A Semi-Coherent Rambling On Existence

I wrote this in my journal on a flight from New Zealand to Australia several weeks ago. It’s not necessarily complete, but I like it, so here it is, minimally edited:

Ok, so my issue in life, I think, is the question of how to reconcile being a decent, good human being and being happy. It’s sort of a dilemma between Ayn Rand and Peter Singer — If being a good person, or trying to be as good as I can, clashes with me being happy, I think there is clearly an issue. For instance, in this world, in life and everything, I exist as far (as I can tell) within the confines of my body. There is no greater cosmic realm or entity in which I exist, it seems. And if this is the case, and if humanity is, as such, to be regarded as as insignificant as I think it is, then objectivism seems to make a lot of sense. If our lives, that is, if my existence is wholly contained within the vehicle that is my body, and if at death the self and mind cease to exist, then in a very large sense existence is over.

Everybody views the world through their own eyes, with their own perceptions, with the mind adjusting everything that is experienced, like a lens. So, in a sense there is no mind-independent external world, because the world only exists verifiably through the lens of the human mind. Their cannot, then, be an objective world because objectivity, total, rational, emotion-free objectivity is impossible. Sure, we can say that 2+2=4, but beyond numbers I don’t think we can really definitely state anything, because experience is such a personal thing. What I see as red, or rather, how red looks to me, is not necessarily how others see red.

So basically, every existence is absolute. When I die, my existence will end; if I don’t go to heaven or anything like that, if the afterlife doesn’t exist, then at death I will effectively cease to exist, and as a result so, effectively, will my mind be no more, my self ended.

I hope this makes sense, because it certainly does in my head. For each cognisant being, the world (or perhaps more aptly, the universe) ends when they do. Everything is over. With death comes total nothingness, total end. At each death, all existence ends. It must be this way, unless we are all somehow collectively linked in a way unknown. I mean, if we all share something transcending physicality (which implies supernatural because we cannot transcend physicality, because nothing can) then we are all linked. But if not, each existence is wholly self contained. My world is only mine, it belongs to me, I’m the only one who experiences it. It may share a lot of characteristics with the worlds of others, but it is still unique to me. We all exist in our own heads, our minds cannot be linked and shared in whole. Nobody experiences life quite as I do, because nobody else is me, obviously. So I suppose in that sense we’re all very much alone, though man interaction and relations are one way of linking us on a level.

ANYWAY, if this is all true then it doesn’t necessarily make sense to do anything in life except seek joy in whatever way one best sees fit. If all this is right, then so, I suspect, is objectivism, at least to some extent. That said, human interaction is generally an integral part of existence, so I think being a good person can be reconciled with objectivism, to an extent— for instance, if one gets more out of doing good than not. Because, as is the case with everything, feelings and past experiences dictate what new experiences are; because everything, as I stated earlier, only exists through the lens of the mind, experiences are contingent on that lens.