Nihilism for dummies

[Wiccan_Child]

I have found myself unable to live this way. When you look at something and say that it has no purpose, for me the enjoyment just seems to dissipate. It no longer becomes an enjoyable activity and instead becomes just a way of passing the time until you die, and a way of trying to escape the haunting void that you feel when you believe in a life without meaning. Is this something you ran into at all? If so, how did/do you address it?

This is not something I feel. Playing a computer game has no purpose, but I don't stop playing. I suppose it's a mix of enjoyment for enjoyment's sake, and giving yourself the illusion of purpose: I know there is no grand purpose in life, but I can give myself purpose. Get an education, get a job, get a family, live life to its fullest, etc.

Also, I don't want to get in the way here, but in just a brief response to r3quiem's question, I think the traditional conservative Christian reply would be that God has a plan, an over-arching purpose that all of creation is steadily moving towards. Thus someone adhering to this particular belief might argue that meaning is an all-or-nothing affair: Either there is a God with a divine plan, in which case every single action, person, and thing is significant in the sense that it has some impact on this plan; or, there is a God or multiple gods who do not have any sort of purpose laid out, or there is no God at all, in which case nothing can ever have any meaning because there is no purpose with which it could relate to.

I'm personally not convinced that a universe without deities would be a universe without purpose. Nor indeed am I convinced that, if God exists and has some plan for us, that that constitutes this existential Grand Purpose we're talking about.

An alternative argument would simply be the one of infinity: The actions we perform on Earth have an impact on the afterlife. Why many people might consider life to be without purpose is because it is impermanent; why bother building up that which will only be destroyed? It is meaningless.

In an ultimate sense, sure, but not locally: the charity and the hospital still alleviate suffering. Even the existential nihilist doesn't want to suffer, and thus strives to minimise her (any, usually, everyone else's) pain.

However, to the Christian, we will be held accountable for our actions at the end of the world, and when we honour God on Earth we are storing up what Christ refers to as "treasures in heaven." What this might look like is up to the reader's imagination as no detail is given, but the notion is that our actions on Earth are all meaningful because they impact eternity - they are permanent, and as the Bible says, that which is built up in heaven will never be destroyed.

I hope that helps a bit.

So, if something impacts eternity (i.e., leaves a permanent mark), then it is meaningful?
By that definition, everything has meaning, since everything leaves some lasting impression (chaos theory 101 ). But conversely, if every action has meaning, regardless of what that act actually is, doesn't that negate the very notion of purpose?

It's like, if a few people have a mutation, then they're special. If everyone has it, it's just the norm.
So, can you can an act be meaningful if there are no meaningless acts? Isn't one defined by the other (like 'light' and 'dark')?

Hmm, ramblings...

 

[Suggestion Box]

Could you describe, preferably with a few details or examples, how a god, or some supernatural element outside of the physical universe, can add overarching meaning to an individual's life?

sure can't! but when we start talking supernatural, there are a lot more options - maybe someday i will know. limiting ourselves to a closed system, however, gives us very few options. and just to clarify, supernatural could be the existentialist view of 'the mind' - not necessarily deities.

Why should a purpose be for nothing just because it is invented?

we've reached the limits of logic, and are now discussing our feelings. i feel that invented purpose is not authentic, and it's kidding oneself. purely a matter of opinion.

I've been doing this for at least twenty years as a metaphysical naturalist without any trouble. (All my life, really.) What am I supposed to experience that will tell me I was mistaken?

first off, i don't think naturalism is the same as nihilism. but i do think that if naturalists really pursue a self-consistent worldview (regardless of how practical) they will end up nihilist. nihilism itself is not at all practical, so naturalists don't bother going there - who cares if there's no purpose? i'm still alive aren't I? the bridge between naturalism and nihilism is honest, useless philosophy.

that being said, there's no experience that can tell you you're mistaken - it's more up to whether you want to be practical or technical. for practicality, stick with naturalism, as long as it serves you well.


oh, and as for Nietzche, my statement wasn't swarming with evidence or anything, but i did read it somewhere - so at least one person thinks nihilism drove the guy mad

 

[R3quiem]

Also, I don't want to get in the way here, but in just a brief response to r3quiem's question, I think the traditional conservative Christian reply would be that God has a plan, an over-arching purpose that all of creation is steadily moving towards. Thus someone adhering to this particular belief might argue that meaning is an all-or-nothing affair: Either there is a God with a divine plan, in which case every single action, person, and thing is significant in the sense that it has some impact on this plan; or, there is a God or multiple gods who do not have any sort of purpose laid out, or there is no God at all, in which case nothing can ever have any meaning because there is no purpose with which it could relate to.

