|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-belief and Nihilism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This topic is meant to explore the idea of whether or not a lack of belief in an Absolute leads logically to nihilism.
Definitions (my own): Nihilism--the idea that there are no absolute standards for behavior nor is there any meaning to life. Life is an accident of a mindless universe. An individual life is a hodge-podge of accidental happenings, sometimes creating great misery, sometimes a modicum of temporary happiness, for no reason and without much control over it by the individual, whose character is mostly pre-determined. There are no standards for behavior that are real, and there is really no particular reason to do or not do anything. When we die, our friends, if we have any, will bury us and perhaps even place a stone. The world will go on, somebody will fill up our place, and in a little while our life and death will be of no more significance to anybody else than that of some dog that died in a ditch. That is the sum total of an individual life. The Absolute--a generic term that does not have to mean God or god in the Western sense but must include a standard for behavior that is ultimately meaningful and purposeful. It does not necessarily have to include the idea of an after-life. Contention: The notion of something in between belief and nihilism, some relative morality, some personal meaning or even some political creed which we decide to live by is not valid, for such standards are ultimately arbitrary--in other words, one either has to be a nihilist or a believer in the Absolute to be logically consistent. My own belief at the moment: nihilism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1428 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Hi RR,
Here's some of my thoughts. This topic is easier to reply to because it's based more on opinion and internal ethic than on scientific fact. I'll get a response to you in your "mind from matter" thread soon... just not yet. Need to think more... and my SOP is not done yet.
Life is an accident of a mindless universe. An individual life is a hodge-podge of accidental happenings, sometimes creating great misery, sometimes a modicum of temporary happiness I'm OK with this.
for no reason and without much control over it by the individual I'm not sure about this, but I'll skip for now.
whose character is mostly pre-determined. 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. The 'pre-determined' part of character, in my view, is just a set of potential results. Your choices and choice of experiences is what makes your character. DNA, protiens, chemicals mean nothing, DO nothing, unless they are in the 'right situation.' You shape yourself by how you choose to live.
There are no standards for behavior that are real I think there are no standards for behavior that are absolute... but plenty that are real. We all live within societies, micro-societies, families, etc. There are real rules with a real purpose. The community that you choose to participate in is up to you. Even if you live alone, you can live in a larger community (the earth).
and there is really no particular reason to do or not do anything. We do live within some structure. That is our society. I don't think there's some overarching reason to do anything. Only to do what you believe will make you ultimately feel happy and satisfied inside. That requires forethought and anticipation.
When we die, our friends, if we have any, will bury us and perhaps even place a stone. The world will go on No doubt about that!
somebody will fill up our place, and in a little while our life and death will be of no more significance to anybody else than that of some dog that died in a ditch. Well... there's lots of ways to have significance. In the least, you have significance to those who care about you. That usually matters to people; it does to me. You can impact society if you want; you can make a notable impact there. It kind of depends what you mean by 'significance'--what level of significance matters to you? Is it any different if there is an absolute or God? If God told you what is right, what is wrong, and you did them, and then you went to heaven, what would you do there? What would you feel there? Is that any different than how you could make yourself feel here on Earth? I guess my answer is no, and my goal is to make myself feel whatever I would have felt in heaven. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
You shape yourself by how you choose to live. Hi Ben, I'll disagree and set forth a classic advaitist position or determinist position. I'm not entirely convinced of this position but it gives a third way of looking at the situation RR sets forth. The universe proceeds cause and effect everything is fully determined.There is no self or person only the appearance of one. This appearance has arisen to allow consciousness to participate in and enjoy the universe it created but it has forgotten that it is the source and not the object. Consciousness awakened to itself in certain people has led them to teach and function to awaken suffering consciousness in individuals to its actual state. The error RR is making is to seek meaning outside himself in the universe. It's like looking at a Monopoly game and asking what is the point. It has no point true, but the meaning of it comes from the players not the game. So the solution is to look to the source of the sense of self, the temporary configuration of consciousness, like a wave is a temporary configuration, or process of water in the ocean, but it's all water. A wave dies on the beach, the water returns to the ocean. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Contention: The notion of something in between belief and nihilism, some relative morality, some personal meaning or even some political creed which we decide to live by is not valid, for such standards are ultimately arbitrary--in other words, one either has to be a nihilist or a believer in the Absolute to be logically consistent. I agree.
My own belief at the moment: nihilism. I'm sorry If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I agree with Ifen in comparing life with a game. His comment is accurate--and a reinforcement of the nihilist point of view.
