nihilism

[Alexiev]

By glorifying romantic love one persuades oneself that the high passion lasts as long as one lives. Otherwise happy- enough marriages founder because one or both partners believe there is something wrong when the stage of high passion is over.

Romantic novels and films created for entertainment and profit can cause a lot of unhappiness as lies often do. In real life love continues, if it continues at all, after passions are no longer inflamed. True , the stage of being in love is a very happy prelude to a lasting loving partnership, but must give way to more settle emotions and feelings.

Sexual desire is true and proper, but one individual can't be the sole and heaven-sent object of sexual passion throughout life, as romantic myth would have it. To believe so causes discontent and even mental illness.

No doubt our notions of romantic love "cause a lot of unhappiness". So what? They also cause a lot of joy. Do we want to live our lives in a state of contentment, joyless and sorrowless?

My anecdote about Mahendra supports your position. Arranged marriages lower expectations. But do we really want to lower expectations? Don't we want to strive for the best, however unattainable?

The best is unattainable, for us mere mortals. Lancelot aspired to the perfect romantic love, because (he thought) she was the unattainable Queen. So his love could not be tainted by selfish consumation. As we know, he flew too close to the sun, and fell.

Romantic stories are not "lies". They are fictions or myths. Reasonable people know this and navigate their own lives. Some decide on, as the song goes, "Taking a chance on love."

[iambiguous]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism

Where to go from here

A common thread runs through many of the nihilist and existentialist writers about what we should do in the face of inherent meaninglessness: create it ourselves.

Okay, you create what you deem to be the most reflective description of the human condition: "This means this and that means that." And you stick with it all the way to the grave.

Isn't that basically how it works for most of us? And even then, only after years of indoctrination by families and communities and cultures.

Which, in my view, is why my own assessment of the human condition is particularly disturbing to many. I start out with the assumption that in creating your own meaning much of this revolves existentially around dasein. It becomes your meaning only after all of the historical, cultural and experiential variables in your life predispose you to accept one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

And it's not like political philosophers have been able to factor all of that in by creating the "best of all possible worlds" in regard to meaning and morality. Although, again, that hasn't stopped countless advocates of this or that One True Path from insisting it's actually their very own.

Existentialists like Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre talk about the importance of recognising the freedom that this kind of perspective gives us. And, equally, the importance of making sure that we make meaning for ourselves and for others through our life.

Yes, but no sooner do some of us begin to revel in this freedom when, over time, it begins to sink in: "I'm free but then I conclude that in a No God world it seems reasonable to be drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented regarding any and all value judgments." The existential notion of "authenticity" comes to revolve more and more around what some construe Sartre meant by "Hell is other people". They are hell not so much because they torment us, as because they attempt to objectify us out in a world that revolves solely around how they construe it to be. Period.

For some people, that might be a return to religion. But there are plenty of other ways to create meaning in life: focusing on what’s subjectively meaningful to you or those you care about and fully embracing those things. Existence doesn’t need to have intrinsic meaning for us to care.

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

[Iwannaplato]

]Okay, you create what you deem to be the most reflective description of the human condition: “This means this and that means that.” And you stick with it all the way to the grave.

Isn’t that basically how it works for most of us? And even then, only after years of indoctrination by families and communities and cultures.

Which, in my view, is why my own assessment of the human condition is particularly disturbing to many. I start out with the assumption that in creating your own meaning much of this revolves existentially around dasein. It becomes your meaning only after all of the historical, cultural and experiential variables in your life predispose you to accept one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

It seems implicit in your response ‘and so the nihilists are confused or misguided here because if their values are in part, in the main, wholly, created by dasein, then there’s no point.’

But the point of creating your own values is to in part notice your own values. What do I Iike, what do I prefer, how do I wish the world was. Etc.? Instead of saying in a meta-position, yes, up in the theoretical clouds - how can I know what is objectively good or what I should want? - one decides to value what one values, to test out and explore what one wants. To sidestep or ignore the debate about how do I arrive at the objectively correct values, and focus on what you do want and then strive for that.

Of course dasein and one’s inborn tendenices and temperment lead to the values, but instead of stepping outside oneself and philosophizing in abstract ways to try to find a method at finding objective values, one decides to focus one’s own values, whatever the source they have arisen from.

It’s a practical suggestion, not a moral suggestion per se.

