Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

Warning, here be musings... or rambling, whichever you prefer really.

I'm sure that for most people Douglas Adams doesn't need an introduction. He is mostly known for writing the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and his humor. The reason why he resonates so well with people is because his stories embrace the absurdity of life with open arms. To me, Adams is much more than just a funny writer, he's a genuine philosopher. Despite his seemingly nonsensical writing style, his stories touch on some fundamental questions about the human condition.

When it comes to literature, I prefer the quality over quantity approach. That's why I have the habit of rereading certain works of literature just to see how much my views have evolved in order to find out if I can extract any new meaning from it. When i read the Hitchhiker again, a certain passage stuck with me much more than it usually does. The reason being that it exemplifies why I think that Douglas Adams is the greatest philosopher who wasn't even a philosopher. Allow me to present to you my findings.

I'm sorry if this is going to be a lengthy topic, but it requires reading of the passages in question otherwise my analysis won't make much sense to you. For your convenience I've quoted the passages in question below, so let's get going.

There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are Why are people born? Why do they die? Why do they want to spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?

Many many millions of years ago a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings (whose physical manifestation in their own pan-dimensional universe is not dissimilar to our own) got so fed up with the constant bickering about the meaning of life which used to interrupt their favourite pastime of Brockian Ultra Cricket (a curious game which involved suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away) that they decided to sit down and solve their problems once and for all.

And to this end they built themselves a stupendous super computer which was so amazingly intelligent that even before the data banks had been connected up it had started from I think therefore I am and got as far as the existence of rice pudding and income tax before anyone managed to turn it off. It was the size of a small city. [...]

It's easy to miss, but in this passage Adams describes his view on philosophy. Yes, we all know that philosophy is the study of existential questions such as the meaning of existence. But Adams' most important point lies in his joke, which comes across as a silly question at first glance: Why do we spend so much time wearing digital watches?

It may sound like an absurd question, but another important part of philosophy is questioning normalcy, i.e. those things and habits in life that we take for granted without even thinking much about it. Philosophers come across ass odd, because they do exactly that, pondering about the aspects of life to which we've grown accustomed to, so much so that we don't even question them anymore. Everyday life forces us humans to simply accept things as they are, but it is doubting those habits that can make us independent human beings in the first place.

On the day of the Great On--‐Turning two soberly dressed programmers with brief cases arrived and were shown discreetly into the office. They were aware that this day they would represent their entire race in its greatest moment, but they conducted themselves calmly and quietly as they seated themselves deferentially before the desk, opened their brief cases and took out their leather--‐bound notebooks. Their names were Lunkwill and Fook.

For a few moments they sat in respectful silence, then, after exchanging a quiet glance with Fook, Lunkwill leaned forward and touched a small black panel. The subtlest of hums indicated that the massive computer was now in total active mode. After a pause it spoke to them in a voice rich resonant and deep. It said: "What is this great task for which I, Deep Thought, the second greatest computer in the Universe of Time and Space have been called into existence?" Lunkwill and Fook glanced at each other in surprise. [...]

"O Deep Thought Computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to perform is this. We want you to tell us..." he paused, "... the Answer!" "The answer?" said Deep Thought. "The answer to what?" "Life!" urged Fook. "The Universe!" said Lunkwill. "Everything!" they said in chorus. Deep Thought paused for a moment's reflection. "Tricky," he said finally. "But can you do it?"

Again, a significant pause. "Yes," said Deep Thought, "I can do it." "There is an answer?" said Fook with breathless excitement." "A simple answer?" added Lunkwill. "Yes," said Deep Thought. "Life, the Universe, and Everything. There is an answer. But," he added, "I'll have to think about it."

Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.

"How long?" he said. "Seven and a half million years," said Deep Thought. Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other. "Seven and a half million years...!" they cried in chorus. [...]

The hyper-intelligent beings don't waste their time with banal aspects of everyday life, they go straight for the big question. That's why they decide to build the smartest computer in the universe in order to 'brute force' the problem. So they decide to wait seven and a half million years for their answer because even the smartest computer ever needs time to tackle such a monumental riddle.

