nihilism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Good news for nihilists? Life is meaningless after all, say philosophers
Tom Howell
at the CBC website
Despite her passion for defending nihilism, Llanera considers the central point about life's meaninglessness to be neutral, rather than good news or bad news for humankind. She hopes that more people will simply outgrow their sense that the cosmic meaninglessness of their lives poses a threat. In her view, life does not need a larger context of meaning to add weight to a private or social sense of morality or joie de vivre.
Over and again: by meaning a distinction must be made between existential meaning and essential -- cosmic -- meaning. There is no getting around the absolute necessity that mere mortals in a No God world must create and then sustain meaning in their day to day interactions with others. And that includes the far more problematic meaning in the "is/ought world".

Really, try to even imagine a world of social, political and economic interactions where that is not the case. Only if you choose to utterly isolate yourself from all others does meaning revolve solely around you in the either/or world. Or, for some, around "I and Thou".

And while "philosophically" it can be argued that human interactions sans a "cosmic meaning" need not pose a threat, just take a gander at human history to date. That threat is everywhere. Both in terms of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy, those sociopaths who rationalize anything and everything, and those objectivists hell bent on insisting that not only is there a "larger context" in which to subsume the "human condition" but others damn well better accept that it is their own.
"Those things could be understood in a familiar, ordinary sense, like you need to take responsibility for your dog, you need to not cheat on your partner or you need to protest horrendous acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing. All of those things are part of the human condition," said Llanera.
See! Simple enough!!
"They matter and they mean something to our individual lives and to human society. But this kind of meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context. And we think that those who defend the meaning of life, they're just very uncomfortable with that idea."
Okay, let's take that argument to the Supremes in Washington. Allow them to grasp its relevance in regard to abortion. Or to Moscow. Note it for the benefit of Vladimir Putin. See if that ends his invasion of Ukraine.

Those "human-all-too-human contexts".

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:16 pm Of course here I muddy up the waters as well in suggesting that even if we do reject the "sacred entity" and make it all about the "ego", how is the ego itself not just a profoundly problematic manifestation of dasein.
From a nihilist perspective viewing egoism as in any way problematic is itself a manifestation of dasein, as you use the term.

So, in fact, it isn't profoundly problematic. It just is. And some people, well, a lot of them, project values on that thing as they do on other things.

It's hard to tell if you asserting egoism is objectively problematic, but the incredulity (how the ego itself is not just a profoundly problematic.....) seems odd in context.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:44 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:16 pm Of course here I muddy up the waters as well in suggesting that even if we do reject the "sacred entity" and make it all about the "ego", how is the ego itself not just a profoundly problematic manifestation of dasein.
From a nihilist perspective viewing egoism as in any way problematic is itself a manifestation of dasein, as you use the term.

So, in fact, it isn't profoundly problematic. It just is. And some people, well, a lot of them, project values on that thing as they do on other things.
Okay, but what I am then interested in exploring here is this: taking abstract conjecture of this sort out into the world of actual human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

In other words, as grappling with nihilism and the ego here pertains to the question, "how ought one to live in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change".

Given particular contexts.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:44 pmIt's hard to tell if you asserting egoism is objectively problematic, but the incredulity (how the ego itself is not just a profoundly problematic.....) seems odd in context.
Ego:

"PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject."


Here I make the distinction between the Self in the either/or world and the "self" in the is/ought world.

There are things about ourselves we seem clearly able to establish as true objectively for all rational human beings...and things that seem more in the way of, subjectively, "personal opinions".

Then on to that particular context again where we can explore this more substantively.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: nihilism

Post by phyllo »

Despite her passion for defending nihilism, Llanera considers the central point about life's meaninglessness to be neutral, rather than good news or bad news for humankind. She hopes that more people will simply outgrow their sense that the cosmic meaninglessness of their lives poses a threat. In her view, life does not need a larger context of meaning to add weight to a private or social sense of morality or joie de vivre.
Okay, cosmic meaninglessness/meaning.
"Those things could be understood in a familiar, ordinary sense, like you need to take responsibility for your dog, you need to not cheat on your partner or you need to protest horrendous acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing. All of those things are part of the human condition," said Llanera.
So she says that there is a "human condition".
"They matter and they mean something to our individual lives and to human society. But this kind of meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context. And we think that those who defend the meaning of life, they're just very uncomfortable with that idea."
"Meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context"??

