Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Doesn't nihilism make the most sense.

  1. #1 Doesn't nihilism make the most sense. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1
    I believe in no right or wrong, but in cause and effect. We live a life entirely on how we perceive, we label things, we manipulate things, carrying on from previous event and influences. Time and space is how we perceive it, but doesn't mean it inherently exists. What we see around us, how are we so sure we're not illusions, I mean even delusional people are so sure, so why can't we be as well, I don't even think existence exists, only the label. Discuss...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Doesn't nihilism make the most sense. 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure-Nihilist
    I believe in no right or wrong, but in cause and effect.
    I don't understand how the second part of that statement relates to the first. I read it and get the feeling you believe you are right about part II which I think contradicts part I of the statement. Perhaps you are better off just announcing the first part and letting it go at that.

    I believe you meant to say no right and no wrong, am I correct? Everything in my first paragraph is relying on that. If not then part I is redundant as no right or wrong pretty much mean the same thing. If you believe nothing is right then part II of your statement is wrong.

    Please clarify. Is there a better way to explain your stance?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Doesn't nihilism make the most sense. 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure-Nihilist
    Discuss...
    What's the point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    In the words of Walter Sobchak:

    "Nihilists? Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos."
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Doesn't nihilism make the most sense. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure-Nihilist
    Discuss...
    What's the point?
    You beat me to it, but I don't care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    There is no position so ridiculous that it has not been held by some philosopher. Cicero
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Really? There's no fucking point in anything that's discussed on this forum. Value is given subjectively to each subject, each topic, each item, each idea, each conversation, each thread. How about it, if someone interested in Chemistry, who holds no interest in Astronomy, post some asinine comment in the Astronomy & Cosmology subforum, "Why should I care? I don't give a shit about black holes."? Does the arrogance that floods and inundates the other forums spill over into those deemed "less worthy" by some?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You beat me to it, but I don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    What's the point?
    The others aren't quite as direct or actually participate in discussion. Those of you that I have quoted, especially, contribute nothing in this thread. Why post here? If you don't care, move on. Why is it so hard to do so? Instead, you go out of your way. For what, the fact that you're irritated by the thought, "I don't care about this"? I'm more annoyed by the fact that you all went out of your way to make such empty posts than you were bothered by this thread, I'm willing to bet. I see this far too often than I care to. My message, at least, has purpose. Yours does not contain anything that remotely resembles usefulness.

    Anyway, Nihilist, I'm with you on the notion that life is entirely what we perceive it to be, labels especially (for me at least). The fact that the visible world could be illusion, though, I'm not with you there. That starts to sound like one of those weird scenarios where we're just a brain in a vat that supplies all necessary nutrients, and impulses are supplied by wires that generate the experiences that we perceive. I concede to the senses that the physical world exists as we sense it. The probability that the world "isn't what it seems" as far as our interpretation of the essence of what is physically present is highly unlikely. The labels, as far as what that physical things that you perceive actually are is a totally different matter, though. For instance, the thing that I'm sitting on could be considered, could be called, could be perceived as a "chair", but is this an objective truth? Is the "chair", what we consider it to be, an objective truth? The "chair" could be a home something. In that case, it would not be a chair...for sitting on. It would be a home.... for living on, or under. So, what is it? Is it a chair or is it a home? These are the questions I apply to labels. Yet, I do not question the fact that what my senses relay to me is accurate.

    I, too, consider myself a Nihilist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
    While I didn't read the whole article, the intro would seem to indicate that to say "I don't care" is to make a nihilistic comment, or a comment on nihilism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Really? There's no fucking point in anything that's discussed on this forum. Value is given subjectively to each subject, each topic, each item, each idea, each conversation, each thread. How about it, if someone interested in Chemistry, who holds no interest in Astronomy, post some asinine comment in the Astronomy & Cosmology subforum, "Why should I care? I don't give a shit about black holes."? Does the arrogance that floods and inundates the other forums spill over into those deemed "less worthy" by some?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You beat me to it, but I don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    What's the point?
    The others aren't quite as direct or actually participate in discussion. Those of you that I have quoted, especially, contribute nothing in this thread. Why post here? If you don't care, move on. Why is it so hard to do so? Instead, you go out of your way. For what, the fact that you're irritated by the thought, "I don't care about this"? I'm more annoyed by the fact that you all went out of your way to make such empty posts than you were bothered by this thread
    Oh... For the love of Thor...