But herein lies a fundamental problem: Can we really calculate the meaning of existence? The reason why it seems absurd to task a computer with such a question is because the meaning of life isn't an empirical truth and neither is it a logical one which can be put into an equation. No, it's a metaphysical problem which can neither be quantified nor be accessed through purely empirical means.

If a deterministic machine could simply calculate the answer, by logical consequence, we would be nothing more than determined machines ourselves. I'm not dismissing that possibility, as we could be nothing more than matter that is determined by causality. But humans are capable of something that machines can't, to be absurd. A machine must be at all times consistent with its own internal programming while humans, as emotional beings, can entertain contradictory thoughts. Should AI ever become a things, I'd be rather interested how programmers of this world would solve that problem while being limited to a purely logics based programming language.

Seven and a half million years later...

Two severely dressed men sat respectfully before the terminal and waited. "The time is nearly upon us," said one, and Arthur was surprised to see a word suddenly materialize in thin air just by the man's neck. The word was Loonquawl, and it flashed a couple of times and the disappeared again. Before Arthur was able to assimilate this the other man spoke and the word Phouchg appeared by his neck.

"Seventy--‐five thousand generations ago, our ancestors set this program in motion," the second man said, "and in all that time we will be the first to hear the computer speak." "An awesome prospect, Phouchg," agreed the first man, and Arthur suddenly realized that he was watching a recording with subtitles. "We are the ones who will hear," said Phouchg, "the answer to the great question of Life...!" "The Universe...!" said Loonquawl. "And Everything...!"

"Shhh," said Loonquawl with a slight gesture, "I think Deep Thought is preparing to speak!" There was a moment's expectant pause whilst panels slowly came to life on the front of the console. Lights flashed on and off experimentally and settled down into a businesslike pattern. A soft low hum came from the communication channel. "Good morning," said Deep Thought at last. "Er... Good morning, O Deep Thought," said Loonquawl nervously, "do you have... er, that is..." "An answer for you?" interrupted Deep Thought majestically. "Yes. I have."

The two men shivered with expectancy. Their waiting had not been in vain.

"There really is one?" breathed Phouchg. "There really is one," confirmed Deep Thought. "To Everything? To the great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything?" "Yes." Both of the men had been trained for this moment, their lives had been a preparation for it, they had been selected at birth as those who would witness the answer, but even so they found themselves gasping and squirming like excited children. "And you're ready to give it to us?" urged Loonquawl. "I am." "Now?" "Now," said Deep Thought. They both licked their dry lips.

"Though I don't think," added Deep Thought, "that you're going to like it." "Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!" "Now?" inquired Deep Thought. "Yes! Now..." "Alright," said the computer and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable.

"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought. "Tell us!" "Alright," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..." "Yes...!" "Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought. "Yes...!"

"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.

"Yes...!"

"Is..."

"Yes...!!!...?"

"Forty--‐two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

After pondering for seven and a half million years, the computer is finally ready to give its answer. The machine is wise to warn its audience that the answer may not be to their liking. Imagine waiting for such a long time, the hype and expectations must be through the roof. It happened to No Man's Sky, Spore, Watchdogs, Duke Nukem Forever and Daikatana and it will certainly happen to the meaning of life too.

When it comes to the meaning of life, maybe our expectations are just way too high. We would expect from such an answer a moment of catharsis, a fundamental understanding of reality itself. In other words, we'd expect the veil of uncertainty to be removed from our little minds. The moment where suddenly everything just makes a frikkin' sense!

But what if the answer to the meaning of life can't do that? What if we've already discovered the answer, but are so underwhelmed by it that we can't even be arsed to acknowledge it? What if our only meaning is to survive, to reproduce and to die? What if the answer simply is 42, nothing more and nothing less? Maybe Douglas Adams is right, we should just accept the absurdity of life and take 42 as granted, because nothing would really be able to stand up to the hype anyway.

