nihilism

[Immanuel Can]

I will accept what God does but I can't get him to explain.

Fair enough. But when He does explain, wise people listen.

The foolish ones keep saying, "He hasn't explained."

The smart ones say, "He hasn't explained". The foolish ones say, "I can hear God".

Who are YOU listening to?

You and I are going to find out. You don't think you will, but you will.

Best you look to that.

[Age]

Fair enough. But when He does explain, wise people listen.

The foolish ones keep saying, "He hasn't explained."

The smart ones say, "He hasn't explained". The foolish ones say, "I can hear God".

Who are YOU listening to?

You and I are going to find out.

AGAIN, a COMPLETE FAILURE and INABILITY to CLARIFY.

Could 'you' be MORE of a FAILURE "immanuel can"?

No matter HOW MUCH or HOW MANY TIMES I try to help you, you just keep FAILING "your" OWN 'self' here.

If you want to CLAIM that 'you' HEAR and KNOW God, then who or what IS God, and what is God SAYING to you?

Do NOT be AFRAID and just answer the CLARIFYING question, Honestly.

You don't think you will, but you will.

That is it, TRY and SCARE the "other" INTO BELIEVING what you BELIEVE is true. Just like you have been SCARED to BELIEVE what you do here.

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of so-called "christianity" at work. Either BELIEVE 'me' and what "I say" OR you WILL have to SUFFER the consequences. And, "you don't think you will, but YOU WILL".

So, TELL 'us' "immanuel can", what are 'we' GOING TO 'find out', and WHEN?

Best you look to that.

But you are, essentially, NOT SAYING ANY thing AT ALL here "immanuel can".

All you are REALLY doing is just conveying and expressing your OWN build up FEARS. You are just SHOWING and PROVING how SCARED and AFRAID you REALLY ARE.

Which is ANOTHER CONTRADICTION, especially considering the Fact of what "your" God is REALLY meant to be like.

Have you ALWAYS been a VERY SCARED and AFRAID WEAK little child, or has this 'personality' just become worse later on?

REMEMBER, NO one can help 'you', if 'you' do NOT help "your" 'self'.

And, ' best you LOOK TO 'that' '.

[popeye1945]

"To god, all things are right and good, only to man, somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

[RCSaunders]

"To god, all things are right and good, only to man, somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

So nothing you say is either right or wrong. It's just so much meaningless blather?

You really believe that?

[promethean75]

"Nothing exists. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others." - Gorgeous Gorgias

[popeye1945]

The very knowledge about the nature/relation of subject and object delivers upon us a form of Nihilism, for in the absence of a conscious subject the psychical world is utterly meaningless. Nihilism is thought of as something dark and foreboding, when in fact it lefts the blinders from our eyes to realize it is consciousness itself that is the creator of apparent reality. This should be looked upon as something liberating, freeing, and a highly functional revelation. Biology, after all, is the measure of all things, and morality to be realistic should be based upon the creation system of our common biology.

[Immanuel Can]

Biology, after all, is the measure of all things, and morality to be realistic should be based upon the creation system of our common biology.

"Biology" has no moral messages.

In fact, "biology" doesn't care whether you -- or your whole species -- thrive, struggle or become extinct. "Biology" is entirely indifferent to that question, and wants no particular outcome more than another.

Basing morality upon "biology" makes no more sense than basing actuarial tables on butterfly collecting.

[popeye1945]

Biology, after all, is the measure of all things, and morality to be realistic should be based upon the creation system of our common biology.

"Biology" has no moral messages.

In fact, "biology" doesn't care whether you -- or your whole species -- thrive, struggle or become extinct. "Biology" is entirely indifferent to that question, and wants no particular outcome more than another. Basing morality upon "biology" makes no more sense than basing actuarial tables on butterfly collecting.

We totally disagree here, are you speaking from a religious point of view? Where else might you imagine any meaningful structure or system might be generated from? I might ask you if you are indifferent to the survival of yourself, your family, your community, your species. Do the dangers of climate change not affect you, or you just don't care? It is rather silly where do you think the established systems in place at present came from? Do you not get it that biological consciousness creates all meaning? I am all ears if you have something reasonable to present.

[Immanuel Can]

Biology, after all, is the measure of all things, and morality to be realistic should be based upon the creation system of our common biology.

"Biology" has no moral messages.

In fact, "biology" doesn't care whether you -- or your whole species -- thrive, struggle or become extinct. "Biology" is entirely indifferent to that question, and wants no particular outcome more than another. Basing morality upon "biology" makes no more sense than basing actuarial tables on butterfly collecting.

We totally disagree here, are you speaking from a religious point of view?

No. I'm talking about "biology" only.

Where else might you imagine any meaningful structure or system might be generated from?

Not from "biology." That was your answer. Right now, I'm not telling you what will work; I'm only pointing out that the answer you suggest won't work.

I might ask you if you are indifferent to the survival of yourself, your family, your community, your species.

