>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it?

Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part.

>I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe as a well-meaning entity".

Well it does by necessity lead to a conclusion along the lines of "the world is a cruel place". It's a bit like a lion eating a zebra though - brutal but not inherently evil. It just is what it is.

This is exactly what I believe the universe is. When people say the universe is uncaring, they equate that as bad; I reckon this is because we want control over our lives. True our agency over our lives is increasing as we progress as a society but it's unlikely that we will reach a point that our cumulative progress would give us control over everything.

The universe doesn't care who you are the same way a benevolent god cares about his subject; the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way, that is if you do things according to the reality that is already established, then it'll 'care' about you and give what you want. The giving is likely probabilistic.

The "bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning" conflates two things unfairly. Consider a beautiful sunrise on a tropical beach. It's part of the universe and not bleak and chaotic yet you don't have to believe it has a meaning enjoy it. As an atheist, the survival of us and our ancestors for ~4bn years suggests the universe is not so bleak in parts.

Thought it might be bleak for those who are ill-equipped to deal with the modern types of chaos (eg anxiety and depression). Like someone else said, this could all be a matter of labeling the world as "good" or "bad"; the problem with these labels is that they are rarely self-examined partly because it takes a lot of epistemological thinking and self-awareness to reach that level of meta-cognition.

From your points on conflation, just to clarify, are you saying that meaning does not determine our feelings about the degree of bleakness? Maybe meaning is a multiplier of feelings depending on the direction you are interested in. For non-bleakness, meaningfulness would multiply the amount of enjoyment, and for bleakness, non-meaningfulness would multiply the amount of hatred. Those two assume that state of bleakness is naturally attached with intrinsic feelings.

I wish I've read more about this topic; it is ultra interesting.

I dunno, I see the continued survival of our species as a cruel joke - certainly bleak - given the amount of harm we do to each other and everything around us.

Well, I take away just the opposite though.

Suppose there really was a loving creator that put this all in place just for us. Then, yeah, we've made quite a mess of it, and it really all rather sucks.

However, if it's just a bleak, uncaring universe, then the fact that we're around is amazing in the first place, and the fact that we've managed to carve out a niche where we can, by and large, thrive in ever larger numbers [1] is outright awesome and amazing.

It also then enjoins us to "keep on fighting the good fight". For example, I don't think there is "automatic karma" imposed somehow - it is incumbent on us humans to impose justice as well as we can.

[1] The notion that things are terrible and getting worse is wrong, I think. See for example

- Julian Simon, "The State of Humanity"

- Steven Pinker, "The Better Angels of our Nature"

- Max Roser, "Our World in Data", https://ourworldindata.org

etc.

Harm is again an unnecessarily negative judgement. We are the same matter and energy (nature) as the Earth, the Moon, the Sun. What we do when our matter and energy moves around is not any more purposeful or harmful than what the Sun does.

It's kind of like asking if the Universe was harmed by the big bang.

Then again we also do a lot of great thing and create and experience love and beauty. I have no idea how to quantify and weigh the good against the bad, so perhaps it comes down to temperament if you consider the human existence an overall negative or positive experience.

I find that people's outlook on humanity comes down to where they focus their attention. We're definitely a mixed bag of wonderful and terrible. But, the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time are boringly nice to everyone and everything. That boring niceness is as common, as important and as easy to forget as air.

Also, the world has many very bad aspects and some of them are getting worse. But, on average the world is getting to be a better place rapidly. Today is the most peaceful, most healthy, most just, most educated, most comfortable time ever. As people who were born and grew up knowing only such good times, we easily forget how so much of what we would consider atrocities today was common a mere few hundred years ago.

We have adjusted to be tremendously more sensitive than our ancestors. And, we are infinitely more informed about every bad thing everywhere in the world. That doesn't make everything OK. But, it is a great sign that more attention and effort is being focused on the remaining problems than ever before. If you are deciding to focus your attention on the problems we still have, then you are a sign of how the world is getting better.