Yes, but no sooner do some of us begin to revel in this freedom when, over time, it begins to sink in: “I’m free but then I conclude that in a No God world it seems reasonable to be drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented regarding any and all value judgments.”

And that’s staying at the theorretical clouds level. Which is of course a choice - determined or not. But once hearing the idea that one could instead of viewing this and trying to wrestle with it objectively and come up with THE correct answer that all reasonable humans should think is THE right set of values, one builds from one’s own values. And yet, there can still be conflicting values, but it sure narrows it down. Some things you feel no attraction for: collecting different salt shakers is priority number 1, eating baby heads. Probably most individuals are not trying to resolve all possible values and ways of relating to others. So, the shift is from a third person perspective on yourself an the goal of finding perfect objectivity and building from one’s own values. Of course, challenges remain, but the focus is very different.

For some people, that might be a return to religion. But there are plenty of other ways to create meaning in life: focusing on what’s subjectively meaningful to you or those you care about and fully embracing those things. Existence doesn’t need to have intrinsic meaning for us to care.

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

Yes, if you want objective morality then you need something else. And if you think there is a way for immortaility and salvation and you think these are only on the table if you choose a system of values other than what you would have if you focused on your own values, then sure you can stare blankly at the lists of religions and spiritualities. But note, this means you assume they are correct to some degree. At that point it might be good to explore coming in contact with God. Because while there are may religions, most of them expect some kind of belief in God and some kind of at least reaching out to God. So, that would be a first step. Another approach would be to go to the religion that promises those things that fits best with your current values. It would be odd to choose one that has beliefs you abhor for example. Practice rather than ratiocination. Trying rather than expecting others to try for you. And then Buddhism and Hinduism’, for example, you either don’t have to worry about it - eventually through reincarnation you will reach enlightment though it may take a long time or there is no self to have immortality and salvation, but suffering for the non-self can be reduced via Buddhist practice.

If one is starving and wants to not starve, bemoaning the vast number of restaurants and waiting for someone to prove that objectively you should get Thai food or Italian at a specific take out place is a ridiculous approach.

And it has a LOT of assumptions in it.

Remember you have a chosen way that you consider the best way to achieve your goals. You chose not to try other approaches. Your approach is to ask others to prove that their approach is the best. Your approach is not to try any of the approaches, including ones that might at least not contradict your values - you know they don’t make you take a moral stand you hate, for example. You don’t look for common features in many of these approaches and start in the common ground - for exmaple with prayer and contemplation - that’s a common ground to pretty much all the paths that promise immortality and salvation with those words. Take a step, then see where you are after having taken that step and participating as well as you can. Your approach is generally up in the clouds, at a theoretical level, expecting others to provide proof in words on a screen. That’s a choice. I’m not even saying it’s the wrong choice for you. But it is a choice. What makes you think that’s the best one? What epistemological method did you use to decide that was better than other approaches in giving you the best chance for what you want?

That’s all on you. That’s your responsibility, if anyone’s, do show that this your current approach to solving your problem, is the one you continue to choose to do and have for at least a decade. How’s it going? Are you still convinced it’s the best approach?

On what grounds? Could you convince all rational men and women? How would you go about that?

Here you are with the values you have and this affects how you relate to people.
Here you are with your approach to potentially, at least, solving the problems you have.

You have your interpersonal values.
You have your approach to solving the problems you want solved.

Can you demonstrate that these are the the best ones to all reasonable people?
Presumably you can't since you have made many disclaimers around that and you are the first to admit...etc.

So, the choice is not Iambiguous outside the universe in the abstract making a choice from all the options and not have his own values and approach. Iambiguous already has values and a methodology.

Why is he convinced these are ones to hang on to given that they don't meet the criterion he expects of others?

Why will he continue the choice he has been making for at least a decade? And viewing others in the negative way he does, in general, if they have different approaches?

[Fairy]

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

Immortality can never be 'someone's' thing. A 'someone' is just be a belief, it's a thought.

Immortality is already the case, it's already this life appearing as death and birth both simultaneously, as cells die they are also simultaneously replicating and replacing old for new as death appears as life, so too does life appear as death - absent of any known beginning or end.

Birth and Death are the same thing, they just differ in appearance that's all, ultimately, birth and death are fundamentally one and the same Infinite Immortal Life.