Are you trying to ground morality in my feelings?

Do you not get it that biological consciousness creates all meaning?

It doesn't do that at all. Biology only "creates" biological entities; and whatever you think morality is, it isn't a biological entity. It's a conceptual one.

If we start with biology, all we can think is that "meaning" is a weird, evolutionary accident that actually refers to nothing real. Humans may think there's a thing called "meaning," but there actually isn't; it's all in their heads, if biology is the basis. Things actually "mean" nothing. Silly human beings made up the idea, out of some biological accident in their noggins.

So "biology" isn't the right answer. And a person doesn't have to be speaking from any particular view except a rational, objective one to see that. There's nothing in biology that could ever warrant morality.

[iambiguous]

THE STONE
Navigating Past Nihilism
BY SEAN D. KELLY at the NYT
Kelly is chair of the department of philosophy at Harvard University

Whatever role religion plays in our society today, it is not this one. For today’s religious believers feel strong social pressure to admit that someone who doesn’t share their religious belief might nevertheless be living a life worthy of their admiration. That is not to say that every religious believer accepts this constraint. But to the extent that they do not, then society now rightly condemns them as dangerous religious fanatics rather than sanctioning them as scions of the Church or mosque.

This "tolerance" mentality has never made much sense to me. With objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, how can someone of a particular religious persuasion not insist that there is but one true path to God? Their own.

Treating religious belief as a cafeteria where you pick and choose the beliefs and the behaviors that are most suitable to you seems far, far removed from a reasonable assessment of the sort of thing a God, the God would advocate Himself.

Social pressure? With the fate of your very soul for all of eternity on the line?

No, that to me -- an "ecumenical" frame of mind -- is something in this day and age that was "thought up" as a way to make God a "one size fits all" "progressive" entity that will tolerate behaviors that, depending on the denomination, may be completely in conflict.

God obviates moral nihilism but in its place each denomination gets to tweak the moral commandments such that human interactions can be all over the board.

God is dead, therefore, in a very particular sense. He no longer plays his traditional social role of organizing us around a commitment to a single right way to live. Nihilism is one state a culture may reach when it no longer has a unique and agreed upon social ground.

Yes, in a No God world, nihilists can as individuals come up with their own renditions of the "right way to live". And that might revolve around almost anything. But, from my frame of mind, that doesn't make my own arguments go away. What each individual nihilist does "come up with" will be no less rooted existentially in dasein. Will be no less subject to contingency, chance and change. Will be no less embodied in an essentially meaningless and purposeless life that eventually tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Then those moral nihilists who for all practical purposes become "global capitalists". Who construe the "human condition" as revolving around "show me the money".

Or, perhaps, the most ominous of moral nihilists. Those who for all practical purposes become sociopaths. Nihilism at its most profoundly problematic. At its most dangerous. Bump into one of them and you can be toast. And there is no "reasoning" with them, is there?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600

[Immanuel Can]

Treating religious belief as a cafeteria where you pick and choose the beliefs and the behaviors that are most suitable to you seems far, far removed from a reasonable assessment of the sort of thing a God, the God would advocate Himself.

Good point.

If God exists (we'll make that just for argument's sake), then He surely has some opinion about what are appropriate beliefs, and what are not; unless, like the deistic "Absentee Landlord" god, He has no particular interest in what goes on here at all.

Yes, in a No God world, nihilists can as individuals come up with their own renditions of the "right way to live". And that might revolve around almost anything. But, from my frame of mind, that doesn't make my own arguments go away. What each individual nihilist does "come up with" will be no less rooted existentially in dasein.

It's perhaps worse than that, actually.

What any particular person "comes up with" will be devoid of obligation and implications, both for the "comer up" and for anyone else. It will, in short, not be a morality at all, but rather merely a contingent personal preference. It will have no moral status, since there is no moral external standard from which to judge it.

Or, perhaps, the most ominous of moral nihilists. Those who for all practical purposes become sociopaths. Nihilism at its most profoundly problematic. At its most dangerous. Bump into one of them and you can be toast. And there is no "reasoning" with them, is there?

The thing that keeps this possibility from being obvious to everyone is that pratically nobody, including the most theoretically-convinced moral nihilist can bring himself to do it. Usually, the person in question lapses back into some form of inconsistency -- some received code or socially-provided code of decency he can follow instead of working on nihilistic implications.

It's interesting, though, that a person who claims to be moral and yet does evil, like a humanitarian who embezzles from charitable funds, or like a pedophile priest, is scorned for his moral inconsistency, his betrayal of principle -- and rightly so, of course. There is, however, no comparable penalties for anyone who claims to be a Nihilist and yet behaves in a conventionally moral way. It's almost like people recognize that it's a good thing when a Nihilist doesn't live out his creed...

