don't really enjoy, living with someone they don't really love, speaking what's not really on their minds... All these things are harmful and in direct opposition with happiness.
Objectively, life as such may not have any meaning. But even more so it is meaningless when you do not live it with your full potential.
More posts from this category: Happiness as a dutyAntinatalist, apparently...
ExpatChris
|
23-12-2011
I think many today don't even think to look down this path. I'm surprised when I see others like yourself that even questions it anymore. I'm impressed by your insight. There are so many distractions these days, i.e. getting a new Iphone, sports, facebook, videogames, films, fanclubs, et al. To me it's like ants not wanting to look up at the elephant standing over their hive. I thought the Matrix was a good metaphor for this. Their existence after leaving the matrix was not as nice as being in the matrix, but at least they saw the reality of their existence. "With much wisdom comes much grief." You don't hear much about the great philosophers being the life of the party types. Like a drug though, pleasure becomes less the longer you pursue it. Living a shallow life without introspection, for some, like me, becomes dull. Facing the meaning of existence forces us to increase our intelligence in order to contemplate it. I had more fun when I was young and didn't think and just did what felt good to me. But I have more self satisfaction and pride now that I am more introspective. I am now more aware of the plight of others, and more sympathetic. I may have less friends, but better quality ones. We seem to sometimes see the negatives more than the positives. I often feel that my life is more depressing now that I have looked over the expanse of our existence and see only fleeting joys that will decrease as we get older as we watch our health decrease. But, I also felt depressed when I was younger and didn't get what I wanted and was unrealistic. At least now the negatives I see and feel are realistic. The big question is, would we know happiness if there were no unhappiness? They say a fish doesn't know it's wet until it leaves the water for the first time and experiences something other than wetness. They would have no point of reference. Happiness would have no meaning without anything to compare it to. Perhaps if we were born and remained perfectly content, we would have no reason to better ourselves. The native Americans say that all wisdom comes through suffering. Sometimes negatives help us to not be so selfish and wake us up to the suffering others feel. When one trains their body, it hurts at first, leaving the comfort of one's sofa, to make their muscles sore, but in the end, you have become stronger, and the more you become used to small pains, like getting used to being in cold water, the less you notice the pain. The less one notices pain, the less pain they experience. Another big question is, "What is the point of bettering ourselves if we are all eventual worm food?" I will probably discuss that in your afterlife post.
|
Irina |
24-12-2011
Another big question is, "What is the point of bettering ourselves if we are all eventual worm food?" Exactly. Does it matter what you do in your sleep if you forget it in the morning and will never be able to recollect it? I mean, in one of those dreams I don't remember I could have been experiencing the greatest happiness or sorrow or understanding Einstein's theory of relativity, but the dream is over and everything ive learnt, understood or felt in it is lost. People who've lived here hundreds of years ago - ordinary people - whats left of them? Nothing. By this time, theres most likely noone alive to even remember them. Its like they never existed at all. Does it matter if the sufferring they've experienced made them better? For whom? Of course I agree sufferring does sometimes make people wiser, more empathetic etc. I just think its a cruel way to train people. |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
"Of course I agree sufferring does sometimes make people wiser, more empathetic etc. I just think its a cruel way to train people."
Can you imagine an alternative? |
Irina |
24-12-2011
Sure. I can imagine a world were people can learn through listening to bird songs, or don't need to learn at all because theyre good enough already. In this f*cked up place - not really. |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
If you were born "good enough already", how could you appreciate it?
Like the fish that doesn't know it's wet because it's never known any than else, being born perfect, one would never know if it was good or bad. It would be completely neutral or worse it would have no meaning and not even be noticeable. Good is only good because it is better than something else, so one would have to have something to compare it to. What we have no experience of, to us doesn't exist. |
Irina |
24-12-2011
With your fish analogy you're describing how things are in our world. Surely, you don't want to say that because this is how we are wired on the planet Earth, this is the only way living organisms could possibly be built. When I'm saying I could imagine a world where everything is good enough already Im also implying that sentient creatures there are equipped with a capability to experience good sensations without having to know any negative ones. Hard for us to imagine, I know. But then, its hard for us to grasp the meaning of infinity, but that doesn't mean that therefore it can not exist. |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
Take fiction. I often over rationalize fiction. For example, this is a corny example but here you go. Lord of the Rings. The object is destroy this ring the is the embodiment of evil. The characters face adversity and the story is quite long covering the trial and struggles they go through to accomplish this.
