nihilism

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Colin McGinn

What reasons might be given in support of epistemic nihilism?...First, the concept (and therefore the thing) has resisted adequate definition for over 2,000 years, ever since Plato raised the question.

Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with the fact that Plato himself was no less the historical and cultural embodiment of The Gap and Rummy's Rule.

We all know that true justified belief fails to add up to knowledge proper (Russell, Gettier). Even now we cannot say what knowledge is, despite our best efforts.

Knowledge...proper? And what knowledge is improper in a world where all knowledge is suspect?

The nihilist takes this to show that knowledge is nothing definable: the reason it can’t be defined is that it has no reality to be defined. No one is ever in such a state (even when the skeptic has been silenced).

Knowledge: the word.

Back again to the part where some insist that until a word is properly defined there's no point in taking any discussions of it down out of the technical realm. So, sure, if some claim to know that knowledge can't be defined then they can claim to know further that it doesn't exist.

Or something like that?

Second, there are deep puzzles about knowledge, also ancient: we can’t say how a priori knowledge is possible, and there are problems about the nature of empirical knowledge.

And then one day The Big One smashes into Earth for that final extinction event. And anything and everything about knowledge is then obliterated along with us. And if we are the only intelligent life form in the universe, it will be as though knowledge never existed at all.

Or something like that?

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Colin McGinn

How can we come to know things by pure reason—what kind of process is this? What explains it? And why is it that the world can only be known by sense experience?

Assuming, of course, the things we think we know, we know of our own volition. Otherwise, scientists have been remarkably successful in exploring the evolution of biological life here on planet Earth. And then coming to the part where "somehow" the human species acquired the capacity to reason far, far, far more effectively than any other animals.

And who really knows where or when to draw the line between reason and the senses? Given, say, a particular context?

Thus some have supposed that so-called a priori knowledge is not really knowledge at all, since it concerns only tautologies or human conventions (there are no real propositions to be known in this way).

Again, however, how are philosophers able to translate this such that it can be made applicable to actual human interactions? How are they not but providing us with what they think they know about it at any given point in time.

And others have doubted that experience can ever add up to genuine knowledge: knowledge must be more than experience alone, but what is that more? Does knowledge have a foundation in experience, and how does that work exactly? Is knowledge simply coherence of belief?

You know -- "know?" -- what's coming...

Human knowledge "somehow" fits into the evolution of biological life on Earth. Biological life "somehow" fits into the evolution of matter. The evolution of matter "somehow" fits into the Big Bang. The Big Bang "somehiow fits into the existence of existence itself.

Then those who argue that "somehow" the existence of existence itself fits into the existence of God.

Me, I always come back to what "here and now" seems to be a clear distinction. I know that I am typing these words. And, given free will, I am typing them of my own volition. But: I do not know -- cannot know? -- if the words I am typing now reflect the most rational understanding of epistemic knowledge.

[henry quirk]

I am having a problem with the website which does not allow me to quote , add my message, and post.

It's still touchy, this place, after the last big FAIL. MGMT has done it's best to keep it runnin', and I'm thinkin' they've done all they can without just scrappin't it and startin' over.

What I'm sayin', B, is you'll have to make do.

[Belinda]

Thanks Henry. It's a lot better this morning.

[puto]

Nothing is not a philosophical stance. Not-being excludes all substance, then all modes necessarily.

[henry quirk]

Thanks Henry. It's a lot better this morning.

You're welcome...

Yeah, this morning it only took me two times to get, and stay, signed in. Yesterday, it was upwards of ten.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

In retrospect, I think part of why I became a nihilist in high school was because I was a social outcast. I never really felt like I fit in. So I tried to come up with an explanation or justification for what I was experiencing. I came to the conclusion that ultimately people can never truly understand one another or themselves. Because there are so many layers of separation and mediation involved in “understanding”.

And yet day after day after day we seem to understand each other just fine in regard to things that in fact can be demonstrated to be applicable to all of us.

Instead, where things become considerably more problematic is in regard to conflicting moral values. Those on both sides of them seem able to justify their own One True Path merely by insisting that their own and only their own assumptions about the human condition must prevail.

To wit:

One starts out with a particular set of assumptions regarding the "human condition", regarding "human nature":

1] that it is more in sync with capitalism than socialism
2] that it is more in sync with "I" than "we"
3] that it is more in sync with genes than memes
4] that it is more in sync with God than mere mortals
5] that it is more in sync with sexual restrictions than sexual freedoms
6] that it is more in sync with our race and our gender and our sexual orientation
7] that it is more in sync with conservatives or liberals
8] that it is more in sync with big government than small government
9] that it is more in sync with idealism than pragmatism
10] that it is more in sync with might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

And yet even in regard to the either/or world itself no one seems able to explain why it is as it is and not some other way. Or even why it is something instead of nothing at all. We don't even have a way of pinning down yet whether or not human beings are acting of their own volition given whatever the ontological nature of existence itself is.

We were separated by our physical bodies, so we can’t really fully understand what one person really means or if their attempts at interpersonal communication correspond 100 percent with what they are thinking.