[Fairy]

Why will he continue the choice he has been making for at least a decade? And viewing others in the negative way he does, in general, if they have different approaches?

Differences can only exist within the artificial dream of separation in this known conception...aka concepts known.

In the conceptual story (beliefs/thoughts) there appears to be a 'someone' who has free will, volition, autonomy, will power, choice, capacity to imagine, to think, to create. All of which is the conceptual realm of the mind of knowledge. All of which is an illusory secondary false overlay appearing real.

Known Reality is artificially comprised of both the illusion and the illusionist ( Mentation)

The illusion is both real and unreal simultaneously in this conception known that knows nothing.

The mind doesn't like knowing it's nothing knowing, that's why it clings to it's beliefs and thoughts as if the mind was the original author and owner of itself. Of course the mind is illusory.

Of course, no mind has ever been seen, it's a concept, known only in it's conception, a trickless trick indeed.

[Fairy]

Hidden in plain sight behind all known images, behind time, noise, thoughts, sensations, experiences, feelings, emotions and movement....Lay another reality which is unmoving, timeless, unknowing, silent, imageless, thoughtless, senseless, blind, deaf, dumb, and mute ?



Can anyone guess what is hiding in plain sight?

[Belinda]

Hidden in plain sight behind all known images, behind time, noise, thoughts, sensations, experiences, feelings, emotions and movement....Lay another reality which is unmoving, timeless, unknowing, silent, imageless, thoughtless, senseless, blind, deaf, dumb, and mute ?



Can anyone guess what is hiding in plain sight?

Yes. So?

[Belinda]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism

Where to go from here

A common thread runs through many of the nihilist and existentialist writers about what we should do in the face of inherent meaninglessness: create it ourselves.

Okay, you create what you deem to be the most reflective description of the human condition: "This means this and that means that." And you stick with it all the way to the grave.

Isn't that basically how it works for most of us? And even then, only after years of indoctrination by families and communities and cultures.

Which, in my view, is why my own assessment of the human condition is particularly disturbing to many. I start out with the assumption that in creating your own meaning much of this revolves existentially around dasein. It becomes your meaning only after all of the historical, cultural and experiential variables in your life predispose you to accept one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

And it's not like political philosophers have been able to factor all of that in by creating the "best of all possible worlds" in regard to meaning and morality. Although, again, that hasn't stopped countless advocates of this or that One True Path from insisting it's actually their very own.

Existentialists like Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre talk about the importance of recognising the freedom that this kind of perspective gives us. And, equally, the importance of making sure that we make meaning for ourselves and for others through our life.

Yes, but no sooner do some of us begin to revel in this freedom when, over time, it begins to sink in: "I'm free but then I conclude that in a No God world it seems reasonable to be drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented regarding any and all value judgments." The existential notion of "authenticity" comes to revolve more and more around what some construe Sartre meant by "Hell is other people". They are hell not so much because they torment us, as because they attempt to objectify us out in a world that revolves solely around how they construe it to be. Period.

For some people, that might be a return to religion. But there are plenty of other ways to create meaning in life: focusing on what’s subjectively meaningful to you or those you care about and fully embracing those things. Existence doesn’t need to have intrinsic meaning for us to care.

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

Let's remember also that Daseins are more or less dynamic . Sometimes changing from hour to hour , a fact that we learn through big events like catastrophic floods, divorces, bereavements , and hard -won study of ideas.

There is no essential self: a self is a construct which one choses ,or not ,as the case may be. Most of all it's sad when the Dasein accepts someone else's description of who one is as a permanment thing.

[Fairy]

Hidden in plain sight behind all known images, behind time, noise, thoughts, sensations, experiences, feelings, emotions and movement....Lay another reality which is unmoving, timeless, unknowing, silent, imageless, thoughtless, senseless, blind, deaf, dumb, and mute ?



Can anyone guess what is hiding in plain sight?

Yes. So?

( So ) as in a self referential thought.

th.jpg

[promethean75]

^^^ That is a sacred symbol of my secret Order Of Eternal Recurrers.

Who authorized you to post it?

[Gary Childress]

^^^ That is a sacred symbol of my secret Order Of Eternal Recurrers.

Who authorized you to post it?

Is the Illuminati accepting new membership applications? I've been thinking of joining them.

[promethean75]

If you are eligible for membership we... er, I mean they will probably contact you, Gary.

