Sup @alexander.alexis! TL/DR-ing the debate that was already had here, I want to offer my simplistic take on Nihilism. As I understand, Nihilism, specifically Existential Nihilism, is the belief that there is no meaning in our existence. This then leads a nihilist to speculate on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. If having no meaning is a bad thing, then a nihilist would go under the label of Cynical or Pessimistic Nihilism, ala Mathew Mcconaughey in True Detective.
From there, it follows that at least two other perspectives could exist, Skeptical and Optimistic Nihilism. Personally I would have to consider myself a nihilist on most days wavering between these two positions. Assuming I'm correct in my belief that we were not created and that we are a complex statistical inevitability given the course of natural selection and the materials of this universe, I see no use in causing myself to suffer from fretting over the rug torn out from under me. My purpose is no longer there because I never had one. All I can do is consider what I want my purpose to be, because there's nothing stopping me from making my own. The value I have is value that I give to myself.
What's more, I have to wonder what a realistic cynical nihilist would think they accomplish by dying. If they accept that they were naturally selected into existence, then all that their dying without having offspring accomplishes is artificially selecting themselves out of the genepool and leaving the rest of the species to have a greater likelihood of evolving to become dumber, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex. Seriously, if you have the ability to think clearly about sex, then we need your genes to stay. You think it's bad now, imagine what happens when it's a genetic strength to breed like bunnies in human society.
For me, making my own purpose is not that complicated. The reason I exist is because the parts that comprise who I am were the parts of my heritage that continued to exist. That's all it is. We exist for the sake of existence, so why not continue to do the same?
Hi man! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
There's many definitions of nihilism, and I refer to a very specific one, that I went over in my first post of this series.
So no disagreements there.
My purpose is no longer there because I never had one. All I can do is consider what I want my purpose to be, because there's nothing stopping me from making my own. The value I have is value that I give to myself.
Do you really think you can make up purposes/values like that? Surely you're constricted by the form of life you belong to. It's not like you can just decide to find cows as attractive as a bull does, or to find wood as tasty and homey as a termite does.
And then there's determinism.
So I would say (for simplicity's sake), half your values are determined by your genes, and the other half by your environment. You don't choose your 'meaning' and your values - you have no choice but to possess values.
But I'll be treating these issues in later installments!
I'm in total agreement with your whole 'Idiocracy' point! It may sound funny to some, the way you put it, but something similar to that is actually among the thoughts that keep me going when I'm in my darker moments! And plus it's just literally the correct way to see it, what you're describing!
Do you really think you can make up purposes/values like that? Surely you're constricted by the form of life you belong to. It's not like you can just decide to find cows as attractive as a bull does, or to find wood as tasty and homey as a termite does.
So, here you are talking about desires. A desire might inspire purpose, but I don't think it is necessarily the case that choosing a purpose equates to altering your desires. However, I can see where a foot into the free will debate might take you to that extreme. If we are saying that our desires form our sense of purpose, then on that level there's really no free will or sense of free will to be considered at all. Purpose would then just be a function that we exhibit just as we exhibit the function of having desires. I have a take on free will that I think works and is compatiblist, but others have disagreed with the idea that it solves the problem of free will.
I would say that I have a desire towards having sex and that one can argue that I also have a desire to not do things that I will regret. Considering that these desires can often be at odds, there has to be something that makes the difference between which one wins out in a given scenario where they are. I wouldn't say that it's the strength of my desire to not do things I will regret that wins out because I don't really feel caution to a relative degree that I feel sexual desire. I reason that I will regret having sex on that occasion and I resist out of a choice to not do something stupid, assuming I have a choice in the matter. Truth be told, sometimes I haven't.
And then there's determinism.
So I would say (for simplicity's sake), half your values are determined by your genes, and the other half by your environment. You don't choose your 'meaning' and your values - you have no choice but to possess values.
But I'll be treating these issues in later installments!
Yup, that's it! As for my take on determinism, much of what you are takes on an overall function that is algorithmic in nature. Your values are preprogrammed in both ways you described, but what about when you are being mindful? Given the time to reflect on your values, to think about them and to even think about thinking about them, you can put them into question in a more genuine way than if you didn't.
