Nihilism vs. Existentialism [Archive]

Ensign Steve

01-09-2005, 08:10 PM

I lurves me some existentialism! My working definition, since that's what you asked for, as opposed to any dictionary definition, is simply the study of existence. What exists? What exists in our physical, known universe? Does anything exist outside of it? What exists at a sub atomic level? Does god exist? Do I exist? Do underpants gnomes exist? What does it mean for me to exist? Is it my phyiscal body, my consciousness? Blah blah blah. It's all very exciting for me.

Nihilism, me no likey. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This one I did look up:
From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Nihilism%20), their definition #1, as relates to philosphyAn extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Dunno, seems kind of pointless to me. Like solipsism (the differences I hope will be made glaringly obvious by the more educated members of this board). I mean, what's the point? If nothing exists, can be known, or communicated, then shut the fuck up and leave me to my fantasy.

viscousmemories

01-09-2005, 08:41 PM

Wikipedia has an interesting article on Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) "Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth"
Hey, I was just reading that article yesterday.

When I was about 23 I was having a discussion with some philosophy grad student from U of M*, and he told me my views struck him as nihilistic. Ever since then I've used the word (among others) to characterize my philosophy, but it didn't even occur to me how many different possible meanings that can have depending on the context. So now my working definition isn't working.

I don't know much about existentialism either, besides having read some authors who are frequently described as existentialists - like Camus, Sartre, Dostoevsky, etc. - when I was in my early 20's.

* As soon as I wrote that I remembered that this dude's cat died at some point, and it made him so sad that he put it in his backpack and carried it around with him for several days. :eek: So all I can say is it's quite possible that he had a dead cat in his knapsack while we discussed nihilism.

LadyShea

01-09-2005, 08:50 PM

Wikpedia discusses existentialism too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism)

Existentialism emphasizes the idea that existence precedes essence, i.e., that one must be alive in order to create meaning, and that each person is therefore gifted with individual moments to make choices.

Dragar

01-09-2005, 09:42 PM

I stay away from both terms, probably because the common definitions rather miss the point.

For instance, look at this:

"...but nihilism starts with relativism, the idea that there are no objective values, truths etc... and uses that to draw the conclusion that life is meaningless and valueless."

Let's look at values for a moment. Let's say there are no objective values. Fair enough.

It then goes on to draw the conclusion that life is valueless. But saying 'life is valuless' is looking at it from an objective standpoint. It's like saying, 'there is no objective beauty' and then drawing the conclusion 'the Mona Lisa is not beautiful'.

The problem comes from trying to look at subjective terms using an objective lens. Is the Mona Lisa objectively beautiful? No. Why? Because beauty is a subjective property. Saying it's objectively beautiful is ascribing some property, beauty, to the painting, which is denied by relativism.

What can instead be said is that the painting is beautiful-to-me. This is a property, not of the painting, but of me. Perhaps it should instead be said that while there is no such thing as objective beauty, there is such a thing as perceptions of beauty. Or it could be rephrased as 'I have the property of finding this painting beautiful'.

This confusion - I think Zoot has referred to it before as a period where a part of one's thinking has failed to catch up with the rest - is why the conclusions of nihlism (e.g. there is no such thing as beauty) are valid, but completely miss the point of relativism.

JoeP

01-09-2005, 10:39 PM

Often when people describe other people or points of view as nihilistic it's a simple derogatory term. "You don't value anything." I wouldn't assume this has anything substantial to do with a philosophical position.

Ymir's blood

01-09-2005, 11:26 PM

Wikipedia has an interesting article on Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) "Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth"
Hey, I was just reading that article yesterday.

Oh, sorry. Thought you were done with it. :wink:
When I was about 23 I was having a discussion with some philosophy grad student from U of M*, and he told me my views struck him as nihilistic. Ever since then I've used the word (among others) to characterize my philosophy, but it didn't even occur to me how many different possible meanings that can have depending on the context. So now my working definition isn't working.
Like JoeP said, 'nihilist' gets used as an epithet for someone who doesn't share your values. 'True' nihilism would be indistinquishable from an extremely depressed state, I would think. Without values, then there can be no joy or pleasure, because enjoyment is found only when we are experiencing something deemed valuable.

wade-w

01-09-2005, 11:59 PM

I lurves me some existentialism! My working definition, since that's what you asked for, as opposed to any dictionary definition, is simply the study of existence. What exists? What exists in our physical, known universe? Does anything exist outside of it? What exists at a sub atomic level? Does god exist? Do I exist? Do underpants gnomes exist? What does it mean for me to exist? Is it my phyiscal body, my consciousness? Blah blah blah. It's all very exciting for me.

What you describe here is Ontology, a subdiscipline of Metaphysics. Existentialism is a specific school of thought about how one should go about thinking about Ontology in relation to humanity. The specific maxim "existence precedes essence" means that for humans, essence is defined by existence; IOW we are what we do, or how we act.

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 01:53 AM

Thanks for the comments all!

Wade, you seem to have the kind of understanding/interpretation I was especially looking for. Could you compare and contrast nihilism and existentialism for me? Do you think they are mutually exclusive philosophies or worldviews (hell I don't even know what to correctly call them) or compatible?

I am asking all this based on an II discussion and the discussion of mortality here.

wade-w

01-10-2005, 04:00 AM

They both begin with relativism, the idea that there is no objective value or truth. Nihilism concludes from this that nothing matters, while existentialism concludes that what matters is what we do.

justaman

01-10-2005, 04:30 AM

aahhh my pet! Zoot and David Gould are going to strangle me mwahaha!

I call myself a non-practicing nihilist, because I intellectually acknowledge nihilism to be the One True Philosophy, but I'm too weak to be able to accept it. At an absolute rudimentary level, I believe everyone should suicide.

It's a long argument but it basically comes down to the fact that I personally believe everyone necessarily believes in some kind of objective meaning - even if we consciously say 'objective meaning' is itself meaningless (like I do).

Nihilism works - I think - because it follows strict logic. Why I don't like existentialism (and as an aside, saying 'existentialism' is like saying 'religion' and hoping everyone will know precisely what you mean, it's pretty broad) is because at some point somewhere there is a circular argument of "I pursue it because I pursue it". Nihilism requires no such logical anomoly. All that nihilism really violates is our peace of mind and it is why no one likes it very much, I think. It doesn't provide any solutions we would traditionally think of as being 'constructive'. It is necessarily destructive, since it denies any purpose to living.

I can prove with some effort that there is no more reason to live than to suicide. What I have been thusfar unsuccessful in acheiving is convincing anyone that it is in fact more logical to suicide than to live, though I honestly do believe that this is the case.

To boil it down: if there is no objective meaning to existence, then subjective meaning is arbitrary, decided upon purely by circumstance. I take as a logical assumption that if there is no reason to believe something, it is not logical to believe it. (You still can if you want to, however, but this isn't being logical). So if we reject subjective meaning (because it itself has no meaning) we find the value of all actions are equal. If all actions are equal, all we have to grade actions are the expenditure of energy. If all humans operate on a path-of-least-resistance paradigm (which they must) then humans should most logically choose the path of smallest energy expenditure, which is always suicide.

That's horrendously cut down, but it gives you an idea. :)

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 04:38 AM

justaman

01-10-2005, 04:48 AM

Thanks justaman. I appreciate your comments. Could you expand on a few points for me?. Why must we take everything to it's "logical" conclusion? What's wrong with "I pursue it because I pursue it" or "I value it because I value it" or even, my POV "I live because I am alive"?
In truth nothing. But I always equate it to someone worshipping pebbles. They aren't wrong to do it, there's little point in arguing, but there also would appear little reason in pursuing it.

I personally believe that while the logic is ultimately 'I value it because I value it', this isn't what we really believe. No one actually thinks their beliefs are so arbitrary. We think it is virtuous to believe what we do, so we believe there must be some element of importance.

So the reason I say it is by some measure 'wrong' to say 'I value it because I value it is good enough' is because you are sort of deceiving yourself. You actually believe there is a reason for you to value what you value, else you simply wouldn't value it. When we are most logical, then, when we remove emotive bias from our decision making, we cannot be satisfied by valuing for the sake of valuing.

The argument against this, of course, is that much of what we value results in pleasure, which provides this motivation. It is the argument I am most subjected to. It fails, however, because strictly logically pleasure amounts to the same circular reasoning. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it". So while this again cannot be criticised as being 'wrong' it is still equivalent to a pebble-worshipper. It is not logical, it is emotive.

