Why not be happy right now? The right way to go about it is that you tell yourself "I am pursuing my goal and I am happy, right now, to do so." It is incredible how this changes the quality of life, plus you can detect problems with yourself and the environment early because if you can't be happy with your present situation at all, it's time to change something.

I often get on peoples' nerves by asking 'why?', until they realize something I've seen coming two hours earlier not because I'm a genius, but simply because I'm used to thinking ahead and exploring the possibilities. I've been doing that long enough (was raised that way) so that it happens automatically and very, very quickly.

I don't mean to be harsh, but this is the only way I can describe it: I think it's because they actually don't have well thought out reasons for lots of the things they do, and they don't want that exposed because it could weaken their already shaky worldview because then they'd be standing on shifting sand, not a stable bedrock of unquestioned ideas.

So they just continue accumulating possessions like the happy people in the movies do, ignoring the mounting evidence that these things haven't made them happy in the past, but just one more possession, maybe that'll be the one before I happily drive off into the sunset with the end credits rolling.

Maybe I'm rambling, but I struggle to understand why some people keep doing the same things and expecting a different outcome, and asking them "why?" rarely seems to elicit a well thought out answer. The answer in the end just seems to come down to, "because that's what I do".

Some people are not introspective. As an introspective person myself, I always attempt to understand why I do what I do, admittedly that can be draining at times and doesn't always come up with meaningful answers, but I'd personally prefer to at least attempt than to wander around in wilful ignorance.

Being introspective is intellectually challenging and rewarding but can also lead to a lot of frustration and dilemmas. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable. It is required though.

Precisely. To the best of our knowledge, we're just robots. There is no meaning behind the universe, it just kinda, is.

The realization that the only sense you can find in life is the one you create yourself, makes a lot of things clearer. This is also why it should be irrelevant that life is meaningless, since what do you care about the true meaning of life (which probably doesn't even exist) once you found something better, more satisfying, that you can cope with and develop in?

I have two problems with this realization(not that it makes it any less true).

First, anything truly goes then and we are back to "might is right". Any state/laws some subset of humanity creates is no less right than any other subset of humanity which includes various levels of psychopaths.

First problem is not such a bad one as long as your own morale code more or less coincides with the society in which you reside.

Second problem is more personal. How do you choose what is meaningful given how truly short the life is?

At 40+ I realize that life can end with a whimper at any moment.

Barring some truly Kurzweilian breakthrough 40 more years of enjoyment is most I can hope for.

I truly enjoy the little pleasures of life parenthood, food, drink, chess, biking and so on. At the end of the day, you realize there is no hope of working on that unsolved math problem, that huge programming project, that great novel.

Unfortunately there is so little time and no time for any grand works unless you already showed some promise at early age (ala Thompson).

So far the only solution is somehow to delude yourself that what you are doing is meaningful to you.

1) First, an old parable:

When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.

2) If I've learned one thing, its that without other people, life is largely meaningless, or at least, a very much great deal emptier. As such, I do not think it is a logical gap to say that therefore, a large component of the "meaning" of life, lies in one's interactions with other people.

It may mean sacrificing other things in life to accomplish, but if that's what makes you happy, the sacrifice shouldn't be a big deal. If making that sacrifice is too great, then it isn't what REALLY makes you happy, is it?

Now the "do whatever I want" thing works for a short period of time, but at some point you get to the end of the doing everything you want, and realize if you shit on everyone around you, you still aren't happy. And if you don't come to that realization... well... the rest of society is going to figure out how to deal with you and you probably aren't going to like that. not doing bad is just as much about self-preservation as anything else for those people who don't have a moral compass.

So that great novel it is not going to happen unless you have written a fair share of good short stories in your twenties.

That huge programming project again unless you've mastered your chosen language and the domain space, you are just going to be dissapointed.

There are many things that make me happy, but there are no grand plans left.

Trivial example: I took 6 months of daily Duolingo practice in German to keep up with my daughter. I was making some progress but it was slower than hers. It became apparent that unless I dedicated myself fully to study I would not be able to read Grimm's fairy tales much less Kant.

It is as Stephenson wrote: "Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. if my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad."

Well, there are several artists that started out of nowhere in their 30s or 40s or even 50+. Especially in novel writing, this has been quite common.

Only one who comes to mind as far as writing goes is Chandler, but he must have done his own share of writing (oil business in 1920/30s must have required some writing)before that.

Joseph Conrad is another interesting case mastering English in his late 20s.

My premise: To be great you have to perspire early with some talent thrown in.

Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.

Again, I'd love to hear more counterexamples of old age mastery of something started in your 30s.

Burroughs published his first noval at 39. He had just written a few articles until then.

Walt Whitman first published a poetry book at 36.

Toni Morrison wrote her first novel at 39.

Bram Stoker wrote Dracula around 50. He worked as a public servant before, and wrote theatre reviews.

Anthony Burgess (of Clockwork Orange fame) first published at 39.

Raymond Chandler worked as a businessman (in the oil industry IIRC) and started writing novels at 51.

Wallace Stevens, celebrated poet, worked office jobs, and first published at 35, but his best work was done in his 50s. He went on to win the Pulitzer price at 75.

Beatrix Potter wrote her first book at 35.

Jules Verne, who went on to write tons of classics, started at 35.

Ian Flemming worked as a spy in Britain, and only started writing his books (James Bond) when he was 44.

In another genre, Martin Rev released his first album (with Suicide) at 39, Leonard Cohen started as a singer/songwriter at 33, and Vi Subversa (nee Frances Sokolov), started singing and performing as the vocalist of the influential Poison Girls punk band at the tender age of 44, and as a mother of two.

>Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.

That presupposes that you need to. Modern painters don't need to learn to learn to paint like Michalangelo to express themselves (and many don't know), modern musicians don't need to go into classical training or even know the scales (e.g. somebody like DJ Shadow and tons of others).

