Nihilism

[grasping the after wind]

Well, I am giving you the evidence. You are free to evaluate it as you see fit.




Well, it wasn´t mine, but now I know what statement you are having in mind.
Since it doesn´t even try to be descriptive of facts I fail to see what sort of facts you are expecting.

As for the statement itself:
What do you think - if we´d made a survey asking the questions:
1. Would you like the world to be a better place? and
2. Are you willing to help make the world a better place?
What do you think the results would be, roughly?

Don't know and frankly don't care what people would answer on a survey. what would constitute making the world a better place in your mind? If we were to , rather than survey where many people answer disingenuously, actually know what people thought abot that we might find it more interesting.

This just to clarify why I think there needn´t be any authority to tell us to make the world a better place - it´s what the vast majority of us wants.

Is it? does the vast majority al;o agree on what would make the world a better place? The vast majority of pewople can be persuaded to agree with all kinds of vague nebulous statements especially when they have heard them repeated consistently over the course of their licves but when we get into the details things become a bit more complicated and people do not agree so readily.

As for persons who answer these questions "no", I suspect that not even a God saying that we should do it will change their attitude.

On this I can agree. Usually though they do not simply reject the advice of their authotrity figure but rationalize that their authority figure, despite seemingly contradictory evidence, really does agree with them.

Then I suggest you go back and re-read.

Stoill don't see it.

That´s great. So we can let go the entire "selfish vs. selfless" thing, and start looking where it is irrelevant for any given purpose (i.e. all cases where our interests are not in conflict).

If that is what you would like to do I won't object. It doesn't change the fact that people are by and large primarily concerned with their own welfare first and the welfare of others less so.

Yes, obviously.

Well, in my understanding two persons are mutually dependent on each other even though they might depend on each other in different ways.

How does that effect their morality? That is simply a symbiotic relationship where one party may or may not profit in a greater or lesser extent than the other. Also, there doi seem to be many relationships where one party benefits while the other party does not benefit or actually is harmed.

Yes, toddlers have a very limited and simple chart of needs.
But we are adults, and with growing age our needs get more complex.
(For example, you posit a need for morality - something a toddler feels no need for).

Did I posit a need for morality? I don't recall doing so. If I did I was obviously mistaken or inadvertently misrepresenting my own view on this. Morality would come under the heading of wants, not needs. We do not actually need anything but food, shelter and water. Everything else is a want. There is nothing wrong with having wants but to merely survive one does not need them.

An action that causes everyone´s needs to be met doesn´t even require us to think in categories such as "selfless/selfish".

There is no such single action.

I don´t see that, either. I guess that´s why it wasn´t what I said.




Admittedly, I am completely lost here. I have no idea what this has to do with anything. If it contains an important point relevant to our discussion, please elaborate.

Needs differ from non needs. Seems a simple enough point.

No, I can´t. That´s why I didn´t say it wasn´t. All I said was: It isn´t the "either - or" that you paraphrased it as:
It´s "either sociopath or empathy gifted", and you turned it into "either sociopath or saint".

So keep yuour own wording it still isn't an either or situation.






Well, the statement in question wasn´t a statement of fact, in the first place.

Are you just taking cheap shots at me now, or are you projecting your desires upon me?




I don´t know - I neither said nor meant to say that this is what I wish.
If it satisfies a need of theirs it´s entirely fine with me. I addressed the very opposite: that part that they experience and picture as not being in their own interest (but a sacrifice brought to me; and/or being in the interest of a higher authority).

Well, it is my experience that things done in this attitude don´t benefit me in a tangible way. That´s the very point. People who are willing to consider not only their but also my interests and needs (which, fortunately, is pretty much everyone I interact with in real life) might be interested in learning about my needs and interests, in the first place. That´s the reason I often tell them, and that´s probably the reason they usually don´t take offense from being provided with that bit of information.

No, the very opposite is the case, and that´s what I said.
I said nothing anywhere even close to what you are ascribing to me:
1. I didn´t say that others fulfilling their needs is a problem for me (in fact I said the very opposite: It is a problem for me when they do something "for me" that they feel is contrary to their interests),
2. I made no statement whatsoever about how I´d practically go about dealing with this problem; in particular I didn´t say anything about me rubbing it in as a token of their inferiority, and I didn´t say anything about making attempts to "deprave" them of anything,
3. nobody but you mentioned the idea of "superiority/inferiority" of persons, anyway.
These were entirely your ideas, and I am wondering why you are so determined to picture them as mine. Unfortunately, right from the top of my head, I can´t manage to come up with particularly charitable assumptions concerning your motives for doing that.

If I offended you I apologize.

