nihilism

[iambiguous]

This place, and others like it, is a canvas for posting of opinions.

There is no way to determine which opinions are correct and which are incorrect. There is no possibility or need for correction. All opinions are equally valid.

Iambiguous simply embodies it more clearly and consistently than some other posters.

Over and over again, I make what I construe to be that crucial distinction between posting objective facts regarding human interactions in the either/or world and posting personal opinions regarding conflicting value judgments.

In fact, in regard to reality itself -- whatever that means? -- any number of philosophers have already suggested that, perhaps, we really have no way in which to definitively determine if such things as solipsism, sim world, dream worlds and the matrix do or do not exist. We can't even pin down for certain the extent to which human autonomy itself is the real deal.

As for the "need for corrections", let's start with some of his. Again, we just need a context. How about the war in Gaza? Is he arguing that I am arguing that all opinions are equally valid there? Instead, I am arguing that this conflict revolves in large part around the moral objectivists on both sides embodying "or else" as part of their "my way or the highway" mentality. The irony here than being that they are both waging their own jihad in the name of the very same God!!!

[phyllo]

Over and over again, I make what I construe to be that crucial distinction between posting objective facts regarding human interactions in the either/or world and posting personal opinions regarding conflicting value judgments.

You are not even able to apply that distinction to your statements about Buddhism.

It's fairly clear that there are objective facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Yet, you misrepresent Buddhism and make it seem as if your opinion is as valid as an objective fact.

Your statements would appear to be "correctable" but not really ... right?

Instead, I am arguing that this conflict revolves in large part around the moral objectivists on both sides embodying "or else" as part of their "my way or the highway" mentality.

So?

That does not contradict the possibility that "all opinions are equally valid". It's a statement about something entirely different.

Larry wrote:

In any case, I'm not interested in this kind of interaction.

My name is not Larry.

I only posted a reply to IWP in the hope that he would stop wasting his time trying to get something out of you which you are unable to give him.

[iambiguous]

Over and over again, I make what I construe to be that crucial distinction between posting objective facts regarding human interactions in the either/or world and posting personal opinions regarding conflicting value judgments.

You are not even able to apply that distinction to your statements about Buddhism.

It's fairly clear that there are objective facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, then how do Buddhists themselves make that distinction between what they believe in their head about Enlightenment, reincarnation, nirvana, etc., and what they are able to demonstrate is in fact true?

That part is either important to you given what is at stake on both sides of the grave or it's...not?

There are objective facts that can be commuicated regarding Buddhism...historically, culturally, experientially. But Buddhists are then like everyone else...they have to connect the dots between an Enlightened frame of mind [re Buddha himself], the behaviors they choose "here and now" and what they presume the consequences of that will be for the part after they die.

That's religion in a nutshell to me: moral commandments/Enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then. The rest is embedded down through the ages in both human psychology [the psychology of objectivism] and political economy [the part where religion becomes an opiate for the masses].

Again, most religious folks are rather adamant regarding this: it's their own One True Path to God [or to No God] or your soul is damned. Right, I.C.?

Or, what, with Buddhism you might come back as a cockroach?

Yet, you misrepresent Buddhism and make it seem as if your opinion is as valid as an objective fact.

That he would argue that this is what I'm arguing is nothing less than preposterous. In regard to my own value judgments, I have been arguing for years now that they are rooted existentially in dasein. No less than his own are, in my view. Unless, of course, he or other moral objectivists here can persuade me to give their own religion a go.

Win-win, remember?

[Iwannaplato]

I only posted a reply to IWP in the hope that he would stop wasting his time trying to get something out of you which you are unable to give him.

Oh, ok. I appreciate the heads up, and I agree, perhaps with a quibble around unable/unwilling, since I'm not sure which it is. And yes, it's a non-issue to him whether he presents people, texts, religions, groups in an accurate way. Which is ironic in ways he fails to notice/admit.
But don't worry, I expect very little from him. I expect more of the same.

