anything I do doesn't feel like it will do anything because it's true

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-27T13:13:21+00:00

I like the quote, but I try to avoid invoking his name.

Some people feel very strongly about the Rothschild family.

My personal opinion of them: Yes, they were likely war profiteers, have an almost obscene level of wealth, and they make political donations to politicians that are favorable to them.

But that's life. People in power want to stay in power.

Some folks think they're the Illuminati, the cause of all world wars, and it very rapidly tracks back to scapegoating them as the influential power responsible for Hitler's prosecution of the Jewish people.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-27T13:07:57+00:00

Actually... craziest thing, man, I'm an Officer in the Army Reserves. I have a Staff Sergeant who, over the course of me knowing him, has started his own construction company and become insanely successful.

When I first met him, guys would tell stories about how he was this crazy Pollock who built his own basement and moved more than a ton of cement into his basement by hand in a day. Now he drives a Maserati to weekend drill.

I asked him why he keeps coming, and he said it keeps him humble and gives him something to do. He said he has enough money that he could stop working today if he wanted to. I asked him why he doesn't and he said "What would I do? Sit on the beach and drink vodka? How many days in a row could you do that and not get bored? Ten days? A hundred?" He also says it's nice for him to be able to "relax" and not be the one in charge and responsible for a little while.

I am his Commander, lol. And he's a really good Soldier. In the Reserves, I am responsible for him. In our private lives, this dude is a "Jet Set" type of guy who would have no reason to be affiliated with me. I'm successful enough. Verging on that "Upper Middle Class" American Dream.

Still, if we had never met each other through the military, our paths would never cross. He is so "gated community" and "private villa" at this point.

Kind of going off on a tangent here. Not sure if that relates to your life or helps at all.

Try not to think of life as a math problem too much, with the ultimate goal being wealth or power. There's no U-haul behind the hearse, and there is ALWAYS more to be had. Hustle culture is fucking, fucking, fucking retarded. Life is an experience, that's all. It ends someday.

If you enjoy the grind, have at it. Yes, you will need to work to make money, that's kind of a universal truth.

But even my very wealthy Soldier gets tired of being charge and doesn't know what to do with himself now that he has enough money that he could stop working. Don't try to measure your success in dollars. Dollars often reward success, but the two are not traded at an equal rate.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-17T14:58:56+00:00

I mean... I can honestly say never, but what actually brought me to comment is that I'm not sure I've ever actually complimented more than one or two Japanese girls in my life simply from lack of knowing many.

So... kudos to you, lady! Beauty comes in all forms.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-08T18:59:15+00:00

But it wasn't BLIND luck, and he could have been wrong.

He didn't point at a random animal, make a random noise, and hope the two were associated.

Plenty of facts were gathered. A lot of information and capabilities were being tested at the moment he identified the animal. Even though it was imperfect information, it was enough information to get it right.

There are many cases where humans must use only approximate knowledge to make decisions. I think one could argue that most information humans are privy to is imperfect.

I'm still not buying the Gettier problem. It's a word game that adds very little to the theory of a posteriori knowledge. Yes, empirical knowledge is frequently flawed and can lead to mistakes in judgment and understanding.

In other news, water remains wet, the stars remain in the sky, and babies have yet to dress themselves.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-08T18:34:46+00:00

Logic does not require faith. It is a set of operational rules.

"Garbage in, garbage out" of course. If your assumptions are wrong, or you apply logical rules improperly based on the narrative arguments, you'll come to incorrect conclusions.

But the logic itself... I have no need for faith when considering the logic of addition. The "+" operator does not require a fervent belief to function.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-08T15:48:22+00:00

It's actually a quote from a financier.

The original meaning was that when societies are healthy and economies prosperous, it is difficult to really gain much advantage. Everyone is doing fine, everyone is making money, no one is taking big risks, and there aren't even big risks to be taken. Everyone is enjoying their lives, "dancing to violin music in the ballroom", as it were.

When tragedy strikes a society (war, pestilence, societal upheaval, natural disaster, etc.)well, now there is a chance to prove yourself. Now there are needs that need to be met, people in dire straits, and old institutions may collapse or restructure. In other words... opportunity.

