Existential angst
 

The only answer to existential angst is 'distract yourself with bullshit'. That's it. There will never be an answer to the human predicament. We are animals headed nowhere when we die, and we will never have justice, paradise, eternal life, or complete understanding of the universe.

All we can do is distract ourselves with bullshit until we die. That's it. Just distract yourself by playing with a bright red bouncy ball until you die.

This sucks.

You're not distracting yourself. You should read another Paris Hilton news story.

Try distracting yourself with stuff that's not bullshit.

I like where this is going. :D

There's no such thing.

Then get on with fulfilling your biological imperative! Your unborn children don't want you to whine, they want you make them so they can experience life.

Then I guess you're screwed. :)

Your life is what you make it, freewill exists almost everywhere. If we all agree together to have a Paradise here on Earth, thats exactly what we'll get. To bad most are too self absorbed, emotionally distracted, hell bent on riches, or otherwise unable to see the big picture, to see the possibilities all around them.

But everyone's idea of paradise is different. I don't think we need paradise. Just more love.

Not for nothing, but I could have 100% seen a reply to this as calling you out on BS.


I'll leave this thread simmering in my mind for awhile, then spin it to healthy discourse of true existentialism.

I'd rather have it left on idle for a bit then to have one-cocked responses littering what could be a great discussion point. :thumbsup:

i think someone read too much nietzsche...

Why can’t we have those things? How do you even define those things? I believe that in some form or another most of what you mention is attainable. Oh by the way I won’t respond to the things you mentioned in order; I could, but I choose not to. For those that don’t want to read skip to the last paragraph.

First of, justice is a subjective thing; it’s roots lie in the moral system which you impose on yourself. So it doesn’t seem too farfetched to assume that some people believe they live in a just world or one that can change to become a just world.

Next, I personally don’t believe in a complete understanding of the universe. I see the inherent quantum nature of subatomic particles as limiting what we can possibly know. What man should strive for is truth, you don’t have to completely understand the universe to be able to formulate truisms about its nature.

Paradise, I believe that’s a construct in one’s mind. It is the wish to only feel and do the things that make you happy. As long as humans are equipped to feel pain, sadness, and all the rotten emotions that you can name, they will create and live in a world where they will have to feel those things. However, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad world or that paradise is any better. I’d personally find paradise more limiting.

I wouldn’t want eternal life. The present does not become sweeter with a longer past. The only thing that eternal life gives you is more memories. Each second passes by just as slowly(I’m talking about actual time not psychological time) if you’re 10 years old or a thousand years old. I wouldn’t mind a longer, healthier life. It is often the case that we feel that we don’t have the time to do all the things that would please us in life. However, to me that only makes it more exciting.

So to sum up, for all you lazy readers: I believe, justice is attainable, complete understanding is unattainable, and that paradise and eternal life are things that shouldn’t be reached for. Why have angst about these things? Why not think them through to your heart’s content? I think everyone can come up with answers that are satisfactory to their own way of thinking.

Nice complete answer to the other thread about existenstalism entitled 'JPELCU'.

Hehe...didn't even really notice it. I suppose it is.

Distracting yourself isn't even an answer let alone the answer. It merely avoids the question, so that you no longer feel compelled to answer it, because trying to resolve existential angst on your own is....well, depressing. At least until you find the answer, at which point you realize it's only as depressing as you want it to be.

On that third point... which is important to me personally.

QM (as I recall it) limits our knowledge of a particular particle's location vs momentum. But there is nothing which says that we cannot aim to understand all the rules that relate to that particle.

So I would maintain that it's still a valid goal, for humanity to seek to understand the rules that govern reality. I would suggest that this is supported by the breakthroughs that have occurred since after the uncertainty principle was discovered.

Life is only eating, fucking, and shitting if that is all you see.

Distracting yourself with bullshit is not the answer to existential angst. This is because existential angst is the distraction.

I'm so glad my life is more fulfilling than the rest of yours :D

If, it all seems bullshit to you, then it is...primarily because you do not want it to be important. Any frustration you feel may very well be self imposed, which is fine with me. Hope you don't mind if I decide to learn from your "Bullshit", and make myself a little bit better than I was.

