How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
I think one of the most common methods for dealing with purposelessness is distraction. Watch football. Get into an abusive relationship. Watch defamation trials in YouTube.
1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence?
2. How do you personally deal with it?
1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence?
2. How do you personally deal with it?
Comments (147)
Do you see passion as a kind of distraction? Or is it something different?
I've rarely thought that existence is meaningless in the sense that this idea would be unsettling. Meaning is found in daily living, relationships, caring for others and hobbies. I can't imagine that it is any different for people who believe in god/s. I've certainly met numerous suicidal Christians, without any purpose and this was not owing to a lack of faith.
Well, aside from subjective meanings any of us is free to derive, there may be a general purpose for which the whole system was put in place, and which would be quite difficult to guess.
Meaning what? Hinduism; Islam; Theosophy; Transcendental Idealism; UFO's; Simulation Theory??
Any theory will do, they're just theories, after all, just educated guesses.
These things are so complex that the very idea of humans coming up with good evidence seems rather unrealistic.
Could you expand?
What is meaningless about human existence? Maybe it's the conception of meaninglessness that is the distraction from just getting on with life and creating your own purposes and meanings.
Agree, good point.
That it's all for nothing.
:fire:
"The meaninglessness of life" is also meaningless.
What is all for nothing? What does that even mean?
says the Teacher.
Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.(C)
3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?(D)
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.(E)
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.(F)
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.(G)
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,(H)
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;(I)
there is nothing new under the sun.
None of you are fooling me
Once a month, I try to leave my mom's basement and meet people.
Self awareness is sometimes accompanied by pain, physically or emotionally. Maybe the first step is to deal with those things?
How is human existence "all for nothing"? My wife and children's and friends' existence is not all for nothing. Their existence everything to me, and if one's existence is everything to just one, then their existence cannot be all for nothing.
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," as the Bard said.
I'll put you down for "I don't understand the question."
No offense, but I was looking for the thoughts of people who are familiar with this particular issue.
A point is a valued end and since we humans are agents, it makes sense for us to want our acts, efforts, projects, and enterprises to have a point. Valued ends provide justifying reasons for our acts, efforts, projects, and enterprises. Ends lie separate from the acts and enterprises for which they provide a point (e.g., you build a hut because you value the shelter provided by the hut and you value the shelter because you value yourself and others). Since there can be no end external to one's entire life, since one's life includes all of one's ends, life as a whole cannot have a point. This doesn't mean that the acts, efforts or projects within a life can't have a point.... But life as a whole, which is a separate effort and enterprise of its own, cannot.
Since we live our lives and structure our living-a-human-life efforts both in parts and as a whole, it is fitting to be sad to recognize that bothering to live is pointless.
I am very familiar with the various reasons why people hold to this. I am also an atheist. I am asking why you have taken this view. If you wish not to discuss it, fine.
Quoting Chisholm
Never understood why it needs to be 'sad'.
Quoting Chisholm
I've always taken the view that living life is the point. Making meaning. Why do we need a foundational guarantee for purpose?
Quoting Tate
We are familiar with the issue. It's just we've solved the issue. It's not our problem you don't like, or understand, the solution. If you can't answer my question, then maybe you should put yourself down as not understanding the question or the issue. It sounds like you're regurgitating a mass delusion that human existence is meaningless.
To be fair, I think the question refers to there being no innate meaning to the universe.
I'm going to do some weeding.
We are here for a short time; some as little as 15 minutes, others as many as 115 years. As we age and get smarter, there is less time left to exist. Time is shorter. At 75, I figure the end of my life is maybe just around this or the next corner.
I'm happier now than I have ever been. I'm busy, I'm reading a lot of history. I listen to great music on the radio and internet. There's the small house and weedy lawn to look after.
Death, like an over-flowing stream
Sweeps us away; our life is but a dream,
an empty tale, a morning flower
cut down and withered in an hour.
Agree.
:fire:
:100:
:smirk:
:up:
Our "acts, efforts, projects and enterprises" do have points, though. Is it necessary that there should be some absolute point over and above those relative points in order for those relative points to be pointful?
Pollyanna!
