nihilism

[Flannel Jesus]

What you quoted was suggesting that one upside to life having no meaning is that one need not blame oneself for not succeeding in accomplishing things. You had some other thoughts not in reaction to that.

Actually, if, at any particular point in your life, you need a way to wiggle out of responsibility for, say, anything and everything that you did, are doing, or will do just remind us that nothing any of us did, do or will do is really of our own volition.

The word 'actually' means that what you are about to say will contradict what I said, but what you wrote does not contradict it. It's another way to do the same thing.

Actually, I don't construe it that way at all.

Actually you're wrong about that.

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... re%20right.

Actually, yes, you should. It emphasizes the fact that your respondent is wrong and you are right.... In principle, it should be used to contrast the theoretical with the real (the actual) and essentially a synonym for "instead".

If you reply to someone and start your reply with "actually", what follows is supposed to be a correction to something they said. If you don't construe yourself to be correcting something they said, you shouldn't use "actually". If you do, you're misusing English. You frequently misuse English.

[Fairy]

I've never met anyone who chose to be mentally ill.

I've never met anyone who chose to be born.

If you know you are born and didn't choose that birth, then you didn't choose to be mentally ill either. (Knowledge) is a pretentious false secondary reality overlayed upon what is already this immediate unknowing.

Knowing anything is a pretentious knowing. Knowing is just ''UNKNOWING'' appearing as knowing.

IC, just likes to ignore the elephant in the room that's all. He refuses to hear the silent unknowing truth.

And not all people become mentally ill over the same choices.

No one chose to be born, so no one chose to be mentally ill.

If there's a God, then God rolls dice.

Did you choose to be born?
Did God choose to be born?

These words are ideas, they are concepts, labels, names, they are simply made up, make belief, they are nothing appearing as something. There is nothing naming nothing as something which is identical to the something that is nothing. That's the real definition of imagination.

The word 'something' is identical to the word 'full' - and the word 'empty' is identical to the word 'nothing'. . . it's all descriptive empty and full dreamscape stuff, always coming and going, coming and going... here now, and never not here, happening, and never not happening.

IC simply ignores the elephant in the living room.

There's no foundation to blame people for mental illness.

There is no one blaming. No one chose to be born who can then blame the unborn for being mentally ill.

Nothing IS which can be felt as Everything IS and both would be the same one identical ISNESS

[Iwannaplato]

What you quoted was suggesting that one upside to life having no meaning is that one need not blame oneself for not succeeding in accomplishing things. You had some other thoughts not in reaction to that.

Actually, if, at any particular point in your life, you need a way to wiggle out of responsibility for, say, anything and everything that you did, are doing, or will do just remind us that nothing any of us did, do or will do is really of our own volition.

The word 'actually' means that what you are about to say will contradict what I said, but what you wrote does not contradict it. It's another way to do the same thing.

Actually, I don't construe it that way at all.

OK. you could have opted to move things forward by saying how you do consture it. Then perhaps one or both of us would learn something. It's not even clear if it's the word 'actually' that is the 'it' you don't construe that way or what the guy you quoted said or something I said.

If I say punching your boss is a way to lose your job, responding 'actually, setting fire to the office will lead to you losing your job' is confused.

Well, I'm actually rather confused now as to what your point is. There are any number of reasons you might lose your job. Run this by the capitalists and the socialists, however, and expect two very different reactions.

That was precisely my point. There are a number of way to.......lose a job and there are a number of ways to wriggle out of responsibility. One is the way the article mentioned. Another is the way you mentioned.

'In addition' would have made sense or 'another way one can do this' but you started with actually. 'Actually' means 'no, in fact what I am about to say is the actual case here or is a better explanation than yours. It's a disagreeing adverb.

But what you said is ALSO true, not true instead.

On the other hand, if nihilism is just one more school of philosophical thought, to what extent then are those who call themselves nihilists able to bring those thoughts down to Earth? In other words, what particular objective truth? what particular moral truth? what particular value and purpose of life?

