Complete Nihilism

[RaBind]

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.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Complete nihilism seems to be a semantic construct. There is a problem with introducing perfection and completeness to the adjective or a quality.

I'd envision nothing being the moment without thought, staring blankly, or sleeping. These seem to be high on "nihilism" of the situation.

Randomness is being without preference, which may at times lead to not being. But maybe it seems tied to nihilism because of the discarding of belief and choice, denying life or denying existence one would think, but not exactly so.

 

[Cognisant]

Moral nihilism: morality is a contrived social construct, nothing more.

Spiritual nihilism: There's no enlightenment or ideal state if mind.

Existential nihilism: Life has no meaning.

Etc.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i didn't read completely, sorry

my first idea (maybe identical to yours): complete nihilism would be complete absence of life.

 

[Cherry Cola]

nihilism is just absence of everything unless you believe in some magical obective world which somehow exists on its own for itself without anyone to see it ( in other words baseless speculation), despite the fact that everyone sees and experiences and feels

it just makes no sense seeing as to be conscious is to desire and to desire is to value

nihilism counters this objection by purporting to a strange and vague definition of value wherein only some sort of cosmic universal value which by their own definition cannot exist counts

I think its a retarded tautology

 

[Cognisant]

If you're not observing me do I cease to exist?

Are you a solipsist or just that stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18hmR1HoGLU

 

[Cherry Cola]

nah you just dont get what im talking about as usual

 

[Cognisant]

I'm going to try

So I guess I exist when you can't see me because I too am an observer, and everyone is an observer and these observers exist... where?

If physical reality isn't real, if there's no time/space then what keeps us apart?
Is individuality some kind of delusion? Are we the multiple personalities of a solipsist?

If there's no reality why are we even talking, what is there to talk about, what inspired this mad delusion, indeed why do we feel things, is it all just arbitrary, is this entire existence just a fiction we've created because we're unable to deal with the unavoidable existential truth that is our nihilistic reality?

Lol y'know you're more of a nihilist than I am, at least I think reality is real.

 

[Yellow]

It's been a long time since I spent time with Nihilism, but I thought it went like this:

There is no true morality, existence, platonic ideals, purpose, knowledge, etc. and that the belief in these things is ultimately meaningless because we only attribute value to these things out of a compulsion to make sense of a senseless existence.

But I didn't think that Nihilist philosophy rejected the ideas of morality, existence, ideals, purpose, knowledge, etc. I just assumed that some Nihilists made this leap to rejection as an exercise to help them accept the "truth of the nonexistence of truth" as they see fit.

Am I wrong to make this distinction?

Because with this distinction, absolute Nihilism wouldn't work at all. It would be meaningless and overwritten by personal/subjective ideas/systems of existence and meaning.

 

[RaBind]

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

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.

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.)

Randomness is being without preference, which may at times lead to not being. But maybe it seems tied to nihilism because of the discarding of belief and choice, denying life or denying existence one would think, but not exactly so.

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.

i didn't read completely, sorry

my first idea (maybe identical to yours): complete nihilism would be complete absence of life.

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.

nihilism is just absence of everything unless you believe in some magical objective world which somehow exists on its own for itself without anyone to see it ( in other words baseless speculation), despite the fact that everyone sees and experiences and feels

it just makes no sense seeing as to be conscious is to desire and to desire is to value

nihilism counters this objection by purporting to a strange and vague definition of value wherein only some sort of cosmic universal value which by their own definition cannot exist counts

I think its a retarded tautology

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

If you're not observing me do I cease to exist?

Are you a solipsist or just that stupid?

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.

But I didn't think that Nihilist philosophy rejected the ideas of morality, existence, ideals, purpose, knowledge, etc. I just assumed that some Nihilists made this leap to rejection as an exercise to help them accept the "truth of the nonexistence of truth" as they see fit.

Am I wrong to make this distinction?

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.

Because with this distinction, absolute Nihilism wouldn't work at all. It would be meaningless and overwritten by personal/subjective ideas/systems of existence and meaning.