As for writing, it can be more about sensitivity to details and having an interesting story or viewpoint to express, than mastering some genre rules. One can learn most about writing from having read a lot (which is also what most writers advise young writers to do).

Kind of like how you don't need to study CS and study TAoCP to learn to program and write something useful. There are stories that picked up programming later in life and went on to write succesful apps and open source projects.

Jules Verne is one of my favorite childhood writers thus I knew he had an early start.

Wikipedia concurs: By 1847, when Verne was 19, he had taken seriously to writing long works in the style of Victor Hugo, beginning Un prêtre en 1839 and seeing two verse tragedies, Alexandre VI and La Conspiration des poudres (The Gunpowder Plot), to completion.

Same deal with Bukowski, sure he had not written a novel but he knew he was a writer much earlier + plus he devoured the whole library ages 15-24.

Same deal with Fleming: His wartime service and his career as a journalist provided much of the background, detail and depth of the James Bond novels. Emphasis on being a journalist.

Still writing is indeed one of those fields where you can get by with not being fluent in your skill as long as you got a good editor.

Programming is the same thing, you can write a decently sized program without knowing the language and its idioms very well but it is oh so painful.

So yes you can achieve outside success in some craft without being really gifted/skilled but that's not the same thing as achieving proficiency and being in flow. Yeah you can fake being a modern painter but someone like Rothko or Pollack had the early classical training.

My lament is that past the age 40 you can not achieve proficiency in some new craft that you have taken up. There are no neurosurgeons who started at 40.

You have to settle for less, pick your battles very carefully and delude yourself with special prizes.

Your second point comes at an interesting point in time: if general robotization works out on the scale that's being talked about right now, jobs for humans will fall off a very big cliff. Meaning, current education systems, whose sole purpose is to pump out hard-working, quick-spending bureau apes, will become utterly useless. I was lucky enough to go to a very good school, and even there, we never learned to think. We learned more algebra or languages or what-have-you than the vast majority of other schools (which I could confirm in the first week of uni), but nobody ever told us what to do with all that. It's not in the program, because all you're wanted for is keeping the system running. No need to think outside the box, here.

Frankly, I don't see how humanity can not crumble into a fucktillion little pieces if we don't give the coming generations something to do. And I think thinking is something we lack hugely, so that would be a good thing. Now, the ablity to think doesn't pop up in your head one sunny afternoon. It has to be taught, by the parents, by the schools, by society. That means fuck adverts. Fuck legalese. Fuck politicians. Fuck expensive action movies. Fuck all the things that are meant to keep you from thinking.

I can delude myself that I have Free Will by choosing to take a vacation next week. Then I could flip a coin to decide my destination between Singapore and Bangkok.

Sure it was all deterministic at some level but the illusion was good enough for me.

To declare that "everything is choice" strikes me as putting one's beliefs ahead of inquiry.

Remember that mathematics is just a model, not the territory. For starters, you have incompleteness; for any formal system you can make true statements that are unprovable. Additionally, two constructs which are central to mathematical analysis, infinity and truth, don't exist.

For hundreds of years epicycles were used to model the orbits of the planets. Now we're elevating grand theories that embed the universe in an 11-dimensional manifold.

Due to Bell's theorem, we know that either there is inherent uncertainty in the universe, or the whole bedrock of science gets called into question. If properly informed by physics, the view that we are robots must follow from the view that the uncertainty in nature is uncontrolled, i.e. purely random according to some distribution. Given that we have a subjective experience of choice, this presents the alternate hypothesis that the uncertainty is the result of choice constrained by preference. These aren't the only two possible hypotheses, but remember that all hidden variable models have been effectively ruled out, so no deterministic hypothesis is permissible. I would of course love to hear any plausible alternatives you could present.

In short, I don't think telling someone to find their own meaning would necessarily lead to hedonism.

The only thing I don't get is why more people don't do it. People walk around with all sorts of hangups and narratives about why they're denying themselves and they take these to the grave with them. I'd much rather overindulge until I'm bursting at the seams and then having learned where my limit is, dial it back from there. Much fewer regrets in the long run.

The problem for me personally is that hedonism, while fun for maybe a couple of hours, inevitably leads to more complications and suffering than happiness over the next day, the next week or the next year.

A more measured, but peaceful life with many smaller (not big enough to be disruptive) happy moments has been my solution and I've mostly been satisfied with that.

The new translations seem to mean something more like what you note here, rather than what we, westerners would call happiness.

And it's a much better goal in life, isn't it?

Kids get raised being told they can buy stuff that'll make them happy, and it's only when you become an adult and get a bunch of real world thrown your way that you get the chance to realize how much crap that is actually worth. And yet the majority of the western population doesn't seem to understand that you can't buy happiness. Sure, it's nice to have central heating and a full fridge, but these would make less fortunate people extremely happy! For a while, until the pipes bust and you need to make the guy come 'round to fix them.

Still, heating and fridging have at least some intrinsic value. They keep you from freezing over during sleep and keep your food from rotting. But everything else, after the initial surge of serotonin or whatever other hormone, just becomes part of the annoyances that keep you going throughout the day. At best, it blends into the furniture, so that you forget you have it and buy it again.

There is something seriously wrong with our lifestyle, but it's not clear to me how it can be fixed peacefully. Or violently. Or at all. Because human nature led to this, and how are we supposed to overcome that?

Winning at life is a process, not an event or a one-off result. It can be anything from really enjoying a hot chocolate while watching a sunrise, to nailing a product demo, to that first (or third) date with your crush.

Winning at life is not something you can be 'done with', except maybe by dwelling on and reliving past wins. But then isn't that a kind of winning, too?

I would experiment with the hypothesis that perceiving value and experiencing it as such are skills you lack but others possess, that may be improved through deliberate practice.

No experimentation necessary, it's blatantly clear that's the case.

that may be improved through deliberate practice

Perhaps. Or maybe it's just trying to distract yourself from reality through what are commonly accepted "values." Hard to know. I read all those studies about "happiness" coming from great relationships, and family etc...

None of them question why happiness is a virtue - it's as though it's implied that hedonism qua epicureanism is preferential. That's what I can't get past.

Happiness as virtue is not universal, maybe you need some more time abroad. I know you said you visited 100 countries but visiting 100 countries and living in another country for many years is quite a different thing. Or maybe you just need different friends or perhaps a meditation practice, I don't know.

I'll leave you with this 2 minute video from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, "Why Be Happy When You Could Be Interesting?": https://youtu.be/U88jj6PSD7w

"The globe-trotter lives in a smaller world than the peasant. He is always breathing, an air of locality. London is a place, to be compared to Chicago; Chicago is a place, to be compared to Timbuctoo. But Timbuctoo is not a place, since there, at least, live men who regard it as the universe, and breathe, not an air of locality, but the winds of the world. The man in the saloon steamer has seen all the races of men, and he is thinking of the things that divide men — diet, dress, decorum, rings in the nose as in Africa, or in the ears as in Europe, blue paint among the ancients, or red paint among the modern Britons. The man in the cabbage field has seen nothing at all; but he is thinking of the things that unite men — hunger and babies, and the beauty of women, and the promise or menace of the sky."

- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/heretics.iii.html

Yup. I blame their constitution.

You haven't met a lot of French people :-)

Nothing ever asks the question "why be happy anyway?"

Seems like it's as bad of a goal as any, but it's how our biological systems create action.

You can really overthink this stuff pretty easily

It's a cynical answer under a cloak of "experience." Might as well just say, because god wants us to be happy.

I've done tons of extremely stupid things just to do them, but I genuinely don't care or really give a shit. They're just "things" that I've done. I've never really understood how people genuinely enjoy things like skiing, hiking, skydiving. Ive done them just fine and meh.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-per...

I don't know you, and I wouldn't presume to know anything about you other than what you've revealed in your comments, but what I can say is that you've been handed enough lego blocks to build anything you want to, and it seems like you've set them aside because they're not the specific blocks that you had in mind to build the thing that you envisioned at some point in the past.

No one automatically receives happiness. But you have an obligation to work on yourself, to do better than you seem to be doing, at building a happy self out of the life that you've made. That obligation is a result of choices you've made to build a family. Like it or not, you owe it to your wife and children to do the extra work of finding the meaning and sense of significance that is absolutely there waiting to be uncovered by you, and put to use by you.

All of the extrinsic life experiences you've mentioned in your comments do not entitle you to wait for something to click, to be more than a 'yawning void of nothing'.

If what you're talking about is something that you face no matter how many good, wise, smart moves that you make, then you may need to face the reality that you need treatment for depression or some other issue.

No amount of travel or physical trials that you've put yourself through can supplant the reality that you can build for yourself by simply looking inward. In fact, it seems as though by constantly abstracting the search into various physical or worldly concerns, you've done the opposite.

Happiness and fulfillment are moving targets. Personally, I suspect that I may never get all the way there. But I've spent some time on the road you're describing, and I know it's a dead end road. It's ego, it's self-indulgence, it's blame, it's a withering loneliness that makes you a small island, one that can be described in just a few seconds with cliches, easily traversed by foot, and forgotten or ignored by others.

Whether or not you're clinically depressed, you should probably work on the quality of your relationships. Are there people that you can authentically connect with? If not, find them. They're out there. Are there people with whom your connection leaves you feeling bad or more isolated? Get rid of them. Are there people that you keep trying to connect with but it doesn't happen? Stop trying, and refocus your energy on authentic connections. Are there superficial connections that satisfy some social or validating urge that you have? Figure out whether your relationships with those people can be evolved into authentic, meaningful connections or not, and work on the good ones and discard the bad ones.

It's an absolute tragedy to waste all of the time and beautiful experiences and memories that you could be accumulating with all of the people in your life, for lack of addressing a few relatively simple and totally fixable issues.

Not only family but I have a high stress business to run and people counting on me! Thanks for taking the time to write that out though.

In reality, all you write is correct generally. This wasn't intended to be a mini-therapy session, but for what it's worth the same message you state: "Happiness comes from inside" has been repeated to me literally as far back as I can remember. It's not practical though.

I've had probably a dozen therapists over the years, found mentors I looked up to, tried to find meaningful relationships with peers, studied what fulfillment is etc...A few years ago I came to the conclusion that searching for "happiness" in all of these things was just not working. And beyond that the fact of the search turning up dry is a compounding problem.

I'm not sure what happened, but as Rodney Dangerfield called it "The Heaviness[1]" is getting bigger.

But I've spent some time on the road you're describing, and I know it's a dead end road.

I'm curious what "road" that is?

waste all of the time and beautiful experiences and memories that you could be accumulating

Is there value in accumulating experiences? I mean I've accumulated a shitload of them, the problem is there isn't anything to do with them. It's like saving Polaroids. Is there a reason to other than looking at them again for a serotonin bump?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zdjYmhrA-A

This is not necessarily bad. It can, in fact, be a virtue. With true nihilism, comes true freedom to do anything. Right now happiness is the greatest unifying force in our society. Everyone has to be happy. It's a dictum you listen to from birth to death. Be happy. Acquire things. Do this, do that, give us money, spend spend, make more, spend more. It will make you happy. And you want to be happy because we all told you that happiness must be your ultimate goal in life.

Fuck that. There's no need to be happy. Do whatever you want.

As the great Keanu Reeves once said: "You need to be happy to live, I don't"

Passive nihilism can be found in Schopenhauer, Zen, Buddhism, Vedanta, detachment from the self and the fulfillment of idle fantasies [desire]. It is related to a monastic/ascetic lifestyle and can be very hard to deal with or fully espouse when one lives an active life inside modern western society (too many distractions).

Active nihilism is best described by Nietzsche, in his concept of the Ubermensch or the Antichrist. This is a strong individual who creates and projects his own morals, imposing his own Will upon the world whilst living his own life as a work of art. John C. Lilly's concept of metaprogramming and various mystical "systems" can also be seen as forms of this discipline.

The fundamental problem is "desire", of any sort, which stems from the Ego. Individuals who, through circumstances or deliberate means, manage to chip away at the Ego, pretty much all go through this "dark night of the soul".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

Have you read Nietzsche? His concept of the Übermensch is particularly useful I feel.

Also John C. Lilly and his concept of metaprogramming. If all that can be said to exist is the Void, then the first step to finding peace, is to give yourself fully to it. On this, the occultist Aleister Crowley used the concept of Babalon which exacts a heavy price (the blood of the adept, meaning his self-identity).

When that realization sets in and there is no fixed "I" there anymore, everything becomes easier.

One becomes what one imagines...

Writing this as someone who went through SCUBA training (but never took the open water dive) and also went through an intensive private pilot training course (but never went on the check ride), I feel a sort of kinship here.

Have you tried CBT or REBT? (REBT has the word "rational" right in it).

The premise is that our thoughts can sometimes put unreasonable demands and pressure on us which results in nasty emotional consequence. You can give REBT a test drive via a few sample chapters from a reputable author here: http://threeminutetherapy.com/my-book-three-minute-therapy

Another useful book is: How to Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable about Anything: Yes Anything! https://www.amazon.com/Refuse-Yourself-Miserable-about-Anyth...

Then there's meditation. It's not all yoga pants and spiritual mumbo jumbo. I've described a simple method here: https://medium.com/@John_Chacho/engaging-the-senses-to-quiet...

These aren't magic solutions. My brain resists this stuff with ninja-like elusiveness, but when I remember to practice it, it does steady my outlook and behavior.

In short, the various CBT methods combined with meditation can turn the confrontation with the "yawning void of nothing" into a peaceful, sometimes even joyful experience.

The authors of the REBT books I mentioned are at odds with most everyone other type of therapy. One of the books strongly critiques psycho analysis (searching one's past for psychological wounds) and concepts like AA. For this reason (being at odds with other therapies) the authors recommended therapists that specialize in cognitive behavior therapy alone to get the maximum benefit. Again there are slightly different therapies: CBT, CEBT, REBT, DBT - I don't make a distinction that I probably should.

In essence it's about getting in the habit of talking to your brain, interrupting a thought that can easily become a habitual pattern, and disputing what one thinks by default. It's a search for evidence for the thoughts we believe without question because they come from our own brain.

In a conversational sense it's a bit like separating yourself from your thoughts and telling your brain: "That's an interesting thought. It's ridiculous because there is no evidence to support it and it's self-defeating because all it does is harm my mood - but it's interesting. In all the ocean of thoughts that are available you bring me that? How about you go back to the well and bring me something constructive, positive, or at least funny. I don't have time for nonsense."

What I find useful - and again I've only read books about these techniques - is that they can also be applied to negative people in my life. It works externally just as well as it does internally.

When something is hard and you can't manage to get the desired result no matter how hard you try, consider that rather than to keep working 'hard', you just try something different.

I know you haven't (and couldn't, on this forum) encapsulated the breadth of all of the things you've tried to overcome this lack of meaning that you've been experiencing throughout your life. But, and please forgive me if I'm oversimplifying your search, it seems pretty clear that you've been looking in the wrong places. Trying something different doesn't necessarily mean trying a different activity, or finding a new thrill, or a new drug, or anything like that. Put simply, it means try doing something that you wouldn't otherwise do.

When you say that the people around you hate it, that's what I'm getting at when I say, 'Can you imagine what it's like being on the other side of you?' Are you giving the people close to you the access and information they need to help you? Do they know you need their care? Do they know what things they do that give you energy, and what things they do for you that are demotivating and de-energizing? Simply giving them access to 'where you're at' can do a lot to empower them to help you. You can't get through this alone. You need to do everything you can to let them know that you're working on it and that they can help.

When you say that 'everyone else seems fine', that's a symptom of the lack of authentic connections in your life. If you're like most of the people on this forum, it's possible you spend a likely unhealthy amount of time working. That makes it crucially important that you have some professional relationships that can help fuel you to do the best work you can do (for the sake of your own business, your own sanity, and just generally making the world a better place by being easy to work with), and to get through the business of being a human being within the constraints of our economy. I don't know what business you're in, but I would be shocked if you couldn't improve it by being better connected to the people you're working with.

Whatever is stopping you from improving those connections, whether it's introversion, a sense of superiority, or simply being a low-friction provider of a minimal interaction service, just be aware that there are steps that you can take to make those connections stronger. There is not nothing you can do.

The fact that happiness comes from the inside is so easily written off by so many people is a persistent and vexing concern. Think of how much you contain, honestly. Within you is all of the pain and all of the joy of every Russian novel, every bit of the dazzling, puzzling, frustrating and ecstatic complexity of every single film, poem, painting, song, etc, ever made. The degree of difference between you and me and every other human being is infinitesimally small if you zoom out just a little bit. So, if someone else is able to apply that idea that happiness originates from within, so can you. I hate myself for writing things that contrived, but it's true. For what it's worth, you may have to take someone at their word that they were able to build happiness just with what was contained within them. Trust it. It's true. Set aside the practical dilemma of working it out in steps that can be described to fit your life, and understand that it's possible.

