u/F3RM3NTAL

Been racing a year almost to the date, and I'm still slow as fuck! I'm very consistent, decent at traffic management, and my telemetry inputs are the right shape, but all the curves are just a touch early or late in each corner. I'm talking milliseconds difference in braking points and throttling on exit, but it adds up to so much lost time and I don't know how to fix it! I've been an accomplished athlete in many sports that require finely tuned motor skills, but the micro adjustments I need to make just to pick up 2 seconds feel so fucking far out of reach. Do I just need to be patient and grind, or do I need to accept that while old dogs can learn new tricks, they won't be great at them? Looking for a way out of the middle of the pack.

Absurdism bridges the pit of nihilistic despair, but happiness is arguably a much harder thing to reach, maybe something we can only imagine ourselves into rather than actually feel. So, in the face of what seems like a global epidemic of avolition and anhedonia, I think that gap matters more than ever.

Curious how people here sustain their motivation to push that damned rock while stuck in a job they hate, inside a system designed to exploit them. When the problem isn't despair but the mundane flatness above it, is rebellion itself a self-sustaining fuel that can get you to happiness, or is the prerequisite for happiness some degree of philosophical suicide - a quiet abandonment of lucidity?

I grew up evangelical, but I'm currently leaning more into Absurdism and questioning whether objective morality even exists. My dad (trying to bring me back into the fold) and I have been engaging in a years-long discussion via hand-written letters in which I recently posed the classic Trolley Problem (save five people tied to the tracks by actively diverting the trolley to kill one, or do nothing and let 5 people die). He made it a point to take a biblical perspective in answering the question, but what I found interesting was he initially took the utilitarian position (it's morally right to kill one person so that 5 can be saved), and later moved to the deontological position (murder is always wrong - pulling the lever is playing God, it's better to preserve God's will by not pulling the lever). He used scripture to support both positions, which got me thinking.

We see this tension in many other sticky issues too: mass murder (my dad cited Truman "weighing the decision most prayerfully" before dropping the nukes), slavery, divorce, homosexuality, gender identity, etc. Atheists like to point out Mosaic law is largely considered immoral by today's standards - slavery in particular. Christians like to give a rebuttal along the lines of Mosaic law no longer applies due to Jesus' salvation, or they delineate between what is permitted/allowed and what is commanded. In support of that position, one user in this sub said, "If human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand."

Any moral framework that evolves gradually is, by definition and in practice, moral relativism. And as history and modern debates have shown, Scripture can be used to validate completely opposing moral actions depending on the chosen text, context, and era. But if God's morality is objective, then what IS the actual, unchanging standard? What, specifically, are God's moral absolutes?

And before anyone cites the 10 commandments as a kneejerk response, please understand that too is Mosaic law. Moreover, "Though shalt not murder" seems to have an asterisk by it in many situations, as does every other commandment.