Complete Nihilism

[Brontosaurie]

yeah. kindergarten fucking shit and he thinks he's boss. disgusting.

 

[redbaron]

Yeah they can exist, but without observations we don't know if they do. The objective reality you speak is just speculation. What we know for sure we know based upon observations and deductions, ergo stuff which relies on a subject. Ergo all actual knowledge is not objective.

Yeah, so here is the real crux of the argument. It's the thing you misunderstood about Cog's perspective and it's what you're now (still) misunderstanding.

I won't speak for Cog but what I'm talking about is not to do with whether or not what we know is objective. It's to do with whether or not reality is objective. They're two different concepts. Knowledge is subjective, but it's fairly obvious that actual reality isn't predicated on what we know (or think we know).Our understanding of reality is, reality itself is not. Reality is whatever it is, irrespective of what our subjective perceptions of it are.

If you really accept that the universe is real and governed by a set of consistent laws, you're accepting that reality is something entirely removed from anyone's subjective understanding. Reality and the laws that govern it never change - only our perceptions do. No matter what our perceptions are: reality will never, ever change in such a way that violates any of its consistent laws to match our perceptions. Period.

For anyone who truly understands that and is willing to make the three basic assumptions I mentioned it becomes completely irrelevant whether or not the nature of our knowledge is subjective, because they're not interested at all in the nature of our knowledge but in the nature of actual reality.

They're aware of the fact that there's limitations on human perception. They simply don't believe that this is in any way significant to how the real world operates. It follows logically then that such people inherently see zero value in opinions and ideation predicated upon anything that isn't based directly on the way the real objective world (that they assume exists) operates.

For someone like Brontosaurie who's a lot more concerned with people's opinions and the nature of their perceptions than actual reality (whether he realizes it or not) this is pretty much anathema. It's not uncommon really. Ask almost anyone if they agree with the three assumptions and they'll almost universally say that 'yes, they're fair enough assumptions'. But recognizing something at face value and keeping one's ideation and beliefs consistent to those three assumptions is an entirely different thing. People's ideas about the world naturally break the consistency of one or more of these assumptions in ways they don't even comprehend.

~

As for the whole "therefore" crap. I'm not really sure what level of detail I have to go into in order to make it clearer. It's pretty self-explanatory but since you insist I clarify, here you go. First:

- universe is real
- universe is governed by consistent laws

Now I hate using jargon sounding terms, so I avoid the word - but it's really more accurate to say that assumption two is that the universe is governed by immutable laws rather than consistent. For the sake of discussion they generally seem to serve the same purpose and consistent is much more common to plain English, so I use that for simplicity's sake. For clarification's sake, I'll use the 'more accurate' term.

Now if the universe is both real and the laws that govern it are immutable, then it is by its very nature, objective. Why? Definitions:

adjective
real
1.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.


adjective
immutable
1.unchanging over time or unable to be changed.


So something that is real - is factual. It's not imagined or supposed. This is assumption one (that you both apparently agree with), that the universe is real. It is factual.

Something that is immutable doesn't change over time and it can't be changed. Assumption two (that you both apparently also agree with), is that the universe is governed by immutable laws.

So if we accept that the universe is both real and governed by immutable laws, we're really saying that, "the universe's existence and the laws that govern it are factual and unchanging"

So why does this make it objective?

adjective
objective
1.
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


Something that is immutable - is by definition impossible to influence. Something that is real - is by definition a representation of fact.

So to say:
"The universe is real and governed by a set of consistent immutable laws, and is therefore objective in nature"

Isn't a violation of anything. It also means that if you're going to try and claim that an objective reality doesn't exist - you actually haven't accepted and fully understood these two assumptions. Which is fine really, you don't have to.

Also before you start all over again CC, bear in mind that I'm deliberately referring to these as assumptions. Meaning that I'm well aware of the fact that you can't prove an objective reality exists. In fact, I've probably been aware of it longer than you've known how to multiply. It's just not relevant to point out that we can't prove objective reality exists, because I take it as a given that it does. Why? Again, because I see no way that I can dispute that the universe is either real or that it is indeed governed by immutable laws and it's the explanation that has the least amount of variables.

