Philosophy Now Forum

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:19 am 1.There is more than one way to interpret the world and the things in it.
2.No one can prove one way to understand a thing or the whole universe is better than another.
3.A standard for doing this could be made, but not proved.
4.A standard for proving the standard of proof were true could be made, but itself would be unprovable and so on.
5.Someone might claim this is not a proof, however, their brain is stripped to the skin and left shivering in the cold wind of nihilismus.
Q.E.D.

It is a matter of choice.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:22 pm The second part of your reasoning is apparently very poor. The great number of bits of dust under a couch hardly speaks to their value.

If nihilism is true, why do you care? Poor reasoning is as worthless as superior reasoning.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:22 pm We seem unable to break from some interpretation which we collectively have instinctively or unconsciously. Which is no indication of their high value.

You are now dealing with superlatives. Even if our interpretations are of low value (in contrast to high value) - they are still of value. Thus directly contradicting your nihilism claim.

Even if nihilism were true, it's too fragile to survive for very long. Free choice is sufficient to dissolve it. I value nihilism. Poof! Nihilism gone.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:22 pm This is as well an example of the principle, that there are many interpretations possible. Yours is one.

You aren't saying anything of interest. Philosophy is the competitive endeavour of "whose interpretation is best"?.
There are many philosophies possible. Which one is "best"?

It depends on what you use Philosophy for...

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:22 pm Many interpretations, pro di immortales (by the gods!), and many evaluations of the significance of valuing, and the interpretation of what value is, seem open to the understanding. And so on. This I call nihilismus, nihilism, the flood of understanding as the strangest cause of nature.

It doesn't matter what value is, nor is it necessary to define it for me to determine that you value interpretations/understanding.

If you didn't value it - you wouldn't be striving to interpret/understand anything.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:22 pm
The second part of your reasoning is apparently very poor. The great number of bits of dust under a couch hardly speaks to their value.
If nihilism is true, why do you care? Poor reasoning is as worthless as superior reasoning.

Well, not exactly. Poor reasoning may be no closer to reality or the Good than is superior reasoning. But, that does not mean that one can not prefer one interpretation or one style of reasoning to another.

You are now dealing with superlatives. Even if our interpretations are of low value (in contrast to high value) - they are still of value. Thus directly contradicting your nihilism claim.

It would only indicate that the distinction between high and low value is not linked to the human good or to reality. Or, put more tangibly, to what those principles were thought to be. It can be understood as a question about the motive. For instance the American Jurist Scalia often applied the Kantian imperative to cases. But, he had not the spirit of the intention of Kant. He applied it as a simple generic rule. Thus it no longer meant what it did; the purpose had flown away.

Even if nihilism were true, it's too fragile to survive for very long. Free choice is sufficient to dissolve it. I value nihilism. Poof! Nihilism gone.

That, indeed, has happened with the general public who are unconscious nihilists. Some of us still have some access to the compellingness of a knowledge of the nihilistic or historical consciousness.

You aren't saying anything of interest. Philosophy is the competitive endeavour of "whose interpretation is best"?.
There are many philosophies possible. Which one is "best"?

For the last 30 generations anyone would have said, the one that approaches best the sight of the truth, the good, or reality. You know, “adaequatio intelectus et rei” and so on. For instance, in the Politea or Republic of Plato the city of beauty or the noble city is attempted. Such a city is not the true city, it is Kalon, but not Agathon or Good. In this we see the ascending “scale of values” as it was grasped by Plato.

It depends on what you use Philosophy for…

That is seemingly a very cybernetic interpretation of philosophy. It’s true, early on, the Stoics in some way produced this “heresy” of “using” philosophy. However, that is a long question.

It doesn't matter what value is, nor is it necessary to define it for me to determine that you value interpretations/understanding.

If you didn't value it - you wouldn't be striving to interpret/understand anything.
Top

It makes a great difference whether one values good or evil, does it not? Valuing might turn out even to be evil or very harmful to humans. As so too the passion for technology, theology, economy, or any collective ambition. You know, value means interpretation. That formula or interpretation of the fact and value is derived from Nieztsche through Simmel and popularised in America by Max Weber.

delete please

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm Well, not exactly. Poor reasoning may be no closer to reality or the Good than is superior reasoning.