This has, I think, implications on our ability to criticize the 'accuracy' of belief systems for any other. I really do liken atheists with wills to live on the precise same level as fundamentalist Christians living because God tells them to. (I put myself on this level also, though I'm occasionally dangling from it :P )

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 05:00 AM

Hmm, I still don't understand why you think we should choose logic over emotion. Sure, I think my reasons for valuing X are good ones, but I also know that my opinion is subjective and arbitrary.

I really do liken atheists with wills to live on the precise same level as fundamentalist Christians living because God tells them to.

Huh? I enjoy living, I like being alive because it's all I know. Non existence is the only alternative and the known eventuality, and I see no reason to hasten that. How does that equate with living because some deity tells you to?

Sorry to keep peppering your with questions. I am trying to understand, your points just don't make any sense to me...yet.

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 05:03 AM

I'm tired and a bit mentally burned out right now, but one thing that seems to go missing in all these recent philosophy threads is the fact that we don't appear to always consciously choose how we behave. There seems to be this underlying assumption that we aren't the products of our genetics and environment, but these purely rational beings that weigh moral consequences and choose every action according to our beliefs.

I think a very large part of the reason I haven't killed myself despite my firm belief that I am nothing but a single link in a massive evolutionary chain in an indifferent universe is inertia. Certainly not because I think there's any meaning or value beyond whatever I pretend there is.

Clutch Munny

01-10-2005, 05:04 AM

Thanks justaman. I appreciate your comments. Could you expand on a few points for me?. Why must we take everything to it's "logical" conclusion? What's wrong with "I pursue it because I pursue it" or "I value it because I value it" or even, my POV "I live because I am alive"?

Nothing at all wrong with any of that. And it's all perfectly consistent with "taking things to their logical conclusions". Logic in itself doesn't tell you whether you've got a good theory of what values are, after all! It just tells you what would entail that theory, and what it would entail in turn.

Neither nihilism nor existentialism has a very precise definition. Wade's are as good as any for these purposes. A general existential attitude towards life might be this: There's no general principles of fairness or meaning or significance to life, beyond those we construct in one way or another. Nihilism is far less well-defined; it probably makes most sense as a topic-specific sort of thing. Eg., one can be a nihilist about art, about morality, and so forth. As to being a nihilist across the board, it's hard to know quite what that amounts to. Presumably anyone who says they are has managed find some value or meaning in the project of telling you, f'r instance. And what argument can be given for such a view, that doesn't presuppose the normativity of reasoning? I.e., the idea that you ought to believe the conclusions of sound arguments, etc?

There's a large and generally unreadable literature on existentialism. (Two large wars in France in 20 years but Sartre survives? Sheesh.) But the very readable bits in the literature include Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground (great literature the way I like it: short and funny), Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (neither very short nor very funny, but flaming dogdish the man could write) and Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide five-part trilogy (as keen a limning of absurdity as anything Sartre ever imagined, but without the leaden prose and narcoleptic effect).

David Gould

01-10-2005, 05:05 AM

Justaman,

Happy New Year.

One of my objections to your formulation is that if there is no logical difference between staying alive and suiciding then the only reason to choose one over the other has to be emotional. There is no other means open to us. (This includes your energy formulation. There is no logical reason to choose not to expend energy. After all, in the context of our lives we can always get more.)

So we have to make an emotional choice: live, or not live. Most people exist in the emotional state of enjoying life sufficiently to choose to live.

justaman

01-10-2005, 05:08 AM

Hmm, I still don't understand why you think we should choose logic over emotion. Sure, I think my reasons for valuing X are good ones, but I also know that my opinion is subjective and arbitrary.
Because emotion is logic, but necessarily biased. If we (and atheists usually are) are interesting being as objective as possible, we need to remove as much bias from our reasoning as possible. So following emotive logic is following something we should be avoiding if we want to believe what is most likely to be objectively true.

Huh? I enjoy living, I like being alive because it's all I know. Non existence is the only alternative and the known eventuality, and I see no reason to hasten that. How does that equate with living because some deity tells you to?
Because there is no reason whatever to prefer life over nothingness. Even if you are enjoying the crap out of life, even if life is friggen awesome being dead is not worse. There is no regret in death, no avenue for comparison.

The interesting thing, however, is that it is quite possible to prefer death over life. When life starts biting the ass, death can become an attractive alternative because once again, there is no regret.

It is absolutely impossible for death to ever be a 'wrong' decision. The only way this could be so is if there are consequences. If we believe in a nihilistic death - as all atheists do by definition - then this premise will always hold true. It's only if there is a god to kick us in the ass for doing the wrong thing that this premise is false.

Sorry to keep peppering your with questions. I am trying to understand, your points just don't make any sense to me...yet.
Not at all. Nihilism is in fact why I started chatting on philosophy forums. Any excuse to talk about it is fine by me :P

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 05:13 AM

Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide five-part trilogy (as keen a limning of absurdity as anything Sartre ever imagined, but without the leaden prose and narcoleptic effect)

Oh I read the whole series twice, loved every word. Sartre sounds kinda boring, but I'll take a cautious look ;). I also enjoyed Camus' The Stranger, but I read it as a look at sociopathy rather than existentialism.

justaman

01-10-2005, 05:14 AM

Justaman,

Happy New Year.
Hey man! You too :)

One of my objections to your formulation is that if there is no logical difference between staying alive and suiciding then the only reason to choose one over the other has to be emotional. There is no other means open to us. (This includes your energy formulation. There is no logical reason to choose not to expend energy. After all, in the context of our lives we can always get more.)
This is only true so long as you choose to entertain the notion that emotive logic has value. Your decision to do that is a logical error, I think, though again it isn't objectively 'wrong'. It simply violates our usual stance of being objective and not believing purely out of desire.

So we have to make an emotional choice: live, or not live. Most people exist in the emotional state of enjoying life sufficiently to choose to live.
Which I have always conceded, but it is the choice to exist in the emotional state of enjoying life which - I think - can be made without emotion.

justaman

01-10-2005, 05:15 AM

Sartre sounds kinda boring, but I'll take a cautious look ;).
He was also a dwarf man, like 5"3 or something.

I think that's worth taking into account.

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 05:18 AM

wade-w

01-10-2005, 05:22 AM

Justaman, if nothing has any value, then why do you apparently value logic?

David Gould

01-10-2005, 05:26 AM

This is only true so long as you choose to entertain the notion that emotive logic has value. Your decision to do that is a logical error, I think, though again it isn't objectively 'wrong'. It simply violates our usual stance of being objective and not believing purely out of desire.

What is the logical reason people should suicide?

My suspicion is that there is not one. In other words, if this question is put:

'Should I stay alive?' is there a difference between the answer 'Yes' and the answer 'No'? It seems to me that your argument is based on the fact that both answers are equivalent - there is no logical reason to pick one over the other.

However, we still have no choice but to make a choice. Logic has failed us. Emotion is all we have to go on. And that is why suicide is an emotional decision.

Now, in your play you posited the notion of a person who suicided not with any emotion but simply due to the logical conclusion that it did not matter either way. If nothing matters then suicide is not a bad decision in any sense - I agree with that. But there is still no logical reason to suicide. (There is also no logical reason not to suicide, of course.) So the person made an non-logical decision. It had to be such a decision. And the only thing we have apart from logic is emotion.

Which I have always conceded, but it is the choice to exist in the emotional state of enjoying life which - I think - can be made without emotion.

Hmmm. I do not think that that is possible. I do not think that we can choose such a thing without emotion. Indeed, I do not see how emotion can be removed from the decision making process. I guess you could introduce a randomiser of some sort - for example, ask yourself every day whether you will live or die and toss a coin that will activate a laser to kill you if it lands heads down. But the decision to set up such a machine would have to be taken emotionally in the first place.

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 05:26 AM

Okay justaman, I think I see where our disconnect is here.

Because emotion is logic, but necessarily biased. If we (and atheists usually are) are interesting being as objective as possible, we need to remove as much bias from our reasoning as possible. So following emotive logic is following something we should be avoiding if we want to believe what is most likely to be objectively true.

It simply violates our usual stance of being objective and not believing purely out of desire.

I am not an atheist because I am objective and logical (I am not); I am an atheist because the concept of deity makes no sense to me on any level. I operate mostly on intuition and feeling quite frankly. I think this difference in how we approach the world is causing my confusion.

justaman

01-10-2005, 06:31 AM

Justaman, if nothing has any value, then why do you apparently value logic?
Because we cannot escape our need to decide. You are correct in that some kind of objective theoretical nihilism would in fact require us to do nothing, all action would be equally in 'error' in this context. But practicality requires us to act and we cannot act except in logic. (We are by definition logical entities, to deny this is to deny cause-and-effect in a way).

