Conquer Club

Nihilsm is just lazyness IMO and in the end just a cop out. If you put belief into the idea that life is meaningless, then you are giving it meaning

Crazyirishman wrote:If you put belief into the idea that life is meaningless, then you are giving it meaning

What meaning are you giving it? Meaninglessness is not a meaning.

john9blue wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:A supra-being exists and gives meaning to reality, or no such entity or force exists and therefore there is no intrinsic value. Pick one.

-TG

why can't reality be meaningful on its own merits? why is a supra-being required?

Reality is meaningful... but only to me (or the human race), therefore it's subjective (assuming the absence of a supra-being). Everything we do then has instrumental rather than intrinsic value. The merits of existence are wholly dependent on our experience and have no outside relevance, so you could say that ultimately there is no meaning to anything we do. What does Jupiter care that I found happiness or a new job or a great accomplishment?

I'm sure that's nothing new to you, so how would you propose that an existence devoid of a creator has meaning? For example, how do you prove an objective morality? We generally regard murder as taboo; we can then pretend that across the board, the right to life is an objective morale. But it isn't really, because our right to live is only dependent on our desire to live. The universe as a whole doesn't care whether you die. It has no effect.

edit: i give certain things in my life meaning to me. whether they have any sort of "ultimate meaning" is debatable

Precisely. Those things are important to you, but they may not be important to your neighbor. That can't be an "ultimate meaning."

BBS wrote:The absence of intrinsic value doesn't exclude the value given by each individual's preferences.

Indeed. Again, an individual's preferences would constitute instrumental value. But that doesn't concern the philosophy of nihilism. Sure, you could say that I am an end unto myself; when I die the universe ceases to exist to me, however this belief would clash with others.

-TG

I think that when a person is truthful, in the way Kierkergaard would mean truthful, one finds many "meanings" in his life. It's when one is at discord with something that one starts looking for a unique all-powerful "meaning".

Our cognitive capabilities are tools to our more integral will.

Has I said many times in this forum, accept YOUR death, choose your projects of life, be authentic.

The question about Nihilism will give no answers, a more general approach will.

nietzsche wrote:I think that when a person is truthful, in the way Kierkergaard would mean truthful, one finds many "meanings" in his life. It's when one is at discord with something that one starts looking for a unique all-powerful "meaning".

Our cognitive capabilities are tools to our more integral will.

Has I said many times in this forum, accept YOUR death, choose your projects of life, be authentic.

The question about Nihilism will give no answers, a more general approach will.

And vice versa.

nietzsche wrote: The question about Nihilism will give no answers, a more general approach will.

I agree with this, its hard to think of a nihilist off of the top of my head that accomplished anything worthwhile. note: I dont consider Nietzsche or Kierkigaard to be nihilists in thier philosophy

Who says there's anything worthwhile to accomplish?

Look out guys, we've got an Intro to Philosophy 101 student here.

barackattack wrote:So where do you stand on nihilism, if I'm 'trolling'?

You can't stand on an idea.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BBS wrote:The absence of intrinsic value doesn't exclude the value given by each individual's preferences.

Indeed. Again, an individual's preferences would constitute instrumental value. But that doesn't concern the philosophy of nihilism. Sure, you could say that I am an end unto myself; when I die the universe ceases to exist to me, however this belief would clash with others.

-TG

Why not?

EDIT: If there is no inherent/intrinsic value, so what?

oh, how the trollbles have turned

barackattack wrote:The absence of any objective meaning or value in anything around us.

Does it for me.

Is there anything that you consider to have meaning?

Well, I admit, you do offer evidence of no intrinsic value or meaning.

The absence of any universally held values of 'good' or 'bad'.
The inconsistency of any society's moral code.
The impossibility of any 'answer' to life being applicable to all humans.

Things only have the meaning that we perceive them to have.

What differentiates nihilism from moral relativism, or "moral subjectivism" (for lack of a better term)?

Very little, as far as I'm aware. Same underlying principle.

Would the existence of synthetic a priori propositions invalidate nihilism?


I don't really understand Nihilism, but I see a possible counterargument provided by the works of
Wittgenstein, Mises, and Kant...

How could the proposition exist a priori... what.

Meanings and ideas only exist as human interpretations. So they can't pre-exist themselves.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe would do this justice. It would be a more valuable use of our time if you applied your knowledge of nihilism directly to Hans-Hermann's article--instead of using me as a middleman.

If you've got questions behind his underlying logic or the context behind his paper, then I can answer that. I just don't know enough about nihilism to relate it to Hoppe and then relay it back to you.

http://mises.org/pdf/esam.pdf


Just read the first 6 or 7 pages.

barackattack wrote:How could the proposition exist a priori... what.

Meanings and ideas only exist as human interpretations. So they can't pre-exist themselves.

Curious question, if ideas only exist as human interpretations, what are humans interpreting to get those ideas? if they dont exist, how do we get soemthing (an idea) form nothing?

also the distinction that I see between nihilsm and cultural/moral relativism even though Ive only read a couple things about the latter is that in relativism, instead of nothingness, they believed that just because two things are different, it does not necessarliy mean one is wrong. But one of the criticisms of relativism is that there could be and objective set of moral values, they are just enforced in different belif systems. Another is that if two cultures believe different things i.e. one thinks the world is flat and the other is round, facts say that one is wrong.