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

A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

meltingasphalt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 236 posts

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#81

Post by haswell »

lisper wrote: post #74
haswell wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perspective rooted in a human understanding of biology, which is ultimately just a language and labeling game to make sense of observed phenomena. If we're here to make copies of our DNA, then one has to ask what the DNA is here for, and we're back in the same place. The point someone like Watts is making is that even if we're just DNA replicators, that which is being replicated holds this capacity for play…

> one has to ask what the DNA is here for DNA is not here "for" anything, DNA is a Thing That Happens. Given the right combination of atoms, a source of energy, and enough time, a self-reproducing system will appear by pure chance. After that Darwin takes over. > that which is being replicated holds this capacity for playfulness and the enjoyment of play Sure, but that's just a side-effect of the process. It's not th…

> DNA is not here "for" anything, DNA is a Thing That Happens.

I agree, and my point was that saying:

> We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA.

Just kicks the can down the road. We're not here to make copies of our DNA any more than DNA is here to make copies of us.

> Sure, but that's just a side-effect of the process. It's not the purpose of our existence.

So, too, are we, as is replication itself. It happens to be the only reason the process continues, but it has no inherent purpose any more than playfulness does. It just is. This could also be framed as: we are the process.

> Given the right combination of atoms, a source of energy, and enough time, a self-reproducing system will appear by pure chance. After that Darwin takes over.

All of these things happened before Darwin was involved, and while I understand the point you're making, I'm calling this out because Natural Selection is again just a language and labeling game that maps the process relative to our experience of it and our understanding of various scientific disciplines.

None of this brings us closer to a "purpose", per se.

The statement that "existence is fundamentally playful" is not a claim about purpose either. But rather, an observation about how things appear to be, based on our ability to understand them.

Some people would also say that existence is fundamentally mathematical.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#83

Post by maxbond »

adasdasdas wrote: post #77
maxbond wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well that's why I believe most nihilists aren't actually nihilists. Let's suppose for a moment you're mistaken. How would you recognize evidence to the contrary, were you to receive it? If you met a nihilist, you'd dismiss them, right? It's an approximately unfalsifiable construction. > Also, I don't think believing in meaning has anything to do with nihilism. It seems like you call it "purpose" and I called it "me…

> Let's suppose for a moment you're mistaken. How would you recognize evidence to the contrary, were you to receive it? If you met a nihilist, you'd dismiss them, right? It's an approximately unfalsifiable construction. I think it's almost tautological. But most people are on a spectrum, there are extremely nihilistic people who still care about their mothers for example. But yea, I think that the spectrum of nihilis…

I'm gunnuh be blunt, and I mean no offense, but from what I've read of your arguments in this & adjacent subthreads, it seems you don't really understand what nihilism is and are actually talking about depression and suicidal ideation.

You're saying very insensitive things about real people and a very touchy subject, and you've had multiple people explain to you at length what it is you've misunderstood about nihilism. I think you should take a step back and take another look at that, I'm not sure you've accurately estimated the weight of your words or the sturdiness of your foundation.

This is as one human being to another, if I think I recognize a certain pattern of thinking and am asking you to reevaluate it, it's only because I've had that pattern of thinking in my own mind and someone else has drawn my attention to it in the past.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#84

Post by adasdasdas »

YellOh wrote: post #67
adasdasdas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of nihilism, I think of depressed people who can't pick themselves up to do anything because of a feeling of hopelessness, or a man experiencing a mid life crisis wondering what he's worked so hard for. These people often resort unhealthy coping mechanisms or even worse, suicide.

You're equivocating between your stereotype of nihilism and what "real nihilists" "should" do to be considered a nihilist. Nihilism != depression, even if there is overlap, and it's useful to let the words have different meanings. There are a decent number of people who are nihilists without meeting your assumptions above (though they're probably less salient, as if someone seems functional & not-miserable, people do…

I'm not equivocating anything, my test for nihilism is very simple, "do you have anything meaningful in your life". What I mentioned earlier are symptoms or forms of nihilism.

What I hate is when people describe nihilism as "Well, I don't believe there is meaning but also I find satisfaction in the small things in life" or "There's no point in life, the point of life is to live". It's always the same pattern of rejecting objective meaning and thinking that's the same as having no meaning.

Fwiw, I'm in favor of Nietzsche's definition too, but I don't want to introduce a whole host of loaded words to an already confusing topic

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#85

Post by pcwelder »

> Supposing there's no ultimate, objective, metaphysical thing called meaning

I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves.

For one thing, we can objectively discard some types of utility functions, for example, the utility functions that have arbitrary discontinuity in time.

One also might argue, for example, that utility functions should be approximately constant at time scales much smaller than our perception.

If no single utility function, we can at least objectively find a class of utility functions (or purpose).

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#86

Post by lisper »

haswell wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one has to ask what the DNA is here for DNA is not here "for" anything, DNA is a Thing That Happens. Given the right combination of atoms, a source of energy, and enough time, a self-reproducing system will appear by pure chance. After that Darwin takes over. > that which is being replicated holds this capacity for playfulness and the enjoyment of play Sure, but that's just a side-effect of the process. It's not th…

> DNA is not here "for" anything, DNA is a Thing That Happens. I agree, and my point was that saying: > We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA. Just kicks the can down the road. We're not here to make copies of our DNA any more than DNA is here to make copies of us. > Sure, but that's just a side-effect of the process. It's not the purpose of our existence. So, too, are we, as is replication itself. It happen…

I think we're basically in violent agreement here. The only thing I would point out is that there is an asymmetry: reproduction can exist without playfulness (I don't think bacteria do much playing). But playfulness cannot exist without reproduction. That's the reason I think it's fair to put reproduction in a more primary role.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#87

Post by 1970-01-01 »

tivert wrote: post #63
1970-01-01 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made

>>> "Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" > Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. No. At worst it's only technically false, but broadly on the right track. If y…

I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context?

https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#89

Post by adasdasdas »

jona-f wrote: post #73
adasdasdas wrote: post #3

Can "nihilists" stop conflating rejecting objective meaning with having no meaning (nihilism).

Yes, to me rejecting objective meaning is nihilism, what do you call it? What you call nihilism, i might call radical nihilism or extreme nihilism. Yes, taken to the extreme, it would lead to total apathy, as there is no reason to do anything (Also no reason to kill yourself btw). But you can still have nihilism as the foundation of your philosophy. That would probably be a contradiction to you, cause you take nihili…

> Yes, to me rejecting objective meaning is nihilism, what do you call it?

The word closest to rejecting objective meaning is just non-religious because objective meaning is mostly a religious phenomenon.

What matters is that the alternative is NOT just nihilism, but also existentialism.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#90

Post by jona-f »

adasdasdas wrote: post #89
jona-f wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, to me rejecting objective meaning is nihilism, what do you call it? What you call nihilism, i might call radical nihilism or extreme nihilism. Yes, taken to the extreme, it would lead to total apathy, as there is no reason to do anything (Also no reason to kill yourself btw). But you can still have nihilism as the foundation of your philosophy. That would probably be a contradiction to you, cause you take nihili…

> Yes, to me rejecting objective meaning is nihilism, what do you call it? The word closest to rejecting objective meaning is just non-religious because objective meaning is mostly a religious phenomenon. What matters is that the alternative is NOT just nihilism, but also existentialism.

Existentialism is one of those philosophies based on nihilism in my book.
Post reply on HN