Figuring Out Religion

[ns3]

Warning: Spoiler alert

Saw the movie "Noah" last night. I give it a big thumbs down for both entertainment value and Biblical accuracy, but especially the latter. In regards to the former, I didn't see it on IMAX so perhaps I missed out on some of the visual appeal. As for Biblical accuracy I think the only thing they got right were the names of Noah and his family and the drunken incident involving his sons after the flood. I may have missed it but I don't recall reading in the Bible story about transformer-like rock creatures roaming the earth and ultimately helping to build and protect the ark.

A better name for the movie might have been "Mutiny on the Ark". You probably didn't read this in the Bible, but God showed Noah that when he said all of humanity was corrupt and needed to be destroyed, this meant ALL. Noah decides that his true mission is to save only the animals and that even he and his family have to die to rid the world of humans. So he announces when finding out his daughter-in-law is pregnant and about to give birth while still on the ark that if the child is female he is going to have to kill it. If you guess that the child was, indeed, born female you would only be half right. Noah was put in a double quandary with the birth of twin girls (conveniently one for each of his unmarried sons). His sons and daughters build their own mini-ark  to abandon ship but Noah destroys it before they are able to set out on their own.

I'll let you guess whether Noah ends up killing the baby girls or not. I was on the edge of my seat at that point.

And you probably also didn't know that Tubal-Cain, an evil king at the time of the flood, secretly made his way onto the ark as the flood began (after fighting off the rock creatures). In concert with Noah's son Ham, he conspires to kill Noah and take over the ark, but in another moment of great suspense, he is defeated, ultimately knifed through by Ham himself who finally comes to his senses to save his father.

To my amazement, there was actually applause in the theater at the end so I guess this kind of thing appeals to some people. I did get quite a laugh out of the abandon ship scene which seemed to offend some in the seats nearby.

Update:
I left out how wonderful Anthony Hopkins was as Noah's grandfather Methusaleh, living alone in a cave but going off to hunt berries in the magical forest as the flood began (he finally finds one just before the waters come). He should be a shoo-in for best supporting actor come oscar time.

[Mountaineer]

ns3,

I also heard that God was not mentioned at all in the movie.  Is that correct?

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

ns3,

I also heard that God was not mentioned at all in the movie.  Is that correct?

... Mountaineer

They called him "The Creator".

Not very personal but I can forgive that as I don't think the Bible is very clear about what God's name is.

[ns3]

Thanks for the Noah review.  Sometimes I'm convinced that Hollywood is bent on boring us all to death.  I know some Christians are offended by the various supposedly Bible-themed movies that come out, but I tend to just be bored by them.  Noah sounds like another wasted opportunity.

You're welcome.

I've read that this is being shown in IMAX 3D internationally but not in the U.S. I think it might have worked on a purely visual level if I had seen it that way but on a plain 2D screen I found it more comical than boring.

The only Bible-themed movie I ever liked was Jesus Christ Superstar. I know a lot of Christians didn't like it at the time but I thought it was awesome.

[Ad Orientem]

From everything I have heard (from multiple sources), Noah does for the Bible what "JFK" did for American History.

[Mountaineer]

From everything I have heard (from multiple sources), Noah does for the Bible what "JFK" did for American History.

The downhill slide continues on multiple fronts 

It seems the forum participants have now identified politics, religion, the Bible, morality, possibly aggression, and American History as slide topics.  What will be highlighted next?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Reversal - Lasrever

"It has been said before that if mankind wants to understand the Bible accurately, a person should read it with a very commonsense approach, interpret it according to a most basic and reasonable way, and then completely reverse what they comprehended from the Bible.  What did you just say Pastor?  Yes, when reading the Bible mankind naturally reads it according to the wisdom of man; what sounds reasonable.  However, in order to obtain what the Bible is actually saying, mankind’s natural interpretation needs to be reversed, typically 180 degrees.

Truly, the ways of God are not the ways of mankind and mankind’s ways are not God’s ways.  The way God sees things and defines reality, is typically the very opposite to how mankind sees things and understands reality.

