nihilism

[Alexis Jacobi]

Someone has to hold God accountable for the mess he created.

All metaphysical systems that I am familiar with have to explain the World. That is, they have to reason out why it is as it is. A cruel place, a place where death captures all creatures, a place of tremendous fragility, and where random laws undergird the entire manifested world.

You could see it like you do — that you just wound up somehow in this tragical world. Yet really that view is debilitating and also offers little explanatory value.

That is why I think other interpretive systems always seem to seek the •error• not in God (the creator) but in man’s choices.

How, and why, did I wind up in this sphere of being with all its dangerous qualities? Did I choose this prior to incarnating? If that is so, then this is all a trial — or a school.

The Fall is a sufficient metaphor for errors-of-choice. It can be taken simply as a metaphysical proposition: once things were in order; then our choices screwed things up; and now my only purpose is and can only be restoration.

And there it is: a clearly defined path out of the gloom.

[Gary Childress]

Those who merely sit around and "blame God" are doomed to find out eventually just how wrong they were when they insisted they had no choice but to be who they were.

Someone has to hold God accountable for the mess he created. If you don't like it, then too bad. Why do you care how others relate to God?

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

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

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

[Gary Childress]

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

Let’s try something. We all agree, I suppose, that the manifestation of National Socialism and Hitler had much to do with political and social derangement. Or is my view too colored by the Jungian perspective?

If a nation goes crazy — if a leading elite steers the society to political madness — to whom shall we assign responsibility?

We can assign responsibility wherever we wish. I choose to assign it to the root cause, the creator of all that is.

[Immanuel Can]

Someone has to hold God accountable for the mess he created. If you don't like it, then too bad. Why do you care how others relate to God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexis Jacobi]

We can assign responsibility wherever we wish. I choose to assign it to the root cause, the creator of all that is.

That is an interesting, but also a consequential choice.

I am not sure I agree that the choice is “ours” in the sense you imply. But I do recognize there is a wide array of “explanatory pictures”.

The Fall being just one.

Note as well that though I assume you do not believe in a •creator deity• that nevertheless you seem to believe it should be blamed and taken to task. Much of your discourse is interwoven with a reproach of the supposed God (which I assume you do not believe is real).

The bona fide atheists don’t need to resort to blaming anything or anyone.

[Gary Childress]

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all make mistakes. We usually don't make them out of choice. I could blame myself for everything, however, suicide is not my thing. So buzz off.

[Gary Childress]

We can assign responsibility wherever we wish. I choose to assign it to the root cause, the creator of all that is.

That is an interesting, but also a consequential choice.

I am not sure I agree that the choice is “ours” in the sense you imply. But I do recognize there is a wide array of “explanatory pictures”.

The Fall being just one.

Note as well that though I assume you do not believe in a •creator deity• that nevertheless you seem to believe it should be blamed and taken to task. Much of your discourse is interwoven with a reproach of the supposed God (which I assume you do not believe is real).

The bona fide atheists don’t need to resort to blaming anything or anyone.

I'm agnostic. If others say there's a creator, then that's where I say the buck stops. If not, then it's fate. Can't do anything about either.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC wrote: Maybe they're not "misfortunes" at all.

I do not in any sense minimize the extreme difficulty and misfortune of mental illness. Nor of entire ranges of human tragedy.

I can say though that it is a valuable exercise to see misfortunes as opportunities. There is a branch of Christian-Catholic theology which chooses to see everything that happens to us as, ultimately, God’s will. Not brought about by God but rather allowed to occur.

Seen in that way, a misfortune can and often will open up into areas of growth and change, simply by accepting it as being, say, engineered by God.

C.f. Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence — The Secret of Peace and Happiness (Fr Jean Baptise Saint-Jure).

Naturally it requires “belief in” providence , which is a whole topic unto itself …

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm agnostic.

Said to be a variant term for an atheist.

Effectively the same.

[Gary Childress]

I'm agnostic.

Said to be a variant term for an atheist.

Effectively the same.

What does the term "atheist" mean to you?

[Immanuel Can]

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

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

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

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

We all make mistakes. We usually don't make them out of choice. I could blame myself for everything, however, suicide is not my thing. So buzz off.

Well, suicide is stupid, craven and permanent, so nobody's recommending that. And blame has nothing to do with it. This is about taking responsibility.

What you do instead is this: consider what portion of what happens to you could be the result of something you chose, did or caused. And then, stop doing, choosing or causing that. If you have means to do it, make the thing right. If not, at least you can stop perpetuating the thing, or take a new strategy in how you deal with it.

Whether it was a mistake or not...well, all bad decisions are ultimately mistakes. But yeah, we often make them out of choice -- if we have the courage to be honest with ourselves about that.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm agnostic.

Said to be a variant term for an atheist.

Effectively the same.

Only "said" by people who can't read morphemes.

A- + theos = no + god.

A- + gnosis = no + knowledge.

Thus, Atheism is definitionally the claim that no god(s) exist, and agnosticism is definitionally the claim that one does not oneself know whether or not there is any God or gods.

[Iwannaplato]

I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.
But a nihilist could allow his or her own nature to guide the way he or she lives. Much as we can, if we have the means, choose what ice cream flavor to eat. How we choose which people hang out with comes from our preferences, which we could call our nature. Here this nature is not opposed to nurture or dasein. Whatever led to you liking tough guys or goths or high risk sports or quiet evenings we can call you current predelictions your nature. And this nature can lead you to make choices and how you live.

So can reflecting on hasty decisions lead you to make choices and how you live.

Reflecting on any decisions, yes, sure. I'm not sure where the issue of hasty came from.
In regards to what I wrote, I was more or less suggesting feeling into oneself: what do I like/desire/prefer? What do I want? What do I value? That seems like the nihilist's base process to decide what to do.

[Iwannaplato]

I expect an honest nihilist to make up his own mind as to how to live a good and a happy life. An honest nihilist has no recourse to God or nature to decide how he or she ought to act.

It wouldn't be an 'ought' whatever the nihilist decides.

There are oughts that aren't moral oughts - practical oughts, in particular.

Yes. Though I think in these discussions, especially, perhaps in Iambiguous threads, it's probably better to say it a different way, without 'ought'. Ten pages later you could find out that one person means a moral ought - even though we're talking about nihilists - while the other meant the practical one. And then there are even gray areas, when giving advice. It's cold outside, you ought to wear a coat. That might depend on the values/goals of the person, whether they ought to, for practical reasons, wear a coat at that time. And it could go either way or be a mix of the two different oughts for the speaker. If you know the precise goal(s)/desire(s) of the other person, then it can be clearer.
I'd like to put out the fire in my car engine.
You ought to use the fire extinguisher in your trunk.

[iambiguous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point [mine] is that when the boss does fire you, is he or she able to provide us with an explanation that justifies it...morally? What is the truth here?

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

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

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

On the other hand.....?

The nihilists reject all moral positions.

So, calling oneself a moral nihilist is not a position? And this moral nihilist has no illusions whatsoever regarding just how problematic his own conclusions "here and now" are.

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

Well, if you argue that sans God there can be no objective morality, well, how would you go about demonstrating that? I flat out admit I can't demonstrate what I believe. But for the moral objectivists among us, they are either able to defend an essential -- universal? -- morality given a particular context or they aren't.

On the other hand, here we have this endless back and forth regarding whether someone has in fact actually succeeded in accomplishing this.

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

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