Nihilism

[Redac]

I agree there is no objective purpose. I'd also agree that morality has no objective value, but I would say there is more to it than conditioning and emotion. I would say that morality is action based on true perspective.

So I don't label myself a nihilist because I take stronger positions on morality.

What exactly is "true perspective"?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree there is no objective purpose. I'd also agree that morality has no objective value, but I would say there is more to it than conditioning and emotion. I would say that morality is action based on true perspective.

So I don't label myself a nihilist because I take stronger positions on morality.

I agree that atheism does not have to lead to nihilism, but there is no reason to suggest that it ought not to lead one there as easily as it may lead one elsewhere. I also, suggest that you amend your statement about morality to "action based on perceived truth" as it is not possible to verify that your perspective is objectively true and if it is true according to your perspective? Well that is perceived truth isn't it?

 

[Paradoxum]

What exactly is "true perspective"?

My will isn't more important than the will of others. If I act in accordance with that truth then I should consider others.

I agree that atheism does not have to lead to nihilism, but there is no reason to suggest that it ought not to lead one there as easily as it may lead one elsewhere. I also, suggest that you amend your statement about morality to "action based on perceived truth" as it is not possible to verify that your perspective is objectively true and if it is true according to your perspective? Well that is perceived truth isn't it?

I think one must choose to be decent to others... if someone doesn't choose to be decent then that is sad.

I'd say the same is true of theism too though. There is nothing about theism that leads to morality rather than nihilism... theism just hides nihilism better. A God wouldn't mean there are objective morals.

I don't see a need to amend my statement. My will is objectively no more important than the will of others, so to act on this truth means considering others. If you accept there is no objective purpose, I'd think you would accept this too.

Every truth is perceived truth, but we don't put that phrase in front of every claim. The true morality will be based on truth, so it makes sense to say that morality is based on truth, even though our fallible understanding could be called perceived truth.

 

[Freodin]

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.

"Value" and "meaning" are dependent on the existence of conscious beings. They are things we do.
They "exist" as long as we are doing the "evaluating" and "finding meaning" - and they stop to exist when we stop.

So, yes, there is no ultimate meaning, and "in the end", there will be no meaning at all. But here and right now, there is.

But regardless of whether you agree with Eudaimonist's extra-temporal, eternal perspective or a temporal and changing one... he is absolutely right on that one point: "It has value when it matters."

 

[juvenissun]

I don't lose everything. After I am dead, I might no longer exist in the present, but for the rest of eternity my past will always have happened. I will always have lived my life. My life will always have had value.

In the present moment, my life has value. It doesn't matter to me that one day I will be dead. I will not be a ghost crying "Boo hoo! My non-existence is meaningless!"

Sure, my life is finite. So what? It has value when it matters.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Everything has value when it matters.
Everything has no value when it does not matters.
Everything has value for a period of time.
Everything has no long term value.
Something has value when it causes happiness.
Something has value when it causes short moment of happiness.
That something could be anything depends on the type of happiness.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why would I do that? What if I prefer to make it a worse place for anybody but me? Can you give me a convincing reason why I shouldn't put my own selfish interests ahead of everything else?

Because if everyone acted that way then it would indeed be a worse place, even for you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything has value when it matters.
Everything has no value when it does not matters.
Everything has value for a period of time.
Everything has no long term value.
Something has value when it causes happiness.
Something has value when it causes short moment of happiness.
That something could be anything depends on the type of happiness.

I'll agree that some times of one's life are going to happier and more meaningful to oneself than others. That doesn't mean that unhappiness is something that one is justified in pursuing, but it does mean that unhappy moments don't eliminate the value of happy moments, which is a good thing since otherwise only a perfectly happy life would be meaningful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

"Value" and "meaning" are dependent on the existence of conscious beings. They are things we do.

Exactly, and those conscious being needn´t be Gods.

 

[juvenissun]

"Value" and "meaning" are dependent on the existence of conscious beings. They are things we do.
They "exist" as long as we are doing the "evaluating" and "finding meaning" - and they stop to exist when we stop.

