nihilism

[iambiguous]

You do strike me as arguing as a Kantian ... Though sure I might well be wrong here.

You are. It's big of you to realize that possibility.

As I noted on another thread, over the years I have been a devout Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Democratic Socialist, a Social Democrat, an existentialist, a deconstructionist, a moral nihilist. Not much that I haven't realized at least the possibility of.

But, again, I have now come to understand the manner in which both you and I and others come to acquire a sense of identity -- existentially -- in the is/ought world revolves more or less around each of our own individual "lived lives" trajectories reflected in the points I raised in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

What are you "big enough" to own up to here?

For example, as noted elsewhere, moral and political objectivists will almost never own up to the possibility that they were completely wrong about an issue of consequence in the past. Why? Because once they own up to that they are acknowledging that they may well be completely wrong about an issue of consequence today.

How about you? Ever changed your mind about a truly important moral issue?

At the same time, the description of Kantianism you fashion in the middle is also nothing to do with Kantianism, so that's wrong too. Kant was a sort of rationalist with a for-granted teleology; if he was a Theist at all, he shelved that for the purposes of his arguments.

I explored that in a thread over at ILP: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... t#p2192848

Back when ILP was still an actual philosophy forum.

But how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

Why don't we choose a particular context in which a moral nihilist and a moral objectivist might disagree regarding "good" or "bad" behavior.

For at least one very good reason: the topic of the moment is nihilism, and nihilists don't believe in either. What can a nihilist have to say about "good" and "bad"? Nihilism is, by definition, completely amoral. According to its own terms, it has no moral perspectives, and no moral information in it.

Of course, I think it does: but a nihilist would have to disagree. So maybe that's your starting point.

Forget about it then. But the offer still stands.

[Immanuel Can]

As I noted on another thread, over the years I have been a devout Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Democratic Socialist, a Social Democrat, an existentialist, a deconstructionist, a moral nihilist. Not much that I haven't realized at least the possibility of.

I hear the veiled strains of U2 playing...

But, again, I have now come to understand the manner in which both you and I and others come to acquire a sense of identity -- existentially -- in the is/ought world...

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

What are you "big enough" to own up to here?

Ask me. I'll tell you.

Ever changed your mind about a truly important moral issue?

Absolutely.

Let me start at the top. As a teenager, I was a real admirer of Thomas Hardy, the agnostic author. I was also a great fan of other skeptics...not the Atheists, per se, as I always found them narrow and devoid of answers...but it once seemed to me that the only honest position for a person to take was a kind of "not knowing for sure" position. I believed, as Hardy did, that life was a pretty nasty business, and that made me rather cynical.

I'm not that now.

... how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

"Kingdom of ends" is Kant's phrase. I'm not a Kantian. But I do agree that there needs to be a transcendent standard in order to settle disputes. Kant thought that would be found in the categorical imperative. But there has been enough written about why people don't believe Kant, so we needn't deal with that in detail.

Suffice it to say, I think that Kant's prohibition against performative inconsistencies would, itself, have to be grounded in a transcendent source. And his "humanitarian" version of the CI would certainly imply a teleology that Kant never made explicit, but would still have to be grounded in a transcendent source as well.

Why don't we choose a particular context in which a moral nihilist and a moral objectivist might disagree regarding "good" or "bad" behavior.

For at least one very good reason: the topic of the moment is nihilism, and nihilists don't believe in either. What can a nihilist have to say about "good" and "bad"? Nihilism is, by definition, completely amoral. According to its own terms, it has no moral perspectives, and no moral information in it.

Of course, I think it does: but a nihilist would have to disagree. So maybe that's your starting point.

Forget about it then. But the offer still stands.

I dont' really know how it can. A nihilist, when he enters into moral questions, has (to borrow a Southern metaphor) "gone froggin' without a stick."

[iambiguous]

THE STONE
Navigating Past Nihilism
BY SEAN D. KELLY at the NYT
Kelly is chair of the department of philosophy at Harvard University

But there is a downside to the freedom of nihilism as well, and the people living in the culture may experience this in a variety of ways. Without any clear and agreed upon sense for what to be aiming at in a life, people may experience the paralyzing type of indecision depicted by T.S. Eliot in his famously vacillating character Prufrock...

Or Melville's Bartleby, the Scrivener who ever and always "preferred not to". Fortunately, there are any number of "aims" in life that can be quite satisfying once attained that don't require an overarching justification that ties everything together. After all, you don't need an essential meaning and purpose to enjoy good food, or music or art. Or to pursue a satisfying career or to accumulate accomplishments in the world of athletics. Friendships and romantic relationships can revolve around any number of shared interests that don't necessitate the existence of one or another God or ideology or spiritual path.

...or they may feel, like the characters in a Samuel Beckett play, as though they are continuously waiting for something to become clear in their lives before they can get on with living them...

