Blog

(Post ID shown: 32)(Post Category: phil)

The answer to every question - it depends[Philosophy V5(/∞)]

Introduction

What is the meaning of life? Is there purpose in life? Is there an overarching ‘plan’ set in place by some deity? All questions asked over and over again; yet still there’s no consensus, no true answer, no ultimate answer – Yet there is: It depends.

‘It depends’ The ultimate answer to any question – philosophical or not. What is the meaning of life? From a purely logical perspective or Absurdist perspective there is none, no purpose to continual existence; Yet, to a Monk there is – to serve ‘God’, to a Humanist it is to create connections and share experiences,To the Stoic, it is to live in accordance with nature and reason — accepting pain but not being ruled by it.. Overall – it depends.

It depends on your views, your values, your ideals. A purely subjective idea across time – yet the truest answer one can offer. So is there an ultimate meaning to life, a plan? That is to be answered by you, for I have laid out in the following document various viewpoints to this ultimate question.

Viewpoint of Absurdism

In absurdism one believes life has no ultimate meaning, or in one phrase the idea of existence is absurd. This heavily links to the question of the meaning of life. In simple the absurdist believes there is no meaning to life, its continual existence is but a fact that changes nothing in the overall universe – and even if it did, the universe itself has no purpose.

Viewpoint of Science

From a scientific perspective we understand how life exists, how it came to exist. Yet science has no true answer to this question, it just knows that it does exist. While it may not try to answer it directly, extrapolating from this idea that life just exists, we can infer an answer similar to that of Absurdism – there is no true purpose, existence is a fact without cause, that continues to exist despite this fact, coming back to nihilism.

Viewpoint of Religion

From a Religious perspective there is an easy answer to this question, as religion’s entire purpose is to answer this question. This answer is well known: To serve a ‘plan’ set in place by a deity of some sort – often a god or goddess, but in rare cases demons or beasts(Like Satan or Apep) the two views differ further yet. To a believer in a god life’s purpose may be to serve that god’s purpose for humanity, yet to something like a Thanatist or a believer of Apep the meaning of life is to end it – to create chaos. So yet again we come to a common consensus: It depends.

Viewpoint of Stoicism

The viewpoint of stoicism is difficult to comprehend for any organism on this earth, yet even it offers a further varied viewpoint to the question of an ultimate meaning to life. Stoicism teaches that nature itself is both divine and purposeful — and the purpose of life is to live in harmony with that nature, simply to let nature take its course. While on the surface this might seem like a straightforward answer in of itself, it’s not. Stoicism’s belief that nature taking its course is purpose doesn’t define one important — and highly interlinked question: What is then the purpose of nature, of life? This is a question for yet another philosophical rambling, but yet again the answer becomes the same: it depends — on whether one finds meaning in nature, in life.

Conclusion

Yet through these different viewpoints, we’re yet again presented with a binary question: Does life have a purpose to begin with? Is it worth questioning what the purpose is, if it’s possible there isn’t one to begin with? If the purpose of life is simple to exist, a fact without purpose? Is there truly a question in the beginning? Yet again, this question can be answered by it depends — it depends on your viewpoint, your ideals, your happiness, your everything. There is no binary answer to any given question, it depends.

Date of writing: 2025-6-12

(Post ID shown: 19)(Post Category: phil)

Philosophy V4(/∞)

Can people deserve to die? A complex question posed by several over the years, can a crime be so terrible and vulgar that it warrants death? Homicide, Murder, death. Can a person truly be downright bad? Downright evil?
Maybe even more pressing is the issue of good Vs. evil, is there truly a bad and good? A good or evil? Is there truly a difference beyond the labels we assign each other? Is evil more than a construct we create to discriminate against those we see unfit, those we dislike, those we hate.
If some are evil and some are good, who decides that distinction? If one side says the other is evil, yet the other says the same is true for them, who decides? Who truly justifies what is good and evil? Who decides who has taken an action so bad to be labeled a devil and murdered, and who is labeled a saint and showered with glory.
Should Luigi Mangione be put to the block for (allegedly) killing someone commonly known as evil, and seen as a downright devil by some? Should those seeking justice for “evil” actions be held liable, even when some might see it as morally right?
Is someone who kills an evil a greater evil? Does death truly discourage those who are already desperate enough to kill for what they see as the greater good? Is it wrong to seek justice, To take matters into thy own hands? Or should vigilantism be praised with honor and hope?
Such questions have plagued the human mind for centuries, yet to be definitively answered, though the questions posed are important to the continued existence of humanity and its constructs.
Is order, good and evil, a mere facade, a scaffold we used to try to justify our continued existence? Is there such a thing as “justice” and not just a supposed system to maintain control and order? Is social hierarchy and discrimination any better than anarchy?
The order of hierarchy is subjective. Is it really better to have a society where some are born into wealth, and live a long prosperous life, while others, to no fault of their own, are born poor and live a short terrible life? I think not, but at the same time is the idea of pure anarchy, death, destruction, yet equal opportunity any better?

