# Nihilism is a joke



## tetherisgod (Mar 27, 2018)

Hey guys, I'm new in the place and I'll be posting things through time. English is not my primary language btw, so please excuse me if I write mistakenly. First I wanted to talk to you about a theory that I'm thinking about. 

THE MEANINGLESNESS OF LIFE IS A JOKE: I mean, indeed the Universe does not have an inherent meaning as far as we know, but, I mean, have you ever thought if that really matters? Why would nature create species that worry chronicly to the point of sickness about it's inevitable dissapearance? 

I think that when we complain about life being meaningless we are really complaining about US feeling meaningless. And us feeling meaningless is in reality a symptom of our needs not being met, in this case psychologocal needs.

See, from my reading I've seen that there exist at least 4 core psychological needs: security, connectedness, autonomy and status. Absence of satisfaction in any of those will derive in compensation or feeling void. Therefore, I think this is the real cause of the meaninglessness feeling, not the lack of meaning of the Universe itself (which wouldn't bother us if we meet all our needs).

What do you think about it? Please tell me, I'll be glad to discuss this with you! Cheers.


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

First I don't think it's possible for any human being to have ALL their psychology needs met at one time. It's all slippery. When you get one need met another slips away, get that need back and then another slips away. And so on...
Or to get one need met you have to sacrifice getting other needs met.

Second, there is nothing to say that the universe and life itself MUST have meaning. It is only our own egos that demand that there must be a meaning to the universe.
So the big question isn't what is the meaning of life but rather why is it so important for us that life has a meaning at all?
The planets don't care, the trees don't care, the animals don't care, but we care!


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

nihilism is a logical construct, not a psychological one.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

We are far more mortal than we feel, and the universe is dark and evil(in the sense that it has no regard for the wellbeing of consciousness). Our personalities and stuff are the real joke; i've taken drugs that allowed me to experience such detatchment from the body/mind and realized more profoundly than ever how mortal we are, how small and fake our entire existence is. 

Our whole psychological complex/structure is just an illusion, our self identity is just a machine working away in which we are usually immersed in. It is not us, it is just an illusion that makes us believe we are some kind of special thing in which the universe tends to in one sense or another revolve around. 

We can cover up the universe and gloss it over with our psychological constructs but ultimately, in reality, we are nothing. We are just machines, just another animal.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> We can cover up the universe and gloss it over with our psychological constructs but ultimately, in reality, we are nothing. We are just machines, just another animal.


got that around the wrong way imo...


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Have you ever considered the fact that having all our needs met is impossible? Our most basic need is to simply exist wanting for nothing forever. That can't happen (as far as we know). 

No. The problem is humans. We're not supposed to exist. You nailed it right on the head when you pointed out that it's not natural for a species like us to exist. We have to be freaks of nature. There's no other explanation. Well, maybe there is but if there is, we don't know what it is.


----------



## Tetragammon (Jun 2, 2015)

Seems to me that human arrogance is the real problem. There has never been, nor will there ever be, any inherent "meaning" or "purpose" to our existence, but we're too self-important to accept that. Our capacity for higher intelligence and abstract thought is a double-edged sword because it also causes us to think that we're inherently "better than" every other form of life on this planet. We seem to have this inherent drive to ascribe some kind of meaning to absolutely everything -- which is pure folly. 

So I think that "us feeling meaningless" is a superfluous concept. We shouldn't need meaning at all; we should just accept observable reality as fact, reject everything else and enjoy our lives while they last. But the vast majority of humans seem unable or unwilling to do this. Our brains are too egotistical.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Tetragammon said:


> Seems to me that human arrogance is the real problem. There has never been, nor will there ever be, any inherent "meaning" or "purpose" to our existence, but we're too self-important to accept that.


 The most awesome fact of all is that most animals don't even need to try to find the meaning. They don't need to accept anything. They just exist and live and die and don't need antidepressants or clothes or anything else. If they did, they'd simply go extinct and that would be that.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

I actually like what Jordan Peterson said re nihilism crying.

If I understand it it is an argument from pragmatism, nihilism is quite hard to argue against, "there is no meaning", but when someone hammers a nail through your hand denying that meaning (suffering) is an impossibility. So it's something like, whatever you might think logically, you don't get the choice to opt out of suffering.

You can't escape to the magical realm where you don't suffer, and all nihilism will do is make you try to ignore suffering and ignore happiness (they aren't real, lalalala), but because you can't ignore suffering _at all_, it just puts you in a *stupid* place where you are suffering a whole lot more than you are being happy, _by choice_.

To use my favourite example: "I am a nihilist, so I will pass on the ice cream and please be sure to fill my scrotum with wasps".


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

So the life not having a meaning is meaningless?

Well. Can't argue with that.


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

So what, donuts solve the problem of meaninglessness? Nothing you said invalidates nihilism. Our evolution of "pleasure triggers" does not change that. It is completely separate from the fact of the universe. What happens in your brain when you orgasm is not meaning, and what you subjectively perceive as meaning is self-delusion.

You can coat your bull**** however you want. Psychological needs are not meaning, even if they give you said sensation.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> The most awesome fact of all is that most animals don't even need to try to find the meaning. *They don't need to accept anything.* They just exist and live and die and don't need antidepressants or clothes or anything else. If they did, they'd simply go extinct and that would be that.


But that's not true, though?






They have to accept many things.

For example: if they do not ACCEPT the fact that x thing is dangerous, they will be much more likely to die. (Is not learning, in general, accepting something?)
The meaning, in this context, probably means the human type of meaning. Which stems from a higher intelligence.

But I'm pretty sure that animals do have a meaning; the passing of the genes, living in itself (survival?). They don't necessarily ponder on the meaning (tbh, do most humans anyways either? Afaik a lot of people just live on their lives not caring about the reasons for doing so?)

Could argue against nihilism with humans, too: if there's no objective values, does that not mean you are completely free to create your own values? (If there were, you would not be free to do this?). Now, of course, there are premises for anything human and it's impossible to avoid that, but even when ignoring that point, nihilism is sort of silly.

Now, if one human creates a set of values, and you have, say, 10 people, and each create their own values.
They can create a hierarchical structure based on the overlapping of these values; compare this to for example western vs islamistic values.

On another note, I find it silly that nihilistic people aren't advertising for hedonism(well, they kind of are tbh), as that's the only logical conclusion for nihilism I can actually draw


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

Raies said:


> But that's not true, though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nihilism only seem "silly" because its one of the few beliefs that has no intention of stroking the ego. Hence it is of little use to the masses.

ALL humans are hedonists. Our entire existence revolves around attempting to be sated.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

funnynihilist said:


> Nihilism only seem "silly" because its one of the few beliefs that has no intention of stroking the ego. Hence it is of little use to the masses.


Okay.. Well the belief in itself is sort of paradoxical(the logical standpoint is not), which is why I view it as silly. I do find it to be a decent standpoint for thinking, as it offers an interesting point of view and food for thought.
About the ego stroking.. Well, whatever I guess.



> ALL humans are hedonists. Our entire existence revolves around attempting to be sated.


That depends on how you define hedonism. Usually, as far as I know, hedonism is less about satisfying needs, but more about satisfying desires.
Not being hedonistic would be to abstain from attempting to fill those desires for whatever reason.

Satisfaction(and pleasure?) is not always hedonistic in nature (for example accomplishment).


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

Raies said:


> Okay.. Well the belief in itself is sort of paradoxical(the logical standpoint is not), which is why I view it as silly. I do find it to be a decent standpoint for thinking, as it offers an interesting point of view and food for thought.
> About the ego stroking.. Well, whatever I guess.
> 
> That depends on how you define hedonism. Usually, as far as I know, hedonism is less about satisfying needs, but more about satisfying desires.
> ...


