That's a pretty specific understanding of nihilism. I suppose you can use it that way, but it's hardly comprehensive
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's a pretty specific understanding of nihilism. I suppose you can use it that way, but it's hardly comprehensiveI guess there is an argument that you can't be happy and nihilistic.
I am happy that I have a widescreen television.
To be happy about having a widescrean television means that I prefer having having a widescreen television than not.
To prefer having a television than not means that I view the television of having value.
Nihilism is the rejection of value.
Thus, if I am happy, then I cannot be nihilistic, as happiness follows from valuing something. The only emotion nihilism should be able to conjure is indifference.
All this assumes, of course, that your species of nihilism is not the kind where you have "moved past" nihilism to embrace new, non-objective, values.
I still don't get it. Why would the existence of God impart objective value on anything? Are there no atheist objectivists?My opinions on nihilism are strongly influenced by Nietzsche (who was crazy because of syphilis, it is generally accepted).
In a way I agree with nihilism. With no God, there is no objective value within the universe (though even with God you have the Euthyphro dilemma).
For starters, it would be a good idea for everyone to be consistent in the definitions they use.what i intended to post before the last post:
i think we've gotten to the point of arguing over definitions. i spose an easy way to avoid this would have been to define 'physicality' 'supernatural' 'natural' 'purpose' and 'happiness' from the get-go. any practical definition of these terms, especially the last 2, depends on who you ask.
the word "purpose" in the first half sentence is used in a different meaning than the word "it" in the second (unless you would insist on misrepresenting naturalism and nihilism).if you ask me, happiness requires purpose and both naturalism and nihilism forbid it [purpose].
To be clear: there are still objective truths to be had. It is simply that morality is not among them.I still don't get it. Why would the existence of God impart objective value on anything? Are there no atheist objectivists?
It's a specific understanding of nihilism, yes, in that nihilism as a term gets bandied about a lot these days, but I also consider it the original way nihilism was used, before it was abused by the masses to make them look cool and rebellious.That's a pretty specific understanding of nihilism. I suppose you can use it that way, but it's hardly comprehensive
I'm not sure why objective morals would only exist if a God existed to set them out. There probably are atheists out there who believe morality is objective in the way you describe, akin to a 'law of conservation' set out in nature.To be clear: there are still objective truths to be had. It is simply that morality is not among them.
There is no moral law in the way that there is the law of conservation of motion. Just as there is no law in the universe which determines what is beautiful and what is not. It is a human construct, and thus subjective rather than objective, unless you say it's origin lies in God. Thus you have a law: God decides what morality is, sets it out as law, and then we must obey. It becomes something "out there" which exists independently of us i.e. something objective.
It would still be god´s subjective opinion. The difference between a descriptive law and a prescriptive law (actually two completely different concepts for which there better would be two completely different terms), as well as the difference between a fact and a preference does not disappear with there being a god.There is no moral law in the way that there is the law of conservation of motion. Just as there is no law in the universe which determines what is beautiful and what is not. It is a human construct, and thus subjective rather than objective, unless you say it's origin lies in God. Thus you have a law: God decides what morality is, sets it out as law, and then we must obey. It becomes something "out there" which exists independently of us i.e. something objective.
Whether they believe so is irrelevant. If it's objective, they have to prove it, just as Newton et al. demonstrated the conservation of motion.There probably are atheists out there who believe morality is objective in the way you describe, akin to a 'law of conservation' set out in nature.
Firstly, this is why I mentioned the Euthyphro dilemma.It would still be god´s subjective opinion.
Same would go for theists, and "God thinks so" (even if it could be proven) would certainly not be sufficient.Whether they believe so is irrelevant. If it's objective, they have to prove it, just as Newton et al. demonstrated the conservation of motion.
Does it have to be God that sets down the morality? So...say it was an alien civilisation or other sorts of supernatural entities. Objective?A morality that God sets down exists independently of humanity. It does not depend on our thoughts or perceptions. It is "out there". Thus it is objective.
My opinion exists independently of yours. According to your line of reasoning that would render my opinion objective for you. That´s absurd.Secondly, that which is subjective for God may still be objective for humanity. Objectivity means independence from the observer.