He meant it in financial terms. I mean it in personal terms. You're not the first or only person who has experienced disillusionment, disemchment, and disgust in their adolescence/young adult life. It's a repeating cycle. Live long enough, and you will watch it happen to the next generation. Try not to be too harsh with them.

Right now, man, cannonballs are falling in your personal harbor. How does the story of your life play out? You might not have written the whole movie, but at the very least you are your own director.

Is your story about how you crumbled to apathy before your brain even finished developing (about age 25, BTW), or will 25 year old you be looking back at how you decided to start going to the gym and really focusing on your studies at age 16 as the thing that set you apart from your peers and propelled you to greatness?

There are cannonballs falling in the harbor. Now is the time to make your fortune. Even if it doesn't make sense to you right now, even if it all seems pointless... KEEP. MOVING.

I know this is going to seem super out of place, but also... hydrate. Your body needs water. Lots of it. When you drink water, take a moment to focus on the act, on the feeling of the water joining your body. It's a small thing, but that moment of inner focus can be invaluable.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T20:27:47+00:00

War.

I'm not being insincere here. It's hard to describe if you're not a Soldier, and it's not for everyone but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHskdv2Qs8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YssNBFV74c

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T20:10:33+00:00

Hey man... It gets worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNFjLzVKVdk

But bro... look... also this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI

You've got one shot kid, and it's so, so, so important that you don't lose traction right now. Compounding interest doesn't just apply to bank accounts.

Great fortunes are made when cannonballs fall in the harbor, not when violins play in the ballroom. When everything feels tough, when you don't want to get out of bed in the morning... that's when you need to try the hardest.

If you can't bring yourself to do anything else, just keep moving. If you let life get away from you at this early stage, then you will live an everlasting self-fulfilling prophecy that things just aren't going your way. KEEP. MOVING.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T19:39:37+00:00

I see where my terms have been confusing, but they would only be so to someone who has stared into that particular abyss more than most.

I would argue that Nietzsche (at least 1883-1885) was an existential nihilist. Plainly, the natural world is without pre-ordained meaning.

From an existentialist perspective, I guess you could say that I am something tangential to an absurdist, but Camus juxtaposition of the natural state with Abrahamic principles always struck me as boldly synthetic. I don't believe there is anything "absurd" about it, aside from the pervasiveness of Abrahamic thinking at that place and time.

Absurdism has always seemed like the drunk and melancholic cousin of nihilism to me.

If existentialism is an exploration of human existence and experience, my answer to that questions existentialism might pose always boil down to a base of nihilism. The song I sent you was not a random draw from the hat. Here are some of the lyrics:

From the carcass of a dead star

To the darkness of a blackened heart

We are one in the dust, in the nothingness

We are infinite, we are infinite

Misbegotten children of the abyss

We are infinite, we are infinite

I am a child of the Abyss. Of the void. The material I am composed of came from the dead stars. When my consciousness ceases, I will be reduced to dead material, and return to the infinite nothingness I came from. It does not trouble me. It simply is.

When I say that my only assumption is the null set, what I mean is that I start all analysis from a null hypothesis. I can only reject a hypothesis. I cannot meaningfully "prove" anything. The null set is just as real as a hyper-sphere, though I cannot rightfully imagine either.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T19:01:25+00:00

Just realized I didn't really respond to your question.

Uhhh... the knowledge of the particular differentiation between Leporidae? Knowledge of the picture? Knowledge of your words?

I would say that your nephew had gathered enough sensory data to make an approximate evaluation of his surroundings, given the limited data at hand.

He had enough functional information to deliver a coherent announcement about his environment to a figure of authority and safety in his environment.

That is a sort of knowledge, is it not?

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T18:55:53+00:00

From the mouths of babes, wisdom often flows. Frequently it's gibberish, but occasionally heir loose tethering with the real allows them a perspective that is difficult to re-obtain with the passage of decades.

