Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Cicada 3301, the organization of high-ranking officials dissatisfied with the direction the world is going

pauseforever

pauseforever

Pass the time by staring at reality
Joined
Oct 18, 2025
Posts
503
tl;dr: Incels may find common ground with a supposed anti-clownworld organization.

Cicada 3301 is a mysterious organization that at a time did recruitment on 4chan. They are said to be an organization of officials and intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the direction the world is going. Below I include a paste that explains who they are and what they do. Although their worldview don't directly intersect with the blackpill, it strikes me that their worldview is a superset of the blackpill. If you start from a place believing what they believe, you will eventually swallow the blackpill -- and much more. I even think whether we can establish communication with (a cell of) Cicada, for we have common enemies. If you find this outlandish, their worldview is still food for thought.

The paste is supposedly made by a member who decided to leave Cicada 3301. Keep in mind that part of it may be fabricated or altered; note how the author cucks out in the final paragraph. The below text is copied from
View: https://pastebin.com/dHJ6JNkr

I apologize for the sometimes improper language in this text. English is not my first language, and I have also used software to mask authorship so 3301/Cicada does not know who publishes this. Thank you.

I was part of what you call 3301/Cicada for more than a decade, and I'm here to warn you: stay away. This is a dangerous organization. While I agree with many of the goals, their ways are nefarious. In fact, I think it is like a left-hand path religion disguised as a progressive scientific organization. I realize this is a strong statement, but I will provide important evidence to support these claims.

For those of you who have not heard of organized 3301/Cicada, I will share some background information using publicly referenceable. According to leaked documents during the last round of recruitment they are "much like a think tank in that [their] primary focus is on researching and developing techniques to aid the ideas [they] advocate: liberty, privacy, and security." This is partly true. This is what initially attracted me many years ago.

The first public appearance was the recruitment campaign that began in parts that "can not be mentioned" of the Internet, where targeted hackers and programmers and people with a strong background with series of puzzles of increasing difficulty. This has been well documented over the Internet and will not repeat it here. The tests covered a wide range of topics: cryptography, steganography, and number theory, and classical literature, art, darknet, and computer skills including programming, philosophy, music, etc. even more interesting is the fact puzzle use multiple forms of communication: the Internet, phone , darknet (TOR), and the physical world even in the form of papers of 14 that appear simultaneously in all parts of the world (North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, etc.).

As was presented each puzzle, it was solved by fewer individuals. What was initially several thousand workers solving puzzles in beginning, very few solved all. Less than 1% in fact. This, of course, the intention was. I was not directly involved in these tests, and in fact I do not agree with the idea of recruiting from the public right from the start. Until that moment, all recruitment was done in person by people who know recruits.

I was recruited in the organization I when I was an officer in the service of my country for many years. I was a career officer and showed great promise, and was quickly promoted. Finally I arrived a high position I was approached by my superior. I will not say titles for anonymity.

He said he was very impressed with my work, and he asked me what my goals are: personal and professional. Professionally I had my eyes on the top. Personally, I would eventually like to settle down and start a family, but this was not in the foreseeable future, because my career is often forced to be away from home for long periods of time.

We began to meet a few times a week for coffee at any time we were in the same place. We would like to discuss a variety of topics: science, philosophy, religion, politics, mathematics, and other that ultimately play games and we discuss these issues. The games of chess, backgammon, and go (also known as BADUK) were the top three. I did not know, but I was being investigated for membership at this time.

As it turned out, my opinions and my goals were very much in line with that organization: at the political level, I lean towards freedom, which is called at the time. I am well-educated in science, mathematics, and foreign policy. I was non-religious at the time in those first days. Philosophically, I agree with the ideas of Sartre and Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and so I believe in random universe - one in humans that were not more than a coincidence. No absolute moral right and wrong. That the value of a man is what he does. I also believe that we can (and should) aspire to reach the next "level" - as individuals and mankind as a whole: Nietzsche "Übermensch". I didn’t know then, but this is one of the main focuses of the Cicada. They believe they possess wisdoms to transform human to Übermensch. Cicada give knowledge to members slowly as they progress up pyramid.

Finally, after more than a year of being examined without knowing it, I was invited for the organization. I accepted with gratitude. It was here: what I wanted from the beginning. A group of like-minded individuals, all incredibly talented and connected, and to work together for the common good: the good of mankind. It take many years to learn true nature of Cicada though.