With that attention, you can find problems that remain. With some historical perspective, you can figure out which ones you can best help reduce. With some effort, you can be part of making the remaining problems in the world even smaller.

Great points. Despite my cynicism and strong bias towards the self-destruction of mankind, there would be always be moments when I thought "hey, I'm glad this guy/gal existed because the world is a better place because of them." Things do get better when you look at the world around you.

>This is exactly what I believe the universe is.

Yup - I've found the lion/zebra thing to be very useful in explaining something that isn't easy for most people to see. Especially those that grew up with religious notions of good vs evil.

>the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way

Personally I'd be very wary of using the word caring at all. It's just atoms & stuff flying about the place to me. I choose to overlay the whole "I want to be a good person etc" on top of that though as a personal choice despite considering it a very artificial & fake construct. Bit of a cognitive dissonance I suppose but much like people choose to believe in god I choose this.

I agree on wariness regarding the usage of the word "caring".

My usage of "care" here is equal to "notice". To make it easier for myself, I imagine an anthropomorphic universe gallivanting around and notice one of its agents doing something that could possibly exert an effect (either null and non-null) and bless it with that effect after spinning the wheel of probability.

I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man, on the scale that lions eat zebras, is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

You should ask, "what keeps lions from eating lions" if you want to go that route and then see what happens to your higher authority argument.

No argument was made. Just a statement of belief in a general belief.

Not true. An argument was clearly made.

Fair enough, your using definition number 1 of the word argument here. I'm using definition number 2.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument

My statement was not meant to be an argument or statement of fact but rather a suggestion or hypothesis, which is why I used the word suggest.

Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden?

I don't think your claim withstands any scrutiny.

> Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden?

If you were able to control for all other conditions, possibly but not necessarily. Thus I don't think comparing homicide rates in the USA, Pakistan and Sweden proves or disproves anything.

First, you grant that other conditions have influence too, and not only as much, but more influence, than religious beliefs.

So, comparing homicide rates across countries disproves that more religion is necessary or sufficient for an ethical life.

(Let me note in passing that fairly secular northern Europe also has much lower rates of abortions, STDs, teenage pregnancies, and other societal ills, than other, more religious societies.)

Second, if we look at long term trends, violence has come down over the millennia, as religiosity has decreased (see Pinker's Better Angels).

Third, I concede that under certain circumstances in primitive societies you might achieve a reduction in crime by introducing certain religious beliefs (whether they're falsehoods or not). However, we should not strive for that, but for enlightened societies where that is not necessary anymore.

Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species, so in these matters humans fare a lot worse than most animals. Given that a belief in a higher authority is one of the things causing humans to kill each other, it seems this theory is wrong.

> Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species

I think you'll be surprised by the amount of cannibalism in the animal kingdom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)

>I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man

Not really the point I was making with the lion/zebra thing, but regardless:

>is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

For some, certainly. I'd venture that it's only one route available. I certainly don't believe in any higher authority whatsoever nor do I even believe that good & evil are particularly sound concepts (Moral Relativism), yet most people that know me will probably judge me a good person.

Interestingly enough, this has been scientifically investigated - I posted about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476

Yeah, the sticky point I've always found in the man is just a higher evolved animal position is the arbitrariness of cooperation. That is to say, any expectation one human has of another seems arbitrary to me without a base set of rules set forth by a higher authority.

The writings of C.S. Lewis crystallized a lot of this in my mind.

I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal?

I'm an atheist, but I certainly have no desire or intention or plan to cease cooperation. Just the opposite, I think it's extremely important, and it is also extremely important that we cherish and enforce and cultivate it.

As just a little example, for me some sort of communal health insurance covering everyone is a matter of course, as for most citizens of developed nations. (I'm aghast at the fact that many people oppose it in the USA, and I note in passing that it appears to be mostly religious people.)

Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately).

Finally, I think there are many good reasons for it, and the position that man is ("just") a higher evolved animal is not at all incompatible with it.

> I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal?

