>>24865935
In for later

>>24865935
Pretty much any science textbook will get you there. Maybe you can cope by having some gay Frenchmen explain how you create your own meaning.

>a tour de force
Jesus Christ, Favreau..

Gnosticism posits that the God of our universe is blind and insane, and that explains why our lives are as awful as they are.

>>24867710
they think a escape is possible so I wouldn't put it in a list of the bleakest ones

>>24867859
Escape to where?

>>24867868
Hell. Which is where they are all going.

>>24865935
Vast, by Linda Nagata, humanity arises from an accident of chemical warfare prosecuted by the automated remnants of a long dead alien race, and must live out their days in a proscribed area of the galaxy due to said war.

>>24867913
>female writer
Shan't be reading that.

>>24866171
>duhh natural phenomena have natural causes! my life is le MEANINGLESS
why are you retards like this

>>24867889
No, we're already in Hell.

>>24867937
It really is one of the twenty-first century's most bizarre phenomena. The notion that evolution and the Big Bang automatically means theres no cosmic purpose is creatively bankrupt

>>24868075
The cosmic purpose, such as it is, is to provide experiences for The One. That's not very gripping for sentient beings at our level, but that's beside the point.

>>24868082
You smugly mock your own existence and think that your gay god is like you and lives for “experiences”. You must be a jew

>>24868082
>The One
if you read any neoplatonist texts you would know you don't "provide" the one anything, it just mindlessly produces you for no other reason than that it could and therefore couldn't not do it

>>24867913
that sounds pretty cool

>>24868108
And what's the source for this "neoplatonist text"? Let me guess... they pulled it out of their ass?

Naturalist novels by Zola, Dreiser, etc. The purest expression is possibly "Maggie: A Girl of the Streets" by Stephen Crane. The deterministic view of humanity contained in them exceeds everything in science fiction.

>>24868505
>what's the source
Logical argumentation. An unchanging uncaused cause can't be changed by its effects

>>24868853
Seems like you're making a lot of silent assumptions there. Not very logical.

>>24868867
>silent assumptions
They're so silent even you can't put them to words

>>24868876
Do I have to? You're assuming The One is mindless, and produces sentient beings simply because it can. Evidence?

>>24868927
>assuming The One is mindless
No, I assumed The One is uncaused and unchanging. Mindlessness proceeds from that
>produces sentient beings
That is evidenced from the fact that you exist

>>24868939
So you admit your assumptions, even though you denied them earlier.

>>24868944
I stated my assumptions
>An unchanging uncaused cause
You claimed I made further silent assumptions. You still have yet to show any