Nihilism

[Falco]

Opinions?

[Holografix]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

We adapt to our surroundings. Everything is a social construct.

Not everyone believes this. And can you explain this to a child?

In other words, this notion is learned. Where did you learn it?

[AdahnGorion]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

We adapt to our surroundings. Everything is a social construct.

Not everyone believes this. And can you explain this to a child?

That depends on the age.
I did conduct a study with 5 year olds once. When I asked them what a chair is, they first do as most adults do "tell me that a chair is something you sit on" then I put myself down on the floor and asked if it was a chair, because I was "sitting" on it.

The 5 year old then said "no a chair has 4 legs" then I rose up, walked to the table (with four legs) put myself up on it and asked "is this a chair then" and they all said "no no no that is a table)

Then another 5 year old said "This is a chair, because we all agreed upon it is a chair in kindergarden" while pointing on a chair in the room.



As I said earlier, our surroundings (this is also people, but not excluded ot it) determinates what potentially can be "learned" then again, I am biased.. obviously.. (we all are)

[Holografix]

Grynn님이 먼저 게시:

If we didn't have empathy or sympathy we'd all be psychopaths.

You draw the line between madness and civilization with empathy & sympathy? And not reason?

[Holografix]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Not everyone believes this. And can you explain this to a child?

That depends on the age.
I did conduct a stury with 5 year olds once. When I asked them what a chair is, they first do as most adults do "tell me that a chair is something you sit on" then I put myself down on the floor and asked if it was a chair, because I was "sitting" on it.

The 5 year old then said "no a chair has 4 legs" then I rose up, walked to the table (with four legs) put myself up on it and asked "is this a chair then"

Then another 5 year old said "This is a chair, because we all agreed upon it is a chair in kindergarden" while pointing on a chair in the room.

Why did you sit on a table and not on a chair? Seems like you were trying to frustrate 5 year old children. But the child who said that "the chair is what we agreed was a chair" is describing the fact of "a chair." Did you then tell them that you weren't in their class and therefore didn't agree with that definition to frustrate them further?

Funny test. What do you think the test proved?

[AdahnGorion]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

That depends on the age.
I did conduct a stury with 5 year olds once. When I asked them what a chair is, they first do as most adults do "tell me that a chair is something you sit on" then I put myself down on the floor and asked if it was a chair, because I was "sitting" on it.

The 5 year old then said "no a chair has 4 legs" then I rose up, walked to the table (with four legs) put myself up on it and asked "is this a chair then"

Then another 5 year old said "This is a chair, because we all agreed upon it is a chair in kindergarden" while pointing on a chair in the room.

Why did you sit on a table and not on a chair? Seems like you were trying to frustrate 5 year old children. But the child who said that "the chair is what we agreed was a chair" is describing the fact of "a chair." Did you then tell them that you weren't in their class and therefore didn't agree with that definition to frustrate them further?

Funny test. What do you think the test proved?

That kids think more freely and are open to more suggestions.

[Holografix]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Why did you sit on a table and not on a chair? Seems like you were trying to frustrate 5 year old children. But the child who said that "the chair is what we agreed was a chair" is describing the fact of "a chair." Did you then tell them that you weren't in their class and therefore didn't agree with that definition to frustrate them further?

Funny test. What do you think the test proved?

That kids think more freely and are open to more suggestions.

Kids think more freely? Than adults? But simultaneously, kids are more suggestible?
Seems like a dubious conclusion.

[AdahnGorion]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

That kids think more freely and are open to more suggestions.

Kids think more freely? Than adults? But simultaneously, kids are more suggestible?
Seems like a dubious conclusion.

I know. But they are not yet as biased as an ie. 14 year old and have not followed the path of "x has y, so x is a g" logic yet. Often they put stuff into question. On the other hand, if they "trust" me or have a relation, (teacher, parent, uncle, etc) they are more likely to be biased, even more so than someone on 14.

I understand why you think it is contradicting.


We are straying abit away from our original topic however, even if this could be in direct link. Atleast the part about our social bias and the people around us.



I still don´t think most people here agree or/and understands just how complex our identities are and why we might "have the opinions we do"
Nihilism also seems to be rather misunderstood.

[Rio]

Nothing matters, thats where it starts, thats where it ends.

[TwisterCat]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

King Narwhal님이 먼저 게시:

So, your post states:

Nihilism explores glaring issues of meaning within language and epistemology. It is an ideology of deep skepticism of specific ideas:
1. Morality (no justification for morality, be it theistic or from reason)
2. Values (no justification for values, be they theistic or from reason)
3. Truth (the possibility for truth is nil)

So for the first and second point, is the argument that there is no OBJECTIVE basis for morality and values and that they are a personal and subjective thing?

As for the last point, can you elaborate on what is meant by "truth"?

The argument is that there is no justifiable basis (of any kind) for morality.