Let me guess, the 'answer' you speak of me finding is 'stop wanting the metaphysical things you want.' So basically, there's distraction and then there's copping out and pretending like you don't desparately want what you want.

Unless there's a third 'answer' you'd like to tell me.

There is actually. In fact if you look carefully at the post you placed above....you might find a few options. In my opinion you are far too uptight about something that literally requires you to be calm to understand. Desperately seeking a metaphysical pathway is akin to forcing someone to hurry up and wait. Wanting a thing does not mean a need to worry about getting it, anymore than Loving a thing entitles you to be loved back.


Your original post:
Pretty much explains why you are pissed off at the world rather than happy to be in it. What you see as Bullshit Distraction, I see as opportunity to become something more than I am right now. If that means to you, that I'm playing with the bright red ball....thats cool with me. At the very least I am playing, while you sit on a bench and wonder why I am smiling.

i dont know if this is intentional or not but the op is mostly a mangled restatement of one of pasal's pensées--we do no keep to the time that is proper to us, we always get lost in dreaming of the past or future. the "real drama"--that of the soul and its relation to its god-buddy is that of the present. god---you know, the Big Inflatable Fellow. for pascal, there's probably an actual god back there somewhere--but you cant know that god either way because you're stuck in human cognition and with its limits and one of them is you think this god character and you see only the Big Inflatable Fellow. this is a Problem. there's no way out of it. so pascal says people squirm about, pretending that this is not the State of Affairs.

but the thing is that the pensées are not descriptions of the world but a long sequence of arguments about what constitutes a description of the world involving a voice that claims to know something of that condition and another that doesnt believe him.

the angst-schema (the game that explains angst) works much the same way in kierkegaard except its scarier somehow. heidegger connects angst to the effects of this profound boredom he pulls apart in his lecture course on the notion of "life" on the one hand and to "being-toward-death" on the other--so they are elements of "authentic being" the orientation that causes dasein to vibrate...this is about the least interesting dimension of his earlier work if you see in its displaced christianity an obstacle to understanding rather than a tool. anyway, you can play this game in a parallel manner with sartre and camus, but for original sin substitute a range of passivities from accomodation-to-collaboration with the nazi occupation of france during world war 2.

i am not sure that i understand the appeal of this--and particularly not the existentialism-lite that seems to animate the op. its structure is basically christian (well, it's nominalist, which is the most interesting variant of christianity, one that it'd be nice to find fundy-type discovering, of only so they would stop talking as if they know what they cannot possibly actually know--one can dream). so unless this christian framework at one level or another resonates with you--perhaps because of your family background (which makes this an aesthetic matter)----why would you accept it as legitimate, much less as given as self-evident, requiring no argument or justification?

so the basic problem with the op is that it is a potted summary of one dimension of existentialist theory that is fobbed off as a description of this illusion called "the human condition."
having taken on this curious framework, the op proceeds to whine about the consequences.

well, following the logic of these texts--you would choose committments arbitrarily, knowing they are arbitrary. but the frame itself puts you in a position of not being able to make these committments precisely because you know they are artificial. it's straight pascal again. the wager.

but this is all a frame-effect.
the notion of angst is a response to a restatement of the problems generated (for christians) by the absurd notion of original sin. if you think about it in terms of original sin, of course you cant do anything about it because you did not commit it--original sin is imputed to you by way of adam and the microchip of adam that augstine claims every human being carries with him or her because they are human. so unless you accept a fundamentally christian claim as a description of the world, what you outline above is not a description of your responses to "the human condition" at all. but the "dilemma" is entirely christian: for augustine, the way out is faith--for the existentialists, way out consists of arbitrary committments.

but why would you drag something as ridiculous as the notion of original sin from its already equally ridiculous religious framework and into the secular world?

if you believe this, you might as well just revert to being christian--its not like you are escaping its basic traps, so why bother pretending you are outside of it?
or if you dont want to work that hard, you can always watch tv and feel bad about doing it.
same thing.

so you choose to enter the intellectual game that results in claims about angst and the heap of poop this notion of angst reduces your life to. it's hard to feel much of anything in response to your running in textbook manner the effects of this framework. you must derive some sense of pleasure from it--perhaps from the illusion of Singularity it provides you, that of being a Great Hero Exposing Himself to the Cruel Winds of the Absurd.

james thurber once either recieved or made up a letter which said:
"dear sir: i have 100 cats."
to which he responded:
"dear madam: t's hard to tell from your letter whether you are complaining or bragging."

so it is here.

how about giving me a brief message of support or a brief argument against existentialism, rather than a long-winded, pretentious, incomprehensible, condescending one that basically just accuses me of being an egotistical troll who enjoys his angst?