Get with the times, man. The kids know there's no point to it all. They're joy-riding hotrods and smoking filterless cigarettes.
But I suppose a less flippant answer might reference Karl Durkheims anomie - the sense of drift, meaninglessness and absence of purpose that he posits is characteristic of modern cultures on a large scale. Its almost like we evolved through thousands of generations of incredibly difficult lives to the point where weve forgotten why. Perhaps if we had recall of how hard life was for all of those tens of thousands of years wed be less inclined to take the life we now have for granted.
I agree. Embracing pointlessness brings your attention into the pointless Now. A person might be resistant to doing that if the Now is a painful wasteland. You have to make Now into a blooming garden, which you won't do if you're focused on an external purpose.
Quoting Chisholm
All well said, thank you.
Does the word 'legacy,' hold any importance to you?
What about more emotive terms such as 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
Or are you more attracted to:
As long as you aren't lying to yourself. Some things you have to face and deal with.
Not to me, but I know that's the answer that some come to. Brian Green said he went into physics because he came across Camus, I think, as a young person.
That depends on how you define meaning. If meaning is the relationship between cause and effect then meaning is innate to the universe. In asking what the meaning of life is you are asking what caused life to exist and what purpose (which is just another type of cause as a prediction of future states based on one's goal in the present (final cause)) it has.
Does this mean that you accept the claim of legacy as the contribution or the basis of 'meaning' to the life of an individual is valid?
I don't think the idea of a meaningful life is based on there being causes and effects.
So what is it that you think people are asking when they ask what the meaning of life is if not what caused life and what effects the existence of life brings to the world?
I don't see the connection because causes and meaning. A ball falls if I release it from my hand. How is meaning derived from that?
Why don't you try answering the question about what people are asking when they are asking what the meaning of life is. What is meaning?
Psychological satisfaction.
I answered it. You did not understand it. Look, I am tired of the hostility on this forum, ok?
Have you not suggested an answer yourself. Meaning is a human measure of significance. A measure of profundity, which has a range from low to high, small to big!
I think you do not know what cause and effect means. You confuse cause with meaning. I think you would flunk an intro philosophy class. Your questions are formal and show lack of understanding.
Yes, he clearly did not comprehend.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting universenessThen meaning is equivalent to value? Each human places varying degrees of value on different things, therefore meaning cannot be something objective and asking others what the meaning of life is would be useless. You would never need to ask the question of others.
Yes, took you a long time to figure that out.
That is just your subjective opinion.
Ad hominems and intellectual dishonesty are not an argument against anything that I have said. You would flunk a class in logic.
No, I do very well in logic.
All you have to do is watch the news to see that the value of human life varies from individual to individual. Why don't you go ask a serial killer what the meaning of life is.
What news show are you referring to? Is this another opinion with no evidence presented again?
Why would I want to do that?
I post the relevant information. Something any philosopher knows how to do.
Why wouldn't you want to do that?
It's a personal value measure, yes, it's subjective, yes. Seeking personal meaning may be objectively true. I suppose you would have to see how many dissent from that before you could declare 'seeking meaning' to be objective. I don't think it's useless to ask others about their measures of meaning as it can help you judge what kind of relationship you might establish with them.
It is your issue not mine.
If 'seeking meaning' is seeking value then what makes a life valuable if not the effects it has on the world?
That sentence made no sense.
No, it's yours as you are the one that thinks that value and meaning are objective. If that were the case then a serial killer's values and meanings would be shared by you.
Quoting Jackson
I'm no longer interested in what you think.
I never said that.
Indeed. But others judge your 'meaning' or 'value' to the world or to their individual lives. You have the 'reluctant' hero, you have the 'good guy' in public who can be abusive to family members and a large myriad of other flavours also exist but I do think all humans seek meaning.
If you think asking questions is a form of hostility then maybe you shouldn't participate on a philosophy forum.
How is this any different from saying that others judge your 'meaning/value' based on your effects on the world and their individual lives? Meaning and one's judgement of it are mutually exclusive. Meaning exists where ever causes leave effects. Any judgement of those effects is based on one's individual goals. So in judging some meaning to be bad or good, they are projecting their own wants and needs on to meaning that already exists as inherent in the universe
Quoting universeness
Right. So meaning is something that exists prior to seeking it as it is something that is looked for and found in nature, and not created by the mind. Not all meaning is useful to one's life, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist apart from your own wants and needs.