Well, generally, nihilists are saying all of them. I suppose they could make an exhaustive, specific list, though I'm not sure what the benefit would be, given the billions of entries.

On the other hand, the life we live from day to day either involves conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods in a wholly determined universe or we did somehow acquire the capacity to freely choose among conflicting options. Of course, that's when I suggest that the conflicts themselves are derived in turn from conflicting sets of assumptions about the human condition.

On the other hand.....?

The nihilists reject all moral positions.

So, calling oneself a moral nihilist is not a position?

Calling yourself a nihilist is typically understood as a position on morals, if anything, rather than a moral position itself. A moral position is something like being anti-abortion or pro-choice. Being a nihilist could also mean one lacks a belief that any moral position is objective, rather than the belief that there are none.

What is it you want a nihilist to bring down to earth?

Well, if you argue that sans God there can be no objective morality, well, how would you go about demonstrating that? I flat out admit I can't demonstrate what I believe

So, why call yourself a nihilist? You could just say you are unconvinced by the various objectivists and objectivism in general.

Me, I think a nihilist can be someone who does not believe in any moral authority. They don't have to take the next step and say that there are not objective morals. But if you define it as asserting that you can demonstrate there are no objective morals and not objective moral authorities and you can't do this, I'm not sure why you consider yourself a nihilist.

Sure, if the nihilist is claiming there are no objective morals, I understand the request to demonstrate this and with examples.

The abortion issue? They reject both the right to choose and the babies right to life as objective moral positions. At best they are preferences to a nihilist. What is it you want a nihilist to do here?

Do? Do what? The nihilist defends his or her own philosophy in any given exchange. Like those from all the other "schools of philosophy".

Actually I think most nihilists couldn't be bothered to argue their position. They mutter and go about surviving, perahps some even enjoying themselves, at least sometimes. Is there a particular nihilist here who you want to bring their position down to earth? Are you referring to some post here?

[Belinda]

Simple. Those who make themselves enemies of God end up alienated from God. And I wouldn't want that for anybody. So basic decency compels me to speak in defense of God's rightness, especially when people slander Him.

So to turn the responsibility around, who will hold you accountable for the mess you've created? And unless you're a much more perfect specimen than me, or than any other men, you will have made many of them. So when will you take responsibility for your role in the disaster you call your life?

I'm not going to beat myself up over my misfortunes. Been there, done that. Doesn't help.

Maybe they're not "misfortunes" at all. Maybe there's some part of them that is a result of your own choices, attitudes, reactions, etc. Maybe, in a few ways, they're not "misfortunes" but "results."

And if no part of your situation is even a fraction your fault, then congratulations: you're the first human being in history of whom that's the case.

The great thing about looking at your own contribution to your situation is that it's very empowering. If there's things you've done wrong, then there's things you could choose to make right. On the other hand, calling everything a "misfortune" merely underlines helplessness.

I agree with IC. I trust IC also claims that God does not intervene to alter human choices but that trust in God's goodness can make us happier and more likely to try to follow the mores as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.

I guess that IC's claim that "free will" exists is unhelpful terminology, and that freedom is as he claims, in this latest post .

[Alexis Jacobi]

I trust IC also claims that God does not intervene to alter human choices but that trust in God's goodness can make us happier and more likely to try to follow the mores as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.

In fact, the tenets of theology, the demands of a Christian-Catholic relationship to the Christian program, is far more demanding than most here realize. That theology, those ethics and morals, have been defined over centuries and for this reason a reference to The Sermon on the Mount is, frankly, an incomplete reference.

From what I have read over some years now — I might list a few titles — it is not hard for me to understand why many people, most people, would necessarily abandon a commitment to actually living in accord with those demands (and such they are). They are far too difficult.

To refer to “God’s goodness” does not really have much meaning. If we accept that a developed theological position is inspired by God as an entire set of imperatives, God may well be understood to be something other than merely “good” and in fact something rather terrible insofar as the demands are not easy, and the consequences of following one’s own will so fatal.

To the degree that people relax in their commitment to the most demanding principles, seems to be the degree to which they choose comfort and ease over rigorous commitment. It is a sort of either you do, or you don’t.