Again re-iterating that it's perfectly fine if you don't accept these two assumptions. If you don't though, it's worthwhile trying to recognize when you're at odds with someone else who does accept such assumptions.

 

[Black Rose]

@redbaron

if the rules don't change does this not make all subjective knowledge objective. if it is the case that subjective knowledge is derived from the objective rules because subjects are bound by those rules. yet we change in our accumulation of knowledge so that when you say subjective knowledge is fallible because we don't know everything how do you separate the subject from the object when both are equal representations of reality? the objective meaning of reality is in the subject because the subject came from reality, that is, what meaning is ascribed to reality is objective but not universal according to reality defining itself in the subject it created. nihilism cannot exist if reality is defining itself with meaning by both being a subject and knowing it is objectively derived objectifying meaning because subject and object are inseparable and share the same reality. if meaning is objective but not universal reality reality contradicts nihilism by defining its own meaning in multiple ways.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The problem is that we may never know actual reality because all our knowledge depends on our perspective as subjects; therefore, actual reality (while it may exist) is not accessible to us and to speak of it is to speculate. We do not know the totality of how the universe is governed and without knowing all of the universe we cannot make objective statements on its nature, we can attempt to, but such statements would be subject to change as new knowledge is uncovered. You're still not replying to my posts. You're still simply skipping russels paradox (google please).

It does not matter that the universe seems to be governed by immutable laws. We do not know those laws completely, we are able to observe some patterns and are able to make some predictions about the universe, but we don't understand all of it and we never can. We didn't have objective facts about the universe when we were on a newtonian level of understanding just because we could observe the law of gravity (what does law even mean? it means we spot a certain type of pattern) and we don't have objective facts now either, unless you mean to say that we know perfectly well how the universe functions and there's nothing more to be learned. The fact that the universe appears to exists objectively and independently of our perspective does not matter. We cannot make such a statement about the universe. It would be a metaphysical statement because it would say that to exist is to exist objectively, and it would require a metaphysical observer outside of the observable universe. The laws may be immutable (we don't know for sure), but to us they aren't, they do change according to our level of understanding. To speak of objective reality is speculation.

Pluto doesn't care what I feel about its existence, nor does the tree falling in the woods. That much is obvious. But to me and to every other human being, reality cannot be said to be more than we may perceive it to be because to say that it is would be to speculate.

The definition you quote is the everyday definition I asked twice if you were using. I'm talking objective knowledge as in absolute facts that are and will be true irregardless of perspective.

That doesn't mean that we cannot speak of things as being more or less subjective/objective, using the terms as heuristics we can.

Which is why we can say that Deepak Chopra's work is subjective nonsense and what has been scientifically proven are objective facts.

I cannot make this any more clear now.

Edit: But heck I'll try. You wrote this:

I won't speak for Cog but what I'm talking about is not to do with whether or not what we know is objective. It's to do with whether or not reality is objective. They're two different concepts. Knowledge is subjective, but it's fairly obvious that actual reality isn't predicated on what we know (or think we know)

How do we speak of reality if not through our knowledge? You admit here that knowledge is subjective, and all we can say about the universe depends on knowledge. So how then can we say that the universe/reality is objective without entering into the realm of speculation? Remember, we do not have access to reality other than through knowledge. These may be two different concepts, but in actuality the two are intertwined.

I agree, it seems fairly obvious that actual reality isn't predicated on what we know in the sense that black holes were swallowing stuff before we knew they existed. But to us they didn't. Objective reality didn't include black holes back then.

Actual reality does not exist to us other than as a mental construct. It may or may not exists, but we cannot speak of it in any way whatsoever. Hencewhy, to continually refer to it as the big thing which one needs to get in order not to be an idiot is pretty weird. Understanding objective reality in its everyday sense is trivial and both me and Bronto are past that since ages ago. To Cog however it is still the big remedy against ignorance.

