Philosophy Now Forum

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:57 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:41 am I have in my mind a description of nihilism, but what I lack is a sound argument for it. Do you have any ideas about how nihilism is justified?

Nihilism is inherent in logical thinking itself.
It is the other side of the coin of rationality.

The more logic is believed to be the foundation of reality, the more nihilism grows, perhaps unwittingly.

For the nihilist, in fact, nothing has value.
And it's the same for logic.

This is on target! It comes to me as a bona fide revelation!

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:26 am

What does the antinomy imply in your opinion? Once nihilism takes root, it flourishes in a weird kinda way - it's kinda there but look again, oui mon ami?

Again: we need a context.

Nihilism and meaning and antinomies in regard to what? to mathematics? to the laws of nature? to the empirical, material, phenomenological world around us? to the logical rules of language?

No, instead, assuming that 1] we live in a free will world and that 2] we accept that any answer we give can only be assessed given the existential parameters of Rummy's Rule, I focus in on the world of conflicting goods. On moral and political and spiritual value judgments that come to clash given human social, political and economic interactions down through the ages.

Nihilism then.

This antinomy:

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Nihilism here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 am
I have seen no one in this thread who qualifies as a pure nihilist. Such a person would not mount arguments. They would not differentiate between is and ought issues, since nihilism sees objectivity as a whole, not just moral objectivity, as an impossible enterprise.

For some here, it's ever and always up in the "intellectual contraption" clouds.

A pure nihilist?

Given what context?

Again, my own favborite: Mary has an abortion.

Okay, how would a "pure nihilist" react to that?

Me? Well, as a moral nihilist, I would not argue that human biology resulting in sex resulting in copulation resulting in Mary getting pregnant can mean different things to different people in different sets of circumstances. What human biology is entails the possibility of pregnancy for women. Mary either is or is not pregnant. Mary either does or does not want to give birth. Mary either does or does not have an abortion.

Instead, as a moral nihilist, I would argue that in the absence of God, there does not appear to be a way for scientists and philosophers to determine whether abortion is either moral or immoral. Given the points I note above in responding to Agent Smith. I root this instead in the arguments I make in the OPs of these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 amA nihilist can, it seems, only find meaning in reacting to non-nihilists. They have little to say to each other. Even moral anti-realists have little to say to each other.

And what on Earth does this mean? It's not what moral nihilists say to each other...it's what they either can or cannot demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to say to each other. It's about the limitations of language here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 amIf you look at the two main promoters of this position, Iambiguous and Peter Holmes, they have little to say to each other. But Peter Holmes is not a nihilist, since he certainly believes in objectivity. Iambiguous is more mixed, but does make the is ought distinction so he is a not a full blown nihilist. But there is a great deal of skepticism and more focus on the meaninglessness of life.

Unless of course he's wrong.

I know! How about a context!! Of his own choosing.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:51 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:26 am

What does the antinomy imply in your opinion? Once nihilism takes root, it flourishes in a weird kinda way - it's kinda there but look again, oui mon ami?

Again: we need a context.

Nihilism and meaning and antinomies in regard to what? to mathematics? to the laws of nature? to the empirical, material, phenomenological world around us? to the logical rules of language?

No, instead, assuming that 1] we live in a free will world and that 2] we accept that any answer we give can only be assessed given the existential parameters of Rummy's Rule, I focus in on the world of conflicting goods. On moral and political and spiritual value judgments that come to clash given human social, political and economic interactions down through the ages.

Nihilism then.

This antinomy:

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Nihilism here.

Ok, we need a context! The question is what is this context? Any ideas? Your reasoning skills, by the way, are impeccable! Good for you!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 am
I have seen no one in this thread who qualifies as a pure nihilist. Such a person would not mount arguments. They would not differentiate between is and ought issues, since nihilism sees objectivity as a whole, not just moral objectivity, as an impossible enterprise.

For some here, it's ever and always up in the "intellectual contraption" clouds.

I'm always using intellectual contraptions? Nah. Sometimes, in a philosophy forums...yeah, just like you. Here's a question...how could my post have served a purpose different from the one you might have wanted it to. It is often amazing how someone skeptical of objective morals judges immediately when others have different values for posting here. Irony, yes. And that you see a post describing nihilism in a thread entitled nihilism as an intellectual contraption (which seems to be perjorative term for you)...that's kinda funny. Further it smacks of objectivism. Did I do something wrong daddy? I know, implying your sense of objective morals is not the same as being direct about them.