The result of accepting the demands has brought about the very best and the most exalted achievements of culture. And the relaxation away from the intensity of the demands seems to waste and diminish what had been attained.

I see it like this: The relaxation away from what I describe as demands is separation from the demands of metaphysical and supernatural principles. And when one turns away one can only return (in a sense fall down into) a type of sensuous relationship to the phenomena of life (mutable and perishing existence).

That is, in a sense, what “paganism” in our age refers to.

What really brings the “happiness” you refer to? It is a troublesome word really. Misleading.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not going to beat myself up over my misfortunes. Been there, done that. Doesn't help.

Maybe they're not "misfortunes" at all. Maybe there's some part of them that is a result of your own choices, attitudes, reactions, etc. Maybe, in a few ways, they're not "misfortunes" but "results."

And if no part of your situation is even a fraction your fault, then congratulations: you're the first human being in history of whom that's the case.

The great thing about looking at your own contribution to your situation is that it's very empowering. If there's things you've done wrong, then there's things you could choose to make right. On the other hand, calling everything a "misfortune" merely underlines helplessness.

I agree with IC. I trust IC also claims that God does not intervene to alter human choices but that trust in God's goodness can make us happier and more likely to try to follow the mores as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.

Following rules has never saved anybody from anything, actually...and it places additional stresses on one, and limits one's options. Christianity's not about rules but about one's relationship to God; which, by contrast, is a release from the stresses of legalism to a better way of life.

I guess that IC's claim that "free will" exists is unhelpful terminology,..

"Unhelpful"? It's pretty standard. You'll find it in much of the literature and debate on the subject. So if you find that terminology "unhelpful," propose a better coinage, if you can. Maybe that will be more helpful.

But there are really two ways to go here, Gary. One is to see yourself as utterly blameless but also utterly a victim: in which case, there's nothing you can ever do about your situation, and you're doomed to continue as you always have. The other is to take responsibility for as much of it as you can, make the changes you can make, and improve your situation within the limits available to you.

As one wise man I knew used to say, "If things around here don't change, they'll stay the same." If you 're not happy with how things are, you can either change them, or leave them as they are. But if you're as unhappy about how things are as you seem to want everybody to believe, then I think the choice is obvious: take responsibility, and make changes. After all, if you're really at the bottom, what have you got to loose anymore?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christianity's not about rules but about one's relationship to God; which, by contrast, is a release from the stresses of legalism to a better way of life.

The Protestant doctrine in a nutshell. I think it is a fundamentally flawed position insofar as it negates the fact that Christian ethics involve rigorous demands — and they are in truth commands.

A rebellious child balks when “rules” are broached.

IC confuses “rules” to be “legalism” (those absurd, habitual, irrational rules known as mitzvoth) and implies that one is liberated from constraining, directing demands by becoming a Christian. This is one result of Protestant heresy in fact.

Is it “legalism” that declares, with no deviation allowed, that sacramental marriage is only viable between a man and a woman? No, and it is an absolute rule.

Once the metaphysical principle is accepted, the rule must be accepted. It is inviolable.

[henry quirk]

Once the metaphysical principle is accepted, the rule must be accepted. It is inviolable.

The metaphysical principle is the rule.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity's not about rules but about one's relationship to God; which, by contrast, is a release from the stresses of legalism to a better way of life.

The Protestant doctrine in a nutshell. I think it is a fundamentally flawed position insofar as it negates the fact that Christian ethics involve rigorous demands — and they are in truth commands.

That might be said of Judaism, perhaps -- though I think even that would be unfair. Judaism also has conceptions like "chesed," which means "the lovingkindness of God." In any case, it's certainly not true of Christianity. There's a huge difference between obeying what you call "rules" because of fear, and following the "rules" because of gratitude and character renewal. Christianity's all about the latter, and has no brief for the former. See Galatians 3, if you doubt that. You'll find it spelled out in precise detail there.