I can picture objective reality as reality existing irregardless of me. But that very picture is a product of my mind.

 

[Black Rose]

Edit: But heck I'll try. You wrote this:

I won't speak for Cog but what I'm talking about is not to do with whether or not what we know is objective. It's to do with whether or not reality is objective. They're two different concepts. Knowledge is subjective, but it's fairly obvious that actual reality isn't predicated on what we know (or think we know)

How do we speak of reality if not through our knowledge? You admit here that knowledge is subjective, and all we can say about the universe depends on knowledge. So how then can we say that the universe/reality is objective without entering into the realm of speculation? Remember, we do not have access to reality other than through knowledge. These may be two different concepts, but in actuality the two are intertwined.

I agree, it seems fairly obvious that actual reality isn't predicated on what we know in the sense that black holes were swallowing stuff before we knew they existed. But to us they didn't. Objective reality didn't include black holes back then.

Actual reality does not exist to us other than as a mental construct. It may or may not exists, but we cannot speak of it in any way whatsoever. Hencewhy, to continually refer to it as the big thing which one needs to get in order not to be an idiot is pretty weird. Understanding objective reality in its everyday sense is trivial and both me and Bronto are past that since ages ago. To Cog however it is still the big remedy against ignorance.

I can picture objective reality as reality existing irregardless of me. But that very picture is a product of my mind.

you cannot test objective reality if it is forever unknowable but it will still be real just like you cannot test string theory yet redbaron thinks objectivity string theory is bogus but by his definition of objectivity string theory could be real but unknowable making what it is real(objective) without being testable.

rebaron only thinks testable things are real refuting his definition of objective, unknowable things like string theory could be objectively real by his definition.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah I agree, that's central to the point I've been trying to make. To speak of objective reality is to speculate. Akin to string theory/modal realism/god/whatever in that sense. The reason it isn't like that is because nobody says anything about objective reality, they just say that reality is objective. But if you can't say anything about objective reality, what's the point of saying reality is objective? It doesn't mean anything, it's just a metaphysical label.

 

[Black Rose]

Yeah I agree, that's central to the point I've been trying to make. To speak of objective reality is to speculate. Akin to string theory/modal realism/god/whatever in that sense.

referring to my post #103 redbaron is right that reality is objective (by his definition of immutability) but just because it is objective does not mean we know what it is. i just think we must assume we are part of reality so it is possible to know reality as an objective subset without claiming total omniscience. we can test our subset of reality objectively. the subject object divide is mutable.

 

[Cherry Cola]

well objective as in predictable and existing independently of the observation of mankind but that's trivial imo and it's something we've come to learn through subjective means, meaning that objectivity is an artifact of subectivity

 

[Black Rose]

if we are both subject and object then objective meaning exists unless there is complete separation. nihilism needs separation.

 

[Cognisant]

It's true can't absolutely trust our perception so objectivity which is derived from those subjective perceptions likewise cannot be considered absolutely unobjectionable truth. However if we are to be so skeptical as not trust our subjective perception enough to believe in the validity of our objective deductions how can any philosophy occur at all?

Out of neigh absolute skepticism you impose upon yourself a state of effectively absolute subjectivity, at which point discussion ceases to have meaning, without the foundation of objectivity there is no common ground upon which anyone can agree on anything.

Cherry Cola and Bronto have expressly resorted to this state of extreme skepticism and subjectivity so there's no point talking to them, no amount of reasoning will change their minds indeed they're revelling in their irrationality, or to put it simply they're just being trolls.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You can because you deal with degrees of likelihood, likelihood being measured in relation to predictive power. Ergo nuance rather than a binary divide between subjective/objective. We don't need to falsely assume that we tap into objective reality and build on a solid foundation, so long as we can predict more and more of reality we can keep on building knowledge upon knowledge just fine.

It's a matter of sailing a boat while you are building it, better not to pretend the vessel is finished, however comforting that may be.

