Why should we do anything?

[Received]

Nihilism is pretty loosely defined. Some say it means the realization of no absolute values (what the heck is an absolute value?). In that case, nihilism can be good and well. But practically, nihilists are the guys who use this as a justification for doing nothing. Perhaps they conflate a lack of absolute values with a lack of personal meaning. Nihilism in this sense would be a sort of theological shock -- a transitional sickness after one realizes that God has died, and that it's up to the individual to create his own values. Historically, though, the term has its genesis in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, and so far as I know the term was used politically to refer to individuals who would tear down current systems without any idea for a replacement. Hence "nihil", negation -- cf. "annihilation". So maybe the first definition fits.

And I don't doubt the simultaneity of truth and happiness in certain cases, or most cases. I doubt the intellectualized abstraction of truth to reflection, where truth and life are dichotomized, where learning has no relation to life, or is never applied to life. As Kierkegaard (whom you quoted earlier: life is a reality that must be experienced, etc.) said, truth must be lived, not just believed.

 

[JGL53]

Interesting thoughts there.

Nihilism is pretty loosely defined. Some say it means the realization of no absolute values (what the heck is an absolute value?). In that case, nihilism can be good and well...

Many if not most so-called “fundamentalist” Christians are pretty hung up on “absolutes”, e.g., the Ten Commandments, as they are convinced the only other alternative are “suggestions”. Lol. Of course, life is subjective and relative, and comes with no guarantees. One must have “faith” of some sort, i.e., convictions, even if it is in scientific materialism, whatever the heck that is supposed to be these days.

…But practically, nihilists are the guys who use this as a justification for doing nothing. Perhaps they conflate a lack of absolute values with a lack of personal meaning. Nihilism in this sense would be a sort of theological shock -- a transitional sickness after one realizes that God has died, and that it's up to the individual to create his own values...

That would be atheistic existentialism, e.g., J.P. Sartre, who at least can be trusted around the children. Those who label themselves as nihilists are usually depressives or become hedonists to the point of psychopathology – like the Clockwork Orange guys.

…so far as I know the term was used politically to refer to individuals who would tear down current systems without any idea for a replacement. Hence "nihil", negation -- cf. "annihilation". So maybe the first definition fits...

Also goes for self-described atheists re religion – generally accused of being anti-establishment without offering a viable alternative. But many if not most self-labeled atheists have well-thought out positive philosophies, many of which are as wrong-headed as we view cargo cultism or Scientology. Lol. That is why I always say to self-described atheists “OK, we know what you don’t believe, now tell me what you DO believe.”

…And I don't doubt the simultaneity of truth and happiness in certain cases, or most cases. I doubt the intellectualized abstraction of truth to reflection, where truth and life are dichotomized, where learning has no relation to life, or is never applied to life. As Kierkegaard (whom you quoted earlier: life is a reality that must be experienced, etc.) said, truth must be lived, not just believed...

I agree. Any truth I accept now is subject to change if I face sound evidence to the contrary in the future. In fact, a major aspect of my subjective truth is that all of the universe/reality/existence that we ever experience is in constant flux, i.e., nothing sits still or remains the same.
But then I might need to add in exposing such to most western monotheists “It’s a Buddhist thing. You wouldn’t understand.” Lol.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But many if not most self-labeled atheists have well-thought out positive philosophies, many of which are as wrong-headed as we view cargo cultism or Scientology. Lol.

Such as?

Most self-labelled atheists with well-thought out positive philosophies are secular humanists. Are you placing this in the same camp as Scientology???



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paug]

we care what happens to us anyway? Why should we care if we die?

Is it simply just because we don't want to die that we do things that we believe that helps us? Why should we follow the urge of not dieing?

It's the hardwired instinct to survive until our offspring are capable of raising their young. But I know this doesn't answer your question completely, and it's a very very good question. Hot damn, I'm gonna have to think about this.

ANd let's remember, altruism is only altruism if it's seen to decrease the subject's chances of survival. So altruism is not caring if you die, in a sense.

 

[Received]

The survival instinct would be easy enough if we didn't have consciousness. The tear between a somatic urge (living) and a reasonable conclusion (there's no reason to live) -- well, that just about screws up everything.

 

[JGL53]

Such as?
Most self-labeled atheists with well-thought out positive philosophies are secular humanists. Are you placing this in the same camp as Scientology???


eudaimonia,

Mark

No. Most people I am aware of who self-label secular humanist seem fairly normal to me.

I am referring to mindsets such as solipsism, the aforementioned Nihilism, escapist Hedonism, Marxism-Leninism, Ayn Rand's Objectavism, the philosophy of logical positivism, belief in ancient astronauts, and belief in various ZOG/Illuminati type conspiracy theories, just to name a few.

 

[ttreg]

It's the hardwired instinct to survive until our offspring are capable of raising their young. But I know this doesn't answer your question completely, and it's a very very good question. Hot damn, I'm gonna have to think about this.

Yeah, my question would be why we should listen to our basic instincts?

 

[vbinusa]

Why aren't you a Christian?

 

[Received]

Why should we listen to our desires to listen?

 

[_visionary_]

More importantly, is it possible?

 

[The Nihilist]

Yeah, my question would be why we should listen to our basic instincts?

There's not a good reason. Do whatever you want. Play. Have fun.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No. Most people I am aware of who self-label secular humanist seem fairly normal to me.

I am referring to mindsets such as solipsism, the aforementioned Nihilism, escapist Hedonism, Marxism-Leninism, Ayn Rand's Objectavism, the philosophy of logical positivism, belief in ancient astronauts, and belief in various ZOG/Illuminati type conspiracy theories, just to name a few.

A few of those I would agree with, but that's an overly broad list to put in the same camp as Scientology, IMO. Perhaps you simply met some bad examples of the rest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

IMV, life is the reason why we should do anything. It isn't correct to respond with "why we should value life?" because life is the most basic ethical justification one can give. You've already hit the rock bottom of justifications, and it really isn't elephants all the way down (which it can't be anyway).

If you are wondering how it is that life is the final justification, that is because of the sort of beings that we are -- living beings. The facts of our nature give rise to the issues in which we find the need for ethical oughts. This nature is what make them possible and desirable.

Anyway, I have to get to work now. More later, perhaps.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paug]

Yeah, my question would be why we should listen to our basic instincts?

It's not a matter we have a say in. If you choose not to listen to your basic instincts, you'll find yourself in a bad situation sooner than you'd imagine - the instincts are there for a reason.

 

[_visionary_]

There's not a good reason. Do whatever you want. Play. Have fun.

Yes there is a good reason. People change.

EDIT: And as we change, so we regret. Therefore don't do whatever you desire. Do what is wise. Otherwise you are definately a fool.

 

[PaladinofByzantium]

Outside of a religious paradigm, altruism is exceedingly hard to justify. After all, many stingy people lead wonderful lives and many generous people die tormented and sad.

 

[The Nihilist]

Outside of a religious paradigm, altruism is exceedingly hard to justify. After all, many stingy people lead wonderful lives and many generous people die tormented and sad.

While some of the facts you've provided are true, it is not true that altruism is difficult to justify, simply because we have the capacity to empathize with others. Seeing someone else sad makes me sad.

 

[_visionary_]

Outside of a religious paradigm, altruism is exceedingly hard to justify. After all, many stingy people lead wonderful lives and many generous people die tormented and sad.

I wasn't trying to justify altruism, "[SIZE=-1]the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others", but rather the quality of concern for the self.[/SIZE] Think before you do. Not the other way round.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Outside of a religious paradigm, altruism is exceedingly hard to justify. After all, many stingy people lead wonderful lives and many generous people die tormented and sad.

Of course. The secret is that generosity should only be done in wise and judicious moderation, not as an absolute duty. Generosity is not self-destructive until you believe that you owe it to others to be generous, rather than to yourself as part of a wise plan of living with a light and benevolent spirit.

To put it another way, Scrooge probably was living a truncated emotional life as an unwisely stingy person, and discovered personal growth as a (yet unwisely) generous person, but would probably find unhappiness again as he learned just how many people taking advantage of his generosity were just mean-spirited parasites taking advantage of him. Only when he might discover this error and use some intelligent judgment in his generous behavior would he avoid the unwise extremes and find the golden mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's not a matter we have a say in. If you choose not to listen to your basic instincts, you'll find yourself in a bad situation sooner than you'd imagine - the instincts are there for a reason.

Your instincts are there for a reason, but not necessarily for your benefit. You could end up turning yourself into a marionette hanging on strings held by your chromosomes. Do they care whether or not you are having the best life you can have? No, they just care whether you reproduce or not.

Yes, I suppose one should listen to one's basic instincts (not ignore them completely) but not necessarily to heed their call without plenty of wisdom and good judgment.


eudaimonia,

Mark