Getting called a Stooge means: it annoys him when you point out his immoral behavior or innacurate bs. The behavior of objectivists, posters here, for example, and others elsewhere, that's fine to talk about. His problematic behavior, that's taboo to mention. His strawmen arguments and false descriptions, that's taboo to mention.

Shhhh.

[phyllo]

Over and over again, I make what I construe to be that crucial distinction between posting objective facts regarding human interactions in the either/or world and posting personal opinions regarding conflicting value judgments.

You are not even able to apply that distinction to your statements about Buddhism.

It's fairly clear that there are objective facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, then how do Buddhists themselves make that distinction between what they believe in their head about Enlightenment, reincarnation, nirvana, etc., and what they are able to demonstrate is in fact true?

That part is either important to you given what is at stake on both sides of the grave or it's...not?

There are objective facts that can be commuicated regarding Buddhism...historically, culturally, experientially. But Buddhists are then like everyone else...they have to connect the dots between an Enlightened frame of mind [re Buddha himself], the behaviors they choose "here and now" and what they presume the consequences of that will be for the part after they die.

That's religion in a nutshell to me: moral commandments/Enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then. The rest is embedded down through the ages in both human psychology [the psychology of objectivism] and political economy [the part where religion becomes an opiate for the masses].

Again, most religious folks are rather adamant regarding this: it's their own One True Path to God [or to No God] or your soul is damned. Right, I.C.?

Or, what, with Buddhism you might come back as a cockroach?

Yet, you misrepresent Buddhism and make it seem as if your opinion is as valid as an objective fact.

That he would argue that this is what I'm arguing is nothing less than preposterous. In regard to my own value judgments, I have been arguing for years now that they are rooted existentially in dasein. No less than his own are, in my view. Unless, of course, he or other moral objectivists here can persuade me to give their own religion a go.

Win-win, remember?

My point is that you don't even settle the objective facts.

You basically characterize Buddhists and other religious people as if they are American evangelicals.

Sure, it's because those were the people you encountered in your youth and maybe you still encounter them now. That's the way dasein has shaped your thinking.

However, if you did some research, you would discover that religion and religious belief is not that homogeneous. It's not one size fits all.

Even within Christianity, your ideas about salvation and eternal life don't apply well to non-American, non-evangelicals, non-Protestants.

So you start out with a particular opinion about religion and religious people and you are unable or unwilling ( ) to be corrected.

If you don't want to do the research yourself, then you ought to listen to people like IWP, who seems to be knowledgeable about it. Instead of stubbornly hanging on to your one belief.

[iambiguous]

You are not even able to apply that distinction to your statements about Buddhism.

It's fairly clear that there are objective facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, then how do Buddhists themselves make that distinction between what they believe in their head about Enlightenment, reincarnation, nirvana, etc., and what they are able to demonstrate is in fact true?

That part is either important to you given what is at stake on both sides of the grave or it's...not?

There are objective facts that can be communicated regarding Buddhism...historically, culturally, experientially. But Buddhists are then like everyone else...they have to connect the dots between an Enlightened frame of mind [re Buddha himself], the behaviors they choose "here and now" and what they presume the consequences of that will be for the part after they die.

That's religion in a nutshell to me: moral commandments/Enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then. The rest is embedded down through the ages in both human psychology [the psychology of objectivism] and political economy [the part where religion becomes an opiate for the masses].

Again, most religious folks are rather adamant regarding this: it's their own One True Path to God [or to No God] or your soul is damned. Right, I.C.?

Or, what, with Buddhism you might come back as a cockroach?

Yet, you misrepresent Buddhism and make it seem as if your opinion is as valid as an objective fact.

That he would argue that this is what I'm arguing is nothing less than preposterous. In regard to my own value judgments, I have been arguing for years now that they are rooted existentially in dasein. No less than his own are, in my view. Unless, of course, he or other moral objectivists here can persuade me to give their own religion a go.

Win-win, remember?