 

[quatona]

Don't know and frankly don't care what people would answer on a survey. what would constitute making the world a better place in your mind?

This is irrelevant at this point. You questioned that most people were interested and willing to make the world a better place (i.e. their benevolence).

Is it? does the vast majority al;o agree on what would make the world a better place?

I think there will be certain things that pretty much everyone will agree upon, and others in which there will be quite some disagreement.
But that´s irrelevant for their benevolence (their wish and willingness for a better world - whatever it is they have in mind when saying it).

The vast majority of pewople can be persuaded to agree with all kinds of vague nebulous statements especially when they have heard them repeated consistently over the course of their licves but when we get into the details things become a bit more complicated and people do not agree so readily.

Indeed. And when its about getting into the details we are pretty much as clueless if we try to get advice from allegedly authoritative divinely inspired ancient writings. They are just as vague and nebulous.

On this I can agree. Usually though they do not simply reject the advice of their authotrity figure but rationalize that their authority figure, despite seemingly contradictory evidence, really does agree with them.

Good. So now please tell me again how the existence of such an authority helps (would help) making the world a better place.

If that is what you would like to do I won't object. It doesn't change the fact that people are by and large primarily concerned with their own welfare first and the welfare of others less so.

You are stating something as a fact here. You articulated high standards that have to be applied to statements of facts. Are you willing to meet those standards?

How does that effect their morality?

I didn´t say it effected their morality.
You would have to make up your mind:
Is morality and end in itself, or (as your previous arguments suggested to me) a means to make the world a better place?

That is simply a symbiotic relationship where one party may or may not profit in a greater or lesser extent than the other. Also, there doi seem to be many relationships where one party benefits while the other party does not benefit or actually is harmed.

If you think of relationships as a zero sum game, you have a priori excluded win-win and loss-loss situations.
I don´t think of relationships as zero sum games, and I strive for relationships that are win-win.
We aren´t talking about financial transactions or something. We are talking about relationships. In my understanding a relationship that is harmful to one person can impossibly be beneficial for the other.

Did I posit a need for morality? I don't recall doing so. If I did I was obviously mistaken or inadvertently misrepresenting my own view on this. Morality would come under the heading of wants, not needs. We do not actually need anything but food, shelter and water. Everything else is a want. There is nothing wrong with having wants but to merely survive one does not need them.

Well, I wasn´t aware that you defined "need" such narrowly (i.e. that which we need to survive somehow).
[Btw. you forgot sleep, and shelter would be debatable. Depending on the situation, people often need a lot of other things for their mere survival.]
That´s not what I meant when saying need. Maslov´s hierarchy of needs may give you an idea what I had in mind.
(Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, no, in your definition of "need" you haven´t posited a need for morality.

There is no such single action.

Yes, there is.

Needs differ from non needs. Seems a simple enough point.

Yes, now that you have put it as simply as it is.

So keep yuour own wording it still isn't an either or situation.

Yes, it is. You are either empathy gifted or a sociopath.

If I offended you I apologize.

No probolem, you haven´t offended me. I´m not easily offended.
It´s just that I won´t defend positions or sentiments that you have made up for me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is irrelevant at this point. You questioned that most people were interested and willing to make the world a better place (i.e. their benevolence).

I didn't just question it I asserted that it was not the case. Most people will give the idea lip service but as far as I can tell when you delve into the details of what they believe will make the world a better place it involves making it a place which more closely resembles what they personally would prefer it to be and does not involve them doing anything that would in any way inconvenience them.

I think there will be certain things that pretty much everyone will agree upon, and others in which there will be quite some disagreement.
But that´s irrelevant for their benevolence (their wish and willingness for a better world - whatever it is they have in mind when saying it).

Hitler claimed he wanted the world to be a better place and thought it would be if only he could be rid of those nasty Jews. So yes, what constitutes one's thoughts on what would make the world a better place does indeed have much relevance to the amount of benevolence one possesses. Thinking or claiming that one would like the world to be a better place is actually what is irrelevant to how benevolent one is.

Indeed. And when its about getting into the details we are pretty much as clueless if we try to get advice from allegedly authoritative divinely inspired ancient writings. They are just as vague and nebulous.

Thou shall not murder sounds vague and nebulous to you? Now , if you do not accept the authority of any writing I would not expect you to be bound to use it as a moral basis but vague and nebulous is not the usual complaint I hear about those writings.

Good. So now please tell me again how the existence of such an authority helps (would help) making the world a better place.

As soon as you tell me what you think would make the world a better place I will endeavor to assist you in becoming familiar with how an authority can help achieve it.

