Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

meltingasphalt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 261 posts

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#171

Post by meowface »

pmarreck wrote: post #55
jonstaab wrote: post #47

Really enjoyed this. I love how practical, humble, and respectful (even of religions, which I really appreciate) uncompromising nihilists tend to be. I happen to be a Christian, so I could go on all day about meaning, but if I could say one thing, it's this: We all die, and it's more than likely even humanity will die out as well (even if it's at the heat death of the universe). You've pretty much rejected the possib…

I think the (seeming) existence (or open question) of meaning hints at least at something "spiritual," but I think it's an extra stretch to paint it as some proof of theism and by association religious beliefs, some of which are (in a secular context) ethically debatable (but which are unable to be debated simply by nature of being deemed "sacred" and the debating of which is considered "blasphemy") Personally, I thi…

>Personally, I think "music" is probably the most succinct example that our existence may not be purely materialistic in nature (... as I crank up my techno of debatable quality lol)

Could you describe that in more detail? How is music not materialistic? I would consider it hedonistic and nihilistic, just like recreational drug use for example.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#174

Post by njohnson41 »

squidlogic wrote: post #87
njohnson41 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially if you assume that the scientific method is always valid--that all true statements can be determined empirically--you can't make statements like "Ultimate Meaning doesn't/does exist". If Ultimate Meaning cannot be defined, it cannot be tested for or measured, so no statements about it can be true or false. The answer to meaning would not be false, but null (or maybe 42). Just like 42, "atoms and the void"…

Positivism has fallen out of favor precisely because it cannot withstand its own criteria for meaning. For example, the statement that "all true statements can be determined empirically" is not itself verifiable by empirical means.

Fair enough; I'll be a little more precise.

I think the correct way to state it is: "all true statements are either tautologies, or can be determined empirically (with arbitrarily high but not necessarily measure-1 probability)". This statement is itself a tautology, because tautologies are by definition true, and because "determined" implies some method of determination, which if it actually can be used to determine truth, means it can be used empricially. Determination and empiricism are secretly defined in terms of each other, basically. The reason this tautology is worth stating is that it gives a simple criterion for discarding non-questions: questions that have no method of determining whether they are true or false (with arbitrarily high probability), are always non-questions.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#175

Post by dragonwriter »

grenoire wrote: post #103
squidlogic wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positivism has fallen out of favor precisely because it cannot withstand its own criteria for meaning. For example, the statement that "all true statements can be determined empirically" is not itself verifiable by empirical means.

What if you do do the determination of all true statements empirically? Is that not the empirical way to determine the truth of that all-inclusive statement?

> What if you do do the determination of all true statements empirically?

How would you demonstrate that you have done this? Particularly, how would you demonstrate that there is no true statement which you have not empirically demonstrated?

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#176

Post by 190807 »

"As always, there are caveats. I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel. And although I lean heavily on what I've gleaned from Sarah, David, and Venkat, I'm not sure any of them would endorse what I've written here. You might want to think of it as my own funky synthesis — and if it comes up short, that's entirely my fault."

Greatest and most self-aware disclaimer I've read in a long time.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#177

Post by vinay427 »

johnmarius wrote: post #114
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing; the kind of meaning most people yearn for — Ultimate Meaning — simply doesn't exist. I don't think that is something science can teach you. Science can give you the scientific method, but answering the question "Is the scientific method the only valid means of knowledge?" is philosophy not scie…

It's like saying that it's all just pixels, therefore these words you read don't have any meaning.

I don't see how this analogy applies at all. We are not viewing the universe from the outside looking in at the "words," but rather make up the universe ourselves. In some sense, we are the aforementioned pixels.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#178

Post by ZenoArrow »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #140
ZenoArrow wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the inherent problems with hedonism?

Small example: not taking care of your parents when they get old because it's not pleasurable.

That is a good example.

On the other hand, whilst hedonists may shirk some responsibilities, perhaps their focus on pleasure also ends up improving their ability at finding pleasure in the situations they find themselves in. If you intend to find pleasure, you may find it easier to recognise the opportunities to create it when they arise.

So to go back to your example of looking after parents when they get old, perhaps a hedonist would be resistant if that involved acting as a servant, but may be good company for them by playing games, telling stories, etc... Not all acts of compassion require self-sacrifice.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#179

Post by hxegon »

Gatsky wrote: post #52

I didn't find this to be a very useful article. It takes steps to create an abstract-symbolic definition of meaning, but doesn't develop it further and also doesn't use it again in the rest of the article. At least half of it could have been left out, therefore. The conclusion is also rather trite, and seems to adopt humanity's tendency towards techno-optimistic hubris as a proxy for meaning. The conclusion doesn't s…

You might be romanticizing meaning itself there.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#180

Post by dublinben »

gnaritas wrote: post #156
dublinben wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>His point, was truth, you make your own meaning in this world That is an entirely subjective belief. You and I might hold that opinion, but the majority of people in the world do not. For them, the "truth" about the meaning of life is externally imposed and exists outside any one person's opinion.

That one can make ones own meaning is objectively true, that there exists outside meaning is only subjectively true as there's no evidence such an outside force exists while ones own existence is not in question, so no, what I stated was objectively true while what most people believe is only subjectively true.

>what I stated was objectively true while what most people believe is only subjectively true

It's not really, but of course you believe it is. Nobody wants to believe that their beliefs are just as arbitrary any anyone else's.

Post reply on HN