The meaning of existence is.
As for absurdities: I think mankind has made a bit of a madhouse out of is, don't you agree? A funny-farm if you prefer. and sometimes not so funny a farm, the news being all the proof One needs. Perhaps Camus then was right after all. life is absurd, human life anyway. As for an ultimate purpose, my purpose, I am so good that they let me drive the bus. How absurd is that? =

Nietzsche, in a way, did commit suicide. He got syphilis through highly risky behavior and refused his doctor's advice until it ruined his mind. For a philosopher, certainly, a kind of suicide. The consensus of his friends was that Camus, too, committed suicide. But the consensus of his peers was that he was a brilliant writer, but no philosopher. Perhaps many today cannot appreciate the public mood after the war, especially in Europe. For two thousand years civil and religious authorities, and most philosophies, insisted that harmony, order, and hierarchy were the keys to the good life, but Hitler and Stalin were glaring examples of how tragically wrong this is. The tremendous sacrifices and risks taken to overthrow fascism must have seem poorly rewarded in the aftermath. But the absurdity is not that the suffering seemed to come to nothing but drudgery, it is the misconception of time as extension and quantification. Meaning is moment. The only extension or quantification of it is voided it. Feyerabend explains this in his work The Conquest of Abundance. That Abundance is the worth of time. But the world is only in its numbers, and we only intimate to the worth of time lost the enumeration of it. Moment is anomaly. It is the anomaly worth is to its extension. The world can only discern us and count us up by extension. What is real is that worth is lost to that quantifier. But such anomaly is the worth of time because real in that loss it is freed its response of the conceit of number and of measure by extension, and so that worth live in that freedom as its responsibility of its being recognized. That is, if loss is the realest term of time, that responsibility is its most articulate term. The world as we know it is no part of this dialectic of loss and love. For the world, as the concept of extension, is only discerned us each alone, and the lost enumerator is as anomalous to that count as the freedom enabled through it is. The worth of time is intimated, not explicated. No god can be such loss as we exact of ourselves and emancipate of each other, and neither can any thesis of the world's imposing its paradigm upon us. The dialectic of intimacy is the completest term of time, and it is not possible to be alone there. The early Existentialists never realized this, but considering their times it is not hard to sympathize with their pessimism.

It seems to me that in the conversation in the program that there is a confusion of categories, as if you're not listening to what each other is saying. One fellow is saying that life can have all sorts of meanings, the other is saying that Life is absurd and has no inherent meaning. Why are these two positions supposedly contradictory? If Life doesn't have any inherent meaning, that is precisely what gives the freedom to humans to create meaning. In other words, meaning is something people do, not something people find. In the other sense of the word "meaning", meaning is a function of language, a function of words being symbolic (sometimes). If we are looking at what you are doing Life 'for the sake of' the 'for the sake of' is first, not really necessary as it is a kind of narrative addition, and second, an interpretation requiring an interpreter making the interpretation. As far as saying that this means that ethics is no longer possible, that isn't really true either - an authoritarian given ethics may not be possible but a shared consensual ethics is possible, and is, in fact, the ethical world we live in. Meaning is what people do, not what they find.