Before going further, I have to explain some things about the organization. With no particular order:

Origin:

• Established initially organized by a group of professional military officers, diplomats, and academics who were dissatisfied with the direction of the world
• The organization is in no way linked to any military, or the government of any country. However, they recruit often among high government officials to gain more power

Structure:

• They use multiple structures within one global structure.
• There is a decentralized cell structure, such as. However, some cells have a higher "rank" than others, which led to a kind of hierarchy, despite decentralization in general.
• Practice strict "compartmentalizing", so, many of the cells or organizations: 1) have no knowledge of other cells or organisations, and 2) often do not know they belong to (or controlled) and organized by the Cicada.
• Within each cell, there is usually a strict military-like structure.
• Cell-hierarchy is also often in a military-like structure.
• There are different cell dedicated to different areas: technology and research, foreign policy, etc..
• It is possible that the cells are founded to disagree with other cells, or even the objectives of the organization itself ("If you can not beat them, control them").

Beliefs:

• Believe in Heylighen’s ideas on global brain. In fact, the idea of global brain with humans as individual neurons arise on a regular basis.
• believe in absolute freedom. Individual and the information.
• believe in the philosophy of the Jesuit "the end justifies the means." Through this idea to justify their actions do not always follow their own belief systems and philosophies.
• other philosophy they use is "what you resist persists" by Jung, and the Jesuit corollary "create what you fear most." For example, if you are afraid of resistance and rebellion, then send operators to create resistance and rebellion. This way, you can direct the energy of the people, embrace it, let it dwindle, and at the same time minimize the damage.
• they believe that there is no inherent meaning to anything. That all things are “empty and meaningless” and that “all things are always whole, perfect, and complete”
• They believe that within each person there is a "God." Not "God" in the sense of most religions, it is more like Übermensch in the writings of Nietzsche. They also see the Global Brain as another kind of "God"
• Their mantra is "I am always enough." (Again, Übermensch)
• teach followers to "Find a death every day." It doesn’t mean literal death. Instead there is a double meaning: 1) know you're going to die, so, nothing matters, and 2) Find the death of the “I” or the ego.
• They teach five-levels view of human. However, they eventually put five levels down to one thing (ie “There is no soul distinct from the body”). This is a feature of the left hand path belief systems.
• They teach that absolute morality does not exist
• They teach there is no "real" reality. That all reality is dependent on the observer.
• They teach "There is no salvation in life; For there is nothing from which we must be saved." I believed this for long time.

I thought many these things already when I joined, mostly. I believed more when I learned more and more about Cicada teachings. Generally agreed with the Cicada ideas. And as I risen in the organization, I have learned more about their beliefs.

Now I am a father and husband. And I have come to search for the one true God and his son. This is why I have no choice but to leave this group who do not believe in Him. I encourage everyone to do the same. Worry not for you power here on earth, but only for your rewards in heaven. I am saved now from hell, and I ask you do same. Please read the Romans 10:13 and call on the name of the Lord.
 
recruitment on 4chan
4chan

nicholas cage GIF
 
Interesting lore
 
Made up bullshit. Egdy shit. Like anonymous.
 
Made up bullshit. Egdy shit. Like anonymous.
Two arguments why Cicada 3301 is likely not made up:

First, one part of their puzzle involved posters in physical locations spread out around the globe in 13 locations.[source] The most likely explanation is they are an organization with members across the globe.

Also, the master doxxers have made multiple attempts to uncover the identity of Cicada 3301, but none was successful. This suggests they are not some random guys doing an ARG
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a glowie recruitment project
 
So basically someone wrote the diary of Eric Harris and thaught to build an organisation based on this.

Seems to me like made up bullshit of some edgy teenager who wants to act like someone who is important, or like a troll.
 
So basically someone wrote the diary of Eric Harris and thaught to build an organisation based on this.

Seems to me like made up bullshit of some edgy teenager who wants to act like someone who is important, or like a troll.
Ok, if most of you think Cicada 3301 is made up, we can drop the notion of them and instead focus on the beliefs mentioned in the paste. I find the beliefs mentioned in the paste fascinating, how they all fit together and integrate into a coherent worldview, encompassing concept of self, value/meaning, goal of mankind, morality/ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

A few unfamiliar concepts are also mentioned there, for example Heylighen's concept of Global Brain. I found a PDF [here], it uses some sus words like "empower" but generally it provides a fresh perspective. The "Utopia or Dystopia" section is especially relevant
 
They are loud AF bugs
 
one part of their puzzle involved posters in physical locations spread out around the globe in 13 locations
you can pay people to do such job for you, like placing a piece of paper with QR code.
 