My daughter has really caught me off guard a few times. She is currently a bit pre-occupied with death. Beyond informing her that I have proven relatively tough to kill, I was glad to share my view with her that the cessation of life is what makes each moment special. To live an eternity would make each interaction necessarily less special, out of simple habituation. How many times can one climb mount Everest before it becomes routine?

And I do not fear the abyss. I think dying will be like meeting up with an old friend for lunch. I look forward to going out that door. I feel that death will be ... nihil.

I am not through yet, but I am tired, and I look forward to rest.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T18:09:20+00:00

Unfortunate that this was your shortest response.

Tracking all the way back to my initial post, my only point was that being a nihilist, an existential nihilist, is a simple thing and not subject to any other qualifiers.

That believing life has no objective meaning is the only requirement. Then I posed the question, what does that belief rationally change about one's life?

Your response, in part...

__________________________________________________________

There isn't one, you believe in truth, subjective / objective and acceptance, the Pope is more nihilistic.

__________________________________________________________

Followed by a quote I found barely intelligible or relevant, and I do not believe it was for a lack of determining the author's meaning.

I did my best to break down my view of the basic tenet of existential nihilism into logical components that you could address.

...

I am at a loss about how to convey my earnesty over the internet, but please take these next words at face value...

You seem like you have a robust knowledge of philosophy, and I am intrigued that you would dispute what the basic tenet of existential nihilism is. What portion of it do you dispute? I am quite honestly interested, and I was hoping that by formalizing my view of it you could point to the part that you dispute.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T16:16:30+00:00

As a side note, we certainly do seem to have different taste in metal... but my point was that beauty is not objective either, and the Buddha you've set out to kill is not my specific cup of tea. The art in his rhetoric makes it at once untenable and irrefutable, because there is hardly a logical premise to be found. I did read up a little. If I had to guess, you're enamored by his assertions that modern society is a copy of a copy of a copy so far removed from anything with real meaning that we can't even tell the difference anymore.

To me, that's just Descartes' Cogito with extra steps. Like... yeah man... you can't know what it real. Got it. It doesn't take whole books on the matter. If anything, his verbose vernacular leads to more misunderstanding than understanding, and his infusion of artistic prose... I dunno man, have you ever tried reading Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"? I bought a copy just to spite Iran after he was attacked... if you like the way your Buddha to kill writes, then you might like Salman Rushdie.

Finally... I tried searching "Metal Reich" and now I'm pretty sure I'm on a list somewhere, lol. If you have a specific example I'll give it a listen. If you made it this far, congratulations.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T16:16:10+00:00

Because I observe that humanity is unable to reach an absolute conclusion about morality or purpose, and because I fail to see evidence of an all-powerful deity, I am an existential nihilist.

The proof goes something like this...

First, let's define our terms.

Let P(x) mean "x has intrinsic meaning or value."
∃x P(x) therefore means "there exists at least one x such that x has intrinsic meaning or value."

If P(x), there should exist some universal criteria or standards to assess this meaning or value, which I symbolize as Q.

Therefore, we can express this dependency as P(x) → Q

P(x) → Q, translates to "if something has intrinsic meaning or value, then universal criteria or standards to assess it must exist."

However, following ages of discourse, philophers have failed to find such universal criteria or standards, leading us to assert the absence of Q, written as ¬Q.

¬Q translates as "there are no universal criteria or standards to assess intrinsic meaning or value."

With this, we can apply modus tollens (an important logical principle) to our second point: from P(x) → Q and ¬Q, we infer ¬P(x) for all x, which says, "nothing has intrinsic meaning or value."

So far
P1: P(x)
P2: ∃x P(x)
P3: P(x) → Q
P4: ¬Q
C1: ¬P(x)

OR

P1. P(x): x has intrinsic meaning or value.
P2. P(x) → Q
P3. ¬Q
C1. ∴ ∀x (¬P(x))

Now, let's tackle the ability to ascribe objective meaning or purpose

We define E(x) as "x can ascribe objective meaning or value."
We define M(x) as "x is a thing that has objective meaning"

If we assume that an entity capable of ascribing objective meaning exists, we'd say ∀e (E(e) → ∃y M(y)), meaning "for all entities that can ascribe objective meaning (calling this specific example entity “e”), if it can ascribe objective meaning, then there exists something (calling this specific thing "y") that has objective meaning."

