It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Philosophy of Pessimism by Rust Cohle, Nothing Is Ever Over.

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 11:21 AM
This is pretty interesting, it's from the first season of True Detective series, and I would like to know, what do you guys think?
Many have already seen this, but for those who haven't... here it is:

(sorry, unfortunatelly...embedding doesn't work for this video, so you have to watch on YouTube)

I find it chilling and the idea is interesting to entertain.
Nothing is ever over, nothing really changes, no fulfilment until the very end...
What do you think?

here is another one,

edit on 6-3-2016 by Necrose because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 12:34 PM
a reply to: Necrose

i remember that show, loved it, i remember his philosophy (or lack of) i do disagree with it, he seems to think nature created humanity as the first thing without purpose, while all else of natures creations purpose has been to procreate, to spread as far and wide as it can,

how one misses the obvious here always baffles me, to me it seems clear nature created humanity for the exact same purpose, to spread far and wide, see i think nature started realizing that all of its efforts could not get it off the planet, i think it created us as something that could figure out how to get off the planet.

we are no different then the dandelion seeking to spreed our seeds as far as possible, to the ends of the cosmos.

and look just what we are doing today, commercializing space flight, coming up with new and faster and cheaper space flight, putting our best scientists to the task of figuring out intergalactic travel, nature did it again, created something that could spread itself even further then anything before, thats all nature has ever done from the beginning,

its all just life trying to create more life.

his pessimism is equal to the dandelion that has realized its stuck in a room full of its own kind and can go no further, has lost its purpose of spreading since its kind has already filled all there is within its reach.

difference is when humans feel that way we make rockets and launch ourselves further yet.

didnt he follow this role up with a role in a film about intergalactic travel? seems even there the message came through to those who look.
edit on 6-3-2016 by NobodiesNormal because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:31 PM
Why is it surprising that the philosophy of pessimism produces pessimism?

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 03:00 PM
I think that the most significant part of Rust's character was the fact that he had lost a daughter and had never come to terms with it. His bleak outlook was an expression of that.
edit on 6-3-2016 by Robert Reynolds because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:50 PM
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

I rate both Interstellar and True Detective as 10/10.

I watched Interstellar first and then watching him talk about time, space and dimensions in True Detective immediately struck me.

Amazing acting by Matthew, you have to admit.

I kinda support (not entirely) his theory.
You say we are spreading further and stuff, but here comes the point where in the near future, computers and/or AI is almost definitely going to take over and spread itself exponetially, out of control by humans and thus, by this event -Singularity- ever occuring, I guess the nature/universe/whatever had to make a mistake as it's no longer the life its producing and spreading, but the code, zeros and ones, thinking AI perhaps, but still, it's no longer us.
Well, on the other hand though, we can think about it as we are just another step in evolution and also being the last in which, by our terms, the most intelligent species are actually ALIVE.

Unless, of course, we are already in The Matrix
,then every theory is basically pointless.
edit on 6-3-2016 by Necrose because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:51 PM
I am a nihilist, not by choice, but by understanding. To be a nihilist you have to be honest with yourself, because, if you cannot be honest with your own experience of your 'self', you can have no understanding of life, but that you avoid such understanding, and live not in a dream, but in a delusion. Self-honesty is is the first wise step to true understanding. Why do we do the things we do? Why do we think the thoughts we think?

The problem with conscious self-awareness is that it makes actors of us all. We play the part of being a particular person, often not the same person to everyone we know, we play many parts and many characters, and the type of mask we wear is determined by the person with whom we interact.

My signature states the real truth. There is no natural rhyme or reason to life. Yes, you can point out to me that at the most fundamental level our purpose is to grow and reproduce, but that is only something that we do, it tells us nothing of the 'why' we do?

The greatest achiever in life and the most under-achieved, both meet with the same end. Death takes life from both of them.

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 06:01 PM
a reply to: elysiumfire

But what if life is a vicious circle, what if you are always born again...if you are trapped. What purpose does death serve then??
It's all just a game and 'death' is kind of a restart button when all your memories and experiences are erased so you have to find out again?

If so, it's really disappointing that the enlightenment just means to understand that there is no purpose at all, but you will keep on playing the game forever and ever, even if you opt-out of the game and eventually commit suicide, you are born again not aware of anything from your previous life so you can pretend to be someone over again...
It's unnerving.

By digging into it, I think......that The Matrix theory seems pretty plausible in the end, because if this indeed is a computer Simulation, it all suddenly somehow makes sense, doesn't it?

You cant find the smallest particle, because you always find something smaller, you cant look far enough to see the edge of the universe because it's expanding faster, the more you try the more hazy it's like a computer simulation so complex that the players within it (us) are unaware of it being a simulation and by further exploring it, it literally hides again and's like trying to look at the back of your head, the faster you twist your head the faster it gets away from you...
And that might explain why we are alone, because once the species become intelligent enough to actually see the simulation and feel it, it's game over. the universe somehow restarts itself and we can continue playing the game with brand new characters....

And yes, I feel your question coming...´Who then, created the simulation?'

The Architect.
edit on 6-3-2016 by Necrose because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:22 PM
"The Philosophy of Thomas Ligotti: True Detective & The Thoughts Of An Obscure Literary Master"

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 03:25 PM

But what if life is a vicious circle, what if you are always born again?

I think we can make some safe assumptions for the basis of your question. If we are born again then there probably will be both rhyme and reason to existence. Even if the process of life then death then life renewed was entirely a random evolution in nature, the rhyme and reason will be manufactured by conscious intelligence. However, the real question on this topic is, does the same personality survive, or is it some aspect of (for want of a better word) spirit (I use the term without any religious connotation or linking) that survives?

If, after death, memory survives intact and wholly cohesive, then the personality must equally survive, because memory is where you are, where the person ultimately resides, regardless of the dual aspect it implies.

Existence, especially our existence, is a profound puzzle. We are self-aware, intelligent entities. We know that each of us followed the same process of conception through to birth, and growth to adulthood and further maturation psychologically, and entropic ageing in physical body until the physical body meets with its natural end through atrophy. Mind, it seems, does not undergo atrophy or entropy, and one could suggest that that is the way spirit is able to circumvent entropic processes through cycles of reincarnation, but this would then be problematic for the original personality as it would have to seek assimilation with all the succeeding personalities of each incarnation that followed. No matter how many lives one lived, no life would produce the same personality, the same person.

Then of course, there is the 'power' source problem. We know how the physical body gets its fuel and energy...we eat food, but how would spirit attain its energy? How would spirit remain energised? The physical body has a natural life span, and regardless of the fuel we constantly feed it, the body reaches a certain point where its modular system simply falls apart, and there is nothing that can be done about it...we physically die.

Thirty years ago I would often liken the physical body to that of an incubator for the soul (personality), and that when we die, we follow a process of metamorphosis like the butterfly, and emerge into our true essence fully loaded with intelligence with a limited capacity for environmental manipulation?

Unfortunately, all these rational imaginings remain nothing more than imaginings. It seems that all we can know is that we are born, we live for a period of time, and only too self-aware that each of us meet with the same end. There is nothing imaginative about that.
edit on 8/3/16 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in