A pure nihilist?

Yes. Did you not understand the concept? This would be someone who is an anti-realist and radically skeptical about our ability to know anything and does not think any authorities have validity as authorities and thinks life has no meaning. Oh, wait. I explained that already.

Given what context?

Again, my own favborite: Mary has an abortion.

Okay, how would a "pure nihilist" react to that?

Pure nihilists while sharing the above traits could still have a range of reactions. Maybe Mary was their girlfriend and they are relieved or disappointed. Etc. Or do you mean what would a pure nihilists stance on Mary's abortion be?

Well, they obviously could not view it, or Mary, as immoral. They would consider it impossible to know if the fetus was a living entity in the sense some anti-abortionists do. Since they would tend to have a negative view of life, they might view it as a saving the potential child from a hellish existence. They would also think that it was not any church's, government agency's right or authority to have the slightest control over Mary's choice, since they don't have any authority. Though at the same time they would not think Mary, however much they loved or hated her, had a right to choose...though until recently, she certainly had the power, unless she was a minor in some place or late along.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 amA nihilist can, it seems, only find meaning in reacting to non-nihilists. They have little to say to each other. Even moral anti-realists have little to say to each other.

And what on Earth does this mean? It's not what moral nihilists say to each other...it's what they either can or cannot demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to say to each other. It's about the limitations of language here.

You ask what it means, then disagree with it. And it seems then universalize your values by saying what 'it' is. What you want to focus on is THE issue, period. Implying being morally superior somehow avoids being an objectivist.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:14 amIf you look at the two main promoters of this position, Iambiguous and Peter Holmes, they have little to say to each other. But Peter Holmes is not a nihilist, since he certainly believes in objectivity. Iambiguous is more mixed, but does make the is ought distinction so he is a not a full blown nihilist. But there is a great deal of skepticism and more focus on the meaninglessness of life.

Unless of course he's wrong.

Obviously; one could write that after every sentence anyone writes.

I know! How about a context!! Of his own choosing.

I responded to your context on abortion with what the pure nihilist position would be on an abortion. And it's a negative position, not surprisingly. It doesn't argue that Mary was right to have an abortion or that she has a right to choose or that she isn't bad, since all that would be gibberish to a pure nihilist. And in some sense whatever the outcome - abortion, miscarriage, adoption, acceptance of being a mother.....whatever happens to Mary and the fetus...doesn't really matter since it's all meaningless to the pure nihilist. I think, I've met one of these and they sure as shit don't hang out in philosophy forums.

Did he disagree with my description of a pure nihilist, iow one who has the range of beliefs attributed to nihilists and not just, for example, moral nihilism`? We don't know. Did he have a specific criticism of any point made in my post? No, just implicit judgment and yes, moral judgment.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:51 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:26 am

What does the antinomy imply in your opinion? Once nihilism takes root, it flourishes in a weird kinda way - it's kinda there but look again, oui mon ami?

Again: we need a context.

Nihilism and meaning and antinomies in regard to what? to mathematics? to the laws of nature? to the empirical, material, phenomenological world around us? to the logical rules of language?

No, instead, assuming that 1] we live in a free will world and that 2] we accept that any answer we give can only be assessed given the existential parameters of Rummy's Rule, I focus in on the world of conflicting goods. On moral and political and spiritual value judgments that come to clash given human social, political and economic interactions down through the ages.

Nihilism then.

This antinomy:

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Nihilism here.

Ok, we need a context! The question is what is this context? Any ideas? Your reasoning skills, by the way, are impeccable! Good for you!

More objectivism. We need. Not I want. His values are a universal need. Needs having to do with is and his wants having to do with how he produces his oughts.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:51 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:26 am

What does the antinomy imply in your opinion? Once nihilism takes root, it flourishes in a weird kinda way - it's kinda there but look again, oui mon ami?

Again: we need a context.

Nihilism and meaning and antinomies in regard to what? to mathematics? to the laws of nature? to the empirical, material, phenomenological world around us? to the logical rules of language?

No, instead, assuming that 1] we live in a free will world and that 2] we accept that any answer we give can only be assessed given the existential parameters of Rummy's Rule, I focus in on the world of conflicting goods. On moral and political and spiritual value judgments that come to clash given human social, political and economic interactions down through the ages.

Nihilism then.

This antinomy:

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Nihilism here.

Ok, we need a context! The question is what is this context? Any ideas? Your reasoning skills, by the way, are impeccable! Good for you!