[iambiguous]

]Okay, you create what you deem to be the most reflective description of the human condition: “This means this and that means that.” And you stick with it all the way to the grave.

Isn’t that basically how it works for most of us? And even then, only after years of indoctrination by families and communities and cultures.

Which, in my view, is why my own assessment of the human condition is particularly disturbing to many. I start out with the assumption that in creating your own meaning much of this revolves existentially around dasein. It becomes your meaning only after all of the historical, cultural and experiential variables in your life predispose you to accept one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

It seems implicit in your response ‘and so the nihilists are confused or misguided here because if their values are in part, in the main, wholly, created by dasein, then there’s no point.’

But the point of creating your own values is to in part notice your own values. What do I Iike, what do I prefer, how do I wish the world was. Etc.? Instead of saying in a meta-position, yes, up in the theoretical clouds - how can I know what is objectively good or what I should want? - one decides to value what one values, to test out and explore what one wants. To sidestep or ignore the debate about how do I arrive at the objectively correct values, and focus on what you do want and then strive for that.

Of course dasein and one’s inborn tendenices and temperment lead to the values, but instead of stepping outside oneself and philosophizing in abstract ways to try to find a method at finding objective values, one decides to focus one’s own values, whatever the source they have arisen from.

It’s a practical suggestion, not a moral suggestion per se.

Yes, but no sooner do some of us begin to revel in this freedom when, over time, it begins to sink in: “I’m free but then I conclude that in a No God world it seems reasonable to be drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented regarding any and all value judgments.”

And that’s staying at the theorretical clouds level. Which is of course a choice - determined or not. But once hearing the idea that one could instead of viewing this and trying to wrestle with it objectively and come up with THE correct answer that all reasonable humans should think is THE right set of values, one builds from one’s own values. And yet, there can still be conflicting values, but it sure narrows it down. Some things you feel no attraction for: collecting different salt shakers is priority number 1, eating baby heads. Probably most individuals are not trying to resolve all possible values and ways of relating to others. So, the shift is from a third person perspective on yourself an the goal of finding perfect objectivity and building from one’s own values. Of course, challenges remain, but the focus is very different.

For some people, that might be a return to religion. But there are plenty of other ways to create meaning in life: focusing on what’s subjectively meaningful to you or those you care about and fully embracing those things. Existence doesn’t need to have intrinsic meaning for us to care.

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

Yes, if you want objective morality then you need something else. And if you think there is a way for immortaility and salvation and you think these are only on the table if you choose a system of values other than what you would have if you focused on your own values, then sure you can stare blankly at the lists of religions and spiritualities. But note, this means you assume they are correct to some degree. At that point it might be good to explore coming in contact with God. Because while there are may religions, most of them expect some kind of belief in God and some kind of at least reaching out to God. So, that would be a first step. Another approach would be to go to the religion that promises those things that fits best with your current values. It would be odd to choose one that has beliefs you abhor for example. Practice rather than ratiocination. Trying rather than expecting others to try for you. And then Buddhism and Hinduism’, for example, you either don’t have to worry about it - eventually through reincarnation you will reach enlightment though it may take a long time or there is no self to have immortality and salvation, but suffering for the non-self can be reduced via Buddhist practice.

If one is starving and wants to not starve, bemoaning the vast number of restaurants and waiting for someone to prove that objectively you should get Thai food or Italian at a specific take out place is a ridiculous approach.

And it has a LOT of assumptions in it.

Remember you have a chosen way that you consider the best way to achieve your goals. You chose not to try other approaches. Your approach is to ask others to prove that their approach is the best. Your approach is not to try any of the approaches, including ones that might at least not contradict your values - you know they don’t make you take a moral stand you hate, for example. You don’t look for common features in many of these approaches and start in the common ground - for exmaple with prayer and contemplation - that’s a common ground to pretty much all the paths that promise immortality and salvation with those words. Take a step, then see where you are after having taken that step and participating as well as you can. Your approach is generally up in the clouds, at a theoretical level, expecting others to provide proof in words on a screen. That’s a choice. I’m not even saying it’s the wrong choice for you. But it is a choice. What makes you think that’s the best one? What epistemological method did you use to decide that was better than other approaches in giving you the best chance for what you want?