How is that possible if there is such a thing as a "human condition"?

If there is a "human condition" then it must be connected to the "cosmic" in some way. And as a consequence, human meaning must also be connected to the "cosmic".
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

You wanna good read that's really meaty but not terribly terribly long, get the pdf of Thomas Nagel's 'The Absurd'. It's maybe seven pages.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: nihilism

Post by phyllo »

Thanks.

I had read that a while back and completely forgot who wrote it.

Good stuff.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:44 pm
Despite her passion for defending nihilism, Llanera considers the central point about life's meaninglessness to be neutral, rather than good news or bad news for humankind. She hopes that more people will simply outgrow their sense that the cosmic meaninglessness of their lives poses a threat. In her view, life does not need a larger context of meaning to add weight to a private or social sense of morality or joie de vivre.
Okay, cosmic meaninglessness/meaning.
Which, regarding meaning, of course, most people anchor in God and religion. After all, existential, Earthly meaning is embraced by literally hundreds and hundreds of different [and ofttimes hopelessly conflicting] political ideologies, schools of philosophy, assessments of nature etc.. And for the Humanists there is no immortality and salvation on the other side. Just oblivion.
"Those things could be understood in a familiar, ordinary sense, like you need to take responsibility for your dog, you need to not cheat on your partner or you need to protest horrendous acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing. All of those things are part of the human condition," said Llanera.
phyllo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:44 pmSo she says that there is a "human condition".
Sure. For most of us it's this: Birth. School. Work. Death.
"They matter and they mean something to our individual lives and to human society. But this kind of meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context. And we think that those who defend the meaning of life, they're just very uncomfortable with that idea."
phyllo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:44 pm"Meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context"??
Beyond the existential context rooted in dasein. Back again to human interactions in a world in which sans God there does not appear to be an essential/cosmic meaning. And, thus, when moral and political values come into conflict who or what can we turn to? Indeed, that's why there are so many objectivist "isms" out there. And all you have to do is to believe in one.
phyllo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:44 pmHow is that possible if there is such a thing as a "human condition"?
Yes, but there are countless numbers of them. Each objectivist narrative will claim that the human condition revolves precisely around their own assessment of it. "Here and now" I'm convinced that moral nihilism is a reasonable assessment. Only I recognize that I am unable to exclude myself from my own point of view. And that given a new experience, a new friendship, a new post here etc., I might change my mind. As I have so many times before.
phyllo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:44 pmIf there is a "human condition" then it must be connected to the "cosmic" in some way. And as a consequence, human meaning must also be connected to the "cosmic".
On the other hand, if is a big word. And if there is one what are the odds that it is yours or mine?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

promethean75 wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:04 pm You wanna good read that's really meaty but not terribly terribly long, get the pdf of Thomas Nagel's 'The Absurd'. It's maybe seven pages.
Nagel's an interesting egg.
A link to the pdf
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/def ... 0Nagel.pdf
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: nihilism

Post by Dontaskme »

Hey every-body

Remember that FREE WILL you were given by your lord almighty father ?

Well guess what, if that gift is real, then that means you can choose whether you want to be born or not.

It's entirely your prerogative to choose whether you think the price of life is worth paying.

To be or not to be, that is always your choice...isn't that just the most amazing good news you will ever hear? :D

And you know no one else can judge your choice to want to live or not live. It's entirely you're own business what you choose as is every choice made by consenting mature human beings.

Right now, I consent to holding the opinion that life sucks and that it's never worth the price of admission, and it's really none of your business what I think, just as it's none of my business what you think.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Some say that Nagel is actually a Mentat.


rsz_screenshot_2022-05-13-10-09-38-152.jpg
rsz_screenshot_2022-05-13-10-09-38-152.jpg (21.04 KiB) Viewed 1269 times
thufir.jpg
thufir.jpg (30.37 KiB) Viewed 1269 times
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

It need not be a matter for agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contemptof fate that allows us to feel brave or proud.Such dramatics,even if carried on in private,betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic
unimportance of the situation.If subspeciea eternitatis there is no
reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter
either,and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of
heroism or despair
-Nagel
He seems to be confusing our reactions to life with reasoned conclusions. We are social mammals. And that does not simply mean we are geared to relate to other humans. We are geared to relate to anything in protosocial way. Not because we reasoned our way to that as a position, but because we are geared to do it and have to be trained somehow not to.
There is no failure in not having an ironic approach. That implies that one somehow knows what success is. And that would imply meaning and a measure.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: nihilism

Post by phyllo »

Beyond the existential context rooted in dasein.
The existential is rooted in the cosmic.