I noticed at the end, the two protagonists were about to die after completing their task, when eagles came and saved them. I thought, why couldn't the eagles just have flown them there in scene one, chucked in the ring, and then came back and had some tea. The book would be four or five pages, and all that suffering could have been avoided, but would it have been a good book? Would it have been exciting? Would the characters have learned about themselves or grown as individuals? Would they have developed any character? Another example. Erin Brockovich. A poor woman can barely feed her children ends up defeating a large evil corporation that is killing people for profit, and gets 2 million dollars as a reward and the love and admiration from all the people she helped. Change Erin to some guy who was born to wealthy parents and already had millions of dollars and makes some more. You're basically saying that you would want a world were you wouldn't need the story or the excitement of the journey to betterment, that in some other dimension you could have the same appreciation and release without the tension buildup and suspense. You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton, but you're saying that you would want a world where the Paris Hilton's would have the character and integrity of those that live the adventure of betterment without having to go through the process that leads to it? |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
"When I'm saying I could imagine a world where everything is good enough already Im also implying that sentient creatures there are equipped with a capability to experience good sensations without having to know any negative ones."
Again you're imagining a fictional dimension without negatives. It would have to be unlike our dimension in all aspects to the point of defying logic as we know it. the problem is that positive and negative are not separable. Something is only positive because it is better than a negative. The is no pleasure without pain. But in this hypothetical dimension there are no negatives. The moment you brought a positive into it, it would become like our existence thus defeating the nature of it. the only absence of negatives would be in neutrality. That would be oblivion and lack of any form of consciousness. |
Irina |
24-12-2011
You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton
Copied from Irina Uriupina's blog Read more: http://uriupina.com/philosophy-psychology/existential-depression Again, I understand how hardships sometimes build peoples spirits. Same way excercise builds muscles. But the only reason why we need muscles is to adjust to the world with gravity. Muscles have no merit in themselves. Same way a strong character is only valuable in a world where there are challenges and struggles to be faced with. You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton No. And money is not 'everything'. Not everyone from the rich family ends up being Paris Hilton. And you can find plenty of 'Paris Hiltons' in the poor neighbourhoods. At least some philosophers and artists were from the rich families, no? You need at least the luxury of free time for introspection and growth, for any creative activities. If you have to work 8 hours and come back exhausted you are too tired to be pondering existential questions, your mind is occupied with how to feed your family. Would it have been exciting? Would the characters have learned about themselves or grown as individuals? Would they have developed any character? We only find it exciting because we are living in this world where everyone has to fight to stay alive and escape dangerous situations. Theres no need to be finding the stories of how someone escaped the grusome fate exciting per se. We do because were all in danger here, so it appeals to our psyche. That however doesn't mean that the skills of bypassing traps are valuable in themselves. Muscles are good if one has to run or lift heavy weights, wings are great if one has to fly, eyes - if theres a need to see. Building character if ... I don't know... you tell me why its worthwhile. Why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing? unlike our dimension in all aspects to the point of defying logic as we know it. yes, it would The moment you brought a positive into it, it would become like our existence it wouldn't since all the aspects of it would be different from our dimension the only absence of negatives would be in neutrality. That would be oblivion and lack of any form of consciousness. Well, that wouldn't seem too awful to me. Ever heard of Nirvana? Are you sure consciousness is the best of all states? Or at least the consciousness as we know it. Have you had the chance to compare? I've seen Erin Brockovich movie. (Loved it btw) But life is also full of much less inspiring examples where peoples struggles end with nothing as glorious. They fight, and suffer, and suffer some more just to rot in the ground. Sufferring isn't all so romantic. While some are possibly building character and 'growing', others just perish under the weight of their ordeals. That's why I'm saying that sufferring is a cruel way to achieve an aim of 'bettering' people, especially since the point of bettering them is unclear. |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
I don't think you're getting my point. I'm using metaphors to point to a larger truth. If you dissect the metaphor, you're defeating the purpose of it.