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.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah. I think nihilism appeals to Te moreso than Ti for this reason.

 

[Cognisant]

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

But that's not nihilism.

To realize life is meaningless is no reason to kill yourself, nor is it a reason not to, the ambiguity itself is what it means to live a meaningless existence and Yellow is right it's just not possible to be an absolute nihilist because the philosophy of nihilism itself doesn't assert anything, it's the complete absence of assertion.

The problem is you all think philosophy is some kind of alternate to religion, you're looking for a doctrine, tenants, you want to be told what's right/wrong and what you ought to be living for.
Well too fucking bad

THAT is nihilism.

It's the awful truth, and at the same time its absolute freedom because you can choose to value whatever you want to value, the meaning of your life is whatever you decide it should be. That might seem absurd, well it is, when you get right down to it everything that has ever been important to anybody is entirely contrived (or a biological imperative) which is at first a horrifying revelation, but once you get over the way things "ought" to be you can learn to celebrate the artificiality of it.

What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

life is only meaningless insofar as you buy into the definition meaning which nihilism purports

this definition is a phantom carried over from religion which makes the irony of your objection all the greater

nihilists reaffirms religious bs, everytime a nihilist says life has no meaning he affirms the religious BS definition of meaning by making it the only possible form of meaning, giving it a monopoly on meaning

 

[Cognisant]

I just assumed that some Nihilists made this leap to rejection as an exercise to help them accept the "truth of the nonexistence of truth" as they see fit.

The truth just doesn't get you anywhere, do you think the universe is a puzzle to be solved, what do you think happens when you find the solution, does your life finally have meaning?

Why?

Meaning is a construct, words mean things because we make them mean things, a hammer exists to hammer nails because that's what we designed it for, I suppose you could say the meaning of life is to procreate insofar as that is what we're designed for but we're capable of so much more than that.

Do you need someone to take charge for you, to tell you what you ought to be living for?
Are you a dependent slave in need of a master?

 

[Cognisant]

life is only meaningless insofar as you buy into the definition meaning which nihilism purports

And your alternative is?

nihilists reaffirms religious bs, everytime a nihilist says life has no meaning he affirms the religious BS definition of meaning by making it the only possible form of meaning, giving it a monopoly on meaning

Religion has no meaning, it's contrived.
Of course all meaning is contrived so you can be religious if you want but by doing so you're willfully deluding yourself, I can't imagine why you'd get out of doing that.

 

[Cognisant]

It's interesting that you think religion would have a monopoly on meaning, is that because you can receive the meaning given to you by other meaning creating people, or the meaning written down by some pot smoking old man in a cave thousands of years ago.

You can't decide for yourself, you need to be told.
Freedom scares you doesn't it?

Such is the mind of a slave.

 

[RaBind]

Cog you seem to be limiting nihilism to only the domain of

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. The meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism.

which, if you arrived at through the application of extreme skepticism, is arbitrary, hypocritical and contradictory if you don't apply the same line of thought into every aspect of reality, which ultimately leads to Epistemological nihilism, where you basically deny the existence of all things. Basically solipsism, but including the denial of the self as well.

But that's not nihilism.

Well when and if you get to the point I indicated above, then you'll basically become a vegetable and die of negligence to the necessities of life.

Spoiler

To realize life is meaningless is no reason to kill yourself, nor is it a reason not to, the ambiguity itself is what it means to live a meaningless existence and Yellow is right it's just not possible to be an absolute nihilist because the philosophy of nihilism itself doesn't assert anything, it's the complete absence of assertion.

The problem is you all think philosophy is some kind of alternate to religion, you're looking for a doctrine, tenants, you want to be told what's right/wrong and what you ought to be living for.
Well too fucking bad

THAT is nihilism.

You haven't gone further on to apply nihilism to all things, you've only considered Existential nihilism.

Yeah the rest of your posts are pretty much just that. They only consider nihilism in one aspect of reality, arguably the aspect that's most acceptable and moderate. The line of thought goes into all other aspects of reality, which are much more concrete and consequential.