Shit.

Funny...thats exactly what I did for you in the post right above. The simple fact you bypassed it in favor of claiming martyrdom where most would find none, pretty much points out that Roach was quite accurate in his comments. If you want someone to tell you you are right...then OK.

You are absolutely right!

For you, but pardon the rest of us if we might look at life as something more than a carnival game.

drews:

1. this is a philo forum. it is not a therapy forum.
if your interest was in getting therapeutic advice, then you put it in the wrong place.


2. i dont think you really know the material you are referencing.
you react to my saying as much with a version of what roland barthes called deaf and dumb criticism.
its core is: "i dont get it therefore you are an idiot."


3. i dont pretend to reach around sentences and impute motives to those who write them. i just read off stuff from what you wrote.

it seems to me that you do not like the possibility that you can be read as an egotistical troll who posts to brag about their own martyrdom at the hands of some barely understood version of existientialism, but cannot imagine that the source of this impression is your own posts.

that is not my problem.

The OP was framed as conclusive. It was a declaration. So our posting here should do one of two things: 1) agree, or 2) disagree. I think roachboy's disagreement is valid, though I'm uncertain about his tone. The tone of his response is his decision, so I don't have a real problem with it. In a way, it matches the tone of the OP:

How are we to respond to this, really? drews, you've just told me, as a reader of your post, that I'm wasting my time, that my pursuit of objective truth is a joke. I actually found Roachboy's post refreshing, as it opened up this thread by giving us a foundation from which to discuss the OP. Now we can accuse roachboy of being long-winded, pretentious, incomprehensible, and condescending, or we can see his post as it is: apt, honest, comprehensive, and unforgiving. When discussing philosophical matters, we should do as much.

roachboy, thank you for taking the time to respond with such an interest.

drews, will you actually respond to what he said? I'm interested to know your thoughts on these ideas. Or is everything in your world bullshit?

I think someone read too little nietzsche...

the tone of that long post did get away from me a bit...and some of the sentences are chopped up funny...but the point stands, i think.

First of all, roachboy is right on. He knows his shit, particularly the sources he's quoting. I think you'd do rather well to pay attention to what he's saying, at least if you are asking a truly philosophical question (and not a therapeutical one, as he said... in which case, you should post in Tilted Life for a less academic answer).

Responding to the OP... Who says we should have any of those things? Check some basic Buddhist texts for their answer to this "predicament." Their answer has nothing to do with distraction, things "sucking," or despair. It has to do with the moment, the present moment, and disattachment from all else. Including the expectation of anything after death. That's not distraction, that's BEING. A very big difference. And it doesn't suck... it's probably one of the worthier goals in our short human lives.

first, i am reminded that i love roach with the love of a thousand things that love other things a whole lot.

second, yes - this is a frame-job. there are many things we will never have or know, and there are many things we will never experience. so have the things that come to you, learn the things you can, and experience your life. i think one can find a rather infinite amount of material for thought in these simple things.

or you can chase everything that you can not reach, only to find that what you sought was to be found in the simple things.

i think, drews, that many of the responses you will find here are tempered by the fact that many of us have been through existential crises. getting to the other side of them usually calms one down a bit. the only thing i missed, and perhaps it's dragged over from a different thread, is where roach pulled the notions of christianity into this. certainly the themes are there - everlasting life, justice, peace, etc - but christianity isn't the only worldview which has promised these things. them's the staples of any good religion, and religions most often form the basis of a worldview.

regardless, best of luck.

me, too.