Then this part:

We are also estranged from ourselves, we can never truly understand who we are because the notion of a Self is incomplete and illusory.

The part, in my view, the objectivists among us are, more than anything else, intent on scoffing at: the fractured and fragmented "I" in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world that for each of us one by one ends in oblivion.

Unless of course that's wrong. And all I can do is to come into places like this and hope against hope that someone is able to actually convince me that it is wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

In retrospect, I think part of why I became a nihilist in high school was because I was a social outcast. I never really felt like I fit in. So I tried to come up with an explanation or justification for what I was experiencing. I came to the conclusion that ultimately people can never truly understand one another or themselves. Because there are so many layers of separation and mediation involved in “understanding”.

And yet day after day after day we seem to understand each other just fine in regard to things that in fact can be demonstrated to be applicable to all of us.

Great, so then the whole, but hard determinists would say all we think, say and do is determined, so maybe there is no way to communicate and we are just determined to think there is response when people suggest things can be put to rest. Not because it is necessarily wrong, but as you say we seem to understand each other, so we can see where discussions go, justify our positions, explain our interpretations, without resorting to theis conversation stopper. Or?

Instead, where things become considerably more problematic is in regard to conflicting moral values. Those on both sides of them seem able to justify their own One True Path merely by insisting that their own and only their own assumptions about the human condition must prevail.

So, epistemic nhilism is something we can set aside. Moral nihilism, there's a real problem. There is a big difference between the possiblity of communication and knowledge and the possiblity of demonstrating one set of morals is the correct one. Or?

And yet even in regard to the either/or world itself no one seems able to explain why it is as it is and not some other way. Or even why it is something instead of nothing at all. We don't even have a way of pinning down yet whether or not human beings are acting of their own volition given whatever the ontological nature of existence itself is.

And then we are back to supporting epistemic nihilism. When someone else asserts epistemic nihilism, you disagree....for a bit, then assert it yourself.

We were separated by our physical bodies, so we can’t really fully understand what one person really means or if their attempts at interpersonal communication correspond 100 percent with what they are thinking.

Then this part:

We are also estranged from ourselves, we can never truly understand who we are because the notion of a Self is incomplete and illusory.

The part, in my view, the objectivists among us are, more than anything else, intent on scoffing at: the fractured and fragmented "I" in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world that for each of us one by one ends in oblivion.

Unless of course that's wrong. And all I can do is to come into places like this and hope against hope that someone is able to actually convince me that it is wrong.

So, your position is the default correct one, unless someone can prove it false. You, somehow, despite determinism, will continue to believe your position and reasoning, despite potentially being compelled, while objectivisits are problemactic and shouldn't hold their positions unless they can convince you (and all reasonable men and women).

Why do you have a position at all, given your epistemic concerns?

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

This view [above] stemmed from my internal frustration and anxiety in often being misunderstood by my peers. Words and discourse always failed me whenever I tried to just be authentic with others. Language obfuscates rather than clarifies, it invents rather than expresses.

Think about this. You go about your day to day interactions with others. Now, in the either/or world how often are you mistunderstod by them? How often do the words of physicists, chemists, biologists, etc., fail to communicate clearly rather than obfuscate? Sure, it requires an education and years of accumulating knowledge to become ever more precise in communicating what is in fact either this or that. And, yes, in all such fields there comes that part where in regard to the really, really big and the really, really small precision gives way to profound mysteries.

I also thought at the time that truth had no intrinsic value, because life had no intrinsic value. My friends, classmates, teachers and parents didn’t really care about the truth for its own sake–so why should I? Any explanation was good enough for them as long as it appealed to their biases. My bias against human language still persists today but is being slowly replaced by my newfound appreciation for it.

In other words, some things may well never change. As for moral and political biases, it's not like we acquire them out of the blue. And it's not like the social sciences have come anywhere near to confronting them as the natural sciences have. It's not for nothing that among the hard scientists, their work almost never involves conflicting goods. On the other hand, when they do, the powers that be can and often do buy and sell them.

I think I read too much of Dostoyevsky, Gogol and Shestov at the time that I cherry picked some of their ideas into a half-ass nihilist philosophy in order to channel my teenage angst.

Better that than using nihilism as an excuse to shoot up schools or to become a sociopath, or to convince yourself that "show me the money" really is the center of the moral universe.

[puto]

Puto
Iabiguous and Colen McGinn
Nihilism
18 November 2024
Privations? A mere negation? Existentialism as a substance is another subject of consciousness. Having, forms of proof existence by philosophy. There is something and philosophy can prove existence by primary and secondary qualities.

Colin McGinn
How can we come to know things by pure reason—what kind of process is this? What explains it? And why is it that the world can only be known by sense experience?