You are stating something as a fact here. You articulated high standards that have to be applied to statements of facts. Are you willing to meet those standards?

Originally Posted by grasping the after wind

The standard I am asking for isn't all that high just some evidence not an entire proof
​

You consider that a high standard? Surely, that is exactly why I used the word. We could deal with it point by point but as the standard was merely some evidence let's just start with some evidence. The general laws of self defense, in my mind, would completely fulfill the requirements I set but I am willing to expound further on this in another post if you insist. . Why do you suppose the law allows for self defense if people are basically benevolent? Would it not follow if humans were not primarily interested in their own welfare first and others second that 1)they would have no need to defend themselves against another benevolent being as being benevolent that being would not harm them. 2) They would not want to harm another being rather than allow themselves to be harmed?

I didn´t say it effected their morality.
You would have to make up your mind:
Is morality and end in itself, or (as your previous arguments suggested to me) a means to make the world a better place?

Neither. Morality is an attempt to get humans to self police their behavior. Law is morality codified and policed by society.

If you think of relationships as a zero sum game, you have a priori excluded win-win and loss-loss situations.
I don´t think of relationships as zero sum games, and I strive for relationships that are win-win.
We aren´t talking about financial transactions or something. We are talking about relationships. In my understanding a relationship that is harmful to one person can impossibly be beneficial for the other.

You may be defining relationship in a less universal and more personal way than I am. I have a relationship with the health insurance company. If in that relationship I die of a massive heart attack at 59 without ever having taken advantage of the services they agreed to pay for but having been forced by law to pay them for 33 years they have benefited from the relationship and I have not.

Well, I wasn´t aware that you defined "need" such narrowly (i.e. that which we need to survive somehow).
[Btw. you forgot sleep, and shelter would be debatable. Depending on the situation, people often need a lot of other things for their mere survival.]
That´s not what I meant when saying need. Maslov´s hierarchy of needs may give you an idea what I had in mind.
(Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't accept Maslow as an authority he is simply another guy with an opinion. . If you wish to add sleep i won't object but I would object to leaving shelter off.

So, no, in your definition of "need" you haven´t posited a need for morality.

Glad to hear it. I hate when I contradict myself.

Yes, there is.

Name one.

Yes, now that you have put it as simply as it is.

Most things are simple just not easy.

Yes, it is. You are either empathy gifted or a sociopath.

I'm not either. I am definitely not a sociopath and only slightly empathetic but certainly not gifted in that direction. In addition I have had personal experience with a number of sociopaths and I can testify that in many ways, though differently from the norm, they are a very empathetic.

No probolem, you haven´t offended me. I´m not easily offended.
It´s just that I won´t defend positions or sentiments that you have made up for me.

That is good. IMO, It is good not to be easily offended. There are so many occasions one could be easily offended that one would not have time to concentrate on being anything else.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, grasping.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

 

[David Gould]

If the meaning of life has been determined by god, isn't that by definition subjective?

If the meaning of life is some kind of logically necessary thing built into the universe then it would be independent of whether or not a deity existed.

Thus, the question of god's existence is entirely separate from that of meaning.

Not that I understand what people say when they talk about a meaning of life, but hey ...

 

[quatona]

If the meaning of life has been determined by god, isn't that by definition subjective?

If the meaning of life is some kind of logically necessary thing built into the universe then it would be independent of whether or not a deity existed.

Thus, the question of god's existence is entirely separate from that of meaning.

Not that I understand what people say when they talk about a meaning of life, but hey ...

I suspect that the key to understanding the linking of god and ("objective") meaning lies in authoritarian thinking.

 

[Gadarene]

To say that there is no meaning at all under atheism relies on an unquestioned theistic (IMO) premise, that only by means of a deity existing can one find meaning.

And as some posters have correctly pointed out above me, just because a god's meaning/morals/definitions are asserted to be objective doesn't mean they actually are.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If the meaning of life has been determined by god, isn't that by definition subjective?

Yes. As anysuch placing of value upon something is subjective. Morality, gold, , worth of labor to production, value of goods produced etc. all subjectively arrived at values.

If the meaning of life is some kind of logically necessary thing built into the universe then it would be independent of whether or not a deity existed.

If something is built into something there must have been a builder. To assume that the meaning of life is either logical or necessary and that it is built in, pretty much leads to the conclusion that some entity or force built it inand such an entity or force would fit the definition of a god. Of course there is no need to assume any of those things so there is no need to conclude that an entity or force did anything of the sort. .

Thus, the question of god's existence is entirely separate from that of meaning.

As longf as one decides what meaning one is talking about yes.

Not that I understand what people say when they talk about a meaning of life, but hey ...