....and actually, pig, I don't see you much anymore, but when I do I'm reminded of how fond I am of you, too. :)

right back at you babe - i've been a little busy working for the MAN, so i don't get on much during the day, and at night i've been a slacker.

you had some pictures up in one of the postyourself threads, and i thought 'my, that's a fine wimmens. and she's smart. the world is good'.

i rather like this particular bright red ball ;)

group hug!

nice to see you around again, mister pig. this time given to The Man makes the board a duller place.

yeah, i've got to find time to get back on - i miss y'all. The Man takes a pound out at the front end, but i'll figure out His system and work it from there.

plus my laptop is fucked up.

i just saw 'the big lebowski' last night by accident.

like, that's just your opinion...man.

it might have been just as effective to post this:



because that's what flow does.

Golly gee guys, I hate to break up another TFP mutual admiration society meeting, but maybe, just maybe, this guy just needed someone to talk to. Perhaps he did make this post in the wrong category, so what??? So go ahead and pat each other on the back for your intelligence and wit, while another human being contemplates the futility of life. I mean the guy just needs to toughen the fuck up, right??? So much for the spirit of human kindness.................

nice dave: i actually provided a pretty systematic critique of the basis for the "bind" in which drews claims to be trapped and he reacted to it as you see and from there folk seem to have felt the need to post stuff that defends my position.

there is enough pain in the world--and in most of our lives--that is not self-inflicted because you adopt a stupid conceptual framework and then run the moves it imposes on you. camus already saw the basic problems of existentialism and did a quite devastating parody of them in "the fall." maybe read that and you will understand something of the contempt that may have surfaced for this particular form of self-immolation. sartre's main existentialist texts were popular just after world war 2 in france. their therapeutic function had alot to do with performing a sense of collective guilt over the fact of having-been-occupied, which generally meant having-to-accomodate fascism one way or another.

many years later, i was shown existentialism in its more adolscent form by my highschool french teacher, who was the daughter of a prefect of police in paris during the occupation and who--despite the fact that she was just a kid--nonetheless felt tremendous guilt simply because her family did not starve while others around her did and that simply because to be a prefect of police in paris under the occupation presupposed a certain--um--enthusiasm in interactions with the occupation. so that is the original sin, the sense of being-contaminated and not being able to make it stop because--well--it was the case. but it was a hard case and so displacements and rituals involving displacements apparently had an appeal. the flip of sartre's work is derived from the "existence precedes essence" claim, which translates into the idea that you can make and remake yourself--but there is no need to tie this obvious fact to the performance of some a priori guilt inflicted by way of a new version of original sin--unless that framework appeals to you somehow--and the explanation for its appeal is most likely some residual christianity--and since the op was basically a mangled rehash of a passage from pascal--it seemed reasonable to be suspicious of it.

so maybe you're right and drews just wanted someone to talk to.
but it's certainly not an unproblematic interpretation, given that there is what amounts to a conceptual machine being referenced and adopting that machinery would lead you to exactly the same kind of place as a function of the logic of the machinery itself.
so the op can be read in other ways as well.

and unless you wrote the bloody thing under another identity, you know no more than anyone else.
so it isnt really up to you to say what the post "really meant"---you dont know either.

You're over complicating the issue, once again. We all know you're intelligent and well read. Theres a big difference between intelligence and wisdom, you cant learn that in a book, it comes with life experience and age. I must agree with drews, you're posts are long winded and pretentious, but thats just your style. I tend to back the underdog, or defend those that cant defend themselves. I simply cant stand when 10 old timers jump on some new guy, whose looking for help, thats just my style.

You do get a B for all the big words though...........

that's so sweet, dave.
you cast me as an Oppressor.
i hardly know what to say.

i'll write in short sentences for you.
much more authentic, isnt it?

so: what you think of my posts isnt real high on my list of concerns, dave.
sorry.
you want to make an actual argument about something, go for it.
i'll interact with you if there is some trace of content involved.
but not like this.
it is tedious.

