Sartre: "There is no neutrality between non-existence and this muddled, pleasure-filled existence. If we exist, we must exist to such an extent."

Throughout my life, the philosophy of life has been an indispensable friend to me, a frequent visitor, and a A mysterious and terrifying friend who could never fully understand him.

Just as Russell thought at the age of 5: I'm only 1/14th of the way through my long career and therefore feel immensely despondent, so too have I been despondent from the age of I started thinking about the universe and life at a very young age. There was a time when I was afraid to look up at the stars for long periods of time, because I saw from them that life was barren, cold, and meaningless. I can't accept that this poor creature existed as a speck of dust in the infinite universe for just a short time and then forever. The brutal fact that it's gone. Jung said that this question can't be thought about often or people will go crazy. And yet I often think, involuntarily, that the fact that I have yet to go insane only means that my nerves are tough, and not just any tough.

This way of thinking and living is not entirely unhelpful. One obvious benefit is that no matter what the calamity or seemingly insurmountable obstacle, just do what I'm used to doing. That way, when you think deeper about the universe and life, about the vastness of the universe and the meaninglessness of life, these seemingly insurmountable walls... It will fall apart, collapse and be eliminated. Even the fires of love that bring tears to your eyes at the thought can be extinguished, and even the most exhilarating scenery can be eclipsed . Because in the ultimate entropic patch of chaos that is the universe, all of this is nothing more than a speck of dust, not even a speck of dust. If it were only a feeling or an obsession of a tiny creature like man.

I believe that's how religion came about in the first place, because this truth about the universe and life is just too brutal to look at! , one has to dream up all sorts of wonderful paradises, gods, meanings and values to make life bearable, to make the truth not seem so Raw and harsh, so naked and gruesome. In this sense, I envy those who believe in God, even those who believe not soberly but only blithely, in their Life is more bearable than mine. But are they really sober, and are they convinced that what they are convinced of is true?

I have always been atheistic at heart. At best, it is as pantheistic as the ancient Greco-Romans. The deity they have in mind is nothing more than a nice mythology, like a fairy tale. Though reluctantly, my intellect and all that I have been taught tells me that atheism is the only truth. It takes a bit of courage to admit this: since there is no God at all, you have to fight to keep your eyes open to the barrenness of the universe and life The meaninglessness.

I was exposed to existentialism at a very young age, and it immediately captured my full attention because it speaks the brutal truth: Being By pure chance, life is completely meaningless. Existentialism at the same time shows the way out of life: one can choose and suffer the consequences of one's choices. If life has no meaning, why do people still live, and what else is necessary? Since there is no need, is the only option left is to die?

The existentialist answer is that there are multiple options: one can choose to die or to live; one can choose to live this way or to Choose to live that way. So I am willing to live my life more out of my own choices and less out of compulsion from outside forces. Even so, some things are still imposed on me. For example, I chose love, but fate (chance) cruelly killed it in the end; I wanted to choose literature, but fate wouldn't give it to me. The melancholy of the artist, and the casualness gives me clarity and simplicity (two qualities that Benjamin did not consider to be artists). Of course, to the extent possible, I'm going to try to choose rather than passively accept my fate, because that's what exists. Otherwise not there.

At one point Sartre says, "There is no neutrality between non-existence and this muddled, pleasure-filled existence. If we exist, it must exist to such an extent." It's a very clear statement that people either exist or they don't, there's no in-between; and the criterion for existence is whether or not they're full of it. Pleasure. By that standard, not too many people exist on this planet, at least not all the time. It sounds simple, but it's not easy to implement, and ideas alone can kill the desire for pleasure in millions of people. and opportunities, not to mention customs, culture, and multifarious codes of conduct. But isn't what Sartre pointed out the only possible way to exist?

Since the universe is so vast and barren, and since life is utterly meaningless, pleasure is the only option we have. I would choose to exist, even though it ultimately doesn't change the brutal fact that existence is meaningless.

Source: Li Yinhe

translate: DeepL