You can live with denying the existence of the meaning of reality and life, but you can't if you deny the very existence of reality and all knowledge itself. You'd basically turn into a vegetable.

 

[Cognisant]

which, if you arrived at through the application of extreme skepticism, is arbitrary, hypocritical and contradictory if you don't apply the same line of thought into every aspect of reality, which ultimately leads to Epistemological nihilism, where you basically deny the existence of all things. Basically solipsism, but including the denial of the self as well.

I don't understand your reasoning.

I agree epistemological nihilism is stupid but I don't see why existential nihilism necessitates it, if anything if epistemological nihilism is false then there's an objective reality (although we only perceive it subjectively) and if there's an objective reality that supports existential nihilism, that although we may feel and think these are just processes, like software running on a computer.

Well when and if you get to the point I indicated above, then you'll basically become a vegetable and die of negligence to the necessities of life.

I once tried to adopt a mental state of absolute nihilism, but then I got hungry and it's very hard to not think of anything if you're hungry. The mind is the product of the brain and like every other organ in the body the brain exists to support the whole, I may have a fatalistic epiphany but I'll still be compelled to support myself, no matter how well I understand the fear of death is irrational I still feel afraid, I don't get a choice in the matter.

 

[RaBind]

I don't understand your reasoning.

I agree epistemological nihilism is stupid but I don't see why existential nihilism necessitates it, if anything if epistemological nihilism is false then there's an objective reality (although we only perceive it subjectively) and if there's an objective reality that supports existential nihilism, that although we may feel and think these are just processes, like software running on a computer.

Because there's no start to anything. It all like a ball of yarn, each succeeding part of the yarn laying on the basis, the assumption, that the preceding bit of the yarn exists. What happens when you pull the whole length of the yarn out though? You find that at some point it just starts, without any preceding bit there, meaning at the start of everything there are assumptions. Things that are not proven but are regarded as fact, and this is the same for existence, the meaning of existence and knowledge. They are all of the same nature at their roots.

Its a contemptible view to hold IMO but some people do hold it and I just wanted to show that it has its flaws.

 

[Cognisant]

You're not making any sense.

It seems your point is that existential nihilism can be true because... creationism?

Why does there have to be a reason for our existence?
In order for existence to have started for a reason there must have been a pre-existance for that reason to exist, but then isn't that pre-existence then meaningless unless there's another pre-pre-existence to give it meaning? And so on ad infinitum.

Isn't it so much simpler that we just exist?
Why you ask? Well why not? As I said nihilism is ambiguity itself.

 

[Cognisant]

Meaning in the absence of a mind is not meaning, it's just function.

Animals procreate, does that mean the meaning of their existence is to procreate?
No they just procreate, that's it, there's nothing more to it.

We don't exist for any reason, we just do.
We can do many things but doesn't mean anything we do is inherently meaningful, it's just shit that we do, now we may assign meaning to our actions as is our egocentric prerogative which makes them subjectively meaningful, but not objectively.

I might think a work of art is great, you might think it's rubbish, neither of us is inherently right or wrong, we're both perfectly valid from our own subjective perspectives and if reality itself thought anything at all it wouldn't care either way.

 

[RaBind]

I once tried to adopt a mental state of absolute nihilism, but then I got hungry and it's very hard to not think of anything if you're hungry. The mind is the product of the brain and like every other organ in the body the brain exists to support the whole, I may have a fatalistic epiphany but I'll still be compelled to support myself, no matter how well I understand the fear of death is irrational I still feel afraid, I don't get a choice in the matter.

Yea that's another point I also thought of but forgot to add. Our whims aren't random, so saying shit like you can decide what to believe just doesn't work, since you obviously end up believing what you want to and that's very obviously determined by all sorts of things.

 

[Cognisant]

If I'm hungry I'm hungry there's no denying it, but whatever at least that made some sense, okay I can't use my own internal experiences as proof because they're unverifiable.