Actually, I think what roachboy is saying is exactly what the OP needs. Sometimes the truth about one's self comes on harsh. If we're lucky. :)

i think this whole recent turn is endearing, but rather idiotic. there was no real backslapping over shared wit, that i was aware of - but i expressed that i enjoy the way roach presents his arguments / positions, then we had a little 'hey haven't seen you in a while, nor you mixed,' all within the context of the thread. perhaps that was posted in the wrong area, but shit happens.

as to the beating up on someone who is new to the tfp, i would have to say that the nature of drews' replies started a confrontational mode of conversation, dave. roach posted some ideas (which i assure you could have been much more thorough) on the OP, and even included some references for back material. it wasn't a 'don't worry sonny, it'll all get better soon' kind of post, but it was on topic. if he is supposed to offer to share in drew's angst, then not only is that impossible if he doesn't share the angst, but that's not really what happens in philo. or if that's what you want, perhaps an OP that is longer than two or three sentences, less combative, and which clearly states the types of desired reply would help?

it is somewhat difficult to respond in many other modes when someone posts a declaration as the OP, which is counter to the opinions / knowledge / experience of other posters. sure, the whole angst thing isn't easy...until you realize it's as easy or hard as you choose to make it. how else could that be expressed, other than in the multitude of ways that have been presented here?

what is, is. you will not find meaning in events which do not contain the kind of meaning you seek. particularly if you have already decided that meaning does not exist. there likely is no everlasting paradise, or if you believe there is one then jolly for you. these are things you accept or you don't. what justice there is to be had in this world must be made by us, and that's just the way it is.

i really don't understand the criticisms, aside from an emotional discourse that is carried over from other threads across the boards, from dave to roach. i don't see underdogs here; i see people with different viewpoints. is roach supposed to express himself in an insincere fashion so that the content can be appropriately filtered? this is ridiculous. as i type this, i find it ridiculous.

and i'm still happy to see roach and mixed post, and i loved the fu-scnikem video. the topic of 'flow' is an interesting and unexpected point for roach to present, in my opinion and experience.

signing off - yours truly,

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29...t/underdog.jpg

Damn, i'm sorry i missed this. Any bout i have with existential angst ends the moment i get hungry.

To the op: does distracting yourself with bullshit include reminding yourself constantly about how meaningless everything is? Because if you're truly going to really commit to the idea that everything is ultimately meaningless, then you should acknowledge that that line of thought is itself meaningless and then quit distracting yourself with it.

Quit with the drugs, too.

If you're serious, then my first guess is that you're somewhat depressed...A distraction is the last way to approach an insecurity, as that same insecurity would probably manifest itself and then be magnified in spite of...

There may not be a need to continue this thread, havent seen the OPer since. Hope he didnt commit suicide.......that would suck, wouldnt it???

Certainly be an amazing twist of irony if nothing else...

Lucky!

Since he hasn't come back, I can only speculate, but it appears to me that he experienced some hard luck and wanted to vent. Unfortunately, his conclusions were philosophically reductionist, which is a bit of a thorny problem in a philosophy forum. To be dismissive of the potential of human achievement will go unnoticed in certain places, but not here.

To his original notion, I simply say: If everyone thought the same as he, we would have destroyed ourselves decades ago, in the midst of the Cold War. There would have been no Civil Rights Act, no desegregation, women's sufferance, Emancipation Proclamation, Declaration of Independence, Glorious Revolution, Magna Carta, Renaissance patronage, or any major turning point that defied the regrettable aspects of human nature. We are where we are because of those things, not despite them; their existence is an illumination, not an anomaly.

Certain decisions have also led to anguish and destruction, sure. The Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, et al. But what those things establish is not that we are evil or shallow, merely that we are complex and often conflicted and downright stupid. But you can find illumination even in those dark places, rather than glumly accepting them as the status quo.

I do agree, I only wonder why a mod didnt move this to another forum. Although the OP was philosophical in nature, its fairly obvious to me that he wasnt looking for a debate in philosophy.

Because we are not here to psychoanalyze and provide psychological comfort to every person who decides to register here to unload their personal problems. Myself, I didn't perceive from the OP that the writer was on an emotional precipice. Perhaps you did. Everyone responded in a way that they felt was bidden upon them to do so. Doesn't make one right or wrong. I am hoping that you do not believe that anyone participating on this thread would intentionally and maliciously provoke someone they believed to be in an emotionally precarious place.