Let me give you a couple of examples.  We believe that the greatest is the one who is first; however, the Bible says that the last shall be first and the first will be last.  We believe that one who wins is victorious; however, the Bible says that victory is found in surrendering.  We believe that the spiritually rich are blessed; however, the Bible says blessed are those who are spiritually bankrupt.  We believe that those who laugh and have joy are the ones who are truly comforted; however, the Bible says that those who mourn shall be comforted. We believe that an example of greatness is an independent, autonomous, and self-sustaining adult; however, the Bible says that the greatest are dependent, subservient, and needy children.  We believe that mankind is intrinsically good; however, the Bible says that mankind has an evil heart.  We believe that mankind is free; however, the Bible says that mankind is bound.  We believe that life happens as we truly live; however, the Bible says that we must die to truly live.

As I have already mentioned, the ways of God are not the ways of mankind and the ways of mankind are not God’s ways.  Indeed, the way that God sees things is the very reverse to how mankind generally see things.

So, why is this the case?  It is because mankind is by nature spiritually blind.  Surely, from birth you and I are born spiritually blind; having eyes to see, but not truly seeing.  Yes, due to the sinful fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, you and I are stained with sin and have a warped capability to grasp who God is, what his temperament is to us, and what reality is all about.  Otherwise stated, your nature and mine is weak, our view of truth is tainted, our reason is warped, and our view of reality is distorted; mankind, which includes you and me, loves carnal things because mankind is blind in sin and easily enticed by the deceptions of the evil one.  Things that are evil according to God are perceived as good by us; things that are good according to man are typically perceived as evil according to God.  We make evil – good and good – evil.

What this means is that apart from God giving us eyes to see, apart from God revealing to us truth, apart from God speaking into us, we are blind people leading other blind.  We are blind people stumbling through the maze of life, not fully understanding sin, righteousness, ourselves, and especially the Gospel.  Apart from being given eyes to see, we are totally and utterly blind; we are helpless like the blind beggar in our Gospel reading from today.

It is remarkable hearing our Gospel reading from today though, isn’t it?  In our Gospel reading Jesus and the disciples were passing by a blind beggar and Jesus approaches this smelly, dusty, sightless, beggar, and then spits on the ground.  He then takes this sticky, putrid mud and presses it into the blind man’s eyes and against his eye sockets.  Yes, the man is blind from birth and the Son of God is pressing spit and mud into his eyes.  But why? Mud and spit are not the exact same things as warm oil or warm water to sooth the eyes.  Rather mud and spit are messy, coarse, and most likely cold.  What this mud and spit do is that they acknowledge that the blind man is actually blind; that he can’t see; that he needs sight to be granted.  As Jesus applied the spit and mud to the blind man it was as if He acknowledged the man’s blindness, darkness, hopelessness, and predicament.

Have you noticed that though?  In the scriptures, most of the people Jesus heals and encounters are those that were completely and totally helpless.
Jesus encountered people with leprosy.  He met people who were lame.  He encountered people with disfigured hands.  He encountered people who were demonically possessed.  He met people who were blind and even people who were dead.  They were people with circumstances that were out of their control.  They did not possess the antidote to their predicament within themselves. And get this, Jesus, typically had a way of affirming their dilemma, not ignoring it.  Yes, He didn’t overlook their predicament but acknowledges it, and then He does something about it. Why do I mention this?  Is this not a tremendous picture of our spiritual condition apart from Christ?  Are we not blind; sick; dead; lame; and in bondage spiritually speaking?  Is this also not a tremendous picture of God’s Word and Sacraments granting us life and forgiveness; could I also say sight?

Consider this, because of the tragic sin of Adam and Eve, and its blinding consequences, God did not abandon His creation, rather He drew close to Adam and Eve immediately after they sinned and God continued throughout the ages to reveal Himself to His Creation as well.[1]  “Yes, the Holy Spirit has to work faith and give spiritual sight through God’s Word and Sacraments”?[2] in order for anyone to truly see.  God doesn’t abandon but continually draws near to His Creation in its beggarly sightless and sinful status.  Otherwise stated, what this means is that we can’t see, we can’t understand, we can’t make sense of the things of God, we can’t discern truth, and understand reality unless we are given eyes to see, unless the Holy Spirit works faith in us through the Word and Sacraments, and unless the Lord continually sustains us through the Word and Sacraments.

Like the blind man in darkness who received spit and mud pressed upon his lifeless eyes, God’s precious Word of a Savior who was bloodied, crucified for sin, buried, and resurrected to life travels through the auditory canals of our ears, pierces the soul and grants us faith and forgiveness.  Like the helpless blind beggar who had mud and spit surged upon his eye sockets, Christ’s precious Body and Blood are surged and poured into our mouths and into our body.  Like the helpless beggar who washed the mud off of his eyes in the pool of Siloam to see, we have been washed in the waters of our baptism.  Yes, not dirt, but sin has been washed away and drowned, thus this water has taken us from darkness to light.

