Nihilism is not inherently bad. Some may see existential nihilism as undesirable when it leads to unproductive lives.
Nihilism can actually enable a positive experience and a positive outlook on life because you can create your own purpose and meaning - it need not be divinely ordained.
Your actions can remain powerful you can make your own path while holding nihilistic beliefs. nostr:note1rfta6nk24tdavvl22tsx438tcg0fgg5jqhdfkvrru7yxsptu8eaq6wn3ng
Also it’s important that hodl bloke has people he can moan about online..
I believe you mean existentialism, not nihilism.
Nihilism despairs of any meaning to existence, whereas existentialism decides meaning.
Yeah maybe you’re correct 👍
I always thought there were one and the same but seems not so.
Interestingly, Wikipedia does not mention despair as a requirement for defining nihilism, though it’s commonly implied. Maybe I’m not wrong after all.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nihilism
Try studying a word's etymology to understand it better. Modern definitions (e.g., Wikipedia, dictionaries) sometimes skew word meanings to better fit prevailing (secular) ideologies.
In this case, I think nostr:npub1nf9vm6uhs4j7yaysmjn9eqlf7et5t6hvrkdqgpd995vcc9yfjyas0pxa3x is right. “Nihil” means “nothing at all.” I think it’s correct to say Nihilism necessarily contains despair because there is no hope for any meaning.
Nothing does not mean no hope and despair.
Re-read that sentence. If there were hope, then there wouldn't be nothing; there would be something. Nothing can only be the absence of things.
If there is nothing, what are you hoping for?
Now I have to research “hope” 😆
Ok I’m not going to.
Absence is nothing. Hope is something. Is there no neutral state?
I think it's pretty binary: there is either something or nothing. 😄
To be fair, the path from rejecting Nihilism to accepting God is missing a step (i.e., existentialism). But I think it’s pretty easy to show that Nihilism doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. At the very least, if it’s true, there is no point in doing anything, so it’s impossible to have an optimistic or productive worldview.
I reject the idea that it’s impossible to have an optimistic view if there’s no point to anything, quite the opposite. But it seems this is existentialism so you are correct and I’m using the wrong terminology.
I'm a father and find optimism mandatory, if I thought there was nothing but shit for my daughters when they grow up it would drive me insane.
Of course. But I don’t see how it relates to what I said.
I was just confirming the idea that it's not impossible to hold an optimistic view if there is no point to anything..
Ah ok. 👍
I'm sorry to be pedantic; to clarify, I think you mean that there is no *objective* point to anything, but there is a *subjective* point; therefore, there is a point to our existence (which refutes Nihilism).
Aside: This is why definitions are important. It's easier to say there is no point to anything when what is meant is everyone determines the point individually because the latter sounds self-ish (which it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong!).
Existentialism argues that one's existence precedes essence, making the individual the author of meaning. To refute existentialism, one has to make the case that essence precedes existence (i.e., humans are made in the image and likeness of God).
One argument is, can we say something is objectively wrong, and therefore, its existence is contrary to an essence that preceded it? An example would be someone like Hitler or an action like rape. Some existentialists will bite the bullet and say we can't objectively say those things are bad. Others will rely on some collective utility to say those things are bad (which, in my opinion, at a minimum, undermines the theory if not outright refutes it).
The theist would then say that since we can say things are objectively good or bad, this leads to nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs ‘s statement, “You're meant for greater things.” The debate then continues about what is good and bad and what those greater things are.
I'm not trying to bait you into a debate you don't want to have. I'm just trying to briefly outline the classical arguments to show why I think the OP is right.
I've typically found that the people who are most hostile to the idea of the subjectivity of meaning, "optimistic nihilism", and self-determination typically have strong judeo-christian views and values. And they reflexively kick back against the creeping in of the idea that an individual's life can be meaningful without their god involved. ...After all, "meaning" is the last defensive structure god has to hide in in modernity.
It’s almost a spin to make common religions look positive while lacking those beliefs somehow must mean despair.
🎯
Does this subjectivity of meaning have any limits, in your view?
What happens if I derive meaning from kicking puppies, and your meaning comes from rescuing puppies?
What do you mean "what happens"? We'd be in conflict, I suppose. And many puppies would get hurt, which I find appalling.
Personally I have extremely strong views regarding "which varieties of activity and meaning-making are better or worse" (which mostly come down to the creation or reduction of suffering), but my view of ethics/morality are a "me thing" and have no bearing on whether or not you derive meaning from an activity. Am I going to try and stop you if we're at odds? ....that's a very complicated question :)
It’s a trick question. Yes meaning is subjective. Some people may actually feel they are leading a meaningful life kicking puppies 🤷♂️
Why is that’s concern to subjective nature of meaning? It’s not.
You have a biological imperative to reproduce but beyond that nobody can define what it means to have a meaningful life - that’s up to the individual.