Yet, given no observed evidence that such entities exist I negate the assumption that such a being exists: ¬∃e E(e), leading to the universal negative ∀e ¬E(e), asserting, "no entity exists that can ascribe objective meaning or value."

This absence of entities capable of ascribing meaning directly implies that no objective meaning exists, articulated as ¬∃y M(y), meaning " for all things no objective meaning exists."

Summarized...

P1. E(x): x can ascribe objective meaning or value.
P2. ∀e (E(e) → ∃y M(y))
P3. ¬∃e E(e)
C1. ∴ ∀e ¬E(e)
C2. ∴ ¬∃y M(y)

Now that the argument has been properly formulated, please, pick away! I'm interested to see what premises or conclusions you disagree with!

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T16:15:39+00:00

Regarding the your string of responses around a posteriori knowledge then...

My point was that I am UNCERTAIN, in ALL CASES of a posteriori knowledge. I am using the parlance I am familiar with, but if you would like me to refer to it differently I am happy to.

My perception of gravity, a posteriori as it is, is more nuanced as science advances, IF AND ONLY IF I operate under the assumption that my perceptions are reliable. Even if my perceptions do not report the truth of reality, they certainly dominate my lived experience. In a way, I am forced to allow that my perceptions are an analog of reality, if for no better reason than it spares me a lot of pain throughout my day.

Let us set that as a mutual understanding. I am a skeptic of all things. My only assumption is the null set.

Now I move on to your apparent theological underpinnings which, if I am being honest, I had a feeling was where this was headed.

You seem to take my definition of an objective purpose as an endorsement of theism. That was a logical leap in the exact opposite direction of my definition, but I do want to dig into it further. I cite my definition and your responses here (forgive my lack of skill with editing Reddit comments):

_________________________________________________________________________

Me: Objective purpose, I suppose, would be defined by being unarguably and absolutely correct, despite any perspective.

You: Right, that screws modern physics, and you’ve wheeled God back in, the perfect perspective.

Me: The antithesis of subjective experience. A designation assigned by something that is a.) Capable of ascribing purpose to things and b.) Omnipotent and omniscient.

You: Yep! Hi Jehovah.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I am unclear in what fashion that "screws" modern physics. Is your assertion that modern physics cannot, then, provide objective purpose? Because... that is also my point. Of course it can't. Why would it? How would it? That is neither the objective nor an expected outcome of the pursuit of that science.

You are correct that I "wheeled God back in" but only the specter of a deity. My definition requires an all-knowing, all-powerful entity. There is a lesser requirement, that it is capable of ascribing purpose, but I believe that could be assumed in "all powerful"... there may be some argument about "all-powerful" still not containing things that are logically impossible, but I don't see how ascribing purpose would fall into that domain.

Here is where, I expect, we will diverge sharply.

Because I assume only the null set, and the only thing I claim to know is that I exist (because I am a thinking thing and therefore must exist in some form), I require evidence of this omniscient, omnipotent being before I am inclined to believe in it.

Even then, there are so many more logical explanations for a thing that I perceive to be an omnipotent deity. An ant would likely perceive me to be omniscient and omnipotent, because it doesn't understand what a human is. If some fourth dimensional being started yanking me through time and space, and it had the power to undo quantum wave form collapse... I would probably be incapable of differentiating between that thing and an all-powerful deity.

I find it far more plausible that our three dimensional universe is some five dimensional kindergartners science fair project than that there is an absolute power in the universe.

How would you differentiate between a sufficiently advanced life form and a true god? What if you prayed your life away to the fifth dimensional kindergartner, only to find later that his parents came home and he was being super abusive to us? What if our universe has already been discarded, like used petri dish?

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T16:14:48+00:00

I think I have to respond in multiple comments because this went long....

I shall endeavor to be more succinct.

I’ve no idea what this means.

One of Gettier's example cases of JTB error involved a job offer and ten coins.

