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

101–110 of 236 posts

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

#101

Post by arpyzo »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #32

"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" Is this type of misunderstanding of what Science is that common? It's painfully lacking and I can't tell if it is written as sarcasm...

Between atoms and the void (which is not even a thing science recognizes), there is a potentially infinite amount of knowledge yet to be discovered. I use the word "infinite" literally here. Not only that, but it's possible some aspects of the universe and existence are undiscoverable by humans.

Who is to say that purpose cannot exist within this? It is unknown and possibly unknowable.

I believe the author has drawn the wrong lessons from science.

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

#102

Post by adasdasdas »

YellOh wrote: post #91
adasdasdas wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rejec…

Does someone occasionally getting small satisfactions equal them thinking there is meaning in life? If so, we're using very different definitions of meaning. I think people can think there is no meaning and also be capable of occasional positive experiences. (I don't understand the second quote so can't comment on it.) One of my favorite poems is Be Drunk[0]. Would you take someone agreeing with the "thesis" of Be Dr…

To get out of the morbid tone of the thread, I do want to say that, I think we probably mostly agree. I just want to reframe the conversation from, "despite the lack of (objective) meaning, build your own meaning" to "meaning is all around us, you just need to look a little harder" because the former is a very negative perspective on life in my opinion, and it can come from a place of resentment.

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

#103

Post by lisper »

disco_framework wrote: post #99
lisper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are here on Earth to fart around. Except that we're not. We are here on earth to make copies of our DNA. There are some ancillary effects of this (like sex and eating and the internet) but it's not like life doesn't have a purpose at all. It's just not a particularly hifallutin' one.

Sure but that doesn't mean the two ideas are incompatible. In fact the act of making copies of our DNA might be a great example of playful work. Sex is fun and it has the capacity to spread our genes.

> the act of making copies of our DNA might be a great example of playful work

That's an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. I think playfulness requires a brain.

How would you distinguish "playful" chemistry from "serious work" chemistry?

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

#104

Post by Barrin92 »

grrdotcloud wrote: post #9

I am always curious why one continues to believe the beliefs that lead to pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Even if correct is being miserable worth it?

what does it matter if it's worth it? You can only genuinely believe what you acknowledge to be true, and your happiness has no bearing on what is true, there's no choice involved. The moment you attempt to abolish what you believe, being aware you do it only because it causes you pain, it doesn't even work, you're just sort of trying to desperately gaslight yourself. Reminds me of a short poem by Stephen Crane

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

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

#105

Post by disco_framework »

lisper wrote: post #103
disco_framework wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that doesn't mean the two ideas are incompatible. In fact the act of making copies of our DNA might be a great example of playful work. Sex is fun and it has the capacity to spread our genes.

> the act of making copies of our DNA might be a great example of playful work That's an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. I think playfulness requires a brain. How would you distinguish "playful" chemistry from "serious work" chemistry?

I know what you're saying but I think we may have lost the plot here.

The original link was about finding meaning after all, right?

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

#106

Post by interhater »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #87
tivert wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> "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

[flagged]

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

#107

Post by AnimalMuppet »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #15
grrdotcloud wrote: post #9

I am always curious why one continues to believe the beliefs that lead to pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Even if correct is being miserable worth it?

It's morally repulsive to me to believe something just because it makes me feel better.

Those are good morals.

But if you have that kind of moral impulse, are you really a nihilist?

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

#108

Post by bamfly »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #14
adasdasdas wrote: post #3

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

This topic interests me, but I've never really studied it. Would you mind sketching out your take on it?

There exist multiple good, free encyclopedias of philosophy online:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/#Nihi

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/nihilism/v-1

https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

Stanford's is probably the best-regarded of the bunch—you'll struggle to find a better brief introduction to most topics, than it provides, especially for $0. Skipping e.g. Wikipedia and going straight to the SEP, for philosophical topics, is usually a good call.

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

#109

Post by maxbond »

lisper wrote: post #69
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or is there a better abstraction? We're here because intelligence is good, an organizational force. We're here to do that as approximately as we can.

Oh how I wish that were true, but unfortunately at the end of the day Darwin is running the show. Intelligence exists not because it's "good" but because genes that build brains that can solve problems reproduce better than genes that don't.

> Oh how I wish that were true, but unfortunately at the end of the day Darwin is running the show.

This is just essentialism. We can draw that line at any arbitrary point. I can say Darwin isn't running the show, Einstein is. You can try to point out the ways biology effects our lives and argue that it should hold a more privileged position, and I can wave it away and insist you're being sentimental. "I wish that were true, but we're just rocks that happen to think and reproduce, nothing more."

And just as credibly, I can say that things are at the level of human abstraction and that life is about farting around. I can point out how profoundly conceptions at this level effect our lives, and argue that it should hold a privileged position.

You're free to set your standard and the arbitrary point you prefer, but that doesn't devalue anyone else's decision.

It's just a philosophy that doesn't resonate with you because you have a different perspective, that might make it less useful to you but it isn't really a mark against it. I don't eat steak and have no desire to, but I don't argue when people say that steak is delicious.

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

#110

Post by lusus_naturae »

adasdasdas wrote: post #94
lusus_naturae wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A real nihilist in my opinion would probably kill themself Nihlism is acknowledging that many if not all aspects that result in "life" are pointless. I fail to understand how that equates to no will to live life. There is only irrationality to living while acknowledging the pointlessness of it. According to the nihilist, every other justification is flimsy at best, so justifying the pointless is equally irrational…

[flagged]

You're encroaching on ideas of self and self-actualization now, all very different from attributing meaning to aspects that result in or are related to life. Neither wanting to protect yourself or others is against Nilhism per se, mainly I think because acknowledging the pointlessness of something does not immediately or unequivocally make something else reasonable or justifiable. For example, if I say I don't eat fish it doesn't necessarily mean that I am okay with you punching me in the face etc...though, it would make a nice Monty Python sketch.
Post reply on HN