Ok, if most of you think Cicada 3301 is made up, we can drop the notion of them and instead focus on the beliefs mentioned in the paste. I find the beliefs mentioned in the paste fascinating, how they all fit together and integrate into a coherent worldview, encompassing concept of self, value/meaning, goal of mankind, morality/ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

A few unfamiliar concepts are also mentioned there, for example Heylighen's concept of Global Brain. I found a PDF [here], it uses some sus words like "empower" but generally it provides a fresh perspective. The "Utopia or Dystopia" section is especially relevant
Like I said besides the cocept of global brain, every single of this "believes" can be found in the diary of eric Harris. (I think that the global brain theory is stupid, because every technological and everything that was invented, was invented by individual, which is why things could be invented seperatly from one another)

They believe in absolute freedom, on which basis? What does freedom mean by their definition?

They dont believe in absolute morality/ reality but at the same time they believe in absolute freedom, shouldnt freedom then also be relative if there is no absolute reality.

If there is no absolute reality, wouldnt it be also possible that there is an absolute morality, since the non- existence of morality would also be relative

Believe in absolute freedom of informaton and absolute individual freedom, but what is personal information, should everyone have the right to know what porn site I watched lately and every other information about me that there is about me, if not wouldnt that mean that there is no absolute freedom of information, otherwise I wouldnt have the freedom to decide who has a righton my data

So there you would have to make a decision which of both is more important, but on which basis do you want to make this decision if there is no inherent meaning to anything and everything is in theory worth the same.

And what is there point anyway if everything is empty and meaningless why bother to have an impact on it, why not just kill yourself.

Their mantra "I'm always good enough" - good enough for what? On which foundation you based this? If there is no absolute reality wouldnt there be points where you arent good enough? Good and bad are morale terms so, if there is no absolute morality how are you even able to make such a statement.

They believe in absolute freedom and also that you should try to kill your ego everyday, first how can there be a should, if there is no god and no absolute morality. And what is the point in this absolute freedom if your ego is smth you should kill. (If you have the freedom to do what you want to do, but you try everyday to kill the part of yourself that wants anything, then whats the point in bein absolute free)
 
Power trickles down.

Anonymous and Cicada are such fucking copes. The real underworld organizations are run by extremely powerful individuals who could probably perform miracles. Some might not even be human.

The Rothschilds and all of these world governments are drunk on power they don't even have.
 
Like I said besides the cocept of global brain, every single of this "believes" can be found in the diary of eric Harris. (I think that the global brain theory is stupid, because every technological and everything that was invented, was invented by individual, which is why things could be invented seperatly from one another)

I went to read Harris's journals, and I do see some parallels, but I consider Harris's worldview to be a crude primitivism that was formed to justify his anger. Two men can believe in the same things but for different reasons, and in the same situation they may act differently.

Based on Cicada 3301's other communications, "freedom" here has a limited meaning and is to be understood in the context of anti-establishment (personal) and crypto-anarhcism (information).

Cicada 3301 also incorporates elements of Eastern philosophy, in particular employing koans in many messages. A koan is a statement or question that seem to contradict itself, but can be interpreted through metaphors. So it's arguably wrong to approach their beliefs in a purely analytical manner in the Western philosophy tradition. Besides, it's noteworthy that retarded aspects in Eastern philosophy like karma and vegetarianism are not included.

Overall you try to interpret the beliefs in a way to knock them out as you believe it's edgy teenager shit, but I try to interpret them in a way so they all fit together, to find an explanation how all things are “empty and meaningless” and that “all things are always whole, perfect, and complete”.

I admit it may be wishful thinking on my part, but I do find their stuff fascinating
 
