Being The Predicator would be all about just showing up, and reminding everyone that they have a right to exist, and that there’s no need to over-think everything, and helping folks with their homework and tax returns and other logical challenges, and in general helping everyone chill out and get in touch with the “better angels of their nature.”

Come to think of it, there would be no need for The Predicator even to wear a costume, or let people know that they had been helped by a superhero.

You’re thinking about it too much, thus breaking the boundary conditions of the question.

Fortunately, Google revealed the “Philosophers Jokes” site. Here’s one by Raymond Smullyan:

A philosopher went into a closet for ten years to contemplate the question, What is life? When he came out, he went into the street and met an old colleague, who asked him where in heaven’s name he had been all those years.

“In a closet,” he repied. “I wanted to know what life really is.”

“And have you found an answer?”

“Yes,” he replied. “I think it can best be expressed by saying that life is like a bridge.”

“That’s all well and good,” replied the colleage, “but can you be a little more explicit? Can you tell me how life is like a bridge?”

“Oh,” replied the philosopher after some thought, “maybe you’re right; perhaps life is not like a bridge.”

> Carl, depressed people worry about the rightness of their
> existence, whereas anthropicists merely worry about its
> probability. Still, I guess it’s of a piece with my general
> skepticism about all philosophical questions.

Scott,
I think the following post on overcomingbias is a nice read.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/existential-ang.html

It argues that the true reason for depression due to “existential angst” (which seems close to “worry about the rightness of one’s existence”), is very likely one of the known things that causes us to get depressed, such as financial problems, relationship problems, boring job etc.

My view here is similar to my view about questions about whether free will is compatible with the view that the universe is governed physics. Rarely does someone ask what exactly “will” is, and what it is supposed to be “free” of, which should be the very first questions in such a discussion! Either that, or — if you are morally inclined rather than materially — to ask what “the laws of physics” can mean in a world-view dominated by personal choices.

With a little consideration, it is easy to see that such questions are a confusion between two different kinds of ontology — one which has material principles, and one which has moral principles. You need to know what you’re talking about and *how* you are talking about it to avoid pitfalls.

I concur with those who say that the problem is not with over-thinking, but rather with thinking about the wrong — which in this case is to say, poorly defined — things. One ought to define the terms that one is worrying about: at the very least, this provides a good short-term treatment for extistential angst complicated by mental-compulsion, and also leads to longer term therapies.

As the coin-toss was in the air, [Jacksonville Jaguars running back Fred Taylor] was apparently struck by an existential epiphany, and asked the ref “What meaning can life have, if the future can be dictated by the random chance of this coin? Existence is a vulgar absurdity.”

Coach Del Rio chewed Taylor out, telling him to “Quit pondering the inconsequence of being, in a universe governed by chaos, and just play some football!”

The above is the beginning of a lengthy and exceedingly funny overview of philosophical conceptions of meaning, from the early Greeks and the premodern Jews and Christians, through 20th century existentialism.

The Onion concludes with a one-line summary of the modern view of “meaning” as grounded in sociobiology, cognitive science, and game theory:

Bad news for Jacksonville fans is good news for the rest of the AFC South!

I stand in awe. Who are these folks at The Onion?

Today’s installment: What should you do when you find yourself asking whether you have any “meaning to exist”?

Pondering the problem this morning, I hit upon a solution: Ask yourself whether an ant has any meaning to exist.

My answer is:it is either none or for survival only.

The basic idea is that our purpose in life is to be happy, and we can do that by habituating ourselves to moderation.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html