The crux of your argument is the claim that, if the universe becomes a field of equidistant neutrinos, no action or thought in the meantime matters. The implicit assumption behind this view is that events only matter to the extent that they leave a legacy. In particular, it asserts that things only have ultimate meaning if they extend to temporal infinity. I believe that how one reacts to Curtis's post, and to your statement, depends on the following question: to what extent can something temporary and finite have meaning?
Imagine this scenario:
A man stands on the shore, miles from any other human presence. He is desolate, alone. For the past twenty years of his life, he has worked ceaselessly on a critical open question in mathematics, the solution to which would make it feasible for humans to travel across galaxies. Educated at the best institutions, mentored by the greatest geniuses of his day, and encouraged by his incredible past successes in the field, he had begun to work on the problem with as great of fanfare as can exist within an academic community. Gradually, as he had toiled without progress, his reputation had faded and he had become increasingly reclusive. Eventually, divorced and estranged from his family, he had pruned away every aspect of his life outside of this one question. The man walks slowly back and forth, wracking his brain for what had gone wrong in all his previous approaches, what key had escaped him.
In a blazing flash of insight, he understands. The wrong turns, the twisted equations and garden-path lemmas, the towering perplexity of twenty years - gone. He understands. It is true; it is real. With the mere publication of one proof, even the sketch of the dazzlingly unlikely intuition, humanity will dance across the stars within a century.
In the next moment, a titanic wave engulfs the coast, obliterating him in one painless moment.
Does his epiphany matter? This is the limit of your supposition: a moment of supreme realization and an achievement that only a few among billions could hope for, lasting as short a time as could matter to a human being. What you think of meaning in human life depends on what you answer to that question. If you believe that his epiphany does matter, you also believe in the meaning of temporary things - of what leaves an impression, but not a legacy.
In this case, the "fight against inertia" does matter, but only as the genuine pursuit of a deeply felt aim, rather than lust for meaning swaddled in the language of social contribution. To use the language of "Drive," people feel most fulfilled when they have autonomy, mastery, and purpose; less pedantically, we are only happy in the deeper sense when using our abilities to their fullest extent. Chasing your visions and striving for achievement matter as a consequence not of the goal, but of advancing towards it. It is important to know that your goal matters to others, and that you have the means to achieve it, but it does not register on the scale of personal meaning whether it is ever achieved. Only the motion, the overcoming of inertia, differentiates between personal meaning and lack thereof. Mathematically, although everyone's life begins and ends at zero, that fact in no way diminishes the value of the integral in between.
Happiness, success, passion and meaning are four qualities that attract some of the most contentious attention from both HN readers and young people in general. I would argue that they share a common quality: they are only achievable at the highest level as byproducts of action, not goals in and of themselves. Pursuing them directly drives them away; if the young Mark Zuckerberg had been in it for the money, he would have gone to Microsoft, and if the young Steve Jobs had made it his goal to find meaning, he would have stayed on perpetual pilgrimage in India instead of starting Apple. The victory of ambivalence and subconcious motives comes from mistaking the yearning towards these things for the path that leads to them.
Internalizing death, if you believe in the meaning of temporary things, does justify certain ways of thinking and behaving. It means knowing that you will, relatively soon, be rendered forever passive and motionless. In the meantime, you may as well move.
My point isn't that everything is meaningless necessarily. I would say that the more one thinks about death the harder it is to make arguments for meaningfulness. I wouldn't make an argument for meaninglessness, I would just say that you can't really extrapolate a positive value system from the fact that life is short.
It feels like you're arguing in favor of narrowing our vantage as a way to preserve meaningfulness, which is totally valid to me. But it's basically using a belief (the meaning of temporary things as you put it) as comfort. My point, as was pointed out below, is that you may as well move but you also may as well stay still.
As an aside, it seems strange that Jobs is the illustrative example here, as if it's primitive that we should all want to be Him. Given the option to gain a problematic and presumably painful personal life and what I understand was a totally unnecessary early death along with creating apple and "changing" an arbitrarily tiny subset of human history, that seems like a very easy thing to decline. I take his decision to avoid treatment to reflect profound pain that I would love to avoid.
I concur with most of your arguments, I do concur with you that there seems to be over importance given to Job's personal-life than it should. But, your last paragraph about Job's life seems to be out of line with your philosophy. You are claiming that Job's death was unnecessary. Unnecessary in whose terms? Is the purpose of life living the longest possible life? Here, by saying that his death was unnecessary or untimely, you are implying there is a time for a person of his stature to die. Now, its no more about making decisions that make you happy or not worrying about the shortness of life, or the lack of meaningfulness of life, but rather you are now preaching how somebody should live their life(or make certain decisions) just like the author or the article is trying to do.