Again. Why does that matter to a nihilist? Being "closer to reality" or "pursuing the Good" are worthless endeavours.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm But, that does not mean that one can not prefer one interpretation or one style of reasoning to another.

Distinction without a difference. Preference signals relative value. If you prefer X over Y, then you value X more than you value Y.

If you prefer life over death, then you value life more than death.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm It would only indicate that the distinction between high and low value is not linked to the human good or to reality. Or, put more tangibly, to what those principles were thought to be. It can be understood as a question about the motive.

A nihilist has no motives, because a nihilist has no motivation - everything is inherently and intrinsically worthless. Why bother?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm For instance the American Jurist Scalia often applied the Kantian imperative to cases. But, he had not the spirit of the intention of Kant. He applied it as a simple generic rule. Thus it no longer meant what it did; the purpose had flown away.

In systems theory we have the principle of equifinality; in logic - we have confluence. In English we have "there is more than one way to skin a cat".
The purpose is the destination - you don't have to get there via the planned route. Usually - you never do.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm That, indeed, has happened with the general public who are unconscious nihilists. Some of us still have some access to the compellingness of a knowledge of the nihilistic or historical consciousness.

There's no such thing as a conscious nihilist. At the very least you are doing SOMETHING that's keeping you alive - you are making choices. To eat food, to drink water, to sustain yourself. Those things have intrinsic value towards your purpose: remaining alive.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm For the last 30 generations anyone would have said, the one that approaches best the sight of the truth, the good, or reality. You know, “adaequatio intelectus et rei” and so on.

Everybody thinks their philosophy does all of that. Why else would they retain it?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm That is seemingly a very cybernetic interpretation of philosophy. It’s true, early on, the Stoics in some way produced this “heresy” of “using” philosophy. However, that is a long question.

Even if you aren't using your philosophy, you are at the very least choosing your philosophy. It only begs the question: why that one and not any of the others?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm It makes a great difference whether one values good or evil, does it not?

I can ask the exact same question re: Philosophy.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm Valuing might turn out even to be evil or very harmful to humans. As so too the passion for technology, theology, economy, or any collective ambition. You know, value means interpretation. That formula or interpretation of the fact and value is derived from Nieztsche through Simmel and popularised in America by Max Weber.

Sure. "There are no facts only interpretations" was Nieztsche's gem. He's right. In practice what you interpret is far less important than how you interpret.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:19 am 1.There is more than one way to interpret the world and the things in it.
2.No one can prove one way to understand a thing or the whole universe is better than another.
3.A standard for doing this could be made, but not proved.
4.A standard for proving the standard of proof were true could be made, but itself would be unprovable and so on.
5.Someone might claim this is not a proof, however, their brain is stripped to the skin and left shivering in the cold wind of nihilismus.
Q.E.D.

Then by that token, no one can prove that viewing or interpreting the world in a "nihilistic" way is better than not doing so.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:38 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm Well, not exactly. Poor reasoning may be no closer to reality or the Good than is superior reasoning.

Again. Why does that matter to a nihilist? Being "closer to reality" or "pursuing the Good" are worthless endeavours.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm But, that does not mean that one can not prefer one interpretation or one style of reasoning to another.

Distinction without a difference. Preference signals relative value. If you prefer X over Y, then you value X more than you value Y.

If you prefer life over death, then you value life more than death.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm It would only indicate that the distinction between high and low value is not linked to the human good or to reality. Or, put more tangibly, to what those principles were thought to be. It can be understood as a question about the motive.

A nihilist has no motives, because a nihilist has no motivation - everything is inherently and intrinsically worthless. Why bother?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm For instance the American Jurist Scalia often applied the Kantian imperative to cases. But, he had not the spirit of the intention of Kant. He applied it as a simple generic rule. Thus it no longer meant what it did; the purpose had flown away.

In systems theory we have the principle of equifinality; in logic - we have confluence. In English we have "there is more than one way to skin a cat".
The purpose is the destination - you don't have to get there via the planned route. Usually - you never do.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm That, indeed, has happened with the general public who are unconscious nihilists. Some of us still have some access to the compellingness of a knowledge of the nihilistic or historical consciousness.