Whats so silly to say that there is no meaning in the universe?
Why do humans have this pathological need to find meaning in the universe? That is the bigger question. The universe is what it is, it's humans who can't accept that.
I say "pathological" because I think that this need for meaning has caused incredible unneeded human suffering.

Need and desire overlap. For instance food is a need but when does one pass from eating enough to fulfill the need for food without being considered a hedonistic glutton?


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

funnynihilist said:


> Nihilism only seem "silly" because its one of the few beliefs that has no intention of stroking the ego. Hence it is of little use to the masses.
> 
> ALL humans are hedonists. Our entire existence revolves around attempting to be sated.


Beautifully put. And that is true. Non-nihilists cant stomach the notion of being nothing, unimportant, an illusion.

And yes we are hedonists. If we aren't living for pleasure, then what the hell are we living for? Suffering? Lol.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

funnynihilist said:


> Whats so silly to say that there is no meaning in the universe?
> Why do humans have this pathological need to find meaning in the universe? That is the bigger question. The universe is what it is, it's humans who can't accept that.


Meaning is not the same as 'destiny', though (which I feel is something you try to poke at here?). "Why am I here?"
It is strange that you argue against people needing to find meaning, when you yourself can't seem to accept the fact that people don't need to have a meaning; they can create a meaning for themselves.

For example: In the future I want to help poor children to be able to have hobbies by providing free courses/training for them. Helping others is something that gives meaning to my life.
It is a meaning that comes from myself; because I think it is important, not because it is important in of itself (it is for some people, but objectively you could argue, it is not).

Meaning is the thing that drives people forward, not something godgiven. Also, there's a lot of psychological studies showing that it is actually quite important for mental health and happiness to find meaning. (For example a bunch of longitudinal studies in Sweden & Finland)
One performed in the university of Jyväskylä, for example.



> I say "pathological" because I think that this need for meaning has caused incredible unneeded human suffering.


Eh?



> Need and desire overlap. For instance food is a need but when does one pass from eating enough to fulfill the need for food without being considered a hedonistic glutton?


You don't need to be able to draw an exact line "where" to be able to point out that there's a difference, though.
Even if they overlap, it does not make anyone(nor everyone) hedonistic in their core.

*I can lift any amount of sand*



> Imagine grains of sand in a bag. I can lift the bag when it contains one grain of sand. If I can lift the bag with N grains of sand then I can certainly lift it with N+1 grains of sand (for it is absurd to think I can lift N grains but adding a single grain makes it too heavy to lift). Therefore, I can lift the bag when it has any number of grains of sand, even if it has five tons of sand.


Edit:

I probably could've been more clear in the first part:
The fact that there might not be any meaning to anything, objectively, does not mean that people shouldn't find meaning.
It is a hard thing to argue to either direction: technically, it does not matter whether you live your life in misery or glory. But then again, you could argue that it matters to the person choosing between living in misery or being happy. (Pretty much what splendidbob said?)

And this is where subjectivity comes into play. Humans aren't objective creatures, we're subjective. Trying to fit something objective to something subjective would prove quite difficult. (at least in this context)


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

funnynihilist said:


> Whats so silly to say that there is no meaning in the universe?
> Why do humans have this pathological need to find meaning in the universe? That is the bigger question. The universe is what it is, it's humans who can't accept that.
> I say "pathological" because I think that this need for meaning has caused incredible unneeded human suffering.


Because without meaning you would just sit there and die. Obviously you are going to get hungry, and hunger is a form of suffering which you can't avoid. If you truly believed there was no meaning, you just wouldn't bother to eat. when you eat (or do anything to survive) you _pragmatically_ concede that there is meaning in the universe to you (the alleviation of your suffering).

It becomes silly because you can't avoid this pragmatic acceptance of suffering, but you can avoid the acceptance of pleasure. So if you are a super duper nihilist (or a depressed person, same effect) you will avoid pleasure but won't be able to avoid pain.