Where is your proof of that? Just asking you a question.
In the definition I have provided for meaning as the relationship between cause and effect. The definition I have provided stems from my own observations of others asking questions about what something means and what they actually mean in asking what something means is what caused it to happen.
For instance, what do your words on this page mean? They mean your ideas and your intent to communicate them. If you didn't have any ideas or an intent to communicate them (the cause), would your worlds appear on this screen (the effect) for me to observe and read them? In reading your words (the effect) am I not attempting to get at your ideas (the cause)?
Its not different really but it is down to their interpretation of the 'effect' you have had on THE world or THEIR world. Which can be very different from your own personal assessment of your effects.
The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Does this also indicate that you think some meaning is useful to ones life?
Quoting Tate
Nothing distracts one from one's distractions. Ultimately, "meaninglessness" is just another distraction.
It's meaningless to "deal with it", so I don't.
Maybe death is the only way for total distraction from the the pointlessness of existence.
Life is presupposed with the pointlessness of existence. It is fundamental fate of life. Life cannot exist without the pointlessness of existence.
Not if meaning is subjective and interpretive. How can inherent meaning be subjective? If you are saying that the reason is that some interpretations of meaning are wrong or fall short of what you are labelling 'inherent and found in nature,' are these incorrect meanings not still created in real human minds. These human minds are physical parts of the natural world. A nazi will assign certain interpretive meaning to the label Jewish. Such personal assignment of meaning can be very destructive and very unjust. This happens also in your serial killer example and may be due to a malfunctioning brain.
Were such warped meanings not still CREATED in the real brains/minds of the people who constructed such.
Right. So we're not disagreeing that your actions have effects on the world (meaning), or that one can have an interpretation of those effects as being conductive to achieving their goals or inhibiting them. So meaning and it's interpretation as good or bad are two different things. Those effects exist prior to any interpretation. Unless you are saying that the interpretation of the effects is meaning which would mean that unless we share the same goals, we don't share the same meanings. If this is the case then when someone asks what the meaning of life is then you have to get at their goals in life to even know if your answer would be useful to them. Goals are simply ideas in the present that trigger effects like behaviors in an effort to realize the goal. Having a purpose, or goal, for something does not necessarily mean that you will achieve that purpose or goal. Even acting in such a way to achieve the goal or purpose doesn't necessarily mean you will achieve it either. Failure to achieve goals and purposes is something that should be considered.
Quoting universeness
A legacy is essentially the effects you leave behind.
Quoting universeness
Sure. Meaning and usefulness are mutually exclusive. Meaning is the relationship between causes and effects. Those relations are either useful or not depending on one's own goals. One's goals do not determine if some causal relation is meaningful. They determine which relationships are useful in achieving or inhibiting one's goals.
For instance, your words on this screen carry all sorts of meaning as the effects of numerous causes. Your words are caused by your ideas and your intent to communicate them. They are also caused by the language you learned and you level of understanding of English. By reading your words I can get at your ideas as well as your understanding of the language you are using - depending on my goals. Just because I may be more interested in your understanding of the English language does not mean that you words also do not carry meaning in that they refer to your ideas. Meaning is there in the causal relation between your idea and your words on this screen, but aren't useful to my goal in understanding your level of education with the English language.
If meaning were subjective and interpretive then how can we ever hope to communicate using scribbles on a screen? Wouldn't we have to have a common understanding of the meaning of the scribbles for us to communicate?
Take the tree rings in a tree stump. What do the tree rings mean? What does it even mean to ask that question? A botanist would say that the tree rings mean the age of the tree. Was the meaning projected by the botanists mind or something discovered by observation? If it was projected by the botanist's mind then I could project something different and then where would we be? Who would be right or wrong and would it even matter? In other words, if meaning is projected by the mind then I simply need to project from my mind and asking others would be pointless. If it is something that is observed then what would that be if not observing how tree rings (the effect) were created by how the tree grows throughout the year (the cause)? If this is the case then meaning is inherent in the causal relationship between how the tree grows and tree rings appearing in the tree stump. I would simply need to observe the causal relation and agree with the botanist, but there would be no reason for me to agree, or even ask the botanist's opinion, if meaning is projected by each mind.
