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

What Nihilism Is Not

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#81

Post by incompatible »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #76
incompatible wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need freedom from the restraints? You are what you are, and the will to continue living is part of that.

You just came close to disproving your own point above by responding with this comment. You are what you are and the meaning you experience is part of that- part of you. In regards to emergence, the dominant view of consciousness in physics and philosophy and neuroscience alike is that the first person "subjective" perspective of reality is the inherent intrinsic perspective of physical matter and not an emergent phe…

Well, my thoughts are always a work in progress. I'd say some religious ideas are incompatible with nihilism, like believing in an omnipotent God who has mapped out the future of the Universe for some kind of divine purpose. (I'm unclear exactly why an omnipotent God would bother to create a Universe when he already knows exactly what will happen in it, but whatever).

If you reduce "meaning" to anything that somebody thinks is worth doing (instead of just lying in bed until they die of dehydration), then it's not really possible to be a nihilist, except for those few days before you die of dehydration, unless somebody is keeping you alive (you wouldn't care, naturally).

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#82

Post by frutiger »

claudiawerner wrote: post #53
frutiger wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider what 'ourselves' (i.e. life, consciousness) are - something that's by definition not possible to describe with 'physics' because we've ruled it out (energy and matter acting according to rules cannot be 'aware' or 'conscious'). I’m not sure I follow.

I think GP is referring to the idea that there is no yet identified physical mechanism that identifies the arising of consciousness in terms of properties of matter or energy, to which (if I understand GP correctly) physics restricts itself to. Leibniz put the objection to the mechanical materialist conception of consciousness/perception in 1714: >One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is in…

> there is no yet identified physical mechanism that identifies the arising of consciousness in terms of properties of matter or energy

As far as I know, there's no proper definition of consciousness, and any time we have narrowed what consciousness may be (over the past few centuries) we have redefined consciousness so that it remains indefinable.

It seems strange to me to divide the universe into "meat inside bags of skin" and "things outside bags of skin" and presume one side of that split somehow possesses unique properties not subject to physical laws of matter and energy.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#83

Post by syrrim »

Aperocky wrote: post #71
syrrim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The universe doesn't care about us" =/= "the basis for meaning doesn't care about us". That is, "the laws of physics" =/= "the source of meaning".

What is the basis of meaning then, if it cannot be defined in a physical space then it is something that is artificial and to our own consciousness only.

Suppose we could identify some basis for meaning that we could be reasonably sure would be shared with beings in other universes - a Schelling point for meaning, if you will. Such a thing would be neither based on the laws of physics, nor restricted to our consciousness. Whether or not it would be "artificial" remains open to interpretation.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#84

Post by annamargot »

newfangle wrote: post #4

I think this article is a waste of time. Rather than using actual sources the author uses scenes from mtv highschool sitcoms to prove their point. Also the author injects their personal bias into everything.

I think there’s a difference between illustrating an idea and proving a point.

When illustrating an idea, It might be sensible to use relatable examples that make the concept easier to grasp. I don’t see that an attempt to prove a point or persuade in and of itself.

I do however believe that if you disagree with the greater piece, it could be easy to pick on this kind of example to create the appearance of childishness / lack of seriousness. An easy win but not necessarily with merit.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#85

Post by d0100 »

blamestross wrote: post #28

The author doesn't actually seem to demonstrate an understanding of nihilism or of pessimism. Most of classical philosophy is predicated on _something_ in the universe having an intrinsic purpose or value. They require an "uncaused-cause" of moral values. Nihilism is simply the rejection of inherent value or purpose to the universe or anything in it. It means the only values or purposes in the universe are non-inhere…

> It is mildly horrifying to see somebody else unable to behave reasonably without made-up guidance.

Not behaving according to your made-up reasonableness?

If there is no absolute line, then the only thing that matters is being the current top-dog

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#86

Post by blamestross »

d0100 wrote: post #85
blamestross wrote: post #28

The author doesn't actually seem to demonstrate an understanding of nihilism or of pessimism. Most of classical philosophy is predicated on _something_ in the universe having an intrinsic purpose or value. They require an "uncaused-cause" of moral values. Nihilism is simply the rejection of inherent value or purpose to the universe or anything in it. It means the only values or purposes in the universe are non-inhere…

> It is mildly horrifying to see somebody else unable to behave reasonably without made-up guidance. Not behaving according to your made-up reasonableness? If there is no absolute line, then the only thing that matters is being the current top-dog

I'm ok with them deciding on different morals that me. It's the inability to decide morals for themselves I find unsettling.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#88

Post by HelloSunday »

mindgam3 wrote: post #44
mirimir wrote: post #8

Huh. I did maybe a couple decades of applied nihilism, as presented by Landmark Education. It helped me a lot, given that I'm bipolar and prone to pessimism and depression. So this makes sense to me: > If, as I suggested earlier, nihilism and pessimism are opposites, then nihilism is actually much closer to optimism. But not this: > Such a lack of awareness is the point of nihilism, as nihilism is all about hiding fr…

PSA, Landmark Forum was banned as a cult in France after the release of an investigative documentary [0] which they tried vigorously to suppress. The group is a magnet for vulnerable people who respond to authoritarian style leadership and coercive psychological techniques including public shaming and gaslighting. They strongly discourage participants from taking notes. Anyone with a history of trauma, abuse or adver…

for the record- Landmark was not banned in France or anywhere else. The group is not a magnet for vulnerable people infact they have a 6 page form that participants sign in an attempt to screen people who should be treated by mental health professionals.
Post reply on HN