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

Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

tinyclouds.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#71

Post by samirillian »

goodroot wrote: post #5

Nihilism need not be an end-point. There are many positive and motivating philosophies that are less bleak and more illuminating. The author's positions on most of their anecdotes do not seem to convey a sense of optimism. Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Shamanism; there are all sorts of neat philosophies you can abide by that have deciphered the non-dualistic nature of reality. In doing so, they provide you with t…

Buddhism and Stoicism could both be interpreted as nihilisms. They were by Nietzsche, at least.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#72

Post by stcredzero »

Avshalom wrote: post #54
stcredzero wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off Why shouldn't we be grateful to the totality of our ancestors for getting us this far? Who is to say that we could change even a butterfly wing's flutter of the distant past and still have everything turn out as now? b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation…

why shouldn't we resent the totality of our ancestors?

Because it's a dismal way to live.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#73

Post by stcredzero »

dakrootie wrote: post #62
stcredzero wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really gain anything by switching between those perspectives, or by dismissing one of them, by your premise. I don't care if you call yourself a buddhist or a "happy nihilist" so long as you live with yourself and interact with others as if you had a basis for hope . As for your assertion that "You don't really gain anything" -- hope is something truly valuable to gain or to lose. In other words, "Don't be…

I’m baffled as to why nihilism is equated with hopelessness or “asshole-ism” when I speak to others about it. I (almost jokingly) call myself a nihilist because I truly believe my life has no meaning. I am but one organism in a giant soup of beautiful organisms. If I have “meaning” - in my humble opinion - it means the maggots in my compost bin have equal meaning. I consider us, them, whatever...all a curious, albeit…

I’m baffled as to why nihilism is equated with hopelessness or “asshole-ism” when I speak to others about it. I (almost jokingly) call myself a nihilist because I truly believe my life has no meaning. I am but one organism in a giant soup of beautiful organisms.

You're baffled because you're a happy nihilist, as opposed to a bitter, resentful one.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#74

Post by stcredzero »

Avshalom wrote: post #42
stcredzero wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle. It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions. We now have an inkling that this taxonomy of understanding may well be too limited.…

>>For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Is not relevant to the end (or not) of the everything. >>The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never r…

Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?

Because the phase change boundaries may be utterly impassable and the other side incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves, but the universe itself goes on. So it's quite distinct from an un-ending universe.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#75

Post by dwaltrip »

Sohakes wrote: post #37
stcredzero wrote: post #8

Nihilists are often guilty of something which many teenagers are guilty of, which I call epistemological narcissism. Basically, they think they know it all, pretty much. The cure for this is to take the extrapolation strategy which PG uses in "What You Can't Say." ( http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html ) However, you should instead apply it to "what you can't predict." Would any of our ancestors of 400 or 1000 years ag…

To me at least, the lack of meaning comes to what we are. If we are just a really complex phenomenon, then why are we more important then other such things? If our consciousness is just emergent behavior of a lot of brain cells communicating, then why are we more important than the particles of air making wind, or ants acting like a being together? Even the concept of self or being is a illusion, our sensation of con…

For me, it comes down to the meaning that I experience in my life personally, and in the small amount of meaning carried by my actions as they ripple outwards gently towards the distant future -- perhaps touching many people in a small way.

If someone, a million years from now, experiences slightly more beauty and understanding in part because of my actions, I find that to be incredibly fulfilling. Even better if they are in another star system!

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

ahussain wrote: post #29
knuththetruth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peterson is a con artist who appeals to desperate and impressionable men that can’t be bothered to read the Nietzsche and Jung that he only skims for sound bites.

It is a shame that people cannot engage substantively with Jordan Peterson's decent arguments because of his tendency to be inflammatory. What exactly about his argument that nihilism is "the easy way out" is problematic?

> What exactly about his argument that nihilism is "the easy way out" is problematic?

The fact that it is a polemical characterization and not any kind of argument at all would be the main problem I've seen in his attacks on what he calls “nihilism”.

Another problem is that he seems to use the term “nihilist” about as loosely as the average modern North American right-wing propagandist uses the term “Marxist”, so that it becomes very hard to be clear what he is arguing against specifically, which is a real problem because “nihilist” is already a heavily overloaded term that refers to a lot of different and often conflicting belief systems and affiliations.