So do you feel that if an external being GIVES your life purpose, that it truly has purpose?

A naturalist, if he or she was inclined to, could easily argue that the purpose of life is to be happy and to help or at least allow others to pursue that same goal. This purpose is not granted by something external; it's something individuals choose for themselves.

In your statements about a plan, I assume you think people in this plan would end up happy. Afterall, what other purpose of this plan could there be? If that is indeed the purpose, then how does that purpose differ from the naturalist purpose of pursuing and achieving happiness?

In other words, with that view, we're back to square one. How does a god provide any more purpose than life without a god.

An alternative argument would simply be the one of infinity: The actions we perform on Earth have an impact on the afterlife. Why many people might consider life to be without purpose is because it is impermanent; why bother building up that which will only be destroyed? It is meaningless. However, to the Christian, we will be held accountable for our actions at the end of the world, and when we honour God on Earth we are storing up what Christ refers to as "treasures in heaven." What this might look like is up to the reader's imagination as no detail is given, but the notion is that our actions on Earth are all meaningful because they impact eternity - they are permanent, and as the Bible says, that which is built up in heaven will never be destroyed.

So some Christians argue that our lives our purposeless because all that we store up will eventually be destroyed.

My question to you is, even if we continue to store things up, and they are never destroyed, what is the purpose of this?

Are flowers worse off because they are temporary and only able to be obtained during certain windows in the year, or is that part of what makes them special to humans?

 

[R3quiem]

sure can't! but when we start talking supernatural, there are a lot more options - maybe someday i will know. limiting ourselves to a closed system, however, gives us very few options. and just to clarify, supernatural could be the existentialist view of 'the mind' - not necessarily deities.

So you say that with the supernatural there are a lot more options, but you readily state that you cannot even present one of these options for consideration.

There are arguably options in this universe that we have yet to realize. We're still stuck on one tiny little planet, and yet you're worried about the universe being too small, closed, and option-less.

Lastly, I do not see how the addition of something supernatural turns a closed system such as the universe into an open system. The supernatural element would increase the magnitude of this universe, but when this overall system of natural and supernatural elements is considered, it would still be a closed system.

 

[Suggestion Box]

rrrrrrchght. *makes robot noise*
errOr: infinite sequence diverges.
does... not... compute....

*head explodes*

 

[Suggestion Box]

no i readily state that i can't state an option with evidence. i can give you speculation all you want... but i doubt you want it.

by supernatural, i mean anything that is not part of the physical world. more advancement in the universe will only give us more physical world.

there are things that we have yet to understand, and then there are things that we cannot understand, just as a dog cannot understand how to speak words.

 

[R3quiem]

no i readily state that i can't state an option with evidence. i can give you speculation all you want... but i doubt you want it.

Well, I already view your position as lacking evidence, otherwise I would have the same position as you. This discussion, however, is about the possibility of purpose.

Since I merely asked you what you feel a supernatural element could add to purpose or meaning, I will accept mere speculation. All I am asking you to do is provide details or examples of how a supernatural element can add more purpose or meaning than we currently have, not that this supernatural element actually exists (because that would of course require evidence). It's a thought experiment, not an actual experiment or a claim of truth.

by supernatural, i mean anything that is not part of the physical world. more advancement in the universe will only give us more physical world.

there are things that we have yet to understand, and then there are things that we cannot understand, just as a dog cannot understand how to speak words.

I argue that natural and supernatural are arbitrary constructs on our reality. It used to be that lightning, thunder, weather patterns, stars, night and day, mental illness, and death were all considered very supernatural things. Now, with better knowledge, we can reasonably understand these things and accept them as part of the natural world.

Natural, therefore, is simply what we understand, while humans have a tendency to label things they do not understand or things that they speculate about as "super"-natural. If something such as a god or other supernatural element were proven to exist, I would from that point on consider it a natural aspect of our reality, because that is what it would be- a part of our reality.

 

[Suggestion Box]

well then maybe God is perfectly natural... but I don't understand him, so I'll call him supernatural.

anyway, here's a speculation on purpose:

life is eternal. our eternal purpose is then happiness free of sadness. what is happiness? why do I think getting my hand chopped off is not happy, but hanging out with friends is happy? because God made me and he chose what things will make me happy. in the same way, he can choose to bestow happiness upon me in an afterlife. if my purpose is to pursue happiness, then my method is to pursue God. if death is the end, then there's no hope of pursuing anything eternally. if it's not, then happiness is the goal.

and i mean that's an opinion... theres no real basis for arguing what constitutes as 'purpose'. the only reason we worry about purpose is because it effects happiness. if one can somehow figure out how to be happy and still nihilist, then more power to him. i can't figure that one out.