It's _silly_ for pragmatic biological reasons. At least.



funnynihilist said:


> Need and desire overlap. For instance food is a need but when does one pass from eating enough to fulfill the need for food without being considered a hedonistic glutton?


The notion of "hedonistic glutton" is unnecessary. Overeating becomes a problem when the negatives outweigh the positives. The short term benefits of eating that piece of pie are less than the long term benefits of not eating that pie. There is difficulty in determining that point, certainly, but because the world is grey, and finding out how much pie to eat is _difficult_ doesn't mean you should eschew _all _pleasure (black and white thinking) and declare there is no meaning in anything, because you still will feel the pain and get none of the pleasure.

As an irrational actor in a world of incomplete information, you do the best you can to find happiness, that is the rational choice practically speaking. The difficulty doesn't mean it's rational to intentionally avoid pleasure and happiness (the practical effects of nihilism). It's voluntarily making your life ****tier and probably putting yourself into a state of depression.

What most nihilists on here tend to be (as I was) are depressed people caught trying to justify their inactions / inability to act. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just how I used to be. Depressed and unable to find a path to happiness, there is some comfort in claiming there is no meaning, at least then you can pretend it was a choice and have a feeling of control.


----------



## Maslow (Dec 24, 2003)

Raies said:


> Meaning is the thing that drives people forward, not something godgiven. Also, there's a lot of psychological studies showing that it is actually quite important for mental health and happiness to find meaning. (For example a bunch of longitudinal studies in Sweden & Finland)


Logotherapy is based on the importance of meaning in life. It was developed by Victor Frankl who studied prisoners in Nazi death camps while he was also a prisoner.

You can handle almost any amount of adversity as long as you have strong meaning in your life.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

the importance of nihilism to me was that it is against the elevation of any ideas as something special, and as something which is more than any other object of the senses. there is no Real Truth, just sense objects. nothing Matters so anything can matter. which is a fairly freeing notion.

of course nihilism is absurd. anyone who says they are a nihilist is absurd. thats fine. the thing in theory is different to the thing in practice. there's no need to invalidate people who feel and think a certain way. I don't know if there is any way to enact some ideology irl that isn't absurd. you can't birth your shiny logical ideas into the real world and expect them to stay shiny.


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

Lots to digest here in this thread.
Just a couple points. I often wonder if humans naturally have this insatiable desire for meaning or if it's something that has evolved over the years as way to benefit the greater good of society.
Isnt it odd that the popular ways that average people find meaning(family, career, etc) usually have the stamp of approval of society. In the past the same could have been said of organized religion.
There is an overarching notion that an individual cannot just "be" but rather that an individual must "do" and to attach meaning to their doing as a means to identify their place in the universe.
The house fly doesn't have this problem. It just is, it doesn't need to define it's existence at all. The nihilist attempts to be like the house fly as much as possible.
Of course there are limitations to this because we have all been subjected to programming since birth and hence we can never be truly free.
In such nihilism is more of an art to be practiced, it is not pragmatic, but then the universe is not pragmatic in the least.

Also there is a misconception that nihilists naturally have to be depressed people. All I can say is that I had depression before nihilism and I have it after nihilism. The difference is that with nihilism i realize that my depression really means nothing. I can be depressed all I want, the universe doesn't care, the world largely doesn't care. 
In many ways I find hope to be depressing because it's like a treadmill, it's always in the future, always in view, but never really here.
I see it as an illusion, a dream.


----------



## Eternal Solitude (Jun 11, 2017)

In all seriousness, nihilism seems just like any other philosophy/religion . The difference being that instead of seeking to transcend the human condition through metaphysics and asceticism it rejects all meaning... but if you look closer there is something very sinister lurking underneath this train of thought...

In the end it's all cope.


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Raies said:


> I probably could've been more clear in the first part:
> The fact that there might not be any meaning to anything, objectively, does not mean that people shouldn't find meaning.
> It is a hard thing to argue to either direction: technically, it does not matter whether you live your life in misery or glory. But then again, you could argue that it matters to the person choosing between living in misery or being happy. (Pretty much what splendidbob said?)
> 
> And this is where subjectivity comes into play. Humans aren't objective creatures, we're subjective. Trying to fit something objective to something subjective would prove quite difficult. (at least in this context)


Nihilism does not assert what humans should and shouldn't do. It does not say, "don't derive personal meaning in your life." It's the rejection of the claim that life has objective meaning. What you personally concoct in your head, and what your sensibilities say about morality and 'what humans should do' is not relevant. And whether the consequences of nihilism are negative or positive in your mind is not a refutation of its truth.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

Siegfried said:


> Nihilism does not assert what humans should and shouldn't do. It does not say, "don't derive personal meaning in your life." It's the rejection of the claim that life has objective meaning. What you personally concoct in your head, and what your sensibilities say about morality and 'what humans should do' is not relevant. And whether the consequences of nihilism are negative or positive in your mind is not a refutation of its truth.


You sort of get past my point; I understand what nihilism is about.

You could say, that nihilism in itself is either unnecessary or wrong, depending on your point of view. Quite simply put, because meaning of life is quite subjective.

(Hence: it is either wrong or then you are trying to implicit an objective meaning on something subjective; of course you can't do this..)


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Raies said:


> You sort of get past my point; I understand what nihilism is about.
> 
> You could say, that nihilism in itself is either unnecessary or wrong, depending on your point of view. Quite simply put, because meaning of life is quite subjective.
> 
> (Hence: it is either wrong or then you are trying to implicit an objective meaning on something subjective; of course you can't do this..)


Objectivity is wrong because humans are subjective? Again, I'm arguing in favor of observable realities and rationality, and you seem to be talking about pragmatism. "It would be better if us humans ignored this fact about reality, because it would inevitably serve us in some way.."

Don't share this opinion, as I regard truth more important than the preservation of humans even if it is our doom, which I don't believe it is.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

Siegfried said:


> Objectivity is wrong because humans are subjective? Again, I'm arguing in favor of observable realities and rationality, and you seem to be talking about pragmatism. "It would be better if us humans ignored this fact about reality, because it would inevitably serve us in some way.."
> 
> Don't share this opinion, as I regard truth more important than the preservation of humans even if it is our doom, which I don't believe it is.


Would be nice if you did not keep up with misrepresenting my point.

At no point did I argue against objectivity. Subjectivity and objectivity is not a duel between truth and untruth.

If you'd read any of my posts, ever, you would know that I'm quite far from being a pragmatist. You seem to be more so; you seem to want to ignore the subjective in the favor of the objective, when the objective is irrelevant.

Not always is rationality in the objective. Especially when dealing with the subjective. And it's a bit strange to say that something subjective isn't observable, in some sense at least.

As I mentioned before; You are trying to apply something objective to something that is not to be measured objectively; the objective can not define the subjective in this context.
You can not say that "there is no meaning of life", when the meaning of life is subjective.

"there is no happiness"

What is happiness objectively?
You can't measure happiness objectively any more than you can measure the meaning of life.

Would you claim that because, objectively, there is no logical grounds for happiness, happiness does not exist?


----------



## LightUpTheAzureSky (Mar 6, 2018)

I guess my mentality is a joke then, i tend to have nihilistic veiws on life.


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Raies said:


> As I mentioned before; You are trying to apply something objective to something that is not to be measured objectively; the objective can not define the subjective in this context.
> You can not say that "there is no meaning of life", when the meaning of life is subjective.
> 
> "there is no happiness"
> ...


The rest was fluff.

No, I would say happiness is an illusion created by your brain, just as meaning is. I never claimed the 'subjective' doesn't exist, but you must be able to separate between what illusions your brain generates to make you not get eaten by wolves and more fvckable, and what's observable objectively. You can say that it's true, subjectively in my mind that I am the son of god, and that it 'exists' in the universe. But again, that's silly.