You are confusing reference with meaning.
Still waiting for your proof.
To expand on this: One's legacy (the effect) is a result of one's actions (the causes) in life. As such you create your own meaning by your actions - hence life is not meaningless unless you take no action.
I have shown that the proof is in the way people use the word, "meaning" in that they are referring to a causal relationship. I think that universeness's mentioning of "legacy" and how one's actions affect the world and other people support this.
I have asked you what you believe others are referring to when they use the word, "meaning" and I'm still waiting on that.
I answered. You should have told me you did not understand it and I would have gladly explained.
Perhaps there is a subtle joining here of 'effect' and interpretation of that effect becoming a personalised meaning. I would prefer your last sentence above to read 'So effect and its interpretation as good or bad are two different things.' I am not sure the word 'meaning' rests as comfortably in your sentence as the word 'effect,' I don't see the word effect and meaning as synonymous
Quoting Harry Hindu
I concur with your first sentence here but yes meaning, because it can be very subjective and interpretive is garnished from effect. If an item falls towards me from a window and just misses me then once I know whos window it came from, I can interpret the meaning to be a deliberate act or accidental.
I need further investigation to know for sure but 'deliberate' or 'accidental' are both valid creations in my mind at the moment of the 'event.'
Should I care if my answer to "what is your meaning of life " is useful or not to another?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Good advice I think and I certainly apply it but I will still try, despite the risks if I perceive that goal to be very meaningful to me or to a group I identify with.
Quoting Harry Hindu
But surely the communication of my ideas, expressed in a common language between us are indicators toward my 'education with the English language.' I don't imagine it matters whether or not it comes from a self-taught source or an academically certificated source, as long as I am able to demonstrate my command of it to your satisfaction and if I can't then I would assume our communication would become less attractive to both of us.
Well 'scribbles on a screen' is a phrase intended to dilute the importance of the communication attempt or the communication method or perhaps both. We are social creatures, asking questions seems to be fundamental to our psyche and our 'seek meaning' imperative.
To me, your tree example speaks to how meaning becomes knowledge and finally widely and sometimes even universally accepted knowledge such as 'all humans are mortal.'
I am ok with all the interpretations of an event. Was that a comet or a 'star of Bethlehem etc.
When we are sure what interpretations/meanings are correct to most people than we accept them as truth. That's the only time knowledge should be committed to a science book.
A theist/theosophist can write any fable/personal interpretation of events in a religious text that he/she/personal gender wants but stop calling it the truth. I am personally convinced that counting tree rings does indicate the age of the tree.
When we can find majority agreement we can say that effect is meaningful enough to rename the proposal as knowledge. Meaning is therefore a carrier force. Like a gluon. Bonds quanta together into something more useful to all of us. Events.....meaningful interpretations.....knowledge. Life is good....and...meaningful.
I agree but it's also a continuum of how your legacy is interpreted by each new mind that encounters its forms of memorialisation and their view of the memorialised interpretations of others, about you.
Socrates has no personal memorialisations so we only assign personal meaning to his legacy through the interpretations others have made about him yet he remains an important figure in human history and to each new generation of humans.
For when the intutitive optimism like yours wears thin.
* * *
Quoting Harry Hindu
But you can't, don't, won't teach others your solution. You simply blame them. (So typical for religious/spiritual people and optimists.)
A view suitable for people who have pretty much ended their worldly efforts and are now just waiting for death, pleasantly.
But it's not possible to live with such an outlook when one still has a long way to go, because then such an outlook is counterproductive.
Chronic pain, among other things.
Social ostracism, disenfranchizement.
I see what you mean
Quoting ArielAssante
Right.
There's nothing to teach. You give meaning to your life by simply living. Of the millions, if not billions, of possible genetic combinations between your parents, you were the lucky one to have come into existence.
I'm not religious or spiritual. I can be an optimist as much as I can be a pessimist. I am a determinist. Your existence is determined given the conditions of this universe. Make the most of it.