So, yes, there is no ultimate meaning, and "in the end", there will be no meaning at all. But here and right now, there is.

But regardless of whether you agree with Eudaimonist's extra-temporal, eternal perspective or a temporal and changing one... he is absolutely right on that one point: "It has value when it matters."

You think your life has value and meaning. That is fine.
There are many many others. Everyone's life has value and meaning. That is fine.
All the values and meanings shape the cultures of societies.
Culture and society changes. Old values may not be values any more at later time.
So many people's value gradually become valueless.
Many people died in history and their values, basically, vanished. Some are worse. They become wrong or negative values.

Do you like this situation?
I certainly don't.

 

[abacabb3]

Nihilism objectively teaches that nothing in life can have objectively be meaningful.

Therefore, from a nihilist perspective, nihilism in of itself cannot be objectively true.

Therefore, nihilism is not a correct worldview.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Even from a religious perspective, believing that your life has an ultimate meaning doesn't mean that your particular actions have any meaning. If your Earthly life is just a sort of trial before God decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell, and if the Universe is going to be destroyed in "fervent heat", then very few of the things that you do in your day to day existence matter unless you're a member of a religious order.

I honestly feel less nihilistic than I did when I was religious. Sure, some day I'm going to die, but hopefully that's not going to be any time soon. Until then, I can see the beauty in the world, and I don't have to believe that it's all just here as a place for humanity to undergo trials until God destroys it and we get to see the real deal.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You think your life has value and meaning. That is fine.
There are many many others. Everyone's life has value and meaning. That is fine.
All the values and meanings shape the cultures of societies.
Culture and society changes. Old values may not be values any more at later time.
So many people's value gradually become valueless.
Many people died in history and their values, basically, vanished. Some are worse. They become wrong or negative values.

Do you like this situation?
I certainly don't.

I don't like that I'm not a billionaire. *shrug*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nihilism objectively teaches that nothing in life can have objectively be meaningful.

Therefore, from a nihilist perspective, nihilism in of itself cannot be objectively true.

Therefore, nihilism is not a correct worldview.

You are confusing objective meaning (that is, purpose) with truth. Those are two different issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abacabb3]

You are confusing objective meaning (that is, purpose) with truth. Those are two different issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

How are they different?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because if everyone acted that way then it would indeed be a worse place, even for you.

Now that is merely a vague assumption not a convincing reason. I am finding a lot of those in this thread. There is no way for you to know whether I would find such a situation worse or exactly the same as the world I live in. I asked for a convincing reason why I ought to attempt to make the world a better place. If I was so disposed as to be primarily interested in my own well being as the focus of my attention, wouldn't I be justified in saying that the condition of the world, especially after I leave it, is not really a concern of mine?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How are they different?

Objective meaning refers to some purpose that matters to one's existence.

Objective truth refers to an accurate description of reality.

A truth does not necessarily have anything to do with purpose in life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I asked for a convincing reason why I ought to attempt to make the world a better place.

I guess that for someone who doesn´t *want* the world to be a better place (a position you seem to be taking here) there is no convincing reason why to attempt to make it a better place.

If I was so disposed as to be primarily interested in my own well being as the focus of my attention, wouldn't I be justified in saying that the condition of the world, especially after I leave it, is not really a concern of mine?

I think that seriously asking such questions requires a person to deny empathy being a part of the human condition. Imo, basing our worldviews, approaches and considerations on the idea that all humans are sociopaths (while actually they amount roughly to but 1-2% of the population) doesn´t make much sense.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My will isn't more important than the will of others. If I act in accordance with that truth then I should consider others.

What if what you perceive to be true is not true? You seem to be telling us that you are certain your perceptions are correct which would in turn make anyone with different perceptions to be either mistaken or intentionally wrong. So you do seem to be asserting that your perception, if not your will, is more important the the perception of others.

I think one must choose to be decent to others... if someone doesn't choose to be decent then that is sad.