Yes, Jesus’ saving and restoring work on the Cross, work that is delivered to us in the Word and Sacraments, gives us eyes to see.  Furthermore, the Word of God enables us to fill in the blanks of life; it defines reality; it shows us truth; it enables us to describe ourselves and the world around us honestly and forthrightly; and it liberates us from having to make and construct false theories in order for life to make sense.  Indeed, the Holy Spirit through the Word gives us eyes to see and places you and me in the light.

Indeed, Jesus came so that those who do not see may see.  He came so that you may see.

Now, the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Amen."

[moda0306]

I observed this morning that this is now the longest thread in the history of the forum.

And unbelievably, it has not (yet) been hijacked and turned into an Austrian vs MMT/R debate. Definitive proof of divine protection.

That's about the closest thing to a deductive argument proving God's existence I've seen!




But I only posted this to hijack this thread into a debate about deductive reasoning and proving morality. 

[moda0306]

And unbelievably, it has not (yet) been hijacked and turned into an Austrian vs MMT/R debate. Definitive proof of divine protection.

That's about the closest thing to a deductive argument proving God's existence I've seen!




But I only posted this to hijack this thread into a debate about deductive reasoning and proving morality. 

Moda, please know that I have all the answers to the morality-proof debate in the other thread, but I'm holding them close to my chest so that I don't spoil the learning process that you all are going through. 

I think K might have lost his motivation to finish that.  I have been meaning to go back and agree with him on a few things, and let us move forward, but I don't know if the Mountaineer/Xan combo is holding him back more-so than my points.

Just out of curiosity, and as a teaser, how many premises does it take to get to your conclusion?

[Mountaineer]

That's about the closest thing to a deductive argument proving God's existence I've seen!




But I only posted this to hijack this thread into a debate about deductive reasoning and proving morality. 

Moda, please know that I have all the answers to the morality-proof debate in the other thread, but I'm holding them close to my chest so that I don't spoil the learning process that you all are going through. 

I think K might have lost his motivation to finish that.  I have been meaning to go back and agree with him on a few things, and let us move forward, but I don't know if the Mountaineer/Xan combo is holding him back more-so than my points.

Just out of curiosity, and as a teaser, how many premises does it take to get to your conclusion?

I cannot speak for Desert, but for me - only one. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Moda, please know that I have all the answers to the morality-proof debate in the other thread, but I'm holding them close to my chest so that I don't spoil the learning process that you all are going through. 

I think K might have lost his motivation to finish that.  I have been meaning to go back and agree with him on a few things, and let us move forward, but I don't know if the Mountaineer/Xan combo is holding him back more-so than my points.

Just out of curiosity, and as a teaser, how many premises does it take to get to your conclusion?

I cannot speak for Desert, but for me - only one. 

... Mountaineer

But haven't you asserted that God's existence can't be proven?

I was interpreting Desert as saying it could be...

[Mountaineer]

I think K might have lost his motivation to finish that.  I have been meaning to go back and agree with him on a few things, and let us move forward, but I don't know if the Mountaineer/Xan combo is holding him back more-so than my points.

Just out of curiosity, and as a teaser, how many premises does it take to get to your conclusion?

I cannot speak for Desert, but for me - only one. 

... Mountaineer

But haven't you asserted that God's existence can't be proven?

I was interpreting Desert as saying it could be...

moda,

My apologies.  I really was just kidding!  Or, perhaps I could offer one premise that you may feel free to prove is not correct:

"God is in charge of everything and can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, and to whomever He wants." 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I have been reading Nietzsche lately, and he pretty convincingly makes the case that without God or some other external thing, there is no source of objective morality, and that those who are not believers are therefore prone to nihilism. It becomes a force they must constantly struggle against, increasing in severity the more intelligent they are as they begin to grasp the implications of a purposeless world. To preserve their mental health, they must invent a source of meaning for themselves, and Nietzsche advances the idea that and purposeful action in the service of creating works of art can be such a source.

I haven't gotten into it very deeply yet but I'm finding a lot of it to be really interesting and relevant.