I can say that there is no meaning to life *objectively*. And I'm not interested in a subjective answer to the question, as that is human conjecture. What you find meaningful is an illusion. If you are willing to self-delude for the purpose of 'feeling good', sure, I just don't possess that level of dissonance.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

Siegfried said:


> The rest was fluff.
> 
> No, I would say happiness is an illusion created by your brain, just as meaning is. I never claimed the 'subjective' doesn't exist, but you must be able to separate between what illusions your brain generates to make you not get eaten by wolves and more fvckable, and what's observable objectively. You can say that it's true, subjectively in my mind that I am the son of god, and that it 'exists' in the universe. But again, that's silly.
> 
> I can say that there is no meaning to life *objectively*. And I'm not interested in a subjective answer to the question, as that is human conjecture. What you find meaningful is an illusion. If you are willing to self-delude for the purpose of 'feeling good', sure, I just don't possess that level of dissonance.


The whole concept of meaning is human conjecture.
For you to measure it objectively, you'd have to have the human conjecture; you could not measure it before that (and if you could, you would sort of prove yourself wrong..)

If it exists solely inside a system, you can't really measure it outside that system, now can you?

That does not mean it does not exist within the system itself.

A contains B.
B contains C
If you can't observe C in A, does it mean C is not within B?

And No, nothing is stopping you from saying there is no meaning to life *objectively.*
I would like for you to point out where I claimed this was not the case, since it seems to be what you are arguing?

My argument was for the case that it does not matter; if that's not what you are willing to argue on, why are you picking my comments out?


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Raies said:


> The whole concept of meaning is human conjecture.
> For you to measure it objectively, you'd have to have the human conjecture; you could not measure it before that (and if you could, you would sort of prove yourself wrong..)
> 
> If it exists solely inside a system, you can't really measure it outside that system, now can you?
> ...


By this logic you could say that the concept of objectivity is human conjecture. We can go down this road, and I would be happy to concede that everything outside of your own perception is subjective -- no, even what filters through your senses is ultimately subjective, as they (your senses) are not reliable by themselves.

Speaking in these terms, yes, it is my subjective opinion that my perception of objectivity deems meaningfulness obsolete, as it is an illusion generated by the brain to, in some ultimate sense, propagate your genes. I tend to not follow the archaic and use what I can discern intellectually. Meaning is archaic and self-delusion; if you tell yourself there's no trees in the forest, you'll end up smashing into one eventually.



> My argument was for the case that it does not matter; if that's not what you are willing to argue on, why are you picking my comments out?


Yeah? I've been arguing that the objective is what matters.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

> Speaking in these terms, yes, it is my subjective opinion that my perception of objectivity deems meaningfulness obsolete, as it is an illusion generated by the brain to, in some ultimate sense, propagate your genes. I tend to not follow the archaic and use what I can discern intellectually. Meaning is archaic and self-delusion; if you tell yourself there's no trees in the forest, you'll end up smashing into one eventually.
> 
> Yeah? I've been arguing that the objective is what matters.


Yes; well you've mainly been able to show that it is objectively true; I haven't really seen arguments to support as to why you would try to objectively measure meaning of life.
(Or anything subjective, as it is not an objective reality; It's a subjective reality for which there isn't an objective answer)

It's like trying to measure distance in kilograms.

Edit: for your comparison of trees, you tree's differ in the sense that they are something that are objective.


----------



## Barakiel (Oct 31, 2013)

I want to reply directly to some of the posts in this thread, but the most I can contribute atm is a quote from Graham Harman -



> There's a more insidious form of human-centric ontology, as found in many versions of scientism. On the one hand, scientism insists that human consciousness is nothing special, and should be naturalized just like everything else. On the other hand, it also wants to preserve knowledge as a special kind of relation to the world quite different from the relations that raindrops and lizards have to the world. Another of putting it&#8230; *for all their gloating over the fact that people are pieces of matter just like everything else, they also want to claim that the very status of that utterance is somehow special.* For them, raindrops know nothing and lizards know very little, and some humans are more knowledgeable than others. This is only possible because thought is given a unique ability to negate and transcend immediate experience, which inanimate matter is never allowed to do in such theories, of course. In short, for all its noir claims that the human doesn't exist, it elevates the structure of human thought to the ontological pinnacle.