Though I agree with the sentiment that choosing to be indecent is sad, I do not think it is often a conscious choice nor do I think one is constrained to make the opposite one.

I'd say the same is true of theism too though. There is nothing about theism that leads to morality rather than nihilism... theism just hides nihilism better. A God wouldn't mean there are objective morals.

God doesn't mean there are objective morals because no such morals exist. God's existence only means that there is a superior being whose subjective morality , due to its source, is as superior to my own subjective morality as that superior being is to me. I would submit that sincere theism is antithetical to nihilism. It is contradictory to acknowledge a Supreme authority and find there is no basis for any authority. But again there is no inherent nihilism in not recognizing a Supreme Being if one recognizes some other agency as an authority, , which I believe the vast majority atheist do, even if that authority is their own perception of truth.

I don't see a need to amend my statement. My will is objectively no more important than the will of others, so to act on this truth means considering others. If you accept there is no objective purpose, I'd think you would accept this too.

Your will was not what I was considering when I advised you to amend. It was insistence on the truth of a particular perspective.

Every truth is perceived truth, but we don't put that phrase in front of every claim. The true morality will be based on truth, so it makes sense to say that morality is based on truth, even though our fallible understanding could be called perceived truth.

I do not think it is a given that when one says

I would say that morality is action based on true perspective.

One fails to assume that person asserting this believes their own perspective is the true one.

If morality is action based on true perspective, what is action based on false perspective? Additionally, how does one know which is which and if one is not able to tell conclusively which is which should one ever act at all?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now that is merely a vague assumption not a convincing reason. I am finding a lot of those in this thread. There is no way for you to know whether I would find such a situation worse or exactly the same as the world I live in. I asked for a convincing reason why I ought to attempt to make the world a better place. If I was so disposed as to be primarily interested in my own well being as the focus of my attention, wouldn't I be justified in saying that the condition of the world, especially after I leave it, is not really a concern of mine?

Are you so disposed as to be primarily interested in your own wellbeing? And if your own wellbeing is your primary interest then I would argue that my previous point applies even more so, since you are less likely to be able to secure your own wellbeing if you deliberately and maliciously seek to undermine the wellbeing of others.

 

[Paradoxum]

What if what you perceive to be true is not true? You seem to be telling us that you are certain your perceptions are correct which would in turn make anyone with different perceptions to be either mistaken or intentionally wrong. So you do seem to be asserting that your perception, if not your will, is more important the the perception of others.

Well I'm not saying that. Obviously I can be wrong.

Though I agree with the sentiment that choosing to be indecent is sad, I do not think it is often a conscious choice nor do I think one is constrained to make the opposite one.

Sure.

God doesn't mean there are objective morals because no such morals exist. God's existence only means that there is a superior being whose subjective morality , due to its source, is as superior to my own subjective morality as that superior being is to me. I would submit that sincere theism is antithetical to nihilism. It is contradictory to acknowledge a Supreme authority and find there is no basis for any authority. But again there is no inherent nihilism in not recognizing a Supreme Being if one recognizes some other agency as an authority, , which I believe the vast majority atheist do, even if that authority is their own perception of truth.

I wouldn't say God's existence means there is a superior being. You can believe God exists, but think he is your equal. He may be powerful and clever, but why would that matter?

Also, if there is no objective right or wrong, then God's moral opinion is just as based on nothing as yours. It can't be a better morality if it has no different a basis. Omniscience and omnipotence don't make a personal opinion any more than a personal opinion, and all personal opinions are the same.

Your will was not what I was considering when I advised you to amend. It was insistence on the truth of a particular perspective.

I know that I could be wrong, but of course I think I am right. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are correct while admitting fallibility.

One fails to assume that person asserting this believes their own perspective is the true one.

That should be obvious.

If morality is action based on true perspective, what is action based on false perspective? Additionally, how does one know which is which and if one is not able to tell conclusively which is which should one ever act at all?

I suppose action based on false perspective would be amoral or immoral.

To 'know' which is which we have to use our brain, and do the best with what we can figure out.