Dasein is rooted in the cosmic.

Where else could it be rooted?
Back again to human interactions in a world in which sans God there does not appear to be an essential/cosmic meaning. And, thus, when moral and political values come into conflict who or what can we turn to?
It's not about the process of resolving conflict. That's something else.

Even if you had the cosmic meaning carved into a stone tablet, there would still be conflicts. And there would still be conflicts about how to settle those conflicts.
Each objectivist narrative will claim that the human condition revolves precisely around their own assessment of it.
People have all sorts of narratives.

A narrative is not the same as the human condition.

The human condition is still rooted in the cosmic.
If there is a "human condition" then it must be connected to the "cosmic" in some way. And as a consequence, human meaning must also be connected to the "cosmic".
On the other hand, if is a big word. And if there is one what are the odds that it is yours or mine?
The first step is to decide if there is a "human condition" or not. The author said that there is. Then logically, meaning is tied into that human condition in some way. But she avoids that conclusion. She disconnects meaning from the human condition and therefore from the cosmic. This seems to be a completely arbitrary decision on her part.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Beyond the existential context rooted in dasein.
phyllo wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:59 pm The existential is rooted in the cosmic.

Dasein is rooted in the cosmic.

Where else could it be rooted?
Again, let's bring this down to Earth. The mass shooting in Buffalo. It certainly seems to have unfolded in the cosmos. The shooter as well.

But then this part: his motives, his intentions.

Why did he choose to do what he did? How are the cosmic and the existential elements intertwined here? His Self in the either/or world and his "self" in the is/ought world.

And then our own individual reactions to it. What can be pinned down as in sync with the cosmos itself? And what seems instead to be embedded subjectively in our own individual lives lived in our own individual ways predisposing us to think our own individual opinions about things like "replacement theory" and race?
Back again to human interactions in a world in which sans God there does not appear to be an essential/cosmic meaning. And, thus, when moral and political values come into conflict who or what can we turn to?
phyllo wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:59 pm It's not about the process of resolving conflict. That's something else.
Something else to you perhaps, but my argument is that moral and political conflicts abound around the globe. And the objectivists turn to their own God or No God font: one of us vs. one of them.

History, let's call it.
phyllo wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:59 pm Even if you had the cosmic meaning carved into a stone tablet, there would still be conflicts. And there would still be conflicts about how to settle those conflicts.
Sure, if this cosmic meaning -- a God, the God, your God, say -- carved a list of Commandments in stone, there would still be conflicts of what God means. But to the extent this God revealed Himself as the Real Deal and set Himself up to resolve disputes, come on, we would be interacting in a very different world, right?
Each objectivist narrative will claim that the human condition revolves precisely around their own assessment of it.
phyllo wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:59 pm People have all sorts of narratives.

A narrative is not the same as the human condition.

The human condition is still rooted in the cosmic.
Back to Buffalo then? Or over to Ukraine?
If there is a "human condition" then it must be connected to the "cosmic" in some way. And as a consequence, human meaning must also be connected to the "cosmic".
On the other hand, if is a big word. And if there is one what are the odds that it is yours or mine?
phyllo wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:59 pm The first step is to decide if there is a "human condition" or not. The author said that there is. Then logically, meaning is tied into that human condition in some way. But she avoids that conclusion. She disconnects meaning from the human condition and therefore from the cosmic. This seems to be a completely arbitrary decision on her part.
Or an existential decision rooted in dasein. There are clearly things that we can all agree on in describing the condition of being human. Basic needs that must be met if we are even to subsist at all. Biological facts, demographic facts, social fact, political facts, economic facts in any given community.

No, the part about connecting the dots between the existential and the cosmic that seems to be far more problematic is in the realm of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments. How do we acquire them? Why ours and not theirs?

What can in fact, objectively, be pinned down here?

As a moral nihilist, I have my set of assumptions. As a moral objectivist, you have yours.

Then the contexts of course.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: nihilism

Post by phyllo »

Again, let's bring this down to Earth. The mass shooting in Buffalo. It certainly seems to have unfolded in the cosmos. The shooter as well.

But then this part: his motives, his intentions.

Why did he choose to do what he did? How are the cosmic and the existential elements intertwined here? His Self in the either/or world and his "self" in the is/ought world.

