Nihilism is a philosophical temper tantrum…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I was thinking about this.  Isn’t Nihilism simply a philosophical temper tantrum?  It is people getting pissed that they can know or understand everything and in a fit of pique saying “everything is meaningless… because I can’t see meaning”.  

We will never know everything.  It is impossible to know everything.  

I like David Deutsch’s view: Human Knowledge is “the beginning of infinity”.  It always will be because knowledge invariably leads to more questions which leads to more knowledge which leads to more questions.  Human perception and understanding are about the journey at least as much as they are about the destination… which cannot be known before starting the journey.

Discuss…

[MercenaryChef]

for me nihilism doesn't need to be a constant and all controlling idea. 

i know end of it all nothing any of us will ever matter or mean anything in a universal sense. we are just a dot up the scale from being nothing.

that doesn't stop me from living my life as i want, treating people kindly, loving others and trying to affect the absolutely tiny piece of existence i barely even impact. 

yet, when it's all over it's all meaningless. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, MercenaryChef said:

for me nihilism doesn't need to be a constant and all controlling idea. 

i know end of it all nothing any of us will ever matter or mean anything in a universal sense. we are just a dot up the scale from being nothing.

that doesn't stop me from living my life as i want, treating people kindly, loving others and trying to affect the absolutely tiny piece of existence i barely even impact. 

yet, when it's all over it's all meaningless. 

Interesting… I also wonder what “meaning” means (the joy of self referential questions).  Existentialism and the idea that we all derive our own “meaning” for our lives seems a reasonable response to the nihilistic assertion that their is no meaning.  Who is to say what “meaning” is to be derived from each individual’s existence?

[Iskaral Pust]

Agreed with @MercenaryChef

The absence of cosmos-level or even epoch-level meaning does not negate micro-level meaning, e.g. the effect on other people around us.  Just like the absence of god does not mean an absence of morality.

Existentialism is an important part of the human condition (or for any sentience) as we grapple with the absence of any ultimate fairness: the inevitability, finality and arbitrariness of mortality and the absence of any omnipotent referee to impose constraints on our actions or decisions.  So we are left with a Kantian morality of a shared social contract, even if some individuals reject this and inflict terrible harm on others.

 

[Martell Spy]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I was thinking about this.  Isn’t Nihilism simply a philosophical temper tantrum?  It is people getting pissed that they can know or understand everything and in a fit of pique saying “everything is meaningless… because I can’t see meaning”.  

We will never know everything.  It is impossible to know everything.  

I like David Deutsch’s view: Human Knowledge is “the beginning of infinity”.  It always will be because knowledge invariably leads to more questions which leads to more knowledge which leads to more questions.  Human perception and understanding are about the journey at least as much as they are about the destination… which cannot be known before starting the journey.

Discuss…

A man must have a code. And violation of your code demeans you. Even if you get no credit from others or if your infractions are noticed and punished. If you were a hermit that barely interacted with society in any way, but you were quietly leaving garbage on another's land, and not being caught, you'd be demeaning yourself to yourself.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Interesting… I also wonder what “meaning” means (the joy of self referential questions).  Existentialism and the idea that we all derive our own “meaning” for our lives seems a reasonable response to the nihilistic assertion that their is no meaning.  Who is to say what “meaning” is to be derived from each individual’s existence?

Sound like you're almost to the semantic apocalypse, kudos!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

31 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Sound like you're almost to the semantic apocalypse, kudos!

No.  I’m always going to believe there is meaning behind syntax.   

[James Arryn]

Nihilism takes the space for what would be our default explanation for anything else if our egos weren’t invested. We don’t really feel a profound need to see god at work in ant colonies. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Nihilism takes the space for what would be our default explanation for anything else if our egos weren’t invested. We don’t really feel a profound need to see god at work in ant colonies. 

I find meaning from my religious belief.  That said I don’t believe Nihilism is the only alternative to religious belief.  I know plenty of athiests who see their lives filled with meaning.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I find meaning from my religious belief.  That said I don’t believe Nihilism is the only alternative to religious belief.  I know plenty of athiests who see their lives filled with meaning.

Being neither athiest nor religious, I am aware of the alternatives, but I’m also aware my ego is inextricably locked into the idea that this all must mean something, so I don’t consider myself capable of true objectivity on this issue. 

[IFR]

Nihilism seems like a fair take on reality. It's giving objective weight to values that seems rather insane to me.

It's fine to state that you want to "be good" to others (a very ambiguous phrase), but what does that mean, and what gives that objective value?

Someone like Thomas Moore might believe being good to others includes burning people alive in a holy crusade, to redeem people of spiritual transgressions. Someone now may find that appalling, and believe being good to others is forgiving someone who transgressed against you and, for example, treating them to a supper (a supper probably supplied by paying those who put animals through unfathomable agony for the food). In both cases you have people who believe they are doing the right thing, and a universe that permits either action.

If someone chooses to kidnap people, torture them and eat them, and they are able to get away with that, the universe says nothing about that other than the positive reinforcement the serial killer's neurodevelopment provides for their behavior. Their victims suffer, naturally, but farm animals suffer so one can treat another to a meal out of kindness.

People can cite trends in human behavior as evidence that something is 'wrong' (the aforementioned unsanctioned murder and cannibalism is pretty universally held as wrong), but this seems ridiculous to me - why should trends of humans indicate anything at all for what is "moral"?

Our individual values are influenced by our environment to allow us to function within that environment, but yes, cosmically speaking that is the extent of their worth.

[Jace, Extat]

Value is entirely subjective without an open score keeper, yes. That's why nihilism is stupid. A value of 0 is always less of a number than any other number. 

So even if the entire universe is corrupt or bad to you, at a value of minus-INFINITY

That minus-INFINITY is a number. That has value somewhere to something, even if not to you. Hence nihilism being an overwrought exercise in self-importance. 

That being said, nihilistic stupidity is measurable and therefore valuable.

Philosophical arithmetic. GOML

  

So get religion or get an authoritarian algorithm-driven power structure into place locally and you'll find all kinds of value and meaning in every interaction again. 

I just cured Wallowing Nihilism- you're welcome

that'll be 69 payments of $69.96, Canadian quarters only. Exact change required

 

(It's cold, let me riff)

[IFR]

45 minutes ago, Fire and Jace said:

Value is entirely subjective without an open score keeper, yes. That's why nihilism is stupid. A value of 0 is always less of a number than any other number. 

So even if the entire universe is corrupt or bad to you, at a value of minus-INFINITY

That minus-INFINITY is a number. That has value somewhere to something, even if not to you. Hence nihilism being an overwrought exercise in self-importance. 

That being said, nihilistic stupidity is measurable and therefore valuable.

Philisophical arithmetic. GOML

/cdn-cgi/mirage/60e58cfc710d76c176de390fc5e998351e72b0dae741bdcbe7fcb44b04b1627b/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_rofl2.gif /cdn-cgi/mirage/60e58cfc710d76c176de390fc5e998351e72b0dae741bdcbe7fcb44b04b1627b/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_idea.gif /cdn-cgi/mirage/60e58cfc710d76c176de390fc5e998351e72b0dae741bdcbe7fcb44b04b1627b/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_rofl2.gif

So get religion or get an authoritarian algorithm-driven power structure into place locally and you'll find all kinds of value and meaning in every interaction again. 

I just cured Wallowing Nihilism- you're welcome

that'll be 69 payments of $69.96, Canadian quarters only. Exact change required

 

(It's cold, let me riff)

Profound.

However, not to nitpick your staggering dismantling of nihilism, I dare point out that mathematicians may object to you calling infinity a number as you are using it. For example, you have a set of all natural numbers, and a set of all real numbers. Both sets are infinite, right? But the cardinality of real numbers is larger than the cardinality of natural numbers. One infinity is bigger than the other infinity. So when you say infinity has this set value, that's an unclear statement.

Also, I don't recall anything about nihilism which denies the existence of subjective values? I may be wrong, of course.

Anyway, don't let my pedantry interrupt your annihilation of the nihilist philosophy.

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, IFR said:

Profound.

However, not to nitpick your staggering dismantling of nihilism, I dare point out that mathematicians may object to you calling infinity a number as you are using it. For example, you have a set of all natural numbers, and a set of all real numbers. Both sets are infinite, right? But the cardinality of real numbers is larger than the cardinality of natural numbers. One infinity is bigger than the other infinity. So when you say infinity has this set value, that's an unclear statement.

Also, I don't recall anything about nihilism which denies the existence of subjective values? I may be wrong, of course.

Anyway, don't let my pedantry interrupt your annihilation of the nihilist philosophy.

It's really fucking cold. I had to keep typing going to avoid hypothumbia

[JGP]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:49 PM, James Arryn said:

Being neither athiest nor religious, I am aware of the alternatives, but I’m also aware my ego is inextricably locked into the idea that this all must mean something, so I don’t consider myself capable of true objectivity on this issue. 

Looping this back because interesting. 

You believe life has meaning in general? Right down to little day to day things, James, or what?    

[TheLastWolf]

Life is beautiful exactly because it is meaningless, imagine a predetermined matrix where we were all 'purpose' driven (9 out of 10 people are, maybe 2 aware yet content) clockwork puppets. Chaos and anarchy are beautiful, yet maintain their order, its when we homo sapiens try to introduce forced order to a system it collapses to sustain itself. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Life is beautiful exactly because it is meaningless, imagine a predetermined matrix where we were all 'purpose' driven (9 out of 10 people are, maybe 2 aware yet content) clockwork puppets. Chaos and anarchy are beautiful, yet maintain their order, its when we homo sapiens try to introduce forced order to a system it collapses to sustain itself. 

I disagree.  Individual’s finding meaning life is in no way limiting to other individuals.

[TheLastWolf]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  Individual’s finding meaning life is in no way limiting to other individuals.

Confused unga bunga

[IFR]

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  Individual’s finding meaning life is in no way limiting to other individuals.

By the same coin, would you say that individuals finding meaning in life in no way is limiting to other individuals finding an absence of meaning?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, IFR said:

By the same coin, would you say that individuals finding meaning in life in no way is limiting to other individuals finding an absence of meaning?

Yes.  There’s a bit of a paradox in finding meaning from meaning’s absense… but if that’s what works for you.