If I thought there was no way of making sense of the world, I'd hardly be writing thousands of pages to do precisely that, would I?

But I think you're saying that my views are too negative and they leave us in the lurch. I'm not repudiating all of science, though. I'm targeting scientism here, which is an insidious philosophy about science.

I do criticize many things in my writings, but there's also a positive side, although perhaps it's less fully worked out. If you're comparing my writings, though, to the facile self-help kind, which lays out 12-step programs to improve your life, I can see why you might find my kind of philosophy wanting. I suspect the truth isn't nearly as simple as the self-help drivel would have it appear, mind you. I'm not trying to lay out ultimate truths, as much as stir thoughts.

In any case, impudence is an understandable reaction to the existential predicament. We react to nature's inhumanity childishly, as in animistic projections, and then in our mature, "modern" phase we do so with the Luciferian gambit, with the impudence of godlike beings who attempt to enslave the wilderness. I'm mainly trying to describe this historical development, so you might be shooting the messenger here. What the honourable alternative to this impudence would be isn't easy to discern, but at times I do suggest alternatives, such as transhumanism tempered by existential humility.

By the way, you've added your comment twice.