Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

A right wing European is also a little too right wing for Lemmy.

If the company fails, the responsibility for that is not on the workers. Why would they care if it does, if they can just extract all of the money for themselves?

The responsibility for managing the company should be on the people that are responsible for the company itself.

This is not to say, that they should not be represented in decisionmaking, they probably should, but since they do not own the organisations that employ them, they have no right to dictate how they should be run.

How dare you!

This is not beef!

This is clearly veal.

Ok thanks for the reply. When you said you had aphantasia and no inner monologue I thought you were a philosiphical zombie. I guess I was wrong, but there is no way to know I suppose.

That’s interesting, I myself can sometimes think without a monologue. I did it just now, and I am not sure if I do not use words, but I do not actually hear them, yet I know the thoughts are there somehow. It often happens on its own when I have a lot of thoughts at the same time or think really fast about something.

But usually I talk to myself in my head, this is either a monologue or a sort of dialogue, and I often tell myself to shut up out loud when no one is around. I also imagine music pretty accurately, and I can enjoy it this way,. I play by ear.

I am sorry for the questions, this is really interesting.

What about maths? How do you do geometry? Do you have to have a drawing or can you manage without it? How do you understand geometry if you can’t see it’s objects?

And what happens when you read a description of something? Do you just have an idea of what it is, because if so, it seems to me that some of the value of literature will be lost. Do you actually feel anything when you read a description of something beautiful, for instance?

Interestingly enough, silent reading was historically uncommon due to the fact that literature was less common than it is now and, most importantly, the lack of separation between words.

The ability to read silently was considered very unusual.

I mean, how was the game? Surely you don’t watch it for the singers.

Surely you can freely discuss this in blue states, right?