    How is it possible that you are so blindingly oblivious to the humor of those comments being made in a thread about nihilism?

    Good grief, dude. Chill the hell out and go get laid or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    If you don't care, move on.
    Like GiantEvil i interpreted these comments as being ironic commentaries on the position taken by nihilism -they are empty, seemingly like everything in nihilism.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    The probability that the world "isn't what it seems" as far as our interpretation of the essence of what is physically present is highly unlikely. The labels, as far as what that physical things that you perceive actually are is a totally different matter, though. For instance, the thing that I'm sitting on could be considered, could be called, could be perceived as a "chair", but is this an objective truth? Is the "chair", what we consider it to be, an objective truth? The "chair" could be a home something. In that case, it would not be a chair...for sitting on. It would be a home.... for living on, or under. So, what is it? Is it a chair or is it a home? These are the questions I apply to labels. Yet, I do not question the fact that what my senses relay to me is accurate.

    I, too, consider myself a Nihilist.
    The question of labels for the chair (or home) i think misses the issue slightly. Call it a chair, call it a home - doesn't change what it is, only the emphasis and convention we humans have agreed.

    Whether the chair exists 'objectively' or not is redundant, as we can never know the 'objectivity' of the chair any other way. For example, to say that we are all living in a dream is redundant as when we say a dream we mean to contrast it with our waking state. We cannot live in a 'dream' because there is no other shared state with which to compare it.

    May i ask, would nihilism taken to its logical conclusion not lead to solipsism?

    I prefer absurdism, which is closely related to nihilism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,983
    Tough being a nihilist these days, or any day. That is if a day exists, or the same for a nihilist for that matter. I see the humor in Bunbury & Ophiolite's remarks and believe me, I was tempted to say the same.

    Is there really a point in asking fellow non-existents anything at all? Should a nihilist care about the answer? No on both counts. To me a nihilist is a self proclaimed philosophical pariah who in their own mind feel deserving of some special attention since they are in possession of some very important information the world needs to hear. You might as well don a robe, shave your head, and go sell flowers at the local airport for the same effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Those comments, although somewhat fitting in their irony, do not contribute anything to the discussion. Sarcasm here misses the mark of humor and enters the realm of, "...Really?" and pinching the bridge of the nose to signify intellectual disgust. The poster cannot answer those with anything useful. The point of nihilism is that there isn't a point to anything, Ha...Ha. I'd rather not have to suffer through irony where many are expected to have an actual discussion. Leave irony to the artists.

    I contend that the sarcastic remarks, hidden under the irony, contain their literal meaning also. Hence, why I exploded with the same requests I've made before telling those that are not really interested to just move on. Attempts at sarcasm, I believe, come from lack of care while trying to get a laugh out of the situation to leave it on a good note for themselves, rather than leaving it miffed. There was no lack of interpretation on my part on the first count of sarcasm and irony. Simply, there was further interpretation on my part.

    inow, my rich sex life is of no concern and being chill would be boring. If everyone was chill, the world would be a mighty different and mighty uneventful place. I am not throwing out my posts for fun, though. I am legitimately bothered by the inefficiencies that result from the power bestowed upon those that never achieved full myelination of the frontal lobe. So, inow, stick to the rhetorical questions. Also, invoking the name of Thor is just...annoying. It is apparent that you want individuality, who doesn't. Accept yourself.

    Prometheus, I think you may have missed what I was getting at. I was referring to the chair's convention as the objective truth. I conceded that labels do not change the fact that the object physically exists. How one perceives it is different from that. I have used objective but did not contrast with the fact that I'm implying the subjective nature of perception of what an object is. I do not mean to make any reference to the physical existence of the chair versus some other state where it is not physically present.