Is it “legalism” that declares, with no deviation allowed, that sacramental marriage is only viable between a man and a woman? No, and it is an absolute rule.

Actually, it's not a "rule"at all. It's a fact. And a fact is more incontrovertible than any rule.

Rules are framed as imperatives. But facts are framed as declarations. Even grammatically and locutionarily, the two are definitely distinct. Rules give instruction for actions; facts do not stipulate any particular actions, nor even dictate the relation between the hearer and actions. Rules can be broken or refused. Facts cannot. Rules can be arbitrary or conventional. Facts are statements about reality, and true facts are never arbitrary or subject to convention.

As for the marriage issue, if, as the Bible says, it is a fact that marriage between a man and woman is the only genuine, sacrosanct marriage, then that fact cannot be controverted, even if two men or two women decide they can thwart it by pretending to marry. They cannot. What they have is never going to be a marriage, and never going to be sacrosanct, no matter how they may wish it were otherwise, or how many people they force or shame into complying with their delusion. It's just not possible.

Moreover, if a marriage could be anything a person wanted, then there would be no such thing as a marriage at all -- anything that means "everything" also means "nothing in particular." What's the use of saying, "We got married," when "married" means literally everything possible? What information is being conveyed by "married" in that sentence? None at all.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, just likes to ignore the elephant in the room...

I didn't know you were big.

But yes, I've decided to ignore you until you behave sanely again. You're capable of that, but as long as you're on a lunatic tear, it's really not worth anybody's time.

[Fairy]

IC, just likes to ignore the elephant in the room...

I didn't know you were big.

But yes, I've decided to ignore you until you behave sanely again. You're capable of that, but as long as you're on a lunatic tear, it's really not worth anybody's time.

Genesis 2:24
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Meaning: When you marry, you become one. Let none come between you.”

God’s Law
—————————

Meaning, no person marries another person,one can only marry itself, self being god and his son…the same self appearing as two…the unitary action of two joining together as one as and through the one appearing as two? ….…is that right IC?

Meaning, non-duality?

[iambiguous]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism
From The Ethics Centre website

Though he wasn’t a nihilist himself, Friedrich Nietzsche is the poster-child for much of contemporary nihilism, especially in pop culture and online circles. Nietzsche wrote extensively on it in the late 19th century, speaking of the crisis we find ourselves in when we realise that the world lacks the intrinsic meaning or value that we want or believed it to have. This is ultimately something that he wanted us to overcome.

The fool!

From my frame of mind, take away the Übermensch and, come on, of course he's a nihilist. And the Übermensch themselves overcome nothing at all in the end. They merely become what some construe to be substitutes for God given the 70 odd years we have to come up with something in the way of a meaning and a purpose. So, sure, why not become a master rather than a slave.

Then this part:

He saw humans responding to this crisis in two ways: passive or active nihilism.

For Nietzsche, passive nihilists are those who resign themselves to the meaninglessness of life, slowly separating themselves from their own will or desires to minimise the suffering they face from the random chaos of the world.

Yeah, that's me by and large "here and now". Imploded, accumulating distractions, pursuing my "win/win" approach to...to what exactly?

In media, this kind of pessimistic nihilism is sometimes embodied by characters who then act on it in a destructive way. For example, the antagonist, Jobu Topaki in Everything Everywhere All At Once comes to this realisation through her multi-dimensional awareness, which convinces her that because of the infinite nature of reality, none of her choices matter and so she attempts to destroy herself to escape the insignificance and meaninglessness she feels.

But that's la la land, right? The world we live in does not permit that sort of thing. Unless, perhaps, some here would like to share their very own "multi-dimensional awareness" of their very own reality.

Besides, no one in my view has come to encompass this frame of mind better than Milan Kundera from The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

"Putting it negatively, the myth of eternal returns states that a life which disappears once and for all…is like a shadow, without weight, dead in advance, and whether it was horrible, beautiful or sublime, its horror, sublimity, and beauty mean nothing. We need take no more note of it than a war between two African kingdoms in the 14th century, a war that altered nothing in the destiny of the world, even if a 100,000 blacks perished in excruciating torment…

Let us therefore agree that the idea of eternal return implies a perspective from which things appear other than as we know them: they appear without the mitigating circumstance of their transitory nature. This mitigating circumstance prevents us from coming to a verdict. For how can we condemn something that is ephemeral, in transit…?

