Anyone who has convinced himself that he is not searching for absolutes is an absolute moron.
By this I mean the following:
All of the “expert” notions that come from the philosophers and psychologists regarding the behavior of the human race only occur in a certain context. The “experts” look at matters of economy, sexual behaviors, social roles, and a multitude of other aspects of human life, and then make conclusions and extrapolations based on these observations.
All of these seemingly expert opinions are only “expert” insofar as they are true. And the truth of any matter, as interesting as it may be in the context of immediate human life, is either temporary or irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Due to the inability of humans to step outside of the universe and see whether it was “constructed” by God or if it has simply “always existed,” one cannot make any certain declarations as to the existence of the human soul or the purpose of all human activity. All discussions pertaining to human activity are only true when the absolute umbrella under which all action occurs is a given in the argument.
Every argument could start with, “Suppose there is a purpose for existence” or “Suppose there is not a purpose for existence.”
I’m sick of having to respect “experts” in all of these fields when nobody can take a serious stab as to the purpose of human existence without resorting to aphorism or declaring such inquiries to be nonsensical.
These inquiries are not nonsensical. They are the natural result of a string of repeating the question, “What is this for?” A person who decides to stop at the BIG question has done so arbitrarily, and nothing more.
I will use Satyr as a primary example, as he is well known to this board. He writes seemingly brilliant essays as to the condition and expectations of the human race. However, he refuses to entertain the “big questions” for the risk of appearing an amateur, as anyone would be on such matters. His wisdom is temporal and fleeting, and is only true when GIVEN a certain context.
If everyone who is supposedly “smarter” than I am must embellish in this practice, then who the fuck knows anything, anyway?
And, if someone claims to be a person who is keen, he should be continually focused on this question, and should be driven mad by it.
The rest of the “intellectual talk” around here is nothing but incessant blathering that requires “bowling guardrails.” There’s no excitement in observing what one sees with his eyes and then attempting to report it in an eloquent fashion. That turn philosophy into a giant penis measuring contest.
Everyone around here who gets stuck in psychological phenomena and all that other bullcrap has forgotten about the unanswerable “big questions” or has decided to avoid them altogether. These writings are devoid of personality, and nobody should take anything more than a passing interest in them.
This is a call for the philosophical community as a whole to grow a pair. Yes, we have no apparent way to answer the question, “What is the meaning and purpose of man’s existence?” So we either need to try REALLY hard to find some way to answer this, or we should all go completely insane by ALWAYS remembering that anything we discover is only true in a given context.
Bah, the hell with it all.