is this opinion valid? what has the author gotten wrong, is the fact that the author assumes that only permanence can give value to life a flawed assumption?
Why do I hate myself. As the useless doddering of my peers surrounds me, I struggle. The melancholic sunrise of my teenage years. Is it really worth living, when there is no true god, or afterlife, or place where you can be retrospective on your life's decision. Why live when it will all turn to stardust one day, and no one will know you. Your decisions have an effect so useless that fate is insurmountable. That fate is your inevitable death and eventually being forgotten. When your family hates you, and you strive for loneliness, what more is there reason for. Is there really a way to discern between not wanting to live and wanting to die? When the end result, both long term and short term reveal identical results? When you crave romantic love, is that only a biological paramount built from being lonely your life? How can suffering be alleviated when the very foundations of human society are idiotic. The idiocy of modern human civilization never ceases to astound me. Why are we so gullible? What was the context that led to the lack of critical thinking that is religion? When I die, who is to blame? These fragmented thoughts alter my being for now, but should they matter any longer than the fleeting longing for salvation through the cease of existence, could I truly prevail. How can one justify continuing to exist when there is no convincing reason to believe that my life, relationships, or decisions, or anyone's for that matter ultimately matter?