My point is that you don't even settle the objective facts.

You basically characterize Buddhists and other religious people as if they are American evangelicals.

What objective facts in particular are in dispute? Buddhists, like all the rest of us, live particular lives and choose particular behaviors. Only they argue that some lives, some behaviors are more, what, Enlightened than others? And that those who die having accumulated the most Enlightenment fare better on "the other side" than those that don't? And that for the best of the best here nirvana itself is within reach?

Okay, let's run this by Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Shintos. And all the rest on their One True Paths. See if that's acceptable to their Gods...or, perhaps, regarding their own assumptions about the universe if there is no actual Divine entity?

Even evangelicals have their own particular assessments of God and what it takes to be saved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Diversity

Sure, it's because those were the people you encountered in your youth and maybe you still encounter them now. That's the way dasein has shaped your thinking.

Then I suggest that's basically how we all come to acquire particular sets of moral, political and spiritual values. Existential prejudices. They're rooted historically and culturally in dasein. At least until I come upon an objectivist [here or elsewhere] able to persuade me to reconsider what "I" think and feel "here and now" about religion.

After all, if Jesus Christ does return as many here insist He will, that'll do it for me. What about the Buddhists among us, however? They'll still embrace Buddha as the One True Path?

However, if you did some research, you would discover that religion and religious belief is not that homogeneous. It's not one size fits all.

I'll tell you what many religious folks will insist however: that if you want access to moral commandments and enlightenment here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, it is truly their way or the highway. And for many that highway leads straight to Hell.

Even within Christianity, your ideas about salvation and eternal life don't apply well to non-American, non-evangelicals, non-Protestants.

Tell me about it!

So you start out with a particular opinion about religion and religious people and you are unable or unwilling ( ) to be corrected.

Again, for all of the ICs here and elsewhere to be "corrected" is to think exactly like they do about God and religion. Or else?

How about with your own assessment of objective morality? Is there or is there not an "or else" appended to it? What of those who don't share your own values in regard to abortion of Communism or the Israelis in Gaza? Is there or is there not a Judgment Day -- the Judgment Day -- awaiting them?

And how close are you able to come to actually demonstrating that what you believe about them does in fact reflect the most reasonable and virtuous assessment.

If you don't want to do the research yourself, then you ought to listen to people like IWP, who seems to be knowledgeable about it. Instead of stubbornly hanging on to your one belief.

From my frame mind, IWP here, like moreno there, is just another Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle. And, as with you, he's never all that far removed from Stooge Stuff.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[phyllo]

What objective facts in particular are in dispute?

Facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, let's run this by Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Shintos.

There are facts about what the sects in those religions believe.

At least until I come upon an objectivist [here or elsewhere] able to persuade me to reconsider what "I" think and feel "here and now" about religion.

Well, here I am, trying to get you to reconsider what the various religions believe.

I'll tell you what many religious folks will insist however: that if you want access to moral commandments and enlightenment here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, it is truly their way or the highway. And for many that highway leads straight to Hell.

That has nothing to do with the set of beliefs that they have.
Rather you are talking about how someone might react to being challenged on their beliefs.

Again, for all of the ICs here and elsewhere to be "corrected" is to think exactly like they do about God and religion. Or else?

We're talking about you being corrected, not IC.

How about with your own assessment of objective morality? Is there or is there not an "or else" appended to it? What of those who don't share your own values in regard to abortion of Communism or the Israelis in Gaza? Is there or is there not a Judgment Day -- the Judgment Day -- awaiting them?

This is you fitting me into your "religious person" box.

From my frame mind, IWP here, like moreno there, is just another Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

It seems to me that he is trying really hard to talk to you.

FlannelJesus also tried to talk to you and you blew him off.

I would not call either one of them, "wigglers".

But sure, that's a personal opinion based on reading your interaction.

[Iwannaplato]

What objective facts in particular are in dispute?

Facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, let's run this by Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Shintos.

There are facts about what the sects in those religions believe.