That’s all on you. That’s your responsibility, if anyone’s, do show that this your current approach to solving your problem, is the one you continue to choose to do and have for at least a decade. How’s it going? Are you still convinced it’s the best approach?

On what grounds? Could you convince all rational men and women? How would you go about that?

Here you are with the values you have and this affects how you relate to people.
Here you are with your approach to potentially, at least, solving the problems you have.

You have your interpersonal values.
You have your approach to solving the problems you want solved.

Can you demonstrate that these are the the best ones to all reasonable people?
Presumably you can't since you have made many disclaimers around that and you are the first to admit...etc.

So, the choice is not Iambiguous outside the universe in the abstract making a choice from all the options and not have his own values and approach. Iambiguous already has values and a methodology.

Why is he convinced these are ones to hang on to given that they don't meet the criterion he expects of others?

Why will he continue the choice he has been making for at least a decade? And viewing others in the negative way he does, in general, if they have different approaches?

Just for the record, I've often gone back and forth over the years when dealing with those I call Stooges. Now I'm inclined again to just ignore them.


On the other hand, in doing so, I may well be missing important points that -- click -- might possibly enable me to grasp nihilism a little better. So, sure, if you come upon something you think might be particularly interesting to me, pass it on.

[iambiguous]

Indeed, but if objective morality, immortality and salvation are your thing, you will certainly need one or another essential meaning to anchor that precious Self of yours to.

Immortality can never be 'someone's' thing. A 'someone' is just be a belief, it's a thought.

Oh, it's a thing alright, and every single one of us will be confronted with whatever it either is or is not eventually.

Immortality is already the case, it's already this life appearing as death and birth both simultaneously, as cells die they are also simultaneously replicating and replacing old for new as death appears as life, so too does life appear as death - absent of any known beginning or end.

Look, if you and others here can convince yourself this is the case and it allows you to deal with death given a bit more equanimity, then good for you. Whatever works when it comes to confronting what may well be oblivion.

On the other hand, as iwannaplato is likely to note, since I am no doubt completely misunderstanding your point anyway, little more can be expected of me.

Birth and Death are the same thing, they just differ in appearance that's all, ultimately, birth and death are fundamentally one and the same Infinite Immortal Life.

Right. What could possibly be the difference between birth and death. Metaphysically, say.

Or, perhaps, this is all just tongue in cheek on your part?

[Iwannaplato]

Immortality is already the case, it's already this life appearing as death and birth both simultaneously, as cells die they are also simultaneously replicating and replacing old for new as death appears as life, so too does life appear as death - absent of any known beginning or end.

Look, if you and others here can convince yourself this is the case and it allows you to deal with death given a bit more equanimity, then good for you. Whatever works when it comes to confronting what may well be oblivion.

On the other hand, as iwannaplato is likely to note, since I am no doubt completely misunderstanding your point anyway, little more can be expected of me.

Well, Fairy is coming from a tradition - sorry Fairy, I would guess that's not how you would word it - that does not really have a self in it. So, it's not something that would comfort you, in any case, should you start believing in it. It has nothing to do with [fill in your real name not Iambiguous] living forever, having an immortal, individual soul. It's more like Buddhism, with no self. And it's an immortality in the moment.

For example, she might say something like 'oblivion' will never be experienced. There is no oblivion, just this experiencing with no self.

So, there's very little comfort in that, given what your extremely skeptical about but still hoping for.

But here I have a lot of sympathy for your not necessarily getting where she's coming from. It's far, far away from the Abrahamic immortalities with their monad souls and a deity and heaven in an afterlife.

Right. What could possibly be the difference between birth and death. Metaphysically, say.

There would be nothing, in that way of looking at things, different between what came before Birth and After death, neither of which are experienced.

But an important point when you talk about 'in your head' She could easily argue that your wishes for immortality and salvation include confused assumptions 'in your head', such as a self. I know you've questioned selfhood to some degree, but you still frame this issue of living after death in terms that presume a persistant self in this life.

IOW she actually has less assumptions 'in her head'. Non-dualistic thinking is more parsimonius. No subject (self) perceiving through some process things out there (objects). But just this experiencing without self and objects: the flow of experience. She could easily say that you are inventing this self to soothe yourself, not that it's working especially well. But the point is that you fear an upcoming non-existence and she's saying, in a sense, there is no existence to lose. You're hallucinating a self and afraid to lose it. And all that is in your head.