Muscles aren't the point. Improvement and the ability to appreciate good is what I was trying to illustrate. I find character not only needed in a challenging world. Character is what I believe gives us beauty and identity. There would be no use in knowing if there was nothing to know. Without knowing, we are back at oblivion, which may or may not be your definition of Nirvana. The point of Paris was to illustrate that being given everything without earning it makes us spoiled and those types generally don't learn value of what they have, much like if we were given everything without earning it. You're not saying that you find it inspiring that Paris is famous and rich for nothing than being stupid, pretty and having a rich father are you? "Why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing?" You said, "But even more so it is meaningless when you do not live it with your full potential." How do you get to your potential if you don't grow? Growing as a resident of this world, as a whole, as a group, together with others, all imply something other than static. To arrive at a positive static is the ideal, like your idea of existence of positive without negatives, but my point is that to originate there would make it impossible, without your conceptual miracle of a another dimension where on it we would equipped to enjoy it without a point of reference. I'm saying that this existence may have purpose not in itself, as I see everything here as meaningless, but to give us a frame of reference in order to appreciate a Nirvana. It's like camping. We live in the city and can't wait to get out in the nature. We find our apartments restrictive and sterile. We go camping and enjoy it for a while and then miss our beds and showers and internet and when we get home we appreciate what we had taken for granted. Maybe this is our camping trip, or our apartment, take your pick. It may serve to help us to appreciate that which would have been ordinary without it, and make it seen for its sublime characteristics. Can I prove this? No. I consider myself agnostic, but spiritual. Can you prove that art, or humor exists? No, they are conceptual and exist only in our minds. They are subjective, but so is beauty and so may be other concepts beyond the physical that we haven't fully grasped. If this is all there is, then nothingness after it will be a welcomed rest. What would you prefer, to lose consciousness in your idea of Nirvana, or have the previous ideal of positives with no negatives? Suffering isn't romantic at all if it's pointless. Getting back to appreciation. I saw a young boy in a upper middle class life on Christmas get about 20 presents, but sat and cried because there was one he didn't get. On the contrary, I saw a young child in Africa in pure poverty asked what he would wish for if he could have one wish, what would it be? He said a toothbrush. He was given a toothbrush and I'm sure he was happier than the boy that got 20 presents. I had a rough life. Bad family, bad bosses and relationships and generally unlucky. But, the irony is that in comparison, little things don't bother me so much. People who have had an easy life are annoyed when all isn't easy. They seem petty to me. I didn't like going through the suffering I went through, but I like that very few things upset me now, which means in some ways, I am happier than those who haven't suffered. I have a friend with multiple sclerosis. He says he finds it better than when he had to work. People come to do his shopping for him and he has made more friends than I have in the last 2 years which he wouldn't have had without his illness. Clouds often have silver linings and people often disregard irony when trying to be logical. If one was to enter this theoretical dimension of good with no bad, who do you think would enjoy and appreciate it more, the one who had a comfortable easy life beforehand, or the one who left suffering into ecstasy? Again I don't know if any of this is true. None will know until we leave this life. But I personally am not closed minded to the idea of something beyond nature. I again, believe humor and art are conceptual and not a part of the physical universe. Perhaps there's even more, perhaps not. Either way, I will either sleep well leaving my conscious, or have my anticipation for something better satisfied, or something else entirely. Sure hope it's not reincarnation. I'm not up for this shit again. But I don't think it's illogical to say there is a possibility for something beyond this insanity. The idea of imperfection seems to imply the possibility for perfection or we wouldn't know we were living in imperfection. Whew, nearly hit the max letter count there. Thanks for this conversation, by the way. It's very rare to have philosophical conversations these days |
Irina |
24-12-2011
I don't think you're getting my point. I'm using metaphors to point to a larger truth. I've already acknowlege that your methaphors are valid if we discuss strictly how things are in this world. But ever since you've asked if I could imagine an alternative we've been discussing a fictional world where rules would have been different. And there, as I have already mentioned, the rules of how everything is built here wouldn't apply. Improvement and the ability to appreciate good is what I was trying to illustrate. You don't need to keep illustrating what I have agreed with in the firts place by saying 'With your fish analogy you're describing how things are in our world.' I know were able to appreciate good things in comparison to bad ones here. And also, when you asked if I could imagine an alternative to learning thru sufferring I said that in this f*ed up world - not really. So the point of the role that sufferring plays here today was accepted from the beginning of the discussion. I see no point arguing that the rain is needed to moisten the ground - that's a fact we can observe. But saying that this is the only way life could ever exist is to apply our limited understanding of whats possible to the whole Universe, whatever that is. When Im asking why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing I mean - apart from this world, intrinsically? I can see benefits of growth in this world, same way I see benefits of regular