 

[R3quiem]

anyway, here's a speculation on purpose:

life is eternal. our eternal purpose is then happiness free of sadness. what is happiness? why do I think getting my hand chopped off is not happy, but hanging out with friends is happy? because God made me and he chose what things will make me happy. in the same way, he can choose to bestow happiness upon me in an afterlife. if my purpose is to pursue happiness, then my method is to pursue God. if death is the end, then there's no hope of pursuing anything eternally. if it's not, then happiness is the goal.

Christians believe in the concept of sin- which means humans do things they want to do that God does not approve of. People can be very happy doing things that your god does not approve of. If this is the case, they are deciding for themselves what causes them to be happy, not just waiting for your god to tell them what makes them happy.

Similarly, others in this life are not happy with the things that God supposedly made to cause happiness.

Taking this all into account, your view seems to be that happiness is the goal. If supernatural-believing people and naturalist people can both apparently achieve happiness, then we're back to square one: How can a god or other supernatural element add any extra purpose to life?

and i mean that's an opinion... theres no real basis for arguing what constitutes as 'purpose'. the only reason we worry about purpose is because it effects happiness. if one can somehow figure out how to be happy and still nihilist, then more power to him. i can't figure that one out.

So you state that there is no basis for arguing what constitutes purpose, but still claim that it is impossible to achieve without a supernatural element but possible to achieve with a supernatural element.

Interesting, considering that you were pretty confident in your assessment of purpose before:

now, if we're honest with our logic, the implications here are not particularly attractive to the human mind. thus we say things like "oh, i have purpose, just no overarching purpose!" that's b.s. you're only kidding yourself, and you'll figure that out soon enough if you stick with it too long. many believe that this very sort of logical honesty is what drove Nietzche insane.

 

[quatona]

If you define "purpose" as "god given purpose" I agree that without a god there can be no purpose.

 

[Received]

I argue that natural and supernatural are arbitrary constructs on our reality. It used to be that lightning, thunder, weather patterns, stars, night and day, mental illness, and death were all considered very supernatural things. Now, with better knowledge, we can reasonably understand these things and accept them as part of the natural world.

Theists have a good history of getting themselves into trouble attempting to define things like "supernatural" and "transcendent". In one sense, everything can be explicated, and therefore everything is "natural" (i.e., "natural" meaning "what is"); but in another sense, "natural" denotes physicality, which God definitively isn't, so technically the natural isn't everything (and yet God is both nothing and something). Then again, quantum physicists and theologians are finding interesting ground together tying God into the physical equation either through the quantum level (particularly through the indeterminate nature of particles), or (with some thinkers) as an element in quantum reality. It's all sort of messy.

 

[R3quiem]

Theists have a good history of getting themselves into trouble attempting to define things like "supernatural" and "transcendent". In one sense, everything can be explicated, and therefore everything is "natural" (i.e., "natural" meaning "what is");

That's generally how I view it. Natural is what is, supernatural is what might be.

Over time, our physicists have unraveled deeper, less "physical" aspects of reality than we knew existed. First we have basic matter, which seems "physical" until one learns that something like 99.9999% of it is empty space. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which, especially electrons, are better described as "probability clouds" that exist in multiple places at once than actual physical "things". Then of course there are the deeper, even less tangible layers such as quarks, neutrinos, possibly strings, possibly multiple dimensions or even multiple universes interwoven together. Then, quantum mechanics proposes concepts where everything really is just a probability wave at its core. The deeper one goes, everything looks less "physical", to the point where one should question what the term "physical" means to them.

but in another sense, "natural" denotes physicality, which God definitively isn't,

What does the term "physical" mean to you?

so technically the natural isn't everything (and yet God is both nothing and something). Then again, quantum physicists and theologians are finding interesting ground together tying God into the physical equation either through the quantum level (particularly through the indeterminate nature of particles), or (with some thinkers) as an element in quantum reality. It's all sort of messy.

I'd like to hear what you have heard regarding tying God into quantum mechanics, because I have learned a reasonable amount about quantum mechanics (for a non-physicist major at least), and I have not heard of such a concept. The only thing I have heard about that comes close to what you describe is a series of books by authors like Neale Donald Walsch with little to no scientific background attempting to unite concepts of science and religion. If, however, you are referring to scientific work, then I would like to know what it is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

we've reached the limits of logic, and are now discussing our feelings. i feel that invented purpose is not authentic, and it's kidding oneself. purely a matter of opinion.

So, let's say you are hungry. To avoid starvation, you go to a chinese restaurant, order the Buddha's Delight and tea, and have dinner.