[Mountaineer]

I have been reading Nietzsche lately, and he pretty convincingly makes the case that without God or some other external thing, there is no source of objective morality, and that those who are not believers are therefore prone to nihilism. It becomes a force they must constantly struggle against, increasing in severity the more intelligent they are as they begin to grasp the implications of a purposeless world. To preserve their mental health, they must invent a source of meaning for themselves, and Nietzsche advances the idea that and purposeful action in the service of creating works of art can be such a source.

I haven't gotten into it very deeply yet but I'm finding a lot of it to be really interesting and relevant.

PS,

Your comments made me think of sin.  One definition of sin is to love yourself preferentially rather than love your neighbor (e.g. looking out for number one no matter what the expense to my neighbor's needs).  Perhaps the benefit of Jesus' great commandments - loving God and loving neighbor - is to give us a sense of purpose and meaning that is external to ourselves - maybe morals flow from that.  At least for the Christians that I'm associated with, nihlism is not typically one of the forces with which we are constantly struggling (although there are many others probably just as tough).  I've said this before, but from my perspective, I can't even imagine how hard it must be for people who do not have a clear purpose or sense of meaning, and for those who think it is just "lights out forever" when death is imminent.  For me, it is so very comforting to know that absolutely nothing can hurt me - not persecution, not belittling me, not physically harming me, not even killing me - there is always my hope and comfort in knowing there is something better-beyond-description waiting for me when this temporal life ends.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

This guy sounds like an interesting read.

However, I'm not very convinced that his/others' attraction to religion isn't a symptom of the exact same mental hiccup around purpose and morality.

The way I see it, religion is just another attempt to create an "objective morality," no different than attempting to use logic to get yourself 90% of the way to proving certain concepts (maximizing happiness, conscious beings having certain "rights," etc).

Even if you could prove that there was a creator, and prove what he demands/requests us to do as human beings, I'm not convinced that this establishes morality.  I'd still be more inclined to believe morality is something wrapped within us as conscious beings that can feel pain and fear, rather than a function of what an all-powerful being prefers of me.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I don't think any appeals to religion are any different than rational thought about matters of morality, except, IMO, all to often they attempt to defer to some very, very arbitrary sources for a final answer.

I know this could probably be interpreted as a bit disrespectful, and I don't mean it to be, but just that even when people aren't attempting to use cold hard logic they either are making an objective argument (somewhat by accident... such as concluding, based on historical data, that there's lots of evidence that Christianity (or some interpretation of it) is correct) or stating a subjective feeling, which is simply a personal observation not shared by others.  That "feeling" (that there is a God and one knows what he wants of us), unless correct in its conclusion about reality, is no different than my "feeling" that it's wrong to hurt others, etc.  It's just another subjective feeling about reality that we can't prove.  In fact, in the absence of proof, one might be able to say that the belief of morality is in some ways some sort of religion.  It's based almost purely on faith, yet many of us are all-but convinced that it is real.

[doodle]

I have been reading Nietzsche lately, and he pretty convincingly makes the case that without God or some other external thing, there is no source of objective morality, and that those who are not believers are therefore prone to nihilism. It becomes a force they must constantly struggle against, increasing in severity the more intelligent they are as they begin to grasp the implications of a purposeless world. To preserve their mental health, they must invent a source of meaning for themselves, and Nietzsche advances the idea that and purposeful action in the service of creating works of art can be such a source.

I haven't gotten into it very deeply yet but I'm finding a lot of it to be really interesting and relevant.

Pretty much describes the place where I find myself right now....on the edge of nihilism. I would love to be able to be able to get wrapped up "life" and believe again in something, but I can't will myself into delusion... Meaning, love, purpose, morality etc etc. seem to me to be  entirely human constructs that don't exist outside of a human context and even then are highly dependent on cultural norms. I think that to attempt to create a universal law of morality as Kshartle and his predecessor Kant tried is the height of delusional folly. Every law of morality is an attempt to constrain or direct the actions of another to serve some particular end or purpose. Since, there is no verifiable purpose or meaning to life or even a definition of what constitutes "life" there is no way to build a proper universal moral code that exists outside of a particular society and it's beliefs and assumptions.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Your comments made me think of sin.  One definition of sin is to love yourself preferentially rather than love your neighbor (e.g. looking out for number one no matter what the expense to my neighbor's needs).  Perhaps the benefit of Jesus' great commandments - loving God and loving neighbor - is to give us a sense of purpose and meaning that is external to ourselves - maybe morals flow from that.