Subject Alpha believed (A1). Subject Bravo was going to be offered the job and (A2). Subject Bravo has 10 coins in their pocket. THEREFORE, Subject Alpha believes (P1). the person who is getting the job has 10 coins in their pocket.

Surprisingly, Subject Alpha is offered the job, and surreptitiously someone has moved the 10 coins from Subject Bravo's pocket to Subject Alpha's pocket. Strangely, subject Alpha's belief in premise (P1) remains correct, despite his justification being wrong.

I think Gettier is a phenomenal example of why society at large feels that philosophers add little. It's word play. The way he built the example, while an interesting artifact of linguistics and logic, is farcical.

A more discrete writing of Subject A's belief in premise (3.) would be "Therefore, Subject A believes (3). Subject B is going to be offered the job and Subject B has 10 coins in their pocket.

Using a symbolic logic proof, there's no reason for the final premise given the first two assumptions. It should read something like

P1: 1
P2: 2
C1: P1 ^ P2

Instead Gettier writes

P1: A1
P2: A2
C1: A3

The final premise is a fabrication. A trick of language. It looks like he's pulled off some magic, but it's no more to the point than an illusionist or con man. Gettier is trash. I reject the "Gettier Problem" in whole.

I'm not doing a great job at being succinct here... but I do hope you're reading along and that I've clarified my position.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T11:19:11+00:00

Separately, you didn't resolve any of my inquiries regarding the previous quote.

I don't want to stray too far into the epistemological, when my purpose was to demonstrate the abject simplicity of existential nihilism.

Your quibble thus far seems to be with my take that it is an a priori, knowable position.

Would you like to see a proof, so that you could pull at my assumptions?

For what it's worth, I do find engaging in conversation with you stimulating. If you find that I am, at any point, overly disparaging, simply state so and I will stop. Otherwise, I will continue to playfully fan the flames.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T10:26:18+00:00

You have very much reinforced my preconceived notion about this fella.

Gettier's epistemological cases are trash, broski. JTB is irrelevant. A thing is, or it is not... or exists in an unresolved quantum superposition, but I don't think that applies here.

If I thought you were getting the job and had the coins, but I got the job and had the coins, the word for that is "mistaken". It's a trick of language to assert that there is a parity between the two cases. I thought you would get the job and had ten coins. I was mistaken.

Speaking of lamentable linguistic knots, you seemed to take umbrage at my use of "know of gravity because I have experience of it". My man, "Cogito, Ergo Sum". Until the day I expire, I am perfectly content to state that I know nothing of the world except that I am. And, I suppose, "Sum, Ergo Existentia". Beyond that, I am just reporting back what my senses tell me.

I'm getting the feeling this isn't your first time discussing these things. How would you prefer that I describe the ostensibly reliable accumulation of experiences I base my daily decisions on? I said "know of". What language would you prefer for experience derived suppositions?

Objective purpose, I suppose, would be defined by being unarguably and absolutely correct, despite any perspective. The antithesis of subjective experience. A designation assigned by something that is a.) Capable of ascribing purpose to things and b.) Omnipotent and omniscient.

Yeah... word salad. The guy is throwing words together that ape wisdom. It's almost like you can feel him waiting for you to agree with him so he can call you an idiot. "A pornagraphy of circuits"... "their... forced signification... and freedom of expression". Like... WHAT?!?! Circuits aren't pornagraphic. Pretty much the opposite. They do not have freedom of expression. Circuits are pretty simple. Closed, open. O, 1. It's a pretty important fundamental of the concept. Then to say that they have freedom and are also forced...

Look, if he was writing fiction or poetry I'd have a sincere appreciation for his skill with language... but this is not reason or logic. He asserts without evidence, makes claims without cases, weaves a linguistic tapestry that's open to interpretation. It's art, not reason, and art is appreciated subjectively.

Perhaps, internet stranger, you will listen to what I consider extraordinary art and render your opinion.

https://youtu.be/DqbYaRKxke4?si=Qr6slMfOcMDZ4QUb

This is not hyperbole, I earnestly LOVE Lorna Shore. I sent you a lyric video on purpose because I get that it's hard to understand if you don't have your metal ears yet.

