<p>I didn't know there was a subject called 'absurdism.' I suggest the OP read Kreutzer Sonata by Tolstoy, as one of the characters has almost the same existentialist ideas.</p>
<p>Indeed my family has financial problems -- I'm not rich. But I am good with whatever money I do have, am excellent at getting stuff I shouldn't have at my income level without any deceit or anything illegal.. I'm not into networking or contriving to rise up or whatever, but I am very crafty with money and resources. I buy stuff and resell it, is the main jist, and I've made thousands. And stuff I buy for myself I buy for much less than what other people pay... I'm good at this actually because I was never handed money growing up, and always had to work for things. But I don't believe I should be a banker to make my education worth something.</p>
<p>Ah, back from my party. More philosophy!</p>
<p>"*No, that's not what I said at all. It's not an intellectual construct. It is not something that each of us wills upon oneself. It is something that is inherent in our minds, just like our propensity for speaking, kindness, or any other evolved behaviour. It's as much of an intellectual construct as intellect itself.
*"</p>
<p>Something that each of us wills upon ourself = something that does not exist objectively and so has been imagined by humans for some purpose = intellectual construct (or mental construct, if you'd like to argue semantics). You essentially made my point for me here.</p>
<p>"I don't think he defined happiness as external gain. To pretend that anything internal is based purely on something external is indeed absurd. External factors can provide a good evaluation of internal achievements, however. Hard work certainly doesn't inevitably lead to anything, however it provides a very large increase in the probability (this is pretty evident, yes?) of accomplishing stuff, which suffices for the argument."</p>
<p>When giving examples of what would generate happiness (for him), he made a list of external achievements. I'm just putting two and two together here. And for the argument's sake, increasing he implied that hard work would be rewarded, so I said that wasn't necessarily true. You habitually confuse the points I'm refuting with the points I'm making, causing me to have to go back and explain things again.</p>
<p>""Getting" a family is of course a factor of work. If you sit at home and do not interact socially the probability of you succeeding goes down; if you go out and actively date and look for people you like, it goes up, right? Nothing complicated in it. You see more people, so you're more likely to see someone whom you like..."</p>
<p>I mean, when I'm dating I'm thinking of having fun and companionship in the short term rather than working to locate a mate, but that's just me...</p>
<p>"This thread fails. Postmodernism fails."</p>
<p>Everything fails. That's the whole point of postmodernism.</p>
<p>I’ve never read much about existentialism, but I’m convinced the universe isn’t just a “chaotic, purposeless phenomenon with no pattern or purpose.” Look around you – things from sonnets to concertos to mathematics follow a specific pattern for a particular purpose. True, these things were created by humans, but humans are part of the world too. If the pattern isn’t part of this world, where did it come from?
I’m convinced that everything has a meaning and a purpose, even if we don’t understand it. (And no, I’m not referring to religion or supernatural forces.) When Kepler discovered that planets move in elliptical orbits, he was shocked. I mean, ellipses are so messy – compared to perfect, regular Copernican circles. Or so Kepler thought. Today, our understanding of gravity and ellipses shows why it has to work this way, and today, they don’t seems so ugly anymore. I believe that if we knew more about the universe, things that seem chaotic or random or purposeless would make sense. Even if we never reach that stage, the mere knowledge that a meaning exists is comforting.
This theoretical abstraction is far from everyday life, though. I’ll admit that my motivation is mainly to get into a top college. But not to get a great job or be “successful” in life. I want to be in a place where I could come closer to understanding the universe, have debates with people who can even comprehend the meaning of existentialism, or just leave the nightmare world of my high school behind. If slogging through all this state-imposed crap is the only way to get there, than so be it.</p>
<p>But by discovering patterns in things, we are attributing to them "meaning." </p>
<p>You could give me a string of random letters and I could make up an acronym for it, giving it some sort of order; making it no longer "chaotic or random." That's a crude example, as language is so absolutely a function of human thought, but you get my point: people look too hard for meaning in things. Look at the Webdings/911 rumor. If you look hard enough for patterns, you're going to find them. </p>
<p>Most of your post makes sense, but I'm wondering: why are you so confident that you wouldn't find like-minded individuals at a school that isn't a "top college," or even learn things and thus "come closer to understanding the universe"?</p>
<p>Just wow @ this topic.</p>
<p>And a great LMAO tribute too. Keep it going...</p>
<p>Really, all this theory and existentialism is wonderful. If that's what you truly feel or believe, great.
But it's just a bit... hopeless, don't you think?
Can't you just have a tiny bit of hope that their is a greater purpose, a reason to live? Past your SAT score (though if I was contemplating suicide, my next test score would be high on the list of reasons to live) and such.
Hopelessness is not my style. You talk about existential crises... A meaningful problem about a meaningful existence.
If you are here, and you can think and reason and live and reproduce and love and laugh, you have a reason to live, you belong in this world, you have meaning.