Still existential nihilism does not equate to or necessitate epistemological nihilism.

 

[The Grey Man]

Some nihilists say that life has no meaning, which can be proven wrong by anyone who believes otherwise (as Cognisant said, differing subjective perspectives). What they mean to say is that no desires, and therefore no meaning, can be ultimately justified without using other values, circular logic, accepted truths, or compulsions that permit action.

 

[Cognisant]

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.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's the awful truth, and at the same time its absolute freedom because you can choose to value whatever you want to value, the meaning of your life is whatever you decide it should be. That might seem absurd, well it is

no it's what value means.

(except you can't "decide"... you cartesian bro?)

 

[RaBind]

You are still only talking about existential nihilism in most of your posts, which btw you and I both agree on. This next bit about existential nihilism necessitating epistemological nihilism seems to be where we disagree.

Still existential nihilism does not equate to or necessitate epistemological nihilism.

Ok look, existential nihilism is a bit of knowledge, about the meaning of reality, which you arrive at through following skepticism ok? epistemological nihilism is basically what you get by applying the same skepticism, to it's logical (or IMO illogical) extreme, to all knowledge.

You have to apply skepticism to all knowledge because you want to know whether you have adequate reason to believe in said knowledge, which leads to epistemological nihilism. This is just like when you applied skepticism to the any knowledge you had of the meaning of life, to see if you had adequate reason to believe said knowledge, which lead you to existential nihilism.

If you only apply the same methodology of skepticism to one bit of knowledge but not to all knowledge then you are being arbitrary, hypocritical and contradictory.

Basically for every thing you think you know, ask yourself how do I know that's true? and ask the same question for how you know the reason you come up with is true. Repeatedly question the truth value of every answer you come up with until you get to the most basic of all things you know, which question the basic assumptions you make about the fundamentals of reality. Obviously you wouldn't have evidence to "prove" these things, because you don't know anything that comes before these basic fundamental assumptions. Then use the burden of proof to deny everything, which makes you an epistemological nihilist.

 

[Cherry Cola]

existential nihilism still caters to the worldview of the religious and mystics by accepting their transcendent definition of meaning

 

[Cognisant]

no it's what value means.

(except you can't "decide"... you cartesian bro?)

Do you even make sense?
Seriously I can't refute you because I have no idea what your point is.

Ok look, existential nihilism is a bit of knowledge, about the meaning of reality, which you arrive at through following skepticism ok? epistemological nihilism is basically what you get by applying the same skepticism, to it's logical (or IMO illogical) extreme, to all knowledge.

Ah so that's your reasoning, much appreciated.

Well there's no credible proof of innate objective meaning whereas the existence of objective reality seems readily apparent, if you've ever been wrong about anything that's proof that reality doesn't conform to your expectations but rather exists independent of them and if reality is merely an imaginary construct what was the inspiration for it?

Put simply I have every reason to believe there is no innate objective meaning because I've never encountered it, nor any sign of it, and everything that I've encountered that was proposed to be it was false. Indeed if innate objective meaning did exist wouldn't it be readily apparent if not in fact undeniable, like morality in a Disney movie the world would revolve around it and any deviations from the natural order would be unsustainable.

On the other hand the existence of objective reality seems it would be the given assumption to any educated mind, we live in a world dominated by empiricism whereby conflicts of scientific opinion are routinely and conclusively resolved by experimentation. Now perhaps there is no objective reality, after all nobody can absolutely prove anything (momentarily disregarding reasonable doubt in regard to evidence) however if that is the case then why does it appear that objective reality exists?

Are you suggesting we live in a subjective yet casually objective universe?
That raises a lot of questions and answers nothing.

 

[Cognisant]

If you only apply the same methodology of skepticism to one bit of knowledge but not to all knowledge then you are being arbitrary, hypocritical and contradictory.

You're completely disregarding degrees of reasonable doubt.

