The Endgame (Anti-cosmic)

General Philosophy
1

What is an “endgame” if not the ultimate end?

If you’re familiar with anti-cosmicism, you’re aware that there’s a force or current in reality, that seeks to end reality.

If there’s such a force, and such a possibility, is it not then inevitable that it will eventually prevail? Even if life defies it for trillions upon trillions of eons, once this force finally gets the upper hand, the the end is upon us.

Personally, I’ve reached a point where, amidst the confusion of endless possibilities, motives, and contending forces in life, I can’t just remain neutral and all-embracing. This leads to an implosion of utmost discomfort. I have to commit to something. I have to act. I have to choose an endgame.

And what is an endgame if not the ultimate end?

There’s a certain point in suffering where one reaches a critical point. There seems no going back after it.

What could one possibly desire if it will eventually be taken, and replaced with more suffering?

People will come up with their personal reasons to continue. To each their own, but it always comes back to a vicious conflict. Everything you gain or hold is at the expense of someone else, and someone else seeks their own motive at your expense.

Eventually, after enough has been taken from you, you too will reach the critical point.

I find that when faced with the question of what to instinctively commit to, the only thing I gravitate to is this final mission.

And I find that the only time I enjoy life, is when I think in terms of its remainder.

Admittedly, I’m relatively new to this thought current. So I seek those who are more experienced and knowledgeable - or alternative perspectives that could potentially prove me wrong on this.

3

Ive had sex with over 20 different women and have rejected plenty who wanted to have sex, so no, I’m not an incel.

And every law of physics can be broken, you know.

I just came here for reasonable, polite discussion on reality. I’d prefer if you left out the goofiness.

4

OK. Can you state in one sentence what the problem is? I thank you.

5

What do you mean by “the problem”?

6

What is the question?
(btw Atomic Incel was not sexual, the idea was “Incel of Reality”, i.e. crushed by Reality: is this the problem?)

7

The Philosophy of Redemption
by Philipp Mainländer

1 Like
8

I stated my perspective in the OP very clearly. Instead of just mocking or asking the most vague things you could, let’s discuss the topic of the OP.

9

Wow, very interesting. Thank you.

11

If you’re going to participate, please be civil, respectful, and make open dialogue. If you don’t agree with or understand something, then ask questions or state your perspective maturely. All you’ve really done is childishly lash out.

12

Philosophy came as rational thinking raising against irrationality of Religion: make no sense to come in a Philosophical forum with a blatant irrational mystical setup!

13

Philosophy, actually, means “love of wisdom”. It’s beyond all cultural historical contexts.

Another user replied in this thread meaningfully, which I’m grateful for. Now I’m learning about Philip Mainlander, who understood this all far greater than I currently do, and wrote a book on it.

15

You consistently break the rules of the forum by speaking with needless hostility. Don’t worry about where I chose to post. I also haven’t said anything about religion, this subject goes beyond illusory structures like religions or sciences.

If you reply again, take a moment and ask if you’re going to inquire, or spew more childish hate.

16

What is your definition of “reality”? For me reality means what appears to my mind via perception. I believe every human has his/her own reality being revealed by their own perceptions on the world.

So, when one dies, the perception will cease, and the reality for the person ends too.

Not sure if you believe in reality which keeps existing separate from human consciousness. And is it reality the OP is talking about, or the other? Or something else?

17

“Reality” is one of the most objective terms. It means existence as it objectively is.

18

While I personally do believe in an objective physical reality (i.e. I am not an idealist), @Endgame_0 here does not seem to really understand the subject at hand given what they just said. And I could not really make sense of their OP.

19
  1. What do you mean by “objective” and “objectively”?
  2. In what sense “Reality” is one of the most objective terms?
20

@Endgame_0 here clearly is expressing physicalism without being able to argue in its favor, so is treating it just as an axiom that need not be argued.

21

Did you come here for critique?

You haven’t yet given any reason to suppose that anticosmicism is the case. That we ought work to end the world.

Here’s a counterpoint: despite the inevitable slide into chaos, there is order in the world. And there is the opportunity for joy, should you look for it.

You seem to have missed that.

Why do you suppose that there is an infinite potential for suffering? Of course order is the exception - but that is the very thing that makes it precious. Chaos is not the equivalent of suffering. Chaos can produce joy, as when one watches the rising sun.

And here’s a paradox: You face a choice, creating circumstances in which there is joy in the face of suffering, or ending suffering. It’s down to you, but notice that your ending suffering involves creating more suffering. The anticosmic project is self-defeating.

You can use your time to create suffering, or to create joy. Which will you do?

2 Likes
22

The OP’s perspective seems to be that in order to end suffering, we should kill all of humanity and, if possible, destroy the universe itself, as if humanity and the universe cease to be there will be no suffering…

1 Like
23

Mind you some folks enjoy suffering. Why end suffering?