In this article, Eliezer implies that it’s the lack of objective morality which makes life seem meaningless under a materialist reductionist model of the universe. Is this the usual source of existential angst? For me, existential angst always came from “life not having a purpose”; I was always bothered by the thought that no higher power was guiding our lives. I ended up solving this problem by realizing that emergent structures such as society can be understood as a “higher power guiding our lives”; while it’s not as agenty as God, it suits my purposes well enough, and I’ve been free of existential angst ever since.
(I do agree with the main thesis of Eliezer’s post; I think I was able to accept my philosophical solution to existential angst because of an increasingly positive outlook on life. I’m just commenting because I’m now very curious about what “existential angst” means to the rest of LessWrong. What does existential angst mean to you?)
I share your sense that existential angst is roughly equivalent to a sense of purposelessness. That said, a sense of purpose can come from a lot of places, not all of them philosophical. I know plenty of people who find a fulfilling sense of purpose in caring for their families, in performing their jobs, or similar things, without reference to more philosophical guiding principles be they theological or not. The happiest period of my life, for example, was between six months and a year after my stroke, when I’d recovered enough to not be profoundly depressed all the time but recovery was still my driving, fundamental, very concrete purpose.
In this article, Eliezer implies that it’s the lack of objective morality which makes life seem meaningless under a materialist reductionist model of the universe. Is this the usual source of existential angst? For me, existential angst always came from “life not having a purpose”;
If I understand Eliezer’s conception of morality correctly, he doesn’t distinguish between these two things.
For me, existential angst occurs in both a materialistic/reductionist world and a supernatural/theistic world. I’m not sure that objective morality would have made any difference on why god exists, and why god’s existence isn’t meaningless. And if god’s existence has no purpose, I reasoned, then neither does ours (under a theistic framework).
In this article, Eliezer implies that it’s the lack of objective morality which makes life seem meaningless under a materialist reductionist model of the universe. Is this the usual source of existential angst? For me, existential angst always came from “life not having a purpose”; I was always bothered by the thought that no higher power was guiding our lives. I ended up solving this problem by realizing that emergent structures such as society can be understood as a “higher power guiding our lives”; while it’s not as agenty as God, it suits my purposes well enough, and I’ve been free of existential angst ever since.
(I do agree with the main thesis of Eliezer’s post; I think I was able to accept my philosophical solution to existential angst because of an increasingly positive outlook on life. I’m just commenting because I’m now very curious about what “existential angst” means to the rest of LessWrong. What does existential angst mean to you?)
I share your sense that existential angst is roughly equivalent to a sense of purposelessness. That said, a sense of purpose can come from a lot of places, not all of them philosophical. I know plenty of people who find a fulfilling sense of purpose in caring for their families, in performing their jobs, or similar things, without reference to more philosophical guiding principles be they theological or not. The happiest period of my life, for example, was between six months and a year after my stroke, when I’d recovered enough to not be profoundly depressed all the time but recovery was still my driving, fundamental, very concrete purpose.
If I understand Eliezer’s conception of morality correctly, he doesn’t distinguish between these two things.
For me, existential angst occurs in both a materialistic/reductionist world and a supernatural/theistic world. I’m not sure that objective morality would have made any difference on why god exists, and why god’s existence isn’t meaningless. And if god’s existence has no purpose, I reasoned, then neither does ours (under a theistic framework).