I'm responding but I do want to note that please seek out every available counter-argument (including, and especially, direct criticisms of the authors who have affected this "negative enlightenment" in you - obviously also help-line, educated psychologists/clinicians, etc; though, it sounds like you are in the process of engaging these resources to no avail).
Is there anything of value in the world? The answer, at least to me, seems to be "No". I've long had these ideas myself, and reading up on neuroscience basically confirmed them. Neuroscience definitely seems to prove that meanings and purposes (as we see them) don't actually exist and that "the self" is an illusion of bio-chemistry. We're not "real". Consciousness fools us all into believing that we're real instead of a puppet of our biology. The old-school pessimist philosophers like Schopenhauer have the same view - that every single thought, idea, concept, image, symbol, and representation are fundamentally distractions that prevent people from realizing that everything is meaningless.
You've not seen the value I do in my views in other, similar conversations so I won't reiterate them here. I believe you are valuable in that you have unique experiences and knowledge unavailable to me and you've already expanded me much in your interaction here in the past (almost) twoish years.
Last week, I read Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against The Human Race, a book I really recommend to anyone who liked Neuropath: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/download.php?attachid=4970
Reading this book was sort of enlightening to me, although probably the most depressing kind of "enlightenment" imaginable. Most of these ideas were thoughts I'd already had myself, but Ligotti's book made things a lot clearer. He's basically a Schopenhauer-style pessimist who writes that life isn't worth living and explains the reasons why. Through the whole book, I couldn't find anything to disagree with.
To be fair, people say
Neuropath is the amateur Ligotti. My main question of such thinkers is "are the criterion by which you establish meaninglessness a result of sociocultural organization as it has stood/stands?" If so, then every nihilist has an obligation to affect change in society and cultural to prove that every sociocultural arrangement
actually does result in meaninglessness.
I've been thinking about suicide on and off, over the last few weeks. On some level, I obviously have the instinct for self-preservation, which is probably the main thing keeping me from killing myself. I've tried going to a psychiatrist, but half the time he doesn't understand what the hell I'm talking about. I take antidepressant pills, but they're not helping much. I've stopped going to my uni lectures and basically don't give a shit about anything. I've stopped going to work. Since I now know that my life is meaningless, and that all "goals" are pointless distractions created by chemical reactions in my head, I don't do much at all.
I know I haven't been where you are. I've had dances with the darkness and I can't concisely say what chance stayed my hand. In part, I'm with FB in saying that existing interests me.
However, why is the goal of suicide the result? How do you
know that all those thinkers that contribute to this worldview aren't poor arguers (beyond the fact that they seem to have convinced you whose intelligence I found refreshing).
If what exists, if what we experience is inherently meaninglessness, what is to stop us, truly, from making that meaninglessness beautiful? Why does the result always have to be incapacitation? Why does the reaction have to be one of apathetic futility?
To use Bakker's terms, going back to "Disney World" isn't really possible for me anymore. I want to, but it's impossible. I'm not good at compartmentalizing my thoughts and willfully ignoring stuff. There's some philosophy professors (Brassier, for example) who have wives and kids that they love, follow society's norms and rules in their daily lives, and then go to their universities (or wherever) and hold lectures about the meaningless and deterministic nature of reality without breaking a sweat. I'm not one of those. I can't live a lie. But neither can I really, fully be a nihilist/determinist and stay sane.
I don't know what to say, Auriga. Isn't it possible that there is coherency beyond what our human brains can perceive? Isn't it likely that humans don't actually know enough about anything for nihilism, religions, philosophy to be "the way things are?"
I tend to agree with Bakker (and Lovecraft, etc) that there are realities so hostile and alien that human minds can't handle them. But once you've stumbled onto these truths, what can you do?
(To be honest, I wish I'd never read Bakker, Schopenhauer, Brassier, Ligotti, Cioran or any of those authors. But what's done can't be undone.)
They all have their detractors. And in the end, it's about you. You are now, not them. It's about inking your response to the mystery.
It's really a weird dilemma, because on the one hand, I obviously want to live, but on the other hand, I realize that life is pointless and shitty.
If I keep living with this knowledge, I really don't know what to do. I definitely don't want to end up like Rust from "True Detective", that's for sure.
I'm not sure where I myself stand. Many of Bakker's fandom seem to be comfortably/uncomfortably nearing Rust/Neil/Kellhus, etc. I know I'm not.
I want to engage life. I refuse to not try and change the world. One life. And I'm selfish. I need people like you to live and to help me because we here all know that those who are as smart as us are already in power (or not) and the rest of them...
We need a network. We need more brains operating at your capacity, not less. You are too valuable a resource for me to let you go quietly, Auriga.
As far as my response goes so far, I would just like to add that I will make any kind of time to reach out for reals. PM me, we can chat, skype, phone call, whatever.
I just go along for the ride. I'm programmed to believe I'm making decisions (I don't really think I am), and that everyone else is too. Until I can change my programming, I can do nothing but gain what joys I can out of life (or, take what joys life hands to me). Existing is interesting. I'm in no rush to face oblivion, even if ultimately the when/how I get there is meaningless.
...
I just don't think about it. Or I try not to. This is hard, because I think about this shit constantly. At least once a day I stop and think, "This is pointless. I'm basically a robot." Then I shake the thoughts from my head and move on. I use art to express my troubles in this regard.
The only answer is not to think about it. Not until we can change it.
I for one appreciate experiencing and thinking about the absolute peak moments I have communicating with you lot. It's the most meaningful meaninglessness, if that's the case.
I would also recommend that you give Alan Watts a chance.
Read some Ken Wilbur too. I used to say I'm like 65% Bakker, 35% Wilbur. Actually, if reading material is up for suggestion, I have a number of titles to suggest. Also, watch some Jiddu Krishnamurti, he's an amazing thinker.
I would recommend reading up on chaos and complex systems if you think that we live in a clockwork, predetermined universe. "Chaos" by James Gleik is an easy read that changed the way I look at the world. Nothing ever repeats perfectly, so how can we truly be bound to repeat ourselves? Our behaviours are bifurcating chaotic patterns, they may look similar but differences propagate, multiply and are winnowed.
Information was also a great read.
Auriga, I value your unique reality-tunnel and I still wish to spend a whole lifetime learning from differences between us.