Need opinion on lucid nihilism with romantic and aesthetic dimensions with existentialism and sensory atheist mysticism

[username1o1]

My thought begins with a simple, severe acknowledgment: life has no given meaning. There is no cosmic design guiding our days, no immortal soul ensuring continuity, only consciousness, which flickers for a moment and then fades. This realization is not condemnation but the raw material for an aesthetic of existence, an invitation to see life as something finite and fragile, beautiful precisely because it ends. The possibility of nothingness after death deserves neither consoling lyricism nor moral fear; it provides, instead, an honest conclusion, stripped of convenient promises.

Freedom, in this view, is not absolute; it does not dissolve our human form. The fantasy of total freedom, of floating beings detached from needs and limits, is seductive but empty, for it erases the texture of what we are. True freedom lies in living without the illusion of control, in accepting contingency, and focusing on the intensity of perception. Sun on the skin, the coolness of a metal handle, the smell of rain, the precision of a musical note, the light in a street at night, these are the registers of genuine freedom. Living without imposed purpose becomes an art of presence, a practice where each sensation matters.

Psychedelics occupy a singular place in this aesthetic. Their value is not in escaping reality but in revealing the fragility and construction of perception, showing the membrane that separates us from the world. They deserve respect; a bad trip can be traumatizing and needlessly terrifying. The richest experience comes from a stable emotional and social context. I therefore view psychedelics as acceptable when one feels well, informed, and ready, alone or with others, rather than as a mere act of rebellion. Tobacco, on the other hand, represents the opposite. Smoking feels incompatible with the lucidity I seek, for it builds dependence and trades health and money for ritual. Alcohol lies in a grey zone. Drinking is not forbidden; it can allow release and calculated risk-taking. But addiction to alcohol repeats the same pattern as smoking and must be avoided. The guiding principle is autonomy, the preservation of health and practical clarity.

The relationship with the body also requires attention. Practicing sport is recommended, not merely for appearance, but because dexterity, endurance, and health strengthen one’s existential ease. A responsive body grants practical freedom; it allows one to act, to resist, and to experience the sensory world more vividly. Performance, balance, and aesthetic grace are all compatible with this form of lucidity.

The question of family and attachment follows the same paradoxical logic. Founding a family is a matter of personal freedom, neither prescribed nor forbidden. But one must acknowledge that parenthood deeply alters priorities. Wanting the best for one’s children implies working, providing, and investing attention, duties that may conflict with a contemplative ideal of total freedom. If parenthood becomes a sincere purpose, it harmonizes with this philosophy; if it erases one’s inner space, it contradicts it. Thus, I neither reject nor recommend family life; I place it under the sign of conscious choice and moral honesty.

The arts form a hierarchy based on sensory intensity and the capacity to evoke wonder. Architecture holds a special place because it shapes our daily life; a well-designed home or city becomes an extension of the self. Wealth, in this sense, offers freedom: the ability to create one’s spaces and travel between them, whether through forests in Finland or quiet villages in France. The fantasy of being financially free, though paradoxical, fits this worldview, it promises independence without glorifying laziness. Sculpture resembles architecture through permanence but is less immersive. Visual arts, painting, photography, design, cinema, nourish imagination, though I still place them below music in transcendence. Music is supreme because it touches consciousness directly, without the detour of narrative; it builds inner landscapes that remain powerful through endless repetition. Literature, though less stimulating than music, offers worlds of immersion and reflection. Performing arts impress me less, their theatricality feels artificial and rarely as absorbing as cinema, which fuses image and sound into a complete sensory experience. I also value the intimacy of discovery. When a niche artist becomes famous, a personal joy disappears; the rare pleasure of having found something beautiful by chance fades when everyone knows it. This loss is not moral, only aesthetic.

Work, too, is not rejected but relativized. Earning a living, creating, or building remains valid. I do not call for universal inaction. I simply challenge the ideology that equates productivity with human worth. This philosophy suits a small minority, a contemplative niche; if everyone adopted it, society would collapse, and the thinker’s own comfort would vanish. That is why this worldview should remain a privilege, a refuge for those capable of slow existence and aesthetic clarity.

Regarding death and what may follow, honesty is essential. One cannot prove either nothingness or cosmic transcendence; preferring nothingness for its simplicity does not make it certain. Intellectual humility is therefore crucial. It allows thought to remain open, aware of its limits, and free from dogmatic comfort. This humility strengthens rather than weakens reflection; it keeps us within the field of truth.

The question of suicide must be treated with equal seriousness. It is not praised nor condemned; it is viewed as a possible existential option, a lucid recognition that one can end incurable or prolonged suffering. Suicide is not a solution by default, nor a forbidden act, it is a question. For myself, I do not say I wish to do it. I live within my philosophy, I observe, I explore, and I let the question remain open. I also recognize that suicide carries emotional and social consequences, that it affects others profoundly, and that any consideration of it must include medical, psychological, and social guidance. Lucidity demands caution.

Finally, on moral boundaries. Acts of violence or cruelty, though imaginable, have no value here. Sexual activity is limited for reasons already stated: its theatrical and addictive tendencies. Procreation remains acceptable. Sadism, or deriving pleasure from harm, is neither admired nor desired. Any illegal or dangerous act must be judged by an honest, measured evaluation of risk and consequence. Courage never excuses harm.

Thus, this philosophy stands as a deliberate paradox. It unites an aesthetic of nothingness with a celebration of sensation, an ethics of restraint with an openness to experience. It accepts contingency, elevates music as its sanctuary, recommends care for the body, and rejects dependence. It treats work and family as matters of conscious choice and views suicide as a profound human question, demanding reflection and compassion. It does not seek universal adoption; it is meant as a compass for a few, those who wish to live lucidly, freely, and sensually within the limits of existence.