Nihilism is a Contradiction

[Eodnhoj7]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

[promethean75]

Okay but where's the contradiction?

[Eodnhoj7]

Okay but where's the contradiction?

If "anything goes" then this is a moral phenomenon, as it is the fullest manner to achieve the fullness of being, and as a moral phenomenon stands in contrast to that which is immoral (ie "not anything goes").

If "anything goes" then a circumstance where "not anything goes" must be observed if "anything" is to go.

[promethean75]

'anything goes' is a statement of fact, not a value judgement. Therefore it isn't a moral statement.

[Eodnhoj7]

'anything goes' is a statement of fact, not a value judgement. Therefore it isn't a moral statement.

A fact is a truth and the speaking of truth is a moral way of being. Truth and morality are inseparable. Facts are truths as they are the relationship of contexts, ie for x phenomenon under y condition z must result; z is the value of x and y thus facts as truths contain an element of morality to them.

[promethean75]

If the fact that 'the cat is on the mat' is not only a truth, but also something moral, and, moral judgements express values like 'good' and 'bad', what is the bad way of presenting the fact that 'the cat is on the mat'? Can there be a 'wrongness' about stating such a fact?

If we say that either the cat is on the mat or not, and that one either states the fact or not, at most we could say that a person could lie about the cat being on the mat. But lying about a fact is not presenting a fact wrongly, or with malcontent, or with bad manners. It's simply presenting a fact that isn't a fact. So what exactly is 'moral' about making such a statement? It may be immoral to 'lie' about the cat being on the mat, but we're talking about the fact itself, not somebody lying about it.

Can there be an immoral stating of such a fact? Is there a 'good' way of stating the fact and a 'bad' way of stating the fact?

See where this is going? By delineating moral statements to mere statements of fact, you deprive moral statements of the very quality that makes them statements of value or prescriptions for proper behavior.

Not only that, but you would incriminate any and everything anyone could ever speak about.

'That is a rock'

'why you evil sonofabitch! why would you say that?!'

[Eodnhoj7]

If the fact that 'the cat is on the mat' is not only a truth, but also something moral, and, moral judgements express values like 'good' and 'bad', what is the bad way of presenting the fact that 'the cat is on the mat'? Can there be a 'wrongness' about stating such a fact?

If we say that either the cat is on the mat or not, and that one either states the fact or not, at most we could say that a person could lie about the cat being on the mat. But lying about a fact is not presenting a fact wrongly, or with malcontent, or with bad manners. It's simply presenting a fact that isn't a fact. So what exactly is 'moral' about making such a statement? It may be immoral to 'lie' about the cat being on the mat, but we're talking about the fact itself, not somebody lying about it.

Can there be an immoral stating of such a fact? Is there a 'good' way of stating the fact and a 'bad' way of stating the fact?

See where this is going? By delineating moral statements to mere statements of fact, you deprive moral statements of the very quality that makes them statements of value or prescriptions for proper behavior.

Not only that, but you would incriminate any and everything anyone could ever speak about.

'That is a rock'

'why you evil sonofabitch! why would you say that?!'

To misrepresent "the cat on the mat" is to dissociate one phenomenon, the cat on the mat, from another phenomenon, the representation of the cat on the mat, and is immoral as it is an absence of unity between phenomena. Unity is morality as unity is wholeness of being.

"Not only that, but you would incriminate any and everything anyone could ever speak about."

Then speak less.

[popeye1945]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

Eodnhoj7,
Perhaps my definition of Nihilism is not traditional, does the traditional state, that the physical world in which we find ourselves is meaningless? Yes, it is. So, if this is the case for Nihilism you might just as easily call it apparent reality or your everyday reality. Make the case, in the absence of a conscious subject read biological consciousness the world is meaningless, all meaning is first subjective, the result of the effect of the physical world upon our biology, in other words, the world has no values, morals, meanings, beliefs until they are bestowed or made manifest by consciousness upon the outer world. There is no objective anything unless it is cognitively known, when known it can be bestowed. There is no contradiction here, meaning is bestowed because it is the property of a conscious subject it is never the property of the world as an object. Where is the contradiction?

[Iwannaplato]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

Nihilism precisely does not require or call proper any way of being. Nihilism (there are a few, but in general) means there is not a proper way to be or one cannot be determined.