Quoting baker
This explains a lot. From a chronic pessimist's POV everyone else is a "typical religious/spiritual people and optimists". It seems to me that a balance of optimism and pessimism is necessary for a better understanding of life's meaning.
A young person could die tomorrow. No one at any age knows how long they have. The point is to live each day like it's your last no matter how old you are.
I never said that meaning and the effect were synonymous. I said that the relationship between some effect and its causes is synonymous with meaning. As such, your interpretation is the effect of the interaction of the observed effect (like words on this screen or tree rings in a tree stump) with your memory and goals. So effects are also the causes of subsequent effects (infinitely?). As such, the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.
Quoting universeness
Exactly. You interpret the meaning. Interpretation and meaning are different things. Again, the interpretation is just the effect. The meaning is the relationship between your interpretation and some other causal relation. Your interpretation is the act of discovering that relationship between the item falling and its cause.
Quoting universeness
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that scribbles on a screen are what is interpreted, and the act of interpreting is discovering the cause of the scribbles on the screen - specifically the idea in the head of the author that produced the scribbles.
Quoting universeness
No, not how meaning becomes knowledge. It's how interpretations become knowledge - another causal relation, or meaning.
Quoting universeness
We don't necessarily need to prove to others our own interpretations for our interpretations to work for us. We test other's interpretations to see if they work for us. It's not in the number of people that believe it. It's if it has been tested by each individual to see if it works for them, not the fact that someone simply claimed what their interpretation is and is accepted by everyone without everyone testing it for themselves. Common knowledge exists as a result of others trying on others' interpretations, not simply taking others at their word.
Quoting universeness
Do you need others to interpret your legacy for your life to have meaning? Are you saying that your life's meaning is dependent upon others' interpretation of your actions? Or can you give your life meaning by interpreting your own actions and their subsequent effects on the world (which includes other people)?
Yes you did.
Why?
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
One can only therefore consider it as having decorative value. So try not to put ugly posts here chaps, it lowers the tone, spoils the pattern. We are born and die like flowers, so try to look pretty and smell nice if you can, while you can. Don't expect meaning, but go for beauty.
Just like a Disney movie for children.
Yes! Disney films are beautiful so why do you sneer? Do you think it grown up and clever to be miserable and unpleasant? It isn't.
I did not say that. But lying about suffering is always a bad idea.
Wow, if you're a child.
Question it. Whos to say that existence is pointless? What led you to accept that belief as true? What was the criterion on which you accepted that conclusion? Is your own criterion in that regard infallible?
If existence is pointless then why not create one's own meaning to the fullest possible extent? Replace God with political leaders. Create an enemy to contrast oneself to. Do everything possible to unlearn the bullshit religious morals that one has been taught.
At least have the courage to address someone directly. Bad form.
I was thinking about that. Life as a kind of art. Mine hasn't been too graceful lately, but it's authentic. All the world's a stage.
That's ok. It's still all vanity.
Are you so preoccupied with the idea of the pointlessness of existence that you need to distract yourself?
Can't you just not think about it? There's nothing else to do. Turning your mind to something else is just avoiding thinking about it. In fact, it strengths it up. It's like it is stronger than you and it wins. Being possessed by it, fighting it, and in general opposing it, you make it stronger.
I believe the best "medicine" for something that you don't like and you really cannot do anything about it, is to accept it. Once and for all. You can talk about it as I am talking to you right know, from a neutral, unbound, independent viewpoint. In the same way in which you have accepted and are addressing other things concerning life, politics, society, and so on.
Accepting something as a fact, fully and truly, you make the idea of it disappear.
No, I'm good.
If you are saying that an individual's own life experience or/and their own (perhaps even subconscious) bias can influence how they interpret an event and what (and how) the event was caused, then I think there are certainly cases where this is true. I don't think it's true in all cases ( I am not suggesting you do think so.)
Even scientists have been known to push a particular interpretation and downplay any counter-evidence, even if they know the counter-evidence seriously compromises their findings.
This can be a question of your own morality or it could be that the meaning you garnered was just flawed interpretation.