As I said, "anyone else?"

Oh, yes, let's see how the OP sets the standard around intellectual contraptions....
viewtopic.php?p=557535#p557535
Well, gee, what a nice collection of them.

FromThe Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

So, what does what they are calling here the TRUE nihilist or I would call a pure nihilist think about gun control, abortion, war, gay marriage....
I believe they would think...who gives a shit. They might dislike gun control since that would inhibit their ability, possibly, to destroy. But anything they don't like is merely a part of reality which they don't like.

Nihilism, The physical world absent of meaning, in the absence of a conscious subject. If the conscious subject finds no meaning to the physical world as a biological interpretation, then his world is meaningless to him. This is often the case with profound depression. Life and consciousness brings meaning to an otherwise meaningless world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:13 pm Nihilism, The physical world absent of meaning, in the absence of a conscious subject. If the conscious subject finds no meaning to the physical world as a biological interpretation, then his world is meaningless to him. This is often the case with profound depression. Life and consciousness brings meaning to an otherwise meaningless world.

I do think emotional states and troubles can masquerade as philosophical positions. I don't think this is always true and there is also a chicken and egg issue.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:19 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:13 pm Nihilism, The physical world absent of meaning, in the absence of a conscious subject. If the conscious subject finds no meaning to the physical world as a biological interpretation, then his world is meaningless to him. This is often the case with profound depression. Life and consciousness brings meaning to an otherwise meaningless world.

I do think emotional states and troubles can masquerade as philosophical positions. I don't think this is always true and there is also a chicken and egg issue.

Are you saying all meanings are an emotional state, if so, expand upon the thought? Wonder is the ultimate philosophical position. Please expand upon your chicken and egg theory.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:52 pm Are you saying all meanings are an emotional state

No, I said 'can'. For example, if someone was depressed for other reasons - PTSD, loneliness, having been reduced to poverty, neglect as a child and so on - this could lead to nihilism or other philosophical positions. The would mean, in those cases, that such a person might change philosophical position after meeting someone who they love and who loves the, or after therapy or.....etc.
I was not saying that this is always the case, just that sometimes a philosophical position can be a kind of facade, a universalizing of what seems obvious to an emotional frame of mind. But it need not be like that.

Please expand upon your chicken and egg theory.

Probably not the best analogy. I just meant that depression could be the chicken that lays nihilsim or it could be that nihilism is the chicken that lays depression. They may correlate but which causes the other is not easy to tell. And, they need not lead to each other since a nihilist need not be depressed and a depressed person need not be a nihilist.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:06 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:52 pm Are you saying all meanings are an emotional state

No, I said 'can'. For example, if someone was depressed for other reasons - PTSD, loneliness, having been reduced to poverty, neglect as a child and so on - this could lead to nihilism or other philosophical positions. The would mean, in those cases, that such a person might change philosophical position after meeting someone who they love and who loves the, or after therapy or.....etc.
I was not saying that this is always the case, just that sometimes a philosophical position can be a kind of facade, a universalizing of what seems obvious to an emotional frame of mind. But it need not be like that.

Please expand upon your chicken and egg theory.

Probably not the best analogy. I just meant that depression could be the chicken that lays nihilsim or it could be that nihilism is the chicken that lays depression. They may correlate but which causes the other is not easy to tell. And, they need not lead to each other since a nihilist need not be depressed and a depressed person need not be a nihilist.

Iwannaplato.

EXCELLENT!! Yes, philosophies often if not always reveal the person's bias or state of the philosopher's present emotional direction/vested interest. Emotions certainly color the individual's worldview. The meaninglessness of the physical world in the absence of a conscious subject however is not really debatable.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:13 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:51 pm
Again: we need a context.

Nihilism and meaning and antinomies in regard to what? to mathematics? to the laws of nature? to the empirical, material, phenomenological world around us? to the logical rules of language?

No, instead, assuming that 1] we live in a free will world and that 2] we accept that any answer we give can only be assessed given the existential parameters of Rummy's Rule, I focus in on the world of conflicting goods. On moral and political and spiritual value judgments that come to clash given human social, political and economic interactions down through the ages.

Nihilism then.

This antinomy:



Nihilism here.

Ok, we need a context! The question is what is this context? Any ideas? Your reasoning skills, by the way, are impeccable! Good for you!

As I said, "anyone else?"

But you didn't answer me question: what's the context in which ... whatever?