682
Anon reads nihilist philosophy (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (6 children)

Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective. Maybe a philosophy that teaches one to refuse a life without dignity is, in that context, correct philosophy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    Lots more community. Relationships and physical play (e.g. sports, theater, art, ritual, dance etc.) were the primary form of entertainment. Brains were capable of enduring in silence for 10 minutes without exploding in anxiety. Plant medicines were socially acceptable including "drugs".

    Yeah there were diseases, famines, wars, etc. But these weren't constant threats, often regional until empire developed with (inter)continental trade.

    People had joy and fulfillment, a bit of boredom, and many lacked effective contraceptives, so kids happened.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    when the world starts to really collapse in a few years we wont have to wonder

    people will be rationally offing themselves left and right

    governments response will be to make suicide extra illegal lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Rust Cohle explains why pretty well I think. Instinct, it's burned into enough of us that the few who come to that conclusion don't have any effect. And I agree with his solution

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    The fact that, evolutionarily speaking, it's easier to find lifeforms that have a strong survival instinct than lifeforms that question or reject it can be explained with two main reasons. First, assuming that evolution is performed by random adaptations that are then tested by the environment to see if they survive and their wielders reproduce, a lifeform that prioritizes a single task is more statistically probable to develop first than one that performs complex analysis of the environment and then chooses a reaction. Which is to say, dogmatic behavior developed long before critical thinking was even possible, and by the time the latter appeared, the survival instinct was already well baked into the very structure of the brain. Second, beings that prioritize survival tend to live longer than those that end up questioning the survival instinct, as the latter die more often for obvious reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Correct, but maladaptive and evolutionarily unfit...

    If you want to be entertained, you can watch True Detective Season 1. Someone brought up Rust, already.

    If you want to ruin your life in ten pages, the source is The Last Messiah by Zapffe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent