>>7547549 Nihilism should make them not anxious though, right? I mean isn't anxiety mostly about worrying about things? So if you are nihilistic you realize the worrying about stuff is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
>>7547576 Making sense is not a priority when it comes to belief systems for most people. It needs to make enough sense enough not to lead to noticeable cognitive dissonance of course, but for most people pick and choose half-hearted Christianity or something like that is more than sensible enough. Their 'comfy beliefs' needs are higher than their 'coherent beliefs' needs.
>>7547633 >it's the most logical belief system I really don't think nihilism constitutes much of a system nor does it have much to do with logic. Logic is the study of truth preserving relations among propositions. It can ensure a true conclusion, but only if you star with true premises. Logic only preserves truth if it's given truth by an "extra logical" source. I'm actually not sure what you mean by "logical". Do you mean sound?
>>7547671 Try never, why do you think at some point everyone will just suddenly stop caring about life? Humanity is not a single life form but a multiude of unliminted people all living their own 'unique' lives.
Everything wants to live, no one really wants to accept that life is nothing.
If everyone where to be a nihilist I envision the entire populase an-heroing.
>>7547720 >not be violent, be reasonably educated, and want to help people.
This is all well and good, but it's not applicable to every situation. Let's say that you get confronted with no other way out of a situation but using violence, if you throw down your life you fail as a living being, but suceed as a 'human'.
What's better, being alive or being dead?
How do you feel about Alien life? What if we were to encounter a species which literally cannot feel compasion, or empathy. How are you going to deal with that entity?
>>7547260 OP I can only answer for myself, but personally I find nihilism immensely boring.
Existential nihilism is obviously true; that's not to say it's objectively true, I'm not dumb enough to say something like that. But today, in our culture, with my knowledge, etc, it seems obviously true.
It's also ridiculously reductionist. Okay, great, nothing MEANS anything good job. It's like the STEMkid who realizes his brain is just atoms which obey physical laws- yes, alright humans are deterministic objects but that's true at a level BELOW these other truths. Determinism doesn't tell you how to regard the relationship between language and qualia. Nihilism doesn't tell you what makes a man an individual. You're looking at a film and dismissing it as nothing but photons and pressure-waves; you're focusing on the atomic facts so closely you can't see the pattern they make.
Maybe the pattern isn't objectively, autistically true in the same way. But it does have the benefit of being at least slightly interesting.
Nihilism is, for me at least, clearly a true DESCRIPTION of existence at the LOWEST LEVEL.
But if you aren't interested in getting at least slightly abstract- if you aren't interested at all in PREscription? You aren't saying anything interesting at all beyond 8th grade.
>>7547933 Not religion, but the denial of the existence of God(s). There are atheistic religions.
Nihilism, when used in this colloquial sense, almost always means the lack of meaning/value in the universe. Note this isn't just rejecting 'objective values' but values altogether---subjectivism/relativism isn't necessarily nihilistic. In its academic usage, it generally follows a subject to express denial of the existence or possibility of the subject's primary object (e.g. moral nihilism, epistemic nihilism). It's not commonly used, however, and people opt for more better defined and precise terms, like error theory for ethics.
>>7547779 >>7547787 >>7547797 I hate it when I put in the effort to write a good post about my real thoughts and the only (You)s I get are halfwits whose posts appear to be just the bare minimum required by 4chan to let them play the game where you have to click all the cakes.
>>7547962 Some people would argue that, but a large majority of philosophers and people who study philosophy would not. Some of those think we can have objective values without God, others that values being subjective/relative doesn't make them any less 'real.'
>>7547573 Evolutionary selection is not the basis for why people hate things/dont hate things, for example: sex. Sex has a history of being frowned upon by many of the more prudish cultures in the world, but its the core activity of natural fitness.
>>7547308 I don't. People are taught from day one that their life has meaning, and they grow to interpret the meaning of their life as their own personal value. When people are told their life has no meaning, and consequently no value either, they kick into denial mode. No one wants to be worthless, which is what nihilism seems to imply.
>>7547887 Height does matter, in fact even the jump from 5'10" to 5'11" makes a significant difference in the number of girls who find you attractive at first sight, and first impressions are pretty important at capturing their attention in the first place. >>7547936 They actually don't, at most a small percentage only care about girth and that's for one night stands, it's really all about skill and stamina.
>>7548116 It's obvious this thread's filled with teens who just read the Wikipedia article on it and glossed over the history of Nihilism, and how one of the first people to go in-depth about BTFO it right after fleshing it out. Just look at >>7547722 >Research lol it's so fucking obvious And the space pic? Typical """""deep""""" pic that's always used when said teens make threads like this because they're too stupid to read the source materials and expect /lit/ to spoonfeed them
>>7548259 I had to take a quick look at some other threads to double check whether /lit/ is always this stupid and I just never noticed. Thankfully this thread does seem to be full of teenagers- should have known from the awkwardly phrased OP.
>>7547979 Well, I'm a subjectivist myself, and while I do think error theory and especially emotivism (basically the closest things to 'moral nihilism') are pretty strong positions, there are some good arguments against them. Even a couple for moral realism are pretty substantive.
>>7548046 Yeah, because moral thought never had an effect on the world. Yikes.
>>7547739 >I didn't experience what happened before me No, you don't remember it. But what you remember is determined by your physical brain- you can hit your head and lose some memory. You can get drunk and fail to create a memory.
You still experienced those moments, though. They were completely real to you while you lived them, you just don't remember them now.
What if the object of "experience" persists before and after the brain that stores thoughts and feelings and memories? What if you DO still exist before and after death, you just exist as a moment-to-moment present tense singularity experiencing nothing at all?
It's not an idea our grammar handles well. But that has nothing to do with whether it could be true.
>>7548291 Well, I'm a moral subjectivist from a continental angle, aka Nietzsche/Ortega. One's Will is one's Truth, etc etc. So you won't be convinced on anything I say about that.
But as for moral realism, the most convincing argument IMO---most people would say 'intuitions' are the best evidence, but I disagree---is Cuneo's 'normative web.' To begin, I believe the best point against moral realism is how metaphysically queer it is. That is, how bizarre is it for some 'moral fact' to exist. How could this be? No one's ever properly interacted with a morality particle.
So Cuneo brings up the point of epistemic norms/facts, or facts about some thing with such property of 'rational,' 'justified,' 'irrational,' 'misleading,' etc. Most people would be a realist about the existence of these kinds of facts. Yet, are these norms not ontologically similar to moral norms? What robust reason do we have to consider them relevantly and substantially different in their existence? We don't consider epistemic norms to be metaphysically queer at all, therefore we ought not consider moral norms metaphysically queer either.
Sorry if I'm writing poorly, I'm high af right now. See here for more info: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23575-the-normative-web-an-argument-for-moral-realism/
"You," as in the thinking and feeling and experiencing entity, are created by the brain. The brain doesn't just store things, it generates the capacity to process them, and that capacity is what you consider to be your "self."
>>7548341 I'm glad to hear you've solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness, anon. Let me in on the secret, what allows your brain to experience the results of its calculations while a computer just dumbly moves with no sentience?
>>7547975 Why would you assume that people would be so absolute in their devotion to Nihilism? I guess there is no TRUE nihilist, but thats retarded in and of itself.
>>7548046 >Assuming that Nihilism is the end all be all Morals can be self defining, just as Nihilism defines the worth of morals as worthless other such followings can define worth in other ways. It's not wrong, there are only perspective truths... isn't that a Nihilist teaching?
>>7547715 >Assumptions made by nonempirical data can be disputed by assumptions made by nonempirical data Poor approach considering you rely off of the idea that validity is measured in empirical data, or at least its implied to be so
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.