Based on Cicada 3301's other communications, "freedom" here has a limited meaning and is to be understood in the context of anti-establishment (personal) and crypto-anarhcism (information).
So they give no clear explanation of what freedom means to them, so I could argue literally everything with it, I could defend literally everything with it. I could ask with Nietzsche if they mean Freedom to smth or freedom from smth. But they just say a meaningless freedom.
Overall you try to interpret the beliefs in a way to knock them out as you believe it's edgy teenager shit, but I try to interpret them in a way so they all fit together,
I dont try to knock them out, I showed that they contradict each other and that its that following each one of them means that you cant reach one of the goals since this would mean to go against one of the other goals, you could say you take the middle path (but then why they didnt just say it, other then to seem more intellectual and just give a mental jerk off) and if you say you want to take the middle path and freedom of the self is important to you, you came out at the average modern western democracy, thats it
Cicada 3301 also incorporates elements of Eastern philosophy, in particular employing koans in many messages. A koan is a statement or question that seem to contradict itself, but can be interpreted through metaphors. So it's arguably wrong to approach their beliefs in a purely analytical manner in the Western philosophy tradition.
Well maybe, when its wrong to try and interpret them in the way you would try to interpret a western believe system, then maybe its wrong to try and incorporate a eastern and a western philosoohical/ believe system, because their both foundations are incompatible with eachother and if you try to incorporate them you should accept that it gets critisized they way a western believe system gets critisized, beein originally part of an other believe system is no excuse.
Plus you said by yourself that those can be interpreted differently so sayin Im interpreted them wrong doesnt make sense if I just interpreted them in an other way then you did
to find an explanation how all things are “empty and meaningless” and that “all things are always whole, perfect, and complete”.
Then please try to explain to me that why not just to kill oneself if "all things are empty and meaningless”, even if they "are always whole, perfect, and complete”. You can say that everything is obectivly meaningless, but then you should give a reason why not just to end this meaningless life once its just goes your way, or you should be consequent and say, sure go kill yourself, it makes no difference.
Plus you cant say you dont believe in anything if you believe that “all things are always whole, perfect, and complete”, since this is just a religious statement that has no other foundation else, then you believe all things are this and you can say this if you want, but then dont tell me you wouldnt believe in a higher power.

And for last, they make morale statements, but based on what do they give those statements? Based on a believe system, for example, if not based on what else?
 
So they give no clear explanation of what freedom means to them, so I could argue literally everything with it, I could defend literally everything with it. I could ask with Nietzsche if they mean Freedom to smth or freedom from smth. But they just say a meaningless freedom.
In the context of crypto-anarhcism, "freedom" has a clear meaning and refers to freedom from interference of the State in communication and business activities, through technologies such as public-key encryption and authentication protocols.

I dont try to knock them out, I showed that they contradict each other and that its that following each one of them means that you cant reach one of the goals
By "wrong" I mean you kind of missed the point. You stopped where it seems the statements start to contradict each other, but it's possible that with more thought, these apparent contradictions can be resolved. Intuitively, I saw the statements as consistent, so I try to find the author's intentions and get closer to the author-interpretation. It may turn out to be a futile exercise, in which case I'd be proven wrong.
Then please try to explain to me that why not just to kill oneself if "all things are empty and meaningless”, even if they "are always whole, perfect, and complete
Cicada 3301 did not provide an answer to this. One possible explanation is that by seeing everything as meaningless but always perfect and complete, you gain the ability to ignore the instinctive fear of death and choose whether to live or to end his own life, and if you are to live your life destined to be meaningless, you can view your suffering in a different light and "find something", even about the feeling of meaninglessness itself. You would have no pressure to "succeed" nor anxiety about "failure", for there are only neutral changes from perfect to perfect. Now, is this not cope thinking? The way I see it is that it's a particular state in which you'd find all these things to be intuitive, not confusing or difficult or in denial about suffering. But it may well be cope thinking for me to consider such a state, for I don't think it is attainable for me.
And for last, they make morale statements, but based on what do they give those statements? Based on a believe system, for example, if not based on what else?
The "good" in "I am always good enough" does not refer to morally good, it probably refers to a potential to reach a certain ideal, which is as I understand it not a moral statement
 
In the context of crypto-anarhcism, "freedom" has a clear meaning and refers to freedom from interference of the State in communication and business activities, through technologies such as public-key encryption and authentication protocols.
So just freedom from smth not to smth., so just classical liberalism, I cant say Im impressed, but atleast its an answer.

You stopped where it seems the statements start to contradict each other, but it's possible that with more thought, these apparent contradictions can be resolved.
And its possible that with even more thaught they just contradict eachother, or please show me how you "resolve" them, please I would be glad to see.