----------



## Barakiel (Oct 31, 2013)

Siegfried said:


> ...as it is an illusion generated by the brain *to, in some ultimate sense, propagate your genes.*


So you accept the existence of some kind of teleology in nature? Doesn't that restore a sense of meaning beyond the human?



> Yeah? I've been arguing that the objective is *what matters.*


As I understand it, in your scheme there is absolutely no objective basis in valuing Truth over, say, ones' own personal feelings.

I also don't understand how you can claim the experience of happiness to be an illusion. There is an experience whether you like it or not, and the very ability to have illusions presupposes intentionality.


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Raies said:


> Yes; well you've mainly been able to show that it is objectively true; I haven't really seen arguments to support as to why you would try to objectively measure meaning of life.
> (Or anything subjective, as it is not an objective reality; It's a subjective reality for which there isn't an objective answer)
> 
> It's like trying to measure distance in kilograms.
> ...


I'm not measuring meaning, I'm rejecting it. I don't believe it useful, and even if I did, I wouldn't be capable of self-deluding myself for a grander cause, as meaning is not spontaneous but contains rationale, unlike happiness, and I will always be able to rationalize myself out of delusion.



Barakiel said:


> So you accept the existence of some kind of teleology in nature? Doesn't that restore a sense of meaning beyond the human?


No. No in the same sense that the result of a calculator isn't divine, but the product of parameters set by an intelligence; an intelligence that in turn operates as a machine molded by natural selection. There is no purpose to it, but a function.



> As I understand it, in your scheme there is absolutely no objective basis in valuing Truth over, say, ones' own personal feelings.


No there isn't. It's my subjective opinion. I'm arguing in favor of objectivity on the question of meaning.



> I also don't understand how you can claim the experience of happiness to be an illusion. There is an experience of it whether you like it or not, and the very ability to have illusions presupposes intentionality.


Right, not gonna get into the semantics of the word 'illusion'. And I didn't deny the experience, I claimed it was generated without meaning, like meaning


----------



## Barakiel (Oct 31, 2013)

The reason I brought up your use of the word “illusion” - Alexander Rosenberg, in his Atheist’s Guide to Reality, literally denies intentionality and all meaning. His argument goes: A clump of matter cannot refer to, or be about, another clump of matter; therefore, the idea that you can think about anything, the idea that books or words are about certain things, are all illusions.

Would you agree? If not, how is subjective meaning possible in the first place?


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Barakiel said:


> The reason I brought up your use of the word "illusion" - Alexander Rosenberg, in his Atheist's Guide to Reality, literally denies intentionality and all meaning. His argument goes: A clump of matter cannot refer to, or be about, another clump of matter; therefore, the idea that you can think about anything, the idea that books or words are about certain things, are all illusions.
> 
> Would you agree? If not, how is subjective meaning possible in the first place?


Again, meaning is human conjecture. You assign meaning to the letters I'm writing because you draw from memory and experience. They have no meaning inherently, outside of human perception. And the meaning humans assign to them is in the strictest sense a biological process.

Meaning, in the religious sense is a sensation I know to exist, thus it can't be anything other than subjective. I don't see the issue.


----------



## Loner89 (Mar 22, 2018)

What i think about nihilism is that it basically does not make sense but as nowadays pretty much 99 % of advanced and civilized or elitistic civilization is influenced by same agendas you cannot escape current status que which has been actived for several decates. That is the reason why lot of people identifie themself as nihilists as they dont see their place on earth or community. But humanity itself yeah, its where we all came from and born so how could orgasm from same origion be hateful to itself?