Date of writing: 2025-5-27

(Post ID shown: 18)(Post Category: phil)

Philosophy V3(/∞)

The ramblings of a madman some shall call, an insane rant from a retarded mind; But Philosophy is more, philosophy is questioning the very existence we live, our perception, our morals, our ethics, our humanity. Philosophy is everything. For thou may live a life of grandeur, yet philosophy still reaches thee, for Philosophy is universal, a constant, a reminder, of mortality, of death, of life, of murder, of suicide.
While I may not be a philosopher, the current state of the world is frightening; while thy assets may be in order, chaos nonetheless unfolds, the world in chaos, in madness. Yet we don’t question it–others anguish, pain, tears, we don’t spare a second though at the idea of homicide, suicide, genocide, we accept it, accept it as normal, as natural.
While nonetheless we’ll all die, death early is ultimately unneeded, a short life serves no purpose but to harm the minds of others.
While thou mind may not be preoccupied with such ponderings, nonetheless it’s an unyielding fact, a fact as set in stone as Athena Parthenos, unyielding, final, unchanged. The human mind, a misunderstood, unknown, and unhelpful existence; it serves no purpose to the world cut short, yet harms the world further in life.
A paradox, that’s what it is, an unknown, impossible scenario, yet at the same time present, possible, likely. Will the human existence continue? Should it continue? The continual existence harms the environment and world as a whole, yet the human mind is set on self preservation, on life, on prosperity.
So should the human race, the human mind, the human malice, anger, and harm continue? Should the world be subject to its unyielding horrors, or should it be cut short, with death, premature death, bittersweet death.
While death would be positive for the world overall, is it against the human condition to die, to be cut short? Or should we ignore the human condition, of hunger and malice, of greed and self preservation, and cut our lives short? Should we follow the thinking of Albert Camus or Arthur Schopenhauer? Of continued life, or death?
Should suicide be a choice? Penalized for wanting life to end? Or should it be accepted as normal, natural, wanted? Should we even consider it as an option when it harms the fragile minds of others, their illusion of life and death as discussed in Philosophy V2(/∞)? Or should we consider it taboo, unwanted, unneeded?
While death would benefit, it would also harm, suicide would harm the minds of others. So the dilemma still stands, should it be accepted or criminalized? Criminalizing it would decrease the likelihood of it, sure, but it would also take away the free will of life and death, suffering or blissful ignorance.
Penalizing people for committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is generally seen a good thing, sure banning it would make several people continue living, however is it truly worth living if that life is full of pain, sorrow, and depression?
On the other hand, allowing it openly would drastically decrease the population. Without the threat of punishment suicide would become much more common and accepted; but would allow for the freewill of life and death, it would allow those who feel like life isn’t worth living escape a terrible reality.
Would it benefit or harm? That question is a question yet to be definitively decided by the human race, yet to be pondered if life is truly worth living, if we’ll actually impact the world, the galaxy, the universe in a meaningful, lasting way, if our lives actually serve a purpose.
Purpose, yet another paradox, while some try to explain the purpose of the human race by ceding a plan given by deities, but these art yet false promises, false hope, not a true solution to the question posed; does the human race serve a purpose other than to exist?

Date of writing: 2025-5-27

(Post ID shown: 16)(Post Category: phil)

Philosophy V2(/∞)

Life tis but a fickle construct, an ever changing web of ideas and ideals, morals and morality, death and heartbreak–a construct, that’s all it is, a fragile thing, a scaffold per se. We will all die someday, whether by natural or unnatural causes–it will happen, it can not be prevented, so while we may not latibulate and cry in a corner at the idea of death, we just fudgel and pretend life will continue… until it stops, a sudden, unforeseen end–a final, irreversible end. We all will die one day, and we don’t bawl and shout “O but a day!”, we don’t react.Death, an ultimate, irreversible end; some crave it, some flee from it, but no matter who thou art, no matter thy wealth or thy religion, thou will die, and we all accept that, there’s no reverse, no savepoint, a final, unescapable end. Some may cry at the idea of death, at its suddenness and finality, but the fact is–we all will die, one way or another, it’s natural, it’s fine, there’s no reason to cry or mourn–tis but a construct, an idea, an ideal, that life is forever, unending, unyielding, but it’s not, all of our skin will rot, our body turn to oil and dirt, our minds gone to the wind, gone, erased forever, never to be seen again.