It was a long time before anyone spoke. Out of the corner of his eye Phouchg could see the sea of tense expectant faces down in the square outside. "We're going to get lynched aren't we?" he whispered. "It was a tough assignment," said Deep Thought mildly. "Forty--‐two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is." "But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything!" howled Loonquawl. "Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"

A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other. "Well, you know, it's just Everything... Everything..." offered Phouchg weakly.

"Exactly!" said Deep Thought. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." "Oh terrific," muttered Phouchg flinging aside his notebook and wiping away a tiny tear. "Look, alright, alright," said Loonquawl, "can you just please tell us the Question?"

"The Ultimate Question?"

"Yes!"

"Of Life, the Universe, and Everything?"

"Yes!"

Deep Thought pondered this for a moment.

"Tricky," he said.

"But can you do it?" cried Loonquawl.

Deep Thought pondered this for another long moment.

Finally: "No," he said firmly.

Both men collapsed on to their chairs in despair.

"But I'll tell you who can," said Deep Thought.

Maybe the meaning of life is an insolvable problem simply because we don't really understand the question. Douglas Adams views philosophers as people who formulate questions which, by their very own nature, cannot be answered. This of course poses the problem if such questions even have an inherent value in the first place. The computer posits that its creators don't even know themselves what they are asking for.

I think that Douglas Adams wants to convey that it is not the answer that's important, but the search for it. To philosophize means to be on the way without ever reaching the goal. It doesn't mean that our first step is pointless though. We can savor the road itself, the different places we'll see and experiences we make. A tree never stops to grow but that doesn't mean that it isn't a tree. Maybe it is good that we won't find an answer, because we might risk stop growing.

The meaning of life is an unsolvable question because it is composed of words that we don't even fully understand ourselves yet. What is the essence of 'meaning' and what is 'life'? Truth is, we simply don't know because otherwise we wouldn't have these troubles solving the question.

One could say that once we truly understand the question, we really don't need the answer anymore because it will flow naturally from the formulation of the problem. The meaning of life is a paradox: We need the answer in order to properly formulate the question and we need the question in order to have the answer.

Before hitting the ground and making friends with a bow of petunias, let me just say that Douglas Adams is more than just a funny writer. Once you truly engage with his books, there's just so much food for thought that you cannot but consider Adams a true philosopher. By highlighting the absurdity that is human life, Adams gains valuable insight into what it truly means to be human. Certainly, reason and logic are important aspects of our lives, but they may be insufficient to truly grasp what it means to be a human being.

I'd say what defines us are not necessarily the things that we do understand, but the things we do not. In short, being utterly confused is what being human is all about. So let's keep stumbling so long as as our little speck of dust that we so adorably call Earth is aimlessly hurtling through the vastness of (mostly empty) space.

 

[Redneckerz]

But flat earth.

CHECKMATE, PHILOSOFTIES.

(Ill reply in serious tomorrow. Its night time here and my mood is lighthearted to make this not so subtle reference. )

 

[Catphish]

"It's unpleasantly like being drunk."

"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"

"You ask a glass of water."

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I agree with the sentiment of this great post, even if I disagree with its conclusion (to be a philosopher requires more than asking insightful questions, although it certainly helps).

Also,

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

 

[Squirrel Killer]

"It's unpleasantly like being drunk."

"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"

"You ask a glass of water."

I'm so ashamed to admit it, but I didn't get this joke for like... 25 years or so. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that something recalled it and I thought to myself, "There's gotta be something that I'm missin... OH!" and nearly laughed out loud.

 

[DiscoJer]

Eh, he was basically a nihilist with a dry sense of humor.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Still better than that really weird Canadian dude I guess.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Douglas Adams understood existentialism and played with its philosophies quite a bit. His style reminds me of C.S. Lewis but more nihilistic and absurd like Sartre or Camus. His humor is even better when you have some knowledge of existentialism and it's clear strange headache does which is why they pieced together this excellent thread. If I could leave more likes, I would.

Can we really calculate the meaning of existence?

This is an interesting question. Aristotle, Kierkegaard and Heidegger had already provided the answer to this question so I think Adams knew too: it is impossible to approach Being through objective reality. There was no serious academic standpoint by Adams' time that believed scientific observation could offer the truths of Being. So that's the joke. Materialism was already dead yet Adams foresaw that technology could one day be used to make the futile attempt again. And we got 42.

It's natural to look for a profound meaning in the answer. In the face of something so absurd, we still try to extract ultimate truth because we hope our mechanica will be able to succeed where we've failed (ultimate arrogance). The 7.5-million-year computation is about the absurdity of calculating the meaning of existence, yes, but the tragedy lies in how we wasted our time building the machine in the first place. It's about our hubris, believing that we can build a machine (or a formula, or a theory, or an ideology) that solves something that can only be solved by living. The answer 42 makes no sense because there's a difference between fact and Truth.

He is a good philosopher -- or at least a good provoker, which is usually the same thing -- because he saw the value of jumping back and forth between the profound and the absurd. He clearly knew that our malleable sense for "profound" and "absurd" was itself something we should be curious about (and poke fun at). Don't forget: in Adams' universe, the most triumphant, hopeful outcome that we could possibly imagine is parked on the doorstep of a diner. The universe ends and we don't care because we've defeated Time itself and can order a Gargle-Blaster while we watch it. Ultimate absurdity juxtaposed against ultimate eternal triumph. He was a hopeful existentialist, for sure.

I think that Douglas Adams wants to convey that it is not the answer that's important, but the search for it. To philosophize means to be on the way without ever reaching the goal.

This is where I disagree, and I think he either contradicts himself -- if we're picking apart his writing as a manuscript for his philosophical beliefs -- or he wasn't arguing for this at all. I happen to think he was an idealist, that he did believe in ultimate truth. I don't think he was glorifying the journey as an end to itself but was glorifying the journey so that you partake in it.

Consider how things like "destiny" are reduced to a mere scientific calculation, and harnessing this improbability is at the heart of the universe's most powerful ship. He ascribes actual power to this mystical improbability. It points to the notion that love, destiny, and purpose are higher, purer, more powerful ideals than what our base scientific abilities can identify. And at every point in his stories, this absurd improbability and pure luck acts as Deus Ex Machina in countless plot twists. When it comes to existentialists, I side with Heidegger and Kierkegaard instead of Sartre. The latter says there is no objective meaning to life therefore we are responsible for living our best in spite of that. But Kierkegaard believed there was an ultimate ideal and searching that out was worth doing. It wasn't philosophy for the sake of the journey. It was done with full hope that there was indeed an answer at the end of the inquiry.

Adams was hopeful, as I pointed out above. I think he's the sort of philosopher to say "it's not here, and it's not over there, but the answer is out there somewhere". At least, if he was truly as great a "philosopher who wasn't a philosopher" as you're saying, then he probably knew that leaving breadcrumbs and letting a curious mind discover the truth on their own would be far superior to any answers he could possibly give to the reader, even if he had 7.5 million years to think of it. Quite possibly, I'm interpreting him through my own lens, since I'm also an idealist in this way.

EDIT: Maurice Merleau-Ponty was another good existentialist who rejected the reduction of our bodies as merely biological/physical and is worth reading. Often neglected in favor of other philosophers, sadly.

 

[strange headache]

I knew that this lengthy topic wasn't going to be overly popular as it's mostly comprised of abstract rambling, so many thanks to everybody for engaging with it nonetheless.

Douglas Adams understood existentialism and played with its philosophies quite a bit. His style reminds me of C.S. Lewis but more nihilistic and absurd like Sartre or Camus. His humor is even better when you have some knowledge of existentialism and it's clear strange headache does which is why they pieced together this excellent thread. If I could leave more likes, I would.

You put a lot of work into your excellent reply, thanks for taking the time. I didn't want to delve too much into other thinkers because I thought the content itself was already heavy enough. You're right of course that Adams borrows heavily from Sartre or Camus (The Stranger is an awesome read btw). While Sartre seems to have become a victim of his own absurdist doctrine, Adams on the other hand has managed to wield absurd thought as a tool in order to convey some kind of truth.

This is an interesting question. Aristotle, Kierkegaard and Heidegger had already provided the answer to this question so I think Adams knew too: it is impossible to approach Being through objective reality. There was no serious academic standpoint by Adams' time that believed scientific observation could offer the truths of Being. So that's the joke. Materialism was already dead yet Adams foresaw that technology could one day be used to make the futile attempt again. And we got 42.

Materialism as defined by Democritus is still very much alive. I'd say it's the reason why empirical science has given up on abstract truth. It is contempt in its descriptive approach to the world while relegating the problem of meaning to a purely subjective realm.

Maybe that's a good thing as many proponents of modern technology seem to cultivate the growing belief that the problem of human nature can be solved through technological means. It's what Google and co. are actually trying to do by regulating human behavior through Pavlovian conditioning. I think that it's a very unhealthy approach that is bordering on simple external manipulation rather than internal understanding. Civility is not a problem that can be solved through censorship because guiding human thought towards a single desired outcome means killing creative and philosophical freedom.

It's as you say, a dangerous sort of hubris.

It's natural to look for a profound meaning in the answer. In the face of something so absurd, we still try to extract ultimate truth because we hope our mechanica will be able to succeed where we've failed (ultimate arrogance). The 7.5-million-year computation is about the absurdity of calculating the meaning of existence, yes, but the tragedy lies in how we wasted our time building the machine in the first place. It's about our hubris, believing that we can build a machine (or a formula, or a theory, or an ideology) that solves something that can only be solved by living. The answer 42 makes no sense because there's a difference between fact and Truth.

Indeed, that's kind of what I was trying to convey with the question whether we can calculate meaning or not. Machines are very good at solving quantifiable problems, but are woefully unequipped to deal with existential questions. Machines can walk stairs, play chess, navigate streets and organize logistics, but I have yet to see even an attempt at creating a machine that can philosophize. How one would even do such a thing, I have no clue, but I'd like to see this problem tackled in at least one way or the other.

He is a good philosopher -- or at least a good provoker, which is usually the same thing -- because he saw the value of jumping back and forth between the profound and the absurd.

I guess that's the main reason why I created this topic, in order to convey that Adams is much more than a funny writer. That his humorous 'shallowness' is much more profound than what is apparent at first glance. It was also an attempt at showing that philosophy is not merely about pondering about the 'heavy stuff'.

Consider how things like "destiny" are reduced to a mere scientific calculation, and harnessing this improbability is at the heart of the universe's most powerful ship. He ascribes actual power to this mystical improbability. It points to the notion that love, destiny, and purpose are higher, purer, more powerful ideals than what our base scientific abilities can identify.

If destiny is nothing but a string of causal interactions, then yes, I'd say it could be calculated. It's the central idea behind Laplace's demon. As for myself, I haven't quite made up my mind about it yet as it seems to represent an antimony that's not easily solvable. But quantum physics seem to suggest that things aren't that easily predictable since absolute certainty seems to be out of reach with even our modern scientific means. Be that as it may, mechanical physics is certainly not the answer to this problem as was suggested by Laplace.

When it comes to existentialists, I side with Heidegger and Kierkegaard instead of Sartre. The latter says there is no objective meaning to life therefore we are responsible for living our best in spite of that. But Kierkegaard believed there was an ultimate ideal and searching that out was worth doing. It wasn't philosophy for the sake of the journey. It was done with full hope that there was indeed an answer at the end of the inquiry.

Personally I'm not a big fan of Kierkegaard because his search for philosophical truth was heavily influenced by his own faith. His truth quite literally requires a 'leap of faith' that simply cannot be expected from other people. If anything I'd much rather prefer Plato's view that objective truth exists as an independent entity but cannot ever be attained by us imperfect beings.

