User:RD/9k/entropicism (Q50,92)
Main entry
entropicism
-> the motif of a philosophy of meaning where individuals are not asked or obligated to look for meaning to their lives, they don't even have the task of looking for meaning, because all material processes have a limited form of inherent meaning that exists within their causes, results, and relationships to other processes. the entropicist position does not assert that particular models or outcomes that relate things to causes and effects are the most important ones, it only says that reality, history, and the search for happiness in life are generally about outward cause and effect rather than inward choices as they would be within early-existentialist philosophy. this means that two different Marxisms (and two more anarchisms) could exist all interpreting material reality to find meaning and none could be inherently the most correct meaning of existence yet all of them could be valid, in the sense that they are operational and each possible to make use of to each create societies all existing in plurality.
entropicism can be compared to nihilism in that nihilism always has a sort of "floor with a hole in it" where you sit with nihilism for a while and then you fall through the floor and land on an actual interpretation of how to apply nihilism when you have to keep physically existing anyway. entropicism is one of these possible "true floors" you could land on. technically it could be considered a form of nihilism but it's entirely transformed the purpose, substance, and presentation of it to where it's practically an entirely different thing; it's practically turned into "somethingism".
On "immortality"
Mortality is numerically quantifiable
/ Non-immortality is numerically quantifiable / When a being experiences non-immortality, also known as mortality, this comes in the form of living for variable amounts of time which are numerically quantifiable as a long time or a short time; this is to imply that the numbers that quantify mortality can be connected however loosely to causal factors that lead to longer or shorter non-immortality numbers, and shorter non-immortality numbers are inherently significant in questions of how individuals or societies should liveImmortality is the denial of injury
/ Inasmuch as fictional immortality is the denial of entropy and change, the real-world fact of material objects undergoing interactions that break them down, every action taken without full regard for its negative consequences is comparable to taking the concept of wanting to live forever and squashing it into a small time scale far less than a regular human life; this is to imply that driving a car every day knowing there is a high chance of an accident is wanting to live forever for an hour; this is to imply that going to work in a country full of bigots without forming organizations is wanting to live forever for a year; this is to imply that wanting the United States to keep existing for hundreds and hundreds of years without seriously considering the realistic ways it could break apart is wanting to live forever for a century; this is to imply that the mis-named hypothetical concept of "quantum immortality" and the concept of fictional immortality are inherently linked through the concept of repeatedly failing to succumb to realistic breakages and thus persisting in the same intact state of existence longer -> this is an example of why entropicism is called entropicism. it begins with the denial of immortality and says that all "meaning of life" has to be wrapped around the fact that not only do you not live forever but your daily actions and the actions of those around you determine whether you'll live for the next 5 years or whether you die today
Related
Waiting for people to die is as bad as hatred
-> there is this really huge contradiction in the way everyone defines prejudices in the United States. normal people believe that every bad thing comes from prejudices. it's bad to be prejudiced. but for some reason it's okay [...] to say things like "when the boomers die out", although logically that should be a prejudiced statement because you don't want them to exist or physically live. [...]
it genuinely doesn't make sense to comprehend tolerance through individual freedom, because to truly tolerate someone not just where you're hiding your hatred but at the level where you could become friends is to overwrite and destroy individual identity and freedom, and the only question is whether this is a good thing. I think there's a decent argument to be made that it is, but it is nothing like Existentialism and the way that everybody ever tries to comprehend freedom and The Subject. this is a new philosophy I have no name for. I already named entropicism. maybe I should name this one too. this is, uh... the ego-death philosophy of tolerance and friendship, I don't know how to make that snappy. this is the philosophy where instead of Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash being friends and gelling into a team because they're unique different competing individuals who each separately want freedom, Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash are friends because they agree to become each other in part if never in whole and abandon the parts of them that are harmful to them being friends. [...] just imagine if there was an episode where a Pony was getting mocked and bullied in Ponyville or one of the main locations but it was because they were too much of a free individual to stay in Totally Not Eastern Europe; their own greedy individuality left them with nothing and turned them into a minority somewhere else constantly getting picked on by others. [...]