excercise. (btw, i better get to it, or ill loose the shape that i still have ) but my point is that to originate there would make it impossible, without your conceptual miracle of a another dimension where on it we would equipped to enjoy it without a point of reference. And that's all Im talking about. I can see some point in people growing as individuals in this life. It matters for them, it matters for people surrounding them. One has to do something in this life - might as well be growth and exploring own potential, especially since we seem to be wired to enjoy life the fullest when we 'self-actualize' - discover and develop our skills and talents and live true to ourselves. I'm just saying when one looks at this crazy race from far, one has to wonder whats the point of it all. Not whats the point for the individual X to work at expanding his horizons and growing - hes free to define the meaning himself - but the point of there being such a world with bunch of weak and vulnerable living beings forced to keep finding ways to stay alive and become better adjusted to the place they're gonna leave in a few decades anyway? Especially considering how some are never improved, they're just tortured and killed. Collateral damage? Its like imagining a box with mice. You define the world for them, throw them in there and train them to jump and crawl through the obsticles on their way to food. They can keep betterring themselves and take pride in how well adjusted they become to the place. Some of them may become super adjusted and surpass their potential. And at that point you may say that its great: they were imperfect and became less so. But the greater point of that? For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world. Only if you're talking about our particular world and how our human psyche today is wired. Yeah, thanks for contributing to my blog, and I I absolutely love meaningful discussions)) |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
"And there, as I have already mentioned, the rules of how everything is built here wouldn't apply." So basically you're acknowledging that in this universe, good without bad is impossible, or at least the appreciation of good without bad.
The appreciation is an intrinsic impossibility, not merely intrinsic to this universe, but to logic and reason. But the fact that good can be appreciated or be spawned due to a negative, doesn't validate any meaning in this universe, according to you. According to you, If this universe had any meaning, it would be completely different where intrinisic impossibilities of this universe, would be possible in another universe. I find intrinsic impossibilities, where intrinsic applies to logic and reason, by definition, not possible in any universe. I hate to use words like "God" because of their implication, and more so because of those that normally use them and how it separates religion from philosophy, so I use this merely as a metaphor. A conundrum has been posited asking "Is God powerful enough to create a stone so infinitely heavy even it can not lift?" To say this is impossible does not imply that God would be not Omnipotent. It merely is asking a logical contradiction and the question itself is nonsense. It's a selfcontradciting question. It says nothing about the topic it addresses, it merely is a logical mirage. To say that oringiating in a universe with no negatives and being able to appreciate a positve, is to me also a logical contradiction in any universe or dimension. It is the idea itself that is wrong, not the universe that doesn't facilitate it. You admit that we can't imagine this because we live in this universe, but in another universe or dimension all things could be different. Without logic to explain how this would be possible, even in another dimension, you would require what to us would be considered miraculous by our standards. Now this is where it all dead ends, because I can no longer argue logic, because in your miracle, logic isn't necessary. I find this ironic, because that is normally the criticism skeptics make of those of faith when coming to a dead end in their logic. For example, God said "Thou shalt not kill." and then flip a few pages, and God says, "Go out and kill all the men, women, children and animals" of these people living in the desert that haven't done anything to you. You present this contradiction to a non-critcal thinking believer and they will say, well God is Omnipotent and whatever it says is good, despite logic. Snakes can't talk. virgins don't give birth."Well, God can do anything, because it is God." It's a logical copout to the miraclous when logic doesn't fit. You can no longer argue with them, because they escaped out the back door into a magic world where logic dissolves, and the argument can go no further. "Especially considering how some are never improved, they're just tortured and killed. Collateral damage?" I can't speak for every individual experience, as I said before, negatives are relative. Nelson Mandela suffered but a greater good came out of it. If there are those that never come to terms with their existence and live a completely pointless existence without irony. That's a tough question. Perhaps the Gnostics are right and this is all like a dream or illusion. Maybe Life of Brian was right, "You come from nothing, you go back to nothing, what have you lost?" "For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world. "For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world." Well if you factor in the whole picture, you can factor in love. Take a house pet, most feel a pseudo love with their pets. Not like human love, but more so than an animal in the wild. When I say love, I don't mean the oxytocin bonding hormones that create an involuntary attachment, but a higher love based on choosing someone based on commonalities, and to understand each other, where others may not. Choosing one who is good to you and for other positive traits you see in them. Without building character and becoming something more than a non sentient computer program, there would be no differences and no ability to experience the pleasure of being understood. |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
My overall point is that I see two types of people.