But I only stratched the surface of the revelations that support the nihilistic stance: 1. That mentality is an illusion (the idea that all is physical) 2. Any denial of the idea that one might have a "self." I've heard a lot of that lately. 3. All denials of free will, which would seem to include the above. All of the above degrade human dignity. But I suspect they might be true. I welcome all comments on this issue, which to me is very important, no mere exercise, both from believers in the Absolute and non-believers. I've noticed that some on this forum treat believers with contempt. I would never do that. Definiton of "character": some people are smart, some are stupid. some people are brave, some are cowardly. some people have will power, some give up easily. Some people are naturally friendly, others are loners. Such traits as these form one's character, and my opinion is that people are born with these traits, or develop them very early in life through no fault of their own. Such is "character."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
in other words, one either has to be a nihilist or a believer in the Absolute to be logically consistent. What's logical is that game theory shows how we each gain the most over time, individually, by working together. Those rules that help us do that are called "morals". I don't know that acting morally is logically defensible in the face of a lack of an abolute moral judge, but it's certainly the most practical course of action, and that pretty much seals it for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The very term "game theory" reinforces nihilism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
All of the above degrade human dignity. But I suspect they might be true I would say that the ego finds this humbling to the point of feeling embarrassed. But the subject you is not the ego and is not implicated in it's pride or feeling of loss of face.
I agree with Ifen in comparing life with a game. His comment is accurate--and a reinforcement of the nihilist point of view. My point about the game is not that life is nihilistic but that you are looking in the wrong place for meaning. You are looking at the externals instead of that which is looking. The Buddha and Ramana to cite two of my favorites in this area didn't feel degraded. Beyond the world of relative is something that does not participate in good/bad, right/wrong. The western religions in placing the absolute in the world of relativity create a conflicted unstable model. God is both the absolute source and one end of the relative continuum. I do suggest you read some Buddhist, or Advaitist thinking on this. The absolute is a different order and because it's present in your subjective consciousness it's immanent but of a different kind then the manifest universe. There is a third alternative but it's not ON the continuum you are examining so you won't find it there. It's beyond language. So thinking about it is only an initial part of the process. That is one of the functions of meditation, to go beyond the conceptual models of language and experience your being in a more direct mode. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Are you suggesting that there is an Absolute?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The very term "game theory" reinforces nihilism. Not only is that a fairly idiotic statement, it's no rebuttal at all to my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Nihlism is the end of the road. The abyss. All is absurd and arbitrary. Yep but sex is pretty good, and morning coffee aint to bad either.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Yes, but it is not an absolute that can be measured, it's not one side of a dicotomy. I'll offer this from the Dharma Master Lok To in his introduction to Huang-Po's The Dharma of Mind Transmission.
Ordinarily, it is said that we use the Mind to transmit the Mind, or that we use the Mind to seal the Mind. Actually, however, in transmitting the Mind, there is really no Mind to receive or obtain; and in sealing the Mind, there is really no Mind to seal. If this is the case, then does the Mind exist or does it not exist? Actually, it cannot be said with certainty that the Mind either exists or does not exist, for it is Absolute Reality. This is expressed in the Ch'an Sect by the maxim: "If you open your mouth, you are wrong. If you give rise to a single thought, you are in error." So, if you can quiet your thinking totally, all that remains is voidness and stillness.
The Mind is Buddha; Buddha is the Mind. All sentient beings and all Buddhas have the same Mind, which is without boundaries and void, without name and form and is immeasurable. What is your Original Face and what is Hua-Tou? Your Original Face is without discrimination. Hua-Tou is the Reality before the arising of a single thought. When this Mind is enlightened, it is the Buddha; but when it is confused, it remains only the mind of sentient beings. http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/huang-po.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It is refreshing to see all of you expanding your faith philosophy. Robinrohan, this was your original contention:
Contention: The notion of something in between belief and nihilism, some relative morality, some personal meaning or even some political creed which we decide to live by is not valid, for such standards are ultimately arbitrary--in other words, one either has to be a nihilist or a believer in the Absolute to be logically consistent.
In order to keep up with you guys, I thought I would nail down your definitions so as to understand the premise.According to Webster: nihilism \n-e-li-zem, ne-he-\ n 1 : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless 2 : anarchism 3 : terrorism nihilist \-list\ n or adj nihilistic \n-e-lis-tik, ne-he-\ adj
Explain to me why there can be no gray area in between? I, for one am an absolute Monotheist. It seems to me that some people are professing Christians, yet they deny Inerrency and somehow have a different idea of God than I do. They still claim Christianity, yet seemingly fail to bow to Christ. Or perhaps they fail to bow to MY idea of Christ. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-12-2004 05:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1428 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
lfen,
Your explanation is much closer to my own belief than my own words. I listened (and read) a talk by John Searle today (requiring RealPlayer again, but there's a transcript this time)--I found his philosophy to match mine VERY well. That's encouraging. There's a sense where both causal reduction (the mind is caused by the brain) and non-reduction (there is explanatory power and reality in the mind) are important. Both are, in the same sense real. The point is, it's a determinist position. Yet at the same time, it supports a non-determinist understanding, if desired. I don't feel the need for a non-determinist position; I prefer a philosophy something like yours. I'm still putting off the investigation, ... but hopefully in January I'll get to it. The non-determinist words I write are for those who seem to 'play that game.' Like I said in another thread, there are some things that are incoherent in that line of thinking, but many things can be explained fine. I prefer the determinist, bottom-up language for its cleanliness and relativistic view (that I derive from it). OK, well.. I feel like I'm spreading my cognitive tracks all over the board these days. I just wanted to say that I like what you wrote, and it's meaningful to me. And that it is much closer to how I think than what I wrote in response to the OP. Ben
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024