…”the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Having a “point” is a very human category.
Steven Weinberg / Jeremy Bernstein
don’t we need to make up a point to carry on?
Not necessarily. After all, isn’t one of premises of Buddhism just that — pointlessness? (It seems so, from the Koans and interpretations of those Koans I’ve read.) They seem to carry on quite well, despite.
However… you could argue that pointlessness is in fact a kind of point.
It’s interesting that, either way, a human philosophy can mimic the System’s (Universe’s) “philosophy” — a system needs no reason for being, especially from a scientific perspective. It might be a far cry to suggest that Buddhist-like thinking — being sans need for a reason — means those people who practice, actively/consciously think of themselves as “systemic” (of the system). Yet it’s possible that the two modes of perception are intertwined.
If anyone is reading this thinking I’m saying some garbage about Buddhism that’s absolutely untrue, please speak up. Message me, correct me. (Though, what I’m saying here is apart from the fact that there are other “points” to that practice; for example that a reason to live life kindly might come from the idea of reincarnation — the latter being a point.)