这是朝着正确方向迈出的一步，但语言对我们不利。认为时间是延伸、是持续、是持久或生存(表面上看是荒谬的，因为我们所知道的生命是由一种对死亡的生物学承诺构成的——也就是说，一个复杂的有机体，如人类，其复杂性在于每个部分的分化，从而最大限度地发挥我们活着的潜在表达能力，以换取不朽的复制能力)是内在的消除主义。人就是人。但人是时间的基本动力。这并不是早期存在主义者所说的生存或“自我最大化”的简单利己主义，而是一种自负，认为时间是永恒的，是复制的，由于这种自负或信念，人们倾向于把时间看作是一种不变单位的步伐，保留或保存着它最初的秩序母序，对于它的发展是如此的不足，以至于它的最真实的术语是丧失了这种自负，并且在它之后出现了一套更发达但同样不完全的法则和秩序原则。时间是反常的无论什么定义它的复制一样。新范式并不比它的前辈更真实。这是由我们看到的差异，通过它的更真实的意义是真实的，因为它只是真正失去了“存在”复制或扩展的信念。时间的延伸性的逻辑从来不是正确的，但是，没有一种严谨的模式，能使时间的更真实的时刻成为真实的，那就是把这种严谨追求到极致，通过这种极致，我们可以认识到形式延伸性的不完整性。 But since it is only loss that is its realest term only the freedom that loss means to its other is its articulation. Loss leaves the remainder responsible of the worth of it. That responsibility is love. Neither that loss nor that love is anything worthy of its time alone. Only the act of loss and the response of love in dynamic assault upon the rigor of formalism hermetic between its beginning and its end, antecedence and consequence, cause and effect, is there anything temporal at all. But what we learn in philosophy courses, especially in America in my lifetime, simply excludes the right, let alone the power, to recognize this. Person is the characterology of a rigor of constancy in conviction through which difference anomalous to and undefined within that conviction comes into being through us, but not as an enduring possession so much as an opportunity freed our respondent to find more meaning in it than continuity can express or imply. Time is intimation, not explication. And so long as we are convinced that proper rigor can only replicate the originary there can be no explicit accounting of this. The monism of the West or the collectivism of the East can neither one of them be a venue for the drama of intimacy through which we have a most personal interest in letting my loss be your emancipation of the continuity of time. We are so committed to ontology of the isolating term that we are blind to the participation in giving time is realness and its most articulate term that loss and love is. The Existentialist had an intuition of all this but were entrenched in the monad, and so failed to extricate themselves from the pessimism of that conviction. Camus himself was a lightweight, and was popular at the time and perhaps provocative today because of his fetish for lobbing bombs which he made no effort to clean up after. I might have expected a lot more interest in this theme, as it was so prevalent fifty years ago, but it seems that either the program is not much listened to or, as I have suspected for some time, philosophy, especially in this the most un-philosophical country in the world, is succeeding in its effort to commit institutional suicide. Being a sop to science is no substitute for the humanity it so thoroughly outlaws or denegrates.

最后你提到加缪和尼采处理世界的方式?S缺乏内在意义?尼采建议我们将自己的主观意义投射到这个世界上，而加缪则建议我们承认自己的荒谬状况，并从那里继续前进。也许这两种观点之间的区别需要每个作者的大量知识?他的哲学，但我不?我很清楚这两者有什么不同。也许主要的症结在于意义的投射，加缪似乎没有说要在其中寻找庇护的幻想。而尼采似乎赋予了这个中心角色。但如果?既然如此，我就想更多地了解这些错觉。唐?难道我们，作为一个心理上的事实，一直在为自己创造它们吗? Can we ever just move forward? Or is the way in which Nietzsche uses ?illusion? rather particular? In any case, I?m of the opinion that even if there isn?t any intrinsic meaning in the world (a claim I think I agree with), the meaning that I create for myself in certain relationships and actions is more than sufficiently valuable to keep me going.

尼采的观点是一个agon，一个敌对观点之间的致命竞争。如果你想了解它，最好的开始其实是看一看叔本华的作品，作为意志和表象的世界。与加缪相比，尼采在哲学上更为实质性，为我们提供了广泛的物质解释和论证。加缪只是告诉我们他的想法，但并没有给我们很多同意或批评的理由。
萨特在两本书中为胡塞尔的意图对象提供了引人入胜的注解，在这两本书中，他表明意图的确定性是虚构的，或一种想象的行为。世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区鼻子上有“pooh”的鼹鼠可能不知道是谁把它放在那里的，但他知道他指的是哪个“pooh”，因为他试图找出答案。但是如果我们只是想象我们知道我们指的是哪一个，那么我们的意思就完全是悬而未决的。这种差异需要意识形态。这是荒谬的吗?还是自私?我们只有把其中一种与另一种结合起来，才能分享这种差异。你不知道我指的是哪一个，也不知道我认为它是什么意思，除非是被动地服从我把它们联系起来。只要我们假设自己只是积极地向对方表明自己的立场，而不为假设我们理解对方而失去的东西负责，那么荒谬或自私可能是唯一的选择。比较尼采和马克思对意识形态的运用。 One is egoistic, the other collective. But what if there an individual motif or demiurge to any collective ideology? And what if the energy of that relation between one and all is the rigor of the individual denied its welcome there but only real in that self-denial in a collective responsibility of recognizing what a loss this is? All of a sudden the enigma is resolved.

Isn?t meaning what one perceives to be meaning? The meaning of life or one?s personal understanding of it is not static, it changes over time or at times depending on the sunglasses one?s wearing. The absurdity of life, yes or no, could depend on the questions you?re asking yourself that day or be influenced by a specific event or a disease process. So instead of thinking that life is depleted of meaning couldn?t we just think that the meaning of one?s life is a variable, influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors and therefore quite unpredictable? And as such, change is not absurd (life is not absurd), it is simply very difficult to keep under control and/or to get satisfaction from the illusion of having some control over it. I can imagine a Sisyphus happy, one that plays more with accepting an ever changing meaning of existence than one rebelling against its absurdity.

