Agreed. The irony is after a long period of time even if when societies are separated by vast distances the core principles of survival will be consistent almost them all and the ones that never adapted or try to act unnaturally in the name of free will go extinct what an existence.
Discussion
Agree with consistency, re: “survival”, as that’s probably hardwired in our biology. One has to define what “existence” is, then one could be satisfied (or not) based on their definition of that (and their perceived state of distance from the definition). I don’t subscribe to free will (as one traditionally defines it) but that’s a whole ‘nother topic right there 😂🤣
Haha you are a man of thought, you have opened more than just one rabbit hole. Well the assumption of existence is to be physically aware further more living among others. Extinction is the division of body and whatever posses us when we are aware of life. Well being would be living in a specific manner that enables you to exist in a productive way. Free will then becomes obsolete in an existence of selflessness in the state of well being, when one recognizes the dangers of acting in one way as opposed to another due to the dangerous of said action to themselves and the collective that my friend is when men will need no laws or to be governed.
Well my friend I hope you do not tire of the thought exercise. I only meant honest engagement as I always learn from others. Men of thought are fundamentally reductionists: existence cannot be “physical awareness” (if you remove personal bias you cannot find “existence via the five basic senses), extinction is a label (complex theory: quarks and gluons remain even though the macro, ie body disappears), “selfessness” is a quirky word (where is the “self”, can you find it, where is it?). I come with an open mind. I shall further dissect a more coherent response once I disassemble camp.
Existence isn’t physical awareness solely but to suggest physical awareness isn’t part of existence then existence in itself collapses and fundamentally that’s inconsistent as we are actively engaging in a discussion of awareness to be aware. Personal biases is a result of awareness in itself lol if you take away the 5 senses what you retain with is consciousness or whatever you would call thought, hence the reference to “what leaves the body” in my previous commentary. Extinction isn’t a concept nature subscribes to but in the most basic concept of the word extinction alluding to awareness or being as you previously were but are no more, Hahaha again you are opening a very deeeeeep hole to question what “the self” is I was trying to keep it on the basis that we can understand free-will nevertheless from my understanding the self is the awareness of being confined in a specific bodily vehicle for a specific journey which I believe would be learning for a period measured with an instrument we refer to as “time”. Selfish would be the acquisitiveness to safeguard that bodily existence, selflessness is then in-fact to further discard that acquisitiveness of one’s self for the well being of others experiencing a version of “self” foreign to you through the same timely learning, what happens to the self after this existence ? is what I and most men are ignorant of.