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

221–230 of 261 posts

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#221

Post by tim333 »

smallnamespace wrote: post #130
johnmarius wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Because one of the main payoffs from getting here to the nearest habitable star system is that you're now closer to more habitable star systems. But if turns out that it's very very expensive to get from one star system to another, then that recursive payoff might be very close to zero.

To avoid the issue with the sun frying the Earth you'd only need to move a little out in our own system. Mars or Io or some such.

Musk is talking about a "cargo route" to Mars starting 2018 so 100 million years is quite a while to do things. http://qz.com/705299/elon-musk-is-building-a-supply-chain-to...

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#222

Post by nathan_long »

tjk814 wrote: post #211
pluma wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lo…

What Jesus said was that he came not to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them.

Another thing Jesus said about the Old Testament law was that it was a lowered standard. "You have heard it said" not to murder, but Jesus said being angry (unjustly) is committing murder in your heart. In the same way, lust is like adultery.

And again, in conversation about divorce, the religious leaders of his day told Jesus that Moses allowed them to divorce, but Jesus said "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard".

So it's clear that in Jesus' eyes, the OT law was not the ultimate moral standard, which he said was summarized in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". If we truly did those things, of course we'd not murder, etc.

It's a bit like rules for children. I tell my toddler not to pull his sister's leg, but I want him to someday mature to the point where he doesn't need that rule, because he loves her and wants what's best for her.

The OT law, with its low standards, was still too hard for humans to keep, pointing to the need for Jesus to fulfill it for us - and He fulfilled not just the low-standard law, but the true one.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#223

Post by cholantesh »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #127
rishsriv wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hitchen's Razor - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Like Hitchen's Razor?

I try not to police grammar, but it ought to be Hitchens' or Hitchens's. On a side note, he is sorely missed in a lot of contemporary conversations.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#224

Post by cholantesh »

anotherdev wrote: post #212
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, conduct…

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

This form of argument could quite easily be used to justify other beliefs. Newton, for instance, was also a practitioner of the occult and alchemy. Pascal regarded medicine as unholy. Even purportedly rational thinkers have their blind spots.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#225

Post by AnthonyNagid »

Architect Christpher Alexander has developed a beautiful theory that is absolutely applicable to this topic (dare I say, second to none?) in his work 'A Pattern Language' and especially in his 'The Nature of Order' series. It's painful to think how little attention his work seems to get when you think of what could come from further exploration of the ground work he has laid in regards to understanding and creating meaning, that which comes from the heart and life preserving / nurturing processes.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#226

Post by ewzimm »

smallnamespace wrote: post #133
ewzimm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to villify selfishness, only address the criticism that usually follows this kind of statement. People look at any philosophy that says love yourself first and say it's just embelished selfishness, self-worship, narcisissm. They imagine it might lead to a Mad Max style dystopia of perpetual war. There's a time for destroying and rebuilding things, but the kind of hostility that people usually associate…

> If I contribute to my environment, I'm improving my own situation. Yes, but a truly selfish person could improve their personal situation much more effectively by pillaging the commons, since any contribution you make to the environment is shared, but any money you can put in your pocket is for you alone. The fact that you even think about the environment shows that you either don't have a easy way to profit from e…

Corporations with poor long term planning get weeded out and bought out all the time, even when they're among the most powerful in the world. It takes a global system of neoliberal economics intertwined with politics just to support the ones that do survive. Of course, we have a very limited frame of reference, as there are very few corporations even a few hundred years old, which in the very short span of human history isn't even a very long time.

I never claimed to be anything in particular. But I did state that there's an argument against the idea of needing to serve a higher cause to validate one's existence, that it seems very much like a motivational technique to coerce people into giving up their autonomy and intrinsic self-worth for the sake of someone else's interest. For a perfect example of this, look at Soviet propaganda, always emphasizing sacrifice for the greater global workers' struggle. Everyone was expected to be a little miserable as they worked together for the greater good. They didn't invent this idea, and it's been used many times throughout history.

I do think that with a wider perspective on the universe, the distinct line between self and other blurs. The meaning of selfishness changes when a person sees the people and things around them as an essential part of themselves. It's not just a matter of not being able to profit from pillaging the commons but rather a sense of personal loss when the commons are pillaged.

For example, I'm looking forward to all the scientific and medical advances that will happen in my lifetime. I know that increasing poverty, incequality, and war can be barriers to that advancement because the people who might push them forward will be denied access or killed. I might be motivated to make money selling weapons to regions suffering from war for a short-term profit, but I might be denying myself much more in the future. Maybe the person who was going to make the breakthrough to reverse aging was killed by one of my weapons. As one animal that can't survive outside of a nourishing ecosystem and a supportive community, I have strong disincentives for sabotaging my planet and my community, and I can't even know which acts of destruction might deny myself benefits later. I can only know that the only way to guarantee the best possible future is to do as little harm as possible.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#227

Post by jonstaab »

lisper wrote: post #161
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…

> Christians believe that for folks who don't know Jesus, nihilism is essentially true If nihilism is "essentially true" (whatever that means) for "folks who don't know Jesus" (whatever that means) then it is essentially true for people who do know Jesus. We're all in the same boat. Whatever the objective truth is, it's the same for everyone. The only question is who is burying their heads in the sand, and whether or…

All worldviews start with assumptions. Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity, they just explain less (see Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton). The only difference is that materialists often refuse to admit their assumptions - which is why, as a Christian, I admire nihilists - they're not afraid to admit their axioms and follow them to their logical conclusions.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#228

Post by lisper »

jonstaab wrote: post #227
lisper wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Christians believe that for folks who don't know Jesus, nihilism is essentially true If nihilism is "essentially true" (whatever that means) for "folks who don't know Jesus" (whatever that means) then it is essentially true for people who do know Jesus. We're all in the same boat. Whatever the objective truth is, it's the same for everyone. The only question is who is burying their heads in the sand, and whether or…

All worldviews start with assumptions. Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity, they just explain less (see Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton). The only difference is that materialists often refuse to admit their assumptions - which is why, as a Christian, I admire nihilists - they're not afraid to admit their axioms and follow them to their logical conclusions.

> Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity

No, that's not true. See:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-...

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#229

Post by anotherdev »

cholantesh wrote: post #224
anotherdev wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, conduct…

>Throughout the ages there were and are great rational thinkers who profess faith in God. (e.g. Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton) This form of argument could quite easily be used to justify other beliefs. Newton, for instance, was also a practitioner of the occult and alchemy. Pascal regarded medicine as unholy. Even purportedly rational thinkers have their blind spots.

That is true. Some of the most evil people in history were rational/logical to a fault. I will not follow them or believe in their ideologies.

However, I mentioned them (Pascal, Newton) not to justify faith in God, but to dispel the false notion that theists are all irrational and/or theism cannot be rational.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#230

Post by ctrlalt_g »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #219
ctrlalt_g wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constr…

> but it doesn't match what I've seen from the behaviour of hedonists.

it matches what i've seen.

> Furthermore, they aren't 'pain avoidant' they are 'pleasure seeking', there's a big difference.

no one is arguing that

> I don't think what I said was unclear

you put words in my mouth and then made up two other irrelevant arguments

Post reply on HN