I've been deeply suicidal for years, but it's gotten worse recently. I grew up Mormon, and last year I realized I couldn't believe in it anymore. I just couldn't; it would take too long to explain.

I started watching "The Good Place". I had seen it before but now I'm watching with new eyes. I've been crying a lot. When they talk about how we give life meaning, it inspires me. When Michael had an existential crisis at comprehending death and the concept of not existing at all, I recognized my own emotions and behaviors.

I've been having an existential crisis.

I read some articles about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and what they say is really interesting. Kierkegaard's thoughts about taking a leap into faith resonates with me especially.

I want to live. I know I do. But I just don't see a point. I feel like life is meaningless, that it ends in nothingness and it doesn't matter. One day I'll be a grave in a cemetery that no one bothers to visit. I feel like I don't matter.

If anyone is willing to help point me in the direction of some books or essays that could help me, I would appreciate it. I need to find meaning without God.

Thank you.

  • 6
    I think you need professional help from a therapist. Possibly you could contact a counseling institution to get an address in your neighboourhood or in the next city.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 5:53
  • 4
    Don't agree. The problem of the poster can't be solved by a therapist. He/she wants to live but just does not know what to do, what is life about, which is inherently the essential problem of philosophy. In addition, it is a reference request.
    – RodolfoAP
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 6:13
  • 1
    Books by other ex-Mormons might be helpful.
    – tkruse
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 6:27
  • 4
    @JoWehler I appreciate the sentiment, but I have been in therapy for 8 years now, since I was 13. I gave a TEDx talk at Microsoft campus about the benefits of DBT therapy in everyday life. I'm therapy-d out. It helps you cope with emotions but therapy doesn't explain or even explore the meaning of life outside of simple concepts like "love of your family". I can't live for someone else. I've been to the mental hospital 7 times now seeking help. I'm done. This post was my effort to avoid the hospital for good and figure it out on my own. I've learned enough from psychotherapy to last lifetimes. Commented May 5, 2022 at 6:34
  • 2
    @RolloBurgess: It is interesting to look at Montaigne's essay 'That to Study Philosophy is to Learn to Die' themantle.com/philosophy/… grappling with the then dominant view of philosophy as basically one with Stoicism, following Boethius, & supposedly about cultivating indifference to death. His case is that understanding how to meet death, is not for the future but for all moments, because in all moments we might. Death will come, & we in truth would be less happy if it didn't. So don't hate or love our death, but look to who will meet it.
    – CriglCragl
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 23:36

6 Answers 6


“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” -Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays

I think an interesting question to ask is, are there things more important than being alive for us, things that we would die for? And back to the beginning of recorded history and before, there have been such things. In those moments we go beyond being machines for genes to spread - at least when we go beyond the biology-driven concerns of kin selection, which people certainly do in modern times where some are willing to die for very abstract ideas indeed, and fight their own families for them. That marks a critical shift in the era of culture becoming crucial to the human future beyond sharing tool uses, to involving replication of ideas sometimes at odds with biology, that we can account for with the idea of the memesphere. Discussed in more detail here: Which philosophers believe freedom (liberty) is more important than one's own life and how did they argue this?

A big part of the motivating mechanism of this, has been the promise of symbolic immortality. Like the Greek idea of kleos, translated as renown or glory, and implying remembered in songs, it was also considered somewhat heritable illustrated by Telemachus worrying about whether Odysseus' death had attained it. The idea of 'entering the heavens', through being accepted into Olympus (mountains being pillars that hold up the sky for Greeks), began with having a constellation named after you, like those of Hercules and Perseus (Perseus' story reworked the oldest written story known, of Gilgamesh & Humbaba I recently found out, as did Noah..). Similarly, for Vikings to be slain in battle and carried away by Valkyries, represented being worthy of being remembered in song, in mead halls and when feasting, as we can see from the Darraðarljóð. I link the different cultures' priorities to their different sources of symbolic immortality, through how they frame what are important character tests in their stories, discussed here: Wisdom and John Vervaeke's awakening from the meaning crises? I also strongly recommend Vervaeke's series giving a survey of philosophy in regard to finding meaning in life, that's on Youtube Awakening From The Meaning Crisis.

So I would relate death-anxiety and fear life has been meaningless, to a sense of not having been able to be of service, to not having contributed such as to be remembered, to have passed character tests in order to be celebrated. Culture, especially this mode of rationing symbolic immortality has been so profoundly impactful on human destiny, that it has becoming a deeper source of anxiety for many than those about having a family and children which a Darwinian view alone might see as our top priority.

I look to Durkheim to understand how this becomes religion. He founded academic sociology and provided the first really robust framework to account for human religious behaviours that could go beyond Abrahamic faiths. He said:

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." -The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life

That is, holding and acting together to affirm and celebrate values we call sacred, gives the ideas or values symbolic immortality, making a body of culture which holds together those who 'buy in' to the values and their benefits, but also costs - eg the idea of The Social Contract. This then is the engine of social cohesion. Crucially this picture helps us go beyond a narrow picture, to understanding political ideas like no-detention-without-trial derived from habeas corpus, or ideas about scientific methods and the international scientific community, as sacred values that bind groups that share them - challenge the values, challenge the cohesion of the community bound by them.

Durkheim also wrote a classic study on the origins of depression and suicide:

"Melancholy suicide. —This is connected with a general state of extreme depression and exaggerated sadness, causing the patient no longer to realize sanely the bonds which connect him with people and things about him." -Suicide: A Study in Sociology

I see Durkheim as providing a less hyperbolic picture, of many of the ideas that obsessed Nietzsche. Nietzsche intuited reclaiming mythological drama, as the championing of new cults around ideas, and their conflict embodied as the conflicts of gods and monsters. Discussed here: What did Nietzsche mean by monsters and the abyss? We can understand the working and reworking of the stories of gods, like of Gilgamesh, as reframing what culture we inherit, with shifts around what should be valued, raised above, and people be reminded of every time they look at the night sky - be given symbolic immortality to. So Perseus shifts from the arrogance of Gilgamesh, to facing the arrogance of a tyrant instead, say.

It should be understood that Christians usually ignore the distinction between Heaven, and the Resurrection. I suggest we can understand the special role of Heaven in the Christian afterlife, as elevating remembrance of people to being ongoing guides in life, imbuing them immortality by that. Appealing to a saint is looking to their story, their character, for inspiration through hard times, and making them still alive by asking 'What would they do?'.

Mormonism actively sets out to provide deep connections between adherents, and to use withdrawal of them as punishment for apostasy. That makes a crisis of faith extra tough for mormons. That must be really tough for you. There is a cycle that happens, where young people grow up fiercely aware of shortcomings of the ideas of their culture, and seek and explore radical alternatives. And later, come to value what was good about the ideas they grew up with, and try to integrate them with what they have understood, and find a way to manage or let go of what was bad or harmful. You will inevitably feel a gap, a void, in regard to what was good about Mormonism, that you had to let go with what you found bad. Be aware of that, try to explore and understand it. We have a deep need to redeem and reintegrate with our cultural inheritance. Where indigenous people have been deprived of that inheritance and the cultural machinery to update it, there has been a special degree of anomie and social decohesion, like Pine Ridge Reservation. The book Braiding Sweetgrass exemplifies to me reclaiming and bridging Native American traditions, lived practices, and modern life. We need to find bridges between our past & future, in ways that help us to live well together.

This picture of the role of religion and culture, of symbolic immortality, sacred values and social cohesion, is still very abstract. In making it more concrete I really recommend Johann Hari's Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions (it must be noted he is talking about what is clinically called mild to moderate depression which there are very limited evidence-supported interventions for, but not severe clinical depression). Or maybe start with his online talk This Could Be Why You're Depressed Or Anxious. We have to understand how to regenerate social cohesion. One of the lessons I draw from Hari's work, is a big source of problems has been focus on serving individual goals as the source of happiness, when we actually gain far more from finding a mode of service, a way to contribute that is valued by our community, which connects us to others and a life beyond ourselves. So I really recommend volunteering. Find problems people have, and learn skills to help address them. And try to find other people who share that motivation, and be in community with them.