No I'm not saying a belief in God is necessary for what we would agree upon as moral behavior. However, I could easily see the case being made by individuals who might think that what we agree on as morally correct behavior being nothing more than our arbitrary beliefs. And that, from their perspective, rape or pedophilia makes them feel good in the way eating red meat makes them feel good.

So on a spectrum with complete moral bliss on the far left and complete degeneracy on the far right, I think we live somewhere on the left side. Furthermore I think a big reason we live there and not right of center is the wide spread belief in a higher authority/authorities.

> Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately).

Why? From where is your sense of "Fair Play" derived? Does it all boil down to the non-aggression principle and if so, from where is that derived?

> what we agree on as morally correct behavior being nothing more than our arbitrary beliefs

Interesting. I am also concerned by moral arbitrariness and relativism, but fear it comes from somewhere else:

I fear that religion opens up the door to moral relativism, because you can go and say "don't eat shrimp" (Leviticus 11:10), or "don't eat pork", or "don't eat cows", or what have you, claiming "it says so right here, in this holy book full of true revelations".

That's a trivial example, but the same applies for more serious issues: morality based on (religious) revelation is hard to verify and discuss, and somewhat arbitrary.

But if we empirically agree on one real world, empiricism and evidence, we have at least a common basis and need very few, very basic moral principles (it really boils down to the golden rule, or somewhat more sophisticated versions of that, like the "veil of ignorance" in John Rawl's Theory of Justice.)

So, in purely practical terms, I think this notion of some psychopath running around claiming "there's no God, thus I can do what I want" is a non-issue.

If you furthermore seek a philosophical "Letztbegründung" (i.e. ultimate reason, where "the buck stops"), there are attempts e.g. in discourse ethics ("if we are talking, we are already implicitly subscribing to certain axioms, otherwise we would not need to talk"). But I don't think it'a a big problem.

The problem lies less in the foundation and more in certain topics, I think (think of abortion, contraception, war).

You can explain a lot without a higher authority. For instance humans gossip so if you screw someone over, word spreads and can have adverse consequences. That can help do gooders and help pro do good genes to spread in the gene pool for example.

Interesting article. Note that it only talks about improving cooperation "within" the circle, i.e. among "co-religionists", as the article puts it.

I think you'd find increased cooperation within many other types of groups. What we should aim for, of course, is to expand this circle of concern ever further, beyond religion.

So, just want to clarify that this might have been an benefit of religion in earlier days, but is by no means an argument for them today.

I'd suggest that isn't the case. I don't need a parent figure for me to fear or appease in order to act kindly to others, nor do I expect them to need one to act kindly to me.

I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusion is to not view your consciousness as a unique snowflake.

Imagine that a white blood cell in your body has a consciousness of its own, where it, in its own way does its job when needed, hangs out with its "co-workers", other white-blood-cells, and red-blood-cells etc. You are the "universe as a well meaning entity" for this cell in your body.

Extending on this hypothesis, its not too hard to conclude that you can be a small part of a bigger, well meaning consciousness.

That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.

Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity.

This leaves you with two options:

1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general.

2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution.

If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.

If we achieve consciousness in machines, would that affect your opinion?

I feel it is consistent with my stance, that awareness is indeed a property of a configuration of (entirely unconscious) matter.

The configuration is extremely specific in the sense that almost all possible configurations have no consciousness, but somewhat general in that there are still infinitely many configurations that do.

I still stick to option #1. Similarly, it is the specific configuration of the sand/silicon in my computer that allows it to process information, not individual sand particles or silicon atoms (even though their specific properties make it possible).

How do you know computers don't experience their existence? We assume because they behave predictably that this indicates they are unaware automata, but assume I asked you if you would like me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You would answer no with extremely high probability. Just because your answer is predictable doesn't indicate that there is no awareness behind it. In fact, there is almost certainly something that it is "like" to be a tightly coupled system of transistors. Of course, that experience is undoubtedly very different from ours.

Part of the problem is that consciousness is a nebulous term that conflates awareness, self-awareness and intelligence. Specifically, I'm only speaking of awareness here.