Quoting Harry Hindu
My comment was based on your use of 'scribbles on a screen,' which invokes a careless attempt at communication. This invokes quite a different image to a term like 'relaying your musings/contemplations/scientific findings to others.'
Quoting Harry Hindu
You yourself stated that 'the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.' This suggests to me that you propose 'meaning' is a composite of two sub-terms, interpretation and 'observed effect.' Meaning is (according to you) an umbrella term. Meaning would then be the term that can become 'knowledge,' not one of your suggested sub-terms.
Quoting Harry Hindu
True but we do need to if we require/seek their support.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree and I also strongly advocate against 'simply taking others at their word.' Check all sources!
Quoting Harry Hindu
Depends on what my personal missions were/are in life. How much my intentions depended on the support of others.
You must always self-analyze your own intent and hopefully resist any temptation at self-aggrandisement or recognise any narcissistic or egotistical tendencies you have.
At times this can be difficult to maintain 100% especially when your dissenters/enemies may be ruthless.
For me, fighting against the nefarious gives me great meaning in my life and is in fact very very life affirming. I will leave the antinatalists and their like to concern themselves about the meaningless lives they sadly feel they are living.
The grass is seemingly greener on the other side of the fence and any satisfaction is temporary, attendant on a never ending work to sustain it. Sisyphus rolls his rock against the flows of entropy.
Then bring in misfortune and suffering. Nature demands that we satisfy our needs all the while denying the means to satisfy those needs. How could the centrality of life become inescapable pain and suffering? Perhaps the default of the human condition is one of want and its itchy and uncomfortable and we are tired of having to put salve on it every morning.
But maybe the salve is like heroin and you're having the ride of your life.
Even Jesus felt betrayed by God.
:up:
"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister
Good question!
This is the paradox: We look for the meaning of life in God, but we believe in human arguments that life is meaningless. That's like loving Jane, but marrying Sarah! :snicker:
It's not like we're at a philosophy discussion forum, Deepak.
Of course you still engage, but you can do it with a lightness (for the lack of a better word) that people who are still in the rat race can't.
That's the vantage point, yes.
[quote=Gloucester (King Lear)]As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.[/quote]
Pinocchio the puppet did become a real boy, eventually.
[quote=Lt. Worf (Star Trek)]We killed them (Klingon gods). They were more trouble than they were worth.[/quote]
because they don't exist, apart from as projections of human behaviour within our storytelling traditions.
--Jung
C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works)
Human existence isnt meaningless, so theres no need to deal with it.
Which is an interpretation. If you want to interpret life that way, youll find plenty of evidence.
Just as if you interpret human beings are inherently selfish, sinful, and violent.
Or interpreting the glass as half empty.
Its not that any of these interpretations are wrong its simply that its not the whole story. Whats more interesting to me is the psychological aspects of why your mind emphasizes one aspect over another.
At that point we get into temperament, family dynamics, upbringing, culture, attitudes, habit, etc. These factors help explain ones negative/nihilistic perceptions.
Who says we should take as a given that life is meaningless? Life isnt meaningless.
I think we can add meaning to life and I think we can have a purpose but ultimately I don't see to pros out weighing the cons .
So you had a good paying job and you accomplished a lot in your time , let's say you had a great wife and kids too
But evidently what you did in the work world will be out did or done away with or forgotten and so will you and the things you did
And you might of had the beautiful wife but you had no choice but to watch that beauty leaver her along with her youth as she aged and because a frail old woman and the pain of watching that happen,
And yes you had the joy of raising your kids and seeing them learn as they grow up but you also had to watch them go through all the pain and suffering that is inevitable as a person becomes an adult and then you have only memories of when they were innocent little babies that thought the world of you and your lucky if they don't hate you for some reason once they're an adult
And then you are forgotten about and not included in your grand kids lives because your just to old and eventually you have to see your love and other half die then your alone ,
Then you die
And for what ? How is that justified?
There's no god and no mission for you to do for said God
Life is just life .
Not everyone is bothered by the purported pointlessness of life. Even philosophers - the people who seem most concerned about points points to this, points to that, etc. - seem rather blasé about it. Perhaps the futility of the enterprise has hit home! The consensus being there ain't a point, why look for something that ain't there? That would be madness, oui monsieur?