I certainly respect you trying to get him to actually respond to what I criticized in his post. Right off the bat, it is as if he couldn't have found the information that answers his question to you. *What objective facts???' As if it isn't really quite obvious in my first post. Things have to be repeated again and again, and the impression is that perhaps if one of us phrases it correctly, then a direct response will occur. And then, when it is phrased just right for his ears, he can and will suddenly explain how Buddhism includes, for example, the kind of eternal life (of an individual soul) that one finds in Christianity. That he'll either support his claim or concede he was conflating other religions with Christianity. Or he'll admit he was painting religions and religious people as necessarily asserting there is only one true path and this isn't the case. But it's sisyphean.

His response to your guiding him back to the issue of his version of what Buddhists believe is to suggest asking members of other religious groups this issue. And notice he makes no claim. He suggests an activity. No justification. Just a kind of implicit evidence of something that is not really the topic.

The most charitable read, I think, is that he truly does not understand that 1) he might have presented a false image of Buddhism and 2) this might actually matter or that it could make sense to point his misrepresentations out.

And each response you'll get, I'm afraid, will only mystify and distract and show what almost seems like a memory problem.

It is somehow supposed to be taboo to notice and comment on this behavior of his. It's fine to misrepresent Buddhism and Buddhists - and to think there's no need to justify the representations - but once one has pointed out the misrepresentation, it is taboo to note that the person misrepresenting, is not justifying their position and seems to have no interest in doing this in philosophy forum.

In another thread he respond to an article as if it was about one topic - free will - when it was about something else in metaphysics.

It's a pattern. He certainly makes people the issue in his posts, though he does tend to do it about large numbers of people, but also does it about individuals here. If we note the pattern of not really responding to people or even to the texts he quotes, this is being a Stooge.

It's tragicomic.

[phyllo]

All I can do is bring some focus to the discussion, show some contradictions and offer some improvements.

I have no control over how it will be received.

[Iwannaplato]

All I can do is bring some focus to the discussion, show some contradictions and offer some improvements.

I have no control over how it will be received.

Yes, I understand.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
S. M. Henderson

Perspective is the "solution" to nihilism. Meaning itself is dependent entirely on your perspective. If you don't interpret the words that you're reading on this screen as words that mean something, they are nothing but meaningless scribbles. You have control of your own perspective, if you set aside your pride.

Yet almost all accept that in regard to the either/or world, the things we find meaningful are applicable to each and everyone of us. And if some insist the meaning is other than what it actually is that doesn't make it any less objective. If, for example, someone thinks that "Mary had an abortion" means that she just gave birth is that acceptable because, after all, it's just her own personal perspective?

On the other hand, if someone insists that Mary will one day burn in Hell because their God deems abortion [the killing of the unborn] to be a Sin, that does seem to be more in the way of a personal perspective. One that others will disagree with vehemently.

Then what? If for whatever reason someone comes to believe that abortion means giving birth, they can be set straight as to what it really means.

Shades of Dogtooth -- https://youtu.be/0bYpMPXXsvI?si=fLbhS6gxhxLUSMW1 -- perhaps?

Find a random object somewhere near you right now, anything at all. When you first glance at it, it's nothing but a simple object, you know what it is, it's nothing special. Your perspective of it is simple and bland. But try taking another look at it, take a good, long look. Whatever that object you're looking at is, is absolutely incredible. How could that exist? What even is that? Look at the shape of it, the color, the intricate way it is. In the midst of all this strangeness, somewhere in this seemingly infinite void, that is there. Isn't it fascinating? What is it made of? What could it be for? How did everything that happened through the passage of time and space lead to that, the thing you're looking at? And furthermore, how are you looking at it? What is even going on that allows it to exist in such a way, allowing you to see it?

On the other hand, from my own frame of mind, speculation of this sort revolves more around "the Gap". Still, the object either exists for all of us objectively or it doesn't. Where things get tricky of course is when the object becomes involved in a moral or political or religious conflagration. A book is a book is a book. But if the book is the Bible or Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries or one of these -- https://www.aclu.org/documents/100-most ... -1990-2000 -- it can mean many different things to many different people.

