A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

Post by johnmarius » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #82

gglitch wrote: post #48

The older I get, the more deeply weird and mystical this whole range of questions feels to me. It only recently occurred to me, for example, while reading about Whitehead's process philosophy, that even if he was right, and that by learning about process philosophy I'd discovered a radically different and more energizing explanation for what the fundamental nature of reality is, it just wouldn't matter; I couldn't pr…

The older I get and the more philosophy/literature/science I digest, the greater the urge to disconnect. Forget about the news, forget about history, forget about philosophy, forget about travel, forget about tech (for the most part). Throw out the macbooks and the TVs and my library. It's all brain-clutter. I could be growing flowers or napping in a hammock instead. I'm increasingly less convinced that satisfaction…

Post by xorcist » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #109

krapp wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them. Not to be a pedant, but what literally happened is someone, likely well after after Jesus' lifetime, claimed Jesus said this and that. No one actually knows what Jesus literally said.

Well, depending on which Christian sect you subscribe to, the biblical accounts contain the direct words of Jesus Christ and Yahweh respectively. So I'll cede that if we're already going to treat the Bible as if it were objectively factual. Otherwise we'd have to get into an argument who "Jesus" even was (assuming we accept the majority interpretation of history that there was someone who at least vaguely matches the…

Post by Retric » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #120

Retric wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aesthetics is one possibility. When someone straitens a picture frame they don't need that to last past the heat death of the universe for it to be worth it. Expanding this to say a painting or poem which also has a finite lifespan and you can even learn to appreciate a Mandala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala Keep going in that direction and a life well lived is it's own reward. And by well lived I mean occasi…

The issue is defining what it is to be "well lived". With out a sky daddy, you're pretty much unable to declare anything good or bad. Some men want to watch the world burn. Tell me why that is wrong? You will say that human life has value. I will ask, honestly, why? From a purely reductionist perspective it doesn't. It's all just atoms. I kill cockroaches without a negative thought. There is no reason to not have the…

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

rishsriv wrote: post #119

ben_che wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rather hypocritical though, right? Athiests measure religious people with their conceptions of science and reason, why can't it go the other way?

Hitchen's Razor - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Post by thinkdevcode » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #101

jonstaab wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another question for another day. Off the top of my head I can't think of a reason they wouldn't be able to create some form of objective meaning. My problem with lies more in the problems of evil, ontology, epistemology, and a compelling narrative to history.

That's the thing; having a whole pantheon of gods, each of differing levels of 'goodness' neatly solves the problem of evil. (so does postulating one true god who isn't entirely good or entirely evil.) The problem of evil is only a philosophical problem insofar as you postulate a god of infinite ability, infinite knowledge and infinite goodness. Obviously, such a god contradicts the world as we see it. remove any one…