Care in the positive sense is a part of our being, but worry is a betrayal of our erotic nature in favor of a thanatic self-absorption. We are not being-towards-death but being-towards-eros. Of course death, as certain but indeterminate, may at any time prevent us from actualizing what draws us on, but we don’t thereby mitigate risk by a lack of commitment to the erotic, rather it is that commitment that makes authenticity possible. We have to risk absolute loss of shared being in order to experience love as the full meaning of our being, love that sets aside worry and self-concern in favor of what draws us futurally in terms of actualizing positive possibilities, not obsessing over the reality that we can never fully actualize those possibilities.
Pre-conceptually we have always had a sense that love is the meaning of our being, but in an opaque way. The transparent realization of our ontology has to come out of that everyday pre-conceptual understanding. We intrinsically understand thanatic being as a lack of commitment, a lack of authenticity. We always understand mitigating risk as an intrinsic lessening of possibilities, a betrayal of who we are. We already understand worry as self-destructive, the death drive born out of a lack of courage.
Rather than simply abandoning ‘why’ as unanswerable and therefore a waste, and falling into nihilism, the recognition of its unanswerability requires us to maintain the wonder at the mystery of its unanswerability. Closing ourselves off to wonder at mystery is the final betrayal of the Self by the paranoid ego. Nihilism is not realistic, it is cowardice in the face of our own uncanny being, a negative and self-negating certainty, a certainty only possible by losing the fullness and richness of our humanity and our ability to be open to the mystery that can only be wondered at.
Rationalism sees the world as meaningless only due to its own lack of courage. It is not the world that is meaningless, but the rational interpretation that reduces the Self to the unreal subject, things to fictional abstract objects, world to a universe of such objects. It arises out of a desire for security that we can never truly have. Its result is a false security in explanations that are irrelevant and meaningless, and merely explain-away in a flight from understanding the world and beings within it. It is the same naive superstition found in the simplistic religiosity it is at such pains to denounce.