But hey, this topic shouldn't be about who is right and who is wrong, it's merely an exchange of musings and ideas without trying to ultimately come out on top. I certainly wish we could have more such topics, since the constant antagonism is getting really tiresome. So don't take this as an attack on your views, since I don't consider my own any better than yours

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I knew that this lengthy topic wasn't going to be overly popular as it's mostly comprised of abstract rambling, so many thanks to everybody for engaging with it nonetheless.

You put a lot of work into your excellent reply, thanks for taking the time. I didn't want to delve too much into other thinkers because I thought the content itself was already heavy enough. You're right of course that Adams borrows heavily from Sartre or Camus (The Stranger is an awesome read btw). While Sartre seems to have become a victim of his own absurdist doctrine, Adams on the other hand has managed to wield absurd thought as a tool in order to convey some kind of truth.

Definitely agree with the distinction between how Adams and Sartre used existentialism. Adams would've also been exposed to Bertrand Russel and the British/Western cultural ideals as he grew up. Adams was keen on his own upbringing.

One the one hand, he was upholding the British outlook as a virtue. Arthur and his friends are heroic figures -- comically heroic -- but heroic nonetheless as they trudge forward. Arthur himself is a 'Yankee in King Arthur's court', completely out of his element yet still naively clinging to his humanity. On the other hand, he is making fun of it by placing their goals against the backdrop of an uncaring universe (in the form of a bureaucratic space-highway blowing up his home planet and a universe that will assuredly end). Virtue for the sake of virtue is still virtue, no matter how empty and uncaring the universe may be. Adams understood something that a lot of existentialists missed.

Materialism as defined by Democritus is still very much alive. I'd say it's the reason why empirical science has given up on abstract truth. It is contempt in its descriptive approach to the world while relegating the problem of meaning to a purely subjective realm.

This is true. When I say that it had been answered, I guess I am referring to how material monism (there's probably a better term out there) has been disproven and "answered". The notion that everything is material and there is no meta -- even if this meta is merely a constructed space in which we can exercise our conscious thought -- is incongruous with science because it denies the axioms of fundamental truth and a priori knowledge. Science is built upon non-scientific, non-material truths, but that's okay because so is everything else in the human experience when you boil it right down.

The way I view materialism is not that it is untrue, but that it keeps trying to get out of its proper box. In the same way that scientists wrinkle their nose at Fundamental Christians insisting on a 6-day creation, I wrinkle my nose at materialism trying to climb out of the crib and make comments about human existence. Materialism has an upper limit and lower limit.

Maybe that's a good thing as many proponents of modern technology seem to cultivate the growing belief that the problem of human nature can be solved through technological means. It's what Google and co. are actually trying to do by regulating human behavior through Pavlovian conditioning. I think that it's a very unhealthy approach that is bordering on simple external manipulation rather than internal understanding. Civility is not a problem that can be solved through censorship because guiding human thought towards a single desired outcome means killing creative and philosophical freedom.

It's as you say, a dangerous sort of hubris.

You already said it in bold: taming human nature from outside (maybe using technology, maybe behavior psychology, maybe something else) is subjugation. Taming human nature from within is enlightenment. I think this is why the West has a trope where the grandest scientific accomplishment is made small in the face of compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. because we know -- or at least hope -- that these are higher virtues. We want to come to the 'truth' ourselves instead of being told it. Probably a mix of pride and biological impetus. Believing lies is bad for survival, so we tend to rely on 'truths' gained by our own senses because it is more likely that we can act on them confidently. At least, that's how it seems to our biological brains. We need to absorb truth through a specific mental digestive tract for it to stick.

Whether that's due to how our brain-meat processes information or if it's because our soul yearns for some higher dimension, arriving at the truth in a personal way seems to be a key. We have to get there on our own. We could probably go into a whole 'nother discussion about the blurry line between our biological brains and the meta-information that seems to be steering everything.

Indeed, that's kind of what I was trying to convey with the question whether we can calculate meaning or not. Machines are very good at solving quantifiable problems, but are woefully unequipped to deal with existential questions. Machines can walk stairs, play chess, navigate streets and organize logistics, but I have yet to see even an attempt at creating a machine that can philosophize. How one would even do such a thing, I have no clue, but I'd like to see this problem tackled in at least one way or the other.