Intuitively, I saw the statements as consistent,
Intuitively, I saw the statements as inconsistent, first your Intinct could be wrong, second if the statements are correct because your instinct tells you so, wouldnt they also be wrong if my instint tells me so, or what makes your instinct better then mine?

so I try to find the author's intentions and get closer to the author-interpretation
Well maybe its just wrong and an eclectic collection of ideas that dont fit together
It may turn out to be a futile exercise, in which case I'd be proven wrong.
I wouldnt say you got the interpretation wrong, but since you cant prove me where Im wrong, I would say the authors interpretation was wrong in the first place
One possible explanation is that by seeing everything as meaningless but always perfect and complete,
If everything is meaningless, "perfect" and "complete" are also meaningless and since they are meaningless why even mention them, maybe you mention them because they have meaning to to you, or you mention them as a sorry excuse to not kill yourself, without explaining why those words out of nothing got a meaning
you gain the ability to ignore the instinctive fear of death and choose whether to live or to end his own life
Wouldnt seeing the world as perfect and whole stop you from gaining "the ability to ignore the instinctive fear of death"
and if you are to live your life destined to be meaningless, you can view your suffering in a different light and "find something"
This is just esocteric nonsense, if EVERYTHING is meaningless this also means your suffering is meaningless, so this "something" you find under the "different light" is just made out of thin air. (Btw this "something" is called meaning, the only reason to suffer is to give meaning to it, otherwise you will always end up with the question why should I keep on suffering)
You would have no pressure to "succeed" nor anxiety about "failure", for there are only neutral changes from perfect to perfect.
So if nothing changes to the good for me, why should I do anything. If I dont feel like I can suceed why should I try
Now, is this not cope thinking?
No a cope is always a self betrayel, which makes it seem to you like there would be a progress or its a way of keeping yourself from thinkin about your own misery, so you do smth just to not feel the constant lack of meaning
The "good" in "I am always good enough" does not refer to morally good, it probably refers to a potential to reach a certain ideal, which is as I understand it not a moral statement
What defines what this or any ideal is? A morale/ believe system, which defines what is good and bad. And so it defines what is ideal and what not.
 
tl;dr: Incels may find common ground with a supposed anti-clownworld organization.

Cicada 3301 is a mysterious organization that at a time did recruitment on 4chan. They are said to be an organization of officials and intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the direction the world is going. Below I include a paste that explains who they are and what they do. Although their worldview don't directly intersect with the blackpill, it strikes me that their worldview is a superset of the blackpill. If you start from a place believing what they believe, you will eventually swallow the blackpill -- and much more. I even think whether we can establish communication with (a cell of) Cicada, for we have common enemies. If you find this outlandish, their worldview is still food for thought.

The paste is supposedly made by a member who decided to leave Cicada 3301. Keep in mind that part of it may be fabricated or altered; note how the author cucks out in the final paragraph. The below text is copied from
View: https://pastebin.com/dHJ6JNkr

What no foids does to some 4 chaners
 
If everything is meaningless, "perfect" and "complete" are also meaningless and since they are meaningless why even mention them, maybe you mention them because they have meaning to to you, or you mention them as a sorry excuse to not kill yourself, without explaining why those words out of nothing got a meaning
You are conflating two senses of the word "meaning". "Everything is meaningless" does not refer to semantic meaning of words, but refers to meaning of existence.
Intuitively, I saw the statements as inconsistent, first your Intinct could be wrong, second if the statements are correct because your instinct tells you so, wouldnt they also be wrong if my instint tells me so, or what makes your instinct better then mine?
I'm not saying the statements are consistent with each other because my intuition says so. What I meant was intuitively I see their communications indicate they are knowledgeable in diverse fields and finds commonalities among them, but not limited by them. They don't clearly delineate how exactly everything should fit together, so I assume the answer would be along the lines of "what you make of it is up to you". My thought process can be jumpy. Sorry about that.

Also, "intuition" and "instinct" are not interchangeable.
I wouldnt say you got the interpretation wrong, but since you cant prove me where Im wrong, I would say the authors interpretation was wrong in the first place

Wouldnt seeing the world as perfect and whole stop you from gaining "the ability to ignore the instinctive fear of death"
I'll address these points together. Within the framework you provided, you logic is robust enough. But what I say is that you're missing the point. Your comments are consistent with a mechanistic rationalism, which often looks good in theory but misses nuances. I'm not saying rationalism is bad, but that I see value in the alternative approach of engaging with analogies and metaphors (while being aware of their limitations), because that's how the mind works.
This is just esocteric nonsense, if EVERYTHING is meaningless this also means your suffering is meaningless, so this "something" you find under the "different light" is just made out of thin air.
I say there are psychological states that are difficult for us to imagine while we are not in them. It's possible that in a certain psychological state you will no longer feel a need to ask what the meaning of suffering is (for better or worse).
What defines what this or any ideal is? A morale/ believe system, which defines what is good and bad. And so it defines what is ideal and what not.
"Good" or "bad" can be used to express attitudes and don't necessarily imply a moral system. For example, "bad" in "Using SHA-1 in security applications is bad because it is cryptographically insecure" implies unfitness for a purpose and doesn't imply a moral system
 