I don't care whether you go through college or not... I just think you're either going to go about it the wrong way and not get the full potential (I don't mean frat parties, obviously) or you're going to be completely miserable.
And for a long-term goal of happiness, I want to be a psychiatrist.
I want to help people.
So my goal isn't meaningless. Neither am I. And neither are you.
Go ahead and bash this, flame it, whatever. I just think you are being hopeless and you'll never "be happy" if you have no hope...
I don't know. I'm a 14 year old girl trying to discuss philosophy and theories and the universe. Don't listen to me.</p>
<p>EDIT: Meant to follow Poseur's last post.</p>
<p>Yeah, and the notion of "coming closer to understanding the universe" seems pretty presumptuous to me, in the sense that it implies the universe is some sort of puzzle to be solved.</p>
<p>If you're just looking for deep thinkers with whom to have meaningful conversation, though, I'd stay the hell away from "top colleges." Tragically (or not), the people who break their backs to end up there tend to be some of the most vapid and uninteresting, much more concerned with blitzing their SATs the third time and doing the busywork to boost their GPAs than with actual intellectual exploration (they'll tell you they're goal-oriented - I'm telling you they're boring). In my personal experience, the truly deep and interesting people are far more likely to end up in quirky LACs.</p>
<p>*Just wow @ this topic.</p>
<p>And a great LMAO tribute too. Keep it going...*</p>
<p>Hey, your presumptuous "if you aren't motivated by money you must be upper middle class" argument got refuted so hard. Aren't you even going to acknowledge that before you resume your shallow put-downs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you're like the rest of us. You look forward to small things in life that keep you entertained (and since we're nerds, sometimes these things are trivial academic pursuits. :)) What makes you so convinced that there's any more to life than the small things that make you happy? </p>
<p>It's great that your self-ordained purpose involves helping people! It's an admirable goal. And I suppose it is a "purpose in life" in a traditional sense. Mine is to contribute to the field of neuroscience; to discover more about how we as humans function. (Ironically, part of my inspiration for going into the field is my opinion that we are no more than the physical particles of which we are composed; I want to help explain how each physical particle contributes to a sentient, self-aware being.) Both of us would like to contribute to the world, and no existentialist doubts that each human makes an imprint on the world -- on the universe. However, I (I can't speak for everyone with existentialist leanings) fail to see why that matters. So, a person lives. A person affects other people's lives, sometimes in ways to which we arbitrarily (or not-so-arbitrarily) assign positive traits. But why does it matter?</p>
<p>I don't find an existentialist view "hopeless" or desolate. I find it realistic. I'm just as happy knowing that my years spent on Earth don't really mean much in the general and chaotic scheme of the universe as I would be otherwise. I'm gonna make the best of these years, even without a "why": because hey, "why not?"</p>
<p>And you're the one who takes the internetz so seriously, I'm sorry, I should have realized that there'd be people like you who'd take it so presumptuous. Did I make an "argument"? I can't believe that was actually taken seriously, not to mention it was taken extremely out of context, but yes, okay, if you'd like, I "acknowledge" it was "refuted hard" (missed that post, which usually I don't read 90% of the posts on a thread, I'm sorry to disappoint you by not reading every word), as much as how "beer > pokemon" can get refuted.</p>
<p>Amusing...I shouldn't have thought that this was the high school life forums but a congregation of philosophical intellectuals.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I'm lacking a bit in the intellectual side here...I hope you'd understand. Lmao</p>
<p>MelancholyDane, no hard feelings here, yes? I'll forsake all my cookies for this entire week if you calm down. I promise not to "put-down" people anymore on this thread...if I ever did.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'll lay down on the "LOL"'s here...I forgot that this was the Philosophical/Intellectual thread for the elite smart people where that kind of language is frowned upon!</p>
<p>
[quote]
why are you so confident that you wouldn't find like-minded individuals at a school that isn't a "top college," or even learn things and thus "come closer to understanding the universe"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, let me define "top college" as any college where students are serious about learning - NOT neccessarily Ivy League.
I'm not saying that there aren't amateur philosophers in the "real world" outside college. But they are few and far between. College seems like the most natural place to find them. In my experience, having a large group of intellectuals in the same place creates a certain atmosphere - one where it's not awkward to bring up philosophical questions over dinner.