The thing is, these are precisely the kinds of questions we need to think about if we want to have a peaceful society.
To what standards ought we to expect everyone to adhere as a member of a shared civilization? What happens when those shared standards conflict with an individual's conception of meaning?
That’s why we have laws.
Isn't that an external standard that inhibit's man's search for personal, individual meaning?
Oh yeah. If I want to do shrooms to find myself but it’s illegal then yeah.. it inhibited my search 😆
Also community. A stronger community ideally places constraints on bad actors in the community before the state gets involved. Without community self regulation, more things fester in the dark.
To speak to your point nostr:nprofile1qqs8qy3p9qnnhhq847d7wujl5hztcr7pg6rxhmpc63pkphztcmxp3wgpzemhxue69uhkwun9v4h8xmm4dsh8xurpvdjj7qgswaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6mmd9uq35amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3ww35x2umpd4jkxct59e5k7tckquc5r, its constraints everywhere. Just because the mouse dopamine button exists doesn't mean that it is always right.
Meaning is collective at all scales, its not just about the individual. Our microbiome influences our mood, signals us through cravings of what to eat to help our gut biota continue to persist - biota that thrives on sugar will tell us to eat sugar but as a collective organism can choose against that and fix our diet, just as a society can put constraints on an individual who finds meaning from kicking puppies.
I wonder if one could make a biological case for natural law. The needs of biological systems impose constraints, these aggregate at various levels, and at the highest levels they become principles we ought to use to guide moral actions.
The key here is signaling+ communication across multiple scales; a sort of fractal communication that has a gradient of influence across the system. A "governmental system" with effective communication and signaling with those that occupy its domain should in principle be productive, but at the scale our societies exist, especially in large cities we just haven't found an effective way for this type of communication. They try to __govern__ and we just end up with one system imposing constraints on another without feedback based upon what one system values.
The principal of subsidiarity comes to mind. Concentrate power and decision-making at the lowest possible level. Then the authority with competence to solve a problem is also the one most in touch with the people and circumstances involved.
This also addresses the communication problem, because it keeps the chains of communication short and the networks small in most cases. For larger issues, subsidiary agents can communicate to solve problems, creating a "network of networks."
It seems to resemble the biological systems you write about.
yes!
You presuppose everyone wants to have a peaceful society _and_ you presuppose that everyone should necessarily be forced to agree with everyone else.
The only societies you can have that respects everyone's individual self-determination are entirely voluntary ones. The standards are set by the members (through self determination) and those who don't agree to the standards are invited to Exit to another society that fits them (or start their own).
You either consent fully (including trade-offs that you consent to) or you're being coerced. I abhor coercion.
I'm not convinced that there is any such thing as a wholly voluntary society.
If one wanted to leave society altogether, where would one go?
I more or less fully agree with this:
Oh, gotcha!
My one quibble, then, is that I don't think even subsidiary societies are entirely voluntary. We can't choose where we are born, or to whom, or in what socioeconomic conditions, yet those have a dramatic influence on our development and our relationships within society.
Subsidiarity helps people choose what is best for them in matters of shared concern, but I don't think we can escape the fact that there *are* always matters of shared concern. No man is an island.
humans, and many other species of all kinds, down to the smallest, exploit the principle of vires in numeris
freedom is not an absolute, it really is literally "axes of freedom" as in engineering
freedom is on a scale from completely involuntary, to completely unpredictable and unhinged
the very expression "unhinged" itself hints at the semantics of the word freedom, in that something that is without any bindings is dangerous
the central problem with this and one that makes intelligence also a liability in broader society is that the less degrees of freedom you can comprehend, the more likely you are to support a politician campaigning to reduce the degrees of freedom in the society
this plays a part in the discussions of things like drug and sexual subject matter as well, in fact, you can almost say that "left" and "right" are defined by their standpoints on this, but that polarity can be easily flipped around to support the current thing and the established authority
that's why the political leanings graph is important and why the mainstream doesn't want it to become widely acknowledged - they depend on being able to flip everything around at that boundary
I would love to comment, but how can I when meaning is subjective? Actually, how can we communicate at all without objective meaning? Spoiler: We can't.
It’s actually difficult to find subjective meaning in language. Even the word meaning has du
Different meanings. Kid is jumping on me
I think you meant to say, "It's actually difficult to find *objective* meaning in language." As for different meanings of "meaning," that can't be subjectivity. There's a finite number of legitimate meanings for any given usage. To suggest otherwise is to devolve into the nonsensical. For example, I think you would agree that the word "meaning" cannot mean "pink unicorn."
You're talking about free will, not meaning.
They're closely related, but not identical in important ways.
Even if free will is completely illusory (which I more or less believe it is. or at least "a nonsense concept"), you could still have subjective meaning - and you can still communicate (as evidenced by the fact that we are doing so).
Not sure I follow. How are you defining free will?
Hard disagree.
