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

181–190 of 236 posts

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

#181

Post by HKH2 »

kogus wrote: post #129
andrewjl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?

As it says: It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything. As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.

You don't need joy explained to you; even a baby can feel it. You know that love justifies suffering and sacrifice.

The biggest problem atheists face is shared meaning. Dogma is very useful for society.

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

#182

Post by Def_Os »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #45
jmdeon wrote: post #35

I believe this is existentialism, not nihilism. They both start from the premise that the universe is inherently meaningless, but in existentialism you can create meaning while in nihilism you cannot.

I'm an inverted existentialist and a post-nihilist. My explanation may be a little silly to read. Existential dread is a weird psychological state for people who need the psychological comfort of ultimate or external meaning, it starts with laying awake at night telling yourself "things matter" and hearing that quiet rebuttal. "What if nothing matters". Pulling that thread organically leads people to existentialism,…

This resonates. I'm currently reading The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus and he, as an existentialist, reasons that life is indeed worth living. Combine that with the utilitarian argument (e.g., Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape), and you've roughly got my views summarized. It points towards pushing sentient beings (a bit broader than humanity) forward, indeed.

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

#183

Post by ArthurAardvark »

jmdeon wrote: post #35

I believe this is existentialism, not nihilism. They both start from the premise that the universe is inherently meaningless, but in existentialism you can create meaning while in nihilism you cannot.

You'd be correct, but hey, that doesn't make for a catchy title now, does it?! And apparently "I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel." so this person doesn't exactly strike me as the type to know some of the most influential philosophies of the modern era....

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

#184

Post by xyzelement »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #156
xyzelement wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// It's morally repulsive to me to believe something just because it makes me feel better. If you have an equally valid choice to believe something positive or negative, why would you chose the later?

Ideally you choose the one with the better logical argument. Feelings or consequences shouldn't factor in it.

Like I said, the two choices are equally valid.

Why would you assume that the shittier choice is more logical?

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

#185

Post by ChainOfFools »

beltsazar wrote: post #117

If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…

Exodus (bible OT) contains a phrase (in the voice of god) that is remarkably precocious of its purpose: asserting, through unconventional grammar, a certain essentially existentialist claim completely unique to its speaker.

έγώ είμι ό ών ( pardon the abuse of the acute accent, I can't get this IME to reproduce the grave) which is translated as "I am that I am," means something dynamically close to "I am the IS." or "I am that which IS." A structure that implies being outside the passage of time, uncreated and therefore not dependent on reproduction to continue surviving, or even on life to keep on living.

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

#186

Post by ElFitz »

kogus wrote: post #129
andrewjl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?

As it says: It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything. As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.

> As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.

Personally, it’s been easy. I realised it one day on my own. It felt dreadful.

Then I realised feeling dreadful about it was ultimately pointless since nothing could be done about it.

And I moved on.

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

#187

Post by nurettin »

jononomo wrote: post #177
nurettin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Big bang cosmology proves (my particular brand of) The Almighty God" is what is known in the academia as "Facebook science". It may sound great, it may conform to your beliefs, it may be satisfying to say, and feel just right. But I'd imagine out of the thousands upon thousands of papers published on the topic of big bang cosmology, there would be just one which says "oh and by the way this is definitive proof that…

You do realize why the term "The Big Bang" was coined, right?

Yes, Fred Hoyle was making fun of the concept on a radio show.

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

#188

Post by beltsazar »

chronofar wrote: post #162
beltsazar wrote: post #117

If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…

> So, how exactly do we know which is good, which is bad? Is there even an objective good or bad without invoking the idea that some higher beings say so? I’m not sure how “higher beings say so” gets you to objectivity, especially when the very nature of our understanding of any such being would be anything but objective. Mostly what you’ve touched on there is that “good” and “bad” are rather inadequate descriptors o…

> There can be multiple competing objective functions

But my whole point is that there can only be one ultimate objective function: to maximize the chance of survival. There might be some other objective functions derived from the ultimate one, but none can be standalone.

Other standalone "objective functions" can always be asked "Why is it desirable?" For example, why is minimizing suffering desirable? Pain is just a signal to the brain that something dangerous is happening. Murder is "bad" because a species that has fewer counts has a lesser chance to survive. Torture is not necessarily "bad", unless it's argued that it in the long run will lessen the chance of survival.

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

#189

Post by HKH2 »

loughnane wrote: post #20
thenerdhead wrote: post #8

> I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel. This shows when you call both Watts and Vonnegut a nihilist. Absurdism for example is not the same as nihilism.

That quote is weird. In technical fields you wouldn’t read the classic literature (mechanical engineers don’t read Euclid), but there’s no fear of reinventing the wheel since modern books take account of fundamental works; if not by name then for sure in content. I’m surprised how you can get a philosophy degree and then be afraid of “reinventing the wheel”. I suppose the author is self-aware enough to know what he d…

Coining new terms often muddies the waters. Defining words well is one of the hardest challenges of philosophy because philosophical terms easily gain baggage due to all the abstractions.

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

#190

Post by beltsazar »

feoren wrote: post #139
beltsazar wrote: post #117

If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will cont…

When you say "survival" in terms of Darwinian evolution, you're really talking about survival of specific genes. Why should we choose to be beholden to the primal "desires" (if you'll grant me the intentional stance) of our genes? We are the AI that our DNA invented that turned around and overthrew it. The planet is ours now, not our DNA's. There are many other things that evolve too: ideas, memes, viruses, and many…

> Yes, there is: we all collectively decide properties of the world we'd like to live in, and we try to guess what kind of world future generations would also like to live in, and then we call those actions that ultimately improve those properties "good" and those that lessen those properties "bad"

First of all, who are "we"? Second of all, you just proved my point, unless you want to redefine "objective" as something that the majority accept. Also, why are those properties desirable? Because the majority prefer it? There would be no objective good or bad, then—it's just the preference of the majority.

Post reply on HN