 

[TBerg]

The whole point of philosophy is to have rigorous discussion of reality. You can't just assume anything except for provisional purposes. Otherwise we are just descending into the contradictions of common sense and our childlike needs to have a certain view of reality.

 

[Cherry Cola]

precisely, this whole debate stems from one party coming into it without knowledge of what philosophy actually entails, rather bringing a barbarized science-bro version of it to the table which while reasonable enough on its own just doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny

redbaron has already had to discard knowledge as irrelevant to his and cogs argument in order to keep it together.. its like why...

 

[Black Rose]

It's true can't absolutely trust our perception so objectivity which is derived from those subjective perceptions likewise cannot be considered absolutely unobjectionable truth. However if we are to be so skeptical as not trust our subjective perception enough to believe in the validity of our objective deductions how can any philosophy occur at all?

Out of neigh absolute skepticism you impose upon yourself a state of effectively absolute subjectivity, at which point discussion ceases to have meaning, without the foundation of objectivity there is no common ground upon which anyone can agree on anything.

Cherry Cola and Bronto have expressly resorted to this state of extreme skepticism and subjectivity so there's no point talking to them, no amount of reasoning will change their minds indeed they're revelling in their irrationality, or to put it simply they're just being trolls.

a shared objectivity like science is not what being discredited. cog if you were to see that only a limited amount of objective reality is present to the individual and to those individual which they must agree through through a common language on what meaning is then you must agree that inconsistency is in language not their reasoning. what is objective meaning if objective is rejected by nihilism to you cog. it is semantics because you don't share an objective reality with whom you communicate. the objective reality you think exists is semantics so you are in fact being a sophism unto itself by saying all they are doing is semantics because then objectivity is semantic as well. you must be clear by what you mean by objective reality and by what you mean by reality has no objective meaning in nihilism. because if objectivity is semantics then the subjective reality imposes objective meaning. objective reality either has meaning or it does not and so if subjects are a subset of objective reality and say that objective reality has meaning how is it then that it does not. you define meaning subjectively but subjects are objective have objective existence. if a subset of reality define reality in totality as having objective meaning either is is because meaning is being used as a definition or as a value which the subject ascribes to reality which a rock does not do. so if a subset of reality is objective and a subset is subjective where do you make the distinction if both come from each other in co-dependence. reality defines itself, reality can say i have objective meaning in the subset of shared objectivity. this is why nihilism can only exist in separation by separate meanings in subjects. if everyone shared the same meaning then in language would universally be accepted not diverged from the regions or individuals they came from. but where understanding does exist there is meaning which nihilism fails to make clear is not objective by consensus. objective meaning is consensus reality.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

It's true can't absolutely trust our perception so objectivity which is derived from those subjective perceptions likewise cannot be considered absolutely unobjectionable truth. However if we are to be so skeptical as not trust our subjective perception enough to believe in the validity of our objective deductions how can any philosophy occur at all?

You are generally correct. To communicate at all we have to speak the same language. If one of us rejected the popularly held reality, the other would have to agree on the same assumptions in order to continue with the exchange.

However It's holistic. We can be scientific and at the same time approach the reality from different angles and axioms. We can reject and question each element.

Is a delusional person different? In the end, for a scientist, their brain exists in a single objective reality, so there are laws that govern its functioning. Reality is a wholeness, it ceases to be when you reduce it with analysis.

I think subjectivity and skepticism are very nihilist. Denying this or that reality.

 

[redbaron]

The problem is that we may never know actual reality

Stop there. This is exactly where you violate one of the assumptions and it's part of what causes the fundamental divide in opinions between you and Cog.

What you call a problem - isn't actually a problem if you're happy to accept those three assumptions I mentioned. Why?

- universe is real
- governed by immutable laws
- can be learned about through those immutable laws

Now the important one is the third one here. We've already established that for anyone who is happy to make the first two assumptions, there exists an objective reality.

Since we're assuming the universe is real, then so are we real parts of it. That means that we can trust our perceptions insofar as they relate to the real and immutable laws that we see.

