I'm probably a bit weird, but I'm a quite skeptical kind of person for the most part, but with enough natural curiosity to still be very open minded in a very relativistic way.

I do believe nothing about the world can be established with absolute certainty, but I do think there's enough sense in taking things for what they are in a relative sense. In other words I don't believe in absolutism.

To be honest though, I don't like a lot of those labels, because ultimately they don't make much sense.

If you talk to people long enough, you will often see they agree with more than just one of the philosophical systems. Maybe not entirely as some are direct opposites, but still.

For example I agree with existentialism, in that when it comes to philosophical thinking it begins with the human subject. Sort of as the main focus.

I also agree with analytic tradition in that things should make sense with proper argumentation, taking into account semantics, classic logic and non-classical logic.

There's obviously no true right or wrong when it comes to these systems.

I agree that most people mix these in there view, I mean, I fall mostly under stoicism, but for me a bit of cynicism mixes in a bit too, just for example.

i believe that we humans tend to fail at every instance life gives us.
i believe that humans are a miscalculation of evolution and that when we are gone, this error wont be made again.
i believe that humans tend to overpercepate their existance. we are so unimportant to the world, the nature, the universe, even to our own kind, its not even funny. and yet i laugh.
i believe that we will eradicate ourselfs fromt he surface of this planet within the enxt three to fourhundret years, and that after our demise, no creature in the entire universe will miss us or even know we existed.
and damn, if i had a big red button, id sure as hell push it...

evolution does not have any "aim" or purpose,
its the simple law that the successful species strive and adapt in the long run.
Not adapted die out.

humans are successful and adapt, and will survive
(maybe not in these high numbers, but they willl survive in some
regard)
AND humans have now as the only species much better methods to adapt than pure
genetic trial and error. Humans can reason and manipulate their
environment with a plan.

The Meaning of Life:
Personal / individual: -reaching whatever personal goal or
archivements / living conditions the person want to archive for
himself on its family / friends

Group / social: the individual should try to live under the
current / traditional morals and "do good" for the society.

Universial: none, the universe does not care for anything,
so it does not care if there are humans or not.
Be there or die out. no difference. no goals, no "morals" or "dismorals".

Yeah, but you can't deny life has always been evolving with progress as a result. Remember it all started as single cells at some point and look how complicated life is now. I don't think you can say that evolution has an 'aim', but it certainly is going in the direction of progress. I'm talking about what's left after the selections have occurred obviously.

I would radically change my mind by the time we would see species reappear that already went extinct an extremely long time ago, indicating the evolution stuff might be circular in nature.

Progress is a misunderstanding here.
Of course complex multi-cell organisims could only evolve after a certain time passed,
but there are still many "primitive" single-cell organisms,
in constant evolution.

Its just that the variation-space and chance for variation
increases with time.
This can also mean a loop back to previous adaptions.

Take wales/seals for example.
They evolved from maritime creatures to land creatures,
back to maritime creatures.

Ants evolved from primitive crawling insects to flying wasps back
to crawling insects.

We just see many "higher" creatures, because there was
a valid time for them to have a chance to evolve.
This must not make them better adapted than primitive single-cell
organisms in the long run.


So there is no intrinsic direction, just a higher chance for
manifold variation given time.
Complexity survives as long as less complexity is not better
adapted or could push out complex organisms.

Yes. I agree. It is not about progress or sophistication, it is about success. And a little insect can be there a couple of millions of years while complex organisms are extincted.

The only "meaning" of life is to be successful in terms of surviving and spreading the own genes to produce new beings to spread their genes to produce... That is why they call it "reproduction".

My personal meaning of life is similar: I love my kids and want to grow them as best as I can while being a good example to them.
My father once said something similar to me as I was a kid when I asked him about the meaning of life.

This is a good example to explain that the free will is very limited. This person stops eating because of the current situation. Maybe he/she lost a loved person or became sick or became crazy to find a "meaning" in life but did not find one

The same person with a happy relationship, cute kids and strong health never would think about ending the own life.

It is not free will. It is just a result of a certain situation.
Even an old dog stops eating if it wants to die.

But success is flawed in that most if not all species will eventually go extinct, but life won't. Life itself always seems to find a way.

I'd say success of individual species is subordinate to the grand scheme of things, of life finding it's way in what I would call progress. You could call it survival, but because species come and go, that's not entirely appropriate either.



It's not a result of a certain situation at all, many people react differently to the same situations. That in itself should be enough proof of free will actually.

But you don't really seem to get my point of that comment. The ultimate proof of being in control of your life in the most literal sense possible is to decide whether you'd want it to end or not. Now I am not saying killing yourself is a smart thing, I very much believe in the contrary, but the fact that you could means you've got a free will.



Yep, the dog decides it doesn't want to live anymore even if it could still live for longer. Sounds to me even dogs have free will. Old age is something inevitable yes, but not all dogs stop eating at exactly the same age. Some dogs never stop eating and want to life until the very last moment.

Age is another evolotionary adaption. For some reason it
is never in public discussion:

The reason why people age is not some deeper purpose, but
the simeple fact, that the live of humans (and all other
higher species) was not required to last muc longer above a certain age.

Humans have had an optimal productive age for around 32 years
during most of the time of evolution. Additional lifetime
for extended decades after that was not a nessecity for better survival.
Maybe a few additional years might help in low reproductive times, but then this member of the group was not much of a contribution. (a bit longer life was useful probably up to the point in time where humans had the ability
to gather and teach knowledge, where age was a contribution)

Thats the reason why the body decays faster and faster after this age. Woman loose their reproductive ability also after this point.
Aging is not a deeper purpose, but rather the other way around:
keeping fit and fully operational had no benefits, so
aging was not adapted "away" by evolution.

If humans (generally apes) would have lived in an environment,
where there would be 7 dry years, and then 2 nuterous years,
the lifetime of humans would be much longer now, as
it would have been benificial to stay "young" for longer time.