Okay, the potential job opportunities are a motivating factor for me. But they're not the answer to the question "Why do I want to go to college?" so much as to "Why am I willing to spend so much money to go to college?" If I could go to college for free, even if it had no effect whatsoever on my future, I would still go.</p>
<p>Alright, fair enough, since you clarified your definition of a "top college." </p>
<p>Actually, though, thinking about the people I know: interestingly, the most knowledgeable person I know of my generation -- the person who first got me interested in philosophy, taught/led me to find out most of what I know as far as basic philosophical principles, and got me interested in neuroscience -- is about to graduate from a state school. </p>
<p>My ex-boyfriend's brother, one of the most political and philosophically-minded people I know (and one of the most articulate), goes to our local community college. </p>
<p>You'll find intellectuals everywhere, I promise! I give you, though, that the concentration of people as interested in learning as you are is likely higher at higher-ranked schools.</p>
<p>Poseur: That was really awesome. I think you have been the most positive person on this thread... I just think I'm really bothered by the real "blah", or hopelessness, that some people are displaying.
I think... A greater purpose can mean more than a God, or something along those more spiritual lines. Like you said, everyone affects other people some how and such. I wonder why, I wonder why not, but in the end I think that it all does have a purpose- maybe not for the collective "happiness" of the world, but for balance, for a reason.
I can't even begin to think of what that reason is, but I simply cannot think that the fact that I want to help people and that I CAN help people eventually is just because my physical particles ordained it by being there. The mind lives separately from the body in some way, as Descartes's Dualistic Model stated, and though some things have been proved to be reliant on the way a brain is formed or how the electrical impulses travel, our morals and sense of being, aren't dependent on just neurons... At least, that's how I view it.
I mean, I could blame all of my problems on the way my brain is. And I have a lot of problems. And I'm definitely not saying you're doing that. It's just... Yes, a murderer has parts of his brain that function over actively or not enough. But his final decision, why he did, the motive, come from his environment, his sense of being, his own moral purpose.
I don't know if that's really off topic, but it's what came to mind after reading some of these posts.</p>
<p>Wow, a lot of what you're saying involves things I've debated with myself. I've reached some conclusions that differ from yours, but I don't know anything for a fact. </p>
<p>
I've contemplated this many times. I've thought about "progress" and what it means in terms of the universe: is there some sort of, like you said, "balance" that nature strives for? Are the laws of physics that govern us striving for some sort of equilibrium? It seems that every scientific principle revolves around an equilibrium, so it's possible that they will all culminate in some final... universal... conclusion??? I haven't ruled it out, but I doubt it. And besides, I might be taking the "balance" thing too literally -- maybe the balance that you're thinking of is less scientific and more metaphysical. </p>
<p>
While I respect this view, I don't (as you could guess from my last post) agree with it. I think that everything is explicable through the firing of synapses, the signaling of neurons, the activation of receptors. I view existence and occurrence in a deterministic light. I think that everything in the universe is cause-and-effect: this particle hits that particle and triggers this reaction. I think that if someone knew the position and direction of every particle in existence, they could predict exactly everything that was to come. (Of course, random quantum movement complicates this a bit...) </p>
<p>You seem to believe that there's something more -- some metaphysical component; something that can't be seen or measured. I doubt this in the traditional sense (the metaphysical, by definition, does not exist) but I do think that there may be (purely physical) things out there that are absolutely beyond human perception or detection. Maybe we will never understand everything just by knowing the laws of physics that we as humans can detect and comprehend. But I believe that the "metaphysical realm" about which people speculate is similar to the "God of gaps" concept: when we don't know the explanation of something (there is a "gap" in our knowledge), we attribute it on the metaphysical. But as we discover more and more, the gaps close, and the possibility becomes lesser and lesser...</p>
<p>@Invoyable: Chill out, man.</p>
<p>Existentialism isn't depressing -- it's incredibly liberating. One of the huge tenets of existential thought is that we are 100% responsible for ourselves; we can do anything, external factors (money, social position, society, norms) are just excuses. I don't owe anyone anything -- I'm 100% free, 100% detached. I don't have to follow someone else's plan or "destiny" or "fate". That's liberating. It's not depressing at all. For me, though, at the top prep school in the country, it's hard to stay motivated to succeed in someone else's terms: doing x at y time to achieve success.</p>
<p>Saer, you need to read The Stranger and The Rebel.</p>
<p>Also, as I mentioned before, physics is, by nature, a self-fulfilling prophesy. We look for balance/pattern in the universe, we find it. Take a second and look for a lack of balance or a lack of pattern. Everywhere -- everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, mind-boggling. And on another note, who's to say that balance is supernatural and/or reveals an underlying purpose? And who's to say that balance isn't the culmination of limitless chaos, and may or may not be "balanced"? Also -- how do we determine what balance/pattern is? We define and label what we find in our universe. What is balance to us may not be the pinnacle of our idea of what balance/pattern is. If this is all we know, we feel compelled to assign the best example of balance we can find in our universe as the absolute pinnacle -- when it may be some cheap substitute of a balance that we can't imagine/deem possible in our current state of orientation.</p>
<p>We are meaning makers -- we apply meaning to everything, for whatever reason. Because this is all we know and it must make sense, right? How could it not make sense, it's everything we have. It couldn't dare be meaningless.... Could it?</p>