I assume that the way for a machine to offer any sort of commentary on existence is for that conscious machine-mind to exist. At least, if we agree that in order to gain insight into existence you must do that through existence. You mentioned that in the Stanislaw Lem topic you made: will humans even be able to perceive when a machine has reached sentience? Will we be able to understand it? I think 'Deep Thought' instead of 'Deep Calculation' is a fitting name for Adams' computer.

I guess that's the main reason why I created this topic, in order to convey that Adams is much more than a funny writer. That his humorous 'shallowness' is much more profound than what is apparent at first glance. It was also an attempt at showing that philosophy is not merely about pondering about the 'heavy stuff'.

Well I definitely agree here. Wit is often a better window into higher truths because it is what our brains can accept. No one likes to be preached to. Everyone likes to preach. I'm sure there's some lesson in there about the Jungian shadow or something.

If destiny is nothing but a string of causal interactions, then yes, I'd say it could be calculated. It's the central idea behind Laplace's demon. As for myself, I haven't quite made up my mind about it yet as it seems to represent an antimony that's not easily solvable. But quantum physics seem to suggest that things aren't that easily predictable since absolute certainty seems to be out of reach with even our modern scientific means. Be that as it may, mechanical physics is certainly not the answer to this problem as was suggested by Laplace.

Personally I'm not a big fan of Kierkegaard because his search for philosophical truth was heavily influenced by his own faith. His truth quite literally requires a 'leap of faith' that simply cannot be expected from other people. If anything I'd much rather prefer Plato's view that objective truth exists as an independent entity but cannot ever be attained by us imperfect beings.

Destiny must be full-blown magical in order to be worth discussing. Otherwise, it's an inaccurate word, essentially a meaningless concept. Destiny is not causality. Causality is the string of interactions, like you said. The end result is not necessarily premeditated by the original action. Destiny implies the opposite: a guiding hand, whether that is God or the underlying Order of existence or Jung's synchronicity. Many of the things we call "destiny" are just random chance. This is demonstrably true. I agree with that. But in terms of philosophical discussion, destiny is our opposite to causality. A deterministic universe doesn't refute the idea of destiny using this definition since destiny necessarily relies on an unseen process that guides us in spite of the natural order of things.

Kierkegaard... I think, even if you don't match his Christian roots, he can be read for his inditement of bad ideas and how he upholds good ones. He counters the Greek tradition with the notion that true moral existence could only be carried out through action, and I think this is an important contribution to philosophy. The Greek (esp. Artistotle) mindset was that deeper reflection and thoughtful contemplation was the true moral pinnacle of human existence.

He navigated Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc pretty darn well. He is 100% sass which makes me more willing to drill through his more mechanical, esoteric proofs of philosophy. Regarding faith, 80% of Fear and Trembling is spent on demonstrating why the 'faith' of his day was not 'faith' at all. So, even if you disagree with his ultimate conclusions, he offers some excellent medicine to sloppy theology. He was arguing against atheist and theistic skeptics alike so is worth reading. I could make the same case for why anyone would want to read Tolstoy (he was theistic but pointed out the hypocrisies of his day). Kierkegaard also acts as a plumb-line if you want to go back and read Job and Ecclesiastes (probably the original Western existential dialogues) for academic reasons.

If it sounds like I'm pushing Kierkegaard, it's because I am. I think he's one of the best thinkers from that era.

But hey, this topic shouldn't be about who is right and who is wrong, it's merely an exchange of musings and ideas without trying to ultimately come out on top. I certainly wish we could have more such topics, since the constant antagonism is getting really tiresome. So don't take this as an attack on your views, since I don't consider my own any better than yours

Ah, don't be so polite. If I thought it was an attack, I wouldn't've spent time on a response. Or at least, I would've attacked back! I think we both share the mindset that 'truth' exists out there apart from ourselves. Dialogue is a good way to tease that out. Good philosophical talks are like... friendly-but-competitive cooperation toward a unified end, even when there is disagreement along the way. We're not playing Go against one another. We're... arranging a puzzle (or something like that). I can reach over the table and show where you've crammed two incongruous pieces together and you can do the same when I have a whole section flipped upside down.