Another problem is that to the extent that one can frame his stream of polemic as an argument at all, it's mostly one which implicitly relies on existential or moral nihilism (by presenting meaning or morality as something which is not intrinsic, but where is preferred morality is merely an idea that arose at a particular historical time and place that has certain utility to the holder to both hold and to have others around them hold) to argue against whatever it is that Peterson is calling “nihilism”. In this respect, it seems a poor, sloppy, and less honest echo of Nietzsche, who overtly embraced nihilism, but rejected passive nihilism for a more active and, in his view, productive for the individual form of nihilism.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#77

Post by stcredzero »

white-flame wrote: post #46
stcredzero wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really gain anything by switching between those perspectives, or by dismissing one of them, by your premise. I don't care if you call yourself a buddhist or a "happy nihilist" so long as you live with yourself and interact with others as if you had a basis for hope . As for your assertion that "You don't really gain anything" -- hope is something truly valuable to gain or to lose. In other words, "Don't be…

No, I specifically mean that within the premise you lay out, you don't present any advantage in predicting the future grand scheme meaning, compared to the nihilists. If I understand your post correctly, the problem is the narcissistic thought that one can declare now about what future things will and won't matter, and things can change in the interim. That doesn't seem linked to nihilism at all (ie, positive persona…

No, I specifically mean that within the premise you lay out, you don't present any advantage in predicting the future grand scheme meaning, compared to the nihilists.

I can't predict. However, I can hope. I think that's worth a lot.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #8

Nihilists are often guilty of something which many teenagers are guilty of, which I call epistemological narcissism. Basically, they think they know it all, pretty much. The cure for this is to take the extrapolation strategy which PG uses in "What You Can't Say." ( http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html ) However, you should instead apply it to "what you can't predict." Would any of our ancestors of 400 or 1000 years ag…

> If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't matter in the grand scheme of things?

If you “know” that the grand scheme of things itself doesn't, and definitionally cannot, matter, then this isn't a problem.

Similarly, if you “know” that, whether or not you know what future events are, they are all determined and cannot be other than they are determined to be (or, equivalently, that every possible outcome will, in fact, be taken), then you can no that nothing you choose can matter in the grand (or even small) scheme of things, without knowing what will occur.

You seem to be more complaining about people who believe that there is fundamental meaning in existence, but that they are impotent with regard to achieving it, than actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#79

Post by uoaei »

husainalshehhi wrote: post #67

If nihilism is true, then it follows that our lives are very little to no significance. And if that's the case, then we should do what pleases us rather what is right, since we have one life to live. In any case, I think Alvin Plantinga has something good to say about science and religion in his book: science, religion, and naturalism, where the conflict really lies.

The point of nihilism is that there is no "should." There are no logical conclusions from nihilism except all of them. If you feel a connection to fellow sentient beings, act in accordance with that. If you see them as your tools, then act so.

This frees up your moralistic framework to be solely realized by your own ethics. It takes some time to clarify and arrive at them, sure, but it necessitates an active engagement with the world and your influences upon it.

Or not. You could just use it as an excuse to live in hedonism or to off yourself. But that choice is entirely yours and you take ownership of it whether you want to or not.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#80

Post by majewsky »

baddox wrote: post #6
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

>It's clear that in our modern era, with our extremely robust theories of physics, backed by extremely precise observations of the universe, that the religious explanations of existence are false. I think that's up for debate still.

It might be fairer to look at the scientifically falsifiable claims that are or were important to major religions and determine which of those have been scientifically falsified. Some conspicuous examples have certainly been falsified, like young earth creationism, but that certainly doesn’t mean that all of Christianity’s claims have been falsified.

> Some conspicuous examples have certainly been falsified, like young earth creationism

The classic counter-argument is that God has created the world N years ago in a way that makes it appear older, in order to test our faith or sth like that.

You cannot really disprove that. Scientists discard such theories because of Alder's Razor: "What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating."

I think your misconception is that science is the method by which all truths can be discovered. That has not been shown. Science is merely a narrowed down version of philosophy (with restrictions on which tools and methods may be used) that is vastly better at finding a consistent and useful model of reality than average philosophy.

This is why something like Occam's Razor (or Alder's Razor from above) is used by scientists. Occam does not say that the simpler hypothesis is always correct, but it suggests that you will usually be more productive when you work with simpler rather than more complex hypotheses.

Post reply on HN