A morality that God sets down exists independently of humanity. It does not depend on our thoughts or perceptions. It is "out there". Thus it is objective.
Yes, but theists are more likely to shrug off the demand for proof. I'd like to think atheists more dedicated to the pursuit of truth.Same would go for theists, and "God thinks so" (even if it could be proven) would certainly not be sufficient.
One assumes that God is qualitatively different to anything one may find that exists. He is not simple "like us but more". As the sufficient cause of the universe, he determines its laws. Were morality a law of the universe, it would have to be dictated by whatever made the laws of said universe.Does it have to be God that sets down the morality? So...say it was an alien civilisation or other sorts of supernatural entities. Objective?
You opinion is objective for me. Well, that's assuming that your opinion really is independent of me, which I'm not convinced by. It is something that you have that does not depend on me for its existence. I can talk about it thus. I can hold it up an examine it in the same way I can hold up a stone and examine that.My opinion exists independently of yours. According to your line of reasoning that would render my opinion objective for you. That´s absurd.
Be that as it may (personally, I wouldn´t touch the word "truth" with a ten foot pole, and an even longer pole when it appears in the context of ethics and/or morality), preferences/prescriptions and proof don´t go together well.I'd like to think atheists more dedicated to the pursuit of truth.
Cool. In which case yours is objective to me, and we have successfully defined subjectivity out of existence.You opinion is objective for me.
Well, if - as you posit - my opinion is objective that which feel absurd to me is objectively absurd, not subjectively. If my opinion is subjective to me and if - as you say - my opinion is objectively objective, the distinction "objective/subjective" is rendered meaningless, impossible, paradox. And that´s why your little redefinition project doesn´t work.The only reason why it feels absurd to you is that your opinion is subjective for you.
Not really. As for me, I am solely disputing that an opinion or a preference can be objective. God - if being the author of prescriptions - must be a sentient subject, and thus god´s opinions arent objective by definition.Edit: The problem with this argument is that its suffering the typical problem of atheists trying to argue everything at once.
I don´t think so. The fact that "objective" is not the correct word to describe the opinion of a possibly existing god has no bearing whatsoever on the question whether a god can exist or not.I can already see that this is going to end up at the point of arguing whether or not the very idea of God is coherent.
Yes, and that´s what I seem to be doing all the time. I do see there´s a difference between a morality authored by humans and a morality authored by god. I´d also be willing to allow for a great significance of god´s moral opinions, preferences and prescriptions. All I am not willing to do is calling god´s subjective opinions, preferences, and prescripitions "objective" - mainly because doing so will prevent a meaningful, coherent distinction of the terms "objective" and "subjective".And I agree with you: it's not. But in order to talk about a morality decided upon by God as compared to a morality decided upon by humanity, one must take as an assumption the existence of God.
I do not really understand why you would think this. As far as I can see it stems from my interest in keeping language meaningful.Otherwise the task becomes pointless. All your arguments are stemming from a disbelief if God. That's cheating
The only purpose of life is "Survival of the species". Now if a life-form enjoys life while trying to survive is beyond the point, and can be considered a fringe benefit.I think I'm a nihilist: life has no ultimate purpose, etc, etc.
The only purpose of life is "Survival of the species".
Can you explain then why most life-forms have defensive tactics and or physical ability if not for Survival?Not really. Just because some species survive and others don't, that doesn't mean that the purpose of all species is to survive. One can easily say instead that survival is simply a result of natural selection.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Can you explain then why most life-forms have defensive tactics and or physical ability if not for Survival?
I guess I would explain it in a similar way I would explain the fact that the water fills the puddle perfectly. I don´t think this requires me to utilize the concept "purpose".Can you explain then why most life-forms have defensive tactics and or physical ability if not for Survival?
Purpose is not a good word to describe the motivation behind the survival of a species. Life has no sentient purpose, but it does have the urge to survive!I guess I would explain it in a similar way I would explain the fact that the water fills the puddle perfectly. I don´t think this requires me to utilize the concept "purpose".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?