[promethean75]

"Yes, in a No God world, nihilists can as individuals come up with their own renditions of the "right way to live"

People have only ever done that anyway. Whether or not 'god' exists, or whether or not people believe in a 'god', doesn't change any of that. In fact, either of these could make the situation worse. You've got two countries engaged in a territorial war for hundreds of years, and each one believes their rights are sanctioned by their 'god'. The war, then, is a morally righteous thing to have. Suppose for a moment Islam and Judaism never evolved; would this war be happening. Case and point; not only is belief in 'god' not any solution to the dubious nature of ethics, but even when it is assumed that there is a 'god' who stands as the final moral authority, the most violent of atrocities can be committed in its name/honor.

But I already explained that not one iota of human moral behavior comes from some divine authority or design, but from evolution. Religion proselytizes ethics and moralities... taking the credit for the good (compassion, sympathy, charity, etc), while blaming evolution or 'evil' for the bad (violence, envy, greed, etc).

But this is all too soon for y'all. A morality - one that approaches any 'objectivity' - cannot even begin to be possible until the massive degree of disparity between countries and cultures is absolved through a magnificent change and restructuring of the material relations of all societies.

Any noticeable reduction in immorality and crime will start there... and this has fuck all to do with whether or not a 'god' exists.

[popeye1945]

Immanuel,
"Biology" has no moral messages.
In fact, "biology" doesn't care whether you -- or your whole species -- thrive, struggle or become extinct. "Biology" is entirely indifferent to that question, and wants no particular outcome more than another.
Basing morality upon "biology" makes no more sense than basing actuarial tables on butterfly collecting.
[/quote]

Immanual.

Your raking leaves in a high wind here!! There just is not any other way, the only change I suggest is that what was done on a subconscious level now be done on a conscious level. All of the creations of humanity are already biological extensions of the nature of what it is to be human. Name for me one exception to this rule or observation about the creations of mankind. The supernatural are not acceptable explanations. Morality and the institutions that have arisen to represent it come out of the very nature of humanity. Tell me what morality is if it is not social construction, the only sad part is we are trying to operate our societies of the present from the ignorance of our past. I think from your above statements you are talking about evolutionary biology, natural selection, and natural selection truly is indifferent to the survival of the individual, for it cares/ you realize I am using anthropomorphic language here to describe a nature that is just totally unaware of the individuals plight/ only for species. Nature has endowed organisms to be very concerned about their own survival, indeed the innate fear of death makes this painfully obvious. Our ancestors were to much in the dark to connect the dots, indeed the established authoritarian churches ever increased that darkness, until the rise of the enlightenment. Biology is the only rational foundation for said morality, anything else is still operating in the dark.

[Age]

"Nothing exists. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others." - Gorgeous Gorgias

How did you obtain this 'knowledge' if it, supposedly, could NOT be communicated to you?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel,

"Biology" has no moral messages.
In fact, "biology" doesn't care whether you -- or your whole species -- thrive, struggle or become extinct. "Biology" is entirely indifferent to that question, and wants no particular outcome more than another.
Basing morality upon "biology" makes no more sense than basing actuarial tables on butterfly collecting.

Immanual.

Your raking leaves in a high wind here!!

Heh. Yeah, right.

Well, the wind, if you mean "reason," isn't blowing away what you think it is, maybe. See below.

Morality and the institutions that have arisen to represent it come out of the very nature of humanity.

That's a story. Nobody has reason to believe it.

Lots of things "come out of the very nature" of the humanity you so admire: war, rape, pedophelia, murder, slander, genocide, racism, slavery... For since you believe that there's nothing but "the human" or "nature" behind morality, then there's also nothing else behind such grotesque actions. You might as easily argue that "biology" is the basic of immorality.

But people who advance such ideas never want to talk about that side. They want us to think that only good things come "from biology," or "from nature," or "from humanity," or whatever anthropomorphized deity they use to replace God.

Still, they've left nowhere else for evil to come from.

Tell me what morality is if it is not social construction

The "social construction" idea is just as bad as the "biology" idea. If morality is just a "social construction," then it's not even any longer something made up by a particular person, in his/her own interests, at the least. Then, it's just "constructed" by the brainless interactions of other people. And it's still not capable of making anybody bound to heed it, except by using pure power and violence to compel. It has no rational case at all.

you realize I am using anthropomorphic language here

Yes, everybody who claims there's no God does that, even while pretending it refers to nothing in particular. It's like they can't even keep faith with themselves.

Nature has endowed organisms to be very concerned about their own survival,

"Nature" has no opinion about whether they succeed or not. Lots of species go extinct, and "Nature," your anthropomorphization, never lifts a finger.

Biology is the only rational foundation for said morality...

You can't even explain how "biology" compels a single moral precept. Because it actually doesn't. So there's nothing "rational" about such a belief -- it's pure, blind optimism, devoid of any reasonable explanation at all.

And now that you mention it, I DO hear the sound of dry leaves scooting across the pavement...but they're not my leaves.