The world can't live up to my idealism

[andrewducker]

Way back in June I posted a poll asking whether people were satisfied with life. I meant to post something a few days later explaining why I wasn't - but as usual life intervened. I never seemed to be in the right mood to write about _why_ I'm not satisfied with life. Because I'm fundamentally not.

Which isn't to say that I can't enjoy life (I do, a lot of the time) or be happy (I am, a lot of the time) - it's just that underlying it all is the knowledge that real, actual, physical life doesn't live up to my idealised feeling of how life should be. I'm an idealist at heart - I _know_ how life should be, and I'm disappointed when the realities and complexities of actual life differ from that. Reality feels like a busted wonder, a badly specified system, a brain-damaged genius - there are occasional flashes of how it should be, and a lot of the time you can see the sheer beauty of which it's capable, but there's always a niggling feeling of failure wrapped up in it. The world should have magic around every corner, and no matter how wonderful the things in it are they just don't live up to that.

And I also know that this attitude isn't reasonable, or logical - the world is what it is, and being disappointed because it fundamentally differs from how I'd like it to doesn't help in any way. But this isn't logical - it's pure emotion, and not something I've ever found a way of dealing with. Not that it bothers me much 99% of the time - and not at all 95% of it. But occasionally, when I get into a black mood, I'm reminded of it - and that no matter what, I'm never completely satisfied with the world.

Comments

[andrewducker]

It is, indeed, the sheer nature of existence itself.

And my basic problem is with the lack of meaning inherent in the universe. Like most people I feel like the universe is meaningful, but I'm also aware that the meaning is extrinsic, and that in actuality we're a microscopic part of a universe that doesn't actually give a damn about us. It's this conflict that makes me intrinsically disatisfied with the whole job lot of it.

Deep down, underneath it all, there is a lack of point. I can distract myself from that, and even be happy with the things that are distracting me, but eventually I am reminded of said pointlessness.

[yalovetz]

Thanks, I think I understand a bit better now. :)

I think my own feelings veer off in the exact opposite direction to yours from the same basic starting point. Which is an equally irrational response so I guess I'm just lucky. ;)

[andrewducker]

Now _I'm_ intrigued. Please to be describing said opposite direction...

[yalovetz]

Well, I find the sheer unexplainability of the universe utterly awe-inspiring. A lack of point isn't the same as pointlessness (the latter has a value-judgement attached to it in a way that the former doesn't) and I happen to find that the universe's fundamental lack of point strikes me as something astonishing and rather wonderful.

I discovered this around the age of 17 in the course of attempting to describe to my classmates why I found Waiting for Godot to be a thoroughly life-affirming play...

I also think that this sense of wonder at the unexplained and fundamentally meaningless is the basic feeling behind my well-established atheism - positing God as an explanation takes away from the true wonder of the universe in my book.

[andrewducker]

I agree that the lack of meaning does give an infinite amount of freedom to establish ones own point, which is definitely a plus point.

And I also have a sense of wonder at the unexplained (and, indeed, at a fair chunk of the explained).

I suspect that part of my problem is that I tend to be goal-oriented, and setting my own goals tends to set me off on an apocalypticly recursive regress.

[yalovetz]

I agree that the lack of meaning does give an infinite amount of freedom to establish ones own point, which is definitely a plus point.

I don't know how much freedom we really have though, psychologically. We're talking about feelings here and I don't think either of us feels like we've freely chosen our emotional responses to the meaninglessness of the universe; it just is what it is and we have to live with it.

[andrewducker]

Well, on one level I don't actually believe in free will, so I can't really argue that we have any freedom over what we believe. And certainly the human mind is better adapted to believing certain things suited to being story-telling apes. But nevertheless lacking a single source of all meaning means that the theoretical interpretations open to us are a lot less limited.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

it's *your* universe - it can only ever be what you make of it.

(well, actually, it's mine, but it might help you to think about it that way)

[andrewducker]

It is not my universe. My universe exists solely within my head, and will end with my death.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

It is.

Pretty close to what I think (though 'everything is part of me' is closer, I suppose. Like Kelly, I AM God [or that's certainly the easiest, if not 100% accurate way to put it. Gives the right emotional flavour.]).

'until your death' is forever.

[andrewducker]

No, it's not.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

which part?

prove it.

[andrewducker]

People have died. "Forever" is not over. Therefore "until you die" is not the same as "forever".

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

It is to you. Which is the only viewpoint you can have.

[andrewducker]

No it's not. I can have a much larger viewpoint than that. I can be aware that the world exists outside of my extreme parochial and limited viewpoint. And as the vast majority of the problems in the world have been caused by people refusing to deal with the world existing outside of their parochial and limited viewpoints, I can feel good about that.