You are conflating two senses of the word "meaning". "Everything is meaningless" does not refer to semantic meaning of words, but refers to meaning of existence.
So words dont exist? You can say they dont exist in the material word, but they describe smth in it (atleast sometimes) but if the things they describe are meaningless, the words are the same or how do they get mysteriously a meaning, plus what is with words like freedom which doesnt exist at all in the material word, wouldnt it make it meaningless and if it has a meaning isnt it just the meaning of a word? Im not conflicting anything I say its both the same.
I'm not saying the statements are consistent with each other because my intuition says so. What I meant was intuitively I see their communications indicate they are knowledgeable in diverse fields and finds commonalities among them, but not limited by them. They don't clearly delineate how exactly everything should fit together, so I assume the answer would be along the lines of "what you make of it is up to you". My thought process can be jumpy
So logically speakin they are inconsistent, but for you they feel consistent, I can live with that.
Also, "intuition" and "instinct" are not interchangeable.
If its so important to you I could change instinct with intuition and it wouldnt change anything in my statement. (Also just because Im curious, whats the difference between both)
I'm not saying rationalism is bad, but that I see value in the alternative approach of engaging with analogies and metaphors
Which brings us to the question why one should try to create a logical and coherrent system based on those, which this "organization" tried
I say there are psychological states that are difficult for us to imagine while we are not in them. It's possible that in a certain psychological state you will no longer feel a need to ask what the meaning of suffering is (for better or worse).
I can imagine this state of mind pretty good, this is the mindset of someone who is high on Heroin or other strong opoids. I dont see this as an state I want to achieve.
"Good" or "bad" can be used to express attitudes and don't necessarily imply a moral system. For example, "bad" in "Using SHA-1 in security applications is bad because it is cryptographically insecure" implies unfitness for a purpose and doesn't imply a moral system
This doesnt really help you with the first point I made, since it wouldnt explain how you would define an Ideal without a morale system
For example, "bad" in "Using SHA-1 in security applications is bad because it is cryptographically insecure" implies unfitness
And without a morale system how can you say that this is bad, this implice that cryptographically insecurity is something bad, this would be a morale statement, maybe you could say its a dogmatic morale statement, but it still is one. Even if you use "good" and "bad" as statement to express if something helps you to achieve a specific goal which mean, you're sophisticating good and bad for efficient and non-efficient. But the goal you choose needed a morale statement in the first place.
 
If its so important to you I could change instinct with intuition and it wouldnt change anything in my statement. (Also just because Im curious, whats the difference between both)
Instincts are immediate, automatic responses directly shaped by evolution. Intuition involves cognition and some existing knowledge about the subject.
So words dont exist?
Not what I meant. I meant to say "meaning of life" not "meaning of existence". My point is: You are conflating two senses of the word "meaning". "Everything is meaningless" does not refer to semantic meaning of words, but refers to meaning of life.

And without a morale system how can you say that this is bad, this implice that cryptographically insecurity is something bad, this would be a morale statement, maybe you could say its a dogmatic morale statement, but it still is one. Even if you use "good" and "bad" as statement to express if something helps you to achieve a specific goal which mean, you're sophisticating good and bad for efficient and non-efficient. But the goal you choose needed a morale statement in the first place.
Our understandings of "moral statement" are not the same. I'll read through the SEP entry on it again.

So logically speakin they are inconsistent, but for you they feel consistent, I can live with that.
I see it as a philosophical puzzle of sorts. Regardless, we can't convince each other. I'd say we leave this matter at that. No sarcasm
 
Not what I meant. I meant to say "meaning of life" not "meaning of existence". My point is: You are conflating two senses of the word "meaning". "Everything is meaningless" does not refer to semantic meaning of words, but refers to meaning of life.
Then why did you say everything if just mean life?
And why should "Everything is meaningless" not refer to the semantic meaning of words
Our understandings of "moral statement" are not the same
What exactly is your definition of a morale statement, mine is pretty much to categorize anything as good or bad or somewhere between those two
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top