You wouldn't be the first to suppose Sisyphus happy in his futility, but you might find it harder to make it out that Camus intended this. The point is, Camus didn't make himself clear, and this opens him to the worst charge that can be made against a philosopher, that he didn't know what he was saying. If you attempt a more comprehensive perspective I think you will find it too overwhelming. Limitless grief or joy just don't lend themselves to perception, let alone expression. But nevertheless we intuit them. We settle for the limited version, though we know it a travesty, because we can only bear so much loss or worth. And so we chip away at our own and each other's cheapened version of being. Camus leaves it at that. What he does not recognize is that a change of mind is the most rigorous, and most real act. And the most articulate response is the freedom this enables that response. We free each other in tiny increments of the offer the world is of our facile knowing it. That offer can never outstrip its own time, and yet is it always unworthy of its time, and of us. Again, Camus would leave it at that, even unrecognized the loss a changed mind is and the freedom this is enabled from the belittling of time the world is of us. But that freedom, which is a kind of responsibility of the worth of its enabling loss being recognized (and not limited to itself and its own perspective) can only suffer extension (the kind of 'extension' that the world is belittling time) in itself being the act of loss its own changing mind is. And so there is act and response become act enabled its response, and so on. It is a dialectic of loss and love that cannot be limited to the world as we know it and can only complete itself in a completed ruin of the world's ability to offer us the belittling of time it is. Camus was too much of his time to see this. But if the dialectic can only grow more completed than the world's devaluation of time then any beginning of that growth is already encompassed all the world is offered us. And where we are proved the world unworthy of its time we are found time more completed than what would extend it. To put it more rigorously, time is only extended by attenuation of its worth. Or better still, the least term of time is all the differing it is. For loss is the realest term of time and love is its freest and most complete articulation.

Good question N. - what is the difference between the solutions offered by Nietzsche and Camus? You're right that the difference has to do with the role illusion plays for each. As you mentioned, Camus rejects the idea of taking shelter in illusion, unlike Nietzsche.
However, Nietzsche is not talking about the kind of illusion that we create for ourselves in an unconsious way, but rather a more self-conscious kind of illusion. It's something like an artistic illusion.
例如，当你看一幅静物画时，你知道你面前没有一碗水果(或任何东西)，但你会产生这样的错觉。当我们读小说或看电影时，也会发生类似的事情。我们知道这一切都是幻觉，但我们从暂停怀疑和迷失中获得极大的乐趣，即使只是暂时地，在幻觉中。我们对幻觉有情绪反应，即使我们知道它不是真的。我们并不是在欺骗自己，就像我们欺骗无意识的幻觉一样(相信上帝是尼采的一个例子)。
尼采在《快乐的科学》中提出了这个观点。请特别参阅第299节，“一个人应该向艺术家学习什么”。

或者，那不是内在的意义——那种在世界上被发现的意义。你可能想知道为什么我们需要这种意义。如果世界上唯一的意义就是我们创造/强加的那种意义，那又有什么大不了的呢?我认为这是一个非常好的问题!为什么意义必须独立于我们而存在?加缪似乎认为，我们人类不断地在寻找这种内在的意义，而世界对我们的探索是沉默的，这种结合是荒谬的。也许你认为我们在做别的事?

Laura,
Language is not idiolect. We can only exchange as much foolishness as we do without ever doubting we understand each other, or at least the words, if not the reasoning, if we influence each other in what language can be and do. Even stupidity requires a kind of rigor, though this may seem hard to find on the face of it. We are not alone.
I have been doing a lot of reading in that obscure period between the "fall of Rome" (it didn't fall, it got left behind) and the early feudal era. In Bede it soon becomes extremely evident that a central theme of Christian propaganda was convincing us that this life amounts to punishment that only faith in another life can sustain us. No doubt Camus was simply echoing this ideology, probably without recognizing its source in his own prejudices.
我怀疑“验证码”可能会导致发布问题。

生命意义的问题能从“人性”这一陈旧的观念中得到任何有效的观点吗?有趣的是，那些似乎觉得自己的生活“有意义”的人是那些乐于发现新的经验真理、创造艺术/音乐、促进正义、帮助他人为这些活动做准备等的人。虽然这些“意义”都是个人选择，但它们的共同之处在于，它们都在以新的方式揭示现实的方方面面。因此说人类至少有一部分意义参与了对现实的揭示，这有任何意义吗?