We can say that "eating at a chinese restaurant" is an invented purpose, but is one "feeling" that this was a good thing to do about nothing at all? Or is it based on an understanding that food is good for you as a living being?

that being said, there's no experience that can tell you you're mistaken

Okay. But if there is no experience that will tell me that I was mistaken, how would I know that I was mistaken? It seems to me that this would only happen if I happened to agree with you that naturalism logically leads to nihilism, but I don't agree with you on that issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Theists have a good history of getting themselves into trouble attempting to define things like "supernatural" and "transcendent". In one sense, everything can be explicated, and therefore everything is "natural" (i.e., "natural" meaning "what is"); but in another sense, "natural" denotes physicality, which God definitively isn't, so technically the natural isn't everything

What is 'physicality', and why isn't God it?

(and yet God is both nothing and something).

That would appear to be a logical contradiction. God, if he exists, is some thing (regardless of what God actually is, we can say he is something).

Then again, quantum physicists and theologians are finding interesting ground together tying God into the physical equation either through the quantum level (particularly through the indeterminate nature of particles), or (with some thinkers) as an element in quantum reality. It's all sort of messy.

In what way does quantum mechanics relate to God? I'm a theoretical physicist, so any papers or sources would be most appreciated. And I agree with R3quiem: don't confuse the pseudo-scientific 'quantum mysticism' with legitimate quantum theory.

 

[Taure]

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). Morality nor meaning (purpose) cannot be found in nature.

However, like Nietzsche, I don't think this is the end of the story. Rather, it is the beginning.

Nihilism is only a problem for those who think that the only thing worth anything is that which is objective. It is a gap created by the loss of an objective thing (God), a loss which we feel deeply, but it is a feeling which is a mistake.

For if we truly disbelieve in God (and here God = not just the being but all the metaphysical baggage that comes with religion and God), then we also reject the desire for objective value.

Nihilism, thus, is a half way point. It is the result of disbelief in God which has not been truly realised. A nihilist is someone who disbelieves in God but is still tied down in their thinking by the old ways.

For the person who truly disbelieves in god, there is no nihilism. Nihilism is a question without an answer, and the key to overcoming it is to reject the question altogether.

As Wittgenstein said, the solution to the problem lies in the vanishing of the problem.

We are then left with the possibility of subjective value. We can create value for ourselves, and this is indeed what we have always done, only afterwards we attributed it to something imaginary exterior to ourselves.

If closely examined, we find that all people find the source of morality from within themselves, not from any external source. Christians may claim to receive their morality from God, but when they read the Bible they are reading it with a judging eye. Thus many Christians reject parts of the Bible as immoral. For example, the bit where a bear kills loads of children.

This is commonly called moral relativism. I have my morals, derived from myself (genes + experiences) and social norms. Societies too, have prevailing moralities, though this is more complex as society is composed of individuals who all may disagree. However, a society generally has a series of morals they consider correct (murder as wrong, etc.).

Many people criticise moral relativism on grounds such as this: that I cannot decry other people's morals contrary to my own. This seems to miss the point. If I am a moral relativist, I am not a nihilist. I do not say that there is no morality, for this is clearly ridiculous (the moment someone makes a moral claim, morality exists). Rather, all I say is that morality has a basis other than an objective one. So I still have a moral code, and I still consider this code binding and universal. For if I didn't possess this view of said morality, it wouldn't be my morality, would it? Nor would it be morality.

Moral relativism, then, is not a form of nihilism where I view all moral codes as equal. The mere fact that I have X morality over Y shows that I view X to be more worthy than Y. Rather, relativism is merely the recognition that all moral codes have equal objective basis (which is to say, none), combined with a recognition that things can have meaningful non-objective groundings.

These groundings may be anything from rational justification, to societal norms, to indoctrinated beliefs, to emotions, to empathy, to selfishness, to pragmatics. Generally a combination of all.

 

[Suggestion Box]

arg you post @ same time as me. i think that's a good point^ but clearly theres much to be processed. existentialism anyone?

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. if you ask me, happiness requires purpose and both naturalism and nihilism forbid it.

 

[R3quiem]

arg you post @ same time as me. i think that's a good point^ but clearly theres much to be processed. existentialism anyone?

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. if you ask me, happiness requires purpose and both naturalism and nihilism forbid it.

But let's not confuse what causes ourselves to be happy and what causes people in general to be happy.

Because you require some overarching purpose for happiness does not mean everyone does, as many naturalists/nihilists are apparently quite happy people.

Secondly, I would argue the opposite, that as far as I can tell, nothing "supernatural" supplies any extra purpose, or at least none that anyone is able to articulate or explain.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

if you ask me, happiness requires purpose and both naturalism and nihilism forbid it.

Why does happiness require a purpose?

 

[Taure]

I 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.

 

[Suggestion Box]

i guess it's all a matter of preference really.