So if we use these three assumptions, we can indeed know actual reality. Of course we need to limit the effects of bias, but operating under these three assumptions we actually can discern certain things as being actual reality.

~

It's curious here that you seem to be treating this as though I'm trying to convince you of something - I'm not. What I'm doing is highlighting that you're simply operating on a different set of assumptions to Cognisant.

Your problem is really based on the assumptions you're not willing to make. You've got a bunch of ideas and beliefs that are inconsistent with these assumptions - that's okay. I already said that:

Again re-iterating that it's perfectly fine if you don't accept these two assumptions.

Well I didn't get to the third one in that particular post but it's really three.

 

[The Grey Man]

To interpret "life has no meaning" as "no meaning exists at all, ever, of any type, subjective or otherwise" is just a strawman dismissal, it's not what I mean and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Life has no inherent objective meaning, there happy?

They understand me perfectly well, they're just weaseling around trying to find a way to refute or discredit me because they don't want to realize that they're fleeting specks of relative irrelevance in a vast uncaring universe that will continue to exist long after we're all dead.

1. I wasn't defending the others or attacking you (not intentionally anyway), in fact I used your point to contrast the sort of proposition I was talking about. Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

2. This is sort of what I was getting at. Meaning exists, but objective meaning is a contradiction in terms, so to say it doesn't exist is stating the obvious, unless you assume the person you're talking to believes in it for some reason, so by saying, "life has no meaning", you contradict an imaginary proposition.

3. From the perspective of Shelley's "man who believes his native town to be the world", the vast, uncaring aspect of the universe is rendered irrelevant. Relevance is another subjective construct, tied to meaning. Same problem as in 2.

I think a better expression is, "nothing lasts forever", but even this contains some bias, because it assumes that our own, immediate perception of timespace is the only valid one.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Spoiler

How does complete nihilism work?

Note that I might come off as autistic, especially around the end of the middle paragraph.

The only answer I can think of to this is that it doesn't work, because complete nihilism necessitates already being dead, as a consequence of not having the beliefs that are central to living, or immanent death, for the same reason above, as soon as someone converts into a complete nihilist.

If you take beliefs out of the context of existence, then they sort of exist in a state of chaos. There is nothing to restrict the existence of any particular beliefs, a role natural selection actually has. They become this unpredictable and random aspect of individuals, in terms of what the beliefs are, who has them, how many people have them and a whole lot of other stuff to do with them. Anyway what I'm trying to get to is that in such a scenario the only circumstance where prolonged survival is a result is if the nihilist randomly "ended up with" all the beliefs which ensure their continued survival, which sort of has an infinitely small chance of occurring, taking into consideration the amount of possible beliefs, which don't ensure the continued survival of the individual, when the restrictions are removed. So I guess what I'm saying is if someone claims that their beliefs are random cause they are a "nihilist", as if they were some transcendent being who for reasons unknown have knowledge that proceeds the void (I've sort of seen this type of crap here on occasion), and they are alive, and continue living beyond a reasonable point, by which you should expect a person harboring such beliefs, that don't ensure their continued survival, should die, then they're beyond a doubt full of shit.

Then there is of coarse the other route of believing what the individual wants to believe, which is actually believing what is convenient for the individual, and is basically willingly being delusional but in disguise.

In case it wasn't clear I simply wanted to think though the nihilistic line of thought to pick it apart.



Even in this case it wouldn't really be considered as complete nihilism, because you're still restricted in your beliefs. The fact that you might consider reality and all its laws and restrictions as all illusions, doesn't change the fact that within the illusion the laws and restrictions still exist, so the whole point of this line of thought is redundant. For example you could argue that since everything is non-existent and you are free to believe anything you want, that you could decide to believe that no substance can kill you. However even though you aren't restricted in your beliefs, you are still restricted in reality, even if you consider it an illusion (it simply might take the form of a restriction in an illusion, at which point the distinction between reality and illusion is pointless.)



