1

I want to state two points first:

  1. I do not find suicide as a possible solution for me. The last thing I would do is to kill myself, because I want to live forever.
  2. This is a philosophical question, “There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (Albert Camus)

My question:

How can I function after losing the basic sense of security that always kept me free from this dread and convinces me whenever I see reality gets someone, that I'm special? Therefore my destiny can't be like that neighbor who got blind or lost his arms. I lack the only thing that grants people this feeling of security, which is, self-esteem.

I define self-esteem as "the feeling that one is a valuable participant in a meaningful universe". Thanks to nihilism, there is no chance of participating in a meaningful project in order to gain self-esteem and mask the dread.

Now, if there were any reply to my question, it would probably include quotes from existentialists and how to deal with the absurd. I see these existentialists deceptive and misleading, as what they grasped only of the absurd is a literal superficial version enough to be made into some concept from which they gained their self-esteem, leaving others open to dread when they speak of their facts.

Community
  • 1
Themobisback
  • 650
  • 5
  • 13
  • 3
    It's possible to possess self-esteem (as you define it) but still acknowledge that tragedy could strike anyone at any moment. The universe can be meaningful in some ways but random in others. –  May 03 '18 at 02:53
  • 1
    I disagree with Camus: There are many serious questions about life and merely to ask whether life is worth even living is a the kind of hyperbole one might expect from a writer like Camus. It's definitely eye-catching. – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 03:30
  • The world that we live in is not the bare world of random and unpredictable events. Even there, every day the sun rises and sets; every year, we get winter, spring, summer and autumn; we live within the human artifice, the human mediated world, and within that habitus we find our meaning even when we 're moaning about the lack of meaning ... – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 03:33
  • You obviously don't grasp the difference between existentialists and absurdists, and your dismissal is a jumble. Why not, at a bare minimum read about them, before dismissing them? The sublime is as interesting as the absurd. Try this on how nihilism takes hold, and what generates the sense something is missing https://aeon.co/ideas/whence-comes-nihilism-the-uncanniest-of-all-guests – CriglCragl May 03 '18 at 03:42
  • 1
    @Craiglcragl: I've read Camus *Myth of Sisyphus* and his *Outsider* and I've seen the latter performed; I've also read Becketts *Waiting for Godot* and also seen that performed; I've also read Sartres *No Exit* and seen that performed too... – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 04:11
  • My response was taken from Heidegger and Arendt - something that seems to have escaped you. – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 04:13
  • Have you read Shakespeare's *Hamlet*? His famous speech beginning 'To be or not to be, that is the question?' posits the same question that Camus does but three centuries earlier. He doesn't answer it, and to be honest, neither does Camus. Or rather he does in the same vein that Beckett does: 'failed again, fail better'. ie Sisyphus. – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 04:17
  • @craiglcragl: I've read the Aeon article and to be honest they answer it in the same terms that I do: the human artifice and habitus; note how the author relies upon anthropology for his discussion; and if anthropology is anything, it is about the human world; If my brief response is a 'jumble' then so is his. – Mozibur Ullah May 03 '18 at 04:45
  • Google "existential angst" for lots of suggestions answering your subject question, e.g., https://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety/types/existential –  May 03 '18 at 07:48
  • @Themobisback: Some wise words on why our times are special https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/life-philosophy – CriglCragl May 09 '18 at 00:07
  • @MoziburUllah: If a comment is untagged it's directed at the post above. Does that not go without saying? Apparently not.. I am glad you have at least attempted to understand ideas before dismissing them, unlike the OP – CriglCragl May 09 '18 at 00:10

1 Answers1

1

This question of yours is full of dogmatic epistemic assertions:

I lack the only thing that grants people this feeling of security

Thanks to nihilism, there is no chance of participating in a meaningful project in order to gain self-esteem and mask the dread

Yet, you left yourself a little wiggle room here, emphasis mine:

if there were any reply to my question, it would probably include quotes from existentialists and how to deal with the absurd

Your appear to be unwilling to commit yourself completely to the dogmatic assertion that no meaning/truth/agency is possible, as evidenced by your use of the word 'probably.' This suggests to me you are still yet holding out the tiniest hope that someone can challenge your conclusions with something other than an existentialist argument which, for whatever reason, you find unconvincing.

More damning evidence that you haven't yet crossed the event horizon of the nihilistic black hole is the fact that you even asked the question in the first place. A true believer in the meaningless and randomness of existence wouldn't bother with asking this question, or any questions at all, really, because what's the point?

Since you have asked the question, expressed hope, and since I have something other than an existentialist argument, I'll explain how I get around it.

Nihilism, like all dogmatic philosophies, can be undermined by way of radical skepticism.

If you are to reject the dogmatic assertions about non-evident matters, like meaning, truth, agency, etc., on the basis that there seems to be no way to get knowledge of those things, even if they existed, then you must also reject the dogmatic assertions that meaning, truth, agency, etc., don't exist and that knowledge of them is impossible on exactly the same grounds.

By rejecting dogmatic assent on both ends of the claim, you opened up just enough room for possibility to slip through. Thus, you allow meaning, truth, agency, etc to remain on the table as live possibilities.

This mode of argument is not self-deception or superficial grasping; it is called equipollence and it is the skeptic way.

Community
  • 1
simpatico
  • 339
  • 1
  • 8