And then our own individual reactions to it. What can be pinned down as in sync with the cosmos itself? And what seems instead to be embedded subjectively in our own individual lives lived in our own individual ways predisposing us to think our own individual opinions about things like "replacement theory" and race?
He lives in a particular society and in a time and place. That's embedded in the cosmos.

Our reactions are also based on time, place, society. Also embedded in the cosmos.
It's not about the process of resolving conflict. That's something else.
Something else to you perhaps, but my argument is that moral and political conflicts abound around the globe. And the objectivists turn to their own God or No God font: one of us vs. one of them.
I wasn't addressing conflicts in my post. Nothing in my post was about conflict.
Sure, if this cosmic meaning -- a God, the God, your God, say -- carved a list of Commandments in stone, there would still be conflicts of what God means. But to the extent this God revealed Himself as the Real Deal and set Himself up to resolve disputes, come on, we would be interacting in a very different world, right?
Right. If God was sitting around, micromanaging everything, the world would be very different.

But that's not the world we live in and I'm not discussing some sort of fiction.
People have all sorts of narratives.

A narrative is not the same as the human condition.

The human condition is still rooted in the cosmic.
Back to Buffalo then? Or over to Ukraine?
Are those two questions supposed to be a response?

Talk about living is not the same as living. Living is taking place within the cosmic.

Agree or disagree. Yes, no, maybe. Reasons for your point of view.
The first step is to decide if there is a "human condition" or not. The author said that there is. Then logically, meaning is tied into that human condition in some way. But she avoids that conclusion. She disconnects meaning from the human condition and therefore from the cosmic. This seems to be a completely arbitrary decision on her part.
Or an existential decision rooted in dasein.
That's not a reason. That's trivial.

She may have real reasons for her decision which are not in the bits that you quoted. But based on what I read here, she is missing something.
No, the part about connecting the dots between the existential and the cosmic that seems to be far more problematic is in the realm of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments. How do we acquire them? Why ours and not theirs?

What can in fact, objectively, be pinned down here?

As a moral nihilist, I have my set of assumptions. As a moral objectivist, you have yours.
One has to examine the assumptions and the reasoning.

Just saying that everyone has assumptions is not saying much.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by iambiguous »

Good news for nihilists? Life is meaningless after all, say philosophers
Tom Howell
at the CBC website
The philosophers' attempt to distance nihilism's core claims from the undesirable behaviours associated with the word itself has drawn protest from some colleagues in the field. The University of Edinburgh's Guy Bennett-Hunter disputes that self-professed nihilists can enjoy a social meaning to their lives while also calling life itself ultimately meaningless.
Here "I" am hopelessly ambivalent. I agree that to the extent moral nihilism results in you becoming "fractured and fragmented", any social meaning you ascribe to your interactions with others is profoundly problematic to say the least. It bespeaks the gap between my "I" and the manner in which those like karpel tunnel and Gib here [at ILP] can accept part of my argument in regards to dasein but still not reach the point where they feel hopelessly drawn and quartered in regard to their own value judgments. They are able to accumulate enough meaning so that they can stand firmly behind their own political agenda. Well, if I am understanding them correctly.

If you believe that in a No God world life is ultimately -- essentially -- meaningless than what font is available to you in order to establish your existential meaning as objective? How is it not but the manifestation of subjective meaning rooted instead in dasein.

That's basically the argument I am looking for.
"I'd stress that the social meanings, which James Tartaglia accepts, logically as well as psychologically require a transcendent context of meaning for life — which he rejects," Bennett-Hunter said. He also argues that Tartaglia's nihilism fails to account for the possibility that an 'ultimate meaning of life' may not be factual in a prosaic sense, but nevertheless exist and be poetically true, as with creation myths.
That's more or less my own argument here. No God [or His secular equivalent sans immortality and salvation] and you can convince yourself that your own moral and political value judgments are rock solid...but what happens when you bump into others who insist the same thing, only it's their Truth and not yours?

For me, those like Gib "somehow" manage to convince themselves re "general description intellectual contraptions" that their own point of view prevails. But the other side is doing exactly the same thing. And they still have no font available to finally resolve it all once and for all.

Instead, from my frame of mind, those like him [and certainly the objectivists] embrace an objective existential meaning, because psychologically it comforts and consoles them. The thought of viewing the world around them as "I" do is simply, well, unthinkable. Too much is invested in their "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
Post Reply