|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: In defense of nihilism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
My problem with nihilism is that it seems to underestimate the significance of human interpretation. In my limited experience, nihilists have had a tendency to depreciate the fact that "rainbows and sunsets make us shiver".
There may be no objective purpose to life, but I don't see why the purpose that we get from our minds is not valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
prophex writes: Relativism is deadly. Indeed. All the worst tyrants and dictators were relativists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Your post borders on satire. Nihilized? I just about choked on that.
Nazism and communism are pretty much the exact opposite of nihilism. Millions of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and others were killed in the Holocaust because Nazism professed that there are objective moral truths: that homosexuality is wrong, for example. In fact, pretty much every mass killing in the history of humanity has been committed in the name of morality and higher powers. Wars are often started for profit or land, but even then, warmongers have a habit of invoking morality and religion. So, care to back up your assertions with some reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
iano writes: Claiming something to be an objective moral truth is not the same as it actually being an objective moral truth. But regardless, a nihilist wouldn't make the claim in the first place. If Buz (or you) can show that either Hitler or Stalin said something to the effect of "morality is nonsense, there is ultimately no such thing as right or wrong", then he (or you) may have a case. But even then, if a few dictators' actions can speak for nihilism itself, then what would 9/11 and the Inquisition say about belief in objective morality?
If you investigated where National Socialism and Communism derived their objective moral truths you would see that they invariably came from man-made philosophies. But man-made philosophies cannot be objective as it is not possible to prove that they are correct. As opposed to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism?
If one was claiming objective moral rights and wrongs one would have to base ones philosophy on God as the basis of it. Not necessarily. You could claim that these things are somehow intrinsic to nature, or the Universe. This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Thu, 01-Dec-2005 12:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
buzsaw writes: Hitler had no objective basis for morality. That was obvious from his conduct. Only it's not. What you're doing is labelling a system of objective values "nihilism" because you happen to disagree with those values. You may as well claim that the Popes who presided over the Inquisition didn't have any belief in God or the Bible, because of their conduct. On edit:
The nihilist is free to pick and choose morality calls. Ultimately, everybody has this freedom. You yourself can choose any interpretation of the Bible you wish, or you can throw it all out the window at any moment. You're only limited by your desires, as is the nihilist or myself, and I have no desire to commit genocide. This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Thu, 01-Dec-2005 01:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
You desire to be a fundamentalist Christian, so you choose to be a fundamentalist Christian. If for some reason you no longer had such a desire, or if another overpowered it, then you would no doubt change your moral code of choice and cease to be fundamentalist Christian. It works the same for everyone.
buzsaw writes: Hitler simply abused his power to suit his whims and desires with total disregard of any code of ethics or accountability. So you say. But everything that I've so far heard or read of Hitler's suggests that he believed that objective values exist, and unless you have some evidence to demonstrate that Hitler was a nihilist, I think it's a given that he believed what he preached. Here's the only mention of nihilism in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf:
quote: Try and count how many times he uses totally un-nihilistic words like "evil" and "duty" in the same work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Right: the naturalistic fallacy. That also shows that, contrary to iano's claim, you don't need to believe in any god to believe in objectivity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
His values were no more objective than the nihilist. If you disagree, please explain the difference. Hitler believed that morality is objective, whereas a nihilist would not, by definition. He was simply not a nihilist.
What about Stalin and communist dictators? How are/were they different than nihilists? Communism holds that it is wrong for the means of production to be controlled by the bourgeoisie. That's not a very nihilistic belief. This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Fri, 02-Dec-2005 05:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
buzsaw writes: A national government of likeminded nihilists, if they were oppressive, would be equally inclined to disregard ethics of justice or international law That's pretty much a tautology. If the nihilists are oppressive, then they would be oppressive. Sure; however, the same goes for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. A national government of likeminded Christians, if they were oppressive, would be equally inclined to disregard ethics of justice or international law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
By your reasoning, wouldn't the best belief system be the one which best prevents its followers from oppressing others? Of all systems available, Christianity clearly wouldn't be the winner there. Maybe we should create a new religion, in which sin is punished by eternal torture for the sinner and his or her entire immediate family. I bet we could manage to leave less room for interpretation than the Bible does, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Buzsaw seems more like the fire & brimstone type (excuse me if I'm wrong, Buz). Not that it was a serious suggestion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
iano writes: His protection gone he could have been picked off and killed I thought that was the idea.
the significance of him announcing for the first time publicly, that he was God The miracle was his way of saying "I am God"? This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Thu, 15-Dec-2005 10:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Saying "I am God" and then turning the water into moonshine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
We may not be able to understand the significance of sin, but we can understand true love, right? Considering that God demands it of us and all.
Rhetorical philosophical question: If God turns water into whisky, is it moonshine?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
iano writes: The only way we get either of these things [love and sin] is that God put it into us to be able to recognise them. Are you talking about all humans, or just those that he choses to "work with"? If the former, then why is my sense of love and sin so incredibly screwed up? I see it as extremely unloving, even sinful, to allow humans to suffer horrific disease, no matter what their crimes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024