nadaism for real

The big problem can be explained in a quite simple way, no need to be a phylosopher: there's the man in nature who gets born and feels hungry and goes to the bathroom, and there's the human being who is conscious of his/her existance and reads essays and builds white porcelain toilets. That's the contradiction; the man subject to nature, versus the intellectual, the one seeking for a place and for a meaning.

I agree (this is the answer I owed you for such a long time): devotion, redemption and liberation are essentially the same concept, since each of them is just the promise that everything makes sense. My intelligence feels confortable if I target a far-away-objective and I decide I'll make everything possibe to reach it; however I'll necessarily go slowly, such a long path to follow, and in the meantime I while try to ensure I'm happy, that I'm enjoying myself while my rational desires get distracted.

Does it worth it? The answer does not depend, obviously on the fact you reach anywhere or not.


That's actually the point of nadaism: doing nothing while getting your mind distracted. There's a guy who made more than 20 thousand euros in a month from donations, he was in front of a webcam in his room doing nothing. People paid for watching him laying on his bed. I was so amazed when hearing from him. That's nadaism for real.