>>17261851 Everything we experience is the result of evolution, adaptation, natural selection, etc. And it can be quantified. You can now measure the emotions of a human brain. The electric impulses. The chemicals. Everything.
>>17261920 It really doesn't boil down to that at all anon, at least learn what nihilism means before you ask something like that.
Nihilism doesn't mean that we can't know anything, it just asserts that there's no grand plan, or fate, or anything else of the like. You could understand why things happen on a chemical level, for example, but you wouldn't assume that there's any grand design behind chemistry working to begin with.
Though certainly people throughout time have challenged social assumptions, the latest, greatest and most popular were/are the existentialist movement, which lead directly to nihilism by pointing out that while people claimed to support things like absolute, objective morality, no such thing could be discovered and that all ethical/moral/social codes seemed to be more or less arbitrary. People followed them, it was argued, through a mixture of social inertia, indoctrination and the general human bent for conformity. However, to really figure things out, and to have an ethical or moral code with any rational substance, one had to strip away the trappings of the local subjective dogma.
In some cases, people committed that first step but then never bothered with the rebuilding, concluding that any new ethical code would be equally arbitrary and meaningless. These are our nihilists.
The epistemological counterpart occurred subsequent to that, (more or less, there have again always been people who proposed that certain knowledge was impossible.) With moral absolutism tossed to the wind, the question for what knowledge was certain became more vigorously pursued and it was determined by most that absolute knowledge appeared impossible.
Now, some took this to an extreme. Some philosophies go so far as to suggest that all communication is a farce and that even this dialogue is just a sham, with no real information being passed back and forth between us at all; that the ability to verify knowledge is impossible. So in a sense, that's a wayward child of nihilism, not its predecessor.
However, most conclude, and indeed they must if they want to keep discussing the subject, that while certain knowledge is impossible, probable knowledge is not, and we can reach extremely well informed conclusions about what's "almost certainly" true. That's the current popular "learned" and popular state of philosophy today.
>>17262031 I see what you're saying, but honestly it just sounds like a lot of HOOPLAH to me. I feel like things only have meaning or value if they are validated by an ultimate truth. If you don't believe in an ultimate higher truth I don't see how these other "truths" can stand up on their own
>>17262064 Okay, so let's test the validity of your claim. I'll give you three hypothetical examples.
1. You're picking oranges. You have one orange in your hand now. You pick two more, and are holding on to them. Do you need some "ultimate higher truth" to exist for you to know that you now have "more oranges."?
2. You wake up for breakfast. You have the option of having a tall glass of orange juice or a tall glass of draino. Do you actually need an "ultimate higher truth" to decide you want the orange juice?
3. You and I are sitting at a table. There's a butcher's knife there. You have the option, naturally, of picking up the knife and stabbing me with it. I have, in the past, specifically expressed a desire not to be stabbed. Do you need an "ultimate higher truth" to make the decision not to stab me?
Or can you actually reach these conclusions on your own, with only relative knowledge and abstract, informed but uncertain conclusions? Because to date that, as near as we can tell, is all you or any other human ever has been using to make their decisions.
Also, inb4 (hopefully) that emotionally crippled little cretin rushes in here to scream, "My GOD is the ultimate truth GAWWWWWD MY GAAWWWWD." That idiot is just an immature and ignorant waste clinging desperately to the popular culture he's been indocrinated with because he's scared, literally terrified to accept he's made a mistake in his beliefs. No religious dogma isn't an ultimate truth, that's just a cheap lie those desperate for personal stability in their lives tell themselves and others.
>>17262112 >>17262117 Like I said, I get what you're saying. But how can anyone know what "truth" really is? It varies person to person. What if Im allergic to and don't like the taste of orange juice and I'd rather die so I pick the drano. (I know this is outlandish and seems unlikey but it's still possible) That would be the truth as I saw it. And no nihlist could tell me it's wrong because they don't believe in morality etc. so I would have no responsibility to live life.
I just think it's very weird and picky to just rule out some topics altogether from philosophical discussion
>>17262165 No, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But see how you were able to rely on and even explain the basis for your decision without appealing to an ultimate higher truth?
>>17262165 >What if Im allergic to and don't like the taste of orange juice and I'd rather die so I pick the drano. You and I have communicated. We have shared a personal truth. And we both understand it. Why is that not enough? Why do we need an ultimate higher truth to have done what we just did (hypothetically and literally!)?
>>17262165 >I just think it's very weird and picky to just rule out some topics altogether from philosophical discussion I absolutely agree, and definitely do believe everything should be on the table. That being said, there are some "advanced level" philosophies that can derail all conversation. The "no communication is possible" version of epistemology is one example. I mean, that's a valid possible argument, but what the hell's the point of having it? To debate, we must just accept certain conclusions, whether we've "proven" them or not. One of those conclusions, essential to conversation, debate and philosophy itself, is that knowledge is both possible and communicable. So it's not that those topics are off the table so much as they have to be wielded with especial care.
>>17262185 You make some sense. I just still think it's not good that someone who calls themself a nihilist comes into the conversation with an anti-moral and anti-spiritual bias. But I guess they have their own reasoning and steps they took to get there. I guess nihilism just isn't for me
>>17261920 >What nihilism really boils down to is that you can never TRULY know anything. That's "academic skepticism", to be distinguished from "pyrrhonian skepticism".
Whereas academic skepticism, with Carneades as its most famous adherent, claims that "Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. [...] According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. - wikipedia "Pyrrhonism"
I think you could call those positions Nihilistic - I wouldn't, but Nihilism is vague like that it depends on your value system. Christians say atheists are nihilistic.
>>17262031 >In some cases, people committed that first step but then never bothered with the rebuilding, concluding that any new ethical code would be equally arbitrary and meaningless. These are our nihilists. If you use it as an insult, maybe. That isn't how people like that self-identify, not in every case at least - and it's a misleading term in that it's defining it negatively - as if there's an absence of something which doesn't fit with the experience of all the people who reject "systems of value".
>>17262112 >Do you need some "ultimate higher truth" to exist for you to know that you now have "more oranges."? Yes, if there has to be something sustaining consistency of observation over time - or drawing a connection between your perception of reality and reality itself.
>>17263456 I'm saying who you label or see as nihilist is a matter of perception in the sense of nihilism as a "rejection of a held value" so christians see atheists as nihilistic, epistemological "believers" see skeptics as nihilistic, animists see materialist scientists as nihilistic etc. >>17261920 is referring to skeptics as nihilists.
>The philosophy isn't hard to grasp It wasn't ever specified which nihilism we're talking about - it's an umbrella term encompassing politics as well as the subjective aspect I described above.
>>17263471 And that's what I love about it; it gets to the details of reality without trying to morally objectivise everything. >>17263486 >it's an umbrella term It isn't. If the term is used pejoratively, fine, but there's an actual philosophy behind the term that's separate from the pejorative use of the term. This is a real philosophy that people actually believe in. The notion that pejoratives are at all relevant is entirely non-constructive to the discussion.
>>17263507 >It isn't. If the term is used pejoratively, fine, but there's an actual philosophy behind the term there is an actual philosophy of nihilism, but that isn't where the term nihilism comes from - it started as a political movement in russia. I'm not only talking about the pejorative use, that is a major issue of it as well but having read about the types and aspects of nihilism I think it's historically incorrect to present nihilism as a single, coherent idea.
mainly I object to labelling someone as a nihilist if they're a skeptic, either academic or pyrrhonian - nihilism implies a statement about absence of value in the world and a pyrrhonian skeptic wouldn't make that statement for sure and academic skeptics are at least ambiguous about where they stand (ie. "nothing can be known to be true including this statement").
The essence of my objection is that a method (skepticism) is being presented as a belief or value system (nihilism).
I still think it isn't clear what the OP is referring to - nihilism doesn't suggest "nothing can be known and quantified" if you take nihilism as only referring to moral value unless you see moral value as encompassing truth value (which I have some sympathy for).
>>17263550 Right. I guess my point is that the world in whole has grown past the idea of pejorative connotations and it really is pointless to bring it up. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your moral, political, or ethical opinions, but that they've been adopted by so many people that it really is up to preference whether anyone wants to subscribe to those old-world notions or not. It really doesn't matter to me what people say so long as they're not summoning demons of war.
OP didn't mean to be specific about the term, so it doesn't help to debate that either.
Moreover, this isn't a formal debate and it doesn't matter what OP intended. My opinion on nihilism is a distinct and separate proposition from anything OP might have posited. Mine is about the philosophy as a philosophy, not as a cohesion of interrelated events in and extending from Russia.
>>17262388 If I were thinking of solipsism, I would have said, "solipsism.' I am thinking of and describing nihilism.
>>17263465 No, that's not meant as an insult and I know people, personally, who have both employed that reasoning and embraced the title. And it does, by definition, describe the absence of something, belief in the value of ethical/moral/religious/social value constructs. But that's like saying atheism is the absence of the believe in gods, true but really just a clumsy rewording.
>>17263469 Really? I don't see either intuitive reasoning or "my eyes" as ultimate higher truths.
>>17263802 You're describing what of it you can comprehend. I beg to differ on the matter; to truly understand the nothingness of reality is entirely unintuitive and it's certainly not anyone's lazy "default" philosophy.
>>17263834 >you're just emotionally attached to the idea Damn straight. Luckily for me, you're nothing but a shitposter on 4chan and there has never been a way for your shitty opinion to matter when it comes to defining terms like "nihilism." I don't give a shit about you, just the appearance of your opinion. Alls I'm saying is that your opinion is shit. I don't really care to argue it if you're going to act as shitty as your opinion is.
Isn't it nice when we can put our emotions up front?
>>17263856 Then I'll continue to converse with people both willing and able to have polite, coherent conversations which are enriching to all parties, something that this thread fortunately has several of. Adieu, anon, adieu!
>>17263878 Cya around. I'll be the anon you have the most fun talking to when you exhibit respect for the feelings and opinions of others. I can't guarantee you'll feel very good about those other times though.
Though, I should probably point out that it's a bit redundant to announce that you're leaving a thread.
>>17263900 I practice reactive "fuck you"ism. Basically I treat people in the shittiest manner I can reasonably fathom as soon as they give me reason to do so. I don't have many opportunities to really practice it anywhere else, so I really appreciate shitposting culture. Basically I figure anyone using 4chan has already consented to shitty behavior, so it's just a matter of how they present themselves on a post by post basis. If they show respect, they get respect back. If they don't, they get instant karma. It really is a beautiful system in my book.
Maybe 'conditional respect' would be a better term.
>>17263929 Honestly don't give a shit at this point. >>17263930 Could be. Either that or your perception of other's states of being is warped such that someone who literally gives zero fucks triggers all the right things that are just on the periphery of what you can't decide about just yet.
>>17263945 i said "painfully close" for a reason. >as soon as they give me reason to do so >it's just a matter of how they present themselves >If they show respect, they get respect back >'conditional respect' you do not give zero fucks. you have invented a conditional moral code that you abide by when interacting with others. and the bedrock of your moral code is the purposive adoption of "giving no fucks" as a philosophy. so you're moralizing. and that's fine. it's actually what every human being on earth does. including me. but please remember that actively and consciously "giving no fucks" to the point where you have an internet conversation about it still counts as giving one (1) fuck.
>>17264030 The other anon stopped responding awhile ago.
It... It doesn't take fucks to post on 4chan. This really isn't some monumental or willful effort on my part. I get where you're coming from, but... Still, it feels a lot like zero fuck given to me. >>17264037 I'm not a nihilist. It's one of my favorite philosophies, but it only that. I don't actually take it to heart and I don't subscribe to any of the beliefs I think a nihilist should hold in order to be a nihilist. I'm more of a fan than anything else. >>17264046 Well, no. Again; I'm not a nihilist. I give lots of fucks about many things, but I wouldn't consider nihilism a form of giving zero fucks in the first place. What I give zero fucks about is this. This thread, you people. Your subjective impressions of me. There's literally no way for me to give a fuck if you have a proper image of me and my philosophy or not. It's not you who I consider my audience.
I give fucks about explaining my perspective, but it isn't for your benefit or the fucks you could give me back. I do it more or less because I have nothing else to do right now.
>>17264083 >not my audience >>17264106 >you implied that you were, and i quote, "someone who literally gives zero fucks." Yeah, I did do that. It's the image I was aware you would see. It's also mostly accurate for this thread.
>you can't have it both ways. The implication is basically that your impression of me has fuck all to do with my perspective. I can share it as far and as wide as I care to and nothing you do, say, or think will really matter or affect that in any meaningful way. It's hard to explain, but it's not for your benefit, even if you're the only people that will ever read it. Might be an irrational desire, I don't really know.
>>17264127 >your impression of me has fuck all to do with my perspective then either you're inept at communicating what exactly your perspective is or you're unwilling to do so. if it's for lack of an audience, i understand. but i am your audience now. so please tell me about your perspective. if you really have one.
>>17264162 Not really. If someone shows interest I pretty much feel obliged to share. >>17264160 Well the first point is that nihilism isn't a lazy lack of philosophy. Human consciousness tends a bit towards solipsism, but obviously most of us aren't solipsistic so we know there's a divergence there. We also have a strong tendency to think we exist, somehow. This automatically pushes nihilism into the realm of unintuitive philosophies. To say or feel that reality isn't made up of anything and that nothing is ultimately real is obviously false for a lot of people. It takes a strong background in logic to get to he point of saying nothing exists. You have to deeply understand logic to the degree that you can understand logic itself as nonexistent and go from there. It's certainly not an easy thought to come by.