What you're describing isn't just Jesus; All religions provide their believers with an external source of meaning. The messages are different between religions, but the fact that there are messages to hear and rules to follow and so on and so forth is what creates the external meaning in a believer's life. Or at least that's how I see it.

At least for the Christians that I'm associated with, nihlism is not typically one of the forces with which we are constantly struggling (although there are many others probably just as tough).

Right, because you all have an externally-provided source of meaning in your lives.

I've said this before, but from my perspective, I can't even imagine how hard it must be for people who do not have a clear purpose or sense of meaning, and for those who think it is just "lights out forever" when death is imminent.

At times, it's scary to think about, and I'll admit to battling nihilism more than I'd like to. It's at these times that I wish I could be a believer, but no matter how hard I try or how much I feel like I've opened myself up to receiving the kind of signals that believers see… nothing. I can't seem to make it happen.

[doodle]

In fact, in the absence of proof, one might be able to say that the belief of morality is in some ways some sort of religion.  It's based almost purely on faith, yet many of us are all-but convinced that it is real.

Yes, if I have had anything that I could call a "revelation" in my life it would be this. It is quite a scary place which is why I have become quite interested in Zen and Daoism which attempts to grapple with this reality mostly through the concept of dependent origination or the poorly translated concept of  "emptiness"

[Pointedstick]

Pretty much describes the place where I find myself right now....on the edge of nihilism. I would love to be able to be able to get wrapped up "life" and believe again in something, but I can't will myself into delusion... Meaning, love, purpose, morality etc etc. seem to me to be  entirely human constructs that don't exist outside of a human context and even then are highly dependent on cultural norms. I think that to attempt to create a universal law of morality as Kshartle and his predecessor Kant tried is the height of delusional folly. Every law of morality is an attempt to constrain or direct the actions of another to serve some particular end or purpose. Since, there is no verifiable purpose or meaning to life or even a definition of what constitutes "life" there is no way to build a proper universal moral code that exists outside of a particular society and it's beliefs and assumptions.

And this is exactly why religion is so important, I think. The logical end of this mode of thinking is depression or even suicide.

Given that all cultures the world over have invented their own religions, there must be something almost evolutionarily important about it. If you think about it, nihilism is an anti-life ideology. Why even continue existing if there's no meaning behind anything? If primitive humans were able to think in such a way, they never would have gotten over their depression to start hitting each other with rocks and then dreaming up ways to make their rocks more deadly.

Religion seems to be the social insulator against nihilism. But what happens when you're a highly intelligent person who simply can't believe? Then evolutionarily speaking, you're probably a genetic aberration that would would be selected out of the gene pool. Tellingly, Nietzsche never had any children and went insane. Many highly intelligent people who have battled nihilism have found it to be so crippling that it actually impaired their ability to function.

[doodle]

Pretty much describes the place where I find myself right now....on the edge of nihilism. I would love to be able to be able to get wrapped up "life" and believe again in something, but I can't will myself into delusion... Meaning, love, purpose, morality etc etc. seem to me to be  entirely human constructs that don't exist outside of a human context and even then are highly dependent on cultural norms. I think that to attempt to create a universal law of morality as Kshartle and his predecessor Kant tried is the height of delusional folly. Every law of morality is an attempt to constrain or direct the actions of another to serve some particular end or purpose. Since, there is no verifiable purpose or meaning to life or even a definition of what constitutes "life" there is no way to build a proper universal moral code that exists outside of a particular society and it's beliefs and assumptions.

And this is exactly why religion is so important, I think. The logical end of this mode of thinking is depression or even suicide.

Given that all cultures the world over have invented their own religions, there must be something almost evolutionarily important about it. If you think about it, nihilism is an anti-life ideology. Why even continue existing if there's no meaning behind anything? If primitive humans were able to think in such a way, they never would have gotten over their depression to start hitting each other with rocks and then dreaming up ways to make their rocks more deadly.

Religion seems to be the social insulator against nihilism. But what happens when you're a highly intelligent person who simply can't believe? Then evolutionarily speaking, you're probably a genetic aberration that would would be selected out of the gene pool. Tellingly, Nietzsche never had any children and went insane. Many highly intelligent people who have battled nihilism have found it to be so crippling that it actually impaired their ability to function.

