>"Oh, really, that so?"

Yes, that so.

>"Nothing is ever needed if"

No, no "if", period.

>"all you can think about is the existential crisis in your head and the point of existing. If you simply want to live life in itself and enjoy it to its fullest. As Buddha has said, and this is verbatim, life is simply too short to worry about what can't be answered."

I see no relevance to that quote since I just answered it. We navigate better with the truth. (Partly since the truth will outlast life, the stars, even time and space.)

EDIT: And there is no "the point of existing" so I have no idea for what reason you bring that in.

>"So in short, yes, stuff is needed to exist and live."

That is a lie, partly because organisms do not "need" to live.  Humans are just too much of egomaniacs to accept that and grow from it.

>"Rules exist so we can."

Another lie.

>"In this world, there have always been rules and laws"

No. 3.4 million years of Stone Age, 6,000 years of post-Stone Age and not a single "rule" or "law" has ever existed outside the imagination. Same with chess, "crime' and "murder". Although... I guess chess arguably exists as an abstract thing.

>"We use them to navigate our existence and to be able to complete certain tasks and etc. The rules of chess don't float around the table, but Hikaru surely can't be a grandmaster if he doesn't know the rules, can he?"

Calvin and Hobbes can be "grandmasters" of their game of "make up rules as you go". The title means you've learned to play the game well but playing chess IS an entirely imaginary activity, two people can even do it simply through conversation. You and your best friend can make up a dance, i.e. "create the rules" of it, and become masters at it but you're performing an imaginary activity, the "rules" of your new dance never magically leaves the imagination, only the dance (arguably) becomes an abstract non-imaginary thing.

>"It could have ended" but sadly, it has not. I do not care about the fact you believe life on earth doesn't revolve around humans and life. If you have such a depressing selfless belief in your life, so be it."

So not being an egomaniac invariably is a depressing existence? I.e. if the universe does not revolve around you OH WOE IS YOU, WHAT A DEPRESSING EXISTENCE, HOWEVER CAN YOU GO ON?!

(Sorry if that is too agressive, I'm just trying to illustrate my stance about egotism.)

>"You are free to believe life is pointless and humanity is not the center, but what is life's point then?"

It doesn't have one, nothing does. "Purpose" is a myth.  (Proof below.)

>"I am not interested in leading a longer discussion than needed, to be quite frank!"

Nice one but reality remains; neither of us ever "need" to have any conversations  in our lifetimes, our parents could have had other offspring or we could have died a long time ago or life on Earth could have gone extinct before conversation was even feasible, hence no conversation ever "needs" to be any particular length.

--Proof of "purpose" being a myth--

I can use a hammer as a doorstop, as a paperweight, to scratch that hard to reach spot on my back, to smash a window to get out of a burning car or as a sex toy. I can use a dirty rock from a nearby ditch to slam a nail into a wall. That is the nature of utility.

 One brother can go into the woods to cut down a tree, lug it home, work for weeks to make a nice-looking comfortable wooden chair intending to sit in it by the fireplace reading Shakespeare. As he's finished he goes back out into the woods to cut some wood for the fire. His brother comes in, takes the nice-looking comfortable-looking wooden chair no one's ever sat in, chops it up and makes a fire in the fireplace.

 "Purpose" is a myth, it exists nowhere but in our imagination. It doesn't exist in hammers, rocks, trees, wood, chairs, fireplaces, fire, molecules, atoms or organic life.

Interesting. I suspect everyone has different moral principles unless they claim to strictly follow a religion. Also one’s principles change with time.

It's not. It's a discussion of every phylosophy ever taught.

[deleted]

I studied psychology a couple of decades back that was still after the book, why freud was wrong.

Many things by freud are still used and accepted, it's not because a lot of his work is debatable or even plain wrong that he didn't lay the groundwork for psychology in general and that he had a major influenece that is still in effect in various fields.

The concept of the id is something that never really went away, and same thing for the ego and its defense mechanisms.

Can I ask you what you think exists or isn't a myth? Or at least why you think calling something a myth is a way to dismiss anything? I dont understand what you're going for here. Its kind of incoherent but within the realm of perhaps "sounds smart to someone"

No, there is no "if" that can make "necessity/need/needing" non-myth. My desire to make apple pie does not magically create the "necessity" of apples existing or the "necessity" of me finding any apples (whether they exist or, say, somehow ceased to exist). "Necessity" exists only in the imagination.

EDIT: Obviously, the same goes for if I'm dying of cancer within a month and desire a cure or dying of thirst in the middle of the Sahara and desire Mountain Dew.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Maybe need by itself is a myth. But if you want to do something, you need to do something. The drowning man needs to try and save himself if he wants to live.

[deleted]

I would not disagree with moral principles being essential for our inner peace i.e. the stance "We cannot have inner peace without moral principles" as I see no way to disprove it... without some grand global social experimentation. :-)

I kind of like the notion of a God just accidentally creating worlds without even knowing it while just going on about its own business. That would make sense in some ways.

This seems to derive from the deontological-consequentialist circle. Rules are considered to be good if they give good results, and results are considered to good if they align with a good rule.

Not at all, it has nothing to do with being doomed. It's a simple question of what's real and what's myth. Horse and pegasus. That also helps us navigate life better; the truth, that is.

Three inaccuracies in your post:

• Nothing is ever "needed" since "need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than the drowned corpse "needs" to avoid becoming a drowning man... or becoming a time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings.

• "Rules" are also a myth. The "rules" of playing chess do not float around the players invisible like Casper the friendly ghost, we simply pretend they exist for practical reasons.

• "Must" is yet another myth. "Imperatives" never exist outside the imagination the same way "need/necessity" and "importance" (and "value") never do. The universe simply does not revolve around us organisms, all life on this planet could have ended before there were even dinosaurs.

You're saying we are doomed anyway?

False, nothing is ever "needed" since "need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than the drowned corpse "needs" to avoid becoming a drowning man... or becoming a time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings.

The moral principles are needed for our own inner peace.

Life is a combination of knowledge, morals, norms, rules and everything in between.

To navigate life and to be as knowledgeable as possible you need to have *your own personal belief system, your ideology, if you must your religious beliefs, and abide by societal rules. *

As a commenter below said “Four walls and a roof isn’t a house, but it protects you from the rain”.

Having some universal rules and beliefs isn’t a full life, but it’s something to go by. You build the “house” (aka your life) by adding little stuff inside and making it a home.

[deleted]

wow ideas evolve over time? no way!

Having 4 pillars and top isnt really a house but it does protect you from the rain

[deleted]

One can't condensate it all as to "do no harm". Inaction can also cause harm.
Also, using the trolley dilemma example for the sake of the argument, it isn't there to give you a definitive solution to a problem as old as time. It is there to prove a point, it being: it depends.
Laws (as a set of rules to follow in society in comparison to our personal moral values) are more effective in some places than others, for example, because of a plethora of reasons and not just because of how they were written or how they are enforced, but it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't create them and follow them.
It is tiring to seek these answers and try to apply them to our personal lives because most of us have the "efficient market utilitarian" based approach to suffering, in which we avoid it at all costs while externalizing the labor of it somewhere else without considering the consequences. Point being, as presented by Zizek, paying Starbucks a few cents per cup to fight global warming. As things are, you can't avoid harm. It has to go somewhere.