I like the starter poster,

I would like to have intimidate voice call with him, 

check my other posts and contact me pls


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

Well I think anyway everything's a joke and nothings a joke at the same time, each on varying scales of severity based on "individuals" observations from their perception and experience of the time and place they were born, but if collective consciousness is a thing its all the same in the end anyway, we're feeding the same machine with our biomechanical properties ....now that's pretty funny :teeth


----------



## Peanutbutter Toast (Jul 20, 2011)

The way I see it is...imagine if there was once another planet out there, much like ours, in a distant part of the universe that we will never discover, populated by intelligent life much like Earth. And imagine that all life on that planet was somehow wiped out thousands of years ago, similar to how all life on our planet will inevitably be wiped out some day. 

Does anything that happened on that planet mean anything?


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

Peanutbutter Toast said:


> The way I see it is...imagine if there was once another planet out there, much like ours, in a distant part of the universe that we will never discover, populated by intelligent life much like Earth. And imagine that all life on that planet was somehow wiped out thousands of years ago, similar to how all life on our planet will inevitably be wiped out some day.
> 
> Does anything that happened on that planet mean anything?


it does mean something now that you're talking about it.


----------



## zonebox (Oct 22, 2012)

I often find myself in agreement with nihilistic people, the only problem I have is when people tend to drift off into the "I have the _TRUTH!!_" mentality, but that happens with every ideology or philosophy I think. Is everything ultimately meaningless, it beats me, it could be. Does it really matter if it is though?

I've never found an ideology or philosophy that fits my views completely. Whatever works for most people is fine with me, nihilists are pretty cool, they leave me alone for the most part. On the forums, we used to have people who would take a very nihilistic view of the world, post pictures of dying people in third world countries, but then they would somehow intertwine nihilism with some sort of divine sense of justice and often mix in words like "deserve" in their post.. I don't think a nihilist would think in terms of "deserve" or justice. Such concepts are ultimately worthless, especially in the context they would use them.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

I think the real joke is to view things with meaning. We are thinking creatures, "composed" of psychological constructs. We apply psychological constructs to everything in order to give the world around us a sense of meaning. Basically, we are literally living in an illusion. People, morals, souls, meaning, value, worth, etc, it is all an illusion. It is all chemicals and neurons in our brains. We attempt to convince ourselves into believing that we are the centre of the universe, but really we, are according to a cosmic standard, of no worth in my opinion. 
@Eternal Solitude
Nihilism isnt as bad as it sounds lol, i agree with this picture. We can still apply meaning to things, whilst being aware that any sense of meaning is most likely(by that i mean in the most likely case that there is no god or anything) an illusion, a construct of our minds. But nihilism isnt bad, it is just the correct perspective to view the universe from.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

zonebox said:


> I often find myself in agreement with nihilistic people, the only problem I have is when people tend to drift off into the "I have the _TRUTH!!_" mentality, but that happens with every ideology or philosophy I think. Is everything ultimately meaningless, it beats me, it could be. Does it really matter if it is though?
> 
> I've never found an ideology or philosophy that fits my views completely. Whatever works for most people is fine with me, nihilists are pretty cool, they leave me alone for the most part. On the forums, we used to have people who would take a very nihilistic view of the world, post pictures of dying people in third world countries, but then they would somehow intertwine nihilism with some sort of divine sense of justice and often mix in words like "deserve" in their post.. I don't think a nihilist would think in terms of "deserve" or justice. Such concepts are ultimately worthless, especially in the context they would use them.


To me nihilism doesnt mean to throw away values and to mentally dwell in some plane of pessimism and misery and worthlessness. Rather it is the realization that the world does not revolve around us and that any meaning we apply to things is an illusion, and that there is no point in feeling bad about things because on a cosmic scale they do not mean anything. Although this may not be the ideal nihilstic viewpoint, it is rather a perspective that combines the realization and acceptance of reality, with a more emotionally accommodating viewpoint that allows me to percieve some extent of meaning in the universe. We are very psychological creatures after all, and we can't just go entirely against our biological wiring/instincts.


----------