It's reasonable to doubt the existence of innate objective meaning because there's absolutely no proof of such, by all means provide some if you can, whereas the existence of objective reality seems likely considering how unlikely it is that existence is subjective, again mentally project yourself to my location and bend a spoon in front of me with only your mind and I'll eat my words.

existential nihilism still caters to the worldview of the religious and mystics by accepting their transcendent definition of meaning

No it doesn't, meaning is contrived, and you're an idiot.

Behold as I create meaning, I hereby declare the word "gediagoogoo" to mean that kind of comical relatedness that isn't irony although people commonly refer to it as such.

Gediagoogoo now has meaning.

Isn't it gediagoogoo that I have to explain objective reality over the internet.

Actually that might be irony...

 

[Cherry Cola]

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.

You're also using another meaning of meaning than we are using in the thread in your example. We are talking about meaning as in "purpose or value" not as in "to signify or indicate". You're creating a term not meaning in your example.

*Inherently (existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute).

This is a perfect example of someone very well equipped in the fluid intelligence department failing because he's lacking in the crystallized one.

Also please try to prove the existence of objective reality it will be hilarious to watch the fail ensue as it becomes obvious that belief in an objective reality is not compatible with the scientific principles you value.

 

[Cognisant]

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.

I hate semantics.
Alright fine existential inherent cosmic transcendent objective meaning does not exist, so why does it matter if the religious/mystic definition of meaning aligns with this, it doesn't exist, the point I've been making from the start is that religion/mysticism is wrong because it's all about an inherent objective cosmic transcendent meaning that DOES NOT EXIST.

You're also using another meaning of meaning than we are using in the thread in your example. We are talking about meaning as in "purpose or value" not as in "to signify or indicate". You're creating a term not meaning in your example.

Well there are no inherent-objective-cosmic-transcendent purposes or values.
By all means enlighten me if you know of any.

This is a perfect example of someone very well equipped in the fluid intelligence department failing because he's lacking in the crystallized one.

What is crystallized intelligence, is it like homeopathy, does it hum?

Also please try to prove the existence of objective reality it will be hilarious to watch the fail ensue as it becomes obvious that belief in an objective reality is not compatible with the scientific principles you value.

The reliability of empiricism and the usefulness of the scientific method are proof, the fact that reality isn't always consistent with our expectations is proof, the fact that two people on different sides of the planet conducting the same experiment and getting the same results despite their different expectations is proof.

That's what objectivity is, the truth is independent of the observer, you can point a toy gun at me and despite how deluded you might be it will never fire, likewise I can point a real gun at you and it will fire despite any contrary beliefs you might have, you can shoot me with a real gun even if you think its a toy.

Do I really have to prove to you that reality is fucking real?
REALLY!?!

Fine listen to your mystics, learn religious doctrine, be told how to think and what to feel, heck why not go join ISIS while you're at it?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Do you even make sense?
Seriously I can't refute you because I have no idea what your point is.

the point is that you're opposing a nonsensical idea which no one here is really proposing. value is always dependent on a goal and thus relative and non-universal in an important sense. however, your goal and thus your value is intrinsic to your biology and regulated by faculties way primary to your conscious experience of choice. you can't just "decide" your values. that's deluding yourself and creating cognitive dissonance. to borrow one of nanook favorite terms (?) it's important to think integral.

seems you're the one incapable of confronting some painful truths...

now on the other hand, biology in its totality isn't a reasonable norm or imperative. i'm not saying that. many aspects of biology are obsolete and problematic. but running counter to its main direction of proliferation, expansion and survival would be just stupid.

 

[Cognisant]

So wait you agree that there is in fact an objective reality?
That life is not inherently meaningful?

I don't disagree that there's innate biological imperatives.

 

[Brontosaurie]

So wait you agree that there is in fact an objective reality?
That life is not inherently meaningful?

I don't disagree that there's innate biological imperatives.

i think that the terms object and subject are mutually dependent. "objective reality" is a very troublesome term. all objects reflect mental heuristics. i know you subscribe to that latter notion.

