Non-belief and Nihilism

Phatboy,

quote:

---

Higher and more noble reality.

---

Please explain how this differs from Nihilism. You're basically saying that what we understand rationally, through the history of the painstaking process of empirical inquiry, is not ultimately real. Needing to understand a phenomenon rationally before affirming it is, according to you, not the way to approach reality.If this reality is in fact higher and more noble than the one we affirm rationally, why does it have to be affirmed before you understand it? It seems like this is a shortcut designed to give your so-called reality an unfair advantage on our everyday reality. If your "higher" reality can't be detected unless you first assume it's there, maybe it's, well, not there to begin with.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Obviously Logic cannot be proved as objective, without begging the question.But suppose Logic is an absolute. Would that mean there would have to be an Omniscient Logician?

"I completely disagree with this (pending a definition of 'character'). Character is a combination of 'pre-determination' and experience. Character is not static AT ALL; it is constantly changing. Don't let the concept of "I" or "being" make you believe that "you" are something constant. You're not! It is the continuity of perception and memory of self-identity that makes the "I". Otherwise, you (your character) are constantly changing. And you change based on experience."My unscientific personal experience tells me that people can't help the way they are. As far as changing, I would say that the changes are outward and superficial. Suppose somebody was extremely shy, to the point where it affected their ability to communicate with others. Through effort (if they are born with innate will power), they can get to the point in which this innate shyness is camouflaged. But one problematic event can re-trigger the shyness, and the mask falls off. I've seen it happen first hand. Probably some brain deficiency.
These kinds of weaknesses can lead to great misery, through no fault of the individual. Oh, but we judge them. We judge them without much mercy.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-14-2004 10:28 AM

You may be right. This is a matter of an individual being honest with themselves and either committing to a personal belief or avoiding committment based on further decision. Listen to this sermon by a respected preacher, IMHO.
http://resources.christianity.com/...hforlife/talkInfo.jhtml

I don't know what you mean by logic being "objective." Are you one of these thinkers who questions whether objectivity is objective? Strictly speaking, all logic allows us to do is decide whether a conclusion can be affirmed on the basis of certain premises. Whether the premises themselves are true is quite another matter.regards,
Esteban Hambre

My terms are vague. I'll think about it for awhile.

Stop reading Sarte!

I try to stay away from such nonsense, if you mean Sartre.

RR,I understand what you're saying here. I think ... I think there's no
"right" perspective. I truly believe it's more a matter of ethics than it is "right" or "wrong". I can explain more if you want.Because it has to do with ethics, then, it's all up to you. You can choose to push yourself hard to change your character, or you can accept yourself the way you are.I am somebody who accepts myself for my own character, and pushes myself hard to change what I'd like to change. I do the same for brothers and girlfriend, and I'll do the same for my kids when I have them. I support my friends by pushing them a bit, but trying to pay attention to what I think they want. It's certainly a tightrope walk...BenP.S. Sorry it took me so long to write this response.

Sorry for jumping in so late...don't get here as often as I'd like. Even with an Absolute you can't say "kindness is better than cruelty". Take a look at the God whose considered the example for many people here. He uses kindness and cruelty equally to accomplish the same result...namely for His own Glory. He provides for one group of people and destroys another group. There is no hint that either act is evil. Since this God is considered all good, kindness and cruelty must be on equal footing in His eyes.Just a reminder that belief in an Absolute doesn't get you too much closer to defining an absolute morality.

---

Absolute!!! No thanks...Grey Goose for me.

I think you are confusing some humans' view of God in history with the Absolute. Not the same thing.

quote:

---

You may be right. This is a matter of an individual being honest with themselves and either committing to a personal belief or avoiding committment based on further decision.

---

...or recognizing that making a committment is impossible on a rational basis.That is the most honest, rational conclusion to make.Committing to a personal belief in lieu of solid emperical evidence is irrational. It is unreasonable to expect a rational person to believe based upon nothing but personal fantasy.

This topic about nihilism has got me to thinking about something.If somebody has a philosophy that is "unlivable," does that say anything about the truth-value of that philosophy?Let's take a simple case: Someone doesn't believe in free will, but he cannot live that philosophy. Our entire civilization is set up on the assumption of free will--but not only that, our private experience assumes free will.Does this mean there is something theoretically wrong with the theory that there is no free will?

How about this for an analogy?Somebody says, "there is no such thing as traffic lights," but then he always stops for traffic lights.Does his stopping at traffic lights invalidate the theory that there is no such thing as traffic lights?

Well, it's why I don't bother with free-will arguments. I can't live like there's no free will, so I simply don't care. It can't make any difference to me. Now, does it then follow that something is "wrong" with arguments that we don't have free will?...a good question. I tend to think not, but...Your question seems to ring a bell, but I can't quite come up with the philosophical context that I've heard such ideas discussed. I'm optimistic someone else here will have something more substantive to say.