Both want the comfort of the simplicity of the concrete. There is definately a supernatural, or there is definitively no chance for a supernatural. I don't make the arguments I do because I want to believe one way or the other to make things feel comfortable. I merely see that an agnostic stance that looks at all possibilites and is open to even other possibilities, as the less egocentric one, not based on my desires, but on pure logic. A scientist is a fool to say they have all the answers, they should always be open to new possibilities. In a world full of irony, a fixed position seems to be short sighted for scientists, philosophers and people of faith. |
Irina |
24-12-2011
So basically you're acknowledging that in this universe, good without bad is impossible, or at least the appreciation of good without bad. Yes, Im leaning towards this conclusion. Not that I find it particularly pleasing though.)) Without logic to explain how this would be possible, even in another dimension, you would require what to us would be considered miraculous by our standards. Now this is where it all dead ends, because I can no longer argue logic, because in your miracle, logic isn't necessary. I find intrinsic impossibilities, where intrinsic applies to logic and reason, by definition, not possible in any universe. I don't. We define whats possible and not possible to the extend were currently able to understand it. Centuries ago our understanding was more limited than today, but things that were aware of today were still there even when we werent able to grasp them. So I wouldn't be so sure we're so evolved now that we can apply our logic outside our tiny planet. With your fish analogy, it would be like fish judging the world by what it sees in the ocean. I'm not saying we should therefore believe that something beyond what we have the evidence for exists or is possible. But see nothing wrong with assumming that something might be possible seeing how there still are lots of things beyond our current understanding, however uncomfortable it may feel. I personally do not believe the world I mentioned actually exists. You asked if I was able to imagine it - and I am. Nothing follows from this leap of imagination. And surely theres no point trying to apply logic to something that was defined as surpassing it. All I was talking about was that I could imagine a better world (subjectively better?). I do not think that pointing to the fact that sufferring is preprogrammed into this world's design suffices to conclude that it therefore is wise or admirable, or worth anything. To me it just points to how poorly this world is structured. Not being able to enjoy anything unless one suffers - sucks. Especially if you take into account that the amount of good and bad in persons life isnt always proportionte. ...as I said before, negatives are relative. Nelson Mandela suffered but a greater good came out of it. so negatives are relative but there is an absolute 'greater good'?;) |
ExpatChris
|
24-12-2011
Again, thanks for your continued well thought out articulate responses. : D
"I'm not saying we should therefore believe that something beyond what we have the evidence for exists or is possible. But see nothing wrong with assumming that something might be possible seeing how there still are lots of things beyond our current understanding, however uncomfortable it may feel." That statement seems to validate many possibilities, including ones you have never thought of, or ones you may disagree with, thus negating your current stance, if you have one, or do consider yourself also agnostic? "so negatives are relative but there is an absolute 'greater good'?" Hmm, thought I had explained that quite a bit. The question is a straw man. I believe the two aren't separate, they are intertwined, like two different sides of the same piece of paper. |
Irina |
24-12-2011
That statement seems to validate many possibilities, including ones you have never thought of, or ones you may disagree with, thus negating your current stance, if you have one, or do consider yourself also agnostic? Thats right. Lots of things I disagree with could still be possible. I mean, I wish they weren't but Yep. Agnosticism it is. The question is a straw man. I believe the two aren't separate, they are intertwined, like two different sides of the same piece of paper. No, it was just in the way you phrased the sentence stressing on the relativity of the negatives but right there using the greater good that prompted me to note it. If negatives are relative, positives must be as well. I get the intertwined position, although, I wouldn't use the sides of the paper or coin analogy, because it kinda suggests one side is exactly the same in size as the other. I would speculate the amount of the two in the world is not exactly 50/50, at least not on the individual level. But thats a whole new topic..))) Was a pleasure to have a discussion with you, thanks!))) |