The point I was trying to make in the second paragraph, where I went on about randomness and chaos, is that if an individual discarded all knowledge, then they don't have any foundation on which to build their beliefs, therefore anyone who claims to be a nihilist should have completely random beliefs. Which is obviously not true of any individual capable of adequately functioning.

Complete nihilism (Pretty mush the all encompassing epistemological nihilism) is just what I thought up, because I didn't know what to call nihilism taken to it's logical end. IMO It seems that people who call themselves or identify with nihilism only take it to the point where they can benefit from it, basically up until they can reach the point where they think they can justify believing anything and doing anything they want.



Indeed, which means death of the individual is the only thing that sits at the end of this line of thought. Yet people claim to be nihilists, and can use this to justify any of their ridicules beliefs or actions but continue to live, as if being a nihilist doesn't mean abandoning all of the very beliefs that ensure their continued survival.



Yeah that's actually a really clear and straight forward problem with nihilism, good job.



I'm quite sure Cherry is criticizing nihilism, and how by their own line of thought they believe only an objective universal value would of any importance and they use this to justify discarding everything, but they can never identify this objective universal value, so even if they were actually exposed to it they'd end up discarding it.



Well epistemological nihilism, which is born our of irrationally extreme skepticism, rejects everything and is really what I'm referring to.

But yes, I find that for nihilism to be a functioning philosophy the practitioners need to make exceptions, and take it only so far, which I find is arbitrary and make it lose all credibility.



Making an arbitrary distinction of where nihilism should be and shouldn't be applied does make nihilism pointless, but making no distinction would surely end with the demise of the individual.

Basically if someone claims to be an absolute nihilist and take it to its logical end I want them to die to prove this.

I take your meaning and points from the bulk of these posts(your first two) so they're what I'm addressing, RaBind.



I would like a moment to differentiate nihilism, the analytic critique of contemporary values, from nihilists - those who reject contemporary values.

Nihilists don't necessarily form their worldviews from a logical framework, as anyone can be nihilistic for any reason outside of philosophy, thus it's entirely likely that the person can exhibit contradictions in philosophical logic. Some may also be legitimately suicidal.

The philosopher of nihilism refutes the inherent purpose, absouluteness, principles, or values of a particular object or occurrence on the basis that the perceptual subjectivity of man renders things in life either inconclusive or conclusively insignificant. The role of historical philosophers has typically been to explore perspectives and lines of reasoning rather than advocate an inflexible personal belief.

Indeed there are consequences to actions including the laws of physics which people tend to abide by lest they cause harm to themselves. And society, as well as any individual, is where they are today because of both uncontrolled and planned survival success of ancestors. Thus there are some reliable truths in reality that we know and live by.

However central to your focus here is what you call epistemological nihilism and the implausibility of a human to embody it. How could one refute the value and purpose of all knowledge? Would they not be thinking, speaking or writing in a learned language to begin with? Not to mention the days past in which they would have spent their whole life living according to various knowledge of persons, their environment and so forth?

Well, if you ever come across such a person refer them to the existential concept of bad faith which explores the idea that humans are not fully conscious and fully in control of themselves even though at sometimes possessing some extent of convincing awareness. Certainly our bodies may pursue habits and urges but who is to say we are not merely being fooled by our own minds, a subset of this body system, that we posses any freedom, any choice in the matter of what we do?

In that case I would posit that though your hypothetical epistemological nihilist may want to will to renounce all knowledge, for reasons of self-preservation the body may prove a dreadful adversary.

On the other hand, you have your successful suicides and cognitive schizophrenics who have nothing to do with epistemology or nihilism.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Except existential nihilism says life is inherently* meaningless. And that any meaning and value said to exist is without a basis. Which means a phenomenological basis for meaning is not considered a basis at all. Which means that no, meaning is not contrived, people simple attempt to contrive it, but what they contrive isn't actually meaning. Because meaning has to be inherent and cosmic, ie it caters to a bullshit definition of meaning stemming from religion and mysticism.