Not long ago, I caught myself experiencing a most incredible sensation. Leafing through a book on Hitler, I was touched by some of his portraits: they reminded me of my childhood. I grew up during the war; several members of my family perished in Hitler’s concentration camps; but what were their deaths compared with the memories of a lost period of my life, a period that would never return?

This reconciliation with Hitler reveals the profound moral perversity of a world that rests essentially on the nonexistence of return, for in this world everything is pardoned in advance and therefore everything cynically permitted."

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's a huge difference between obeying what you call "rules" because of fear, and following the "rules" because of gratitude and character renewal.

Over time I have developed some general perceptions about your religious position, as I assume that you know. And I think you are aware that I notice some notable contradictions. I have come to realize that it is largely futile to argue or to debate with you about those things about which you have absolute positions and so I avoid that altogether. If I respond to you here it is, perhaps, more for the sake (or possibly the benefit) of others who participate here. Not of course to convince them of anything, but more to help them understand on what basis a Christian position of a Protestant variety, and how a Christian position of a Catholic variety, are constructed. That is, what are their essential tenets.

If now the field of the conversations turns on whether one chooses to follow Christian ethics because of *fear* or because one understands that Christian path to be one of renewal, I would point you back to one of your core positions: you have said, innumerable times, that you either believe and *get with the program*, or you risk an eternity spent in the hell-realm.

I can think of nothing that is established more in the spirit of a *rule* -- either you do, or you don't; either you obey or you are disobedient -- than this basic platform which undergirds your faith and your understanding of it.

My position, or more properly my understanding, of these things that involve spiritual and religious commitment -- and here I speak from a position of relative understanding of the Catholic theological position as distinct from the Protestant position -- is that the true core of a Christian-Catholic religious commitment is grounded in understanding of central metaphysical truths. The Latin term is intellectus:

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

My grasp is that when one has, if I can put it like this, awakened intellect (understanding in a special sense), that one will naturally awaken a will to live in accord with what I have referred to with just one word as *rules*. Is a metaphysical imperative a rule? It is better to say that a metaphysical imperative, when realized, will result in a rule. When one has grasped the *intelligent reason* why a metaphysical imperative is necessary, only then could one choose to align one's will with it.

But to really believe that means that you really and truly are grasping the reason why. And I suppose that you will agree that the question of assent of one's will to a larger will (the will of *our father in heaven*) is the very essence of Christianity and Christian conversion.

As you well know Catholicism posits a constant renewal of one's commitments. Put differently, that means that one can fall out of Grace. Obviously this differs, substantially, and I would say crucially, from the Protestant (or Evangelical) understanding. For this reason *the rules* and a specific ordering of theological imperatives gets far more emphasis in traditional Catholicism (and this is distinct from post-Vatical ll Catholicism, but that is another issue.

There's a huge difference between obeying what you call "rules" because of fear, and following the "rules" because of gratitude and character renewal.

If anything then, it is not really either one but both, in concert.

[henry quirk]

It's pointless to expect a response from you. Others, though, might have sumthin' to say.

Is a metaphysical *imperative a rule? It is better to say that a metaphysical imperative, when realized, will result in a rule.

In context: we're talking about the Creator, the Prime Mover, literally The First Principle. It's not right, then, to say morality extends from, or issues from, or was established by, God. God is morality. He is the Measure.

As I say: The metaphysical principle is the rule.

Further, to the degree we play interpretation games with this metaphysical principle, we distance ourselves from the principle. More concretely, borrowing from a post I made sometime back in the Christianity thread: when we focus on the jar -- it's ornamentation, let's say -- we ignore the jar's purpose (holding life-preserving water). We're dying of thirst as we dicker on filigree.




*principle

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was not aware you were expecting a specific response from me Henry.