The stoic concept of the "logos" is one particular view that I find quite easy to mesh into my nihilistic beliefs and give my time here purpose and meaning.

What’s the Logos?

The Stoics followed Heraclitus in believing that the cosmos is connected by an all-pervasive intelligence called the Logos, which you can translate as the Word or the Law. It’s a form of divine providence that guides all things. It exists in all things, but it vibrates particularly strongly in human consciousness. For the Stoics, the meaning of life, the goal of human existence, is to develop our consciousness and bring it into harmony with the Logos.

How do we do that?

By overcoming our attachment and aversion to external things. Nature is constantly changing, nothing is permanent, so if we become attached or averse to external things, we’ll often be unhappy, insecure and anxious, because the world will not be the way we want it to be. By focusing not on external goods but on the inner goods of virtue, we can become one with the ebb and flow of the cosmos, accepting whatever happens to us as the will of the Logos.

Then what? Do we get a good reincarnation?

Actually the Stoics are fairly reticent about what if anything happens in the afterlife, or if there is an afterlife. But the reward of bringing oneself into harmony with the Logos is that you attain a ‘good flow of life’. You attain the peace and happiness of being in harmony with the cosmos, and of fulfilling your divine nature as a rational human being.

[Pointedstick]

You would love Nietzsche, doodle. He viewed the stoics as almost the mirror image of the Epicureans, and thought that they were both lopsided in their approach to life. (gross generalization alert) The Stoics basically said, "well, life is meaningless so we had better just weather this painful truth, since the world is simply full of suffering." In Nietzsche's view, this was little different from the Epicureans, who basically said, "well, life is meaningless, so let's give it out own meaning by doing whatever gives us pleasure." Each of them was denying the other's point of view; the Stoics, by resisting the concept of pleasure, and the Epicureans, by living for the moment and never really creating anything.

On a personal level, I tend toward stoicism because hedonic experiences don't really do it for me. When I have a highly pleasurable experience, I find that the feeling of pleasure tends to fade quickly, and so to fill my life with pleasure would quite literally entail pleasure-seeking behavior pretty much constantly, which is obviously impossible.

Anyway, Nietzsche thought that the solution lay in the fusion of the two points of view, which I think he said Greek tragedy managed to do, though I haven't actually gotten to that part of his writings yet so take it with a grain of salt. I believe his conclusion was that craftsmanship of art was how you escape from nihilism.

Then again, he went nuts and died early, so what did he know?

[Pointedstick]

Some further thoughts on stoicism, and its cousins minimalism and asceticism: the unifying thread here is less. Less stuff, less attachment, less possessiveness, less desire, less control, less impact. Less, less, less.

I can't say Nietzsche saw it this way, but this seems a lot like what he called slave morality. He said that slave morality was basically created by slaves as an inversion of their masters' master morality in that it declared bad everything the masters liked: activity, strength, virility, creation, domination, destruction, power. Slave moralities dealt with the slaves' lack of physical power by extolling mental power in the form of self-denial, self-control, non-judgementalism, compassion, and good intentions.

The problem with slave moralities is that following them doesn't actually make you happy if you have ambition or creativity, since they act to extinguish these tendencies. And the problem with master morality is that it's easy to follow it and become a dickhead or warlord.

[moda0306]

I have been reading Nietzsche lately, and he pretty convincingly makes the case that without God or some other external thing, there is no source of objective morality, and that those who are not believers are therefore prone to nihilism. It becomes a force they must constantly struggle against, increasing in severity the more intelligent they are as they begin to grasp the implications of a purposeless world. To preserve their mental health, they must invent a source of meaning for themselves, and Nietzsche advances the idea that and purposeful action in the service of creating works of art can be such a source.

I haven't gotten into it very deeply yet but I'm finding a lot of it to be really interesting and relevant.

Pretty much describes the place where I find myself right now....on the edge of nihilism. I would love to be able to be able to get wrapped up "life" and believe again in something, but I can't will myself into delusion... Meaning, love, purpose, morality etc etc. seem to me to be  entirely human constructs that don't exist outside of a human context and even then are highly dependent on cultural norms. I think that to attempt to create a universal law of morality as Kshartle and his predecessor Kant tried is the height of delusional folly. Every law of morality is an attempt to constrain or direct the actions of another to serve some particular end or purpose. Since, there is no verifiable purpose or meaning to life or even a definition of what constitutes "life" there is no way to build a proper universal moral code that exists outside of a particular society and it's beliefs and assumptions.

