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

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#81

Post by stcredzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #78
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 e…

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

Well, you can't know, and exactly how do you define "matter?"

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

No. I'm complaining about people who believe that there should be fundamental meaning, but are resentful that they can't seem to achieve it.

actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

Someone without hope isn't a good mate in a lifeboat or a good buddy in a foxhole. If truth be told, your current circumstances aren't far off from either of those. People without hope aren't good company in life.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#82

Post by stcredzero »

Avshalom wrote: post #24
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…

In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from entropic heat death, so yeah... That said Nihilism isn't necessarily pessimistic. The French Existentialist were basically weak nihilism and Camus was almost celebratory of the lack of meaning of life. "Nothing Means Anything" can be taken as "fuck it burn it all down" OR it can be taken as "there are no unforgivable sins, there is no eternal…

In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from entropic heat death, so yeah...

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps the dark energy driven expansion of space-time continues to accelerate until quarks get pulled apart, which increases their potential energy, creating more quarks to get pulled apart in an exponential cascade, simultaneously throughout the entire universe. What the hell happens after that?

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#83

Post by Stanleyc23 »

danschumann wrote: post #38
Stanleyc23 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point but also want to point out that dictators ban religions because it usually tells people there is something more powerful than the dictator.

Did you know the same regions of the brain light up for self when people think of God? Maybe the dictator doesn't want anyone to think THEY'RE more important than the dictator, like in our society, where every individual is sovereign with rights, every individual is like a king.

does it work that way for non-monotheisticly based ideas of religion/God like the paganism or Buddhist varieties?

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#84

Post by white-flame »

stcredzero wrote: post #77
white-flame wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, to that, I can only quote:

> 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? How do you know if you can even properly conceptualize "consequence" or what "matters" for your future self?

:-)

There's little semantic difference between "hope", "know what will", "think that's worth a lot", and "predict" in this future-facing context.

(Note that I'm not promoting nihilism here, only pointing out that what you state against nihilism actually applies against many things broadly, in the exact same way, to the point where it could easily be used as a pro-nihilist argument.)

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#85

Post by thecrash »

lemagedurage wrote: post #14

If i were to abstract the entire universe to one formula with perfect soundness it would not be some model of society or physics, but 0=0. This formula is not debatable, it's perfect in its simplicity, and it has 0 real world value. I feel the same about nihilism. "If we abstract everything away then we end up with nothing", and then claims are made based upon that ("so live for yourself"), but that's not valid reaso…

The author is negating some concepts but not others, which is inconsistent, true.

But nihilism cannot be advanced as a universal philosophy, as it represents pure negation, and universal negation is impossible.

In practice, nihilism is about the selective negation of concepts or bodies of thought, not as an end in itself but to open up new possible lines of reasoning.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#86

Post by baddox »

majewsky wrote: post #80
baddox wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 misconce…

I don’t think that is a common counter-argument. The young earth creationism I’m aware of explicitly denies that God made things look as if the Earth was actually older, that humans evolved from other primates, etc. In the US, Answers in Genesis is probably the most prominent advocate of supposedly scientific arguments for a young earth.

Here’s one article from them: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#87

Post by danschumann »

Stanleyc23 wrote: post #83
danschumann wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know the same regions of the brain light up for self when people think of God? Maybe the dictator doesn't want anyone to think THEY'RE more important than the dictator, like in our society, where every individual is sovereign with rights, every individual is like a king.

does it work that way for non-monotheisticly based ideas of religion/God like the paganism or Buddhist varieties?

Not sure. I think it wouldn't, because it needs all domains. Like, I know myself can delve into any arena of life, whereas those gods are typically refered to as one domain. Perhaps something to do with a functional hierarchy, you'd think of yourself.
Post reply on HN