So, can philosophers pin down how rational men and women ought to react to them?

Pick one and let's get started.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, can philosophers pin down how rational men and women ought to react to them?

Through an initial act of the intuition and the will to see into those intellectual mechanisms and causal events that created the person who wrote these quoted words.

It then involves following a thread that involves reversal, reconfiguration, and building on the foundations of a more rigorous, a more structured set of predicates.

[iambiguous]

What objective facts in particular are in dispute?

Facts about what the various Buddhist sects believe.

Okay, let's run this by Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Shintos.

There are facts about what the sects in those religions believe.

Let's just say we think about God and religion in very different ways.

Okay, all of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- believe what they do. But, again, with moral commandments, immortality and salvation on the line, is it or is it not important that mere mortals choose the right path, the right religious/spiritual denomination? Those like IC here make it crystal clear that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior your soul cannot be saved. How about you?

Note to IC:

Just out of curiosity, come Judgment Day, what might the fate of Buddhists be?

At least until I come upon an objectivist [here or elsewhere] able to persuade me to reconsider what "I" think and feel "here and now" about religion.

Well, here I am, trying to get you to reconsider what the various religions believe.

And given my win-win motivation here, sure, if you or someone else can bring me back to God and religion, I will truly be grateful. But it's not you convincing me that I should explore what the various religious communities believe, but them convincing me that what they do believe is in fact true.

I'll tell you what many religious folks will insist however: that if you want access to moral commandments and enlightenment here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, it is truly their way or the highway. And for many that highway leads straight to Hell.

That has nothing to do with the set of beliefs that they have.
Rather you are talking about how someone might react to being challenged on their beliefs.

Their beliefs have everything to do with those things. That "for all practical purposes" is, in my view, the whole point of religion.

Again, for all of the ICs here and elsewhere to be "corrected" is to think exactly like they do about God and religion. Or else?

We're talking about you being corrected, not IC.

Corrected in regard to what? I point out that any number of religions revolve precisely around moral commandments, immortality and salvation. Around connecting the dots between the behaviors, you choose on this side of the grave and, as a result of that, the fate of "I" on the other side.

How about with your own assessment of objective morality? Is there or is there not an "or else" appended to it? What of those who don't share your own values in regard to abortion of Communism or the Israelis in Gaza? Is there or is there not a Judgment Day -- the Judgment Day -- awaiting them?

This is you fitting me into your "religious person" box.

Okay, that's your belief. Mine on the other hand starts with you defending objective morality but then never really exploring in depth what you believe that is predicated on...God? Ideology? Deontology? Biological imperatives? Or do you "just know" it's objective? Another gib, MagsJ and Maia?

From my frame mind, IWP here, like moreno there, is just another Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

It seems to me that he is trying really hard to talk to you.

FlannelJesus also tried to talk to you and you blew him off.

I would not call either one of them, "wigglers".

But sure, that's a personal opinion based on reading your interaction.

Fine, we can just agree to disagree about that too.


Edit:

Here's one Christian take on Buddhism. It doesn't look good for them on Judgment Day.

https://truthfortheworld.org/buddhism-and-the-bible

[iambiguous]

So, can white Northern European philosophers pin down how rational men and women ought to react to them?

Through an initial act of the intuition and the will to see into those intellectual mechanisms and causal events that created the person who wrote these quoted words.

It then involves following a thread that involves reversal, reconfiguration, and building on the foundations of a more rigorous, a more structured set of predicates.

[phyllo]

Okay, that's your belief. Mine on the other hand starts with you defending objective morality but then never really exploring in depth what you believe that is predicated on...God? Ideology? Deontology? Biological imperatives? Or do you "just know" it's objective? Another gib, MagsJ and Maia?

Why would I be defending 'objective morality' if that's not the current topic of discussion???