More opinions likes this should come soon, in the meantime you may want to look at similar works like Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus

Date of writing: 2025-5-26

(Post ID shown: 3)(Post Category: phil)

Philosophy

So... I may, or may not, be an atheist(Don't believe in gods/Religion). But that's besides the focus of this blog post. Today, we will be 'logically' analyzing the ten commandments in christianity; which are as follows:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.


Let's start with the first one 'You shall have no other gods before me.', Which... First, religious belief is a construct first believed to have been exhibited by Neanderthals in the Middle Paleolithic era(~250,000–40,000 years ago), as a way for them to describe natural events(Now properly explained by science) in a way understandable by the mind, to not drive them insane. So... this one is completely defunct as religion/deities is a construct, not an actual natural process.

Next is 'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.' Which... Since we already know religion is a construct, it is also null, void, and defunct; the same is also true for the third commandment, 'Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.' as religion is a construct and this action would use unneeded energy to serve no purpose.

Next is one some(AKA adults) may agree with, 'Honor your father and your mother.', but I don't. This commandment is mostly a matter of moral opinion, while it may be logical in some cases to cooperate with parents to accomplish goals, stay safe, and pass down ancestral knowledge, complete reliance on parent(s) can be harmful if children are not allowed some level of autonomy.

Now, we're getting into the serious ones, 'You shall not murder.' is the fifth commandment, and the most universally recognized one in ethics, while there's not a much as some of the others to unpack here there are some logical scenarios where this commandment would be illogical. One such example is the case of self-defence, universally banning killing would eliminate the right of a threatened citizen to protect themselves, and possibly lead to their death instead.

Great, we’ve reached the commandment that might get my blog DDoSed if I say the wrong thing. Good thing I’m using Cloudflare — so let’s dive in anyway! The sixth commandment is: 'You shall not commit adultery.' While many people treat this as a moral given, let’s apply some logic. First off, the concept of marriage is a cultural construct — there's no “natural law” that defines or enforces monogamy. Animals don’t sign marriage certificates, and human relationships have varied wildly across history and cultures. Secondly, strictly enforcing sexual exclusivity could, in a purely evolutionary sense, limit genetic diversity and population growth. While population control might have served a purpose in pre-industrial societies with limited resources, modern advancements arguably make such restrictions less necessary from a survival standpoint. That said, the emotional and social aspects of cheating still cause harm — but that's a separate issue from the commandment’s religious absolutism.

𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓈𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃

For those who say 'I don't care', I'd say you're a obfuscated, uncultured script kitten who codes in pure assembly for a 6502, using the default windows notepad, who shares their code on myspace, uses TempleOS dualbooted with MS-dos for daily use, still thinks SVB is a good investment, Whose idea of a 'backup' is flashing his data to a 3.5 inch floppy and sticking it to their fridge with a magnet, and on top of all that is running it all on a Famicom-via a mixed Lua, white space, and brainfuck emulation layer.

𝓑𝓪𝓬𝓴 𝓽𝓸 '𝓛𝓸𝓰𝓲𝓬'(Chaos)

Now, back from that short break the next is the seventh commandment 'You shall not steal' another quite interesting one. Like the sixth this is already well established moral idea, even outside of religion; However, there are still some very specific scenarios where stealing could be seen as moral, or even positive to the advancement of human-kind. One such example is the 'Robinhood' principle, where a weak, malnourished, or poor person steals, or has someone steal for them, to prevent starvation or death, such as in the Robinhood story(Though the commonly accepted version does not reflect the original text).

Next is the eighth commandment, 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor', or in a more modern readable form 'You shalt not lie'. Now this is one I can kind of get behind, completely iliminating lying from society would greatly increase Societal efficiency, after over half of big tech is shut down for breaking laws. Though allowing a small ammount of lying for things like temporary stopping emotional distress after a disaster where someone lost a loved one.

Now, the ninth 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife', or again in modern english 'You shouldn't be envious of other's wives'; And lets make a callback to the sixth commandment, based on the idea that marriage is a human constructed idea with no basis in nature there should be no different between 'looking' at your own wife, and someone eles's wife.

Finally, the tenth commandment 'You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.', or basically wanting what someone else has. In most cases this should be perfectly fine as causes no negative impact, and may actually increase productivity when someone tries to reach a specific goal. The only case where this would be a logical inclusion is in the edge case of violence being incited as a path towards a goal or someone's position in society

Date of writing: 2025-5-10