For example, you might have a genetic value of problem solving and an education in programming. If you solve a problem that no one has solved before, did that solution come from your values that were governed by your genetics or environment? Or did the solution come from a truer you? Do we extend the definition of 'environment' to include the processes in your brain? If the solution was discovered by an algorithm that is you, then would it not stand to reason that you determined a logical truth that is as inherent to our reality as logic itself? Could it be that this is all you need to see yourself as to determine purpose or value? You're a computational device with an observer function that is the self of your brain. You simply process and problem solve and fight boredom, hopefully epicly.
I can never for the life of me understand compatibilists! People sometimes have this idea that philosophy has been at it for ages, and yet has never solved a single issue. And with this free will-vs-determinism debate turning into a compatibilism-vs-incompatibilism debate, it's like philosophers are trying to prove just that: yeah, even when we've definitely solved something, we're still going to find a way to argue about it.
but what about when you are being mindful
Our minds, at the end of the day, are in no way different than anything else in nature. It's just stuff. As stuff, it follows the laws that govern stuff. A tennis ball in flight has just as much free will to choose its direction as I have when I'm trying to decide what to have for breakfast.
Given the time to reflect on your values, to think about them and to even think about thinking about them, you can put them into question in a more genuine way than if you didn't.
Your decision will be more informed, not less determined.
Or did the solution come from a truer you? Do we extend the definition of 'environment' to include the processes in your brain? If the solution was discovered by an algorithm that is you, then would it not stand to reason that you determined a logical truth that is as inherent to our reality as logic itself? Could it be that this is all you need to see yourself as to determine purpose or value?
The more you think, let's say, the more you make decisions that agree with the truer you. You discover/uncover your values, you don't create them.
What about animals other than humans? Do you think they can create their own values? It's simpler to see how things work in that case I think: the dog starts with certain values, let's say it values eating, its environment might put obstacles in the satisfaction of that desire, the owner might for instance require the dog to dance before he gives it any food, the dog also values companionship etc. (it loves its owner)...before you know it the dog starts valuing the dancing. That's crude, but what I'm saying is I can't see how a living thing can create values out of thin air. Thinking in the first place happens because the living thing wants to achieve something, so the brain does its weighing of pros and cons etc. until it arrives at some solution that, when presented to the rest of its values, will be looked upon with approval, and a new value will be added to the arsenal. Old values + new information about the environment = new values.
But everything you said requires going into much more depth and detail to answer fairly.
On an infinite period of time there is no sense in anything because everything inevitably turns to nothing) You've become a billionaire? You are a great famous writer or artist? Suffered you or not, were you happy or not? It doesn't matter)))
So if there is no any higher sense at all so why not to come up with your own sense of life? Procreation? Why not? Making art? Brilliant. Helping the others, finding the cure against lethal disease? Great. I will invent my own)
May be that's how nihilist thinks? Question authorities, beliefs, morals? Making his own system of values?
May be that's how nihilist thinks? Question authorities, beliefs, morals? Making his own system of values?
That sounds more like an anarchist I think. Or maybe a skeptic.
P.s Can anyone be a nihilist 24/7?)))
If it's a psychological state, then maybe he can get into it and out of it depending on mood. If it's an intellectual state, then he can do it 24/7. I'm an atheist 24/7 !
On an infinite period of time there is no sense in anything because everything inevitably turns to nothing)
Well I don't know if we know that. Some will mention entropy, and say you're right. Others will claim there's infinite universes. Others will say, "look, in 2000 years we went from Jesus on a donkey to Armstrong in a spaceship, who knows what human technology will make feasible in the future? Perhaps we'll figure out a way to keep everything from turning into nothing the same way we figured out a way to keep a teepee from collapsing!"
Dude, take some basic math before combining it with philosophy.
You should at least take a class in statistics.
[1]Even if there is a 50% chance of X occurring in a span of 100 years, it can happen in the last decade of one's life or at the very beginning. The fact that they have 50% chance doesn't mean anything. It only suggests probability. More so, you logical deduction does not follow since humans do not operate like math equations. They are much more fluid and unpredictable.