I interestingly find that there's a fine-line between HB's brand of "freedomism" and nehilism. 

HB suggests a course of actions that discover what truly make us happy.  Luckily for me, nothing really despicable brings me any happyness at all.  I have to assume the same for you, doodle.

If you haven't read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," I'd highly suggest it.  It might rub you as a bit "self-centered," but the logic and process around is far more sensible than it is "immoral" or self-centered in nature.  Or at least that's how I read it.

I mean, even if there is no external purpose in life, why not just maximize your own damned happiness, since you know, for some odd reason, all things being equal, feeling happy "feels better."

Further, I can't remember the article/commentary I was reading about, but there are a lot of differing theories of input around finding areas of "balance" in your life.  Usually there are several areas: Physical, social, family, spiritual, career, financial, mental... is one bunch.

It can be tough to decide where to put our time, but if we realize that all those areas deserve our time and attention in some ways for ultimate "life balance," it can be easier to set priorities for maximum happiness in a world of competing noise that we have to deal with.

For instance, you only have so many hours in a day, and only so many ways to optimize your balance in those areas, so anything you can do to stimulate multiple areas at once is ideal.  Hence the suggestion that learning how to cook (even if initially a bit grueling) can be such an enriching hobby, since it contributes to your creativity (mental), health (physical), family cohesiveness (family), and if you do it often, you go out to eat less (financial).

Both HIFFIAUW and this concept of "balance" amongst competing areas in life to help me organize my priorities in delivering myself that longer-term happiness has been extremely useful to me in the sense that even if life DOES have no real meaning besides the dopamine running through my veins, I've at least maximized that, and likely in a way that is a positive influence to the ones that mean the most to me, which makes the flow of my happiness drugs that much more reliable.

Maybe I misread your post as having a bit of disappointment in life embedded in it... I agree with you on a lot, but life is just too cool of a thing to really think that there is "no purpose."  My ability to seek out purpose and disappointment in not finding it proves to me that I have preferable states, and that at the VERY least, I should simply seek to maximize those, and learning how to understand the balance between emotions and logic, and how to make them work for each other instead of against each other, is one hell of a useful lesson to that end, and that I CAN prove with logic .

[Pointedstick]

Maybe I misread your post as having a bit of disappointment in life embedded in it... I agree with you on a lot, but life is just too cool of a thing to really think that there is "no purpose."

You have to make your own purpose, I think. That can open up another can of worms… "Why is my brain telling me to do this when I know it's all pointless!?"

That's the point where I think you just need to kick yourself in the nutsack and do something. Every time I am feeling this way, I eventually realize I'm out-thinking myself and I just go and do some activity if for nothing else than to occupy my brain with something else so at least its time will be split between that and contemplating the meaninglessness of life .

For me, the activities that make me feel better might be associated with what Nietzsche terms "master morality": building something, repairing something, going to the shooting range, even playing a violent video game, things of that nature.

Why do I like doing these things? Who knows. Maybe it's better to stop the inquiry there. I really do believe you can out-think yourself if you are a very smart person. It's a danger that many of the great historical philosophers fell into. Nietzsche and Marx, for example, were basically charity cases for their whole lives who never married, never had children, never meaningfully accumulated property, and were difficult to get along with.

[doodle]

Yes, Nietszche has been on my reading list for a long time. Have you had trouble with it? Ive heard it can be a struggle to understand.

As for the Epicureans, they were not hedonists in the modern sense of the word. Their concept of "pleasure" wasn't the wild time that most of us envision today when we think of hedonism. In fact, the term "epicurean" which is used to describe someone with lavishly rich tastes for food is quite far from the simple diet and lifestyle which Epicurus promoted. The primary pleasure that the Epicureans strove for was termed "ataraxia" which was basically just a simple type of peace. Being rich and powerful was something that might be able to buy you many luxuries and sensuous pleasure but it came at a great expense to ones peace and tranquility and made achieving ataraxia difficult. So, while there are certainly differences, I don't see that much of a rift between epicureans and stoics. I don't think the stoics were necessarily "anti pleasure" either...that is another modern misconception of the philosophy...the pleasure that the stoic sought was "peace of mind and serenity"....stoicism was a means of delivering serenity in a topsy turvy world by simply accepting that one had limited control over anything but ones judgements about the events and situations of life.