You mention having a dozen therapists. That sucks to go through that many therapists and not find 'the one', but please keep searching. It's the same with mentors. The compounding problem of trying to attain happiness and to have massive amounts of real effort turn up little reward is a huge and understandably discouraging one.

Despite the absurd and self-aggrandizing length of this reply, I have no answers and no wisdom that couldn't be more succinctly expressed through common idioms. The only thing I can offer is my own experience, and to vouch for the experience of some people I know that were able to slough off the feeling of torpor and malaise that can set in when hopelessness comes easier than hope.

Your Rodney Dangerfield example is well appreciated. The best comedians give us the pain of the world wrapped in a bow. I have found that in my own life, I get both much happier, and also experience much more sadness and even depression as I open more and deeper connections with other people, and with the world at large. In general, you just feel more. That is one of the beautiful (and obvious) things about connecting with others... you get to feel more.

The 'road' that I mentioned sharing with you was probably a bit presumptuous on my part... the road that I was talking about was basically my own history of trying to obfuscate my needs and feelings with more-than-casual drug and alcohol use, believing that the reason 'things' weren't 'happening' had mostly to do with people/influences/circumstances/other factors outside my control, which led to blame and avoidance and some bad stuff that comes along with those things.

Your example comparing the accumulation of experiences/memories with saving Polaroids is concerning because, sure, collecting Polaroids is a bit boring if they're all the same picture, but ideally they shouldn't be. But anyway the analogy doesn't really work, because the important factor is not that they 'happened', but instead that they accumulate, which leads to deeper connections, new connections, etc.

Sorry in advance for the ridiculous length of this post.

That helps me as much as asking me to breathe water, or see infrared though.

Those deep relationships you speak of; when trying to have these kinds of conversations the response is mostly "I don't know what that's like so I really can't help, sorry." Or you say, ok I need your help by being patient, but that only goes so far for so long, and then for their sake you just start faking it or maybe not just faking it but at least not dwelling on it, ask again everything looks just fine.

To extend the comedy analogy, very introspective comedians discuss this frequently. Marc maron, garry Shandling, Bill Murray etc... have all discussed (all with Charlie rose Incidentally) their impossible yearning for self actualized contentment only to not find it. I appreciate you taking the time to write that out.

Charlie Rose interviews with comedians (specifically the types that you're referring to) are one of my favorite things to fall asleep to.

The way you've described your life reminds me of a book I've (partially) read: Mindfulness in Plain English. Even if you think Buddhism and meditation are a bunch of malarkey, the book itself is worth a read. What specifically comes to mind are parts where the author discusses why one should bother with meditation:

...you are human. And just because of the simple fact that you are human, you find yourself heir to an inherent unsatisfactoriness in life which simply will not go away. You can suppress it from your awareness for a time. You can distract yourself for hours on end, but it always comes back--usually when you least expect it. All of a sudden, seemingly out of the blue, you sit up, take stock, and realize your actual situation in life.

There you are, and you suddenly realize that you are spending your whole life just barely getting by. You keep up a good front. You manage to make ends meed somehow and look OK from the outside. But those periods of desperation, those times when you feel everything caving in on you, you keep those to yourself. You are a mess. And you know it. But you hide it beautifully. Meanwhile, way down under all that you just know there has got be some other way to live, some better way to look at the world, some way to touch life more fully...

...you suffer from the same malady that infects every human being. It is a monster in side all of us, and it has many arms: Chronic tension, lack of genuine compassion for others, including the people closest to you, feelings being blocked up, and emotional deadness. Many, many arms. None of us is entirely free from it. We may deny it. We try to suppress it. We build a whole culture around hiding from it, pretending it is not there, and distracting ourselves from it with goals and projects and status. But it never goes away. It is a constant undercurrent in every thought and every perception; a little wordless voice at the back of the head saying, "Not good enough yet"...

Maybe the Buddhists have got it right. Perhaps the more worthwhile goal is cultivating a clear and unbiased perception of reality. Honestly, I have no clue; just putting forward an alternative to consider if you haven't already. If you do figure it out, I'd love to know...

Here's a link to the book btw: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm

EDIT: reading firstworldman's sibling comment provoked another thought which may head off a semantic issue. Maybe 'happiness' is neither a meaningful nor meaningless objective; it's simply an ill-defined, subjective concept. So when people talk about 'attaining happiness', its possible what they mean by 'happiness' is objectively different to what other people think it is. From what I understand firstworldman to be saying, he has found 'authenticity of experiences and relationships' to be a worthwhile and attainable goal. Incidentally, this seems to square with Buddhist philosophy, which is largely concerned with attaining 'perception of authentic reality' (i.e. 'enlightenment').

Genuinely curious: why did you pursue those things listed, and did you enjoy them? Or was it to check a ticklist?

Also, I've assumed you've been on a sex binge before? Nothing came out of that?

I thought I would, so I started. Never really did, but kept doing it assuming that if I got better at it then it would become enjoyable. Never happened.

I've assumed you've been on a sex binge before? Nothing came out of that?

Three kids!

But seriously...yes 2005-6 was basically that. But no, those kind of serotonin binges are short lived and tend to be tolerance inducing - meaning you need more to get a bigger enjoyment "bump," at least that's what happened in my case and those are generally more destructive and risky than the benefits.

Personally I find the pursuit of mastery in my chosen sport very meditative, and it also offers the right amount of social contact for me.

If you get along with your opponents or teammates, you can chat with them during the match, otherwise I just concentrate on my game and try to win every single point.

Even when I lose, I always have a list of things I've done well during the match and a list of things that I need to work on. And if you have some metrics by which you can see improvement, there's a sense of satisfaction that comes from seeing that improvement as well.