There's no such thing as a conscious nihilist. At the very least you are doing SOMETHING that's keeping you alive - you are making choices. To eat food, to drink water, to sustain yourself. Those things have intrinsic value towards your purpose: remaining alive.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm For the last 30 generations anyone would have said, the one that approaches best the sight of the truth, the good, or reality. You know, “adaequatio intelectus et rei” and so on.

Everybody thinks their philosophy does all of that. Why else would they retain it?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm That is seemingly a very cybernetic interpretation of philosophy. It’s true, early on, the Stoics in some way produced this “heresy” of “using” philosophy. However, that is a long question.

Even if you aren't using your philosophy, you are at the very least choosing your philosophy. It only begs the question: why that one and not any of the others?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm It makes a great difference whether one values good or evil, does it not?

I can ask the exact same question re: Philosophy.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:59 pm Valuing might turn out even to be evil or very harmful to humans. As so too the passion for technology, theology, economy, or any collective ambition. You know, value means interpretation. That formula or interpretation of the fact and value is derived from Nieztsche through Simmel and popularised in America by Max Weber.

Sure. "There are no facts only interpretations" was Nieztsche's gem. He's right. In practice what you interpret is far less important than how you interpret.

Again. Why does that matter to a nihilist? Being "closer to reality" or "pursuing the Good" are worthless endeavours.

You’re not reading carefully, but reacting without thinking. It’s useless to answer people who don’t attempt to understand.

Distinction without a difference. Preference signals relative value. If you prefer X over Y, then you value X more than you value Y.

If you prefer life over death, then you value life more than death.

You’re talking to yourself. Try to read it again and see what I’m saying. Instead of projecting your idea onto what is written. I eschew answering the rest because it's a burlesque or straw man and you're not listening.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:12 am You’re not reading carefully, but reacting without thinking. It’s useless to answer people who don’t attempt to understand.

I subscribe to the principle of charity and axiom of unrestricted comprehension.

It's not only that I am attempting to understand you, but I am also telling you why I am failing at understanding you. I am pointing out that which is preventing me from understanding you - the incoherence in your arguments.

The performative contradiction. The continued demonstration of value/preference while arguing for nihilism.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:12 am
You’re talking to yourself. Try to read it again and see what I’m saying. Instead of projecting your idea onto what is written. I eschew answering the rest because it's a burlesque or straw man and you're not listening.

I am listening with every faculty that is available to me. It is you who believes that your thoughts are captured clearly, concisely and entirely in the words you write. That is not the case - you have fallen for the illusion of transparency.

You are attributing your failure to express yourself to my "lack of understanding". Total lack of ownership on your behalf is what this is.

If you were to remove humans from The Universe, then The Universe would be nihilistic. But if you were to remove humans from The Universe - the concept, word and description that is "The Universe" would cease to exist.

We can talk about it in the abstract, and we can discuss it philosophically, but Nihilism and Nihilists don't exist. The end.

The word bat can mean more than one thing. It could be used to mean a kind of stick, it can also mean a flying thing. If someone takes the wrong meaning then they are likely to regard what is written as incoherent. You have your own way of using the word nihilism. It causes you not to see what the post is about.

So, words can be used in more than one way. And if we don't use them in the same way we don't speak about the same things in the same respect. We talk over one another. Interestingly there is a problem in addition to this, which is most important for all thinking people. Because of the cloud burst it provides the thinkers. In antiquity it seems to have gone unnoticed that not only can words be used according to five or six predominate common usages, as with the various meanings of the word phusis or nature Aristotle analysed in his Metaphysics, but, indeed, one can produce one's own understanding according to one's own thinking. Outside the common path. That, however, shows the extreme of nuance.

Here, it is all more simple. You reason against the way the word is made clear in the post where it means bat, by continually saying bats aren't like that.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:20 pm You have your own way of using the word nihilism. It causes you not to see what the post is about.

That is a plausible hypothesis. Another plausible hypothesis is that you are unable to effectively communicate what the post it about.

