I would indeed call this the largest flaw of existentialism. For one thing, reality would probably seem a lot less existential!absurd in a happy intergalactic civilization, also permitted by physics.
Robby’s totally right with respect to Sartre. And a statement that doesn’t hold for Sartre doesn’t firmly stand as a statement about existentialism, I think; he’s too central. Virtually everything I’ve read of Sartre’s engenders a triumphant resolution to create the world I want to live in, and a sense that doing so is my personal responsibility. His philosophy is not all ponies and rainbows, because it’s sometimes extremely frightening, but it’s the opposite of depressing.
I’m not sure exactly when existentialism’s image switched over from Sartre’s ‘fuck yeah, life is meaningless! let’s do all the things!’ to ‘alas, life is meaningless! we are all sad and alone in the cosmos and stuff.’ I guess Camus happened. Plus Sartre is really terrible at PR.
Enjoy billions of years contemplating your inevitable demise.
Or, enjoy several weeks of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as you train yourself out of pointless rumination followed by billions of years enjoying utopia. The universe having a trait that is not preferred does not thereby obligate you to be overwhelmed by angst.
Or, enjoy several weeks of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as you train yourself out of pointless rumination followed by billions of years enjoying utopia
Can I do it now and enjoy my remaining lifespan? And if so, do I really need intergalactic civilization?
The simplistic view is that 50 years of life is, all else being equal, less desirable than 50 billion years of life. As it happens 50 billion years of life is actually better than 50 years of similar quality life. This isn’t a complicated or deep issue.
If the clever rhetorical questions you ask are rhetorically wrong then they remain wrong even if you have some good point that you want to ultimately support. I know this is a peculiar cultural norm to go by but it’s a valuable one.
50 billion years still remain absurdly small compared to eternity.
Quite a lot smaller, yes.
The interesting question to ask here is what chance of eternal life we would be willing to exchange for a given 1% chance of 50 billion years of life in terms of hypothetical decision making. For instance someone who valued years of life linearly would, given the chance, dedicate the cosmic commons to computronium dedicated to optimistic matrix hacking even if almost completely certain there is no escape possible. I don’t value life years linearly and I’m quite sure that there are finite numbers of life years that I would prefer over chances of eternal life but I don’t know quite what the equivalence function looks like.
You are curious now. You might become less curious after the first billion years. :-)
PS. I’m not advocating deathism. Just saying that any period of time is insignificant, when compared to a much larger period of time. The billion-year happy intergalactic civilization is still absurdly tiny compared to the eternity of Boltzmann-brain-infested Darkness that follows...
I would indeed call this the largest flaw of existentialism. For one thing, reality would probably seem a lot less existential!absurd in a happy intergalactic civilization, also permitted by physics.
Robby’s totally right with respect to Sartre. And a statement that doesn’t hold for Sartre doesn’t firmly stand as a statement about existentialism, I think; he’s too central. Virtually everything I’ve read of Sartre’s engenders a triumphant resolution to create the world I want to live in, and a sense that doing so is my personal responsibility. His philosophy is not all ponies and rainbows, because it’s sometimes extremely frightening, but it’s the opposite of depressing.
I’m not sure exactly when existentialism’s image switched over from Sartre’s ‘fuck yeah, life is meaningless! let’s do all the things!’ to ‘alas, life is meaningless! we are all sad and alone in the cosmos and stuff.’ I guess Camus happened. Plus Sartre is really terrible at PR.
Nope. If the Big Rip doesn’t do you in, the Heat Death of the universe will. Enjoy billions of years contemplating your inevitable demise.
Or, enjoy several weeks of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as you train yourself out of pointless rumination followed by billions of years enjoying utopia. The universe having a trait that is not preferred does not thereby obligate you to be overwhelmed by angst.
Can I do it now and enjoy my remaining lifespan? And if so, do I really need intergalactic civilization?
Yes. By all means.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy isn’t a cure for death. Yes, the intergalactic civilisation and the accompanying technology sounds rather important.
Intergalactic civilization isn’t a cure for death, either.
The simplistic view is that 50 years of life is, all else being equal, less desirable than 50 billion years of life. As it happens 50 billion years of life is actually better than 50 years of similar quality life. This isn’t a complicated or deep issue.
This isn’t what I’m arguing against here. Of course 50 billion years is better, ceteris paribus.
50 billion years still remain absurdly small compared to eternity.
What I am arguing against are these particular comments.
If the clever rhetorical questions you ask are rhetorically wrong then they remain wrong even if you have some good point that you want to ultimately support. I know this is a peculiar cultural norm to go by but it’s a valuable one.
Quite a lot smaller, yes.
The interesting question to ask here is what chance of eternal life we would be willing to exchange for a given 1% chance of 50 billion years of life in terms of hypothetical decision making. For instance someone who valued years of life linearly would, given the chance, dedicate the cosmic commons to computronium dedicated to optimistic matrix hacking even if almost completely certain there is no escape possible. I don’t value life years linearly and I’m quite sure that there are finite numbers of life years that I would prefer over chances of eternal life but I don’t know quite what the equivalence function looks like.
I’d like to take a million years or two to fully study the issue before I accept that my demise is inevitable.
I would still be curious how much I can get out of life in billions of years.
You are curious now. You might become less curious after the first billion years. :-)
PS. I’m not advocating deathism. Just saying that any period of time is insignificant, when compared to a much larger period of time. The billion-year happy intergalactic civilization is still absurdly tiny compared to the eternity of Boltzmann-brain-infested Darkness that follows...
PPS. Or we could just taboo the word “absurd”.
As a function of how long the universe will exist? ETA: a short period of time might be significantly located.
This reminds of a website where you can check if the Earth has been destroyed.
International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board.
See also: http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
Thanks. Now we need one to check the existence of the entire universe. Of course, the site will have to be hosted off-universe.