Nihilism is a philosophical temper tantrum…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@IFR @Larry of the Lake,

I think we are disagreeing on terms.  “Nihilism” I have always thought was the belief that everything is objectively meaningless.  What you two sound like you are advocating isn’t “Nihilism” as I understand it, but “existentialism”.  That each individual can (and should) attempt to find the meaning that works for them in their own lives. 

Yes, that’s subjective, however, if Nihilism claims that everything is objectively meaningless how can it accept subjective meaning and purpose without creating inherent contradiction?  Isn’t that a contradictory position to the claim that everything is objectively meaningless?

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@IFR @Larry of the Lake,

I think we are disagreeing on terms.  “Nihilism” I have always thought was the belief that everything is objectively meaningless.  What you two sound like you are advocating isn’t “Nihilism” as I understand it, but “existentialism”.  That each individual can (and should) attempt to find the meaning that works for them in their own lives. 

Yes, that’s subjective, however, if Nihilism claims that everything is objectively meaningless how can it accept subjective meaning and purpose without creating inherent contradiction?  Isn’t that a contradictory position to the claim that everything is objectively meaningless?

I don't see how claiming that there is no objective meaning in the world but claiming subjective meaning exists is in any way at all contradictory.  Maybe it would help if you explained the contradiction instead of 

Again, could you provide an example of objective meaning?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I don't see how claiming that there is no objective meaning in the world but claiming subjective meaning exists is in any way at all contradictory.  Maybe it would help if you explained the contradiction instead of 

Again, could you provide an example of objective meaning?

Everything abstract having no meaning would be an objective lack of meaning.  

For clarity’s sake is it your poison that Nihilism and Existentialism do not contradict one another?

[IFR]

49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@IFR @Larry of the Lake,

I think we are disagreeing on terms.  “Nihilism” I have always thought was the belief that everything is objectively meaningless.  What you two sound like you are advocating isn’t “Nihilism” as I understand it, but “existentialism”.  That each individual can (and should) attempt to find the meaning that works for them in their own lives. 

Yes, that’s subjective, however, if Nihilism claims that everything is objectively meaningless how can it accept subjective meaning and purpose without creating inherent contradiction?  Isn’t that a contradictory position to the claim that everything is objectively meaningless?

Nihilism is a family of beliefs, so speaking of strictly "nihilism" isn't clear. I refer you to the wikipedia entry.

I am speaking regarding existential nihilism, which I think is the most common interpretation of nihilism.

I think this article articulates quite well the basic differences between existentialism and nihilism.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's pointless discussing these things if everyone has a different idea of what we're actually discussing.

[TheLastWolf]

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

other humans

feral kid never seen another homo sapien

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

the Earth, Luna, Sol, and the Universe would objectively exist.

I doubt the wolves had astronomers amongst them

[Darzin]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:01 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’re a solipsist?  Or is the existence of other humans, the Earth, Luna, Sol, the Milkey Way, and the Universe at large, subjective?

Of course those things objectively exist but they don't have meaning in and of themselves they simply are. What meanings we give to them I would say are subjective.  What is the objective meaning of the sun for example? Most ancient cultures prescribed all sorts of meanings for the Sun some still do but most modern people view the Sun entire mechanically without inherent meaning. You say Nihilism is a temper tantrum and things have objective meaning so what is it?

Think subjective meaning is pretty worthless in terms of finding Truth subjectivity is very limited. I don't actually live my life in a way that regards everything is meaningless, I have a sense of fairness, justice, honor. But logically I can't defend those. I don't like that nothing means anything that nothing has real meaning or value and usually I ignore it. It seems pretty clear the universe is a souless mechanism uncaring unfeeling and ungoverned except by the law of physics. And even if it isn't even if a religion is right? Well we still can't perceive the meaning,  both a Catholic and a Sunni Muslim would agree communion wine has meaning but to one it is holy, the other unholy. We can perceive the material a small cup of fermented grape juice in an objective way, but the wine itself has no meaning.

[FalagarV2]

It seems to me that the stark dichotomy of objective vs. subjective meaning is a bit misleading, in that the meaning that permeates our lives is, for the most part, intersubjective, i.e. it is constructed within human relationships that both precede and supersede the individual. Meaning is not the heroic product of rugged individualists: humanity as a species is a meaning-making animal. While abstract concepts do not have an independent existence for those of us not inclined to religion, symbolic communication (e.g. language), externalisation of intentionality, and the associated creative reshaping of our physical and social surroundings are basic components to 'being human'. Value-laden abstractions such as 'beauty' or 'justice' are similarly constructed by humans in dialogue with our surroundings; they help us express, regulate and/or improve societies and individuals, and can be discussed, weighed, and improved upon on those terms (as philosophers have sought to do since Kant, at least).

I therefore find the insistence that life has no 'real' meaning a bit puzzling; as if 'real' meaning (in the sense of 'valuable, worth living for') has to be the singular, transcendent meaning expounded by the theologians, and cannot be that generated through human activity. That is indeed crude nihilism, as attacked by Nietzsche and rejected by the subsequent existentialist tradition.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Everything abstract having no meaning would be an objective lack of meaning.  

For clarity’s sake is it your poison that Nihilism and Existentialism do not contradict one another?

 I think we're talking past each other (you're now talking about "objective lack of meaning" vs "lack of objective meaning" and you don't seem to have any interest in answering any questions posed to you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

 I think we're talking past each other (you're now talking about "objective lack of meaning" vs "lack of objective meaning" and you don't seem to have any interest in answering any questions posed to you.

Because I don’t have a simple or clear answer to that question… and why I attempted to clarify my position above regarding what I see as Nihilism and Existentialism.

[Lord Varys]

The real problem with meaning in this context is that to anyone with half a brain the world really works in a way that doesn't allow lasting (or even fleeting) happiness and contentment. Life effectively is a death trap slowly crushing us to pieces through age, infirmity, and sickness. Ideally thinks get better for a time, through childhood and youth, but in the 20s things slowly turn in the other direction.

Now, you can reflect on your life and tell yourself it wasn't *that bad* in context, or even pretty good, if that's what you can tell yourself and believe.

Existentialism is for people who are content with getting 'personal meaning'. I don't even understand what that's supposed to be. I mean, of course I enjoy whatever brief happiness I have with family and friends and loved ones ... but that's all very basic. It has nothing to do with how the world as a whole works, how the universe works, and what the place of our planet, etc. is in it.

But it is not hard to imagine a world where life is infinitely better, where our basic nature would different (i.e. not so clearly the result of mammalian ape evolution) and so on. I mean, who really wants to piss and shit with the same orifices used for pleasure? And why the silly need for physical pleasure at all? Why couldn't that just be something we have more control over? Why do we have to eat and drink with the same orifice we need for breathing? Why do we have eat and drink and shit and piss anyway? Why do we have to kill other living things to survive? Who thinks it is great that most of life sees actually a decline in human ability (the process we call 'aging')?

I think the thoughts about depression as a trick consciousness plays on itself Thomas Ligotti reiterated in 'The Conspiracy against the Human Race' is pretty poignant, actually. The gist of the idea is, that the evolution of consciousness as we and other higher animals have actually becomes a problem for the continuation of life - we do now understand too much about ourselves and the inevitable end we face that ending our lives by our hands becomes and ever more tempting. Depression isn't a sickness, it is the way we understand the true nature of things.

If you want a good working definition of nihilism as a philosophical concept it would be the idea that everything is meaningless in a larger sense - but whatever we know about our puny little species is that evolution has still set us up to do our biological work. We can glimpse that and how fucked up things are, but since we still kind of work as a species that's clearly not an insight most people actually gained.

But it will actually be rather interesting to ponder the question to what degree a more enlightened type of human being would even be viable. If life still was more or less like it is now, but we had an even deeper insight into our nature and more control over our biological processes ... would there be a single woman who would consciously allow herself to get pregnant (if she could control her ovulation, say)? Or would a man produce semen if he could have sex without doing that?

1 hour ago, FalagarV2 said:

I therefore find the insistence that life has no 'real' meaning a bit puzzling; as if 'real' meaning (in the sense of 'valuable, worth living for') has to be the singular, transcendent meaning expounded by the theologians, and cannot be that generated through human activity. That is indeed crude nihilism, as attacked by Nietzsche and rejected by the subsequent existentialist tradition.

I think the point of 'larger meaning' would be what I tried to sketch above - namely the meaning that would come with realizing/recognizing that the world (the universe and its laws) actually endow us and everything around us with meaning. A meaning that's so obvious that it hits us in the face and allows us to live a happy and perfect life in unison with our surroundings.

Instead it is quite clear that while we as a species can tell each other stories and thus create meaning to make sense of things that don't really have meaning ... it is equally clear and glaring obvious, in fact, that no such larger meaning exists.

The world could be a much better, more grander, more perfect place. It isn't. Just as we are, all things considered, a pretty defective species.

[FalagarV2]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the point of 'larger meaning' would be what I tried to sketch above - namely the meaning that would come with realizing/recognizing that the world (the universe and its laws) actually endow us and everything around us with meaning. A meaning that's so obvious that it hits us in the face and allows us to live a happy and perfect life in unison with our surroundings.

Instead it is quite clear that while we as a species can tell each other stories and thus create meaning to make sense of things that don't really have meaning ... it is equally clear and glaring obvious, in fact, that no such larger meaning exists.

The world could be a much better, more grander, more perfect place. It isn't. Just as we are, all things considered, a pretty defective species.

Sure, but there are two different claims here. First, that the universe does not provide our lives with a grander, intrinsic meaning, and second, that it follows that human life cannot have any ('real') meaning - and that values such as justice are literally meaning-less because they're not propped up by the red right hand. I concur with the first, disagree on the second.

Following on this, statements to the effect that humans are defective or that the world could be much more perfect beg the question: compared to what? Within what frame of reference? Describing humans as defective or decrying the discontinuation of life does not make sense in the universal, objective scheme of things: the universe, as we just agreed, doesn't provide any values with which to judge us or our activity. The answer, also implied by your sketch above, is that such statements only have meaning within the framework of ideals constructed by humanity. There's no 'fucking up' sub specie aeternitatis - that is a projection of human values.

 

[Isalie]

Yeah, what about those orifices though

Sometimes i think scot is doing that thing where he knows people wont answer a direct question, but they jump on the chance to rectify a silly/ignorant statement and thus answeringen the would be question.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Isalie said:

Yeah, what about those orifices though

Sometimes i think scot is doing that thing where he knows people wont answer a direct question, but they jump on the chance to rectify a silly/ignorant statement and thus answeringen the would be question.

Not really my full intention but I do like promoting discussion.   

[DMC]

Well, one point in nihilism's favor is I found skimming over this thread decidedly meaningless.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, FalagarV2 said:

Sure, but there are two different claims here. First, that the universe does not provide our lives with a grander, intrinsic meaning, and second, that it follows that human life cannot have any ('real') meaning - and that values such as justice are literally meaning-less because they're not propped up by the red right hand. I concur with the first, disagree on the second.

Following on this, statements to the effect that humans are defective or that the world could be much more perfect beg the question: compared to what? Within what frame of reference? Describing humans as defective or decrying the discontinuation of life does not make sense in the universal, objective scheme of things: the universe, as we just agreed, doesn't provide any values with which to judge us or our activity. The answer, also implied by your sketch above, is that such statements only have meaning within the framework of ideals constructed by humanity. There's no 'fucking up' sub specie aeternitatis - that is a projection of human values.

The criteria to judge in what way things are fucked are the ideals you might have or not have - something like a longer life, an eternal existence, not affected by age or sickness or death.

The universe and humanity could be in perfect accord, we could understand it and ourselves and our place in simply by looking out of the window. Because it could be that clear and obvious.

Larger meaning would be our existence in relation to that of everybody and everything else - this is a meaning we very much crave. We wouldn't have mythology or religion or science if wouldn't try to figure it out (or create it). We are not content with 'little subjective meaning', meaning only for ourselves and people close to us.

We want to understand the picture. And we most definitely don't, because it has nothing to do with us at all - assuming there is such a picture (which is pretty unlikely).

I'd say a take on nihilism that claims humans cannot be happy or cannot create whatever little meaning they can/want to try to is wrong - but I'm not sure people arguing for the absence of a larger meaning would do that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

@Ser scot I’m not a nihilist, but I would recommend changing the title so more who identify as such would be more privy to come and defend it.

 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

@Ser scot I’m not a nihilist, but I would recommend changing the title so more who identify as such would be more privy to come and defend it.

 

A few years ago [in Canadian provincial politics, mind] there was a leftist darling MD in YYC running for the NDP [whew] that turned into an utter pillar of salt when she didn't win. In Calgary of all fucking places. Fast forward a bit. So here she was saying some really shitty things in a thread Andray Domise had going about the current election, how everyone deserved what was going to happen and other stupid shit like that. Anyway. So she pissed me off with her callousness and I got on her ass to the point where even Domise backed up a bit saying he wasn't a nihilist, so she quote tweeted me for support from her followers and I kept chewing there. I wasn't being a prick or nothing beyond lecturing her a bit, and she warns a block at me, in her own thread where she quote tweeted me [lol] and did eventually block me.    

My point, is even otherwise good people will break down and have moments, even smallish periods, where they Giveth No Fucks.  

Still, can't say I've ever met or interacted with an inveterate nihilist. And, I'm not sure where the value is engaging with... walruses out of water masturbating in public, frankly. 

But that's just me.