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

211–220 of 261 posts

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#211

Post by tjk814 »

pluma wrote: post #99
irrational wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when asked who is my neighbor, Jesus responds with the parable of the good samaritan (the samaritans and jews were enemies) which basically says, everyone, including your enemies, are your neighbors. It's the whole "do good to those who hate you".

True, those Samaritans were real jerks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU On a more serious note: while that is true, there are a lot of conflicting views on how those passages interact with the rest of the gospel. Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them. A lot of it can't be taken logically as absolute commands (otherwise the comman…

> Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them.

There are two distinct laws found in the Bible. One is the ceremonial law, which applied to the Israelites and revolved around the sacrificial system which pointed to and culminated in Jesus' death on the cross. After this event, the old, ceremonial law (animal sacrifice, circumcision, etc.) was no longer necessary, as the type had met antitype [0][1][2].

The second, everlasting law, which represents the character of God Himself, is the moral law, found in the 10 commandments. These were summarized when Jesus said to love God and love your neighbor[3].

So there was no contradiction in Jesus' words. He came not to abolish the law, meaning the moral law, but after His death, the purpose of the old ceremonial law was fulfilled, and thus was no longer necessary. The moral law, however, was and will be forever necessary, as evidenced by the writing of New Testament authors[4][5][6].

After the Jews rejection of Christ was complete, all people were granted invitation to join the figurative, spiritual Israel[7]. Not coincidentally, if you study it out further, you will find that almost everything found in the Old Testament in literal Israel, events which led up to the death of Christ on the cross, were a figurative type of what spiritual Israel would go through after Jesus' death and ascension into heaven.

This evidence also goes a great length in explaining away most other apparent contradictions Christians and others find in the Bible.

[0] Galatians 3:19

[1] Colossians 2:16,17

[2] Ephesians 2:15

[3] Matthew 22:36-40

[4] James 2:10-12

[5] Romans 7:12

[6] Revelation 11:19

[7] Galatians 3:29

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#212

Post by anotherdev »

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'm seeing a recurring theme in this thread (and others) accusing Christians of using circular / irrational arguments to substantiate their beliefs.

I'm a Christian and here is my assessment of the nature of faith.

Everyone lives by faith. When you decide to get in an airplane, you go by faith that the plane is sound, the pilots are skilled, etc. Same idea with driving to work, picking a job, getting married, conducting an experiment. By virtue of the fact that no one knows the future, we all must at the most basic level, live by faith.

Faith is commitment without knowing (with 100% certainty).

Of course that does not mean faith has to be blind and irrational. You make observations about the world, hear testimony of people you trust, think through the issues and come up with your conclusions.

Atheists weigh the evidence (e.g. if God exists, why is there so much evil? Or why does God not reveal Himself more clearly?) and don't see God.

Theists weigh the evidence (e.g. why is there something instead of nothing at all? or observe the improbability for the conditions that allow life in Earth) and see God.

Blanket accusations that theists having no rational basis for their beliefs are not fair. There is rational basis for either camp if one is open to honest researching and listening.

Throughout the ages there were and are great rational thinkers who profess faith in God. (e.g. Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton)

This is to say again, everyone lives by faith. I have great confidence that God exists, but can not 100% prove it. The atheist can not prove He doesn't. I concede that I could be totally wrong. A rationally honest atheist will concede the same about their own beliefs.

So we all make a decision.

Our death is the day of reckoning. Only then will there be the possibility to know for certain if what you have chosen to believe was right or wrong.[0]

TLDR; In issues of existence of God, afterlife, etc and therefore meaning, we cannot know for certain either way. So make the best choice you know how and we'll all find out if we were right later.

[0] Technically, in the case that I'm wrong (about the afterlife), we won't know much of anything.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#214

Post by pluma »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #139
pluma wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an atheist, yes, but I'm hardly living in an echo chamber where I'm only exposed to parodies. I was raised as a Christian (although I was never a believer), live in a majority Christian country and my family as well as many people I interact with in my life are still Christian -- whether they actually believe in it or merely identify as Christian socially. Most Christians I know are either religious because of pe…

"But the cosmos exists! Consider who created it!" The difference to me is in being satisfied with an answer that you accept on faith vs one you can prove, though things like many-worlds possibly confound this exploration.

The difference is that to be an atheist you must be willing to accept "I don't know" as an answer.

Science provides tentative answers that iteratively home in on the truth: Newton's theory of gravity wasn't wrong, it was incomplete, so it was replaced by Einstein's, which covers all the corner cases we've since learned about.

In science a failure is considered progress. If we can disprove a theory, it increases our understanding of the universe by telling us what isn't true.

Also, a scientific theory must be falsifiable: it must be able to make predictions (which is why string theory despite its name is often not considered an actual theory).