"meaning" connotes language and advanced semantics. i prefer to say that life has inherent strife thus purpose thus values.

i only just heard of this book so i can't vouch for its merits but it looks like it could tie in with our discussion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

 

[TBerg]

Nihilism is neither chaos nor the abnegation of order. Once you say it is something, it sucks up that definition like a black hole. When you say it is a black hole, it reverts to what existed before things existed. What exists before things? Can you describe nothingness without using a thing?

 

[Cherry Cola]

nah you cant

 

[Cognisant]

Bronto you're just arguing semantics to piss me off.

Well unless you have an actual point to make, piss off.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Bronto you're just arguing semantics to piss me off.

Well unless you have an actual point to make, piss off.

it's not apt to call reality-sans-subject (a la tree-falls-in-the-wood etc) "objective reality".

and obviously there's a consequential non-semantic disagreement about the inherent [something] thing, no?

 

[Cherry Cola]

dude if you want to argue philosophy you have to know exactly what terms actually mean lol, philosophy is all about stringency which can't be achieved elsewise

problem is you throw terms around loosely, like objectivity, no you don't need to prove to me that reality is real, but that has nothing to do with whether one can say that some "objective"-reality exists, one can't because observation requires perspective since nothing can observe the totality of reality without being a part of it, hence objective reality is a mirage which can't be proven

empiricism and the scientific method has nothing to do with the matter, science is not in the least concerned with objective reality

you wrote earlier in the thread that

The problem is you all think philosophy is some kind of alternate to religion, you're looking for a doctrine, tenants, you want to be told what's right/wrong and what you ought to be living for.

Which is so ironic when you're the one who keeps on consistently misinterpreting posts and mixing your own ideals into the picture creating a mess

 

[Cognisant]

it's not apt to call reality-sans-subject (a la tree-falls-in-the-wood etc) "objective reality".

and obviously there's a consequential non-semantic disagreement about the inherent [something] thing, no?

That's just how we structure sentences, it proves nothing, indeed it's irrelevant.

hence objective reality is a mirage which can't be proven

At least it fits the available evidence whereas your theory that reality is subjective is, well, how to put it... very subjective.

empiricis and the scientific method has nothing to do with the matter, science is not in the least concerned with objective reality

Not in least concerned about verification? Really?
Do you even know what science is?

I have a theory, you have a theory, lets test that theory by setting up an experiment that tests the validity of our theories against reality, a reality with consistency we can rely on because experiments have always shown it to be consistent.

 

[Brontosaurie]

why ignore my second thing?

 

[Cognisant]

Explain it in an actual grammatically correct sentence and I might understand your point well enough to refute it.

Which is so ironic when you're the one who keeps on consistently misinterpreting posts and mixing your own ideals into the picture creating a mess

Do tell, what am I misinterpreting?

 

[Brontosaurie]

who's arguing semantics?

i said there's a real disagreement about whether meaning/value/purpose is inherent to life. what is your response? quit stalling.

 

[redbaron]

Ugh, subjectivism is so lame.

 

[Brontosaurie]

also Cog you are _not_ ENTP and each second you think that is eroding your character. Te-dom.

 

[redbaron]

Yeah Bronto, just like you're not INTP and each second you hopelessly try and project yourself as someone capable of coherent, abstract analysis you just end up retreating into the pathetic land of pure subjectivism.

 

[Cognisant]

i said there's a real disagreement about whether meaning/value/purpose is inherent to life. what is your response? quit stalling.

It's not.

MBTI is an archaic system of pop psychology, I don't care what you think I am.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah Bronto, just like you're not INTP and each second you hopelessly try and project yourself as someone capable of coherent, abstract analysis you just end up retreating into the pathetic land of pure subjectivism.

where's my error and where's subjectivism (except for mentioning the term "subject")?

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's not.

MBTI is an archaic system of pop psychology, I don't care what you think I am.

your response is not? or our disagreement is not?

not quite grammatical eiter way. someone is into making irrelevant demands of that sort of thing..........