“Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”
>Eight years since Steve died. I keep looking for meaning, but all I've found so far is that in order to be at peace with the present, we must be at peace with the past, because the present is a product of the past. Accept. Accept. Accept. Learn to love the present moment. What happened, happened. It's difficult to understand the big picture when our lives are mere brush strokes on the canvas of reality. Trusting that it all fits together to form something beautiful is the purest form of faith. Anything else is a dangerous distraction. No contracts with God, no expectations of reward, just trust.
For me, it was a book on stoicism ("A Guide to the Good Life — The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy" by William B Irvine) that showed me that, while it's not possible to avoid the inevitable pains and losses — just semi-regular thoughts about it, imagining the world where the losses have already happened, allows immense enjoyment and appreciation of the current moments.
Also, as an unexpected bonus, the book showed that philosophy shouldn't neccesarily be only theoretical high-brow word games, it can be a pleasant and highly practical experience as well.
I found this article a couple of years ago, probably here on HN, and it helped me through a dark time.
I find myself coming back to it very often, or sharing it with others.
I found a lot of peace with this quote:
> I keep looking for meaning, but all I've found so far is that in order to be at peace with the present, we must be at peace with the past, because the present is a product of the past. Accept. Accept. Accept. Learn to love the present moment. What happened, happened.
> I keep looking for meaning, but all I've found so far is that in order to be at peace with the present, we must be at peace with the past, because the present is a product of the past. Accept. Accept. Accept. Learn to love the present moment.
Sometimes it helps me to remember that the present is literally the only thing that exists. Looking too much into the past produces guilt; too much into the future, anxiety. I hope in this new world we're building with all the great technology, we put a stronger emphasis on learning contentment which can only come from accepting the present in all its myriad forms.
> Those who push only for the sake of some future reward, or to avoid failure, very often burn out, sometimes tragically.
How does one not become complacent after reading this? I am confused. On one hand people pull all nighters doing mundane things as doing customer support because you are the founder, and you have to do it (and endanger their health and maybe life). And on the other hand this.
Embrace the process of doing something, not just the product. Become an entrepreneur because you enjoy discovering business models, learning new things, and solving peoples' problems. Become an engineer because you like tinkering with technology. Become a writer because you want to explore new ideas, or a doctor because you like saving lives and dealing with the human body.
If you find you're doing something only for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it's time to re-examine whether you should be doing it at all. Staying power usually requires that you derive some meaning from the actual activity itself, that the day-to-day of it gives your life purpose.
You are thinking of a too narrow focus my friend. Think grander. I'm an atheist, but look at someone like Jesus. Lets assume he was a real person for a moment, not magical, maybe a little insane and full of revolutionary ideas. Perhaps the people of his time would never accept his version of the world, a peaceful one, simply because it might cause them a loss of station or because 'that's the way we always did it' or because 'the old gods said it was ok'. What did he do, he sold them a story. It wasn't true and he probably knew it, he told them to love one another, he told them to help those who were the most vulnerable. He created a meme. Everyone creates memes. That 'fact' you parrot off facebook, you just infected someone else with a meme. So in my eyes the only point to life is this, leave the world in a better place then you found it. Choose the memes you spread wisely, and try to create better ones yourself.
Where do I focus my memes? The millions dead and dying from malnutrition. Its absolutely preventable, we have the technology to solve it and its abhorrent that it continues into the modern era. You can join me, or you can pick something else. Just try and have a positive impact, and if you are good enough (and lucky) this world might just remember you when you are gone.
Yes, it's very moving. Hopefully, enough so that people will donate to pancreatic cancer research. It's a cancer that kills most people, and yet we do little research.
Steve Jobs and Randy Pausch also left this world way too young:
Thanks for including Randy Pausch. His 'Last Lecture' is highly recommended for those who haven't seen it. It can be found in melling's link above or directly here:
Paul's closing remarks remind me of a bit that the late Bill Hicks used to sign off with:
“The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.”
The comic is actually drawn by the artist of zenpencils, Gavin Aung Than (in a clever imitation of Bill's style, and with Bill's words, so it's an easy mix-up!)