Yes, some do need a transcending font that does eventually tie everything together...especially one that connects the dots between here and now and there and then. Life, then death, then what comes next. Obviously, this becomes all the more likely if your life is in the toilet, or you are getting closer and closer to death. It's all entirely existential though. Experienced differently by different people. Experiences they may or may not be able to effectively communicate to others.

Nihilists here are much like everyone else. Ultimately, what it comes down to is how fulfilling and satisfying their day-to-day existence is. That and their access to options.

...or they may feel the kind of “stomach level sadness” that David Foster Wallace described, a sadness that drives them to distract themselves by any number of entertainments, addictions, competitions, or arbitrary goals, each of which leaves them feeling emptier than the last.

Sure, this might be the case. But why it strikes some and not others is always going to be profoundly rooted in the mysteries of human psychology. Someone like David Foster Wallace or Curt Cobain or Robin Williams takes their own life and we just don't "get it". What we wouldn't do to have their success and accomplishments. But something is "missing", and off they go.

Or it has nothing at all to do with meaning and "aims" in their life. Perhaps it is a "clinical" depression as described by William Styron in Darkness Visible. The brain devouring itself.

The threat of nihilism is the threat that freedom from the constraint of agreed upon norms opens up new possibilities in the culture only through its fundamentally destabilizing force.

Tell that to, among others, the sociopaths.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600

[iambiguous]

As I noted on another thread, over the years I have been a devout Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Democratic Socialist, a Social Democrat, an existentialist, a deconstructionist, a moral nihilist. Not much that I haven't realized at least the possibility of.

I hear the veiled strains of U2 playing...

Actually, I haven't a clue as to what that has to do with my point above. But, as for U2, my favorite "nihilist" strain -- stain? -- revolves around this...

"In my dream I was drowning my sorrows
But my sorrows, they learned to swim
Surrounding me, going down on me
Spilling over the brim"

But, again, I have now come to understand the manner in which both you and I and others come to acquire a sense of identity -- existentially -- in the is/ought world...

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

Well, there's the way the world either is or is not. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us. As close to an objective reality as we are ever likely to get. Well, excluding solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds etc.

Then in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, there's the way the world is and the way each of us as individuals would like it to be instead. The way some insist it ought to be instead. That's the part I root in dasein.

Ever changed your mind about a truly important moral issue?

Absolutely.

Let me start at the top. As a teenager, I was a real admirer of Thomas Hardy, the agnostic author. I was also a great fan of other skeptics...not the Atheists, per se, as I always found them narrow and devoid of answers...but it once seemed to me that the only honest position for a person to take was a kind of "not knowing for sure" position. I believed, as Hardy did, that life was a pretty nasty business, and that made me rather cynical.

I'm not that now.

Well, there you go. You were this. Then you encountered particular points of view in your own particular life and became that. So, given this, you are acknowledging that in the event of yet newer experiences, newer encounters with other points of view down the road, you might change your mind once again.

Only the objectivist mind doesn't work that way. It ever and always assumes that what it thinks "here and now" about moral and political and spiritual value judgments is entirely in sync with the Real Me -- Soul? -- wholly in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

Now, my own speculation here is that this becomes embodied in what I call the "psychology of objectivism". Something I explore on this thread over at ILP: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

... how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

"Kingdom of ends" is Kant's phrase. I'm not a Kantian. But I do agree that there needs to be a transcendent standard in order to settle disputes. Kant thought that would be found in the categorical imperative. But there has been enough written about why people don't believe Kant, so we needn't deal with that in detail.

Suffice it to say, I think that Kant's prohibition against performative inconsistencies would, itself, have to be grounded in a transcendent source. And his "humanitarian" version of the CI would certainly imply a teleology that Kant never made explicit, but would still have to be grounded in a transcendent source as well.

Fine. But this is but another "general description intellectual assessment" to me. Let's focus in on a moral conflagration that is ever and always coming back around to fragment us into conflicting moral and political and spiritual camps; and then explore our respective moral philosophies. Mine rooted existentially in dasein, yours derived from whatever you construe -- essentially? -- your "transcendent standard" to be.

[Immanuel Can]

As I noted on another thread, over the years I have been a devout Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Democratic Socialist, a Social Democrat, an existentialist, a deconstructionist, a moral nihilist. Not much that I haven't realized at least the possibility of.

I hear the veiled strains of U2 playing...

Actually, I haven't a clue as to what that has to do with my point above.

"I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" is one of their most famous tunes.

But, again, I have now come to understand the manner in which both you and I and others come to acquire a sense of identity -- existentially -- in the is/ought world...

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

Well, there's the way the world either is or is not. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us. As close to an objective reality as we are ever likely to get. Well, excluding solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds etc.