    I'd have to say that the only difference between the two is whether or not you consider your senses to be fooling you. Knowledge and abstract thought are the issue with Nihilism, non-physical concepts. The other confronts physical existence on top of it all. If you were to make the logical jump, from one realm of existence to another. Then, I guess so. Yet, I don't see reason to do it other than by choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    <Yawn>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Where's the OP? Perhaps he(or she) went so Pure-Nihilist that they self annihilated? Like matter and anti-matter, BAMM! I slam, jam, swing like Tarzan. I be toss'n an boss'n my style is awesome. Oh, sorry, been listen'n some Wu yo, can't help myself.

    So, I want some, any, nihilist to go kick, as hard as they can, a big rock with their bare foot. Then come back and report how either the rock isn't real, or the state of their foot doesn't matter. Oh, and I guess since there is no good or evil then Hitler was just another dude? I'm okay, you're okay, Hitlers okay.

    There doe's appear to be a point to nihilism, willful ignorance.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    I'd have to say that the only difference between the two is whether or not you consider your senses to be fooling you. Knowledge and abstract thought are the issue with Nihilism, non-physical concepts. The other confronts physical existence on top of it all. If you were to make the logical jump, from one realm of existence to another. Then, I guess so. Yet, I don't see reason to do it other than by choice.
    You are referring to solipsism here? Does that not depend on whether you follow epistemological nihilism or metaphysical nihilism, with metaphysical nihilism being the same as solipsism (but then there different types of solipsism). To which form of nihilism do you subscribe, as this would help refine the discussion.

    As to the existence of the chair and the convention of its objectivity (in this context is it fair to say objectivity = existence independent of us?). You seem to referring to Kant's phenomena; the knowable world as we perceive it, and noumena; the unknowable world as it really us. Correct me if i'm wrong. And by adopting such a position would you not be creating two worlds - the perceived world we know and then the world as it really is?

    GaintEvil, i believe you value buddhism to at least some degree? A buddhist too would consider Hitler just another dude (or another sentient being, more likely), and would not consider him evil (they would consider him very, very unskillful though - but that's a debate for the religion forum).
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Prometheus said;
    GaintEvil, i believe you value buddhism to at least some degree? A buddhist too would consider Hitler just another dude (or another sentient being, more likely), and would not consider him evil (they would consider him very, very unskillful though - but that's a debate for the religion forum).
    Religion, philosophy, they're about the same thing. One is of course, more authoritarian and dogmatic, but they both are readily capable of willful ignorance.
    I can't argue against your estimation of the Buddhist estimation of Hitler. Although I suspect the Shaolin, who are Ch'an school Buddhists, would have administered a proper ass kicking upon Hitler if given the opportunity.
    I must however point out that Buddhism is not nihilistic.
    http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud...believ/111.htm
    http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/...-nihilism.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Those comments, although somewhat fitting in their irony, do not contribute anything to the discussion. ..
    They contributed exactly what I wished to contribute to the discussion.
    1) A very serious statement that any discussion of nihilism as being a valid concept is absolutely foolish. For a true nihilist only total indifference is an acceptable stance, hence any discussion immediately marks one as a hypocritical, or faux nihilist.
    2) Emphasis of this point through ridicule in the form of irony/sarcasm/humour, whatever you wish to call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spock
    The poster cannot answer those with anything useful. ..
    Exactly. The poster is not meant to respond. The one instance in which nihilism may be applicable is in the discussion of nihilism.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    I'd rather not have to suffer through irony where many are expected to have an actual discussion...
    I oppose the relevance of this discussion. I sought to end it through ridicule. You are free to be wrong - play to your strengths.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Leave irony to the artists. ..
    So not only are you 'blindingly oblivious to humour' as inow pointed out, but you are also rude. I may be a third or fourth rate artist, but I claim artistry in my use of language.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Hence, why I exploded with the same requests I've made before telling those that are not really interested to just move on. ..
    No. You tell people to move on when they disagree with you, when they offer an alternative perception, when they value something less, or more than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Attempts at sarcasm, I believe, come from lack of care while trying to get a laugh out of the situation to leave it on a good note for themselves, rather than leaving it miffed. There was no lack of interpretation on my part on the first count of sarcasm and irony. Simply, there was further interpretation on my part..
    Crap. (That's not sarcasm. That's not irony. That's not humour. That's not ridicule. That's not disinterest. That's not nihilism. That's an objective observation.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Religion, philosophy, they're about the same thing. One is of course, more authoritarian and dogmatic, but they both are readily capable of willful ignorance.
    Disagree; other than the willful ignorance bit. Good philosophy asks valid questions then seeks to answer them as coherently and accurately as possible (the reason philosophy is often sidelined today is because it will bow to scientific knowledge, which is a strength, not weakness, of philosophy). Religion makes a priori assumptions and either doesn't test them or only accepts tests with positive results (i would say buddhism doesn't test its assumptions).

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvi
    lI must however point out that Buddhism is not nihilistic.
    Agreed.

    Unless you're a nihilist, then it's all meaningless anyway.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Disagree; other than the willful ignorance bit.
    The willful ignorance part is my main qualifier, outside of that a lot of good is done with things, by people, whom I have no interest in interacting with beyond the exchange of requisite social pleasantries.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    I am referring to two worlds, in a sense: The world as we know and experience it, and the world as it really is, meaningless and purposeless, devoid of opportunities for the acquisition of objective knowledge. Personally, I subscribe to the epistemological Nihilism.

    As a Nihilist, I would not say that the rock does not physically exist. Although, I would say that the state of my foot does not matter. Also, Hitler would not be 'Okay' any more than he would be considered 'Evil'. I contend that no objective knowledge of Hitler really exists. One cannot make a determination, objectively, one way or the other.

    As far as 'willful ignorance'... if you want to put it that way, I guess that is valid.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ophiolite, as I see that my strong requests are eliciting strong vehemence from you in two- or three-sentence snips at my statements, I will put a stop to further requests of mine, following my own preachings to move on when I come across that which I do not deem fit for proper attention.

    I saw the potential humor, yet the anger it roused in me from the after-thought trumped any appreciation for it. Although the Original Poster goes against his own life philosophy, as I do mine, if I truly followed its implications, this is no reason to put an end to the potential discussion in its infancy. Although I was once a firm Nihilist, I found that life was no fun that way. There is also no fun in the needless destruction of educational discussion pertaining to Nihilism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    The poster cannot answer those with anything useful. ..
    Exactly. The poster is not meant to respond. The one instance in which nihilism may be applicable is in the discussion of nihilism.
    Am I mistaken, or is that precisely the topic that the Original Poster wished to discuss?


    I tell people to move on when they offer an alternative perception that exactly IS one of less value to the point where they wish to end a discussion with a cutting remark, or support the cutting remark. The only situation that involves a dispute of "value more" is when that greater value of some idea embodies a lesser value of something else. I have displayed nothing less than support for the original poster, and only a little more(in light of the fact that I make these posts out of my own disquietude). I have attacked the cutting remarks to discussion and their respective proponents. The responses, thus far, to my pleas have been "I was not interested by it." Hence, I have effectively told those that are "not interested" to move on. Less value, more value, not interested, they are all connected and convey similarities that agree to the point where they may as well be considered different forms of the same exact idea, and fuel the same exact behavior that I despise: bullying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Those comments, although somewhat fitting in their irony, do not contribute anything to the discussion. ..
    They contributed exactly what I wished to contribute to the discussion.
    1) A very serious statement that any discussion of nihilism as being a valid concept is absolutely foolish. For a true nihilist only total indifference is an acceptable stance, hence any discussion immediately marks one as a hypocritical, or faux nihilist.
    2) Emphasis of this point through ridicule in the form of irony/sarcasm/humour, whatever you wish to call it.
    Fine, fine. More appropriate and accurate wording would have been "... do not contribute anything useful to the discussion."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Attempts at sarcasm, I believe, come from lack of care while trying to get a laugh out of the situation to leave it on a good note for themselves, rather than leaving it miffed. There was no lack of interpretation on my part on the first count of sarcasm and irony. Simply, there was further interpretation on my part..
    Crap. (That's not sarcasm. That's not irony. That's not humour. That's not ridicule. That's not disinterest. That's not nihilism. That's an objective observation.)
    My view on sarcasm is subjective, equally so to your opinion of it. I would say that your one-word review of it falls under the category of ridicule, whatever type of observation you consider it to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Religion, philosophy, they're about the same thing.
    It would perhaps be better to compare theology to philosophy instead of religion to philosophy.