The narrow focus on religions as sets of epistemologies, has distracted us from how much of the power of religious practice has been derived from rites and festivals, that share the celebration and enactment of ideas that go beyond one person, one life, that link us to what is transcendental. As Durkheim said:

"If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion." -The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life

I find inspiration in Burning Man & it's many linked smaller events, as an active attempt to create a lived community that celebrates The Ten Principles. We can understand this as trying to create a new source of social cohesion, around events that bind people around enacting these values, in valuing creativity and decommodification - an iteration of 1960s counterculture utopianism, fused with the techno-optimism of Silicon Valley, that can be understood through Durkheim as addressing ways society has been decohering. It need not be the answer for everyone by any means, but I take heart it shows new attempts can be made to change society to serve people better, by gathering around what matters to people. Art and culture help us experience a sense of community directly, and the means to enter discourse, with how to face the tensions and contradictions in how we live together. Discussed here: Does postmodernism in art criticism collapse into relativism? What's its merit? and Need help with this paper on epistemic justice

For me Buddhist philosophy is a great source of ways to understand our choices in a non-theist world - I would describe Buddhism as agnostic, because although many Buddhists look to supernatural entities, Buddha was very clear that his teaching is fundamentally about awakening to the true nature of things, which no one else can do for you, and even deities face the challenge of. Buddhists take a middle path between what were called eternilism and nihilism - the idea our true or deep self never dies, and the idea everything ends with death. We can understand this as being between symbolic immortality, and a life with no meaning that continues after it ends. Buddhist thought shifts the focus from pursuing happiness and fulfillment onto the causes of suffering, in The Four Noble Truths. At core it says bliss is our natural state that arises from simply being present in conditions as they are now, which we distract ourselves from by seeking goals we cannot relate to from our current moment and opportunity to act now, which is to say attachments. We can link to transcendental values and symbolic immortality not simply by waiting for a future judgement of us, but in this very moment. Buddhist ideas discussed more here: Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? I'd link Buddhist moral philosophy to Western thought by considering intersubjectivity, inviting others to see our point of view, and entering the perspective of others. Discussed here: According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings come from?

There is no easy to answer to what you face. So my answer consists of what has helped me. I hope you find something interesting or useful here for you. Good luck, and know I wish you well, having been very much in the same place.

  • 3
    Outstanding contribution!
    – J D
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 20:10
  • 1
    I would add at least a reference to Marx "Religion is the opium of the masses. The heart of what has become a heartless world." And also Kant's argument on "What is enlightenment?" where he argued that it is unjustified for a religion to bind the people to not further question things and find answers on their own. Sapere Aude!
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 21:39
  • Great explanation! It is true that studying the Existentialists is an existential threat.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 12:48
  • Thank God I have God as my source of vitality and I don't need to get backed over by a truckload of intellectualized theistic or atheistic reasoning to find meaning in life! But if people find meaning without God as their source of vitality I thank God for that too! Commented Feb 25 at 21:03

Evidently, this is not a common academic problem of philosophy (this forum is moreover about such academic side of philosophy), but it is a serious problem of personal philosophy. The following concepts are taken from the books listed at the end.

Don't worry, this is a common philosophical problem: life is meaningless unless you find what you want to do with the time that lefts. Now, you seem to be at the point you are free to live and just have no direction to follow. The solution is to be and do, for the rest of your life, the things you want to be and do.

Finding what you like is not easy, don't worry, just explore, find people, places, try new activities, help others. One day you will explode with joy: Eureka! This is what I would like to do for the rest of my life! I personally would like to live forever to do the things I've found I like: philosophy, music, teaching and programming computers.