Condolences, I suppose, to those who just show up at work on time ready to do enough as expected to keep the paychecks coming.
The problem is that we can only express the worth of time in terms of its depreciation, even deprecation. We can say nothing of how good it is to be alive that doesn't feel like a lie (because, as real and true as that worth is, it is the lie of it). This is, quite simply, that we can only express the moment of it (the differing it is) in terms of an extension that attenuates or evaporates the worth of it. In a logical form, it is the quantifier which elicits the conviction (conceit?) that contradiction founds certainly (via the excluded middle). But how much or how many is the worth or moment of time? The worth of time is not measured in duration or the unity of its expanse, but in how freed it is of such a count. In physics it has become clear that an externally regulated universe ordered by mathematical symmetry and tempo is impossible. There must be anomaly. We are a highly evolved mode of that anomaly the worth of time is. But there is no enumerating it. It is not one, or some or any or all, or even none. Person is the count of time driven to such extremity in rigor that the very meaning and power of drops out of the logic of it, leaving the qualifier as the only realness and meaning of it. This is why being and nothingness are not opposites, but mere contraries. Not the end of the story but its beginning. Sartre intuited this (though he never got to explicit understanding). Camus did not, and didn't try. He was too full of himself to push the matter to that extremity where it becomes clear how unalone he is. The idea of Western Individualism, the solitary soul in the face of a starkly lonely universe, is a rhetorical gimmick used by very specific power centers to bend us to their designs upon us, to enslave us. The truer origin comes from two facets of European (certainly Anglo-Saxon) history rendered invisible by the record of that history. The Reformation was motivated by a nostalgia for that hidden history, but by then it was too late and the result was the naked soul, from which Camus derives his mode of angst. I could elaborate, but this is enough for now. The gist of it is that Medieval communities were not communal, and Feudal covenants were personal and not hierarchical, as the history would cause us to believe.

Your post does a good job of raising many interesting questions. It is what an old friend of mine, the late Ken Knisely, referred to as a "Think Bomb."
你对加缪小说《陌生人》的主人公有什么看法?他是阐明了西西弗斯式的生活方式，还是屈从于宇宙的荒谬，因此未能赋予自己的生活意义?

I did not weep at my mother's funeral. She always liked my brother best.
陌生人是时间。但它并没有试图这样做。它已经超出了人类语言这个简单术语的范畴，它所记录和规范的生活的那一面。没有简单的时间条件。默尔索是一个稻草人，不是一个真正的人，他的目的是把炮火从真正的问题上引开，加缪不是一个严肃的思想家。不是我们所拥有的或带给这个世界的东西来定义我们，而是我们的离开给这个世界带来了什么损失。时间是一个矛盾体。在微积分中，理性主义认为无穷小可以把异常现象减少到可以忽略不计的程度。但数学/几何/逻辑上的事实是，计算之外的无穷小和计算之内的无穷小一样多。甚至连它的列入都是象征性的(参见乔治·伯克利的《分析师》)。 But this means that what we are not privy to of each other has a double meaning and motive. It is secret, hidden its motivation while public in its meaning, or as yet unknown (though unhidden) of its meaning yet intimate (though never public) of its motive. But if that difference suffers the dynamic the community in contrariety is, then the secrecy is loss only to itself and the unhidden is loss only to all the differing time is. But if we do endure a while in life the difference acts upon us and through us and through each other and something more real than just persisting in the count of time gets articulated. You see, person is the real differing that comes through us as we diligently serve the idea of constancy. And like the infinitesimal, that differing is never more within the calculated duration than it is outside it, where number fails to count it.
这是一种严格的方法，尽管我还没有说服发行商。我认为东方思想缺乏严谨性。也就是说，在理解上设置障碍，使作者更加确信自己的正确性和针对性。但我想听听你对韦伯对中国思想的看法。消息来源对他评价很高，但我只看到一个带着顽固偏见的草率学者。
失去秘密不值得为之哭泣，但失去未被隐藏的东西却值得让人无法计算。

The meaning of life is to stay alive. We nowadays have it easy, the ones who struggle to survive don't have these concerns.