Unless you state otherwise, I am assuming that you are using the word in approximately the same way most people use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:20 pm So, words can be used in more than one way. And if we don't use them in the same way we don't speak about the same things in the same respect. We talk over one another. Interestingly there is a problem in addition to this, which is most important for all thinking people. Because of the cloud burst it provides the thinkers. In antiquity it seems to have gone unnoticed that not only can words be used according to five or six predominate common usages, as with the various meanings of the word phusis or nature Aristotle analysed in his Metaphysics, but, indeed, one can produce one's own understanding according to one's own thinking. Outside the common path. That, however, shows the extreme of nuance.

You aren't saying anything of interest though. Hermeneutics concerns itself with interpretation. Computer scientists concern themselves with addressing ambiguity.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:20 pm Here, it is all more simple. You reason against the way the word is made clear in the post where it means bat, by continually saying bats aren't like that.

Off the top of my head I can recall Wiio's laws making a similar observation: all human communication fails, except by accident.

Your argument also resembles the central point made by post-modernists such as Derrida. There is too much meaning (read: too many possible interpretations) of a text - it hinders disambiguation.

It's communicated very plainly.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:24 pm It's communicated very plainly.

If plain communication is ineffective - try something else.

I would say even speaking of values is nihilism. The concept implies an empty worthless thing called the mere "fact."

Put another way, in Kant's third critique, on taste, he speaks nihilisticly. There is no best, or GOOD in the proper sense, choice of drapes. It is just whatever one is into at the moment (or the current "mode"). But, the same really applies to the higher things, and to everything. We don't like to admit it because it is so terrible. Because of the violence of unconstrained political dispute.

On a more subtle basis, it is true there is a phenomenon we give the name "value" to in the modern usage. But, that is just a name and a concept. Or, more tangibly, it is a claim about the possibility of that phenomenon. If we call it, instead, behavior type 4, is it still "value?" Of course we all have behavior, so long as we interpret some phenomena as behavior, but it can be shown quite often that the behavior is due to antecedent causes. Mechanical causes. Accidents of birth. That is not morality at work in any serious sense. In fact, it is very difficult to derive the motive behind the very concept of the "ought," Sollen in Kant. It is hard to think how he was. It slips away form the phenomena. As in the pathetic case of the American jurists who go on using the formal meaningless categorical imperative without grasping its purpose.

In a certain sense, the difficulty is that purpose doesn't exist (an empty reasoning can be given, for the sake of intelligibility, but the purpose is lacking). The question is not verbal. It can't be solved by making logical quibbles. It is a question of the inner causal power of human beings and what makes it cogent to us.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:40 pm I would say even speaking of values is nihilism. The concept implies an empty worthless thing called the mere "fact."

Put another way, in Kant's third critique, on taste, he speaks nihilisticly. There is no best, or GOOD in the proper sense, choice of drapes. It is just whatever one is into at the moment (or the current "mode"). But, the same really applies to the higher things, and to everything. We don't like to admit it because it is so terrible. Because of the violence of unconstrained political dispute.

On a more subtle basis, it is true there is a phenomenon we give the name "value" to in the modern usage. But, that is just a name and a concept. Or, more tangibly, it is a claim about the possibility of that phenomenon. If we call it, instead, behavior type 4, is it still "value?" Of course we all have behavior, so long as we interpret some phenomena as behavior, but it can be shown quite often that the behavior is due to antecedent causes. Mechanical causes. Accidents of birth. That is not morality at work in any serious sense. In fact, it is very difficult to derive the motive behind the very concept of the "ought," Sollen in Kant. It is hard to think how he was. It slips away form the phenomena. As in the pathetic case of the American jurists who go on using the formal meaningless categorical imperative without grasping its purpose.

In a certain sense, the difficulty is that purpose doesn't exist (an empty reasoning can be given, for the sake of intelligibility, but the purpose is lacking). The question is not verbal. It can't be solved by making logical quibbles. It is a question of the inner causal power of human beings and what makes it cogent to us.

Like I said - it's a useful rhetorical device. We can talk about it, acknowledge it as a concept, adopt a nihilistic view-point for the purposes of a particular argument.

The fact remains - Nihilism and Nihilists don't exist. Try and convince me that you see no intrinsic value in food, water and air. Try and convince me that those things are worthless to you.

You are a child.