 

[Kadayi]

Maybe that's a good thing as many proponents of modern technology seem to cultivate the growing belief that the problem of human nature can be solved through technological means. It's what Google and co. are actually trying to do by regulating human behavior through Pavlovian conditioning. I think that it's a very unhealthy approach that is bordering on simple external manipulation rather than internal understanding. Civility is not a problem that can be solved through censorship because guiding human thought towards a single desired outcome means killing creative and philosophical freedom.

It's as you say, a dangerous sort of hubris.

I don't have a lot to add to the discussion (I read Adams books in my teenage years and have long since forgotten most of it save the most notable parts), but I think there's a certain arrogance to the idea in Silicon Valley that they can fully capture the idiosyncrasies that drive us all as fully as they might like. The map is not the territory after all, and in many ways, they are collectively still failing to grasp this fully.

 

[Singular7]

Eh, he was basically a nihilist with a dry sense of humor.

This is my read as well. Douglas is witty, and I really enjoyed reading Hitchhiker series, but his entire thought process seems to be "we're all going to die, there is no hope, so let's point out the banal stupidity of what we consume our minds with"

(and also "I'm very very British")

 

[The Elite]

I swear, Strange Headache's posts make me feel smarter just by reading them.

Thanks for putting this together.

 

[strange headache]

This is my read as well. Douglas is witty, and I really enjoyed reading Hitchhiker series, but his entire thought process seems to be "we're all going to die, there is no hope, so let's point out the banal stupidity of what we consume our minds with"

I'm pretty sure that "don't panic" is a rather hopeful and uplifting message. We all know that sooner or later the sun will explode and Earth will turn into a most inhabitable place. Heck, the universe itself will suffer death by entropy making all of this a pretty futile endeavor in the first place. That doesn't mean that we cannot give meaning to our existence though.

Ah, don't be so polite. If I thought it was an attack, I wouldn't've spent time on a response. Or at least, I would've attacked back! I think we both share the mindset that 'truth' exists out there apart from ourselves. Dialogue is a good way to tease that out. Good philosophical talks are like... friendly-but-competitive cooperation toward a unified end, even when there is disagreement along the way. We're not playing Go against one another. We're... arranging a puzzle (or something like that). I can reach over the table and show where you've crammed two incongruous pieces together and you can do the same when I have a whole section flipped upside down.

Has nothing to do with being polite, just appreciating the effort and depth that you put into your replies. It's everything that anybody should ever want from a philosophical discussion. Unfortunately I'm having a couple of stressful days and I'm too tired right now to reciprocate your efforts. Just letting you know that I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

[hariseldon]

Not got much to contribute yet (I have a stack of reading to get through to get to a point of being able to contribute usefully other than expressing my love for all things Douglas Adams) but I do just want to say thank you for this thread, this kind of thing is why I'm here.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Has nothing to do with being polite, just appreciating the effort and depth that you put into your replies. It's everything that anybody should ever want from a philosophical discussion. Unfortunately I'm having a couple of stressful days and I'm too tired right now to reciprocate your efforts. Just letting you know that I enjoyed reading your comments.

Glad you enjoyed reading! Longform is my preferred mode but lengthy gaps in replies goes with the territory. On the plus side, this avoids a preliminary arm-wrestle over definition of terms as no one wishes to "put themselves out there" in the discussion. I'd rather chew the fat every few days instead of quippy hot-takes a few times a day. Looking forward to further thoughts from you and from others in these threads. Thanks for your effort, as other posters have also pointed out.

Seems to me that GAF has a bubbling interest in philosophy.

 

[blu]

Seems to me that GAF has a bubbling interest in philosophy.

Either that or somebody's empty stomach.