I'm not sure I can explain why I'm a fan of it though.
I guess I just like the idea. It's attractive to me.
>>17264188 Nihilism doesn't say, "nothing exists." That's already been covered.
Also, logic can't result in that conclusion. Logic itself relies on things existing, including set rules. You're not actually an educated person. You're another kid passing off words you don't understand pretending to be educated. That's pretty fucking pathetic.
>>17264199 >That's pretty fucking pathetic. Sure, sure. Logic only exists after you've been taught formal reasoning. That's an argument you can convince me of on 4chan of all places.
No, actually. I spent a good while thinking about it and there's nothing wrong with asking, "What if logic didn't exist?" It turns out you can still think and reason when you take that hypothetical seriously, so that right there is direct evidence that logic doesn't depend on the assumption that logic exists. More abstractly, you can still *imagine* the space of possibilities that exists when logic isn't taken as an axiomatic form of existence. In mind's eyes and dreams we can imagine things that quite literally don't make sense, but are perceptible just as much as anything else we can imagine is. You can, by discarding axiomatic reasoning, imagine a square circle. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a thing your mind can do nevertheless.
If you're seriously going to sit here on /x/ and argue that ZFC is the basis of all logic, we're going to need to get into Godel territory. If you're as well studied as you think I'm not, you should know well what the incompleteness theorems actually mean. >>17264223 Depends. Does the word "phenomenology" appear to make sense to you? If it doesn't, we're probably too far apart cognitively for me to care to insist that I'm being genuine here. >>17264233 You overestimate the value of my personal time.
>>17264241 >No, actually. I spent a good while thinking about it and there's nothing wrong with asking, "What if logic didn't exist?" It turns out you can still think and reason when you take that hypothetical seriously, so that right there is direct evidence that logic doesn't depend on the assumption that logic exists. More abstractly, you can still *imagine* the space of possibilities that exists when logic isn't taken as an axiomatic form of existence. In mind's eyes and dreams we can imagine things that quite literally don't make sense, but are perceptible just as much as anything else we can imagine is. You can, by discarding axiomatic reasoning, imagine a square circle. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a thing your mind can do nevertheless. That's a pretty long winded way to say that you weren't using logic at all, just your imagination. But I guess when you're lying to everyone and pretending to have a strong background in "logic" it's hard to admit you didn't use it at all without looking stupid.
But you still admitted you didn't use logic at all and you still ended up looking like a fucking retard. Good job, shit brain.
Look, what you're doing? Waste of your life. /x/ gets five, six of you a week if not a day, teens and poorly educated 20-somethings who aggressively try to paint themselves as useless to excuse the fact that they are, actually, useless, but there's really no reason the rest of us should have to put up with bullshit this stupid and yeah, it's stupid. It isn't anything else, it's just stupid. So do you and us both a favor and go find something else to do with your time. I don't care how much it's "not worth," I'm not interested in any of your dumbass explanations which are drivel anyway, just fuck off.
>>17264256 I was and I wasn't. When you understand logic as a singular thing that can't be separated or divided, you can't really say whether a thought process is rational or not. When you polarize logic into truth and falsehood, you prevent yourself from thinking about greater algorithms and more complex axiom sets. It'd be less accurate to say I wasn't using logic while supposing about the implications of the nonexistence of logic because it was my intent to use logic even in that space of hypotheticals. You find that logic still works even when you suppose it doesn't exist, it just stops following the same rules.
I guess if I say "I was and I wasn't" you'll try to put that notion itself in a Boolean box, and that'll be a fallacy on your part. I was using logic while posing this hypothetical to myself, period. If you must try to force it into binary terms, I was using logic even while supposing logic didn't exist. It's completely untrue to say I wasn't using logic at any point.
I dunno I guess it seems to obvious to me that the world is so full of gradients that you seem retarded to me if you think logic is restricted to binary logic. You'll seem doubly retarded for being unable to grasp the idea that truth and facts aren't matters of black and white, and much as I'd like to say you're triply retarded to try to call me out the way you have, I don't actually believe that. Your ability to understand me isn't greatly affected by how much faith you place in my capacity to process abstract logic and reasoning. I can only honestly insist that you're doubly retarded; once for not getting it and a second time for not getting it when I rephrased it to emphasize a different axiom.
But then, I guess there's nobody to respond to me anymore. Oh well.
>>17264304 What did I just say? I said fuck off. I don't want to hear your rambling bullshit. You've already been caught in several lies and hypocrisies. I've looked over everything else and it's just long winded drivel. You're a stupid fucking kid putting on airs because your life sucks. Get the fuck out. You're fucking useless.
Fuck off and, if you have a moment to spare, fucking kill yourself.
>>17264241 >we're probably too far apart cognitively oh sweet jesus if only you knew
i'm not arguing against nihilism or solipsism. i'm a committed solipsist and nihilist, and an arrogant one to boot. i would just like to know who posited that reality's inability to prove itself as real invalidates the art of logic. logic isn't a philosophy. it's a methodology. even if you think the universe exists just to fuck with you (as i do) you still have to arrive at that conclusion using logic. on a lot of levels, it's all we have.
>>17262117 You can be polite in dismissal of religious dogma but you don't need to be a cunt about it. Attacking the notion of God makes you look weak and makes atheists look like red pilled trash. Learn to reject without sounding like a child if you want to be taken seriously. Inb4 religious fag. I'm not religious, I don't follow a faith just someone who knows how to argue better than you.
>>17264338 Whoever I responded to literally did you retarded cluster fuck. Learn to fucking read, get an education, just do something other than do whatever the fuck it is with your piss stain of a life.
>>17264353 No they didn't. They called out that one idiot christian that runs around here screaming LORD over and over and pointed out religious dogma isn't an ultimate truth. Religious dogma isn't god you absolute fucking moron.
Seriously, you're bragging about arguing "more better" than people/ You can't even fucking comprehend what people are saying. You have shit for brains. Now get out.
>>17264354 Nihilism may well be true. There's no evidence of objective moral or ethical value in the universe.
When I say that I find nihilism lazy, that isn't to say that i find it wrong. Ultimately, logically, it's difficult to demonstrate logically that any human value has value beyond subjective emotional desire. At best we can cast blame for a little bit of it on biological imperatives thrust on use through evolution , but even that is something we can choose to abandon in value.
I, personally, have an ethical code, but I'll be the first to admit that it relies on subjective values i have, like concluding that human quality of life is a "positive" value. The only distinction is that many other humans at least claim to share it. But if a nihilist were to call it arbitrary or subjective, I'd have a hard time demonstrating them wrong, logically.
At best, I could claim that I use it as a pragmatic license to sponsor my own quality of life, kind of a social contract sort of thing. But then it isn't ethical, it's just self serving, pragmatic bargaining.
>>17264313 >What did I just say? You said you failed to comprehend my reasoning entirely. I don't really care to mince it some other way. That's all you said to me. >>17264314 Then he's not my audience. I don't care how many people fail to get it; if there's one anon that gets it, they are my audience. >>17264325 That makes is clearer. You're actually operating in a pretty lucid way. I fumbled to explain it myself because I've lost sense of what people think logic is. It's been a very long time since I thought of logic as something other than a methodology. Right now I literally have no reference frame to understand how logic could be called a philosophy.
>on a lot of levels, it's all we have. That's what OP was trying to get at; that's not all we have. Nihilism can actually be seen as an amazingly spiritual philosophy because it states that existence itself is paranormal at every point in its continuity. As a nihilist, as OP implies it, you have access to pure perception and purer form of amazement than any other philosophy could ever naturally experience. I'm not sure myself where to draw the lines of what's logic and what's intuition, but I don't see logic as fundamental to any part of reality and I haven't done so for a very long time. I don't actually know if I'm still sane right now. I can assume that I'm not based on my apparent willingness to consider that I might be, but I don't immediately know how well I can trust that logic.
I dunno I guess I'm not good at explaining beauty. >>17264346 I don't see why you would. All things are equal in their ability to be said to be nonexistent. >>17264368 Man what happened? Your posts used to be pretty decent. Now you're pissed at me and you're flying off the handle at that anon. What gives? >>17264376 >pragmatic bargaining That's a nice word combination. >>17264392 Only a few of the shills are actually that primitive. Most of them actually understand real subterfuge.
>>17264421 I have a pretty good sense of the various motives that fly across this board. I can't identify all factions with 100% accuracy, but I can tell when they finally come forward and express themselves in the direct tone. It's generally pretty interesting stuff when they finally put themselves to saying it out loud.
>>17264399 >You're actually operating in a pretty lucid way. lol tell me something i don't know.
you know that shitty old meme that goes like "insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results"? well that's super hilarious and all, but the joke is that doing the same thing twice will logic is all we solipsists have in this reality. if things don't work any conclusions about a super-system that might govern reality and logic have been drawn through logic that's why that one post was funny. "did the guy who invented logic use logic?" fuck yeah he did lmao
Thread replies: 97 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 461628
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.