[2] You make the same logical fallacy as the religious folk who believe in miracles. They assert that their belief in God saved them from an accident hence why you hear so many stories about miracle survivors. Thing is, you don't get to know or hear the opinions of those who are dead to tell you that their God-summoning did not work. So, you have observation bias on the survivors. Same thing applies in your suicide narrative.
and you took philosophy in college? Κρίμας τα ριάλλια του τζιηρού σου...λολ...Πέμπεμου 10SD να τα θωρώ πριν τα βάλλεις για να μεν γίνεσαι ρεζίλι.
You are taking this too literally. The point was to show that nihilists are hypocrites, that they say things they clearly don't believe. If they were honest with themselves - if they really thought life is no more valuable than death - then they'd borrow a page from Two-Face, they'd do something like flip a coin every morning when they got out of bed, and let it decide whether to commit suicide or not. Hence the absurdity of the first 3 panels of the comic. In a sense, they are whiners, who don't do anything about the thing they're whining about. I understand there are outliers, but what about the big mountain-boob in the middle? Sure there's gonna be some people hanging by the mustache-end of the bell-curve, but so far, every single nihilist I ever met is still alive. There's just no truth to their words.
Add to that the other arguments from the other posts - i.e. that every single decision would fare the same 50-50 chances of being done or not, i.e. looking at the road when you're crossing it, deciding whether to eat or starve - and it becomes very clear that, like I said, a nihilist lives more or less like every other person, he just whines more. I can perfectly well accept - even endorse - views like existentialism, or people who are depressed about the state of the world or humankind etc. - just don't tell me that you literally believe life has no more value/meaning than death, cos then you're just a big fat LIVING liar.
Let me make this even clearer. Because of the way I expressed the point in the comic, you followed me along in the assumption - nurtured even further in the 'every morning when they got out of bed' point above - that a nihilist only has to make this decision for himself once a day, hence your 'what about the people on the end of the curled mustache?' But in fact, a nihilist has to make that decision every single moment of his life: if you're sitting across a table from a nihilist, sipping coffee, and he tells you he thinks 'life and death are the same', and by the end of your meeting he's still alive, then you've witnessed an outlier; if he calls you again the next day, then you've witnessed a miracle (or just a liar).
More so, you logical deduction does not follow since humans do not operate like math equations. They are much more fluid and unpredictable.
Or just hypocrites. Or non-philosophers, who utter words without really comprehending their meaning, because they weren't trained to do so. It's philosophers' responsibility to not let them get away with that.
Sup @alexander.alexis! TL/DR-ing the debate that was already had here, I want to offer my simplistic take on Nihilism. As I understand, Nihilism, specifically Existential Nihilism, is the belief that there is no meaning in our existence. This then leads a nihilist to speculate on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. If having no meaning is a bad thing, then a nihilist would go under the label of Cynical or Pessimistic Nihilism, ala Mathew Mcconaughey in True Detective.
From there, it follows that at least two other perspectives could exist, Skeptical and Optimistic Nihilism. Personally I would have to consider myself a nihilist on most days wavering between these two positions. Assuming I'm correct in my belief that we were not created and that we are a complex statistical inevitability given the course of natural selection and the materials of this universe, I see no use in causing myself to suffer from fretting over the rug torn out from under me. My purpose is no longer there because I never had one. All I can do is consider what I want my purpose to be, because there's nothing stopping me from making my own. The value I have is value that I give to myself.
What's more, I have to wonder what a realistic cynical nihilist would think they accomplish by dying. If they accept that they were naturally selected into existence, then all that their dying without having offspring accomplishes is artificially selecting themselves out of the genepool and leaving the rest of the species to have a greater likelihood of evolving to become dumber, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex. Seriously, if you have the ability to think clearly about sex, then we need your genes to stay. You think it's bad now, imagine what happens when it's a genetic strength to breed like bunnies in human society.
For me, making my own purpose is not that complicated. The reason I exist is because the parts that comprise who I am were the parts of my heritage that continued to exist. That's all it is. We exist for the sake of existence, so why not continue to do the same?
Hi man! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
There's many definitions of nihilism, and I refer to a very specific one, that I went over in my first post of this series.
So no disagreements there.
Do you really think you can make up purposes/values like that? Surely you're constricted by the form of life you belong to. It's not like you can just decide to find cows as attractive as a bull does, or to find wood as tasty and homey as a termite does.
And then there's determinism.
So I would say (for simplicity's sake), half your values are determined by your genes, and the other half by your environment. You don't choose your 'meaning' and your values - you have no choice but to possess values.
But I'll be treating these issues in later installments!
I'm in total agreement with your whole 'Idiocracy' point! It may sound funny to some, the way you put it, but something similar to that is actually among the thoughts that keep me going when I'm in my darker moments! And plus it's just literally the correct way to see it, what you're describing!
NP!
So, here you are talking about desires. A desire might inspire purpose, but I don't think it is necessarily the case that choosing a purpose equates to altering your desires. However, I can see where a foot into the free will debate might take you to that extreme. If we are saying that our desires form our sense of purpose, then on that level there's really no free will or sense of free will to be considered at all. Purpose would then just be a function that we exhibit just as we exhibit the function of having desires. I have a take on free will that I think works and is compatiblist, but others have disagreed with the idea that it solves the problem of free will.
I would say that I have a desire towards having sex and that one can argue that I also have a desire to not do things that I will regret. Considering that these desires can often be at odds, there has to be something that makes the difference between which one wins out in a given scenario where they are. I wouldn't say that it's the strength of my desire to not do things I will regret that wins out because I don't really feel caution to a relative degree that I feel sexual desire. I reason that I will regret having sex on that occasion and I resist out of a choice to not do something stupid, assuming I have a choice in the matter. Truth be told, sometimes I haven't.
Yup, that's it! As for my take on determinism, much of what you are takes on an overall function that is algorithmic in nature. Your values are preprogrammed in both ways you described, but what about when you are being mindful? Given the time to reflect on your values, to think about them and to even think about thinking about them, you can put them into question in a more genuine way than if you didn't.
For example, you might have a genetic value of problem solving and an education in programming. If you solve a problem that no one has solved before, did that solution come from your values that were governed by your genetics or environment? Or did the solution come from a truer you? Do we extend the definition of 'environment' to include the processes in your brain? If the solution was discovered by an algorithm that is you, then would it not stand to reason that you determined a logical truth that is as inherent to our reality as logic itself? Could it be that this is all you need to see yourself as to determine purpose or value? You're a computational device with an observer function that is the self of your brain. You simply process and problem solve and fight boredom, hopefully epicly.
I can never for the life of me understand compatibilists! People sometimes have this idea that philosophy has been at it for ages, and yet has never solved a single issue. And with this free will-vs-determinism debate turning into a compatibilism-vs-incompatibilism debate, it's like philosophers are trying to prove just that: yeah, even when we've definitely solved something, we're still going to find a way to argue about it.
Our minds, at the end of the day, are in no way different than anything else in nature. It's just stuff. As stuff, it follows the laws that govern stuff. A tennis ball in flight has just as much free will to choose its direction as I have when I'm trying to decide what to have for breakfast.
Your decision will be more informed, not less determined.
The more you think, let's say, the more you make decisions that agree with the truer you. You discover/uncover your values, you don't create them.
What about animals other than humans? Do you think they can create their own values? It's simpler to see how things work in that case I think: the dog starts with certain values, let's say it values eating, its environment might put obstacles in the satisfaction of that desire, the owner might for instance require the dog to dance before he gives it any food, the dog also values companionship etc. (it loves its owner)...before you know it the dog starts valuing the dancing. That's crude, but what I'm saying is I can't see how a living thing can create values out of thin air. Thinking in the first place happens because the living thing wants to achieve something, so the brain does its weighing of pros and cons etc. until it arrives at some solution that, when presented to the rest of its values, will be looked upon with approval, and a new value will be added to the arsenal. Old values + new information about the environment = new values.
But everything you said requires going into much more depth and detail to answer fairly.
On an infinite period of time there is no sense in anything because everything inevitably turns to nothing) You've become a billionaire? You are a great famous writer or artist? Suffered you or not, were you happy or not? It doesn't matter)))
So if there is no any higher sense at all so why not to come up with your own sense of life? Procreation? Why not? Making art? Brilliant. Helping the others, finding the cure against lethal disease? Great. I will invent my own)
May be that's how nihilist thinks? Question authorities, beliefs, morals? Making his own system of values?
P.s Can anyone be a nihilist 24/7?)))
That sounds more like an anarchist I think. Or maybe a skeptic.
If it's a psychological state, then maybe he can get into it and out of it depending on mood. If it's an intellectual state, then he can do it 24/7. I'm an atheist 24/7 !
Well I don't know if we know that. Some will mention entropy, and say you're right. Others will claim there's infinite universes. Others will say, "look, in 2000 years we went from Jesus on a donkey to Armstrong in a spaceship, who knows what human technology will make feasible in the future? Perhaps we'll figure out a way to keep everything from turning into nothing the same way we figured out a way to keep a teepee from collapsing!"
On the rights of a humor:
-Neither life nor death has any sense!
bluuurp
What's easier to live or to be dead?
bluuurpbluuurp
Damn, i feel hungry. Ok, mr. stomach, i get it.
P.s I will think about the subject with more clear consciousness.
Dude, take some basic math before combining it with philosophy.
You should at least take a class in statistics.
[1]Even if there is a 50% chance of X occurring in a span of 100 years, it can happen in the last decade of one's life or at the very beginning. The fact that they have 50% chance doesn't mean anything. It only suggests probability. More so, you logical deduction does not follow since humans do not operate like math equations. They are much more fluid and unpredictable.
[2] You make the same logical fallacy as the religious folk who believe in miracles. They assert that their belief in God saved them from an accident hence why you hear so many stories about miracle survivors. Thing is, you don't get to know or hear the opinions of those who are dead to tell you that their God-summoning did not work. So, you have observation bias on the survivors. Same thing applies in your suicide narrative.
and you took philosophy in college? Κρίμας τα ριάλλια του τζιηρού σου...λολ...Πέμπεμου 10SD να τα θωρώ πριν τα βάλλεις για να μεν γίνεσαι ρεζίλι.
You are taking this too literally. The point was to show that nihilists are hypocrites, that they say things they clearly don't believe. If they were honest with themselves - if they really thought life is no more valuable than death - then they'd borrow a page from Two-Face, they'd do something like flip a coin every morning when they got out of bed, and let it decide whether to commit suicide or not. Hence the absurdity of the first 3 panels of the comic. In a sense, they are whiners, who don't do anything about the thing they're whining about. I understand there are outliers, but what about the big mountain-boob in the middle? Sure there's gonna be some people hanging by the mustache-end of the bell-curve, but so far, every single nihilist I ever met is still alive. There's just no truth to their words.
Add to that the other arguments from the other posts - i.e. that every single decision would fare the same 50-50 chances of being done or not, i.e. looking at the road when you're crossing it, deciding whether to eat or starve - and it becomes very clear that, like I said, a nihilist lives more or less like every other person, he just whines more. I can perfectly well accept - even endorse - views like existentialism, or people who are depressed about the state of the world or humankind etc. - just don't tell me that you literally believe life has no more value/meaning than death, cos then you're just a big fat LIVING liar.
Let me make this even clearer. Because of the way I expressed the point in the comic, you followed me along in the assumption - nurtured even further in the 'every morning when they got out of bed' point above - that a nihilist only has to make this decision for himself once a day, hence your 'what about the people on the end of the curled mustache?' But in fact, a nihilist has to make that decision every single moment of his life: if you're sitting across a table from a nihilist, sipping coffee, and he tells you he thinks 'life and death are the same', and by the end of your meeting he's still alive, then you've witnessed an outlier; if he calls you again the next day, then you've witnessed a miracle (or just a liar).
Or just hypocrites. Or non-philosophers, who utter words without really comprehending their meaning, because they weren't trained to do so. It's philosophers' responsibility to not let them get away with that.