Having, college and books that will teach you logic. Yes, it is hard to learn, but once learned it is as wonderful method. Logic, especially Categorical Syllogisms, vindicates and defends the truth. Conscience and evidence of the four operations of the Mind: Perception, judgment, reasoning, and disposition; Truth is found through a priori reasoning.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

My concern here is epistemic nihilism. I found there to be mainly two definitions of what it might be: (1) “Epistemic nihilists hold that, if there are any epistemic facts, then they are as realists say; but, there are no such facts. The epistemic nihilist is a disenchanted realist.” [Cuneo]

Okay, let's pin down how men and women who believe this might go about explaining all the facts that they encounter day after day after day. Does it all come down to what each of us think we know about this or that particular fact vs. all that actually can be known about the ontological and/or teleological nature of facts themselves?

(2) “The rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker.” [Wright]

Sophistry? And, again, in regard to what mere mortals in a No God world think they know about mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around them...? Are there or are there not any number things that you know and I know and others know such that they reflect what all rational men and women are obligated to know "for all practical purposes" from day to day. The either/or world may not be as we think it is, but I'm certainly comfortable assuming that what makes it an either/or world is not going anywhere anytime soon.

The first definition comes from Terence Cuneo’s book The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism, he comes up with a definition of epistemic nihilism in chapter 4 of his book in order to compare it to moral nihilists and the absurdity of both positions.

"This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist." oxford academic

Of course, I'm still waiting for the moral realists here to note examples of objective moral facts. In particular, given sets of circumstances from their own lives in which their value judgments came into conflict with the value judgments of others. What facts were both sides able to agree on?

[Iwannaplato]

Sophistry? And, again, in regard to what mere mortals in a No God world think they know about mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around them...? Are there or are there not any number things that you know and I know and others know such that they reflect what all rational men and women are obligated to know "for all practical purposes" from day to day. The either/or world may not be as we think it is, but I'm certainly comfortable assuming that what makes it an either/or world is not going anywhere anytime soon.

So, the criterion you use to argue against epistemic nihilism - a stance, ironically you take yourself when focused on determinsm - is that you are comfortable. Welcome to the world of objectivism.

[phyllo]

Well, he will say that it's not objectivism because he doesn't insist that others believe what he does ("or else").

Although he often mocks, ridicules and responds with incredulity to anyone who does not believe what he believes.

None of that apparently qualifies as 'insisting'.

The endless repetition of his views is also not 'insisting'.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, he will say that it's not objectivism because he doesn't insist that others believe what he does ("or else").

That doesn't fit his tone. You can't imply incredulity and then claim it's merely personal. And of course, whenever he lists what he calls objectivists, he includes people who merely believe things, but do not insist that others have the same beliefs.

Although he often mocks, ridicules and responds with incredulity to anyone who does not believe what he believes.

ah, yes. I should have waited. Exactly. His objectivism is implicit. Essentially you're a moron if you don't believe what he does, but he won't say this directly. As if everyone who believes in God, or Buddhism, or ghosts, or whatever, runs around with a gun trying to force people to believe or even bothers to think others should.

None of that apparently qualifies as 'insisting'.

Though being a Christian is insisting.

The endless repetition of his views is also not 'insisting'.

And then mind reading resistance to the harsh truths only he and a few others can face, while also not being psychopaths. They are afraid to face the truths he can face, that he does not insist.

So, condescension, implying people are afraid and stupid or stuck in their heads and can't face what he faces....that's ok, not insisting.
Someone believing in Jesus and thinking others should also...insisting. Even if they don't have a lot judgements and can admit errors.

It's a common confusion that only what we say directly is what we are doing and believing.

If you assert, openly and honestly, you are insisting and you are bad.
Best to imply, yes, endlessly.
The epistemology of passive-aggression.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

While the second definition -- “the rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker"-- comes from a paper by Jake Wright, which has a more political angle as he attributes it to ethically questionable practices of people in current mainstream American politics. But this definition seems to be related to axiological nihilism as well, so I will tackle this some other time.

Machiavellian over, under, sideways and down, let's say. Or Trumpian?

As for axiological nihilism...

"...Axiology is the branch of practical philosophy which studies the nature of value."

...is someone here more familiar with it able, perhaps, to explain how it might be differentiated -- theoretically? technically? -- from moral nihilism. Then bringing this scholastic assessment down out of the academic clouds, note how it is applicable given their own grasp of values. Given a particular context of their own choosing.

To be honest this was not what I was expecting. I thought that the academic definition of epistemic nihilism would center around neurobiology and how our brains did not evolve to know reality.

Here, in my view, philosophers can only speculate about all of this in a "world of words". If there is a neurobiological element, I suspect it will be natural science that discovers it. Unless, of course, the biological component here revolves entirely around...hard determinism?

Or maybe something similar to my previous nihilistic sentiments, that we have so many layers separating us that it is impossible to get at truth or justified knowledge about something.

Which, from my own frame of mind "here and now", revolves around both dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. We can only acquire so much understanding of the human condition. And much of our own sense of reality revolves around countless variables we may scarcely understand and control. Even regarding the lives we live from day to day to day. Our experiences, our relationships, our access to information and knowledge. In other words, leaving out all of the experiences, relationships, information and knowledge we might have had instead had our lives been different.