Abraham Maslow (google for his Hierarchy of Needs) used to say that basic needs (eating, drinking, sleeping) tend to dissappear when satisfied, but realization needs (finding your voice, finding what you like to do, reaching your best) tend to grow when satisfied. Personally, I am completely, absolutely sure you didn't had the experience of knowing what to do in life, because when you find such experience, you will find the greatest love a spirit can experience: the love for doing something. Since that day, such passion can only grow, as well as the love of being alive.

And be prepared: there are always more things to enjoy from life, and sometimes you have to choose to leave a beautiful choice to go for a better one. It can only, and forever, just go better and better.

A book that might help finding your way is Plato, not Prozac, by Lou Marinoff, which provides the answers that therapists can't provide. Also, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Steven Covey, which systematizes the philosophy of self development and team interaction in a pragmatic and simple form.

  • 1
    Thank you so much! Getting my hands on those books ASAP. Commented May 5, 2022 at 6:38

The autobiography of Bertrand Russell (3 volumes) shows the different fields of interest Russell developed during his life. Russell gives a short prologue:

What I Have Lived For

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.
With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.
Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.
This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.


Modern philosophy is not generally very helpful at finding values and meaning. the best of the west for that are the existentialists, who you have already discovered. But existentialists are more likely to drive one into depression than help one exit from it. Their personal lives seemed to be very despair-focused. What to take from the existentialists is the recognition that all of us must construct our own value system for life (even those who are offered a religion on a platter, must choose what religion, and how to implement it). Nobody else can do this for us. Accept that this is your responsibility, and there is no short cut. an alternative source of literature to argue this same conclusion would be Shamanistic literature. The writings of Carlos Castaneda offer the same takeaway as the best of the existentialists. I think you already have this in hand, from your post, but it is an important reminder.

Despair over meaninglessness of life is common in those who leave a religion. This is a big current issue for evangelicals, as the 20 somethings are leaving the movement in droves. There is likely a Mormon equivalent but with so many more evangelicals, I think there will b e a lot more resources created to help those who have lost faith. The key words here are "deconstruction" and "reconstruction". Here is one sample web site that addresses the challenge of reconstruction. https://mindshiftpodcast.medium.com/reconstruction-after-deconstruction-post-evangelicalism-96127ee9fed5 Here is a second, that is more inclusive of atheism as a reconstruction project: https://www.jimpalmerauthor.com/post/life-after-religion-deconstruction-deep-dive Many of these sites are focused on finding ways to reconstruct a non-evangelical Christianity, a goal you sound uninterested in, but some of the lessons on those sites could still be helpful to you.

A philosophy movement that could be helpful is stoicism. This is one of the few western philosophies that focused on living well. The Medications of Marcus Aurelius is a good start for Stoicism. Stoics were atheists, and they found no difficulty just focusing on living life well, despite its guaranteed end.

The moral system that is most helpful is virtue ethics. In Virtue ethics, one works to improve one's character, rather than to maximize experiences, or pleasures. It may bring one a sense of pride to make oneself into a person one would admire, but the transitory experience of pride isn't the point. The accomplishment of what one has made of oneself -- THAT is the point.

For virtues -- there are three macro level virtues: Love Truth, and Beauty/Creativity that are a more useful virtues goal than the jumble pursued in classical virtue ethics. Science, and philosophy, tend to be geared around the pursuit of Truth as a singular virtue. Artists often pursue either creativity or Beauty as a life goal. The best articulation I have found of a Love virtue is from Jesus, whose proposed a radical transformation of Judaism from a legalist religion to one where embrace of Love as a life practice was the new religious focus.

At any rate, the transformation of oneself, though turning oneself into a vessel of one or several virtues in life, is a very useful path out of existential despair.



I am not a psychiatrist, and the distinction I made in the comments should be observed. Mainly:

There's an unequivocal distinction among the presentation of suicidal ideation, generalized and chronic ruminations about suicide, and philosophical interest in suicide. Many people think about suicide and its ethics but some people experience obsessions and compulsions and manifest intention and action. It is incumbent upon you to reach out to a local ER or a resource like suicidepreventionlifeline.org at any point your interests go from being philosophical interests to medical needs.