I think something important being left out of the discussion is Camus' deeper argument that to commit suicide would be a logical contradiction. In The Rebel, which is his political extension of his ontology presented in An Absurd Reasoning, he writes:
"Every solitary suicide, when it is not an act of resentment is, in some way, either generous or contemptuous. But one feels contemptuous in the name of something. If the world is a matter of indifference to the man who commits suicide, it is because he has an idea of something that is not or could not be indifferent to him. He believes that he is destroying everything or taking everything with him; but from this act of self-destruction itself a value arises which, perhaps, might have made it worth while to live. Absolute negation is therefore not consummated by suicide."
关键是，人不能否定一切价值，因为，正如加缪所说，“呼吸就是评判。”活着还是不活着本身就是一种价值判断。唯一的问题在于宇宙对我们自动的、不可避免的价值给予漠不关心。人类的冲动和宇宙的冷漠之间的对抗是我们必须学会忍受的荒谬。只是我的拙见!

你声称，如果上帝存在，那么他一定是“低能儿或精神病患者”，但这本身就是一个愚蠢的声明。有无数的可能性。根据《圣经》，人类被赋予自由意志，因此人类有罪。自由是有后果的。罪恶是人自己造成的;神的工作不是修理一切。如果上帝让一切都完美，那么就真的没有目的了。完美的目的是什么?这样就没有什么可完成的，也没有什么可为之奋斗的。正是有了不完美，我们才有了充实的人生。 Sartre himself said that "even if God exists, that would change nothing" and I agree. No matter what, life is a journey of finding oneself. To me, the Bible presents life as a test. Will you live for yourself or for something bigger than yourself? This is a major reason why people are atheists. They want to live for themselves and answer to no one. I find that to be a very lonely life.

加缪的“荒谬”一词并没有贬义。他不相信上帝，也不认为生命有任何意义，但他不消极地看待它，也不打算让任何人消极地看待它。当涉及到宗教或灵性的概念时，他只是观察并解释了普遍意义的缺失。他驳斥了关于上帝和转向世界创建自己的定义,而在他的情况下,是没有理由生活,我们只是在这里存在,一旦我们接受,我们不仅不存在性焦虑通过寻找意义/努力创建意义,而且自由生活无论我们希望的生活,因为没有压力,完成上帝赋予我们的意义或其他任何东西。加缪认为，一旦我们接受了没有意义的事实，渴望意义和不寻找意义之间的冲突就会得到解决。这一观点从他的《西西弗的神话》中可以看出，当西西弗接受了自己的命运，不再渴望另一个命运时，他形容西西弗“比他的岩石更坚强”。

The meaning of life is simply to enjoy the fact that you can contemplate it. We will each get our answer soon enough. Or sooner, that's up to the individual.

The hubris to think one can glean the mood of Sisyphus, much less his motivations. All we do is project our own norms, mores, and psycho-scars on this (or any) character.

I suppose nobody here wants pity from a Christian, but I sympathize with those who struggle to find meaning in the world alone. I myself frequently became depressed before I found God, because I too recognized the futility of living in a world that continued regardless of my contributions. King Solomon, the wisest king of the Bible fits in quite well in this discussion.

3 What do people gain from all their labors
他们在日光之下劳碌。
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
天下无新鲜事。
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
它在我们的时代之前就存在了。
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

记住我的话，那些试图从自己身上获得意义的人会很快发现，你的内心没有任何东西能赋予你意义。你我都是自私而冷漠的人，在自己困难的时候不愿意弯腰去帮助陌生人。20世纪清楚地表明，人类的堕落是没有限度的，此外，希特勒政权成功地证明了一个理应道德正直、人文主义的文明是如何渴望血腥的。希特勒很有魅力，也很聪明，只要能成功地激怒群众，他就会重复任何一句话。人们内心深处的渴望通过欢呼而被人所知，而希特勒则将这些未说出口的私欲武器化，给自己一个平台。

From this, I argue that humanity is much darker and cruel than the exterior of modern civilization lets on. When push comes to shove, we are not the compassionate loving creatures we claim to be, at least in the right situation. This is why I put my faith in Jesus. He was able to prove that strength of character didn't need to be derived from terror, but through an unbroken spirit and heart full of love. That is how I found meaning. For you, I'm not so sure.

Poetry flows best in pain.
The art of music
The art of pain

Where is God?
Where am I?
What I say makes sense to me
上帝是怎么想的?
Where am I?
Am I high when I’m down?
Is this why I drink?

孤独的快乐吗?

I’ve a lonesome friend…
A lone friend rather.
Solitary
Maybe that’s right.
I try to break in
I see in at times

I’ve pretended me there
But I’m so far away now
Surrounded
By friends?
Why?

