Hacker News Reader

> What replaces religion to fill this gap for a new generation who is not religious? (including myself)

> Something very clear, a philosophy of life of some kind that people can adopt to feel like they are part of something bigger, without that something being a fictional being.

The answer has revealed itself over the last few years: Progressive ideological activism (generally in pursuit of a long-off utopia).

The "something bigger" is the "progress" towards that utopia where all the evil -ists and -isms and -phobias will have been eradicated (along with those terrible people who believe them) and all the good humans will live in equality and diversity. It's a powerful idea, and while it has strong spiritual elements it doesn't posit an Abrahamic-like God. Yet it fills the psychosocial role that religion used to, while carrying forward the fundamental moral substrate of Christianity (the idea that the sufferer is more noble than the victor).

A minor side-religion is the climate change activist one, but that's been firmly muscled aside by idpol utopianism in the last 10 years.

You're right, I think that it's currently the most widespread form of what I'm trying to express.

However it lacks in character and clarity to be something that unites people. It's not enough of a way of life or way of thinking that can be adopted by a large part of the population.

Another reply mentioned "the diamond approach" and without even going into what that is, I also don't like the idea of anything being named.

It feels more like a boiling point where a group of people somewhere will rebel in a cultural and philosophic quiet revolution that spreads across society within a generation. It's too utopian obviously but it's a feeling of formatting the collective hard drive and starting fresh because it's just gotten too messy and cluttered and we've strayed too far down the wrong path.

When you say "to feel like they are part of something bigger", does the bigger thing have to be true? Does it have to be big enough to hold everyone (in some way)?

I suspect what you are sensing is society's vulnerability to the Neichian überman.

> Zarathustra first announces the Übermensch as a goal humanity can set for itself. All human life would be given meaning by how it advanced a new generation of human beings.

Quote from Wikipedia above

I had heard the term uber mensch before but I had presumed it referred to something else entirely.

In this context your question of whether the bigger thing needs to be "true" seems subjective. Is wanting human beings to work towards a better present and future for others a "truth"?

But in the sense that it is something true and not fictional like god, then yes to me true here means real and logical.

I don't understand what you mean by the "hold everyone" part though. If you mean that everyone on earth could adopt this philosophy or identify with part of it, obviously that would be great but quite impossible.

However you say "vulnerability" to the uberman, so having only given the Wikipedia article a quick once through, am I to understand that the idea presented is flawed or taps into a flawed part of humanity that wants to believe it to be possible?

I think your comment is probably the most curious I've been about getting an answer ever on HN.

Since "God is dead" the one who knows this is capable of taking control of the direction of humanity. Of taking control of the direction of morality and ethics and truth. If there is no real and logical proposition that is fit for all people and for all times then multiple such people can arise and strive for control, crushing all who oppose them, for none may judge the übermensch to come.

Think of this "unjudgability of the übermensch" like a fork in a cryptocurrency - when viewed from inside the system of the cryptocurrency there is no way to judge which fork is "correct". They cannot be reconciled without some external truth or even standard of truth - a lawgiver.

I say "vulnerable" because I don't believe that the Nazis were simply "a different fork" and that it could someday be "right" to massacre those who oppose the progress of history towards perfection - or even that it is possible to oppose that progress in the manner that the Hegelians (e. g. socialists, national and otherwise) mean.

I believe that there is an external reality to which all persons can give assent. I believe that we are flawed because we no longer want to give assent to that external reality (though we once did). I have hope because I believe that we have been given the chance to revive that desire, though the way is hard. That's why I say "vulnerable" - because the idea of the übermensch is a corruption of the truth.

I’ve found diamond approach to be very cohesive to a western critical as such an approach:

https://www.diamondapproach.org/blog/introduction-diamond-ap...

No fictional beings, no cult-like features in my experience. Just deep exploration of what is.

It's an interesting read but to me this is too intense perhaps.

I think it's the whole spirituality aspect that is pushed strongly and there's teachings and books and one on one sessions etc.

It doesn't seem like a cult or anything and I guess if ideas need to be spread, they need to be named but even their logo gives a culty religious vibe.

I understand that it's not, it's just an initial reaction I'm having to seeing it.

Maybe I fear going into too much abstract thinking so my first reflex is to want to avoid it. I feel like I spend too much of life already thinking rather than living.

I guess the time spent thinking could he spent thinking differently and that's what this would be about.

I also think that questions without answers are not compatible with my brain, I always need to know how things work. Anyways I'm ranting without much of a central theme here, thank you for sharing that link.

> But generally there is a feeling that we are hurtling towards catastrophe and everyone is trying to profit before it's too late.

Personally, I feel that if we can get through this moment of transition without self-destruction of humanity as we know it (such as the Ukraine/China conflicts not going nuclear), we will have entered an age of our next Renaissance where we would be much closer to some sort of "Star Trek" like utopia for mankind.

I do see this however being the bell tolling of White Anglo-Saxon heredity being removed from the throne and replaced with people with more melanin in their skin. This may not sit well with those who subscribe to racially ethnic purity ideals as what Hitler envisioned as a superior race is biologically reversed to be inferior until genetic mutations bring them back to a norm again.

But people, in general, focus too much on the actionable/measurable in time spans way to narrow to really appreciate how special it is to be: anything at all.

Generations have lived and died without being famous, being associated or related to anyone of any historical record let alone making any difference to the human condition.

However, this time - this collection of people and generations spanning over 75-100 years have seen man at both it's worse and it's best. Even better, the trend of it getting better is rising.

And the trend, is growing faster. As we've never been more connected to one another. Real information has never been more accessible.

And our connections have both deepened with one another as well as been eroded in other ways as what we value and how we approached it has changed. For some it can be scary. For others, it can't happen soon enough.

The only problem that we always have is that we'll never get to see the moment past when we die. But if the body is just a container for the soul, that shouldn't matter.

For those who don't subscribe to that, it appears in recent news that could be changing as well. Or we evolve into singularity. Or we destroy ourselves another way. The fact is that what we know is that we're not whole without others.

For us to be whole requires us to allow for it else to be everything and everywhere. And that to me sounds like reverting to being nothing at all or a return to the before life existed... and that was a long f'n time ago.

> I do see this however being the bell tolling of White Anglo-Saxon heredity being removed from the throne and replaced with people with more melanin in their skin. This may not sit well with those who subscribe to racially ethnic purity ideals as what Hitler envisioned as a superior race is biologically reversed to be inferior until genetic mutations bring them back to a norm again.

I was with you until you said this. Choosing who you want to lead based on how much melanin they have in their skin is an extremely dangerous precedent. Statements like this are exactly why it's impossible to debate social issues today.