Also, when sand undergoes chemical reactions, how do you know that isn't a simple form of information processing?

Agreed on the predictability. In fact, I'm a bit of compatibilist, i.e. subscribing to the notion that free will and determinism are compatible.

And I've seen the argument being made that consciousness is fundamental and prior to anything else (Chalmers? Don't recall.)

But I disagree for now, and I think awareness is an emergent property dependent on various pre-conditions (like perception, a model of self, possibly "embodied cognition" (not sure about that), etc.), and it's absurd to speak of a few atoms having awareness.

(With modern computers, we might be getting there at some point...)

Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting.

In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act for the benefit of humans, so the universe is not "fair".

If something bad happens to you, is it really a consolation that it is because an allknowing and just God wants you to suffer?

Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes.

The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in "The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go it alone, and you can read the various theories on how that has a Universal effect too.

To raise the basic Argument from Suffering you really should look past the first-tier argument and present it anticipating The Fall.

In my limited understanding suffering appears out of the axioms of free will. To make us human, with the ability to choose to love, choose to care, choose to follow God or not, we require free-will. Otherwise it's just "echo 'i love you'" rather than a genuine emotion.

Your question should be "is it better not to create our Universe, with the possibility for love, if there is also a possibility of suffering". You may come to the same conclusion, that a benevolent being shouldn't turn Creator when faced with those possibilities ... but then if they hadn't you wouldn't be here to make the objection.

tl;dr "The Fall" and "free will" are the standard, Biblical, Christian counter-arguments that stand against Suffering and allow for a loving, benevolent God to be creator of a Universe such as ours.

So God inflicted leprocy on humanity because otherwise we wouldn't be able to feel genuine love? And not buying this makes you "naive"?

I perhaps haven't expressed the position well however, "naive" isn't a slur, read "simplistic" if it helps, it's philosophy on the level of someone who has not demonstrated cognisance of the basic sources and hasn't addressed the obvious counter-arguments.

The mainstream Christian theology is that leprosy, and such diseases came in to the world after, and as a consequence of, The Fall. That if we'd chosen God's way we wouldn't have such things.

>So God inflicted leprocy on humanity //

God created a Universe with free will for man rather than creating a fancy automaton. Mankind chose not to follow God's precepts, the consequences being that disease, pain and suffering entered the world.

It's like if I serve you a hot drink. You can choose to cause pain and suffering with it - throw it at someone, say - or you can follow my instructions to sip it slowly, let it cool and enjoy it, share it. I can't serve you a hot drink without the possibility that you will abuse it, unless I make you into a "hot drink robot" with no free will.

You could couch that as God inflicting the possibility of suffering in order to allow the possibility of beauty, love, passion, humanity.

Then I sure you are also well aware of the counterarguments against this form of theodicy.

The idea that we are "privileged" is what breaks this. Assume that we are not special matter, and all matter shares the property of free will. Then the leprousy is just matter (in this case, a bacterium) exerting its free will for in its own interests, ignorant of the ramifications that it has on other matter (us). Given that this happens all the time with people, I don't think it is far fetched.

Of course, I don't think the universe exists to love god, so much as the universe is "god" playing with itself for entertainment.

Thinking that framing God as a contradiction will convince people not to believe in it is naive.

People have been saying the same things for 2,000 years. The only development is that we can say it's been longer now.

Just as there is lots of suffering and injustice in the world, there is also copious beauty and happiness and love. So framing God as "evil" is just as problematic as painting him as "good". Both positions forces you to ignore or rationalize away large parts of reality.

Edit: Oh, you edited your comment to say something different. I guess this comment doesn't make a lot of sense as an answer now.

Yeah sorry I can't edit it again now. I editted because the reason I used "evil / unreal" was because those are typically the traits given to a God to illustrate contradiction. And as religion is intrinsically overflowing with contradictions they aren't a particularly compelling way to argue against it.

Oh I totally agree about that.

My beliefs here, take with grain of salt...