P.S- I do think Steve Jobs contributed greatly to his field and I admire him & his products. The arguments made above are purely for discourse
I guess I was making the observation personally that my priorities are very out of sync with wishing for Jobs' life. I don't think anyone else should have the same priorities as I do. I'm terrified of dying and would like to life as long as I can. I would also feel badly if I knew I died earlier than necessary for psychological reasons.
ForrestN is not (as I interpret) saying that nothing matters. Just that evaluating the "matter-ness" of something based on some objective like making a difference to humanity is baseless. If staying passive makes you happy, then take that route. If proving mathematical theorems makes you happy, then take that route.
You seem to be saying that the pursuit of a goal in of itself matters, something that is not really at odds with what ForrestN implies, which is that the end product (the result of accomplishing a goal) doesn't really matter, given that all paths end at the same destination.
I especially take issue with your last sentence, which feels like a cop-out. "You may as well move" is a poor reason to move. "You may as well stay put" has just as much validity.
"Does his epiphany matter? If you believe that his epiphany does matter, you also believe in the meaning of temporary things - of what leaves an impression, but not a legacy."
There are two things here I'd like to comment. First, the question is incomplete, it can be either "does his epiphany matter to the man?" or "does his epiphany matter to the reader?".
The first version has the obvious answer "Yes", of course it matters for him, he doesn't know he'll die soon, nor does he care at that moment.
For the second version the answer, for me at least, is also "Yes", but for a different reason than the one you give. I say his result matters because now we know (we'll we don't theoretically as he didn't get to tell the world) that the question has a solution which means that somebody somewhere will be able to rediscover. I think knowing there is a solution is a huge win for any hard question because you know there is a purpose in your search.
Imagine this scenario:
A man stands on the shore, miles from any other human presence. He is desolate, alone. For the past twenty years of his life, he has worked ceaselessly on a critical open question in mathematics, the solution to which would make it feasible for humans to travel across galaxies. Educated at the best institutions, mentored by the greatest geniuses of his day, and encouraged by his incredible past successes in the field, he had begun to work on the problem with as great of fanfare as can exist within an academic community. Gradually, as he had toiled without progress, his reputation had faded and he had become increasingly reclusive. Eventually, divorced and estranged from his family, he had pruned away every aspect of his life outside of this one question. The man walks slowly back and forth, wracking his brain for what had gone wrong in all his previous approaches, what key had escaped him.
In a blazing flash of insight, he understands. The wrong turns, the twisted equations and garden-path lemmas, the towering perplexity of twenty years - gone. He understands. It is true; it is real. With the mere publication of one proof, even the sketch of the dazzlingly unlikely intuition, humanity will dance across the stars within a century.
In the next moment, a titanic wave engulfs the coast, obliterating him in one painless moment.
Does his epiphany matter? This is the limit of your supposition: a moment of supreme realization and an achievement that only a few among billions could hope for, lasting as short a time as could matter to a human being. What you think of meaning in human life depends on what you answer to that question. If you believe that his epiphany does matter, you also believe in the meaning of temporary things - of what leaves an impression, but not a legacy.
In this case, the "fight against inertia" does matter, but only as the genuine pursuit of a deeply felt aim, rather than lust for meaning swaddled in the language of social contribution. To use the language of "Drive," people feel most fulfilled when they have autonomy, mastery, and purpose; less pedantically, we are only happy in the deeper sense when using our abilities to their fullest extent. Chasing your visions and striving for achievement matter as a consequence not of the goal, but of advancing towards it. It is important to know that your goal matters to others, and that you have the means to achieve it, but it does not register on the scale of personal meaning whether it is ever achieved. Only the motion, the overcoming of inertia, differentiates between personal meaning and lack thereof. Mathematically, although everyone's life begins and ends at zero, that fact in no way diminishes the value of the integral in between.
Happiness, success, passion and meaning are four qualities that attract some of the most contentious attention from both HN readers and young people in general. I would argue that they share a common quality: they are only achievable at the highest level as byproducts of action, not goals in and of themselves. Pursuing them directly drives them away; if the young Mark Zuckerberg had been in it for the money, he would have gone to Microsoft, and if the young Steve Jobs had made it his goal to find meaning, he would have stayed on perpetual pilgrimage in India instead of starting Apple. The victory of ambivalence and subconcious motives comes from mistaking the yearning towards these things for the path that leads to them.
Internalizing death, if you believe in the meaning of temporary things, does justify certain ways of thinking and behaving. It means knowing that you will, relatively soon, be rendered forever passive and motionless. In the meantime, you may as well move.