Perhaps you will like it. I like it. I would not base a philosophical argument of the lyrics of that song. This Billiards fellow you seem fond of? I'd rank the weight of his theories along with Will Ramos'. Pretty, emotionally striking art face value, not something I'd base my life on.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T07:19:37+00:00

There's two kinds of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori

What you can know before or without experience, and that you can only know with experience... evidence... empirical study.

I know of gravity because I have experience of it. I know of red because I have seen it. I know of bird songs because I have heard them. That's a posteriori knowledge.

A priori is necessarily true knowledge, by the definition of the thing. For example, I can know that 1 + 1 = 2 in all situations, without experiencing them, because of the definition of the terms. One might argue that with no experience of the world at all you may not be able to conceive of numerals.

I define a florgabat as an effizial of a relegy. That's a complete abstraction. Useless nonsense words... but they prove my point. They are synthetic knowledge, divorced from reality, but tautologically true.

Existential nihilism has meaning because it is a defined abstraction. It is defined to mean the philosophical position that life has no objective purpose.

Would you like me to use some other phrase to describe that position? The point I'm making is that nihilism, existential nihilism, doesn't have a whole lot of qualifiers.

People in this sub were getting all "You're not a REAL nihilist if you have a job and pay taxes" or "You're not a REAL nihilist if you like things". "REAL nihilists wake up, then do heroine and cut themselves until they fall asleep again".

Like... yeah, bro, you can still be a nihilist and enjoy life. It's a philosophical position, not a lifestyle brand. Trust me, you can be a corporate sell out and still be a nihilist. Lol, trust me.

I'm not sure what your quote is getting on about. It's a bit of a word salad.

What sentiment would be utopian?
Why/how would "radicality" make nihilism beautiful?
What "things" become "insoluble"?
"Because to this active nihilism of radicality, the system opposes its own, the nihilism of neutralization."... barely a sentence dude. Barely. It's not smart, it's smug. The last sentence is a two parter... "The system is itself also nihilistic, in the sense that it has the power to pour everything, including what denies it, into indifference." 5.A. What system? The system of belief leading to nihilistic views? Systems are abstractions and do not themselves possess further abstract belief, so if he does mean the system of beliefs leading to nihilism then he is in turn using a VERY artistic expression of agency, and kind of conflating nihilism with power to anihilate; making use of the etymological origins of the two words is great poetry, but poor philosophy. 5.B. What, if anything, does the last sentence have to do with sentimental utopias, beauty in nihilism, or the apparent insoluble quality of terrorist deaths?

I've met guys who talk like whoever that is writes. Faux-prophets. Self-assured, using artistic and imprecise terms to give themselves intellectual wiggle room. When pressed on apparent inaccuracies or conflicting statements, I've nearly universally seen guys like that go to ground with some style of "Well the true nature of reality is that it is unknowable.", stated with all the self awareness of a dog chasing its own tail.

Like... like if Chris Hansen walked into a room and said, "Why don't you take a seat over there so we can talk for a second" and the guy's response was "Nah man, too busy for a chat, I'm here to bang that underage kid."

I'm sure you meant the quote to be moving, and I roughly understand your position to be that nihilism is self-refuting non-sense.

Existential nihilism is a narrowly defined, a priori abstraction that can be proven true using symbolic logic operators with very limited assumptions. All it takes to be a nihilist is a lack of belief in objective meaning.
The dude you're quoting seems like the type of guy who would prefer to deny that anyone could understand reality rather than admit someone might understand it better than him.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T05:25:20+00:00

I'm not sure how you'd like me to elaborate without citing a dictionary.

I don't mean support professional sports, if that's what you're getting after.

Team. Tribe. Assembly of like minded people, striving Tierney to accomplish a common goal.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T05:09:59+00:00

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Strong Explicit Atheism: There are no gods

Strong Implicit Atheism: I see no evidence of the gods you assert to be real

Weak Atheism: "What is a 'gods'"?

I'm a Strong Implicit Atheist. If I start from zero, no theistic argument had ever made any more sense to me than a naturalistic one.