If something bad happens to you it is not because God wants you to suffer but because God has given evil dominion over this place in order to facilitate free will and choice.

God wants to be reconciled with every person but also wants that reconciliation to be chosen and not coerced.

The suffering of innocents is just an extension of this idea.

Yes and that line of reasoning works as long as you don't think to deeply about the logic of it. But you cant really escape the fundamental paradox of a God which is both almighty and benevolent. All monotheistic religions have to struggle with this.

The Book of Job in the Bible for example posits that God is almighty but not at all fair. He basically causes Job to suffer on a whim. Not out of some kind of theological necessity, but simply as a cruel experiment. There is no paradox here, because there is no claim that God is always just and benevolent.

Yeah, and if you have an eternal perspective whereby you believe your time on earth is a brief moment of exile from the almighty then acceptance of the conditions found in Job is made easier.

> He basically causes Job to suffer on a whim. Not out of some kind of theological necessity, but simply as a cruel experiment.

This isn't technically true. What God does is choose to not prevent Satan from testing Job. I'm not making a judgement about whether this would be considered cruel or not, I just want the facts stated clearly.

And, Job himself said, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job 13:15).

The Book of Job is understood by most Christians to be a literary and theological work, rather than being literally true. I highly recommend reading it to anyone who is curious about how Judaism or Christianity views the problem of evil, but you have to be reading it from the right mindset; it's not supposed to be something God actually did, even in the minds of believers.

You actually can construct reasonings in which bone cancer in children might serve some greater good, though such reasonings are very painful to hear for people remotely affected, so I won't try that.

I know that I'm stepping on thin ice here, but: My son does not want his teeth brushed. He absolutely hates it, because he does not yet understand that this pain is way lesser than the pain and treatment of tooth decay. So, I still have to do this to him, at least twice every day, because it is necessary.

I DONT mean to say that bone cancer might be good for something eventually, but; if it were, then we might not understand it, because we don't have neither control nor insight over the future.

Yeah you can device such a reasoning - theologians from monotheistic religions do that. I guess for some this is comforting. It is certainly a bleak world where anybody can be hit by such a tragedy without any higher reason or justice. I just happen to find your viewpoint ("really, its for their own good") much more bleak and horrible.

> I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control

Really? The laws of physics, evolution etc. are all out of our control.

Positive outlook? Yes, I suppose. The universe is 15 billion years old and nothing we do will have a big impact on it. But we can still make the best of the time we have in it and try to make things better for others.

I of course accepted things as in "yes it just is this way", but I could not be content with them, as they are not "ok".

I'm not a Stoic, but I like your question. Would you mind too much if I slightly re-worded it? "...retained a positive outlook while projecting no intrinsic meaning onto the universe..."

I was raised with the idea that belief (specifically, The Belief That Jesus Died To Take Away My Sins) is the source of a positive outlook. I think this kind of a warm snuggle (if you can accept a violent and prolonged execution as such) from The Universe is lovely. But it has not been my experience that it has been particularly conducive to my own well-being.

To take this back to your question, rebuking the concept of god is not tied to my well-being either. For me, a positive outlook is largely distinct from cosmology. And a nice side effect of thoughts arranged in this way is that god, the universe, a higher power are un-fundamental. My philosophical approach can constantly grown and change, and that helps me act in a way that is kind and brave.

If you agreed to my rewording of your question up above, then my answer is "yes". YMMV.

The universe is bleak and uncaring (but it is, probably, deterministic (I'm a pilot wave kind of guy)... getting sidetracked here).

And the universe is outside of your control. Therefore you should not let it have any impact on your outlook.

Also, wanting a positive outlook is a desire. And desires are suffering. And having a "positive outlook" is pre-judging things, filling up your mind with assumptions. When you should be trying to empty it. But, I'm more of a Taoist than Stoic (although there seems to be fair amount of overlap).

Thanks for the pilot wave mention, that made for an interesting read: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga...

The thing is, my outlook IS under my control. I would not want that outlook, but I would create it. If you don't have any evidence as to whether the universe is cruel or ultimately wellmeaning, then you yourself can choose what to believe about it.