I don't think a cartoon has challenged my thinking this much since an old Calvin and Hobbes snippet from my childhood. Damn, I might need to check out of the game for a while! Good link~
I always considered this a fairly cheap sentiment. Sorry, even if the 'ride' is an illusion I still need to clothe, feed, protect, etc myself. At the end of the day everyone does and there are limited resources in the world - thus competition. We tried communism, and it led to even more massive inequality than capitalism but also somehow put millions into deathcamps and gulags.
>Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world
Drop your military spending and Putin will take more of your lands. Or North Korea will finally invade as they keep promising. Or ISIS will march in and smash up your museums and rape your women. Its childish to dismiss game theory when it comes to the taking of land.
>and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
Space is like rapture for geeks. What space exactly? Terraform a planet? Good, now you have the exact same problems you have here except less natural resources, so expect even more competition for scarce resources. You won't escape your problems, you'll just make them worse. The first space colony won't be utopia, it'll be a wild-west nightmare of lawlessness and conflict.
>Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world
The reality for now is someone has to protect the pacifists. It is hard to believe that ISIS exists in the modern world. They are so depraved that they make the Nazis look like good guys.
The reality for now is someone has to protect the pacifists.
ISIS was born amongst the chaos of the failed state of Iraq, and covert support and funding of rebel groups to topple Assad in Syria, out of warfare, not ex-nihilo.
A far more conservative attitude to when to fight and when to supply arms might do the west no harm at all, and allow them to spend a lot of that money on something more productive.
You have to see ISIS for what it is. They are teenagers in tin shacks and caves with yesterdays cell phones. If you legitimately fear them you are misguided. They exist to push you, you make you buy into the current status quo. Who are they up against? The most powerful and technologically advanced military ever in the history of the world. That military spends more than the next 5 largest ones combined. Its like Urkel vs Bruce Lee. They don't stand a chance. Sure they might blow up a shopping center or two, but the fact is law enforcement kills more people in than ISIS ever did.
You want to end ISIS? Sorry there isn't a quick way to do so. Build a school for women in one of the countries they inhabit, protect it with drones and soldiers, build power plants, and give them internet connections. Change the culture, not at the end of a gun but with sandwiches for their hungry, water for their thirsty, and knowledge for their curious. Do this everywhere we are invited, and then do it in the places we are not. Then in a few generations took a look the world you have created, I promise you it will be a better one.
> You have to see ISIS for what it is. They are teenagers in tin shacks and caves with yesterdays cell phones.
Similar things were said about the Viet Cong, except for the cellphones. The Mijahideen defeated the Soviet Union and arguably lead to it's demise. The US got kicked out of Lebanon and Somalia. I happen to think that won't happen with ISIS, mainly due to the oil but also because the West has allies nearby in the region, or at least people we can work with such as the Kurds, Shia Iraqis and Turkey. Still, being high tech and spending big doesn't guarantee victory.
ISIS may not be an existential threat to the USA, sure, but they're doing a lot of damage to a lot of people and it looks like they will continue to do so for quite some time to come.
The VC were defending their homes, as were the Mujahideen for the most part. They work because they have some popular support. Women of the village make them dinner and clean their clothes. You have to put them in a untenable position. Make them attack solders around the UN truck handing out bottled water and medical care to children, then the power plant supplying the village, then the school. Be the good guy. Eventually the villagers supporting them will want a better life for their daughters and sons and will no longer do so. You will win their hearts and minds. A military or diplomatic victory isn't required, a cultural one is.
Are there any examples of that actually working? We have plenty of examples of utter brutality and backing complete bastards working, see Taiwan and South Korea, or earlier military campaigns in Afghanistan where people actually won instead of declaring victory and going home.
Winning them over with kindness doesn't have a great track record unless there's some other bastard to be the iron fist.
They are teenagers in tin shacks and caves with yesterdays cell phones.
I imagine what would happen if you dropped high end cellphones and tablets in these parts of the world; mobile phones equipped with super fast free internet connection, and a library of great videos, content, knowledge. Both fun and educational obviously.
My point is that once a man is learned and cultured, it becomes harder to get him to hate another regardless of their differences.
I really wonder how this got to be the explanation behind IS and similar groups. They always reference the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah in everything they do. The US foreign policy was used as a convenient excuse and certainly wasn't helping at times, but the drive does not come from how they've been treated. The drive comes directly from the religious commands found in the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah.
It's the teachings combined with the knowledge of them combined with a desire to follow them that is creating the current situation with IS and other groups.
> I really wonder how this got to be the explanation behind IS and similar groups.
Because its not that hard to observe the conditions in the world, historically, in which people are attracted, and not attracted, to violent groups like IS, of varying sources of ideological propaganda.
> They always reference the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah in everything they do.
Yes, that's their source of ideological propaganda, and its obviously a source that makes a lot of sense when you are recruiting in a place where people are previously socialized to favor those sources.
But there are plenty of people in the same regions that aren't violent extremists that also reference the Qu'ran, hadiths, and sunnah in everything they do.
> The US foreign policy was used as a convenient excuse
The US foreign policy is one of the major factors creating the conditions which lead to their particular application of the Qu'ran, hadiths, and sunnah being as successful as it is in appealing to people in the region.
There are something like a billion Muslims who treat the Qur'an and the sunnah with equal reverence but somehow manage to get through their lives without beheading anyone or pillaging any cities.
And there are plenty of people who have been screwed over by US foreign policy but who, again, somehow manage to refrain from committing atrocities.
Terrorism generally seems to spring up where there is both a big political grievance and some kind of ideological foundation to hook it onto. That's not an absolute requirement (e.g., I don't believe the Tamil Tigers had any ideology beyond their nationalism; on a much smaller scale, the occasional cases of Christians blowing up abortion clinics aren't very political) but generally that partnership is what does it.
And when that's the case, it's misleading to blame the terrorism exclusively on the ideology or exclusively on the political grievance.
Groups like IS and al Qaeda, so far as I can tell, really truly do believe that what they are doing is justified by Islam; and they really truly do believe that what they are doing is a necessary response to US intervention in the Middle East.
All the non violent muslims have access to the same book and teachings, so why are they non violent?
Any religion can be distorted. There's a buddhist army and two buddhist terrorist groups currently operating, yet most people would rate buddhism as one of the most pacifist religions.
If that was true all Muslims would support ISIS but they don't. The ones that do largely come from and are based in the section of Iraq that got most massively screwed over in the US lead invasion. You're telling me that's purely a co-incidence?
There's no excuse for what ISIS does. No reason is strong enough for the kind of barbarity they practice, but characterising it as purely senseless and ignoring the actual reasons behind it doesn't help either. The actual reasons they do what they do may not be sufficient or reasonable relative to their actions, and may not actually align well with their rhetoric, but they do exist.
> If that was true all Muslims would support ISIS but they don't.
Different people react to things differently, interpret things differently, take ideas more or less seriously, and so on.
I think the reasoning: "if ISIS was about religion, then all muslims would support ISIS", would approximately equally support: "if ISIS was about foreign policy, then all Iraqis would support ISIS".
I don't think either of those if-thens holds as an if-then, regardless of the truth value of the "if" part.
> but the drive does not come from how they've been treated
> It's the teachings combined with...a desire to follow them
where do you think that desire comes from?
Saying "US foreign policy" created these groups isn't a great short hand for talking about the creation of the conditions that foment these groups. In reality it's an incredibly complicated situation where almost any action will have downsides that entail a lot of human suffering, but US foreign policy is an outsized input into that situation, so it's right to hold it responsible in turn for whatever those consequences are.
Think about it from a historical perspective: religion has always been a tool used by the powerful to motivate the masses and mask their own agendas. Think about the Roman emperor Constantine, who converted his empire to Christianity. Most would argue it was an attempt to preserve the integrity of the empire so he could maintain power. How different is this from a radical group in the Middle East using religion to motivate other to join their cause? Or using Islam to cover up their actual political motivations?
The US foreign policy can destroy the well-being of entire nations, and therefore the lives of millions of people. When you come to the conclusion that your life and the lives of everyone you've known have been fucked over by a nation half way around the world, I image that can get you pretty mad.
Humans do two things unnaturally well: make communities and separate into tribes. ISIS hasn't done much the Japanese haven't done to China, the Hutsis haven't done to the Tutsis (or was it the other way around).
...and these misguided, kill-or-be-killed beliefs are precisely what he was talking about.
Turn off the news. It's just a ride, man. ISIS is irrelevant, like Goldstein. It's nothing but a farce to get you to start sentences with "The reality is for now..."
First I wasn't talking about the UK. Did you even read TFA? It's about what the US did, it just happens to be on Guardian, a UK newspaper.
Now, he who helped create ISIS, funded its operations, and enabled it to reign and kill people, in order to sell weapons and destabilize a region, is worse than ISIS.
What exactly is controversial about this?
That said, since you mentioned the UK: the UK had a billion people in Africa and Asia as slaves in its colonies just until 50 years ago. This, besides enslavement and resource-grabbing included countless executions, rapes, torture, aggression, war etc. ISIS has a lot of work to do to match up the numbers.
Don't make the mistake that the villain with the suit and the clean shave is much better than the crude foreign-looking fundamendalist villain.
I can't remember a time where the finality of death and the pointlessness of life hasn't struck me. I can't remember a day past the age of 16 where I didn't think about the fact that everyone I know, literally every single thing I've ever experienced will die, or wither away.
Even the sun. One of the most powerful entities my mind can possibly comprehend. The entire reason for everything we know. The source of nearly every tiny bit of energy we consume. It's temporary. It'll be gone one day and when it is, it'll be like it was never there.
Accepting these things is one of the most terrifying, difficult, powerful and freeing things I've done. It's very powerful to be able to step back and assess my situation in the context of "will this matter in 50 years when I'm on my deathbed?" In so many difficult decisions, it's made the answer clear: "in 50 years, will I remember feeling good because I took my parents' advice and didn't move and didn't upset them? Or will I look back with regret on the opportunity I didn't take across the country."
I really like this article. It's very important to remember that everything we think is so strong and foundational can go away in the blink of an eye.
There's a wonderful entry on wikipedia which describes the future of our solar system. The story about what's going to happen to us, our world and our sun in the far, far future is a fantastic read.
Somehow it feels very comforting to me, thinking about this and the size of the universe.
That is an incredibly cool article. Totally wrecked my productivity this morning.
I was surprised by how close the end is. The circle of life of stars -- where they form, die, and are born again from the ashes -- looks to be impossible more than 1-100 trillion years from now. I'm not sure why, but that seems to be the most dangerous thing in the article. Without new stars forming, there are no new planets forming in new habitable zones, which means no new life.
I wonder if something could be done by intelligent life to avert the ultimate end. Could intelligent life theoretically artificially keep new stars forming?
This is way above my head to answer your question coherently. One way to look at it is, that the possibility of colonizing the solar system is low, maybe impossible. Without this, at some point all energy will simply evaporate into all directions if we can't reach other suns. The Great Filter is an interesting study in this regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
IMO, looking at things from a 50+ year perspective is like trying to calculate a score on life. It just seems to miss the point. IMO, you’re better off doing things based on how they improve your life on a random day in the next 50 years.
Consider, becoming a doctor may allow you to take some great vacations and be content that you helped people on your death bed, but those are just a few days so you need to consider the day to day life as a doctor not just the highlights.
On a contrary note, someone famous said that it's better to set you life's goal as a very hard problem and chip away at it. Every decade you will see the progress you made and will keep you focused. The argument is that if you keep short achievable goals then there is a transition period between goals which are tough and perhaps in hindsight it may look like a sail in the wind.
A very comprehensible example for me is Don Knuth. A part of his drive is his ambition to finish the series of books.
Having said so, there is no panacea and I think it very well depends on how one's system is wired.
The premise is that the goal is sufficiently hard and the reward is the incremental advancements. If at the end, the goal is achieved, it's simply cherry on top. If the goal is not achieved due to unforeseen circumstances, it doesn't mean that the life was purposeless as you can very well see the progress made by tracking incremental achievements.
As I said before, its all down to wiring.
Also given the advancements in medicine and increase in life expectancies, I think the chances are a lot many people will live to 60+ so planning life for the worst case may not be optimal.
That's actually a hard question. People seem to care more about the remembering self than the experiencing self. Give "Thinking Fast and Slow" a read. It has a very interesting discussion of this topic.
I've also been thinking on it much of my life, but my conclusions are unlike yours. I believe what's true is true and that what can die is incapable of truth for it's in the nature of truth to always be true. As a result, I do not believe in this world's reality and reject it as just a dream.
The contents of the dream do not matter; just like your dreams at night, it is in the symbolism that you must look for true meaning. Why are you going through the things you are? Are there lessons to be learned? Nor do the laws of the dream matter -- only your belief in them. Would it be possible Jesus resurrect if this world were true and death were king? Or is there something more than the body's eyes see?
Anyway, I'm a follower of the course (A Course in Miracles) if anyone cares about this kinda stuff. If I go on any longer I'll just get down-voted by this pedantic community that will be like "Well actually, a big explosion happened long ago and gave you your free will you stupid lofty-minded primate"
Sure, and the book is exactly four words long so nothing else contradicts anything anyone has ever observed.
A less snarky response is context is important.
PS: Sorry if this came off as harsh, but ambiguity is not really a win. It's like a defense attorney saying look my client is wearing a top hat today he must be innocent; it's just not relevant information.
The Bible is best seen as a story rather than a factual account. Like anything in this world, its value lies in its symbolism. It's a beautiful book if read truly rather than read as a weapon for attack to say "I believe in this!"
There are many times and places where people would have killed you for saying that.
This gets back to context. You interpret things in such a fashion, but many people are horrified by the morality presented in the Bible. “Suffer not a _ to live.” Really that’s just such an uplifting message.
Granted, ignore the inconvenient parts is a very common approach, but if you’re doing that then just be honest about it. Ex: Timothy 2:12 is just not quoted that much anymore, but it used to be tossed around quite frequently.
In the same way one can consider a deeply flawed person beautiful and valuable, surely it's possible to consider the bible a beautiful and valuable book while accepting it's inconsistencies and horrible parts?
The Sermon on the Mount I find beautiful. The general account of Jesus' life too. I also rather like Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon is basically porn!
Given the involvement of a Priest in proposing it, I'm pretty sure it isn't incompatible (at least to Catholics, but evolution isn't incompatible either according to the Church).
You have to understand that anything in this world is seen by me as a dream. God is all there ever has been and will be and created the Sonship (us). Our "fall from heaven" was when we wanted to be God ourselves and thus break free from his rule. In order to do so, it meant opposing everything that is true in His domain -- oneness replaced with disparity, life with death, eternity with time. This is the hell the Bible speaks of. You "burn" in desire by "selling your soul" (believing and pursuing..) for things the "Devil" (your ego) offers yet none of it ever seems to satisfy. Why is that? Why is hatred more commonplace than love?
You cannot destroy heaven and so you dream of these things. We're all helpless victims and if there is a God, he is a cruel master. This isn't the way and creates a lot of sadness and unnecessary conflict in the world.
That's all well and good, but if everything's a dream, then what's the point in talking about it? Why are you on Hacker News telling figments of your imagination about the depth of your dream? Shouldn't you be trying to wake up, or lucid dream, or something productive? Or do you just have to "ride it out"?
For clarification, I'm being absolutely sincere. Because your initial assertion eliminates any further dialogue if you sincerely believe it. So why post here? Shouldn't you be looking for Neo, and awakening him so you can be free of the hell that is the dream?
Do not dally Morpheus. Or conversely, do not spout non-sequiturs and expect to get upvotes.
You don't understand the bigger picture and are simplifying my life for your own personal understanding. It's part of my mission to share what I believe in in hopes it inspires others to live their life a little differently.
I get downvoted consistently in /r/christianity and you would think they would at least hear me out. Don't mean to be rude or bait, but it's just true and what happens. People write me off as crazy (maybe it's true) and down vote me because it flies against all their beliefs. Oh well, whatever, didn't mean to bore you.
I understand your tendency to talk about the downvotes, and I don't think you are being rude/baiting.
Readers here are probably more interested in your argument/contribution to the discussion itself, rather than your opinion of how your argument will be received (discussion about being downvoted).
Additionally, a broader point to take away is that downvotes and discourse work differently here than on reddit (despite what reddit's general rules claim).
― James J. Lachard