Using reason to correct cognitive biases and cognitive distortions is a staple of CBT, a set of modern therapeutic methods recognized by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. If one takes the exercises of analysis to extreme, one is clearly in the territory of philosophy.

Logic, Reason, and Cognitive Distortions

It is a common theme in the philosophies of existentialism and absurdism to explore the meaning of life as a process one must personally engage in through personal acts of moral construction and more broadly developing for one's self the "meaning of life", and having suffered from both paralysis by analysis and clinical depression personally, philosophy, while not a cure ( I personally experienced ECT is part of an effective modern strategy for incorrigible forms of depression), it can provide comfort since CBT has been studied at the meta level by the NIH which concluded:

it is clear that the evidence-base of CBT is enormous. Given the high cost-effectiveness of the intervention, it is surprising that many countries, including many developed nations, have not yet adopted CBT as the first-line intervention for mental disorders.

The rationale is simple. If you conclude and are conflicted because you believe "I should die because there is no meaning to life..." but "I don't want to die because... " then at some level, you are engaged in an act of argumentation with yourself. What the philosophy of psychology brings us is the idea of the biological basis of depression (NIH). The short accounting from a philosophical perspective is that cognitive distortions are short episodes of demonstrable fallacies that may have observable biological manifestations such as ruminations (APA). Here's a list of common distortions by clinicians. Partly what a clinician does in practice is to objectively observe the distortions and draw attention to them to help the patient 1. recognize them, 2. accept them, and 3. find a path to change them.

The Ontology of Depression and Mind-Body Duality

So, is depression a function of the mind or the body? This has deeply philosophical roots in the form of very really requiring an analysis of both the philosophy of mind and mind-body duality. In effect, modern psychology and psychiatry philosophically and broadly accepts that there are dual aspects to experience, diagnosing, and treating clinical depression because one's worldview is subject to one's anatomy and physiology. According to CBT, there is an interplay for example such that a biologically-correlated personality disorder can make depression a comorbidity. The compressed analysis falls to both the premises we make "There is no reason to live", and therefore the conclusions we draw "Therefore I should kill myself" are biased by our philosophical intuitions. What is clear from the philosophy of language is that our language generation relies heavily on subconscious and intuitive aspects of cognition, a fact endorsed by psycholinguistic research.

Absurdism and Secular Thought

As an athiest, I find a certain resonance in works of existentialism, but I find absurdism even a better philosophy for dealing with the general trajectory of positivism to the rejection of the supernatural. The fiction of Albert Camus is emotionally visceral and is very integrated with the notion of ethical non-cognitivism. It's tough to reduce absurdism, because in some aspects its a prescription for experiencing life well, a la eudaimonia, more than a clear-cut philosophical doctrine in the sense of exegesis: you don't need to have a grand philosophical argument to exist and be happy and can reject the rationalizations of ideologies, secular or spiritual. In this way, it's somewhat aligned with positive psychology and anti-psychiatry. Why is this important? Because if the mind can influence the body and the body can influence the mind, it's important to align the mind with the body. A claim from embodied cognition might go 'your worldview is a reflection of your physical predisposition', and there's preliminary evidence for that sort of generalized claim in the biological basis for political affiliation. So my personal recommendation is start with three works by Albert Camus: The Plague, The Rebel, and the Myth of Sisyphus, and find some discussion partners.


There are a lot of intelligent, well-educated people who have not escaped folk-psychology. They are well-intentioned and may even have somewhat sophisticated philosophies of mind, but there is a distinction between a model of the mind based on psychiatry, and one rooted in all manner of metaphysical speculation. If you are reject the supernatural, certainly don't waste your time with theological treatments. It's important to have a clinical partner who can monitor you to exercise authority over you in a crisis situation, particularly if you experience overwhelmingly acute episodes (get to an ER) or have refractory, low-intensity clinical-grade episodes that bleed into clinical dysthymia. My personal hunch is that claims of ayahuasca and other psychoactive compounds and ECT essentially reset certain neural firing patters to allow a person to change their worldview through talk therapy and philosophical study since Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis suggests that the behavior of reason can be affected by clinical abnormalities of neurological function in the same way lesions in speech-centers of the brain can produce aphasia. But that's a philosophical hunch of a layperson with first-person experience, not a clinical consensus. For more clinical information, ask questions in StackExchange Psychology!