I haven't read all posts here but if this is still your operating point then you misunderstand existential nihilism. None of the existential philosophers denied people of their meaning because it wasn't an indisputable cosmic maxim. Their goal was to highlight the fact that no true value or meaning can be conclusively determined or identified because (1) our perception is lacking, (2) each human will value things different from another, and (3) even the values we do create will change over time.

Where you go from there is entirely up to you, although some existentialists went even further and proposed that we should drop those values made in bad faith and create new ones from authenticity. Others proposed that this means you should do what you will to do as only natural.


Aside from this I would agree philosophy and religion are intertwined as the enlightenment age came as part of a reaction to Christianity.

 

[Cherry Cola]

meaning is defined by phenomenological experience, not through analysis, so no, if you're hungry getting food is meaningful to you not because you would starve otherwise but because you crave it

the fact that each human will value things differently from another is relevant why?

the fact that values change over time is relevant why?

I suspect its because you are still looking to identify a singular meaning consistent over time as well as the mechanism behind it, else you wouldnt make those objections

 

[Black Rose]

whether through inaction or action we strive towards something we value which creates meaning. the cosmic maxim (if there has to be one) is the creation of meaning. destruction of one meaning also creates meaning somewhere else. as long as you move forward meaning exists.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

meaning is defined by phenomenological experience, not through analysis, so no, if you're hungry getting food is meaningful to you not because you would starve otherwise but because you crave it

the fact that each human will value things differently from another is relevant why?

the fact that values change over time is relevant why?

I suspect its because you are still looking to identify a singular meaning consistent over time as well as the mechanism behind it, else you wouldnt make those objections

Meaning is anything that can be valued whether derived from experience or rational thought.

The subjectivity of value is not problematic, in fact that is what is being championed in some existential readings.

Rather, the problem lies with the inauthenticity of having a value not because you wanted it but because it was thrust upon you, or failing to identify a personal value and living aimlessly among the masses.

Life is initially meaningless, but you can accrue personal meanings post hoc.

Complete nihilism was already explored in part by Kant I believe and IIRC he concluded that we must at some point accept our circumstances whether or not we could be completely sure of them lest we be unable to function.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Life is not initially meaningless, why would you say it is? we do not accrue personal meanings post hoc we are born with them, one might say that life is initially meaningless if we consider a fetus which has not yet developed a central nervous system to be alive (which thus can be said to lack consciousness and as such the ability to desire) but otherwise I don't quite follow.

Meaning(s) is/are never chosen, as there is no free will, yet that does not keep us from experiencing it. How is this a problem? Of course meaning is thrust upon you, you are a born as a certain species on a certain planet in a certain place etc, all of which contributes to what you will come to perceive as meaningful.

What does living aimlessly among the masses have to do with anything? What does accepting our circumstances have to do with anything?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Life is not initially meaningless, why would you say it is? we do not accrue personal meanings post hoc we are born with them, one might say that life is initially meaningless if we consider a fetus which has not yet developed a central nervous system to be alive (which thus can be said to lack consciousness and as such the ability to desire) but otherwise I don't quite follow.

Meaning(s) is/are never chosen, as there is no free will, yet that does not keep us from experiencing it. How is this a problem? Of course meaning is thrust upon you, you are a born as a certain species on a certain planet in a certain place etc, all of which contributes to what you will come to perceive as meaningful.

That you are born as a certain species on a certain planet in a certain place to certain persons are but mere facticities of your existence, not meaning itself. You cannot value the initial truth because you didn't will it nor experience it.

Again, subjectivity is not the issue here but intentionality. You used desire as an example of a valid meaning, while it may be true that you crave a certain food, you cannot value craving foods only that as a human you will crave foods, it is something out of your control.

I don't mean to say events we didn't make happen cannot be valued, say you were in a car crash and you survived with barely a scratch. The crash makes you realize you are lucky to be alive and suddenly you want to do good in the world, all thanks to the car crash. Well before that crash ever happened you did not think to yourself how much you valued the car crash that has not happened yet. You only value it after the fact, which is not a valuation of the initial happening of the crash but the reality of it happening and the impact on your life.