This is a place to discuss matters of interest regardless of which forum the discussion is taking place in, not group therapy. Personally, as just a participant on this thread, I find your not-so-subtle accusations to be very unfair and I'm not quite sure where they are coming from.

I tend to disagree, message boards are very much like group therapy. People come to vent, talk about their problems and ways to over come them. This is basically what group therapy is, a group of people that help each other work through their problems. While thats not all a board is, it is no doubt part of it.
I see members providing psychological comfort to others on a daily basis. Theres a thread on the board right now, "I'm a bit depressed...." which is a perfect example.

I wasnt suggesting that anyone provoked him into doing anything, only that we all might of done more, while he was still here.

Well, I see what you are saying, but the group chooses how it reacts to individual issues. It is not mandated that everyone who comes here will find sympathy. Humans are a fickle, unpredictable lot, I suppose. But certainly you have not found TFP to be lacking in tough love before?

I thinks it's commendable that you spoke out for a more sympathetic response to drews' concerns, but a lot of times we will find ourselves at odds with the way people react to certain threads. I know I do - and when I do I say so. It's just part and parcel of the wide diversity of personalities and opinions we have here.

if the genuine distress reading of the op is right--and i have no way of knowing--then routing it through existentialism--even a potted version of it--was probably not the best idea that cat ever had.

he could have read my response as saying: if you re hurting, going about thinking it this way is a bad idea.

i think that was clear.

i'm not sure i understand the point of generating scenarios as to suicide or something else based entirely on negative evidence--or no evidence. well, to put it a bit more harshly, on nothing at all.
it's pointless because (obviously) unless he posts more here, there's no way to know anything.

given that, these concerns appear mostly passive-aggressive critiques of those of us who took the op a bit seriously as what it presented itself as being--a philosophy problem. and a badly framed problem at that.

Tough love is sometimes necessary, but its normally used with people you know more than a little. I dont think that type of treatment is appropriate for a new member. Maybe thats what he needed, who knows, the point is moot now.

Idea: I don't come here for any expert opinions.

I come here for people to say, "I hear you, brother."

To know that when I close my eyes that I'm not alone.

Well, sure, and sometimes you will get that, sometimes you won't.

C'est la vie. Time to start another thread. :)

Wait wait wait... I found the perfect solution to existential angst.

It's called "Going to church" :D.

Unfortunately, that solution is far from perfect, as it carries its own special brand of angst. I prefer the Church of...."Deal with It".

You should cheer my dear friend for the position you've found yourself in is but a step away from enlightenment.

You've concluded that there is no point to life but distraction and death. You need only shift a few details and you've got it. Look, ask yourself what you're distracting. Its obvious 'you' are searching for something more meaningful, yet it still seems as if distraction is all there is. Well my friend understand that you are not your thoughts, emotions, or even your own mind. It is your mind that desires to be distracted, it has control of you and forces you to find it problems and drama to keep it busy. See we humans are overly controlled by our thoughts. we equate thinking with existence, thinking with being. Descartes had it wrong! I think therefore I am, WRONG, You are, therefore you are, thought is but a tool in your repertoire.

If you disassociate yourself from your thoughts, accept that you are deeper than the superficial thoughts that seem to define you, then you will find infinite peace and bliss with the facts of life, mainly death and the distraction that defines most people. Just be conscious of what you're thinking. Be conscious of your brains desire to be distracted and it will lose its power over you. Destroy the ego and you will see the greatest change in your life. Life will never seem more beautiful, tree's never more green, you will cherish every moment and be truly at peace.

I shouldn't have read this all at once. Now I'm even more dizzy than usual.

Valuing my individual packaging and the way it interferes with the ability to understand exactly what any of my fellow human beings are thinking relieves my angst continuously and makes my existence more pleasurable.

Good luck, OP, wherever you are!

Which one there kemo sabe?

I'm sure this is off topic, but Is angst comparable or preferable to rage?

And would this be considered a trademark infraction if I named my band ...

"Angst Against the Contraption"?

http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/Angst.jpg