  • Here's a search for articles here related to Camus "philosophy.stackexchange.com/search?q=camus". If you have any questions, don't be afraid to engage me. If you are a high-IQ person suffering from clinical depression, getting advice from average-IQ people with no first-person experience, it will undermine your relationship with the clinician which empirically is the greatest predictor of therapeutic efficacy, and good luck. Crawling out a life-long depression was a 20+ year project for me.
    – J D
    Commented May 5, 2022 at 15:37

(may I call you "Miss")

I have read lots of psychology, and philosophy, etc., and what I am going to offer comes from neither field.

I am going to talk about something I have discovered, and offer it to you.

This might sound silly, or inconsequential, but please take a little time to go sit on a beach, or in a park, and just sit there and watch for a while. You don't have to say Hi, Bye, or anything to anyone. You are not there to interact. You are there to observe. Just look at how much is going on. After you look at the large, try considering the small. Watch all the little birds going about their business, ponder the vast number of little tiny living things around you - each doing something. Stop and listen to the breeze as it makes its way through the leaves of a tree, and consider that (1) it takes a huge number of individual leaves to make that sound, and (2) every time that tree grows or loses a leaf, technically the sound will change, so you are hearing something that only you can hear, at that moment. (Personally, I suspect that, no two trees make the same "sound" as the breeze passes through their leaves, and depending on where you stand, you hear something different from the person next to you - just a side note) You can wonder how those gigantic trees "unfolded" from chemical instructions stored in relatively small seeds that you could hold between your fingers, or why that seed germinated and grew while all the others didn't. All these things can only be experienced by "you". Seriously, take a little time, by yourself, and learn "taste" the world around you. A little at a time, if you're busy, in large gulps if your not :)

Consider that the ability to "experience" stands, in and of itself, as something wildly inexplicable. Add to that, our uniquely human view - You "know" that there are other things that exist, and you have the ability to gauge their general awareness, whereas they don't have that ability over you. You are something amazing! Get all you can of that!

This might sound trivial, but it is a truly amazing thing. No computer can do this: this can only be done if, by some mathematically impossible chance, you "get to" exist.

All of this may sound odd, or silly, on the surface, but it carries deep meaning for me. As a child, I remember sitting on a rock on, and watching a single ant climbing up a plant. Just the fact that such a tiny thing could have purpose fascinated me. Throughout the rest of my life, I found things that fascinated me, and - in my case - learned all I could about them. However you can choose to collect these things in a way is completely "you".

I don't know how to fully put this concept into words:

Modern life has us crammed into little tiny, expressionless boxes called "rooms", where everything is flat and static and, frankly, boring. Everything around us was designed by some person or company, and provided for our -good/bad/entertainment- etc. Everything we own was created by someone else, whether it is a manufactured physical product, like a toaster, or an infinite collection of (mostly b/s) stories, like the television, or even a philosophy found in a book. The reality is, that we were adapted to interact with a universe full of constantly changing, infinite detail, from the very large to the microscopic, and all of it doing something, and there is nothing like that experience.

I hope that you can find something that grabs your attention, and spend a moment savoring that, and add that experience to yourself. Then find something else interesting, and add that to yourself. I hope that you keep on going, and going, until it adds up to something grand and unique that is "you", because that is something that no one else has, and it will always be "you" no matter where you go, or what you do, or how you end up, and to me - that has significance. Consider the statement by Olaf Stapledon, from his book "Last and First Men", in his appendix titled Notes on Scale -

"A single living human is worth more than a lifeless universe"

I hope this is of some encouragement to you. You are free. Don't let other people dictate what should be in your head. Fill it up with the things you find, all on your own. Peace

  • This is a good explanation of an approach to Nonduality.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 1:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .