nihilism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:21 pm Everyone just knows what one deserves and how that is determined. Can you be a little more vague, please.[/sarcasm off]
It's not helpful to you, because you are not the Judge. But then, it doesn't need to be: all you need is a healthy sense of how badly behind that standard we all actually are.
Well, that's fine and I'd be inclined to believe you, but in actual practice and many posts you are very quick to point out things you regard as, "unjust." You obviously are not letting the, "judge," determine what is just and unjust. You are applying it all over the place, especially describing those you think did not get, "justice, meaning whatever it is you have refused to describe.

What standard? If you don't, or refuse to identify the standard, how do you know those you think didn't get justice, didn't? Maybe they did, and you just don't know what the true standard is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:21 pm Everyone just knows what one deserves and how that is determined. Can you be a little more vague, please.[/sarcasm off]
It's not helpful to you, because you are not the Judge. But then, it doesn't need to be: all you need is a healthy sense of how badly behind that standard we all actually are.
Well, that's fine and I'd be inclined to believe you, but in actual practice and many posts you are very quick to point out things you regard as, "unjust."
That's not at all surprising.

In that, as in many matters, there are clear cases and liminal cases. The liminal (or marginal) cases may be hard to understand...such as, is it "unjust" that a particular criminal got only 25 years instead of life-without-parole. There will be dispute on such matters, of course, from a human perspective.

But take the case of Jeffrey Epstein. By all allegations, he arranged a sexploitation ring to victimize young girls, got filthy rich off doing so, and died by hanging, at the end of a long life. Is death by hanging a suitable and just penalty for somebody doing all that Epstein did? Lots of people will say, "No, it seems obvious the man got away with a lot." Some may even be willing to change places with him -- in exchange for several decades of unrestricted debauchery and wealth, of course.

I don't think it's inobvious to anyone that, in life, justice was not served on Jeffrey Epstein. But justice will be served on Jeffrey Epstein; that's for sure.
You obviously are not letting the, "judge," determine what is just and unjust.

Yes I am. The only way I wouldn't be is if I were one of the people who strangled him. Which, I assure you, I was not.

I'm perfectly free to have my opinions about what justice might be. I'm not free to treat them as absolute. I'm also not free to execute them personally. I have enough of my own baggage to answer for; I will leave Jeffrey Epstein to the Judge. But I am also sure that my intrinsic sense of justice will be satisfied when Epstein pays for what he has done.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:01 pm
VVilliam wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:48 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:05 pm
Because they say God is the one who does it changes the fact they believe intentionally inflicting pain, suffering, or loss, as punishment or retribution, is a form of justice? Don't they think God is administering justice? I can't see how indicating who administers justice changes its meaning.

Sorry, I just don't get you, "point?"
I suppose my point is that I understand that they believe that God has the right to administer such punishment as Justice, and there is no evil attached to that.

In the same way there is no evil attached to humans administering justice and even the death penalty, earth-side.
Some Christians do argue that humans have no right to take human life and thus the taking of life is evil - but I have never meet any who advocate "let the rabid dogs free to roam and abuse as they will!".
It''s called intrinsicism, the idea that something is just good or bad or right or wrong or just or unjust, not for any reason or purpose, but because it just is. In the case of Christians, they cover up the absurdity that something can just be a value (good or bad) without being good or bad for anything, by saying values are dictated by their God. It amounts to turning the absurd notion that, "might makes right," into a doctrine.

That seems to be somewhat twisted. :?:

While I do understand your concerns, ideas of good and evil are natural products of survival.
While humans have insinuated that a Creator-God is real rather than imagined, it is only natural to include therein, that The Creator instilled this within the creation.

Where the wheels get wobbly, is when morals [Laws] become fixed and immovable - not something that nature itself is - by attributing said Laws as "coming from The Creator".
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

VVilliam wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:22 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:01 pm
VVilliam wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:48 am

I suppose my point is that I understand that they believe that God has the right to administer such punishment as Justice, and there is no evil attached to that.

In the same way there is no evil attached to humans administering justice and even the death penalty, earth-side.
Some Christians do argue that humans have no right to take human life and thus the taking of life is evil - but I have never meet any who advocate "let the rabid dogs free to roam and abuse as they will!".
It''s called intrinsicism, the idea that something is just good or bad or right or wrong or just or unjust, not for any reason or purpose, but because it just is. In the case of Christians, they cover up the absurdity that something can just be a value (good or bad) without being good or bad for anything, by saying values are dictated by their God. It amounts to turning the absurd notion that, "might makes right," into a doctrine.

That seems to be somewhat twisted. :?:
Oh, it is.
VVilliam wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:48 am While I do understand your concerns, ideas of good and evil are natural products of survival.
I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. "Products of?" How does survival, "produce," good and evil? ...and what are the good and evil survival produces. I'm not quizzing or testing you (I'm not Age or IC), I simply do not know what you mean.
VVilliam wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:48 am While humans have insinuated that a Creator-God is real rather than imagined, it is only natural to include therein, that The Creator instilled this within the creation.
Nature does not provide any knowledge or principles. All knowledge must be discovered and learned and all principles derived by reason from knowledge. Christians may use God as the explanation for their made-up, "principles," but they had to make them up.
VVilliam wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:48 am Where the wheels get wobbly, is when morals [Laws] become fixed and immovable - not something that nature itself is - by attributing said Laws as "coming from The Creator.
Personally there are no views of what is called morality in any religion or ideology that has any foundation in reality as far as I can see. Every one fails to identify what so-called morals principles are for or make their purpose something other than individual human life, i.e. God, or Society, or Mankind, or Nature, or some abomination call humanity or the future. Not one so-called moral view even consider how observing moral principles improves a single individual's own life and all regard individual human beings as means to some ideological goals or objectives that justify the oppression or sacrifice of individual human beings.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Who looks more like Jeffrey Epstein... John Travolta or Jeffrey Epstein?

john-travolta-900x586.jpg
john-travolta-900x586.jpg (23.4 KiB) Viewed 1597 times
Attachments
220px-Jeffrey_Epstein,_27.jpg
220px-Jeffrey_Epstein,_27.jpg (11.84 KiB) Viewed 1597 times
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:02 pm I don't think it's inobvious to anyone that, in life, justice was not served on Jeffrey Epstein. But justice will be served on Jeffrey Epstein; that's for sure.
It's not clear to me. First, I cannot read minds and have no mystic insight into others actual conscious experience. Secondly, I have no idea what it would have been if justice had been served on Jeffrey Epstein, what it would have looked like or actually been.

If you have this secret knowledge you claim to have by, how do you put it, "intrinsic sense," of what true justice served would be, can you give us an example? What would true justice being served Jeffrey Epstein look or be like? If you can't say, how do you know it wasn't?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:02 pm I don't think it's inobvious to anyone that, in life, justice was not served on Jeffrey Epstein. But justice will be served on Jeffrey Epstein; that's for sure.
It's not clear to me.
It doesn't have to be. You're not the Judge.
I have no idea what it would have been if justice had been served on Jeffrey Epstein, what it would have looked like or actually been.
We're going to find out, though.
...can you give us an example? What would true justice being served Jeffrey Epstein look or be like?

Anybody can guess. Guesses are free.

But ultimately, I can't tell you. I'm not the Judge either. But I think it would surprise everyone if what he got was concommitant with what he did. In human terms, it doesn't seem it was. I'm sure that's also how his many victims see it, too. But you could ask them.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:51 pm Who looks more like Jeffrey Epstein... John Travolta or Jeffrey Epstein?
john-travolta-900x586.jpg
That's pretty funny. The two do look alike.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Anthony Bourdain even more so if you can find the right picture. Alas, I could not.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:01 pm.
While I do understand your concerns, ideas of good and evil are natural products of survival.
I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. "Products of?" How does survival, "produce," good and evil? ...and what are the good and evil survival produces. I'm not quizzing or testing you (I'm not Age or IC), I simply do not know what you mean.
To correct you here, I stated that IDEAS of G&E are natural products of survival...
While humans have insinuated that a Creator-God is real rather than imagined, it is only natural to include therein, that The Creator instilled this within the creation.
Nature does not provide any knowledge or principles.

No.
What Nature provides is opportunity to learn principles through knowledge obtain via experience of Nature. In that, is the 'instilled' aspect re "The Creator".
All knowledge must be discovered and learned and all principles derived by reason from knowledge.
This is what I am saying. It is Nature [The Universe in general - the Earth experience in specific] which provides the experience which in turns provides knowledge.
Christians may use God as the explanation for their made-up, "principles," but they had to make them up
.

No one of us 'made up' nature. It is natural to include the idea of a "Creator' with the idea of 'Creation'
Where the wheels get wobbly, is when morals [Laws] become fixed and immovable - not something that nature itself is - by attributing said Laws as "coming from The Creator.
Personally there are no views of what is called morality in any religion or ideology that has any foundation in reality as far as I can see.
It is commendable that anyone can admit such. However, since it is just a personal opinion, it cannot be considered as evidence in and of itself that the opinion is based in factuality.
Every one fails to identify what so-called morals principles are for or make their purpose something other than individual human life, i.e. God, or Society, or Mankind, or Nature, or some abomination call humanity or the future.
Well as I pointed out, the ideas come from the experience humans have of nature. Cutting those out of the equation, or placing a shadow of doubt on/demonizing such things, isn't helpful, whatever quarter these ideas come from.

Without morality, we would still be picking scabs et al, and living in mountain caves.

But we are not so much, anymore.
Not one so-called moral view even consider how observing moral principles improves a single individual's own life and all regard individual human beings as means to some ideological goals or objectives that justify the oppression or sacrifice of individual human beings.
That is the wobbly wheel I mentioned. I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to throw babies out with bathwater.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:02 pm I don't think it's inobvious to anyone that, in life, justice was not served on Jeffrey Epstein. But justice will be served on Jeffrey Epstein; that's for sure.
It's not clear to me.
It doesn't have to be. You're not the Judge.
I have no idea what it would have been if justice had been served on Jeffrey Epstein, what it would have looked like or actually been.
We're going to find out, though.
...can you give us an example? What would true justice being served Jeffrey Epstein look or be like?

Anybody can guess. Guesses are free.

But ultimately, I can't tell you. I'm not the Judge either. But I think it would surprise everyone if what he got was concommitant with what he did. In human terms, it doesn't seem it was. I'm sure that's also how his many victims see it, too. But you could ask them.
So you really have no idea whether all those you go about claiming didn't receive justice really didn't. It just didn't look like it to you bqsed on what you would like to have seen happen to them.

So you really have no idea what justice is beyond, "whatever God says," and, "something you'll find out," but otherwise have no idea if it serves any purpose or has any objective or what it actually consists of.

Oh yes, I know you babbled something about one gets what they, "deserve," but could not say how what one deserves is determined or what it might actually be.

So much for Christian, "justice."
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

VVilliam wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:01 pm.
While I do understand your concerns, ideas of good and evil are natural products of survival.
I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. "Products of?" How does survival, "produce," good and evil? ...and what are the good and evil survival produces. I'm not quizzing or testing you (I'm not Age or IC), I simply do not know what you mean.
To correct you here, I stated that IDEAS of G&E are natural products of survival...
While humans have insinuated that a Creator-God is real rather than imagined, it is only natural to include therein, that The Creator instilled this within the creation.
Without rational principles and objective values there would be not human progress, and it was just such priniples the branch of philosophy called ethics was originally meant to identify and explain. Unfortunately, every so called moral code or view of morality that has ever actually been promoted is the very opposite of those principles and every human outrage from war to oppression has been put over in the name of some ideological, religious, or social/political view.

I'm all for principles based on reason and the actual nature of this world and the requirements for human success determined by the requirements of human nature, but every known so-called moral system flies in the face of such principles.
Nature does not provide any knowledge or principles.

No.
What Nature provides is opportunity to learn principles through knowledge obtain via experience of Nature. In that, is the 'instilled' aspect re "The Creator".
All knowledge must be discovered and learned and all principles derived by reason from knowledge.
This is what I am saying. It is Nature [The Universe in general - the Earth experience in specific] which provides the experience which in turns provides knowledge.
Christians may use God as the explanation for their made-up, "principles," but they had to make them up
.

No one of us 'made up' nature. It is natural to include the idea of a "Creator' with the idea of 'Creation'
Where the wheels get wobbly, is when morals [Laws] become fixed and immovable - not something that nature itself is - by attributing said Laws as "coming from The Creator.
Personally there are no views of what is called morality in any religion or ideology that has any foundation in reality as far as I can see.
It is commendable that anyone can admit such. However, since it is just a personal opinion, it cannot be considered as evidence in and of itself that the opinion is based in factuality.
Every one fails to identify what so-called morals principles are for or make their purpose something other than individual human life, i.e. God, or Society, or Mankind, or Nature, or some abomination call humanity or the future.
Well as I pointed out, the ideas come from the experience humans have of nature. Cutting those out of the equation, or placing a shadow of doubt on/demonizing such things, isn't helpful, whatever quarter these ideas come from.

Without morality, we would still be picking scabs et al, and living in mountain caves.

But we are not so much, anymore.
Not one so-called moral view even consider how observing moral principles improves a single individual's own life and all regard individual human beings as means to some ideological goals or objectives that justify the oppression or sacrifice of individual human beings.
That is the wobbly wheel I mentioned. I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to throw babies out with bathwater.
Wrong analogy. How much poison do your think ought be allowed in your food. If there were any poison, wouldn't you throw it all ought? While some may contain some right things, the things that are wrong with every moral code cancel any possible value they might have. They are the are the reason for every war, every form of human oppression, and every human failure. There is nothing redeeming about any of them.

There are principles by which successful human life must be lived (and are what was originally the purpose of ethics in philosophy) but no extant moral code includes them.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:40 am
VVilliam wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:01 pm.


That is the wobbly wheel I mentioned. I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to throw babies out with bathwater.
Wrong analogy. How much poison do your think ought be allowed in your food. If there were any poison, wouldn't you throw it all ought? While some may contain some right things, the things that are wrong with every moral code cancel any possible value they might have. They are the are the reason for every war, every form of human oppression, and every human failure. There is nothing redeeming about any of them.
You do understand that science and engineering have caused more harm in the last couple of hundred years than the whole of human history prior, do you not?
There are principles by which successful human life must be lived (and are what was originally the purpose of ethics in philosophy) but no extant moral code includes them.
The 'baby' I am referring to is the idea that we exist within a creation. Human failure is part of that as is human success. You appear to blame religion for the woes of the world [so by association you are blaming any Mind of Creation for creating humans] and I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to do so.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 4:37 am You do understand that science and engineering have caused more harm in the last couple of hundred years than the whole of human history prior, do you not?
Apparently you don't understand that science doesn't, "do," anything. Science is only able to discover the nature of physical existence but has nothing to say or to do with how that knowledge is used.

It is not science, not knowledge that brings man-made war, oppression, and destruction, it is the misuse of scienctific knowledge by governments that causes all the horrors of abused science.

Technology is the use of scientific knowledge to produce products from food to medicine to machines that make mordern life worth living. It is doubtful you would even be alive if it were not for the scientific knowledge that made the technology possible that has provided all you eat, wear, your medicine and health care, your very life.

It is not science, but government's misuse of scientific knowledge to build and use war materials and use them to kill and destroy. It is not science, which is only knowledge, but the same knowledge can be used to produce products that improve lives of everyone who chooses to use them, or the machines and materials of death and destruction by governments.
VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 4:37 am
There are principles by which successful human life must be lived (and are what was originally the purpose of ethics in philosophy) but no extant moral code includes them.
The 'baby' I am referring to is the idea that we exist within a creation. Human failure is part of that as is human success. You appear to blame religion for the woes of the world [so by association you are blaming any Mind of Creation for creating humans] and I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to do so.
If you went to link I provided, you'd see my view is not at all skeptical.

I'm sorry there is no way to rationally discuss ideas in the context of superstitious religious nonsense. If that's what you believe, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Please understand, I have no objection to your believing whatever you are convinced is true, I'm just not interested in a discussion based on any premise that has no foundation whatsoever in any evidence or reason. I wish you well.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:10 pm
VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 4:37 am You do understand that science and engineering have caused more harm in the last couple of hundred years than the whole of human history prior, do you not?
Apparently you don't understand that science doesn't, "do," anything. Science is only able to discover the nature of physical existence but has nothing to say or to do with how that knowledge is used.

It is not science, not knowledge that brings man-made war, oppression, and destruction, it is the misuse of scienctific knowledge by governments that causes all the horrors of abused science.

Technology is the use of scientific knowledge to produce products from food to medicine to machines that make mordern life worth living. It is doubtful you would even be alive if it were not for the scientific knowledge that made the technology possible that has provided all you eat, wear, your medicine and health care, your very life.

It is not science, but government's misuse of scientific knowledge to build and use war materials and use them to kill and destroy. It is not science, which is only knowledge, but the same knowledge can be used to produce products that improve lives of everyone who chooses to use them, or the machines and materials of death and destruction by governments.
VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 4:37 am
There are principles by which successful human life must be lived (and are what was originally the purpose of ethics in philosophy) but no extant moral code includes them.
The 'baby' I am referring to is the idea that we exist within a creation. Human failure is part of that as is human success. You appear to blame religion for the woes of the world [so by association you are blaming any Mind of Creation for creating humans] and I don't think it is skeptically appropriate to do so.
If you went to link I provided, you'd see my view is not at all skeptical.

I'm sorry there is no way to rationally discuss ideas in the context of superstitious religious nonsense. If that's what you believe, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Please understand, I have no objection to your believing whatever you are convinced is true, I'm just not interested in a discussion based on any premise that has no foundation whatsoever in any evidence or reason. I wish you well.
That is the problem right there, and why I would rather call myself a Theist and examine everything theism has on offer - because at least there are inroads to make and data to consider, whereas your position [non-theist] involves purposefully/willfully creating barriers to those things.

I respect that as such, there is nothing you and I can agree with.

Go Well.
Post Reply