What does living aimlessly among the masses have to do with anything? What does accepting our circumstances have to do with anything?

1) Authenticity
2) Practicality.

Nihilism as a reaction to religion and overbearing culture involves the matter of authentic vs inauthentic values, not that one doesn't have them. Complete nihilism only exists as a mental experiment as practically no person is capable nor willing to renounce all knowledge.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The facticities of my existence decide what I value and desire, thus what meaning is to me. Meaning is not singular either. It's subjective and thus exists in as many forms as there are forms of desire.

Why are you talking about initial truth and what does it have to do with anything? Please explain stuff, I can't read your mind.

You then write that I cannot value craving foods, which is true, I don't value the craving in itself. I value the sensation of fullness and find aquiring it meaningful. It's still something I do because I'm a human and yes just like everything else it's out of my control, how is that relevant?

You're obviously using a completely different definition of meaning than me that much is obvious by now, one which is based upon ideals (you mention authenticity (an ideal) for instance, but you don't explain how authenticity is connected to the subject at hand, you simply state that it is, I have no idea why you think so because I can't read your mind), not the raw experience of desire.

You keep on presenting trains of thought that are already halfway along the tracks to me, which leaves me wondering what you are on about. It's like you assume that I know the prerequisites of your reasoning, thing is I don't. I'm not in ya head.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Facticity is the a priori truth of something, the just-is. Genetics, nationality, parents, personality, neighborhood etc. Some you can transcend(i.e. accept) and change but most you cannot. It just is.


Existential authenticity is not a moral ideal wherein a person or their actions may be bad or good. It is a process of being conscious of and willing something. The subconscious is inseparable from the conscious psyche however so it's more a lifestyle than something you can claim about another person. The figure Socrates appeared to value authenticity("the 'unexamined life is not worth living").

The divide between conscious and subconscious is crucial because meaning only has meaning if we can identify it, that is to say unthinking mechanisms do not value - they merely exist. A toy cannot identify when it needs to be repaired and it can not nor will not do something about needing a repair, it will rot away until fully decomposed. A fan will spin as long as there is an electric current. Similarly humans do things in such deterministic fashion and form values parallel to their facticity, at the same time we can deviate from our actions, we can accept our truths and decide to change, that is what allows us to create meaning. Self-reflection, cognition, consciousness, awareness, intentionality, will... it has many names but it's all the same.


Initial truth is the thing or event itself before a consciousness can perceive and abstract value from it. Facticity is an initial truth because before you ever realize or decide something has meaning, that something exists independent of you valuing it. A human will have desires regardless of valuing desire, will be born regardless of valuing its birth, will die regardless of valuing its death. You become conscious of these things first then accept them, then you value them and then they become meanings.

Scientific consensus says a fetus is not conscious until a certain point, that's not for me to decide for the fetus. But the fetus will be born at some point and need to be nursed, this is true before it knows. Later on the baby can value having being cared for, but not that it needed to be cared for. It's tautological. Your valuation of sensations of fullness can only happen once you have experienced these sensations, but then you only value your positive human experience of such sensation not the sensation itself.


RaBind wanted to see the nihilist brought to logical conclusion, well nihilism is about rejecting pre-existing values, importance, meanings of others, the external meaning. It doesn't preclude you from forming new ones, or even accepting the pre-existing ones. And it doesn't mean the laws of physics can be suspended, it means that though cause-effects are ever-present you can choose to live your life with respect to them or not. Most people do.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm sorry but I'm not following the point you're making so I can't say anything about it

Not saying you're wrong or anything, I can't tell. But I wanna say that I've never said that humans value desire, rather that to desire is to value, which is quite different.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Fair enough, I was only trying to explain my terms.

In regards to your statement right there alls I'm saying is that while desire may be part of the value / meaning process, just because humans do something naturally / habitually / pre-determined doesn't make it a value. Basically you have to consider what separates an unthinking object from a conscious human, because an unthinking object cannot value. It takes more than natural inclination to value something.