Many people have different thoughts and contradictory ones about what the meaning of life refers to. Hard for one to understand the myriad subjective ideas about it as if they were an objective standard.

 

[grasping the after wind]

To say that there is no meaning at all under atheism relies on an unquestioned theistic (IMO) premise, that only by means of a deity existing can one find meaning.

That is the subjective stance many take. I include myself in that. I do not , however, expect others to conform to my subjective standard. If one does tend , as I do , to believe in a Creator then it is reasonable IMO to assume that that Creator has a better handle on these value questions then the rest of us as He is the one that came up with it all in the first place. Again, I do not expect those that do not believe in a Creator to share my beliefs that depend upon belief in a Creator. I would appreciate it if those that do not share my belief in a Creator would allow that I am not required to share their belief in things that depend upon there be not being a Creator.

And as some posters have correctly pointed out above me, just because a god's meaning/morals/definitions are asserted to be objective doesn't mean they actually are.

I assert they are subjective. As all such things must necessarily be the subjective POV of whoever it is contemplating their worth, meaning, value etc. and positing that their POV has validity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is the subjective stance many take. I include myself in that. I do not , however, expect others to conform to my subjective standard.

That's refreshingly good to hear. Many theists, particularly apologists, insist that they possess some sort of privileged knowledge and they find epistemic fault in others for not sharing in that purported knowledge.

If one does tend , as I do , to believe in a Creator then it is reasonable IMO to assume that that Creator has a better handle on these value questions then the rest of us as He is the one that came up with it all in the first place.

That does sound reasonable, but the question remains as to whether the Creator does indeed have a better handle on these issues than the average human who has to deal with them on a daily basis. Consider the example of a King who is aloof and out-of-touch with his subjects. His values come from a particular perspective, a Kingly perspective, but given that his aloof and unfamiliar with the concerns of his subjects, is it reasonable to assume that his Kingly values are at all useful to his subjects? God is similar. He is withdrawn from human affairs and as such the values he has may not even be intelligible to us, much less practical.

 

[David Gould]

If something is logically necessary then it exists regardless of whether or not there is a creator. That is what 'logically necessary' means.

 

[Habbit Animal]

Theres a quickie video on youtube "Nihilism and the Death of God" that you might find interesting.

A lot of Nihilists will invoke Nietzsche as their base. But Nietzsche eventually went mad so what's that tell you?

As you can see I'm not affiliated with any religious/secular group and I would just like some feedback on what I think. I'm directing this towards the atheism crowd though anyone can comment. Let's try and keep this respectful please.

My belief is that if one is to take an atheistic worldview I believe that the only inherently true belief system they could take is a sort of nihilism. The human perspective is only a product of evolution and random events thus creating no actual purpose to life. All perspectives of rights and morality are based on human conditioning and emotion which have no value externally from the perception of the human. One might say that we can create our purpose and live a fulfilling life though in the end it was all inherently meaningless because of this illusion of perception. If there is no God or being(s) watching over us, all crimes or good deeds will remain neutral. In the end there will be no reparations for all those who suffered or justice served for those who chose to induce suffering.

There is no direction to go, right or wrong, or person to be. You are here not by choice but you must go through it like everyone else.

I do not believe in this view it's just that I feel if I were ever to be an atheist that I would feel I would have to take on this view. I'm not trying to force this upon anyone and assert that I am totally right here but rather just putting my view on this subject out there to see what others think.

 

[quatona]

A lot of Nihilists will invoke Nietzsche as their base.

...and a lot won´t.

But Nietzsche eventually went mad so what's that tell you?

No idea. What do you feel it should tell me?

 

[Received]

Nietzsche isn't a nihilist.

 

[Cearbhall]

A lot of Nihilists will invoke Nietzsche as their base. But Nietzsche eventually went mad so what's that tell you?

...are you suggesting that there aren't any Christians in mental health facilities?

 

[Habbit Animal]

...are you suggesting that there aren't any Christians in mental health facilities?

This thread is about Nihilism.

Nietzsche isn't a nihilist.

You're right. He's dead.

 

[Gadarene]

This thread is about Nihilism.

And your point on nihilism was aptly demonstrated to be nonsense by Cearbhall.

 

[Habbit Animal]

And your point on nihilism was aptly demonstrated to be nonsense by Cearbhall.

 

[Cearbhall]

This thread is about Nihilism.

Oh, so we can't mention Christianity? If I had known that trick eight months ago...

And your point on nihilism was aptly demonstrated to be nonsense by Cearbhall.

*shamelessly reps*

 

[Habbit Animal]

Nah, not worth it.