    Dr.Spo - Perhaps I angered you with my previous post and so you missed my central point, but my central point remains. Would it be at all possible for you to chillax a bit? It's fairly consistent (IMO) for you to be hypersensitive to offense and take a "holier-than-thou" attitude, at least in those few posts from you which I've read thus far.

    I know you probably don't give a rat's ass what I suggest, but I'm being genuine here in my desire to point something out which you may or may not already know. In my view, you tend to implicitly solicit many of curt responses you receive based on your tone and posting style. Take this with a grain of salt. It's no skin off my knuckle. I'm just saying, it would be more pleasant in these threads if you didn't come across as so volatile and on a hair trigger all of the time. When you do that, it makes guys like me want to poke you even more and even harder... because, well... that's another thread perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Religion, philosophy, they're about the same thing.
    It would perhaps be better to compare theology to philosophy instead of religion to philosophy.
    Good point, comparing theology and philosophy would be more semantically correct. But my point regarding willful ignorance still stands, regardless.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    inow, I have already made the decision to back off a bit. Although my sensitivity will remain with me and produce some eye-rolling and discomfort on my end, I have resolved to steer away from writing my usual drawn-out reprimands. I am aware of the fact that I am of no consequence to anyone other than a moderate nuisance or a chance for some cruel fun. However, I was hoping that some would see the point and sympathize, possibly not making asinine remarks in the future.

    I have, at this point, said more than was called-for to put my point across, because of the personal affect it has on me. What can I say for the heart of my motive other than that I simply felt bad for the Original Poster?

    It started with me, a thread I created. I realized that when one starts a thread, he or she puts a little part of himself or herself 'out there'. He or she has exposed a part of himself or herself. It is as though one says, "This is what interests me enough to dedicate a thread to it." It is an offense on the Original Poster's character when another poster expresses pure, active disinterest in the form of a post aimed to discourage the Original Poster.

    After I passionately tried to defend myself, I felt as though it was my job to defend others that come under the same type of attack. It is not my job, my duty, or in my best interest to try to defend other people in such a way. If they feel offended as I did, they will see fit to make a response in the way they please. In that case, I will make a short, supportive statement, but I will no longer to it upon myself to bark and bark like a chained up, upset dog when the Original Poster has not called attention to any such feelings about the matter.

    All-in-all, I am sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It would perhaps be better to compare theology to philosophy instead of religion to philosophy.
    Theology applies a priori reasoning to justify its conclusions where philosophy would seek to test those very assumptions. \Sorry, just a bug bear of mine that philosophy gets such a bad press (comparisons to theology and religion = very unflattering).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    I am referring to two worlds, in a sense: The world as we know and experience it, and the world as it really is, meaningless and purposeless, devoid of opportunities for the acquisition of objective knowledge. Personally, I subscribe to the epistemological Nihilism.
    Interesting to find an epistemological nihilist on a science forum, would you argue that the scientific method ultimately cannot tell us the world as it is? Kant first divided the world into the knowable (via our imperfect senses) and unknowable (as it really is), but still managed to find meaning. This is what absurdism does: acknowledges the inherent meaninglessness of existence but then seeks meaning in admittedly vacuous things - this is the absurd.


    I'm a little surprised by the reaction of some people to nihilism. Science does seem to point toward a lack of inherent meaning in life - depending on how we define meaning of course. Doesn't mean we can't just make up our own meaning.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •