Penny for Your Thoughts discussion

I was having this conversation with my friend (becuase y'know, that's totally normal for a fourteen and fifteen-year-old to be discussing).

But because I fail miserably at explaining anything with the utmost clarity, I shall quote a novel.

"'There will come a time,' I said, 'when all of us are dead. All of us. There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did and built and wrote and thought and discovered will be forgotten and all of this'--I gestured encompassingly--"will have been for naught. Maybe that time is coming soon and maybe it is millions of years away, but even if we survive the collapse of our sun, we will not survive forever. There was time before organisms experienced consciousness, and there will be time after. And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows that's what everyone else does" (John Green, The Fault in Our Stars, 13).

Also known as Nihilism. The aforementioned friend brought it up, and this is by far my favourite part of the conversation:
Me: You know it's true though. The inevitability of human oblivion is just what it is. Inevitable.
Him: Mechanical inevitability was initiated at the initiation of the mechanical laws of physics
Me: Which is to say always.

We went on to discuss time as a constant or if it had a beginning, but regardless, thoughts?

Heh, I basically write only about this. I mean, Hyde (and The Walker) are both embodiments of inevitability and oblivion. I personally do believe that there will come a time where everything that has ever existed will no longer exist. When even nothingness will succumb to oblivion.

Nothingness can be inclusive, can it not? Everything can be anything which is to include nothing at all.

That would have hurt my brain if not for the fact I've already considered that. I ruled that out, however. Everything and nothing are two sides of the same coin, neither can exist while the other does exist.

Is that implying that everything that is observable is nonexistent?

No, that is implying that everything that does exist exists, and that everything that doesn't doesn't, and that there is no overlap.

What about those with the perception of depth or those who cannot see clearly? Their perception is mixed therefore distinguishing between one or the other is near impossible, making everything the same and therefore anything including nothing.

Interesting point. My personal belief stands, that Nothing cannot exist or be present as long as Anything remains. Nothing is not part of anything, due to its unique nature.

I really want to know the point of existence right now.

You exist because you exist. The point of existence is found by existing. That's the only way to find out the point of existence.

Human oblivion.... maybe tomorrow. Maybe in the next decade. Maybe after a few generations. Maybe after millenia. Who knows? We could destroy ourselves at any time. So....

Why not exist? Why not exist just because you want to exist? Why are so many people existing though they don't understand the point of existing?

Maybe because they want to find out why they're existing. I don't know, that's for sure.

So the answer to that is:

The point of existence can only be found by existing. So, the point of existence is to exist.

That is a paradox and it doesn't make sense.

The point of existence cannot be known in any lifetime as it is too short and knowledge is too scarce. It's a question that cannot be answered at this time but I would love to know.

You can't know the point of existence while you exist because of biases and prejudice.

The point of existence? Do we want the philosophical answer or the scientific one? I have a guess towards each.

Both would be suffice.

Philosophical one: Since I'm feeling pessimistic right now, my guess is that the point is to fail. But not just simple failure, that would be easy. To fail in the most spectacular way possible. Humanity is building itself up for a horrible ending. By the end, we will kill each other off in a single act of misunderstanding.

Scientific one: Luck. Pure, honest luck. A huge series of coincidences brought us into this world (or for those theists who were reading this, a few small ones that caused a deity to make us like we are). Due to this, there isn't a point in spending time understanding why we are here. What purpose does it serve?

1) you can't let emotion meddle with logic. Philosophy is logic.

Whatever twisted game of fate this is I can't take it.

But we can't let everything be decided by logic either.

So we let bias control us and contort our vision? Truth may resist simplicity, but it still follows logic. Logic is rationalism.

I'm saying that we should probably balance the way we think. We can't use logic all the time, nor can we use emotion all the time.

Sorry I wasn't replying or finishing, I've been busy. I personally think that logic is fantastic when dealing with anything other than people, because other people aren't logical. My apologies for giving the pessimistic philosophical answer, there are just too many and I had to pick one.

That's true. It's rather hard to speak logic to another person while the other person just nods. But living things shouldn't be delt with logic ALL the time though.

Why not? Emotions befuddle clear thought, as do morals and biases.

That's not 100% true. At times, yes, it does befuddle clear thought, and makes you make what seems like the wrong choice to others, yet the right choice to yourself.

But if everyone used logic all the time, there would probably be no difference between humans besides the way we look and the language we speak.

Also, would you use logic for an emotional problem? It works, but it's results would be better if emotion was used.

I think logic is that restraint on your brain. It tells you what you can do, and what you can't do. It gives you common sense against rash and random ideas. But emotion helps you accomplish what you thought was once impossible.

So, if we used logic all the time, we'd end up not trying new things that are out of our range of talents. But if we used emotion all the time, we'd end up killing ourselves, because the of the lack of common sense when doing things.
So it's better to keep them both balanced rather than rely on just one.

You have to realise that this (this topic is about the oblivion of human existence and the capital P Point of it) isn't an emotional problem. This is a philosophical one and yes, emotions do have their place, just not in this situation.

You have to realise that the reason for disagreement and wars and etc. is because people control themselves by emotion and by biases and prejudices instead of reason (civil wars, for instance). Emotions have their place, just not when rationalizing.

"It tells you what you can and can't do." Yeah, I guess. I mean, jumping off the cliff because emotions and hormones are running rapid appeals to emotions, but it's kind of, like, I dunno, illogical.

Also, your last argument is just not supported very well. It's arguing the difference between "I think/believe" (emotion/morals) and "I know" (logic). Like, "I believe my drink has not been roofied" is much less reassuring than "I know my drink has not been roofied."

And that's how we know we're human.

Well, I don't think there's much to discuss, as we humans can wipe ourselves out with a single touch of a button. There are so many possiblities, so many reasons, it's kind of hard to really discuss it all. Slowly but surely, one of the greatest civilizations in the universe will crumble. But I'd rather live life rather than wait for it to happen.

There's only one, as far as we can tell.

As far as we can tell.

Concluding otherwise is unwise.

I was unwise to start with. If I was wise, however, that would strip me of a big part of my personality.