Does that mean we'd be better off without it? I know many things in life that aren't ideal, but to change it would be to bring in something worse.

It would be a very stupid, impulsive, and weak belief to say nothing matters or has value in life.

[Holografix]

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

The argument is that there is no justifiable basis (of any kind) for morality.

Does that mean we'd be better off without it? I know many things in life that aren't ideal, but to change it would be to bring in something worse.

It would be a very stupid, impulsive, and weak belief to say nothing matters or has value in life.

Your "would we be better off without it" question pre-supposes that currently morality is justifiable. Or that currently, the only thing holding back a tide of "something worse" is morality. This means you already have a viewpoint from where you are arguing. But my question to you is, how do you know that morality is justifiable? You are asking the question here, but you should really ask this question of yourself.

Whether "nothing" matters or has value is debatable. Just think of the pure negativity of zero. The idea of zero is of great importance to mathematics.

[TwisterCat]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

Does that mean we'd be better off without it? I know many things in life that aren't ideal, but to change it would be to bring in something worse.

It would be a very stupid, impulsive, and weak belief to say nothing matters or has value in life.

Your "would we be better off without it" question pre-supposes that currently morality is justifiable. Or that currently, the only thing holding back a tide of "something worse" is morality. This means you already have a viewpoint from where you are arguing. But my question to you is, how do you know that morality is justifiable? You are asking the question here, but you should really ask this question of yourself.

Whether "nothing" matters or has value is debatable. Just think of the pure negativity of zero. The idea of zero is of great importance to mathematics.

A core philosophy of nihilism is that even destruction, death, and the least ideal, don't matter. I've recently visited a small town, a happy bunch. I'd walked into an antique store, looking for something particular, and a conversation had started with the owner, an older fellow who had remembered when the town was a small seed out in the country, and how they'd watched it grow over the years, and how they know everybody in the community and value them. How nearly nothing, had become something.

Nihilism defines that as worthless. Nothing would have mattered if I burnt down that town, and taken everybody and their family with me, it would have disappeared in time anyways. Nihilists have this insatiable belief that their opinion on value is the only thing that matters, because nobody's opinion will matter in time.

To take away something that people had worked so many years to create, and to do so in the blink of an eye would be unjust, unfair, and preventable at my own hands. Who is that nihilist to say that the people of that town don't actually value it, because value doesn't exist. It matters not how long things last for, you appreciate them while they exist, and value them above nothing. If unjust/unfairness exists, the antithesis must exist also.

[Volfogg]

I guess, most people don't have time for such bleak outlook on life. At least I do not have such amount of time (which means something because I have really plenty of time willing to spend on various things).

[Holografix]

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Your "would we be better off without it" question pre-supposes that currently morality is justifiable. Or that currently, the only thing holding back a tide of "something worse" is morality. This means you already have a viewpoint from where you are arguing. But my question to you is, how do you know that morality is justifiable? You are asking the question here, but you should really ask this question of yourself.

Whether "nothing" matters or has value is debatable. Just think of the pure negativity of zero. The idea of zero is of great importance to mathematics.

A core philosophy of nihilism is that even destruction, death, and the least ideal, don't matter. I've recently visited a small town, a happy bunch. I'd walked into an antique store, looking for something particular, and a conversation had started with the owner, an older fellow who had remembered when the town was a small seed out in the country, and how they'd watched it grow over the years, and how they know everybody in the community and value them. How nearly nothing, had become something.

Nihilism defines that as worthless. Nothing would have mattered if I burnt down that town, and taken everybody and their family with me, it would have disappeared in time anyways. Nihilists have this insatiable belief that their opinion on value is the only thing that matters, because nobody's opinion will matter in time.

To take away something that people had worked so many years to create, and to do so in the blink of an eye would be unjust, unfair, and preventable at my own hands. Who is that nihilist to say that the people of that town don't actually value it, because value doesn't exist. It matters not how long things last for, you appreciate them while they exist, and value them above nothing. If unjust/unfairness exists, the antithesis must exist also.

Why the initial story of the small town? Is that to make an appeal to pathos, to emotion? What does that story have anything to do with whether morality is justifiable?

Nihilism isn't about pointless destruction or making you cry over a sob story. Nihilism makes the argument that morality (moral values, notions of good/evil) are unjustifiable on any basis, that value systems are ultimately arbitrary. You've made the argument that the only thing preventing you from destroying a small town is someone's tender feelings for it. Ok, so what?

I see that you are preoccupied with your values being considered irrelevant by a passing Nihilist. I think personifying Nihilism is a mistake because the ideology is highly abstract and it is all too easy to create a simplified (and ultimately incorrect) "evil" Nihilistic character to make your arguments against. The ideology is far more subtle than that.