[Eodnhoj7]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

Nihilism precisely does not require or call proper any way of being. Nihilism (there are a few, but in general) means there is not a proper way to be or one cannot be determined.

To say there is no-way is to say anything goes, to say anything goes is to point to a very broad way of being.

[Eodnhoj7]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

Eodnhoj7,
Perhaps my definition of Nihilism is not traditional, does the traditional state, that the physical world in which we find ourselves is meaningless? Yes, it is. So, if this is the case for Nihilism you might just as easily call it apparent reality or your everyday reality. Make the case, in the absence of a conscious subject read biological consciousness the world is meaningless, all meaning is first subjective, the result of the effect of the physical world upon our biology, in other words, the world has no values, morals, meanings, beliefs until they are bestowed or made manifest by consciousness upon the outer world. There is no objective anything unless it is cognitively known, when known it can be bestowed. There is no contradiction here, meaning is bestowed because it is the property of a conscious subject it is never the property of the world as an object. Where is the contradiction?

"If physical reality is meaningless, and biological consciousness is composed of physical reality, then biological consciousness is meaningless as well."

This prior statement was made by a biological consciousness thus is meaningless and yet true; therefore truth exists beyond meaning and meaning is not necessary for existence if truth is existence.

Dually to say "everything is meaningless" is to say something meaningful thus a contradiction occurs.

[popeye1945]

Eodnhoj7,
Indeed one's body is an object to one's self in the physical world and it is this object/body that is the interface between the physical world and ones conscious understanding of it. The subject is biological consciousness and object the physical world. However, the physical world is not conscious, does not experience thus have knowledge of the subject. Only the biological subject has the property of experience/knowledge/meaning thus it is the biological subject that bestows meaning upon the world, for meaning is the experience of the biological subject never of physical world as object. One's reality one's everyday reality is a biological readout, all meaning is the experience of the body and its understanding. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness and indeed ones own body in the physical world would be meaningless if it were not for its self-understanding and the perception of itself by others.

For your second observation, there is no real duality here for subject and object can never be two separate things or as Schopenhauer stated, subject and object stand or fall together, take one away and the other ceases to be. There is no contradiction here. People speak of subject and object duality merely as a convenience to understanding the relation between the two aspects of the one thing.

[promethean75]

Nihilism can't be a contradiction because only propositions and statements can be contradictions, and nihilism isn't a proposition or a statement.

Now you might find statements made by nihilists that happen to be contradictions, but the position of nihilism itself neither stands or falls on a few contradicting statements, because it's too broad of a philosophy to be simplified like that.

[popeye1945]

The one thing that Nihilism does for him/her is to make the person realize that they are the creators in the world they find themselves in. It is they that define reality as a biological interpretation, a biological readout of the effect of the physical world upon their being.

[Iwannaplato]

If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

Nihilism precisely does not require or call proper any way of being. Nihilism (there are a few, but in general) means there is not a proper way to be or one cannot be determined.

To say there is no-way is to say anything goes, to say anything goes is to point to a very broad way of being.

One could be a nihilist and do anything or not do anything. It does not lead, necessarily, to a way of being or a set of ways of being. Being unconvinced that there is a morally right way to do things, for example, does not lead to any particular set of actions. One can, generally does, have a specific set of desires, wants, preferences and these lead to individualized sets of behaviors.

And moral belief systems lead to broad ranges of behaviors. Just look at the world of non-nihilists.

Notice what I responded to which you don't defend but ignore now...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:26 pm
If nihilism is the proper way of being, in such a manner that "anything goes", then the opposite of nihilism, "not anything goes", results in a contradiction where there is a right and wrong way to act, "anything goes" vs. "not anything goes" respectively, therefore morality exists in contradiction to nihilism.

1) a nihilist (in general, again there are a number of nihilisms) CANNOT argue that there is a proper way of being. That would be a moral position about how to act in the world. Nihilists tend not to make that contradiction.
2) Somehow you turn a position that says that there is no correct way to act (or in some nihilisms 'no way to know what that would be') into an argument that one way of being is right.
3) it assumes that morals are the main drivers of behavior and necessarily more specific than other drivers. Individual desires, needs, wants, proclivities, interests are highly specific drivers.