IIIIIIIIII's recent activity

  1. Comment on Against Netflix in ~tv

  2. Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk

    IIIIIIIIII
    (edited )
    Link
    I don't have much to add that you haven't covered, but I was reading the Problem of Evil Wikipedia article just before I read this, so a lot of the things you wrote resonated with me. I take...
    • Exemplary

    I don't have much to add that you haven't covered, but I was reading the Problem of Evil Wikipedia article just before I read this, so a lot of the things you wrote resonated with me.

    I take Epicurus's position on the whole first part of your essay - I think we can pretty safely do away with the concept of a god:

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

    I think I'm quite similar to you in outlook. The whole idea of existence is absurd. Everything we love withers and dies, nothing we do will be remembered, even if we can steel ourselves against pain we are forced to endure pain in the world second-hand through the suffering of others (and animals, and the planet).

    But here we are.

    I think my response to this is to take Camus' problem and answer it with Epicurus's solution.

    “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that."

    Camus sees this question of suicide as a natural response to an underlying reality, namely, that life is absurd. It is absurd to continually seek meaning in life when there is none; and it is absurd to hope for some form of continued existence after death, which results in our extinction. But Camus also thinks it absurd to try to know, understand, or explain the world, since he regards the attempt to gain rational knowledge as futile.

    Here Camus pits himself against science and philosophy, dismissing the claims of all forms of rational analysis: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh.” Camus sees this question of suicide as a natural response to an underlying reality, namely, that life is absurd.

    It is absurd to continually seek meaning in life when there is none; and it is absurd to hope for some form of continued existence after death, which results in our extinction. But Camus also thinks it absurd to try to know, understand, or explain the world, since he regards the attempt to gain rational knowledge as futile. Here Camus pits himself against science and philosophy, dismissing the claims of all forms of rational analysis: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh.”

    Seems quite bleak so far, but:

    In response to the lure of suicide, Camus counsels an intensely conscious and active non-resolution. Rejecting any hope of resolving the strain is also to reject despair. Indeed, it is possible, within and against these limits, to speak of happiness.

    “Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable”. It is not that discovering the absurd leads necessarily to happiness, but rather that acknowledging the absurd means also accepting human frailty, an awareness of our limitations, and the fact that we cannot help wishing to go beyond what is possible. These are all tokens of being fully alive. “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

    I suppose I've broadly found that to be true. I mostly read Epicurus (and, occasionally, Seneca's letters) in regards to dealing with Camus' diagnosis of the absurdity of life. I think Epicurus's philosophy is almost complete for me in regards to a course of action for what Camus identified. I don't need much to be happy. Even though I know the beautiful dog sleeping next to me will die, his companionship makes me very happy. Even though there's a genocide going on a short flight from my country and there's nothing I can do to stop it, I can acknowledge that pain - that evil - instead of pretending it doesn't exist. I read books that satisfy me, I watch movies that I like, I spend time with my friends, I eat meals I enjoy, and occasionally treat myself to ice cream.

    One of Epicurus's students, Philodemus, wrote:

    'Nothing to fear in God;
    Nothing to feel in Death;
    Good can be attained;
    Evil can be endured.'

    That's how I deal with the absurd. Well, that, and some of Tolkien's philosophy, even though he was a Catholic and I'm not. In Tolkien's created mythology, the chief deity granted death as a gift to men, alongside free will. Fearing death was a perversion of this gift by Morgoth (Sauron's bigger, badder predecessor) - pride of legacy and jealousy of time replaced gratitude of the flame of self-determination.

    Thousands of in-universe years later when the Rohirrim battled upon Pelennor, Théoden/Éomer's call of, "Death! Death!" was not simply a rallying cry, but an outright rejection of the discord of Morgoth, and an embrace of the gift of death - banishing the shadow in spirit before destroying it in body.

    No human in Tolkien's work has any fucking idea what's going to happen after death. There isn't a heaven, which I suppose would have been pretty tempting for a Catholic author to put in. Elves are bound to the world, immortal, and reborn from the Halls of Mandos. Especially in the Silmarillion, the immortal don't understand why humans are so averse to the concept of death. Elves are reborn and live through suffering until the world's ending. Humans die and... well, at least there's the possibility for rest, or respite, or simply not existing anymore.

    That's resonated with me for many years. I didn't care about suffering before I was born, I doubt I'll care after I die. I assume both states will be pretty much the same, except I might be more eager to die than be born by the time life is over. But while life is going on, fuck it, we ball.

    18 votes

  3. Comment on Deciding whether to continue with chemotherapy and immunotherapy in ~health

    IIIIIIIIII
    Link
    Dan, the only part I can empathise with really is having two medical teams fight over my care and not agree, with my primary physician saying 'well, let them sort it out.' There was a crucial...

    Dan, the only part I can empathise with really is having two medical teams fight over my care and not agree, with my primary physician saying 'well, let them sort it out.'

    There was a crucial difference in my case, though. It was being paid for by the state, and their end goal was to get me out of hospital, and back to work. If not in the job I was previously doing (active), then in an office. They were fighting to try and extract labour from me. It made me feel bad. I had no agency there. I felt helpless.

    I am really hoping you have agency in your situation. I am hoping you aren't beholden by medical debt or the pressures of working an extra six months to provide to your family.

    I am a simple person, and I often think about problems in terms of figuring out what the centre of gravity is. A problem's, if I want to 'attack' it, or my own, if I want to 'defend' some part of myself - making decisions about my heath is often about what is most important to defend, what is 'the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends.'

    From reading your writing, it sounds like it is very much quality of life and having agency in your death. From reading only the limited words you have here, that sounds like your centre of gravity. Defending that sounds very much like you have a guiding strategy for how you want to approach this.

    I have a feeling from observing family members in similar situations you might be overwhelmed by decision making with a lot of uncertainty. This is just presented as a suggestion, not as a dictation, but I have always found the concept of the OODA Loop very helpful when I need to make decisions in uncertainty and take action to advocate for what I want and need.

    I might be an indoctrinated hammer, and I might approach every problem like a nail, but using this framework has worked very well for me in life: to keep moving one has so many fast decisions to make without enough information and time. Here's some more info if you are interested.

    Lastly, I will miss you greatly. I have enjoyed reading what you have to write and though I am neither friend nor family, having strangers miss you because of your positive qualities I think is a mark of a well-lived life. I don't know what happens when we die, but I know that people will miss you. If there is something after this, I hope to see you there.

    7 votes