No goal is better than any other, because there is no universally defined "better", everything just "is". Therefore, you are free to say that the goal you have chosen is better than any other, and you would be correct, because just by choosing it, you have changed the balance.

But what happens when you can't attribute meaning to anything? Do you revert to religion or suicide (Those were the three options for camus)?

This is certainly not a universal cure, but for me the ideas presented in this ted talk have helped: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?...

So, set a goal and work towards that - but, looking at your profile that suggestion seems trite and silly, because you are and have been doing that for some time. Doing difficult things falls into the same category.

My suggestion would be to pick something completely pointless - something that you could easily pay someone to do for you, better than you have time-skill for and then do that.

For example, I'm building a house. Fairly big, not huge, wooden. I have no training in it and it has taken 5 years of evenings and weekends so far. Any reasonable construction team would have finished in 6 months and it would have had better quality of work.

I love it - it makes me happy to look at the small bit that I finished yesterday and somehow it gives me a sense of purpose. Maybe it's just a distraction - something to keep away the existential dread, but so what, because nothing has intrinsic value, this purpose is the best possible purpose for me.

At the end of my day I often feel that I have just kept the cogs grinding for another day. I do feel that my work is "important", and I'm good at it, and the money surely improves my quality of life, but it'd sure be nice to be outside sometimes in the real world digging a hole or planting a tree or something, not just the endless arranging of remote electrons.

Frankly what you describe is exactly why I started building real things as a hobby.

When you can't attribute meaning to anything, Camus says, according to some of my self-interpretation, that you have to live while accepting the triviality of it all. Live while acknowledging death is a perfectly valid alternative and nothing is really stopping you committing suicide. But only when you are on that edge are you truly living,

Is this not the basis for The Myth of Sisyphus? If I recall correctly, Camus rejects both religion and suicide as ultimately absurd.

It's an honest question. I can imagine that a life without meaning would feel, well... meaningless.

I am pretty existential too, so I agree with you generally...but I'm not sure what this clause has to do with the rest of what you said.

- physical: That there is no other plane of existence to progress towards, heaven or enlightenment or anything else similar to those.

- universe: Whatever it is that we inhabit - multiverse, universe, inside of a black hole, we're not quite sure yet as far as I understand the physics (which isn't very far at all unfortunately. It is fascinating though)

May I ask is it possible you desire something to desire?

That's an interesting philosophical ouroboros.

So, although possibly mundane, there is a point of view where the question "does anything in life have meaning" is less interesting than the question "is everything ok".

A good way of figuring out what you value is considering if you die tomorrow, why wouldn't you (assuming you aren't suicidal). If you really don't matter either way then why not just do the thing that feels good?

I think if I could afford it I would probably be a habitual heroin user. From what I read, it seems to push all of the same biochemical "happiness" and "fulfillment" buttons as all of the other relationship/activity/experience things that people like to do, albeit with some side effects.

On the other hand, if you're stuck in a shithole with a metric tonne of inner demons, it's pretty much tops.

Contentment, opiates. Happiness... like that innocent 'AHHHHH TOMORROW'S CHRISTMAS!' joy, I'd say MDMA instead

I know that I've lived on the other side of it - growing up working poor, basically homeless from ages 9-11 and then gritting through over a decade of eating shit in the military. Seeing combat helps put things in perspective to the immediate now, but that only goes so far as you just realize that there are amazing people that have had lives "cut short" unnecessarily and that there was no real purpose to it.

If you would take some time and explain what it is that attracts you in Camus writings, maybe I'll understand you better.

The downside of this approach is if the firmament for what you created meaning from crumbles or never really materializes, leaving a void.

I don't know if it's our brain wiring, chemistry, experiences, psychological development path dependencies, or what, but I'm pretty convinced that human brains are pattern-seeking systems, and finding and establishing patterns, ordering our universes, is one fundamental drive.

It also turns out that that's what I've been directly and principally focusing on for the past few years, mostly because I can't not.

Several of the activities and compulsions you mentioned above strike me as behaviors which feed the brain's reward systems fairly directly (drugs, alcohol, sex, extreme activities), and your combat and other experiences may also affect that -- not judgement or anything, just mapping for me of "what does the brain seek, how does it work, how is it itself re-shaped by experiences?".

The advantage of taking a shortcut is to get to a destination faster. The advantage of taking the long way around, or exploring a space, is often to get a far stronger sense of the interconnections within that space. I thrive on connections, myself, so that has appeal.

No idea how this strikes you, but offered for consideration.

I've read Camus twice. The first time I read The Stranger, I took away meaninglessness, in the sense that existentialism seemed true.

The second time, I nearly threw up (no, I wasn't reading Nausea :-D), but in the sense that I don't think I've ever felt anything was so absolutely evil and wrong, and existentialism false.

I can't explain this in a philosophical way, and it may be a delusional and biased opinion given my life experiences between the two readings, but I think observing intuitions does hint at universal meaning. Intuitions might be intellectual observations of objective truths no different, in principle, from observations of atoms, or reason itself.

I don't have much patience with myself getting into the same thought patterns. Perhaps this lack of patience is the must important skill I acquired.

I have chosen to use a little bit of chemistry to view life. You don't have chemical reactions where every single molecule reacts. It's a probabilistic model: You throw them all into the pot, and then chance dictates that the right molecules actually meet, which is a function of how quickly they move around (increases chances of meeting your destiny to combine with others into the product), how many there are, etc.

To nature, we are just like those molecules. Whether we meet conditions where we can combine fruitfully depends - and on A LOT more variables than in a simple chemical reaction. And it gets worse! Because the complexity of our solutions keeps increasing! Which means it gets harder and harder to find the right conditions (which includes the right people) for all to combine. Take Einstein and Newton for example. What is overlooked that without their environment, which includes society and hundreds of people they were in contact with, tens of thousands when also counting indirect connections, was essential. You can throw a protein into a soup and nothing happens, only when the exactly right conditions and exactly the appropriate other molecules are present will something happen.

So I don't worry about it too much. I see myself as part of a big probabilistic thing. I am ready and somewhat searching for "my" right conditions, but that is all I'm actually supposed to do by nature. So if I don't find them I just have a good time before it all ends (in my case that does not mean partying).

Somewhat related, from a cartoonist:

- http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102965026826/goals-are-for-lose...

- http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102964992706/goals-vs-systems

I added the links for the parts about "system vs. goal - why goals are bad" (I don't want to touch that "you have limited willpower" thing with a ten foot pole, or the simplistic nutrition advice that is only an aside anyway). This goes along nicely with what I mean, if you can see it.

    > Goals work great for simple situations. But the world is rarely simple these days.
    > You don’t know what your career will look like in a year. You don’t know what the
    > economy will be doing, or which new technologies will hit the scene. Your personal
    > life is just as unpredictable. The future is a big ball of complexity if you look
    > out far enough. And that means your odds of picking the one best goal for you are
    > slim, and the odds of achieving it are even slimmer, because everything is a moving
    > target.
    > ...

    > And while you’re at it, stop worrying about whether you have enough passion for
    > success. Passion comes from success; success doesn’t come from passion.

See http://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/feel...

That's nice. My fomo is seriously crippling my ability to move forward in life. Feels like I am currently stopped in my tracks out of fear that I would lose options.

One definition of faith found on the internet: "Belief not supported by evidence or reason, but assumption alone."

I have seen many people finding happiness and/or purpose in believing various things not supported by evidence or reason, and have always wondered: how to choose which of these I should believe?

Essentially what I am asking you to believe is the truth of "seek and ye shall find"... that it is possible to find, provided that you seek.

I am not telling you what you will find, how you will find it, what it will look like or sound like, etc., but only that there is something waiting to be found.

Then if you take some steps towards God, you will be rewarded and you will learn a little bit about faith Again I am not going to presume I know exactly what those steps are for you but I will tell you I believe with all my heart that there ARE steps you can take, and even if you take the wrong steps, as long as you are seeking God I believe that he will reward you for your efforts, if only by correcting you from your misguided path.

I hope this has been helpful. God bless.

I find it insulting to my intelligence to be asked to believe something with no evidence, and when I ask for evidence to be told that I shouldn't be asking.

If god is willing to prevent Evil, but not able, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent. If he is able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?

The problem of pain and suffering is a lot harder to address in a brief comment. Nothing I can say in a few short lines will be very satisfying, unless you already believe or are wanting to believe. Here are a few thoughts...

Pain and suffering are not good in and of themselves, but good can come from them.

In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill - and then what would be the point to life anyway?

My level of understanding will always be limited. I have to approach this journey with humility. I can know a lot, but I can't know everything. I will work to alleviate pain and suffering where I can, and trust that in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it.

Actually evidence is proof. You're just writing a bunch of words. All your mysterious and humble, "can't know everything...", "learn for yourself" patronizing garbage that doesn't make sense. blah blah blah.

How exactly do you decide which particular ridiculous idea to believe, when you don't need any proof?

> in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it.

That's also codswallop.

See, I've worked in health, and to me that sounds like exactly what someone who has been in the privileged position to never have witnessed or experienced real suffering would write as a flippant, shallow and superficial expression to discount how much needless suffering there actually is in the world.

When you see young children struck down with horrible diseases that cause constant pain and ruin the lives of their families, for no reason but an unlucky genetic abnormality, I can't consolidate that with your idea of "a glorious end", and it's also impossible for me to not attribute blame to a supposedly omnipotent being that would allow such needless suffering when they presumably have the ability to prevent it.

So take your godly rubbish and go and parrot it to the rest of the congregation in your echo chamber of useless rhetoric, and give up on trying to convert reasonable people.

Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer?

> and then what would be the point to life anyway?

There's no "point to life". It's a sandbox game you have ~80 years to experience. Enjoy, while you can, and don't be a dick.

If our choices were reduced to those which could not cause pain and suffering, life would resemble a game; our choices would lack any consequence. Thankfully, life is much more than a game.

> and don't be a dick

This advice is curious to me. How do you derive this from your beliefs? I can understand you saying "don't be a dick just to be a dick", because that would cause pointless suffering. But if I can advance my own wealth or happiness by being a dick in such a way that I can reasonably avoid retribution, why shouldn't I?

consequences doesn't have to cause suffering. You can live in one country or another - meeting different people, eperiencing different thigs, learning different cultures. How is it less of a consequence than developing a cancer?

The rest of your argument is taking a mataphor literally, and asserting it's less true thanks to the existence of evil. Why? How would the life be worse if there were no diseases and wars?

> How do you derive this from your beliefs?

I'm not special. Other people have their lives too, and by being a dick I decrease their enjoyment of their short lives. I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyement over theirs (or vice versa).

I have counter-question BTW - would you go around murdering people and stealing from them if there was no hell and no police? That's what your argument boils down to - "without a stick and a carrot why bother with morality"?

My argument boils down to Natural Law, and it sounds to me like yours does too. When you say "I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyment over theirs" - I would totally agree, but I still don't understand how you arrive at that without a belief in Natural Law.

An argument that doesn't rely on Natural Law goes something like this: We have evolved into highly social beings, so our internal physiology naturally rewards us for socially constructive behavior, so we choose to not be a dick because being a dick feels bad. It's a purely selfish motivation because that is what is purely rational.

My limited understanding of Natural Law comes from CS Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, but I did a quick search before writing this reply and I see that it has some backing in atheistic thought. Is that where your coming from?

I don't believe in things that seem unlikely and have no proofs.

