Looks interesting but I don't want to subscribe.

I dont think sense making is the problem for most people, its more like "I dont wanna suffer, if I dont suffer then I dont really care."

So suffering and avoiding them is the actual concern, of most people.

They can make whatever sense they want later, without suffering in the way.

You can read it without subscribing.

Epicurus has entered the chat

So this is an ad?

*starts chasing him away.

No, it's just a short essay. You should be able to click 'let me read it first' to read without having to subscribe.

The problem for those who have reached the “I am not suffering I don’t really care”.

Is that then leads to this, “this makes no fucking sense I’m not suffering. What does XYZ even mean”

And then you end up where Nietzsche is referring too. This sense of confusion and meaningless, God is dead. Why am I alive? What am I alive for? WHO am I alive for? Does anything I do matter?

> At root, from amusement to satire to the zany, all are predicated upon our existential death anxiety.

> If we are aware of our mortality, even subconsciously, then in some way every time we laugh, we are laughing in the face of death, or at least affirming that right now we are alive.

> Nietzsche thought humans were the only animals capable of laughter but it has since been proven that laughter is an ancient behaviour far older than humans found in many mammals from primates to rats.

I don’t buy this idea that all humour is rooted in death anxiety. Are the non-human animals also laughing as a result of knowing about their own mortality?

Weird, cuz you just summarized a huge component of his philosophy very succinctly.

I did? ok then.

When you suffer, you cant even begin to search for meaning, you just suffer and all your thoughts and energy are spent on getting out of suffering.

When you are not suffering, you have all the luxury in the world to Nietzsche or Camus or Stoic your way into whatever meaning you prefer to keep on living.

Not suffering is the prerequisite for everything else.

Honestly, most people are not in a hurry to find any deep meaning to life, they just wanna live healthy, happy and enjoy the finer things of life, most die happy this way too.

Only philosophy major and philosophiles spend A LOT of time on this, lol.

If you wake up in a house that’s full of smoke, don’t panic. Call me and I’ll tell you a joke.

[deleted]

If you click 'let me read it first' when prompted to subscribe you should be able to read it without subscribing.

Yeah, the only need for sense comes when your trying to alleviate suffering, and someone (who they themselves are not suffering the same) tells you that's the way life is. Like, that's when the world doesn't make sense and it needs to

The world makes perfect sense, and that's the problem. People don't like it when random bullshit can take away everything you've ever loved. It's a hard reality to internalize, especially if it happens to them or someone they know. But this solution, to laugh at the inevitable, is a good one I think. Though, like another chatter mentioned, the idea that all laughter fundamentally stems from an anxiety about death is not a very solid idea. Most laughter, I would argue, stems from the unexpected, whether it's dangerous or not. Though I would agree that the strongest laughter is likely laughing at the face of death. But that's just because it's the strongest of the unexpected.

You are touching at the core of Nietzsche problems, his premise is that all life is suffering i.e, meaningless, the discrimination between the Übermensch and the common comes in when you have strength to go beyond this suffering, beyond this lack of meaning. So, if God’s Death (reason why life is meaningless) you are Responsable to give your life its Meaning therefore leaving this state of being “dominated” by non action by no meaning.

Now if the commoner is happy with non action that is the reactive side of life or the state of just being adrift without any meaning to Nietzsche that is the lowest a Human can possible get and there is a lot of things to say to that but I digress.

Anyway Nietzsche never proposed to talk to everyone or “most people” as often we see in his writings, he starts with, “this isnt a book to everyone but to…”

Just trying to elucidate some topics on Nietzsche philosophy and its “range”.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, the world really has absolutely no meaning in any transcendental or religious sense as is assumed here. Then indeed the desire to avoid suffering seems to fit very well into the role of a survival mechanism evolved in animals. Just as the desire for food, the desire for sex, the desire to protect one's children, the desire to protect one's tribe and so forth.

What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?

Perhaps it can be argued that this need for meaning is actually an evolutionary advantage. Or perhaps it can be argued that it is not an advantage but an unfortunate by-product of other traits that are an advantage. But prima facia it seems to be something that is more than a mere side effect and not at all generally advantageous to evolutionary selfishness.

Before we make a bargain with ourselves to humor what we think a false desire in us, how about we make sure it isn't pointing to a real object?