You're essentially asking about the difference between active and passive existential nihilism. Or in non-philosophical terms, asking who is resigned to their existence and who actively searches to find meaning in it.

Active nihilism is much more beneficial and relates to stoicism. It holds that you must find your meaning, which is really what everyone does anyway, whether through a super natural being or friends, family, or one's life work (read Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. The best book I've ever read that relates these ideas as a holocust survivor).

Active nihilism is not about finding meaning in objects created by others or transcendent ideas of any kind, but creating (and projecting) your own. It is Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch. If there is one word to characterize active nihilism, it is "Destruction". The tearing down of old symbols, morals and ideas imposed upon the individual by the collective. In some of Nietzsche's writings, Christianity plays the adversarial, collective role.

On the other hand and contrary to what you claim Viktor Frankl writes (I have not read his book), Stoicism (and Buddhism) are really forms of passive nihilism, Buddhism of course being the stronger of the two. If there is one word to characterize passive nihilism, it is "Acceptance".

Thank you!

Having grown up in a religious household first 22 years of my life I had a lot of trouble with anxiety when I stopped believing in god. I could not continue studying science and believing in god without feeling like a hypocrite (not to say those who do are ).

Meditation and being in the moment or at least trying to be in the moment has helped me a lot. There may not be a rhyme or reason to life but that doesn't mean you can't create one and have fun while doing so.

Would it be possible that by stopping to believe in god, you stopped believing that you were safe, supported, and being taken care of? Did you stop believing because you wanted to, or was it like science took that belief away because the whole concept is wrong and impossible? For me it was the latter.

- Exactly. The feeling of safety, that there is someone looking after me no matter what was gone which manifested itself in anxiety. I do not believe in afterlife now so the realisation that this is it was overwhelming at first but now that has given way to increased importance of how I budget my time, increased focus on what I do and being more grateful for little things.

- For me it was the latter too. I remember ( I am probably wrong ) that it was Napoleon who asked Laplace that why was there no god in his mathematics ( apparently before Newton had attributed some stuff to god ). And Laplace (or could be someone else ) that he did not need god to explain his work. That has sort of stuck with me.

The universe is completely indifferent to our suffering and that's incredibly bleak but positivity still exists because we create the own meaning to our life and find positivity in the usual things, comraderie, being creative, family, friendship.

Hi there Stanley.

The Tao Te Ching spends a lot of words talking about this. I'm partial to the Stephen Mitchell version.

Also Ecclesiastes (basically, the Judeo-Christian reimplementation of Buddhism) is pretty vocal on the subject.

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Ephalsall/texts/taote-v3...

> Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it?

I see many living things around me - kittens, birds, squirrels, lizards, dogs - who happily go on living their lives without bothering with such things as the bleakness of the universe or its impermanence or its meaninglessness. I then remind myself that I must appear just as wonderful a creature as a kitten, bird, squirrel or lizard to some alien observer. I would find it absurd if the three playful kittens in my house suddenly developed an existential crisis. They are kittens! Their purpose is to be happy. But the same principle holds for me too.

In other words, the problem of meaninglessness of life is a problem we create by fiat. It's a remarkable fact that we're fragments of this grand, ancient universe that have become sentient. That itself is enough of a reason to be thrilled at our existence and everything around us, including the good and the bad!

Just to provide another perspective, no.

I can't reconcile the two and inevitably end up in an existential slump that leads to depression.

I also have the same problem that if I start thinking about the universe it inevitably leads to depression

Indifferent Universe(high certainty of no Abrahamic God) -> Anything Goes/Nothing Matters as far as humans go -> Existentialists: Great, you can find your own meaning -> Psychopaths/baby seal clubbing enthusiasts/Doomsday Cultists/Uber executives can find their own meaning too -> Might makes right -> Do everything for the lolz -> This is getting deppressing

For extra depression read about cognitive science (Dennett's "Bag of Tricks") or matrix argument.

