Nihilism for dummies

[The Nihilist]

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.

That's a pretty specific understanding of nihilism. I suppose you can use it that way, but it's hardly comprehensive

 

[Nooj]

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).

I still don't get it. Why would the existence of God impart objective value on anything? Are there no atheist objectivists?

 

[quatona]

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.

For starters, it would be a good idea for everyone to be consistent in the definitions they use.
Like in this sentence:

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

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).
Which renders it a fallacious argument.

 

[Taure]

I still don't get it. Why would the existence of God impart objective value on anything? Are there no atheist objectivists?

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.

That's a pretty specific understanding of nihilism. I suppose you can use it that way, but it's hardly comprehensive

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.

Linguistically, nihilism can mean all sorts of things based on how it has been used over the ages. Languages evolve, after all. Philosophically, it's the rejection of objective value as false. It's kind of the same as the word "logical". Many people use it synonymously with "common sense", but technically logic is merely the law of non-contradiction extrapolated into a formal set of rules/language.

 

[Nooj]

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.

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.

 

[quatona]

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.
If god preferred Heavy Metal over Soft Pop this still wouldn´t make Heavy Metal objectively better.

 

[Taure]

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.

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.

It would still be god´s subjective opinion.

Firstly, this is why I mentioned the Euthyphro dilemma.

Secondly, that which is subjective for God may still be objective for humanity. Objectivity means that which you are talking about is independent from the observer.

So an objective viewpoint is that the Earth exists completely independent of us (realism). A subjective viewpoint is one that would say that the Earth is part of our perceptions and there is no such thing (solipsism or in a weaker form idealism).

Objectivity and necessity are different things. The Earth's existence is an objective truth, but is contingent: it is entirely possible to conceive of a chain of events which would have led to there being no Earth.

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. It is not necessary, in that God could have laid down another morality (unless you argue that God's nature only allows for the one morality), but it is still objective.

 

[quatona]

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.

Same would go for theists, and "God thinks so" (even if it could be proven) would certainly not be sufficient.

The idea of objective preferences is a contradiction in terms, with and without there being a god.

 

[Nooj]

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.

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?

 

[quatona]

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.

My opinion exists independently of yours. According to your line of reasoning that would render my opinion objective for you. That´s absurd.

 

[Taure]

Haha I don't even know why I'm arguing this, in that I don't believe in God.

Same would go for theists, and "God thinks so" (even if it could be proven) would certainly not be sufficient.

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.

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?

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.

My opinion exists independently of yours. According to your line of reasoning that would render my opinion objective for you. That´s absurd.

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.

The only reason why it feels absurd to you is that your opinion is subjective for you.


Edit: The problem with this argument is that its suffering the typical problem of atheists trying to argue everything at once. 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. 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. Otherwise the task becomes pointless. All your arguments are stemming from a disbelief if God. That's cheating

 

[quatona]

I'd like to think atheists more dedicated to the pursuit of truth.

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.

You opinion is objective for me.

Cool. In which case yours is objective to me, and we have successfully defined subjectivity out of existence.

The only reason why it feels absurd to you is that your opinion is subjective for you.

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.


Opinions and preferences can´t be objective, because, well, they are by definition what a subject holds. Be it a human, a god or the tooth fairy. By definition they can´t exist independently of a subject.

 

[quatona]

Edit: The problem with this argument is that its suffering the typical problem of atheists trying to argue everything at once.

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.
Unlike e.g. physical laws which don´t require the to be a subject that has authored them. That things fall down is accurate independently whether a god has made it so or for whatever reason. That´s what "objective" means.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Otherwise the task becomes pointless. All your arguments are stemming from a disbelief if God. That's cheating

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.
I can easily fathom a god without denying this supposedly sentient, thinking and feeling subject his/her/its subjectivity.For the sake of the argument I am even willing to give allowance for god´s opinion/preference/verdict to be most significant, important, superiour to mine and/or everybody else´s, whathaveyou - but that doesn´t render it "objective".

 

[tanzanos]

I think I'm a nihilist: life has no ultimate purpose, etc, etc.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only purpose of life is "Survival of the species".

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 the survival of (some) species is simply a result of natural selection, not an aim. Evolution does not have a goal in mind. Evolution isn't teleological.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[tanzanos]

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?
If you don't recant I shall let the dogs out on your cat

Have a nice day!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can you explain then why most life-forms have defensive tactics and or physical ability if not for Survival?

That is a result of natural selection. It was nothing that was aimed at by natural selection.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Since some species did not survive it would be reasonable - once we are determined to ascribe purposes to species, and once we decide to determine their purpose by observation - to posit that their purpose was to go extinct rather than to survive.

 

[quatona]

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".

 

[tanzanos]

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".

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!