I would say that the world seems to make no sense due to the contradictions of Capitalism described by Karl Marx.

Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism states that the source of human progress and historical change is not to be found in “legal relations” or “political forms,” but rather “in the material conditions of life”; By this Marx means that the economic relations of human beings determine all other relations in that society. Material survival rather than the development of rationality and spiritual thinking forms the fundamental basis of human endeavour in each historical epoch.

Since , rational thinking is not the basis of society under Capitalism nothing seems to make sense.

I think through suffering you can actually learn more.

This makes me ponder whether someone cracked a joke while gas was filling the chamber at Auschwitz. Maybe just a loud fart. And everyone starts laughing. Wouldn't that be the most heroic thing ever?

So we should strive to eliminate suffering? No.

Meaning is derived almost exclusively from the human struggle against suffering. Even most art reflects the artists suffering (ptsd, trauma, writer's block, boredom, mental illness). There are degrees to suffering and EVERY HUMAN experiences it to some degree.

Community is the most effective structure standing firm against suffering. Community sends a message to the individual that "we see your struggle and it's valid, you're not alone against suffering, keep going."

Eliminating suffering is a human impossibility. It's as important a concept as joy or sadness or intelligence. Everyone suffers.

[removed]

[deleted]

I always find Nietzsche too ego-centric in the sense that becoming the person you want to be is obfuscated by questions about the self instead of creating meaning for yourself.

Kinda like putting someone in Minecraft and then, them asking, "what's the point?" You need to find out for yourself.

Aristippus kicks his ass.

He was too busy partying to bother.

We're so suffused with capitalist thinking we don't even realise it. Interesting to note how ubiquitous is the argument that suffering can be transcended (which I take to mean: have enough money so you don't die of poverty), and once that obstacle is surmounted, meaning is something you choose at will, like any other consumer product.

Great text, dude. You kept it simple for guys like me. I enjoy the subject, but it's a little bit over my head. Thanks.

How to Live In A World That Makes No F*cking Sense?

Study harder.

I think "I don't wanna suffer" is too much subjective. While some people can't stand to eat only every other day, others can't thrive without Beluga caviar (no value judgement). Suffering is a very broad and diverse human experience.

Internally, yes; external efforts are all toward reduction of suffering.

I don't think the positions are at odds.

This isn’t a problem for most people.

Existentialism and philosophy don’t concern most people. They’re busy. And thats okay. But even so, how the strugglers approach these questions has an effect on culture—these are artists and deep thinkers.

I think the world makes perfect sense as long as you understand it as it truly is rather than mold it to a particular worldview.

We are undergoing a convulsive few years as the world's globalized economic order shatters due to the pressures of aging demographics. China is going over a demographic and economic cliff, Russia is disintegrating before our eyes, and Europe is aging rapidly. Once you understand the larger forces at work, then understanding the world isn't necessarily impossible.

Have a very dark sense of humor then you can laugh at everything

>I agree, however thats why i like him.
>
>Idealism vs materialism.
>
>What influences what? our Ideas, or the world around us. Most would say both. Dialectic materialism.
>
>
>
>I like the ego-centric ideas as I believe its a huge part of my and other philosophical ideas. I believe in this complex confusing world nature comes first. People that derive their ideas from the material world (nature) i think is fact. And you should ask "whats the point" long before you are influenced.

ive always interpreted it as asking the question about the self and then continuing along with the self anyway. like saying whats the point of minecraft but you still play and do random stuff til you find your favorite aspect of the game

A feeling of absurdity and nihilism is a type of suffering. It's not called "existential dread" for the comfy feeling it gives people, after all.

Also, the idea that seems to be rooted in this comment (and other comments that you posted in this thread), that people in poor living conditions or poor physical conditions aren't faced with existential crises or nihilism because "they're too busy getting out of their suffering" is both incredibly condescending and betrays an utter lack of familiarity with said people. In actuality, it is the people who are faced with challenging lives that tend to be the most sensitive to the absurdity of it all, rather than people who happened to benefit from said absurdity.

Yeah most likely, I agree

I think often times it's the fear of suffering that triggers our actions.

Would you dm me part 1?

Doesn’t the problem of making sense enter the equation when someone notices they are suffering and seeks to identify why? To me that requires a general narrative of how the suffering began or when it was first noticed, and what larger forces may or may not have been at play.

When I realised the meaning of life was what I chose my life felt fuller.

Neitzsches thoughts are in every person who really thinks, but you xsn sense the torture as well as beauty I'm his words

https://thesynchronicity.substack.com/p/how-to-live-in-a-world-that-makes

not everyone ends up there, i was raised to understand that life is what we make it, i literally never went through a period of existential dread and i dont get why so many do.

from the start i was told life has no purpose per say, maybe this is an issue for people who were told there is some inherent purpose?

next 'sense' in what context? from where i stand the world does make sense in that there is no point, we reproduce and we die. our societies are contradictory and bizarre but also make sense in the context of what we are and history.

Thank you very much.

Part two helped and found me at the right time, so to speak.

>What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?

sabotaged? in what possible way? between our curiosity and imagination and our need for meaning we have built the world, in terms of evolution we have won the game.

in terms of animal success we have dominated the earth more completely and successfully then any other species in lifes history and we did it in some million years, a blip in the earths lifetime.

without question its had negative effects but in terms of evolutionary success (ie domination of the environment) its hands down been an advantage.

First of all, i Hope u ll understand me: english isn't my first language and talking about philosophy Is not that Easy for me. I see a pretty big fallacy in ur argument: if, Indeed the world has no meaning, u cant talk bout some "survival mechanism": ur trying to give meaning to something that ur saying doesnt have meaning (even the mere purpose of survival Is a meaning: the world exist in order to continue existing). When u say something dont have any meaning u cabt Say anything else, because u Will inevitably end up organizing that thing (Kant explain this really really well, prolly u know that better than me, judging on the terminology u used) and, doing so, giving a meaning to that thing only becouse in some way It appears ti u as a phenomena. As I said earlier: that thing exist in order to continue existing. That Is a meaning. Because of this to do such argument as yours u have to suppose not that the world doesnt have a meaning, but that It has and u cant possibly know It. I really Hope u explained myself at least a bit, but i lack of all english philosphical terminology, so i dont think so: if u think what i wrote doesnt male any sense probably ur right.

Or realistic… the dark and the light are the same

Well, rats laugh when you tickle them. Ticklish spots are vulnerable areas

Love this comment

Sounds like we might be laughing with death then.

Life is nothing more than a test to see how much you can take.

Try a little x instead

Can we get a seperate sub for these edgy undergrad blog posts on Nietzsche already ?

If I want to learn how to live in a world that makes no fucking sense, I read Albert Camus, not Nietzsche.

Edit: And then I read the first sentence of the essay. Ha!

I think religion plays a large role here. Many people are brought up thinking that the purpose of life is to live in a certain way and worship a certain god, with a goal of going to heaven after death (or something similar.) When they eventually shed that religion, they’re left with the question: what IS the point then?

[deleted]

I do, that’s why I’m sick of wading through shitty articles on Nietzsche written by 19 year olds. Journal, write, comment, think about Nietzsche all you want, but i don’t know why you think it merits a post. Just participate in forum threads like other normal people.

What is the book list to understand life lol Kant or Sartre

I think suffering is sometimes necessary. Too much is bad, too little is bad. There's some optimal amount of suffering that we all need to function properly. That said, we bring unnecessary suffering to ourselves; when we spend too much time in our minds, pondering the depths of things that ultimately don't matter, and listening to people who don't know what they're talking about, philosophers or not.

See The End of Wisdom.

[deleted]

I think what they're describing as humor is 'discovery,'. It's interesting to read this angle. I am realizing that 'discovery, curiosity, seeking novelty' all relate to the motivation to do anything. Perhaps humor is a yield of discovery.

Without novelty, this universe would be all logic.

This universe appears to be a product of logic and novelty.

I'm with you about the role of religion in all this. In the education that all religions push onto people, especially young malleable minds, I suspect there really are 2 things pushed, namely first that there is a god, and all the contextual folklore that goes with it; and second, and more subtly but also more importantly, what is pushed/forced is a certain mental structure that installs a premise of thinking meant to be felt emotionally, that without that god or any other forms of otherworldly source of meaning, there is no sense/salute/"salvation". In other words, they install the programmed feeling that there is a fundamental lacking in humanity. Once this conditioning is installed, then religion self-perpetuates.

Looking at it this way, it makes sense why religious authorities everywhere are so inclined on getting involved in the local education systems, to the point of taking it over where and when they can.

An extreme manifestement of this mental conditioning sometimes shows itself through questions from theists when they ask and wonder sincerely how it is even possible for atheists to have an inner moral compass or ethical considerations, since they don't believe in god.

Here comes some connnteeennnt

Even if we cannot eliminate all suffering, we should be striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible.

Much like how we view Utopian ideals. Or the idea of perfection.

You've assigned your own meaning to suffering that many other humans disagree with, while acting as if your opinion is an objective reality/fact. That's a heaping ton of hubris.

Everyone suffers but some suffer unnecessarily while others inflict it on those around them despite having the capacity to reduce or eliminate a lot of said suffering. In my life experience, people that espouse beliefs like yours tend to be extremely privileged or very religious or both. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Surely there was at least one group that went out laughing. A hero, indeed.

Well-fucking-said. Kudos.

Mere rat! Imma murder your arm pits! Die mfer die mfer die!

I feel like nihilism only survives because of a blindspot. Like if you are really that worried about the idea that maybe nothing matters, that means something does matter to you. I don't think things can stop mattering to people. I feel like it's an axiom ingrained in our biology. Things matter to us, and it's not our choice. To find what matters just ask yourself "what do I want?". And then to the answer of that question ask "why do I want that?" And then keep asking that to each answer until you come to the point where you have no answer as to why you want it, it's just a feeling that you want it, and it's beyond you. Then that must be the axiom ingrained in your biology. And that's what matters to you.

Posting about Nietzshe on a Philosophy forum? How dare they! It'll be Wittgenstein next, honestly these kids.. (this is how your comment reads)

Gallows humour is a life saver.

Submitting a text post and engaging in discussion within the comments is one thing, linking a blog post with some pseudo academic/self-help philosophy article to feed an illusion that you’re a writer is another. People linking their blogs here are pretentious wannabe intellectuals for the most part.

Sure, I agree, but if you are suffering intensely, it wont matter what anyone says, the only thing that concerns you then would be to fix the suffering first.

There is no such thing as an extremely happy sufferer of extreme pain, no matter how much they may try to rationalize their suffering.

is that you Bo?

Lol suffering will always be subjective to the sufferer, there is no such thing as universally objective suffering that you could measure and apply to every person on earth.

The point is, subjective suffering is still suffering and you cant say someone is or is not suffering if they themselves are screaming in pain from their suffering, be it physical, mental or circumstantial.

Not having beluga caviar is a very rare subjective suffering, if you can even call it that, unless you have some sort of severe mental illness where not eating them would make you become suicidal and scream in pain. lol

Very poor artists and deep thinkers. lol

Which would prefer to not be suffering from their poverty, so they have the luxury of thinking about philosophy more. lol

That is Nietzsche point, no one can “free” you from your suffering just you yourself.

On another note, Nietzsche, and this extends to basically every philosopher, they are not addressing people who have its most basic necessities not met for some reason, that is beyond their problem, a problem of the world, Nietzsche is not talking to a person who by forces outside his control cannot eat.

Finally, I would not say Nietzsche is rationalizing anything, this is a very problematic concept in Nietzsche philosophy and he and certainly anyone who has read him would frown at the mention of Rationalization or Reason for that matter.

Antinatalism, Efilism and Promortalism would say its impossible to get rid of suffering so we might as well not exist, blow up earth and spare future generation from suffering. lol

False equivalence though, dread is far from suffering.

people should stop defining suffering as anything that pains them, because the word loses its meaning, common intuition would define suffering as pain so intense and prolonged that it makes people avoid it at all costs, including suicide.

There's nothing "common" about that intuition, and you just invented a new meaning to the word suffering that's in line with your argument, so it's begging the question as well.

​

Either way this is a poor game of semantics and the point still stands. If we accept your unusual definition to suffering, then your argument becomes far less relevant, because barely anyone is experiencing that degree of suffering, meaning purpose-seeking is still relevant to the vast majority of mankind. If we do not accept it (which I see no reason to), then your argument is false as people in suffering do have a use for purpose-seeking. So your argument is either false or irrelevant.

>unusual definition to suffering

Lol, what is suffering to you? How about some examples?

An undesirable state of being, which can be but isn't necessarily convergent with pain. For example, the muscle pain from an intense work-out wouldn't be called "suffering" by most people, but intense depression would, despite not being painful. This is, incidentally, how most people use the word.

Either way, it's definitely not "pain so intense and prolonged that it makes people avoid it at all costs, including suicide", because in that case, the term "moderate suffering" would be a self-contradiction, and that's just absurd and definitely not common-sensical.

If you're genuinely curious about the question of defining suffering, I can elaborate or offer some reading recommendations, but otherwise, I'd like to go back to topic, which is that existential confusion/dread/suffering (call it as you will, the term is secondary in its importance) is relevant to the majority of mankind regardless of living conditions or physical state, thus your initial claim that the problem is irrelevant to most still fails.

Meaning and purpose is derived from the struggle against suffering. I never argued to "let suffering win" or "don't even bother struggling against suffering."

A suffering-free utopia is an impossibility. It's incompatible with human nature (at this stage in evolution). My argument is: The best we can all do is support each other throughout our unique individual (temporary) struggle against suffering. It appears that humankind, as a group, will ALWAYS have to struggle against suffering.

Tip: you're allowed to disagree with me, but please avoid the name-calling because that behavior makes me wanna stop reading your response.

I'd never go to the extreme mephistophilian conclusion that "we might as well not exist." Beauty, love, truth, mystery, adventure, are all too magical to just permanently destroy.

[removed]

I think the ultimate world is one in which we continue to move forward cancelling suffering left and right while at the same time suffering in how hard we’re working to reach that better world. Anything outside of that is just a cherry on top.

You don’t think someone starving in a war torn country ever thinks about why they are suffering so bad and what is the point of all their pain? There’s a reason why poor people tend to be more religious.

I think that the meaninglessness of the world manifests itself in different ways to people of different income. And that some unfortunate people have physical problems/concerns in addition to metaphysical ones so that you cannot equate the two. But I do think that everyone suffers from the desire for meaning in a meaningless world. That’s a function of merely existing.

I think 99% of them want to be not starving and not be in a war first, lol.

Religion is something people use to justify their suffering, without suffering they wont care as much about god's plan and mysterious ways.

Ring ring....

>Religion is something people use to justify their suffering

Exactly. Which is just another way of saying they are searching for meaning. It feels less bad if there is an explanation and purpose for why all of this horrible shit is happening to you, especially if it also comes with a promise that soon the suffering will be over in exchange for an immense payoff in the afterlife.

>I think 99% of them want to be not starving and not be in a war first, lol.

Do they, though? I think there is some truth to the idea of religion being the opiate of the masses. The Catholic church is sitting on billions of dollars. Why don't the people in all the poor Catholic countries simply rise up and overthrow the Pope? And if you look throughout history, there have probably been way more people who have killed other innocent and suffering people or died themselves to protect their religion and religious leaders than tried to overthrow them.

Elaborate

I would like to see you plug in these variables with aspects of your life to see how the theory pragmatically condenses itself into real world values and experience.
But its like, why does the formation of an economy have to govern our social values? Isn't it better for us that it's unscripted? Free market also = free social, which is where self knowledge, values and the orientation of our values come from when we're free to rationalize/discern the market medium, and make better market strategies. The danger away from Capitalism is that the socio-economic world becomes Procedural, then we would have to contend with pre-written social values, and follow scripts of reform/conduct.
I think what people tend to believe in is that, well, maybe the social world can be written as a policy or a way of conduct, and it can be good. But who's good at that? who studies that? Its not knowledge of a historian, a politician or a law maker, that's like Psychology, Human Behavior, Philosophy and Ethics, and maybe even more natural to people who are well behaved and well socialized.

It's not just the axioms of these schematics of philosophy but who can instantiate them, and how?

https://youtu.be/vxhTDIUCPMM

Can you link part 1?

https://thesynchronicity.substack.com/p/how-to-live-in-a-world-that-makes

I dont find absurdity of life to be suffering at all. Quite the opposite, I find it comforting and fun.