A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning • Hacker News Board

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#201

Post by DigitalJack » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

pluma wrote: post #89

DigitalJack wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, barring space transit, humanity will be wiped out by the Sun long before the heat death of the universe, if not by some other catastrophe first. I am Christian as well, but I didn't think the article handled religion well. In Christianity, "God's chosen people" are the tribes of Israel, not Christians. In Christianity, the meaning of life is love, something you don't have to be a Christian to believe or underst…

> In Christianity, the meaning of life is love Technically the entire "love thy neighbour" stuff seems to largely be based on the understanding that "thy neighbour" is a fellow Christian (or Hebrew, considering Christianity wasn't yet a thing when most of it supposedly happened). The Old Testament alone is full of double standards about how you should treat your fellow tribespeople compared to what is allowable to be…

Love thy neighbor isn't what I was talking about, and as someone else pointed out, your interpretation of that to be fellow Christians is incorrect (although in real life a lot of Christians behave how you say and worse).

Similarities between Islam and Christianity are to be expected. Islam is an appendix (The Quran) to Christianity (The New Testament/Covenant), added about 700 AD. And both are appended to Judaism (the Old Testament/Covenant).

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#202

Post by orbitur » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

xorcist wrote: post #123

pluma wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, depending on which Christian sect you subscribe to, the biblical accounts contain the direct words of Jesus Christ and Yahweh respectively. So I'll cede that if we're already going to treat the Bible as if it were objectively factual. Otherwise we'd have to get into an argument who "Jesus" even was (assuming we accept the majority interpretation of history that there was someone who at least vaguely matches the…

> the biblical accounts contain the direct words of Jesus That's not really a counter argument, as what qualifies as "biblical account" was decided many hundred years after the historical events.

The parent said "depending on which you subscribe to." There are millions of people who believe the phrase you quoted. So it is a counter argument, regardless of its objective true-ness.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#203

Post by zdean » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:10 AM UTC

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…

"You've pretty much rejected the possibility of true objective meaning..."

This depends on what you're trying to give meaning to. The 'god' perspective gives meaning to life (i.e., why are we here??). But why is it necessary to ask that question in the first place? Asking it implies that there is a meaning to life and you're trying to figure out what it is. It's not inconsistent to say that "life" doesn't have meaning (nor does it need to) but that "our individual" lives do have meaning. That meaning is defined for us by our genetic blueprint...it gives us the motive force individually to seek out the things that fulfill our individual lives. Once we die, the show simply ends.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#204

Post by schoen » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #196

schoen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that the sole information available are stories written long after his alleged existence, all of which claim a god-man free of flaws I'm not sure that all of those stories claim that; only four of these stories were accepted as canon by the later consensus of Christian churches, but others are known to exist, which have somewhat different contents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel Also, Christian churches…

I am exceedingly aware of the history of Christianity, its sects, its texts, and the many variations therein. I thought it was obvious the exchanges the parent was involved in were, from the parent's side, only referencing the canonical scriptures used by the church today. Thus far, the parent has given no indication that non-canonical texts or sects held authority. Moreover, non-canonical texts and discarded heresie…

Sorry, I didn't mean to take your remarks out of context.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#205

Post by meric » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:16 AM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #177

johnmarius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we're the pixels, then things like your relationship with your parents are the words johnmarius are referring to. The relationships we have with other people cannot be seen coherently through the "atoms and the void" view.

(But they can be seen through the "we're here to play" view espoused by the author of this article.)

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#206

Post by ctrlalt_g » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:18 AM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #178

seanp2k2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, perha…

Finding value in pleasure is different than saying that only pleasure has value. It seems to me that a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents, since only the games and the (pleasant) stories have value, and that they would do these things in more pleasant company instead.

Either way, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that accepting and knowing pain is an important part of the human experience.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#207

Post by pmarreck » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:37 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #171

pmarreck wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's nothing like a drug, in my opinion. And it seems to serve detrimental evolutionary purposes, which makes no sense (anyone distracted by music is fodder for predators or accidents).

I was once in USAF basic training. One of the peculiarities of that 2 month existence was a total absence of music. This is not normally something people encounter in their lives. I found out that after a while I literally craved music. ANY music. I distinctly remember leaning into a passing car which had its windows rolled down and music pouring out, while I was marching. Around the 1.5 month mark we had to wait in an auditorium for a speaker and he was an hour late. The A/V crew (this was 1993, by the way) decided to put on the Black Album by Metallica, and the ENTIRE auditorium was jamming, metal fan or not. It was really something. It was one of the sweetest (and yes, most meaningful) musical experiences I've ever had. They ended up playing the entire album before the speaker finally showed.

Anyway, I'm here to tell you that something strange is up with music, and it is NOT materialistic in nature (at least, according to out current understanding).

And it's not like I don't think about materialism a lot, being a programmer who was once a Physics major. But try to come up with an objective evaluation of music and you will fail to. It is one of the most subjectively sublime values we have. I mean, all it really is, is sound wave patterns, but somehow it is much more. (Perhaps, just like the Mona Lisa is much more than the sum of ink, paper and wood frame it is made from.)

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#208

Post by gtirloni » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 3:43 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #149

I found it interesting to have a discussion about the meaning of life that mentions children and mentions marital affairs and concludes with the hope of science, and still never quite touches on our biological foundation. Shouldn't that be the jumping off point? All life is built to be physically and biologically dedicated to reproduction and the furthering of more life. "children create meaning for their parents bec…

Yes. I have a hard time getting excited about children when the species survival is in no danger, family names care so little value these days (I will be dead anyway) and there is no guarantee your kid will be a good thing for the world (we hope they will and that would be our legacy). There is the argument that says children will make you see life differently but that requires a lot of faith. Will it? Can I see it differently without the cost of raising children?

Anyway, I bet it's something a lot of people have thought about and come to terms with either choice. I still am unsure.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#209

Post by kazagistar » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

willcosgrove wrote: post #169

rimantas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can find much more objective meaning to existence without outsorcing it to some imaginable friend. > Christians believe that for folks who don't know Jesus, > nihilism is essentially true And folks who don't give a rat ass about what Christians believe do know that nobody has monopoly on meaning and don't see the need to reduce everything else to nihilism. It would be much nicer if religious people would only use…

How can you have a world view that doesn't encapsulate the whole world?

At most you can encapsulate the world you have perceived (+ stuff you imagine) which is much smaller then the whole world, and even that is a stretch, because we have limited computation available to us, so there is a lot you might be unable to account for due to limited time for accounting.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#210

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

schoen wrote: post #204

bobwaycott wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am exceedingly aware of the history of Christianity, its sects, its texts, and the many variations therein. I thought it was obvious the exchanges the parent was involved in were, from the parent's side, only referencing the canonical scriptures used by the church today. Thus far, the parent has given no indication that non-canonical texts or sects held authority. Moreover, non-canonical texts and discarded heresie…

Sorry, I didn't mean to take your remarks out of context.

Oh, no apology necessary. I find the points you brought up to be incredibly fascinating, and have spent quite a lot of time studying them myself. I probably erred in omitting mention of only referring to canonical scriptures. If this were a discussion on the subjective meanings found in various heresies—as deemed by the councils that won their debates—that'd be quite a fun conversation.