Then in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, there's the way the world is and the way each of us as individuals would like it to be instead. The way some insist it ought to be instead. That's the part I root in dasein.

There's no "ought" in that explanation. To say that people "would like something to be X" does not mean it "ought" to be that way.

If I would like a Ferrari, that does not imply the world "ought" to give me one. Dreams are not duties.

...you are acknowledging that in the event of yet newer experiences, newer encounters with other points of view down the road, you might change your mind once again.

Of course.

All knowledge is probabilistic. The more evidence you have for a thing, the more justified you are in believing it. The less you have, the less so. And failure to change one's mind when the evidence weighs significantly against one is not rational.

At the same time, there is also a phenomenon called "learning." And when human being "learn," what it means is that they acquire additional evidence against their bad views, and additional evidence for their good ones. As time goes on, as more evidence accrues for the one or the other, one refines one's views, sharpens them, and accumulates information about them. There comes a time when the evidence for certain hyptheses is so great that it would take nothing short of a miracle to justify changing them, and such beliefs, we might say, are highly warranted and strong.

This would describe, for example, your own belief that the world is round. I would surely have to produce some really extraordinary evidence to justify you changing your view to the flat-earth theory, would I not? And that doesn't make you irrational to believe the earth is round. It simply means that you have strong evidence for it already by now, and won't easily change.

But can you say there would be NO possibility of you ever changing? Not if you're being rational. You would have to say that perhaps the odds against you changing your view were astronomical...but not utterly impossible. All human knowledge is only probabilistic. But some probabilities are far better than others.

... how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

Mine rooted existentially in dasein,

You keep referring to this word, but as I asked you in the "dasein" thread you started (then apparently abandoned), how are you using that term? We know of at least seven, and perhaps twice as many possible definitions of it, and I have no idea which definition you want to own...or even if you have your own definition, which has nothing to do with how it has been used by others.

Absent that, I can't even say what you mean by "dasein." So could you please tell me?

[bahman]

Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

Oh. I thought you believe in God!

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

Oh. I thought you believe in God!

I do.

And I also don't believe Joey Stalin or Mao "got away with" what they did. I know they will be judged for it, and I'm quite sure that God can repay them aptly for all they did -- and will. So I can be at peace with that fact.

But pointing to the Great Judgment, as proper as it is, is of no consolation to an Atheist who thinks life works out fairly. In this life, at least, it's very obvious it does not. Anyone who thinks it does cannot possibly be thinking of specific enough cases.

I'm able to admit that fact to myself. I can be unafraid, and be a realist about the injustices of life, because I know justice is coming. But somebody who does not know that will have to find some way to lie to himself, or else deal with the fact that this life, the life in this world, is often unjust..a condition he has to believe is permanent and irremediable.

[RCSaunders]

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

"Price?" Something, "pays," for wrong acts?

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

Well, I'm not the one who wrote this:

Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

The answer to the question is, "Yes, I do." At least on this Earth, some people definitely get away with far more than they ever pay for. And I don't think any sensible person can possibly think otherwise. If anybody does, getting out of the house for about fifteen minutes or reading one newspaper should just about fix that.

[RCSaunders]

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

Well, I'm not the one who wrote this:

Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

The answer to the question is, "Yes, I do." At least on this Earth, some people definitely get away with far more than they ever pay for. And I don't think any sensible person can possibly think otherwise. If anybody does, getting out of the house for about fifteen minutes or reading one newspaper should just about fix that.

Well that's a slick evasion. Of course you didn't write what I wrote and the question had nothing to do with that.

What you wrote was:

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

and what I asked was:

"Price?" Something, "pays," for wrong acts?

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

And your way of answering the question is the little song-and-dance you provided above?

If you cannot say exactly (in your terms) what price "reality" is supposed to have exacted from them for their evil, just admit it. If you do know what you mean by the price that should have been extracted (why don't you just say they have to pay?) why do you evade saying what it is?

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

Well, I'm not the one who wrote this:

Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

The answer to the question is, "Yes, I do." At least on this Earth, some people definitely get away with far more than they ever pay for. And I don't think any sensible person can possibly think otherwise. If anybody does, getting out of the house for about fifteen minutes or reading one newspaper should just about fix that.

Well that's a slick evasion.

Not an "evasion." It was I who was on track with the discussion -- both the statement you made and the reason for the comment of mine you quoted. I don't want us to lose the context, so we understand each other.

What you wrote was:

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

and what I asked was:

"Price?" Something, "pays," for wrong acts?

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

I don't need to defend the word "price," since it's a metaphor with plenty of synonyms. We can say "karma" or "payback" or "outcome" or any other word you like that conveys the same essential point. I suggest we simply say "countervailing evil" or "countervailing good." That's more precise.

In any case, the point is that there is no automatic link between the decisions people make and whether or not they get good outcomes. None of the people I pointed out above could be said to have experienced anything "countervailing" to the evil they committed, could they?

And so now I go back to the question I asked and you quoted, namely, what did "reality" do to counterbalance the scales in their cases? And I think the answer is obvious: "not enough." So your supposition that there's some easy proportionality between our actions and what we get is obviously not reflective of what happens in the real world.

[RCSaunders]

Well, I'm not the one who wrote this:

The answer to the question is, "Yes, I do." At least on this Earth, some people definitely get away with far more than they ever pay for. And I don't think any sensible person can possibly think otherwise. If anybody does, getting out of the house for about fifteen minutes or reading one newspaper should just about fix that.

Well that's a slick evasion.

Not an "evasion." It was I who was on track with the discussion -- both the statement you made and the reason for the comment of mine you quoted. I don't want us to lose the context, so we understand each other.

What you wrote was:

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

and what I asked was:

"Price?" Something, "pays," for wrong acts?

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

I don't need to defend the word "price," since it's a metaphor with plenty of synonyms. We can say "karma" or "payback" or "outcome" or any other word you like that conveys the same essential point. I suggest we simply say "countervailing evil" or "countervailing good." That's more precise.

In any case, the point is that there is no automatic link between the decisions people make and whether or not they get good outcomes. None of the people I pointed out above could be said to have experienced anything "countervailing" to the evil they committed, could they?

And so now I go back to the question I asked and you quoted, namely, what did "reality" do to counterbalance the scales in their cases? And I think the answer is obvious: "not enough." So your supposition that there's some easy proportionality between our actions and what we get is obviously not reflective of what happens in the real world.

I don't suppose anything. Why are you playing these word games. I don't care what you call it, "price," "karma" or "payback" or "outcome" I just want to know what any of those things might actually be. Perhaps you can provide an example of what a just, "price," "karma," "payback," or "outcome," would be.

You have said you don't believe those you've identified as evil had to pay the right, "price," or experienced the right "karma," "payback," or "outcome." What I want to know is, if they had, what would it have been?

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps you can provide an example of what a just, "price," "karma," "payback," or "outcome," would be.

It's your hypothesis, not mine. So I can't defend your claim for you. For you wrote:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"

So I must ask, what "bad," what "consequence" do you think automatically devolves upon a person who "does anything" (i.e. something pernicious or bad, presumably)? I see no warrant for such confidence, but I'll hear your case.

Meanwhile, my answer to your question above is, "Yes, that is exactly what I 'assume,' and on the basis of good evidence, too." Plenty of people "do anything," and (at least in this life) never end up getting a "bad" or a "consequence" (your words) that is anywhere near on par with the "anything" they do.

It's your case to defend. Not mine. I'm not here to patch up the holes in somebody else's "just-deserts-now" theory that quite frankly, I do not think holds water, and which I directly claim is not true.

[RCSaunders]

Perhaps you can provide an example of what a just, "price," "karma," "payback," or "outcome," would be.

It's your hypothesis, not mine. So I can't defend your claim for you. For you wrote:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"

So I must ask, what "bad," what "consequence" do you think automatically devolves upon a person who "does anything" (i.e. something pernicious or bad, presumably)? I see no warrant for such confidence, but I'll hear your case.

Meanwhile, my answer to your question above is, "Yes, that is exactly what I 'assume,' and on the basis of good evidence, too." Plenty of people "do anything," and (at least in this life) never end up getting a "bad" or a "consequence" (your words) that is anywhere near on par with the "anything" they do.

It's your case to defend. Not mine. I'm not here to patch up the holes in somebody else's "just-deserts-now" theory that quite frankly, I do not think holds water, and which I directly claim is not true.

'OK. My hypothesis was wrong.

Now you can help me correct my view by answering my question:

I don't care what you call it, "price," "karma" or "payback" or "outcome" I just want to know what any of those things might actually be. Perhaps you can provide an example of what a just, "price," "karma," "payback," or "outcome," would be.

You have said you don't believe those you've identified as evil had to pay the right, "price," or experienced the right "karma," "payback," or "outcome." What I want to know is, if they had, what would it have been?

Just help me out. You can do that, can't you?

[Immanuel Can]

It's your case to defend. Not mine. I'm not here to patch up the holes in somebody else's "just-deserts-now" theory that quite frankly, I do not think holds water, and which I directly claim is not true.

'OK. My hypothesis was wrong.

Then I already have my point. For that was what I was saying. The figures I mentioned are good examples that show that there's no facile symetry between what people choose to do and what they get.

I am not offering to solve your problem for you, since you don't believe in things like God, judgment or eternity. Without God, for that matter, you can't even really believe in objective good or evil. So the problem cannot, in fact, be solved on the terms you accept, it would seem.

That that view is unpleasant to ponder and probably unliveable in practice is not anything I can fix on your terms.