I don't know what to believe in. I've realized that I don't have any positions or beliefs in philosophy, politics...

I don't know what to believe in. I've realized that I don't have any positions or beliefs in philosophy, politics, ethics, etc that I can defend in any meaningful way. Have you guys ever experienced this before? Do you have any advice for me to get out of this mess. Or perhaps something read/watch that could help with this? I feel like I don't have an identity.

I recommend becoming an existentialist, a social capitalist, and a rule based utilitarian.

Or at least those are the conclusions I found most satisfying when I got through babbies first existential crisis.

Why?

Well, existentialism holds that the meaning of life is something unique to each individual, which makes sense to me. I think that humans are the 1.0 version of sentience, so everyone is going to be looking for a way to function cognitively with the knowledge of mortality that evolution hasn't prepared us to deal with very well.

Religion fills this void for a lot of people, but it doesn't always fill it in the same way, so the idea of a universal "meaning" for life seems completely unreasonable.

You must find your own meaning.

As for social capitalism, there are certain investments only the state can make profitably, but that benefit society as a whole.

For example, if the state gives out condoms, people are more likely to wait to have kids, and the average child born will be born in a better prepared household, and general standard of living will go up because the average citizen had a better childhood.

If the state invests in health, education, and poverty eradication, it will end up with a healthy, well educated, and well integrated populace, that pays more taxes.

You're fine just as you are OP. The ivory tower is the best place to be.

>existentialism holds that the meaning of life is something unique to each individual, which makes sense to me.
Why does that make sense to you? And what standard are you using to determine if something makes sense?
>the idea of a universal "meaning" for life seems completely unreasonable.
Why does that seem unreasonable to you? Also, does being unreasonable mean you think it doesn't make sense? And why does it seem like you're saying the only options are a unique meaning for each individual or a universal meaning for all?
>there are certain investments only the state can make profitably, but that benefit society as a whole.
Benefits society in what way? And why does it matter to you whether or not something benefits society as a whole?

>Benefits society in what way?

Increases the general amount of wealth, and quality of living of the populace.

The better educated and wealthier the average person is, the less niggers there are out breaking windows, and the better life is for the average citizen.

Low crime rates, high social mobility, and social cohesion yield a variety of benefits.

For best results, combine extensive government investment in human capital with restrictive, merit based immigration systems and strong nationalism.

Incidentally, I've concluded that "social capitalism" sounds better than "social democracy" or "democratic socialism." It's more descriptive, given that the system doesn't work without a strong private sector.

>Increases the general amount of wealth, and quality of living of the populace.
What exactly do you mean by quality of living? And why is their general amount of wealth and the quality of living of the populace important to you? Also if you don't think there is a universal meaning to life among all individuals why does it seem like you believe in a universal measure of quality of living?

Historically the state usually fails miserably at tasks like education, health care, and poverty eradication.

Private systems are almost universally better at doing all three.

>the meaning of life is something unique to each individual

Life is pointless. Accept that basic face and build off it.

By quality of living, I mean things like life expectancy, health, and life satisfaction. The third of these is the hardest to quantify, but I'm kind of assuming that people with chronic, painful medical conditions aren't happy.

Really, it's a blanket statement that reflects a variety of things in life that people generally want.

As for why it matters to me, I'm personally a nihilist.

If there's no intrinsic value to any human action, there's no reason to resist the impulses that you naturally come equipped with as a human.

My impulses are telling me to make the world a better place and help people, because that will cause my brain to release serotonin.

Now that I think about it, recommending somebody become an existentialist is about the most vague advice you could give.

You've got Christian fundamentalist existentialists, fascist existentialists, Marxist existentialists, apolitical existentialists.

"Be an existentialist" is just like saying "find something good"

>Private systems are almost universally better at doing all three

I'm not sure that a purely private economy is possible.

The state is defined as the entity with a monopoly on legitimate force, and any entity with a monopoly of legitimate force is going to intervene in the economy by sheer dint of its existence.

When burglars are breaking your window and the cops show up, that's a state intervention in the economy. The state is preserving your ownership of property and thwarting their acquisition of property.

This being the case, the state should intervene in a way that causes the maximum amount of resources to be spent on improving productive capacity.

>Life is pointless.
Do you view that as truth or as something you have yet to disprove? And if you consider it the truth then can you explain to me why you believe that?

>As for why it matters to me, I'm personally a nihilist.
Why are you a nihilist?

I found nihilism to be the explanation most consistent with the evidence.

I have yet to see that the universe has any intrinsic moral or intellectual properties.

Also, I need to sleep but I can hit you up tomorrow for another helping of my bullshit homebrew philosophy.

>This being the case, the state should intervene in a way that causes the maximum amount of resources to be spent on improving productive capacity.

My argument is the best way for the state to do that is to not intervene. They should keep to their role as enforcer of the laws and leave wealth creation to the people as they have proven more apt at it.

>Do you view that as truth or as something you have yet to disprove?

As a truth. As for why it is the answer which best fits the question.

>I have yet to see that the universe has any intrinsic moral or intellectual properties.
Does this mean you view nihilism as something you have yet to disprove as opposed to a truth?

>it is the answer which best fits the question.
Can you explain to me how it best fits the question? And what do you mean by best fits anyway? Do you mean that it "makes sense" like what the other person in this thread was saying about his beliefs? Or by best fits did you mean that you were able to rule out all other answers in a way that made you determine this one was the truth? If not that, how did you determine this was the truth?

>Can you explain to me how it best fits the question?

I doubt I can if you do not understand what best fits means. You are either being intentionally obtuse, are an idiot, or are not very fluent in English.

I'm not very interested in the answer so I am going to go to bed.

I was trying to get you to provide support for your answer instead of just saying a cop out response like "it fits the best" or "it makes sense to me".

Just take the balkpill

>I was trying to get you to provide support for your answer instead of just saying a cop out response like "it fits the best" or "it makes sense to me".
He doesnt have an answer beyond his cop out response

user... Most of the rise in the standard of living comes at the cost of the sustainability of social capital let alone natural resources.

The west has truely squandered all of its social capital and has raised generations of useless slutty narcissistic autistic hedonists who wont have children and will continue the shitty fucked up cycle of dysgenics.

Also there is no fundemental meaning available to humans. Existentialism is just humans playing pretend.

>something you have yet to disprove as opposed to a truth

Is there a difference?

What I accept as true is whatever fits the evidence with the lowest number of unsupported logical leaps.

Nihilism requires no unsupported logical leaps. Existentialism is just nihilism with a smiley face drawn on it in crayon.

>Is there a difference?
Not with your own definition of truth. The definition of truth I meant was truth as in something is true because you've ruled out all other things which may have falsified it. You've qualified it by saying you accept something as true if it "fits the evidence with the lowest number of unsupported logical leaps". I would consider that form of truth as something you have yet to disprove rather than the truth in the sense I described.
>Nihilism requires no unsupported logical leaps
But when you make this claim it seems like you believe it is the truth as I describe because I'm interpreting "requires no unsupported logical leaps" as a claim that you've ruled out all other things which may have falsified it. That is unless you don't consider it a logical leap to claim that "nihilism requires no unsupported logical leaps" without first ruling out all other things which may have disproved it.

Well, there isn't any existing evidence that needs to be discounted, or nonexistent evidence that needs to be assumed, to reconcile nihilism with my observations of the universe.

Hence why I assume I'm sitting on a chair right now. I remember the definition of the word chair, and I remember sitting down on one, so the logical system I'm working with completely explains that present state of affairs.

Alternative hypothesis, such as "I'm sitting on a log" or "I'm still asleep" require me to tamper with the available evidence to explain what's going on.

>there isn't any existing evidence that needs to be discounted
Am I correct in interpreting this as something that means all evidence available to you up until this point has not gone against nihilism in any way?
>or nonexistent evidence that needs to be assumed
Am I correct in interpreting this as something that means since all evidence up until this point that has been available to you has not gone against nihilism in any way you don't think any future evidence will go against nihilism?

If those two interpretations are correct then my question to you is: Do you believe that there is evidence you still have not become aware of or do you believe that there is no more evidence you are not aware of? If you believe there is evidence you're not aware of yet then I would say nihilism is something you have yet to disprove. If you believe there is no more evidence you're not aware of then I would say nihilism is something you consider true in the sense I described before. However, I would then ask how do you know you aren't missing any evidence?

Ethics in particular I think should be viewed as a study of the human sense of right and wrong and not the source thereof in itself. It's trying to systemize and describe what we inherently feel is right and wrong. It doesn't dictate it. Just because you can't find a system that fits you, or condense what you already believe into a new one, doesn't mean you don't have an identity. In fact, you arguably have a more unique one than those who do find themselves in established systems like utilitarianism or whatever. The same goes for politics et.c.. These subjects are to us what physics is to nature. Don't worry if they fail at making sense of you

>Am I correct in interpreting this as something that means all evidence available to you up until this point has not gone against nihilism in any way?

If there was evidence against it, I wasn't paying attention or I misinterpreted it. I'm doing my best, but I'm also a man who has choked on Altoids like five times and still has a tin on his desk right now.

>Am I correct in interpreting this as something that means since all evidence up until this point that has been available to you has not gone against nihilism in any way you don't think any future evidence will go against nihilism?

Well, it's possible for anything to appear in the future. If new evidence surfaces, I'll have to adjust my theory, but I can't preemptively react to an infinite spectrum of possibilities in any coherent way.

>Do you believe that there is evidence you still have not become aware of or do you believe that there is no more evidence you are not aware of?

I believe I have enough evidence to form a provisional conclusion. I have to trust my memory and senses to even appraise the available evidence, so it seems thoroughly impossible to have 100% truth. The standard I'm applying is "more likely than the alternative"

Assuming my memory and senses are giving me a workable version of reality, scientists have been working on observing and measuring nature for a while, and they haven't found any gods or intrinsic morality anywhere in the universe.

I think I understand you now. You're taking the approach scientists take. Something can be held up as true in science but it's true with a lowercase t. As in something new can change your views on it in the future but that's okay since it fits what's available now.

I haven't heard this perspective before. Do you remember what made you think this or what brought this line of thought to your attention?

Yes, kind of. I have certain feelings about right and wrong that I havent been able to justify, or systemize as it were. What should I do?

I don't know it seems like we're in the same boat. If you remember what you read/watched/etc that exposed you to that perspective I'd like to know about it though.