this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
659 points (98.7% liked)
Greentext
8693 readers
660 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always found his frantic fear of nihilism to be a little adolescent, like "how could humanity possibly survive the death of God? How will we live a life without inherent existential or moral purpose?" You just do, Freddy.
There is a quote from Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits that I think of every time this comes up.
“You can lie to yourself, say that you never had a choice, that you weren’t cut out for this. But deep down you’ll know. You’ll know that humans aren’t cut out for anything. We cut ourselves out. Slowly, with a rusty knife. Because otherwise, here’s what’s going to happen: you’re going to die and you’re going to stand at the gates of judgment and you’re going to ask God what was the meaning of it all, and God will say, ‘I created the universe, you little shit. It was up to you to give it meaning.’”
“You really think God uses that kind of language?”
“Yes.”
Love me some quality David Wong.
my take on life is that yeah it doesn’t have inherent meaning, but you don’t need a meaning for everything you do. you can just enjoy being alive despite the meaninglessness, it actually gives you a lot of freedom to do whatever you want to do for the sake of it.
for the morals: just don’t bring in needless suffering, nobody choose to be here and nobody wants to suffer, the only thing we can do is to make the existing lives better
Yet here we are, celebrating people whose moral purpose is nonexistent at best and usually completely evil.
Yeah and Kierkegaard already solved this decades before him, in exactly the way you describe (although he didn't personally think it was possible).
A lot of people don't.
There's a whole superstructure to religion - culture, ethics, public infrastructure, social networks, financial networks, a common history and language - that you need to supplement as you dispose of the older system.
What the European socialists discovered at the turn of the 20th century was that you can't just burn down all the churches and start over from scratch. Anarchism without some new common social foundation just ends in civil war and foreign occupation.
Subsequent generations still need a scaffolding to cling to as they mature. And if that scaffold isn't rooted in some new existential or moral foundation (or if it's rooted in a rotten one) you end up with ultra-nationalism, or Victorian mysticism, or whatever paint Ayn Rand was huffing.
And yet in almost every one of those examples the problem was people sticking to the existing religions and culture being too terrified to let go or incapable of accepting that others have moved on.
"The problem with religion is that people won't stop being religious" is circular and thought-terminating
How do you sooth public anxieties at a national level?
How do you foster egalitarian social habits?
Seems like you'd need some kind of broad social project or moral imperitive for a nation's worth of people to align with.