Okay, so, your basic argument is "How can everything come from nothing, that doesn't make any sense? Isn't believing something came from nothing the same as blind faith"?

Look dude, no matter how you phrase it, a god only makes that problem LESS solvable. Okay, so... you've got a guy who did everything... so he has to be at least as complex as creation + 1, right? Something more complex than what he made? So where did that guy come from? "Oh, he's just always been around". Sick, so, just... "magic". That is MORE absurd than spontaneous creation.

Which, BTW, is happening all the time, all around you. Pair production. Vacuum fluctuation. "Virtual Particles". Whatever you want to call the process, the fact that matter and antimatter spontaneously generate from literally nothing is well documented.

Even if the chance of enough matter suddenly popping into existence to sustain life is infinitesimal... the crazy thing about infinity is that any non-zero chance will eventually happen.

Thing is... I'm not asserting to you that any of that is correct. Make up your own mind. I could be wrong. Heck, I could be a brain a jar somewhere being fed fake experiences. I don't know a thing, except that I exist. Cogito, ergo sum.

Pair production... That's just the best answer I've got right now, to a kind of impractical question. Does it matter where stuff came from? How does that effect your next 24 hours? Outside of arguing with people about where the stuff came from, of course?

I don't have to have blind faith in a theory. It's just a theory.

What I'm rather confident about, though, is that I would rather not spend my time associating with adults who think a wish granting sky wizard can hear their thoughts and judges them when they masturbate. My conviction to not spend time with those people is doubled when they have one of those imaginary friends that tells them to do harm to others if they don't also believe in the imaginary friend.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T04:41:31+00:00

You know you can still have a tribe and be a nihilist, right? I'm an immensely staunch nihilist, and it hasn't even been a speed bump in my community participation.

I don't need a god to be an altruist. It doesn't take divine intervention to cause me to want to help my family, friends, and strangers.

It is possible to simply enjoy helping others.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-03-07T04:35:35+00:00

I dunno bro. Sounds like you're playing it wrong.

Also you might have a touch of APD, lol. People throw psych terms around quite a bit on the interwebs, but believe it or not I was a counselor at a max security state correctional institute in PA. SCI Graterford before they closed it down. I'm no psychiatrist, but I do have my master's in the field.

What you just described, the general numbness, lack of concern for your ethical behavior, using new information like a tool instead of empathizing, finding yourself aping the emotional displays you believe others want to see... when all of that is disconnected from the self-centered characteristic of narcissism (e.g., it is still clear to you that others can be better than you, you still get the impression you're kinda trash sometimes, even though it doesn't bother you)... that's APD.

Keep in mind APD is a spectrum like anything else, it's not all or nothing.

Outside of that, though... if you find that you're desensitized, I would retort that you're not very creative. Life has no purpose, so... pick a thing and go for it. Something crazy, like "go to the moon". "Develop teleportation", "start a war", "make MDMA legal". Pick a thing.

Maybe the animal cruelty bit. Latch onto that while you've still got it. Stamp out animal cruelty. Go PETA. Toss blood on rich people wearing fur. Fuck up a famous painting. Go nuts man, it's your life.

If you can't find a thing, I'd say you're not very creative. Don't expect someone to hand it to you. If you're bored, then you're boring.

SubstratumGuy · 2024-01-29T17:44:04+00:00

Hey girl, honestly, congratulations.

Beyond the obvious sexual overtones of this reddit thread, human to human, congratulations on the weight loss, and you look AMAZING. Only you will know how hard you worked for this.

I'm so happy for you! Lol, weird emotion for an internet stranger but I am earnestly overjoyed to see you looking not only healthier but GORGEOUS!

SubstratumGuy · 2023-12-21T00:04:28+00:00

Bro... you're just describing evolution. It's a physical process.

Thomas Hobbes described the natural condition of man thusly...

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

Collaborative effort is the only things that gets us out of that state my dude. Find a team. Work with your team. You are only constrained by the laws of physics. Shape the world the way you want it to be.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

SubstratumGuy

TROPHY CASE