[TwisterCat]

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

A core philosophy of nihilism is that even destruction, death, and the least ideal, don't matter. I've recently visited a small town, a happy bunch. I'd walked into an antique store, looking for something particular, and a conversation had started with the owner, an older fellow who had remembered when the town was a small seed out in the country, and how they'd watched it grow over the years, and how they know everybody in the community and value them. How nearly nothing, had become something.

Nihilism defines that as worthless. Nothing would have mattered if I burnt down that town, and taken everybody and their family with me, it would have disappeared in time anyways. Nihilists have this insatiable belief that their opinion on value is the only thing that matters, because nobody's opinion will matter in time.

To take away something that people had worked so many years to create, and to do so in the blink of an eye would be unjust, unfair, and preventable at my own hands. Who is that nihilist to say that the people of that town don't actually value it, because value doesn't exist. It matters not how long things last for, you appreciate them while they exist, and value them above nothing. If unjust/unfairness exists, the antithesis must exist also.

Why the initial story of the small town? Is that to make an appeal to pathos, to emotion? What does that story have anything to do with whether morality is justifiable?

Nihilism isn't about pointless destruction or making you cry over a sob story. Nihilism makes the argument that morality (moral values, notions of good/evil) are unjustifiable on any basis, that value systems are ultimately arbitrary. You've made the argument that the only thing preventing you from destroying a small town is someone's tender feelings for it. Ok, so what?

I see that you are preoccupied with your values being considered irrelevant by a passing Nihilist. I think personifying Nihilism is a mistake because the ideology is highly abstract and it is all too easy to create a simplified (and ultimately incorrect) "evil" Nihilistic character to make your arguments against. The ideology is far more subtle than that.

You look at value from a cold, scientific viewpoint. The world is filled with emotion and human instincts, to implement nihilism in your life fully would be like throwing a mentos into a bottle of diet coke, they're not meant to go together, just as philosophy is worthless if it's not built around something humans can feel, it's machine logic. In the real world, nihilism doesn't work, the human brain isn't built for nihilist philosophy, if a mountain lion attacked you in the park, fight or flight instincts would still kick in, showing value of your own life, otherwise you'd feel nothing emotionally.

The question stands, what gives you the right to define the value of many, if not even the brain is built around your philosophy? That is textbook narcissism, I define value as building something to invoke a positive chemical reaction in the brain, instead of discomfort, and you say the it's worth the equivalent of literal suffering and hellish pain, because it all goes away in the end anyways. That's not as much nihilism I detect in that statement, more of a very strong misanthropy.

Did you know that true nihilist capitulation in the all of the brain's lobes would technically be classified as a 'mental illness'? Is that the "stone cold, edgy truth", or is it just as it sounds, a troubled philosophy that doesn't work in the real world? Emotion must always be accounted for when designing a philosophy, even if it's just a pointless chemical reaction in the brain.

[Holografix]

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:

Why the initial story of the small town? Is that to make an appeal to pathos, to emotion? What does that story have anything to do with whether morality is justifiable?

Nihilism isn't about pointless destruction or making you cry over a sob story. Nihilism makes the argument that morality (moral values, notions of good/evil) are unjustifiable on any basis, that value systems are ultimately arbitrary. You've made the argument that the only thing preventing you from destroying a small town is someone's tender feelings for it. Ok, so what?

I see that you are preoccupied with your values being considered irrelevant by a passing Nihilist. I think personifying Nihilism is a mistake because the ideology is highly abstract and it is all too easy to create a simplified (and ultimately incorrect) "evil" Nihilistic character to make your arguments against. The ideology is far more subtle than that.

You look at value from a cold, scientific viewpoint.

You're making a value judgement there. I don't know if philosophy is science exactly, but I see the point you are trying to make. You prefer the happy/sad mask of dramatic explanations where they characterize the concepts in human form.

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

philosophy is worthless if it's not built around something humans can feel, it's machine logic.

Plato's philosophy was concerned with "ideal forms," that the truth of the world was not material, but could be found in the ideal forms in the mind. Plato was of course the most influential philosopher from which all modern philosophy sprang. So you aren't a Platonist, ok that's fine. I think your comment is a little ridiculous, but whatever.

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

In the real world, nihilism doesn't work, the human brain isn't built for nihilist philosophy

The mystery of the brain solved in one sentence. Brilliant.

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

what gives you the right to define the value of many, if not even the brain is built around your philosophy? That is textbook narcissism, I define value as building something to invoke a positive chemical reaction in the brain, instead of discomfort, and you say the it's worth the equivalent of literal suffering and hellish pain, because it all goes away in the end anyways.

You write of rights (governmental? idk), about how your brain is not built for Nihilism, you even discuss my mental state, and continue to mis-characterize (straw man) my posts . I sense this is all a distraction tactic.

TwisterCat님이 먼저 게시:

Emotion must always be accounted for when designing a philosophy, even if it's just a pointless chemical reaction in the brain.

I believe Nihilism does not exclude passion. Do you feel that Nihilism neglected to account for emotions?