I agree that feelings are not arguments and that beliefs should be justified by arguments, and not feelings.
And yet, if you believe your spouse "is the one for you" but have no hard evidence to back it up, but you feel it with every fiber of your being, you will still make a gigantically life-impactful decision about this person that is COMPLETELY inarguable. :P
How you present yourself to others is probably a facade (Who can avoid it?) Is it morally repulsive to make others believe something to make yourself feel better?
Good point, I'm basing my rejection on my repulsive feeling. I'm not familiar with philosophy but I'm sure there are philosophers that have built up arguments on why a life based on seeking truth and logic is worthwhile.
(I wrote this whole comment to you only to find out just now that you deleted the original comment. Sorry, I had to convey it somehow. LOL)
I understand your confusion about using "entropy" outside a thermodynamics context, and you're absolutely correct to point out that the term "entropy" originated in the field of thermodynamics. However, the concept has been extended metaphorically in other fields to describe systems of complexity and order. It's in this latter, metaphorical sense that I'm using the term.
Now, let's apply this to living systems. Organisms are highly ordered, containing complex structures at various scales from cells to organs. They can maintain and even increase their internal order, or decrease their "entropy," by consuming energy from their environment (like food). This is the "detour into lower entropy" I was talking about.
While this seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, remember that organisms are not closed systems – they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment. The increase in order within the organism is more than offset by the increase in disorder in the environment, resulting in an overall increase in entropy in the universe. This is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
What I find fascinating is that life can maintain this high degree of organization for such a long period of time, despite the natural tendency towards disorder. This is not to say that the process is unexplained; science has a lot to say about how this happens, but rather that it's a remarkable (and seemingly unique) characteristic of life. Does this make more sense? I hope this clarifies the concept a bit.
what does it matter if it's worth it? You can only genuinely believe what you acknowledge to be true, and your happiness has no bearing on what is true, there's no choice involved. The moment you attempt to abolish what you believe, being aware you do it only because it causes you pain, it doesn't even work, you're just sort of trying to desperately gaslight yourself. Reminds me of a short poem by Stephen Crane