So you have to say "MU" and just concentrate on more pleasant passtimes.

One solution seems to be ala Bukowski "Find something you love and let it kill you" (preferably slowly)

Stoicism to me just seems a slight improvement to fatalism.

Nice if you have the predisposition but it makes no difference if you are stoic or choleric.

Epictetus, Stoic philosopher says:

"Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. Some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions — in short, whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing."

From that I take away, whether the universe proves to be a well-meaning entity or a bleak, chaotic, meaningless one, it is not useful^ to attempt to discern its motivations except to the extent you can affect them. As you noted, it is up to you to determine then what really is or isn't in your control.

^ note that this is distinct from the idea of intellectual exploration for your own enjoyment or edification

If by 'meaning' you mean "an important or worthwhile quality or purpose", that's subjective.

To me, a collection of stars, dancing together around a bigger, brighter star, swirling gases and dust around the ether, until the one large star finally shrinks and explodes, hurtling all that matter out into the universe to become the seeds of new life, is worthwhile.

The universe doesn't have a sense of what is bleak, or chaotic, but it probably does have a sense of what it should do, and does it according to a set of laws and principles.

On the contrary, it's humans who seek to break these laws and bend nature to its will, seemingly for the purpose of saying it could be so. Honestly, nature seems full of meaning, but humanity not as much.

Just enjoy your life. The only real judge is you.

> Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it?

Yes, I have. I tend to see myself as an existentialist.

Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus had a profound influence on me. Very roughly, Camus says, the universe does not care about you (or anything) at all, and life has no meaning in the sense we were looking for.

_But_ we can make our lives meaningful by doing things. We can give our lives meaning through our actions, if we can accept that it is only ephemeral - the moment I stop doing it, it ceases to be.

The act of restoring meaning to meaningless life is - to Camus - an act of rebellion against the pointlessness, a refusal to give in. But it takes us back to a place where life is not bleak at all, but something to be savored.

Sure. The error, I'd say, that makes this outlook seem negative is the misguided desire for intrinsic meaning. It doesn't make sense for something to simply mean something - that word takes an object. Something can only mean something to someone.

I think this (the idea that there's some inscrutable higher level of meaning) is either a) a natural human intuition that can be broken down and discarded or b) an outgrowth of growing up in a society where there's a continuity of more-meaningful and less-scrutable things that we receive wrapped in packages that say: "this is important", namely, high arts, and the guilt that you feel when they don't move you (unless you happen to have previously received the necessary context). This reception - it's probably a twisted class thing - is what's wrong. The good art should be obviously good.

This cultural reception isn't limited to art, there's all sorts of disastrous cultural apparatus that causes a youth to end up thinking they're missing something or the world isn't supposed to make sense to your innate intuition. Ex high school literature, weird jazz, 20th century music in the formal tradition, "modern art", but also lawns, the weird way the king james bible is written, math education, band class, gerrymandering...

At times, I have found some comfort in thinking about my personal travails from universal perspective. Can my upset really have any gravity, any impact upon a drifting continent, on a spinning globe, travelling round a spiral arm of a galaxy in an expanding universe?

Take a breath, breathe out and move along.

Might all be a hologram anyway...

It's also about rebalancing your focus on to the things in the "in" of the control bucket.

Stoicism ties though to a lot of modern theories. The concept of resilience springs to the front of my mind (and positive psychology in general). Might be a good place to look. Tends to have the same bent so it can be integrated naturally, but more practical in application. Particularly in a modern context, where the psychological demands are quite different.

Evil god is great and no god is bleak? I'd think the opposite.

Evilness/Goodness depends on what utility function you ascribe to god. If you define god's utility function as "avoid all pain in living organisms", then it's indeed an evil or non-cooperative god or universe. I personally can deal with pain (remember, suffering is optional).

So you can deal with pain, but you simply can't bear the non-existence of the pain-giver.

Sounds like a fetish.

Haha I will have to think about that, interesting point!

Wouldn't they be executed or something for not believing in the 'right' god?