Though discovery is a wonderful thing, and science has made great strides in learning more, and while there is likely a truth of some kind regarding universal existence, I'm not of the mindset that just because we'd like to know all the answers that we're even capable of knowing all the answers no matter how much we seek to learn.
Billions of humans have lived and died without ever truly knowing anything for sure, and billions more likely will as well.
Sure, humans throughout time have believed in so many unprovable beliefs, and while I have no way to disprove what others have believed, and I even have my own sense of a belief in what many have called a supreme being, as much as I would like to know for sure, I don't know for sure If I even can.
Though I'm not one to box myself in, or have a need to refer to myself with labels that define my beliefs, for I simply can't, and would also like to remain open to the learning of whatever can be learned if by chance there is something I can learn, I tend to lean somewhere within a form of existentialism and absurdism.
Absudism, coined as such by the french philosopher Albert Camus isn't exactly a philosophy as much as it is the lack of one.
In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible" The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.
Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning.
According to Camus humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma.
1. Suicide (or "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person ends one's own life pretty much to put an end to one's craving for the unknown that cannot be known, and the frustration that goes along with it.
2. Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning which would require an irrational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing.
3. Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve the greatest extent of one's freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process.
Of these three choices I lean heavily toward the third option with a smattering of the second.
While I can't prove the existence of a god, nor can I prove the existence of other intelligent life within the universe, but with that said I use our existence as an example that indicates to me that life like ours can exist, and therefore considering the vastness of the universe that there is a high probability that there is of some nature.
Because I can't disprove the existence of a "god" for lack of a better word, I don't discount the possibility. I often wonder if I would have ever pondered a "god" if I hadn't been influenced by others within humanity to do so. I do know that I have indeed pondered, and often times even outside of the constraints of what maybe perhaps many who follow religion have allowed themselves, so I can be fairly certain that with or without human intervention I would likely have considered, though I don't know how believably, an unseen being as the architect of our existence, and the maker of all that I can touch, taste, hear, smell, and see.
I find it remarkable how similar so many, myself included, have experienced unexplainable experiences or miracles of sorts related to feeling as if they have received messages from their deceased loved ones. Before this had ever happened to me I had pretty much concluded that I was an Agnostic, but just as I was trying my best to be content with that assessment certain personal experiences baffled, confused, while also giving me a sense of peace and hope along with even a feeling of certainty that while I can't start a religion around it and preach it, and even know for certain what it is, I can't and won't allow myself to discount it as just a coincidence, or the mind playing tricks on me.
So at the risk of labeling myself, but for sake of being able to express where I'm at through a label, I'd have to call myself an existentialistic absurdist, realist, borderline agnostic spiritualist.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
Though discovery is a wonderful thing, and science has made great strides in learning more, and while there is likely a truth of some kind regarding universal existence, I'm not of the mindset that just because we'd like to know all the answers that we're even capable of knowing all the answers no matter how much we seek to learn. Billions of humans have lived and died without ever truly knowing anything for sure, and billions more likely will as well. Sure, humans throughout time have believed in so many unprovable beliefs, and while I have no way to disprove what others have believed, and I even have my own sense of a belief in what many have called a supreme being, as much as I would like to know for sure, I don't know for sure If I even can. Though I'm not one to box myself in, or have a need to refer to myself with labels that define my beliefs, for I simply can't, and would also like to remain open to the learning of whatever can be learned if by chance there is something I can learn, I tend to lean somewhere within a form of existentialism and absurdism. Absudism, coined as such by the french philosopher Albert Camus isn't exactly a philosophy as much as it is the lack of one. In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible" The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously. Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning. According to Camus humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. 1. Suicide (or "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person ends one's own life pretty much to put an end to one's craving for the unknown that cannot be known, and the frustration that goes along with it. 2. Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning which would require an irrational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing. 3. Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve the greatest extent of one's freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Of these three choices I lean heavily toward the third option with a smattering of the second. While I can't prove the existence of a god, nor can I prove the existence of other intelligent life within the universe, but with that said I use our existence as an example that indicates to me that life like ours can exist, and therefore considering the vastness of the universe that there is a high probability that there is of some nature. Because I can't disprove the existence of a "god" for lack of a better word, I don't discount the possibility. I often wonder if I would have ever pondered a "god" if I hadn't been influenced by others within humanity to do so. I do know that I have indeed pondered, and often times even outside of the constraints of what maybe perhaps many who follow religion have allowed themselves, so I can be fairly certain that with or without human intervention I would likely have considered, though I don't know how believably, an unseen being as the architect of our existence, and the maker of all that I can touch, taste, hear, smell, and see. I find it remarkable how similar so many, myself included, have experienced unexplainable experiences or miracles of sorts related to feeling as if they have received messages from their deceased loved ones. Before this had ever happened to me I had pretty much concluded that I was an Agnostic, but just as I was trying my best to be content with that assessment certain personal experiences baffled, confused, while also giving me a sense of peace and hope along with even a feeling of certainty that while I can't start a religion around it and preach it, and even know for certain what it is, I can't and won't allow myself to discount it as just a coincidence, or the mind playing tricks on me. So at the risk of labeling myself, but for sake of being able to express where I'm at through a label, I'd have to call myself an existentialistic absurdist, realist, borderline agnostic spiritualist.