Is God lonely?
Who is his friend?
What do they do?

What would he ask?
“How are you?”

“What do you think?”
“Is that new?”

What wouldn’t he know?
Why would he care?
Would he?
Is he?
Where is he?

Pain flows in poetry, best?
The music of art
The pain of art.

I died before, now I’m here
I’ve been painting me
But I can’t get it right.
I know what matters
But I don’t know why
I think she disagrees…
我不同意。
Do you see?
Are you me?

~Bacon

Sorry, don't know what came over me...

我同意loganferris的观点。
The meaning of existence is not self evident. It is only when you die to self through the serving of others that your existence becomes meaningful.

I think the story of pushing the rock up the hill is relevant to the lives that most of us live. We wake up, we go to a job we don't want to go to, come home to houses we will likely never own, and then we rinse and repeat.

But for me, and maybe it's the same for the guy with the boulder, I understand that no matter what I'm here and there are things i dont necessarilywant to do. But we have to. And maybe that's enough. Maybe it's better to be here for no reason at all than to not be here at all.

我觉得这篇文章和随后的评论在一定程度上既有趣又令人不安。
The article appears written in 2015, hardly an ancient document yet all the same clearly dated to some degree due to the ridiculous advancements of the "modern" world most notably Donald Trump and COVID-19, both major players on the world stage.
最有趣的是，考虑到气候危机，甚至早在2015年就明显是一种生存威胁，我看到哲学思想在脱离拟人化观点方面几乎没有进展。如果哲学不直接处理人类在基本现实中的适当位置，那么它在任何讨论中又有什么用呢?
A few things are very clear.
As a species we decided some time past that we are separate from Nature. Not so true of indigenous cultures, but the vast majority of us conduct our daily lives under this very deadly premise.
Our Western-skewed lives, our societies, our cultures and our civilizations are built on this entire premise.
对于我们，我们的经济，我们的哲学和宗教，自然是外部性，而不是中心，当然也不是任何一种“更高”的存在。
The story we tell ourselves about fundamental reality is finally becoming unhinged.
唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的崛起就是明证。
Trump is a living, walking, breathing example of Camus' Absurdist philosophy.
Like Camus' Sisyphus we can surmise that Donald Trump is some wacky form of happy.
This is what happens when we allow our philosophies and beliefs to become unglued from fundamental reality.
It will not end well for a species bent on such illusions .Like a Leviathan-Nietzshe we will drive ourselves insane attempting to believe the illusion . Our technocrats preach: More! More! is the answer!
一个人对什么有信心?
Some commenters point out religion and Jesus as an example.
True to a certain degree, but Jesus was no ecologist and man-made climate disaster wasn't exactly an issue back in the day.
That story too needs expansion.
Coronavirus has been an excellent opportunity to reexamine our world and its inter-connectedness. Few it appears will pause to take in the lessons.
Our existence relies implicitly on Nature.
Our air, our water, our food, as well as our collective megalomania and technological follies are all derived from Nature and depend upon Nature. Why not our philosophical faith as well? Is this because we are "separate" and of a "higher" order than other life forms?
因此，结论是令人不安的。
Humans cannot continue on the road we are traveling, telling ourselves the same old lies, the same old story.
事实都对我们不利。
One commenter noted:
"The meaning of existence is not self-evident.
只有当你通过服务他人而自我消亡时，你的存在才变得有意义。"
Is this not a description of how an ecosystem operates?
然而，这难道不是基督教的宣讲吗?
But is it not, as well, a teaching that has many forms in many cultures around the world since humans first began gathering in societies?
Humans now need more artists, "preachers" and indeed more philosophers that embrace and embody this universal truth that expresses fundamental reality in a grim honest truth - fear, death, the conditions of all life - yet proves that the interconnectedness of life is what is not only necessary but in essence gives something nasty, brutish, and short a larger context and true "meaning".

我突然想到，由于阿尔伯特的生活和时间是动荡的，他对这一切的看法都会受到影响。
Other products of adversity may also come to mind: Kafka? Nietzsche? Kant, perhaps? Kant was obssessed with order and structure, it is said. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were both sufferers, who became towers of philosophical thought and strength. Or, is strength too strong a word? Giants come in all shapes. And sizes. You can call me crazy---or a fool. Anything but late for dinner, please. Is intellect incidental? Yes. Accidental? Certainly. Lucky? Probably so. Sartre wrote of le nausee, nausea. We are products of our environment. D'autrement, we create that through contextual reality.