The theory that my feelings are more valuable than that of other people seems unlikely (why my out of all people) and I have no evidence supporting it. Therefore I assume it's false and act accordingly.

Why would you need some external law for that train of thought? All you need is logic and probability theory.

Neither do I.

So I guess my parting comment is that we all need to do a better job of discussing opposing belief systems with mutual respect. There are good arguments on both sides - and I would suggest that if that statement sounds ridiculous, you've not been sincerely listening to the other side, or you've only heard straw man arguments. It's not black and white - and being closed minded is not something unique to one side or the other.

Let's try to hear both sides out - and develop an understanding of each other's beliefs and non-beliefs rather than dropping into an "us" vs "them" stance. Truth does not need to be defended with anger or violence. There's no need to convince or convert - we just need to be true to our search. Truth is often hard to find, but it's not fragile.

I've resisted providing specific evidence for my beliefs because I can reasonably expect for it to not be well received in this forum. But if anyone is interested in a good example of a balanced and civil debate of Christianity vs. Atheism, based on evidence and reason, this is a pretty good one -- https://youtu.be/fEw8VzzXcjE

I am not posting that in an attempt to convert or convince - I'm certain it will do neither. I'm posting it in attempt to encourage civil discussion, and exchange of ideas and beliefs. Notice in the debate the mutual respect the speakers give to each other.

Close-mindedness and hatred exists in every belief system. Let's try to encourage one another on our respective paths. Let's encourage one another to relentlessly seek truth.

In my experience intelectual argument may make it easier to switch position eventually, but what makes people convert is life experiences and ideology influencing their lives adversely. So, the discussions are mostly for entertainment.

> Let's encourage one another to relentlessly seek truth.

Let's.

Because of this necessity, they can't understand how other people can have morals without a set of rules, even self-contradictory, ambiguous rules passed down from a supernatural being via the mysterious hallucinations of desert people thousands of years ago.

I'm quite certain that's not true. At least it wasn't true for me when I was religious, and it's not true for most of the religious people I know (and I live in 95% Catholic country, at least in theory).

For one example - I've spoken with many Catolics who thought it's "not fair" that a serial murderer can escape eternal punishment with last minute atonement, but a women that was in a marriage with abusive husband and then met her "other half" - has to sacrifice her love till death because of 1 unintentional mistake in the past.

If people actually believed morality comes from God only - they wouldn't think twice about this. God says so and that's it.

On the other hand it's hard to distinguish external and internal motivation when you have it constantly mixed by the religion, rituals, etc. And people like to find explanations fo why they (and you) need religion - external morality seems to be a popular excuse.

I find it very difficult to discuss these things without saying things that religious people might find offensive (questioning too much seems to be frowned upon for some reason), but I'll try:

So they think it's "not fair", yet they still identify with a religion where this is announced to be the case.

So are you saying they think it's not fair but still believe unfortunately that's the way it is, or are you saying that they think that it's actually not true and won't happen?

Or are you saying that they have an internal moral compass that says that such eternal damnation is immoral, but set it aside because of the rules of the religion?

I guess the difference is that they think it's "not fair", and I think it's not true, and clearly nothing but a fairy tale manufactured to pressure people to keep going to church out of fear.

If someone is already doomed with eternal damnation, then why not keep doing bad stuff?

I'm being flippant, but actually with the massive loophole of last minute atonement, why not just do bad stuff all the time, until the last minute? Hopefully you will get time to spit out a quick "sorry" at the end. Is this what all the pedophile priests and their co-conspirators are planning to do?

> it's hard to distinguish external and internal motivation when you have it constantly mixed by the religion, rituals, etc.

True. I think the peer pressure when your community identifies with a particular religion is a large factor as well. If there wasn't so much peer pressure and the threat of shunning and excommunication, there would probably be many less outwardly religious people around.

I cringe when I hear sports stars thanking god, as if with all the misery and suffering in the world, god still puts it as a priority to be personally interested in whether a millionaire manages to win a sports event or not.

I can't talk for everybody, but often it's "I can't understand this, this makes no sense, but it's written that human won't understand God, so whatever, I just have to follow, not to question.". Also there's one story in the New Testament about this - basically saying that God can be inconsistent and unfair if it's in favour to someone and not against anybody. Everybody else shouldn't complain because they got what was promised.

> If someone is already doomed with eternal damnation, then why not keep doing bad stuff?

She's not doomed, she's just expected to live in abusive marriage till the end. Or at least never start a new marriage.

> I'm being flippant, but actually with the massive loophole of last minute atonement, why not just do bad stuff all the time, until the last minute?

Well, you can die at any moment, it's a huge bet. Also intentionaly exploiting loopholes like this is a "sin against Saint Ghost" if I remember correctly, and it's not forgiveable. On the other hand if you weren't a Catholic in the first place - baptize 1 minute before death and it's all peachy, even if you were Hitler.

-- William Blake

The second kind of desire is that which you do not attach to. The outcome of these desires, whether accomplishing what you want or not, does not affect your mind. You don't crave these outcomes, or thirst for them.

In my opinion the distinction between "good" and "bad" desire isn't nearly as important as the distinction between what causes suffering and what alleviates suffering. Sense pleasures cause suffering when we attach to them.

AndrewKemendo's problem lies in the lack of contentedness, not lack of happiness. No matter how many sense pleasures we choose to indulge in, they are all impermanent and unstable, all ending, all unsafe.

    The entirety
    of a mountain of gold,
    of solid bullion:
    even twice that
    wouldn't suffice
    for one person.
        Knowing this,
        live evenly,
        in tune with the contemplative life.

    When you see stress,
    and from where it comes,
    how can you incline to sensual pleasures?
    Knowing acquisition
    to be a bond in the world,
        train for
        its subduing.

    - The Buddha (SN 4.20)