The meaning of life is doing whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself

The meaning of life is doing whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.

/existential problems solved

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
twitter.com/AnonBabble

this doesnt explain altruistic self sacrifice

Not a thing at it's fundamental level. It feels good to do tgat shit. There's always a reward of some sorts.

>It feels good
Ergo, in order to not kill yourself, do something that makes you not want to kill yourself.

that's exactly what he's saying, dumbass

People sacrifice their lives to save strangers, maybe some of them do it for personal gain. But there is no way everyone is thinking in the heat of the moment "man if I save this other dude I'll be a hero and that feels good"

Altruistic self-sacrifice is eluding your own life, tricking yourself into believing you're dying for a cause that transcends the Absurd, while ignoring how beautiful the meaningless is.

Of course ignorance is a way to survive too, but it's extremely irrational.

...

Profound statement.

Collective survival of the tribe. All sacrifice in war time can be linked to this. I guess you can move the goal post and say that this isn't altruism, but arguing what intentions are when the actions have a net positive gain is moot.

>The meaning of life
no such thing

>existential crisis

This only happens when you throw the truth out the window.

and altruism has an evolutionary basis, but philosophy fags like to pretend that its just a lie.

Altruism is as true as all breathing, its the converse that's the true lie, and its why the existential crisis begins. To throw out truth is to throw out meaning.

So if you find that you are suffering existentially then perhaps its time to re-evaluate what you believe and the life you live, its most likely delusion, nothing but an empty lie.

Don't get indoctrinated by nihilistic and post-modern philosophy, these are an intellectual philosophy, and you don't want to be an intellectual. You want to exist in the real world, not in your mind.

Not argument in any sense or form

Asking someone not to become an intellectual, and subsequently to think about the "truths" they are taught, is akin to asking someone to hold a gun they found to their head and assume that the person that left it there wouldn't have loaded it.

>post-modern philosophy
What do you mean by that?

Life has no meaning, but meaning has life.

Your fourth line is so close to nihilism as to make the next line very, very troll.

An intellectual is nothing more than an un-applied thinker.

Empathy is literally built in, we share empathy with those in our tribe. I mean you could argue what the meaning of true altruism is, as good for the tribe can extend to the self so it isn't truly for the good of the tribe, but that's just arguing semantics.

There is an evolutionary basis for morality too, it just seems that an existential crisis is generally caused by denial of objective truths like this.

The "all is subjective", "there is no meaning to anything" schools of thought.

That's like saying "be a decent person" makes it religious.

>The "all is subjective", "there is no meaning to anything" schools of thought.
Can you give me some names of such philosophers?

To be managed to restate the OP using very slightly different words.

You want a medal?

What a salad.

What is objective truth then, where is objective meaning derived?

>implying life has meaning

>Camus thread on Veeky Forums
We must imagine Sisyphus happy.

What if thatg makes me unhappy? Can I skip it?

Objective truth would be defined as self-evident truth. That which is the evidence of itself.

if you cannot imagine Sisyphus happy then you kys

Never said I couldn't, I said what if it makes me unhappy. Are you fucking autistic?

Such as?

If you honestly believe that he's happy and understand why, it can't make you unhappy. If you're unhappy with imagining Sisyphus happy then you're not actually imagining Sisyphus happy.

"what comes up must come down" Is a self evident truth but it's false. So what objective truth are you specifically referring to. The post I had originally responded to made a claim to knowledge. I just want them to explain.

Why does he deserve to be happy? He killed children and then feed them to people. Him being happy doesn't make me happy. I respect the idea that he could find joy in the punishment he is forced to endure but I makes me unhappy.

Did you not understand the reason why he usher the boulder?

You are missing the point entirely, close the computer and think.

>He killed children and then feed them to people. Him being happy doesn't make me happy. I respect the idea that he could find joy in the punishment he is forced to endure but I makes me unhappy.
haha what

If "what comes up must come down" is false then it's not a self-evident truth.

But if you instead say, "if you know what 'up' is, you must also know what 'down' is", then that is a self-evident truth. You can't know one without the other.

Other self-evident truths would be you know you're aware, because you're aware of being aware (ad infinitum). Or scientifically, rock is denser than gas. Mathematically, 2 is double of 1.

>"if you know what 'up' is, you must also know what 'down' is"
You seriously intend to claim that you can't know what up is without knowing what down is?

>2 is double of 1.
Math, being axiomatic, is only ever say I originally true, not objectively true.

"Say I originally" was meant to be "definitionally" my phone decided it shouldn't be.

>You seriously intend to claim that you can't know what up is without knowing what down is?

Absolutely, can you think of a situation where it's possible?

Yes there are axioms that need to be agreed upon which isn't self evident truth, but numbers also map to quantity which is self-evident truth. If I have one orange and you have two, it is self-evident that you have more oranges.

Yes, easily. How could you not? Down is to opposite of up definitionally sure, but deciding on what up is doesn't necessarily imply you know anything about the opposite direction let alone how it's reffered to.

>Absolutely, can you think of a situation where it's possible?


Monopoles.

Can you give an example where someone could know what 'up' is without knowing 'down'?

Could you know what a monopole is without knowing what a dipole is?

I agree I think monopole is a bad example. But you could define up without down by using a process that some sort of symmetry. See C,P,T violations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry

You cannot define up without down (or vice versa) because they are the opposites of the same thing. If you invoke one, you also invoke the other, it's logically impossible to get away from that.