Religion on the other hand offers absolute truth statements. Since the dawn of man religion has been how we explain things we don't have an answer to: lightning, the tides, the origin of life, what happens after we die and so on.

As our understanding outside of religion has improved some of these answers have become ridiculous enough to make it socially awkward to retain them as dogma (though there are still Christians who will loudly tell you natural disasters are divine punishments).

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#215

Post by ZenoArrow »

ctrlalt_g wrote: post #206
ZenoArrow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 importan…

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist

Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker."

For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure.

"a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents"

Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look to make situations more fun (for themselves, but this tends to involve taking others along for the ride). Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people, I'd say it's more than possible and I'm not even a hedonist (i.e. someone who looks for fun in a high proportion of their time, someone who is good at doing so).

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#216

Post by ctrlalt_g »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #215
ctrlalt_g wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 importan…

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker." For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure. "a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents" Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look t…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/

"Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth."

I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on.

> Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people

What?

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#217

Post by pluma »

orbitur wrote: post #202
xorcist wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly. If we were discussing Harry Potter lore I would treat those books the same way. I honestly don't see any meaningful distinction between religions and fandoms of other creative works (except maybe that fewer people have been killed in the name of Harry Potter).

That said, I was really just making a witty remark. I have no reason to treat biblical accounts as factual (especially given the long and complex history of why biblical canon is what it is and the unreliability of narrators with questionable identities who weren't even alive at the time of the events they're describing).

The direct speech of Jesus in the bible is not necessary the literal word of Jesus of Nazareth the (possible) historical person, but under various interpretations of Christianity it is the literal word of Jesus Christ, the (fictional) character in the biblical narrative. The only difference is that Christians generally seem to think the biblical character is an exact description of the historical person -- for which there doesn't seem to be any reliable basis.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#218

Post by jokoon »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #142
jokoon wrote: post #67

One thought I have, is that human thinking is just one perspective which is limited to the realm of living thoughts. Meaning our thoughts are biased towards what we can see and think about, so we cannot see anything else. Human thinking has a limited range. That's always what I conclude when I hear about life or intelligent life in the universe. We are made of life, but intelligence may be specific only to the life o…

Totally agree. IMO it's also be amazing if we could create an AI which could evolve itself to the point of understanding things we can't while understanding humans well enough to be able to explain those things in terms we could understand. Then again, maybe if it found out "higher" "actual" truths, it could see that possibly explaining those to humanity wouldn't be "good", and thus lie / withhold information for our…

Imagine if AI could just solve math or physics problems, or come up with theories.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#219

Post by ZenoArrow »

ctrlalt_g wrote: post #216
ZenoArrow wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker." For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure. "a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents" Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look t…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/ "Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth." I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructi…

> "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/ "Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth." I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on."

In my experience, hedonists don't tend to be philosophers, they aren't concerned with providing academic claims about what motivates us, they're much more focused on pleasure in the here and now, rather than making claims that they're living life in the right way. If you want to study hedonism as a philosopher, be my guest, but it doesn't match what I've seen from the behaviour of hedonists.

Furthermore, they aren't 'pain avoidant' they are 'pleasure seeking', there's a big difference. Pleasure seeking people will chase pleasure even if there's a risk of pain along the way, pain avoidant people will avoid trying anything that may cause them pain.

> "What?"

I don't think what I said was unclear. The implication you made was that hedonists would avoid old relatives. In my experience, hedonists are 'omnivores' when it comes to pleasure, it doesn't matter whether it's playing cards with old people or going out clubbing smashed off their face, they go for everything with gusto. That's my experience of hedonists, they want to have fun and they want to bring you along for the ride.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#220

Post by crusso »

DigitalJack wrote: post #197
crusso wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In religious discussions, people go around in circles arguing within the narrow space of each person's belief system. When even simple terms like "objective" are used in radically different ways, the conversation is doomed from the beginning.

This happens in politics too. And cross gender arguments. I don't think it's particular to religion, although I suspect the tendencies of religions to have a lingo makes it worse.

I agree. In any discussion where you have a great deal of difference between positions, you have this problem. The more emotionally charged or wound up in groupthink a person is, the worse it gets because the very language that could be used to bridge the gap provides less useful traction. It's not about higher-level concepts, it's about basic building blocks of communication.

I didn't have much time for posting yesterday, so I was a bit too terse - but my intent in making the point that I did was to try to get the original poster to think about the very words that he was using.

Often when I join in on heated discussions, I find that people are talking past each other. They throw out words that mean something to them that I don't think mean the same thing to other participants in the conversation. I normally encourage participants to slow down and either pick different words or settle on a common definition for some words that are causing the confusion. It's amazing how quickly some disagreements can effectively evaporate, or at least get whittled down to essentials, when everyone is communicating more effectively.

Post reply on HN