So it isn't a question of valuing logic so much as acting with the least possible amount of bias. It is not biased to behave logically, it is necessary.

David argues that it is equally necessary to behave emotionally and I haven't really been able to refute this challenge in any meaningful way so far. But I am convinced it should be possible, I just need to try a bit harder :P

justaman

01-10-2005, 06:42 AM

What is the logical reason people should suicide?
It's not so much a 'logical reason' as all that is left over once emotion has been removed from the equation.

My difficulty is proving that we can remove emotion. But I do think this is possible. Buddhist practices etc would appear to indicate we can, for example.

However, we still have no choice but to make a choice. Logic has failed us. Emotion is all we have to go on. And that is why suicide is an emotional decision.
I don't think logic ever fails us, precisely. We will always have different options because of the burden of living. If we could exist in some stasis where there was no pain vs pleasure paradigm constantly acting upon us, then perhaps, but of course this isn't the case.

Now, in your play you posited the notion of a person who suicided not with any emotion but simply due to the logical conclusion that it did not matter either way. If nothing matters then suicide is not a bad decision in any sense - I agree with that. But there is still no logical reason to suicide. (There is also no logical reason not to suicide, of course.) So the person made an non-logical decision. It had to be such a decision. And the only thing we have apart from logic is emotion.
But then that was all I was trying to do with it, if you know what I mean. I never attempted to go the next step and say suicide is preferable, only that it is equivalent.

Did I tell you I wound up putting that on in a festival?? The adjudicator called it 'intelligent but self-indulgent' :irked: hehehe, it's probably fair enough. I realised some time after doing it that making the difficult conept of nihilism more difficult by making its advocate speak like that was a bit isolating for the audience :P We did get a couple of minor awards so that was swell. :yup:

The point is that it was only designed to show suicide is a legitimate option, not the preferable one.

Hmmm. I do not think that that is possible. I do not think that we can choose such a thing without emotion. Indeed, I do not see how emotion can be removed from the decision making process. I guess you could introduce a randomiser of some sort - for example, ask yourself every day whether you will live or die and toss a coin that will activate a laser to kill you if it lands heads down. But the decision to set up such a machine would have to be taken emotionally in the first place.
I'm not really sure that it's quite as difficult as this. You only really need a moment of clarity, if you will. It's precisely the same as breaking an addiction. Your argument for not being able to get around emotion seems to me comparable with a smoker saying he could not get around the draw of the addiction. That is true, he will feel the pull but that doesn't mean he has to act accordingly. If he acknowledges the alternative option to the one he wants to be true, he can take it through sheer force of will. That is how I envision a nihilistic suicide.

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 06:59 AM

justaman

01-10-2005, 07:08 AM

From what I know it's certainly possible to separate reason from emotion. Mental health professionals call it "isolation of affect", and it's an emotional defense mechanism symptomatic of numerous personality disorders that are commonly associated with suicide. So it seems like you're on the right track, justaman.
I've always hoped I had some kind of personality disorder, but I'm pretty sure I'm mentally disease free :P Well apart from occasional bouts of fairly severe depression, but that seems to be par for the course for anyone with an I.Q. over 50 these days :D

I can't imagine why, though... this seems kinda like intellectual masturbation to me. And I'm not saying that just 'cause it's a morbid line of thought. I'm all about the morbid. I just don't know what you hope to gain from it. I think people who effectively sever their intellect from their emotion are commonly referred to as sociopaths. :P
Well I mean really I'm accusing the entire world except me (and those few other nihilists, if I can even call myself one) of being deluded. It's sorta hardly surprising that I'm subject to being thought of in negative terms in that way.

Honestly, I really have pursued my own motivations. Is all this really because I just want to die and am trying to justify this desire with reason? I'm quite convinced it's not. I cannot help coming back to the realisation that it is never the wrong decision to suicide. That in itself is so completely at odds with everything people traditionally believe and yet it seems so obvious.

I've basically concluded that the reason I believe this and no one else does is because I can never stop deconstructing. That would be equivalent to your 'intellectual masturbation' thing - an observation which rocks, incidentally :D I must act for a reason and I must know what that reason is. I can never be satisfied with "Oh that's just the way it is, quit bitching".

For the record, I live like anyone else, I'm fairly normal, but I still think I'm wrong - by my standards - to do it.

justaman

01-10-2005, 07:14 AM

I am not an atheist because I am objective and logical (I am not); I am an atheist because the concept of deity makes no sense to me on any level. I operate mostly on intuition and feeling quite frankly. I think this difference in how we approach the world is causing my confusion.
Fair enough. I sort of doubt that you don't use logic when you dismiss a deity as making no sense, but of course I really don't know how you tick :P

To deny yourself as being logical is quite impossible, I think. Every human is logical, but most just happen to be irrational. A friend's father recently completed PhD thesis on that one - I didn't read it - and I tend to agree. In the context I'm talking about, logic is the method of evaluation. IF you see this THEN you will act in this way. You can't escape the way your brain works at the 'machine level' if you like. This is the realm of logic. People can be irrational, however, because the larger paradigms become out of kilter with observable reality, so while we are all logical, we all come to different conclusions.

So you really can't say you aren't logical, you have to be :yup:

wade-w

01-10-2005, 07:47 AM

I'm not sure that the way you use the term "logic" is an accurate usage. What does it mean to be a "logical entity?"

Logic is the study of reasoning. Thus it is concerned with arguments. An argument is considered valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. An argument is called sound if it is both valid and the premises are true. If we accept the extreme relativism necessary for nihilism, then it becomes impossible to know if a given argument is in fact sound.

As far as I can tell, you have not addressed David's basic point:

What is the logical reason people should suicide?

My suspicion is that there is not one. In other words, if this question is put:

'Should I stay alive?' is there a difference between the answer 'Yes' and the answer 'No'? It seems to me that your argument is based on the fact that both answers are equivalent - there is no logical reason to pick one over the other.

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 08:15 AM

I sort of doubt that you don't use logic when you dismiss a deity as making no sense, but of course I really don't know how you tick

My disbelief came first based on the concepts being presented to me not feeling correct..."I don't believe because I don't believe" so to speak ;). Learning about and researching the logical arguments against deity came later.

To deny yourself as being logical is quite impossible, I think. Every human is logical, but most just happen to be irrational. A friend's father recently completed PhD thesis on that one - I didn't read it - and I tend to agree. In the context I'm talking about, logic is the method of evaluation. IF you see this THEN you will act in this way. You can't escape the way your brain works at the 'machine level' if you like. This is the realm of logic. People can be irrational, however, because the larger paradigms become out of kilter with observable reality, so while we are all logical, we all come to different conclusions.

So you really can't say you aren't logical, you have to be :yup:

Okay, fair enough. Let me put it this way then, I don't really spend any time asking myself "is this belief/action the logical one", nor have I ever studied logic. I don't think I am an irrational person either though, but whatever innate logic I have runs as a subroutine, using your machine analogy.

justaman

01-10-2005, 08:31 AM

I'm not sure that the way you use the term "logic" is an accurate usage. What does it mean to be a "logical entity?"
I am using a kinda funny definition of it.

Basically, I am using 'logic' as being synonymous for cause-and-effect within the neural structures of our brains.

Just like computer 'logic' with IF/THEN/ELSE gates, etc.

Logic is the study of reasoning. Thus it is concerned with arguments. An argument is considered valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. An argument is called sound if it is both valid and the premises are true. If we accept the extreme relativism necessary for nihilism, then it becomes impossible to know if a given argument is in fact sound.
Well nihilism is, in fact, itself subject to post-modern deconstruction since it is certainly saying that there is a universal 'truth' which post-modernism says cannot exist.

Regardless, I think of nihilism as more of a practical philosophy of what humans should do. In all honesty, it makes no commentary on Life, the Universe and Everything, only about our role in it. But that happens to be the only role that matters, I'd argue.

As far as I can tell, you have not addressed David's basic point:

What is the logical reason people should suicide?

My suspicion is that there is not one. In other words, if this question is put:

'Should I stay alive?' is there a difference between the answer 'Yes' and the answer 'No'? It seems to me that your argument is based on the fact that both answers are equivalent - there is no logical reason to pick one over the other.

As I said to him, one doesn't really approach nihilism in this manner. It's inductive, in a way, in that nihilism is what is left after you remove emotion. It's not something you add to your present worldview.

I am beating around the bush a bit regarding David's question though.

In practice there will always be a difference between answering 'yes' and 'no' when asking whether you should continue to live. To suggest there might not be assumes a state where sensations do not impact upon us, when clearly no such state really exists. So if I say 'no' I acheive that state of non-existence I will acheive in 50 years time anyway. If I say 'yes' I am acheiving a state with a certain value on the scale of pain vs pleasure.

My argument is that pain is inescapable. Pleasure isn't. Pain is ultimately what makes it logical to suicide. This is because when you are in pain you have two options (let's say):

A: stay alive and feel better, then do X, then do X, then do X, then die.

B: die.

Choosing B is more logical, because it achieve the ultimate end more effectively. You remove the pain and acheive your inevitable state.

An important point that must be remembered is that all actions are erased at death. This doesn't mean they stop, it means they never happened in your estimation. That is because you have no chance for reflection in death. There is no future, present or past. Ergo, your past does not exist. It never happened.

I think it is most logical to acknowledge this and hasten it's arrival, since this is where you arrive anyway.

so

A: [action]+[action]+[action]+[action]+[action]+[action]=death

B: death

Because death removes past:

A = non-existence
B = non-existence

Both chains are identical, it is only a matter of how long you personally prolong this inescapable (non) reality.

justaman

01-10-2005, 08:36 AM

My disbelief came first based on the concepts being presented to me not feeling correct..."I don't believe because I don't believe" so to speak ;). Learning about and researching the logical arguments against deity came later.
Ok, but remember I believe emotive logic is still logic, it just has a greater potential for bias. I do see the distinction you're making, however. :)

Okay, fair enough. Let me put it this way then, I don't really spend any time asking myself "is this belief/action the logical one", nor have I ever studied logic. I don't think I am an irrational person either though, but whatever innate logic I have runs as a subroutine, using your machine analogy.
This is a good way of conceptualizing it, I think. But remember that rationality is subjective, of course. By my standards you are irrational, but then by your standards, I'm just as (if not more so) irrational. Logic, however, is objective and cannot be violated.

We're sort of quibbling here, but I think it's important that people do realise that they believe what they do because of logic. I think it is a common error to assumet that because you are an emotional person you are necessarily less logical. This isn't true, and that's important. It says much about the belief in the supernatural, for instance.

Dragar

01-10-2005, 08:55 AM

Choosing B is more logical, because it achieve the ultimate end more effectively. You remove the pain and acheive your inevitable state.

You seem to be valuing efficiency and effectiveness over pleasure, Justaman. Why?

Justaman...if I told you someone was completely rational, and believed X, Y and Z - say, that a train departed to London at 9.30am - you do not have enough information to deduce what the main might do.

If, on the other hand, I told you that that same man desired to go to London, and believed the train would depart for London at 9.30 am...now you can make a good guess at what he might do.

Do you see how your denial that we need anything else than logic to decide what to do ultimately fails?

justaman

01-10-2005, 09:03 AM

You seem to be valuing efficiency and effectiveness over pleasure, Justaman. Why?
It is the nature of logic. I believe all humans follow the path of least resistance, just as water must always collect in the lowest part of the bowl.

Justaman...if I told you someone was completely rational, and believed X, Y and Z - say, that a train departed to London at 9.30am - you do not have enough information to deduce what the main might do.

If, on the other hand, I told you that that same man desired to go to London, and believed the train would depart for London at 9.30 am...now you can make a good guess at what he might do.

Do you see how you're denial that we need anything else than logic to decide what to do ultimately fails?
How is your above analogy not logical? You simply introduce extra elements. Saying 'desire' doesn't make it any less of a logical decision, since desires operate logically also. The difference is when you have a desire with no logical basis, which is when you arrive at a "I do it because I do it" anomoly. It's still logical, but now it has become irrational.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible for a human to behave illogically.

Dragar

01-10-2005, 12:56 PM

It is the nature of logic. I believe all humans follow the path of least resistance, just as water must always collect in the lowest part of the bowl.

Why would I do this? Earlier you said there was no difference between the two paths ("Both chains are identical, it is only a matter of how long you personally prolong this inescapable (non) reality"), and now you are saying there is a difference which results in us doing one over the other...make up your mind! ;)

How is your above analogy not logical? You simply introduce extra elements. Saying 'desire' doesn't make it any less of a logical decision, since desires operate logically also. The difference is when you have a desire with no logical basis, which is when you arrive at a "I do it because I do it" anomoly. It's still logical, but now it has become irrational.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible for a human to behave illogically.

But this 'I do it because I do it' anomaly is because you've reached rock bottom for analysing human behaviour in terms of a subject. Instead, you have to look at neuroscience and evolution, or the laws of physics, or whatever. Then you can say, "Well, I do this because my d-fibres were firing, or because I evolved to desire X, or because if we solve the Shrödinger equation for my brain we find that..."

We find the same problem with, for instance, gravity. Why does mass attract mass? Well, we answer by pointing to general relativity. "Mass distorts spacetime," we explain.

Well, why does mass distort spacetime? "Mass distorts spacetime because that's what mass does!" Same anomaly.

You cannot deduce how reality operates from logic alone.

livius drusus

01-10-2005, 03:14 PM

Clutch Munny

01-10-2005, 04:04 PM

I'd just like to pipe up a moment to say that I very much enjoyed Sartre's No Exit and I bet you would too, Shea. It's a short little play and not at all dense or stultifying in any way. As presentations of misanthropy and hopelessness go, it's downright fun.

Unngghh... trying... to open... mind....

<slumps, exhausted>

Okay, sure. But I can't forgive him for Being and Nothingness.

livius drusus

01-10-2005, 04:10 PM

/me gently pats Clutch's sweated brow

There, there... Nobody will ever forgive him for Being and Nothingness.

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 04:46 PM

Well now I know why I liked existential fiction when I found it. I only read the little books! No Exit by Sartre, Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky, The Stranger and The Plague by Camus, A Confession by Tolstoy, Candide by Voltaire... hmm, what am I missing? Any other standard fare? I confess I've never read any of the Douglas Adams books.

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 04:52 PM

For the record, I live like anyone else, I'm fairly normal, but I still think I'm wrong - by my standards - to do it.
Our views are not so far apart as you might think...

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

~ Dorothy Parker

LadyShea

01-10-2005, 05:05 PM

I confess I've never read any of the Douglas Adams books.

Oh you should! Pure absurdity.

Dragar

01-10-2005, 05:08 PM

Pure absurdity, but with wonderful insights thrown in.

Today's equivalent, but with fantasy as opposed to science fiction, would be Terry Pratchett.

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 05:12 PM

I don't know who Terry Pratchett is, but that name always makes me think of the Oklahoma City bombing for some reason...

Anyway I have intended to read those books for many years, but unfortunately I read about a book a decade. :blush:

JoeP

01-10-2005, 05:29 PM

I confess I've never read any of the Douglas Adams books.:eek: :stunned:
I don't know who Terry Pratchett is
:stunned: :damn: :rubeyes: :shock:
:shock:

Blake

01-10-2005, 06:08 PM

Dragar

01-10-2005, 06:19 PM

[And by the way, y'all are buggin' me: it's anomaly. :) ]

Edited. :D

Besides, Justaman started it. :wink:

viscousmemories

01-10-2005, 08:14 PM

I cannot help coming back to the realisation that it is never the wrong decision to suicide.
This is partly because you haven't framed the question (in this thread, at any rate) with reference to anybody besides yourself. With the exception of a universally hated person, from the perspective of others it's pretty much always the wrong decision to suicide. The self-immolater frees themself from pain at the cost of inflicting massive doses of it on everyone who cared about them.
Well I can't speak for justaman, but since I've had similar thoughts over the years I'm guessing he might argue that it's illogical to weight pain to others over pain to yourself. So the only logical reason to avoid hurting others while enduring pain yourself is to elude other consequences such as possible retaliation or personal guilt - neither of which would be a factor after death.

Blake

01-10-2005, 11:34 PM

Well I can't speak for justaman, but since I've had similar thoughts over the years I'm guessing he might argue that it's illogical to weight pain to others over pain to yourself. So the only logical reason to avoid hurting others while enduring pain yourself is to elude other consequences such as possible retaliation or personal guilt - neither of which would be a factor after death.
<shrug> In that case, I would say this species of logic has drifted away from the objective standards that purportedly recommended it into completely subjective territory.

justaman

01-11-2005, 02:39 AM

Unngghh... trying... to open... mind....

<slumps, exhausted>

Okay, sure. But I can't forgive him for Being and Nothingness.
Man I read that in a pub in Townsville when I had nothing good to do. Every beer made it less and less clear. The amount of times I re-read sentences was stupid :P

Nietzche's so much worse though.

justaman

01-11-2005, 02:51 AM

Why would I do this? Earlier you said there was no difference between the two paths ("Both chains are identical, it is only a matter of how long you personally prolong this inescapable (non) reality"), and now you are saying there is a difference which results in us doing one over the other...make up your mind! ;)
Sorry, I got lazy.

They are identical at a certain point. In the meantime, they are different, but that difference is temporary, you might remember me always saying 'you will one day never have lived'. It's not a common concept to think about time in this way.

But this 'I do it because I do it' anomaly is because you've reached rock bottom for analysing human behaviour in terms of a subject. Instead, you have to look at neuroscience and evolution, or the laws of physics, or whatever. Then you can say, "Well, I do this because my d-fibres were firing, or because I evolved to desire X, or because if we solve the Shrödinger equation for my brain we find that..."

We find the same problem with, for instance, gravity. Why does mass attract mass? Well, we answer by pointing to general relativity. "Mass distorts spacetime," we explain.

Well, why does mass distort spacetime? "Mass distorts spacetime because that's what mass does!" Same anomaly.

You cannot deduce how reality operates from logic alone.
This is where the 'practicality' part of my nihilism comes in. What you are saying is true, but remember I stated nihilism makes no commentary on reality itself. Only on us. So while I agree that we believe what we do because of the deterministic chemistry&biology in our brains, that is not relevant to us.

A paradigm all humans must surely have is that we must have a rationale for what we consciously believe. So when we turn that paradigm on ourselves, we - or at least I - find the will to live wanting. That isn't to deny the fact that there is indeed a rationale for why we possess that will to live, it denies that there is any reason to pursue it simply because we possess it and - in fact - that there is reason not to.

So when you say that it is the same anomaly as with gravity, I tend to agree, but the difference is that gravity doesn't require there to be a reason for it to continue its existence in reality.

justaman

01-11-2005, 02:53 AM

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

I really don't like this :P

justaman

01-11-2005, 02:57 AM

This is partly because you haven't framed the question (in this thread, at any rate) with reference to anybody besides yourself. With the exception of a universally hated person, from the perspective of others it's pretty much always the wrong decision to suicide. The self-immolater frees themself from pain at the cost of inflicting massive doses of it on everyone who cared about them.
Sort of what vm said. The fact of the matter is you are not other people. You will never have the perspective of anyone but yourself. So it is, in fact, a universal truth that it would not be a wrong decision for you to suicide since you too would have no avenue for regret, or even knowledge of what you had done. The same goes for the hated guy. He is not the other people who are glad to see him go. He makes the decision for him and him alone, the value of that action is not impacted upon by others whatever.

Death is the same for everybody.

[And by the way, y'all are buggin' me: it's anomaly. :) ]
My bad :D

LadyShea

01-11-2005, 03:06 AM

'you will one day never have lived'
That's not a true statement though. Just because something or someone no longer exists doesn't mean they never existed. Unless you're positing that there is no such thing as existence.

My grandmother no longer exists, but I have pictures and memories of her having been.

So it is, in fact, a universal truth that it would not be a wrong decision for you to suicide since you too would have no avenue for regret, or even knowledge of what you had done

But while I am alive I can use empathy to predict how other people would feel if I committed suicide and base a decision on that. I value others' feelings.

justaman

01-11-2005, 03:54 AM

That's not a true statement though. Just because something or someone no longer exists doesn't mean they never existed. Unless you're positing that there is no such thing as existence.

My grandmother no longer exists, but I have pictures and memories of her having been.
Ahah! My favourite argument :) At death, you get a kind of enforced solipsism. Yes, objectively you'll be remembered, but that doesn't matter. You are not those who remember you. You are the entity which has been removed from existence, so you never existed by your estimation, the only one that matters. What you are saying would be true if there were another perspective for which to view your actions. But there isn't. When you die, so does reality as far as you (and you are nothing but you) are concerned.

The only way around this is to demonstrate to me that you have some avenue to review your past when you are dead. If you cannot, that past does not exist as far as you are concerned.

But while I am alive I can use empathy to predict how other people would feel if I committed suicide and base a decision on that. I value others' feelings.
Sure, and you are in error to do this in this context :) What you are doing is projecting your imagination onto what others feel. This completely ignores the fact that when you die, you will by definition not care about their feelings. So to be taking that into account now is to ignore the fact that you won't be taking it into account then. Other people are quite irrelevant when regarding your death, because you are not those other people.

Zoot

01-11-2005, 04:20 AM

Justaman, if nothing has any value, then why do you apparently value logic?
Because we cannot escape our need to decide.

We cannot escape our need to decide. In order to decide, we must evaluate options in terms of preferability. Our evaluation of preferability must refer back to criteria. Sets of criteria are what we call values. Values themselves can be evaluated in terms of their preferability, but such an evaluation would itself refer back to a value for its criteria.

Preferring less resistance to more may be a value held by many people. It may be a value held by all people. I will call that value "easevalue". Easevalue is one value among many, such as lifevalue (which finds continued existence preferable) or pleasurevalue (which finds sensual pleasure preferable) or utilitarianism (which finds people's happiness preferable).

Any evaluation of easevalue in comparison to lifevalue, pleasurevalue and utilitarianism, being an evaluation, itself must refer back to a value for its criteria. Evaluated in terms of pleasurevalue, easevalue is good (preferable) when it causes pleasure and avoids pain. Evaluated in terms of lifevalue, easevalue is bad when it finds death preferable to life. Evaluated in terms of utilitarianism, easevalue is good when it makes people happy.

However, there is no such thing as an evaluation that is not an evaluation-in-terms-of-something. There is no Evaluation with a capital E. There is no Preferable with a capital P. There is no Good with a capital G. There is only implicitly contextual evaluations.

Logic itself is not a value applicable to actions. Logic is a value applicable to statements and arguments. It can be used to return evaluations of true and false, and evaluations of logical or illogical, and valid or invalid, or sound and unsound. But it does not return a result of preferable or unpreferable (good or bad).

Logic can be applied to statements about actions that return logical values. It can be true or false that "hitting myself in the face with this hammer will cause me pleasure". If my logic is flawed and I incorrectly deduce that hitting myself in the face will cause me pleasure, I will experience hitting myself in the face with a hammer as a good-in-terms-of-pleasurevalue action. Logic can be used to evaluate the statement "hitting myself with a hammer will cause pleasure" as false, but it cannot evaluate the action "hitting myself with a hammer" as bad (unpreferable).

When evaluated purely in terms of easevalue, suicide is best. The human context, however, includes more values than just the one. And there is nothing "objectively superior" or "objectively more preferable" about easevalue, as such a notion of "objective evaluation" is incoherent.

justaman

01-11-2005, 04:36 AM

This is all too postively active, Zoot. You are forgetting that nihilism is about destruction, not about preference or in putting something forward of all else. Nihilism is what you are left with after you have reduced all that you are physically able to.

Lifevalue can be - and often is in suicide - reduced to nothing without trouble. Pleasurevalue can also be reduced, meditation is enough to show us this. You cannot reduce easevalue. It is not a 'value' so much as a logical requirement. And I find utilitarianism to be ambiguous in this context also. In one sense, the pursuit of happiness can be reduced, but in another sense we will also always prefer what we desire, which is a utilitarian axiom I would think, and one which could not be reduced (and is indeed necessary for a nihilistic suicide).

So while the human context does indeed have more than one value, many of those values can be ignored. Some cannot. Some are logical necessities, others are evolutionary kicks-in-the-asses which can be ignored.

So it isn't about easevalue being objectively superior, it is that easevalue cannot be reduced. If it could I would have in fact less of a leg to stand on, because it is our need to decide and act which spawns the active assertion 'it is easier to suicide'. If we could exist in stasis and have all values reduced, I would not be entitled to make such an assertion.

Zoot

01-11-2005, 04:46 AM

Lifevalue can be - and often is in suicide - reduced to nothing without trouble. Pleasurevalue can also be reduced, meditation is enough to show us this. You cannot reduce easevalue. It is not a 'value' so much as a logical requirement.

It's a value. It's a set of criteria for evaluating one action as preferable to another. Logic doesn't require; values require.

You are forgetting that nihilism is about destruction, not about preference or in putting something forward of all else. Nihilism is what you are left with after you have reduced all that you are physically able to.

Sounds like nihilism is itself a value.

I mean, "Nihilism is what you are left with..." Who cares? Why should one care? In other words, in terms of what value is reducing reducable values preferable?

justaman

01-11-2005, 05:03 AM

It's a value. It's a set of criteria for evaluating one action as preferable to another. Logic doesn't require; values require.
You know I honestly disagree here. I think the only way your position is correct is if you can demonstrate an action which does not take 'easevalue' into account.

This is what I mean by the path of least resistence. You will take the shortest path when you have taken all of your desires into account. To deny this is really to deny deterministic cause-and-effect.

'Value' sounds far too much like something we can choose to entertain. We have no choice with easevalue, we must act in accordance with it. And I think that easevalue is really just the macroscopic implication of the way logic works in humans.

Sounds like nihilism is itself a value.

I mean, "Nihilism is what you are left with..." Who cares? Why should one care? In other words, in terms of what value is reducing reducable values preferable?
The value is rejecting that which doesn't make sense, that which has no logical reason for being entertained. It is why you don't worship pebbles. It is requiring reason for any action you pursue and rejecting that action if the logic to that reason is circular and self-fulfilling.

Zoot

01-11-2005, 05:09 AM

The value is rejecting that which doesn't make sense, that which has no logical reason for being entertained.

Values are criteria for evaluating the preferability of actions. There is no such thing as a logical or illogical value. Logic applies to "is". Values apply to "should". The two don't meet.

It is why you don't worship pebbles. It is requiring reason for any action you pursue and rejecting that action if the logic to that reason is circular and self-fulfilling.

You seem to be saying two things here. Which one are you actually saying?

1. People unavoidably prefer the path of least resistance.
2. It is "logical" to prefer the path of least resistance.

LadyShea

01-11-2005, 05:21 AM

Ahah! My favourite argument :) At death, you get a kind of enforced solipsism. Yes, objectively you'll be remembered, but that doesn't matter. You are not those who remember you. You are the entity which has been removed from existence, so you never existed by your estimation, the only one that matters. What you are saying would be true if there were another perspective for which to view your actions. But there isn't. When you die, so does reality as far as you (and you are nothing but you) are concerned.

The only way around this is to demonstrate to me that you have some avenue to review your past when you are dead. If you cannot, that past does not exist as far as you are concerned.

So what? I never said a dead person knows they once existed, only those that remember them, and any work or art they leave behind is testimony of their existence. Their existence matters to those who still exist. Why is the self the only important element in this discussion??

Sure, and you are in error to do this in this context :) What you are doing is projecting your imagination onto what others feel. This completely ignores the fact that when you die, you will by definition not care about their feelings. So to be taking that into account now is to ignore the fact that you won't be taking it into account then. Other people are quite irrelevant when regarding your death, because you are not those other people.

Again, so what? I think other people are important now, during my existence, that I won't exist to care later makes no difference to my NOW.

justaman

01-11-2005, 07:19 AM

Values are criteria for evaluating the preferability of actions. There is no such thing as a logical or illogical value. Logic applies to "is". Values apply to "should". The two don't meet.
Of course they do! You should do that which is in accordance with what is. In fact this is so definite that I can equally say you will do that which is in accordance with what you believe to be what "is". Doing this is being logical.

1. People unavoidably prefer the path of least resistance.
2. It is "logical" to prefer the path of least resistance.
I am saying they are identical. What we prefer is dictated by logic. "Preference" is precisely a logical paradigm. When you say one, you are also saying the other.

justaman

01-11-2005, 07:26 AM

So what? I never said a dead person knows they once existed, only those that remember them, and any work or art they leave behind is testimony of their existence. Their existence matters to those who still exist. Why is the self the only important element in this discussion??
Because the self is the only perspective you experience reality from. Taking your legacy into account and the feelings of others is purely indulging in your own imagination now. The fact that your existence will matter to others is entirely irrelevant in the context of death, because there is no consequence of this fact on you and your soul perspective of reality.

Again, so what? I think other people are important now, during my existence, that I won't exist to care later makes no difference to my NOW.
That is a choice you make, but I would argue it is not a rational choice. It is rather like saying "the tree I have never seen matters to me and I don't want it cut down". Ok, I cannot argue with your decision to let it matter to you, but you see there is no actual reason for why it should. Relationships at death are precisely this irrelevant.

It is simply a question of whether or not one chooses to recognise that their current meaningful relationships will become meaningless at death. I would say it is in ignorance to not recognise this, but not necessarily in error if you are content with a certain amount of ignorance.

LadyShea

01-11-2005, 07:38 AM

Well justaman, unfortunately rather than understanding your position more through this conversation, I understand it less. I will have to give it up now I think, because quite frankly, you might as well be typing in Chinese characters.

I say that this life and what we do and who we know is ALL that matters because it is not permanent, you say life and everything and everyone in it doesn't matter at all because it is not permanent. I see no way of making those two points of view meet.

viscousmemories

01-11-2005, 07:41 AM

Values are criteria for evaluating the preferability of actions. There is no such thing as a logical or illogical value. Logic applies to "is". Values apply to "should". The two don't meet.
Of course they do! You should do that which is in accordance with what is. In fact this is so definite that I can equally say you will do that which is in accordance with what you believe to be what "is". Doing this is being logical.
This looks like the is/ought problem to me. If by we should do "that which is in accordance with what is" you mean "that which is purely logical", I don't think you've shown that. Humans aren't naturally purely logical. Our reason is informed by our emotion, for example. Why in your view should we be purely logical?

justaman

01-11-2005, 07:46 AM

Well justaman, unfortunately rather than understanding your position more through this conversation, I understand it less. I will have to give it up now I think, because quite frankly, you might as well be typing in Chinese characters.
You've done better than most ;)

I say that this life and what we do and who we know is ALL that matters because it is not permanent, you say life and everything and everyone in it doesn't matter at all because it is not permanent. I see no way of making those two points of view meet.
Well I mean that's the easy part. Consider how Gandhi now feels about what he did while he existed :)

justaman

01-11-2005, 07:57 AM

This looks like the is/ought problem to me. If by we should do "that which is in accordance with what is" you mean "that which is purely logical", I don't think you've shown that. Humans aren't naturally purely logical. Our reason is informed by our emotion, for example. Why in your view should we be purely logical?
Because we are by definition. Emotion is logic. Being emotional is being logical, its just a certain type of rationale.

What actually separates emotion from everything else is its instigation. We don't consciously decide to use an emotional-logic paradigm, it is forced upon us unconsciously. It is essentially evolution trying to force our hand, but that does not stop the fact that it is operating logically.

The reason why advocate avoiding emotive logic is the same reason why we surpress much of our instinctive, emotive reactions. Emotionally, we may want to murder the guy who cut us off, or at least pound the crap out of him. This is logical, it is a cause-and-effect paradigm, but it is thrust upon us by instinct, not be reason. Unemotional reason informs us of hefty lawsuits and jail time, so we resign ourselves to some fairly useless smacking-of-steering-wheel gestures of "I can't believe how stupid you and a lot of people like you are!"

Zoot

01-11-2005, 08:20 AM

Of course they do! You should do that which is in accordance with what is. In fact this is so definite that I can equally say you will do that which is in accordance with what you believe to be what "is". Doing this is being logical.

Assuming that you have somehow typed this without a belief in objective morality (that what one "should" do exists in some way in the world, and can therefore be perceived and discovered)...

Give me an example of a "logical" reason for doing something.

Dragar

01-11-2005, 01:02 PM

Sorry, I got lazy.

They are identical at a certain point. In the meantime, they are different, but that difference is temporary, you might remember me always saying 'you will one day never have lived'. It's not a common concept to think about time in this way.

Mostly because it's wrong. Spread out spacetime, like a map. Can you see me? I'm there, in a certain region of that map. I trace out a line, if you like, which has a finite length of spacetime.

If you are treating time any differently to space, you are doing something wrong in your analysis. :)

This is where the 'practicality' part of my nihilism comes in. What you are saying is true, but remember I stated nihilism makes no commentary on reality itself. Only on us. So while I agree that we believe what we do because of the deterministic chemistry&biology in our brains, that is not relevant to us.

But deterministic chemistry and biology (and physics!) in our brains is us. I don't distinguish between myself and reality.

A paradigm all humans must surely have is that we must have a rationale for what we consciously believe. So when we turn that paradigm on ourselves, we - or at least I - find the will to live wanting. That isn't to deny the fact that there is indeed a rationale for why we possess that will to live, it denies that there is any reason to pursue it simply because we possess it and - in fact - that there is reason not to.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that there is no reason to follow a desire. Any desire. But part of the concept of 'desire' is that a (rational) system will act to fulfil those desires.

If you don't act to fulfil your desires, I don't think they're really desires. You're using a word which appears to be the same as the word I am using, but lacking the most important property.

"Sure, it's mass. But this is mass that doesn't distort spacetime!"

LadyShea

01-11-2005, 04:00 PM

Well I mean that's the easy part. Consider how Gandhi now feels about what he did while he existed :)

What about how I feel about what Gandhi did while he existed? And what about how he felt about his existence while he existed, which is all that matters since existence is all there is for any of us.

viscousmemories

01-11-2005, 09:14 PM

Emotion is logic.
Y'know I honestly never considered that. I've always thought of emotion and logic as opposing forces, instead of thinking of them as two different instances of logic. I'll have to think more about this with that in mind. :chin:

aeroz19

01-11-2005, 10:29 PM

I think a very large part of the reason I haven't killed myself despite my firm belief that I am nothing but a single link in a massive evolutionary chain in an indifferent universe is inertia. Certainly not because I think there's any meaning or value beyond whatever I pretend there is.

Inertia? I don't see how that could keep you afloat...

Of course there is meaning and value. You aren't pretending...unless you're defining meaning and value differently from the way I define it.

Here's how I see it: given that we have intelligence, reason, emotions, (and I believe, souls), we are not pretending or living in a fantasy. This is all very real and what we do and say has a real impact.

There is inherent meaning in all of us. How do I figure? Well, how about starting with loved ones. You have meaning in their lives. And even if you didn't, or you had no loved ones, you could find someone who would consider you to have meaning in their lives.

The question at hand is, can small links in a large chain have inherent meaning or purpose? Yes, I believe so.

Here's how I measure inherent meaning and purpose:

1) Do we matter to ourselves?
2) Do we matter to others?
3) Do we matter to/in the universe--the big picure? Who knows.

viscousmemories

01-12-2005, 01:52 AM

Inertia? I don't see how that could keep you afloat...

Of course there is meaning and value. You aren't pretending...unless you're defining meaning and value differently from the way I define it.
Sorry, I should've probably qualified that I was referring to objective meaning and value, which I don't currently believe in. And by pretending I didn't mean that my life doesn't have any subjective or intersubjective meaning or value and I pretend it does, I meant I pretend that's significant in view of the eternity of my non-being that preceded and will follow my existence.

There is inherent meaning in all of us. How do I figure? Well, how about starting with loved ones. You have meaning in their lives. And even if you didn't, or you had no loved ones, you could find someone who would consider you to have meaning in their lives.
Right. This is subjective and intersubjective.

The question at hand is, can small links in a large chain have inherent meaning or purpose? Yes, I believe so.
On a chain of infinite width and length, how important is any given link?

LadyShea

01-12-2005, 02:52 AM

The question at hand is, can small links in a large chain have inherent meaning or purpose? Yes, I believe so.
On a chain of infinite width and length, how important is any given link?

I prefer a tapestry metaphor to a chain. When future peoples look back on the tapestry, maybe your thread has a unique color, or perhaps the threads it is surrounded by form an interesting pattern. Maybe, of course, your thread and your area on the tapestry is all neutrally colored, but it still fills the spaces between the cool stuff, and has its place in the whole.

Another example, let's take January 11th 1982. That day no longer exists, I can't remember who I talked to, what I ate, where I went, what I watched on TV...nothing memorable about that date. Does that mean it didn't exist or wasn't important? Not to me, because it got me to the next memorable date, the next pretty color on my tapestry :)

David Gould

01-12-2005, 03:56 AM

Skip this rambling first part to jump the main argument part if you like

Everything we do is, when viewed from a particular context, simply the alteration of patterns of energy. For example, raising my arm is only different than lowering it in the sense that they are different energy configurations.

The raising or lowering of my arm is something that is done deterministically in response to a combination of factors - genetics, biology, physical environment, social environment and so on - but all those factors can be summarised as simply the energy pattern of the universe. What is happening when I raise my arm is that the universe is moving from one energy pattern to another.

Emotions in human beings are one set of causal factors (themselves caused by other things) that act to alter the energy state of the universe.

If we examine the energy states of the universe, there is nothing inherently better about one state or another. They are simply different.

The argument that one state is better-for-humans or more-conducive-to-human-happiness relies on the subjective viewpoint of humans (funnily enough ;)). Now, at some point it is likely that there will be no humans. Thus, this subjective viewpoint will not exist.

If we bring that down to an individual level, everything you do in life is pushed by your subjective notion of the best energy state for the universe to be in. Your subjective viewpoint will some day cease to exist. There will be no perspective from which you could, for example, look at your life and say, 'That was worth something to someone.'

note that the above is a ramble to get me to think about it more - it got me to the main point, which is below

Main argument

Now, imagine that you could do something which would achieve something you felt was worthwhile but which would also result in your painless death.

There is no rational reason to fear deat: you will never experience it, after all. There is also no need to concern yourself with the notion that you will feel guilty at putting your relatives through hell. Paradoxically, there will also be no you to see the amazing thing that your death brings about.

Thus, none of these considerations - fear of death, concern for others of the desire to bring something amazing about - should have any impact on the decision to die or not.

After all, the way we decide things is about consequences. If our decision to kill ourselves can have no consequences - consequences in decision making require a subject to see them, after all (in other words, for you there will be no death, no suffering relatives and no glorious dream fulfilled) - then it is a decision that does not matter.

When you take into account that you are going to die and that there are therefore no consequences to any decision you make in your life we are left with the only conclusion possible: that the choice to die is more rational than any other choice - if not the only rational decision - because every other choice is made on the assumption that there are consequences.

I am playing devil's advocate here. But what do people think of the argument? What are its rebuttals?

aeroz19

01-12-2005, 04:00 AM

On a chain of infinite width and length, how important is any given link?

Let me ask you something:

1) If you were immortal, would that create objective meaning and purpose?
2) If there was no one/nothing that came before or will come after, would that create objective meaning and purpose?

aeroz19

01-12-2005, 04:02 AM

Question of the day: What qualifies as objective meaning and purpose?

aeroz19

01-12-2005, 04:06 AM

I prefer a tapestry metaphor to a chain. When future peoples look back on the tapestry, maybe your thread has a unique color, or perhaps the threads it is surrounded by form an interesting pattern. Maybe, of course, your thread and your area on the tapestry is all neutrally colored, but it still fills the spaces between the cool stuff, and has its place in the whole.

So then objective meaning and purpose are defined by how others see us?

Another example, let's take January 11th 1982. That day no longer exists, I can't remember who I talked to, what I ate, where I went, what I watched on TV...nothing memorable about that date. Does that mean it didn't exist or wasn't important? Not to me, because it got me to the next memorable date, the next pretty color on my tapestry :)

This is subjective.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:09 AM

viscousmemories

01-12-2005, 04:13 AM

When you take into account that you are going to die and that there are therefore no consequences to any decision you make in your life we are left with the only conclusion possible: that the choice to die is more rational than any other choice - if not the only rational decision - because every other choice is made on the assumption that there are consequences.
I can't rebut that.

aeroz19

01-12-2005, 04:21 AM

Question of the day: What qualifies as objective meaning and purpose?

An objective meaning must be one that depends on no viewpoint.
Unfortunately, viewpoints are inherent in the word meaning - something cannot have inherent meaning; it can only have meaning for someone.

Objective meaning and objective purpose are impossibilities.

Wow, I can't rebut that either.

Does this mean, then, that there is no such thing as objective meaning?

...I feel like a philosopher.............................oh well, it's fun.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:24 AM

Are there any Existentialists here?

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:28 AM

Wow, I can't rebut that either.

Does this mean, then, that there is no such thing as objective meaning?

Yes, there is no such thing as objective meaning.

However, this does not mean that suicidal nihilism is something we should embrace.

The whole nihilistic argument may well depend on objective meaning being possible but not actual, for example. In other words, they might be saying:

'Married bachelors are required for people to choose to live.'
'There are no married bachelors.'
'Therefore, people should choose to die.'

If we look at this, the notion that married bachelors are required for people to choose to live is a nonsensical one because the concept of a married bachelor is an impossibility. The fact that many people argue that you need married bachelors to live - or, rather, objective meaning - is beside the point. The sentence actually says absolutely nothing at all.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:28 AM

If I can return back to the non-being from whence I came, ie: infinite non-existence, then how did I come to being at all? If all being reverts back to non-being and non-being is non-existent, then?

To be or not to be, that is the question, no?

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:30 AM

Are there any Existentialists here?

Depending on what you mean, I might be one. ;)

I am someone who believes that while there is no meaning there is meaning-to-me. Everything I do, while having no meaning - such being an impossibility - has meaning-to-me.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:34 AM

If I can return back to the non-being from whence I came, ie: infinite non-existence, then how did I come to being at all?

You never not existed. There was no 'you' sitting around not existing and who was suddenly granted existence.

Existence is you. Non-existence is not. You did not spring from non-existence.

If all being reverts back to non-being and non-being is non-existent, then?

Nothing that 'is' never 'is not'.

When I blow out a flame, the flame is not sent to non-existence.

To be or not to be, that is the question, no?

And as we are, we always will be and never will not be.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:34 AM

I think I am one too though I am not very familiar with all the technical jargon most people use. Blaise Pascal was an Existentialist and I side with him on many issues, particularily First Principles.

LadyShea

01-12-2005, 04:36 AM

Are there any Existentialists here?

Me.

Oh and I do not believe in objective anything pretty much. Everything regarding human thought is subjective, IMO.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:39 AM

You never not existed. There was no 'you' sitting around not existing and who was suddenly granted existence.

Existence is you. Non-existence is not. You did not spring from non-existence.

Right, because if there was nothing but non-existence then nothing could spring from nothing.

Nothing that 'is' never 'is not'.

Right, but that depends on how you look at is, grades/degrees of being.

When I blow out a flame, the flame is not sent to non-existence.

The flame came to exist, the flame no longer exists, whether you want to charge that it reverted back to some form energy makes no difference. In that sense then, energy just is to you.

And as we are, we always will be and never will not be.

Sure, I'll buy that. :P

viscousmemories

01-12-2005, 04:48 AM

I think, therefore I am.

I don't think very clearly, therefore I don't trust myself.

I think suicide is the more rational choice, but since I don't trust myself I just live.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:48 AM

Right, because if there was nothing but non-existence then nothing could spring from nothing.

This is not quite what I am saying.

We exist. At some point, we will be blown out like the flame. We will not 'not exist' at this point. There will be no us to not exist; there will be no us to be dead.

Right, but that depends on how you look at is, grades/degrees of being.

There are only processess, in any case.

The flame came to exist, the flame no longer exists, whether you want to charge that it reverted back to some form energy makes no difference. In that sense then, energy just is to you.

Again, I have not explained myself clearly. I will think a little more.

Sure, I'll buy that. :P

It sounds though, like your just saying energy is.

No. I am saying that there will never be a time when I am dead/do not exist. For me to be dead I would have to experience being dead. And that is an impossibility. So from my perspective I will never be dead/I will never not exist. Similarly, from my perspective I have never not been born/never not existed.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 04:49 AM

I think, therefore I am.

I don't think very clearly, therefore I don't trust myself.

I think suicide is the more rational choice, but since I don't trust myself I just live.

Even if suicide was the more rational choice we would still need to build a case for rationality in all things. :)

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:51 AM

I think, therefore I am.

I don't know if that stands as is in this day and age though it seems rational to me. What does not exist cannot question it's own existence. "I am" indicates personhood, a greater grade of "is" or "being" than matter, up to "Being" or "Is" which is God, to us at least. "I Am Who Am" = Existence, Being, Is

viscousmemories

01-12-2005, 04:51 AM

Even if suicide was the more rational choice we would still need to build a case for rationality in all things. :)
Good point! :)

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 04:51 AM

Even if suicide was the more rational choice we would still need to build a case for rationality in all things. :)

Right, First Principles.

LadyShea

01-12-2005, 04:52 AM

Main argument

Now, imagine that you could do something which would achieve something you felt was worthwhile but which would also result in your painless death.

There is no rational reason to fear deat: you will never experience it, after all.

No rebuttal

There is also no need to concern yourself with the notion that you will feel guilty at putting your relatives through hell.

Um, there is need to concern oneself. If existence is all there is, and I care about others feelings during existence, then it doesn't matter that I won't experience the consequences. Imagined probable consequences are also valid and real concepts while I still exist. Gah I can't figure out how to put this into words.

Paradoxically, there will also be no you to see the amazing thing that your death brings about.

No, but you have imagined it and desire for it while you still exist, and feel it is worth your death.

Thus, none of these considerations - fear of death, concern for others of the desire to bring something amazing about - should have any impact on the decision to die or not.

Sure it should, because the consequences are determined or imagined and the decision made during existence, so they have an impact on the ALL of the self.

After all, the way we decide things is about consequences. If our decision to kill ourselves can have no consequences - consequences in decision making require a subject to see them, after all (in other words, for you there will be no death, no suffering relatives and no glorious dream fulfilled) - then it is a decision that does not matter.

Imagined consequences of the affect your actions will have on others are valid in decision making, IMO. The decision matters in the NOW based on empathy and probability. Sure I won't care when I am not here if my relatives are suffering, but I care NOW about their future suffering.

When you take into account that you are going to die and that there are therefore no consequences to any decision you make in your life we are left with the only conclusion possible: that the choice to die is more rational than any other choice - if not the only rational decision - because every other choice is made on the assumption that there are consequences.

Nope, I don't think that follows. The consequences, whether actualized or conceptualized, are part of existence, and existence is all.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 05:02 AM

This is not quite what I am saying.

We exist. At some point, we will be blown out like the flame. We will not 'not exist' at this point. There will be no us to not exist; there will be no us to be dead.

I get that. You would say that there is no "I" in the first place, I disagree though I don't know how we could find some way to discuss it. We assume different things, we will not meet. Two very different worldviews and belief systems.

There are only processess, in any case.
From what you know or see at least. From what can be proven by assumptions that cannot be proven. So the philosophers say that we possess our being succesively, but being Catholic, I think that there is an I that preceeds, how would you put that? How did Sartre put it? Hmm.. :chin:

No. I am saying that there will never be a time when I am dead/do not exist.

Right, on that point we would agree with qualifiers.

For me to be dead I would have to experience being dead.

Right.

And that is an impossibility. So from my perspective I will never be dead/I will never not exist. Similarly, from my perspective I have never not been born/never not existed.

Right, yes, I get what you're saying there.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 05:07 AM

The problem is when I speak of non-existence I am questioning the "it" that you call "I" to begin with, the body at the very least. To talk about the you not ever ceasing to be is not what I was speaking of and to me that's mostly just linguistics.

"You" or "I" designates personhood though "it" I think would work as well, if indeed the consciousness is just a product of the body.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:12 AM

Um, there is need to concern oneself. If existence is all there is, and I care about others feelings during existence, then it doesn't matter that I won't experience the consequences. Imagined probable consequences are also valid and real concepts while I still exist. Gah I can't figure out how to put this into words.

But aren't the consequences of the form of 'If I did this, my family would be hurt. I would not want to see my family hurt. Therefore ....'?

The thing is, you would not see your family hurt. From your perspective, there never would be such hurt.

Now, a different version could run like this, 'Thinking about my family being in pain in the future hurts me now.' This is a consequence of thinking about the act. Once the act is done, there will be no hurt.

No, but you have imagined it and desire for it while you still exist, and feel it is worth your death.

But an imagined consequence that can never come to pass is not a real consequence. Yes, they impact on our decision making. But the question is whether they should.

To explain what I mean, an imagined consequence of killing oneself is that one would be dead. But a person never is dead - there is no them to be dead; no them to experience being dead. So this is not a real consequence of killing oneself, and thus should not be referred to in the decision process.

Similarly, the suffering of your relatives is an imagined consequence that will never be. You will not see this suffering. Once you are dead, there will be no suffering from your perspective (because of course you will not have one). If you think rationally through it, there can be no consequences to your decision to kill yourself.

Sure it should, because the consequences are determined or imagined and the decision made during existence, so they have an impact on the ALL of the self.

Imagined consequences of the affect your actions will have on others are valid in decision making, IMO. The decision matters in the NOW based on empathy and probability. Sure I won't care when I am not here if my relatives are suffering, but I care NOW about their future suffering.

You care about future suffering that from your perspective will not exist? Is that a rational decision making process or a non-rational one? I think it is non-rational (not that there is anything wrong with that, necessarily).

Is it rational, for example, to make a decision based on events that you know will never come to pass?

We need to remember that, from your perspective, your relatives will not suffer.

Nope, I don't think that follows. The consequences, whether actualized or conceptualized, are part of existence, and existence is all.

Some people believe that if they die they will go to heaven. They may indeed make choices in their lives based upon this belief. Are they being rational in using these conceptualised yet non-actualised consequences as motivators for action?

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 05:26 AM

Now, a different version could run like this, 'Thinking about my family being in pain in the future hurts me now.' This is a consequence of thinking about the act. Once the act is done, there will be no hurt.

There will be no hurt to "I", but to me if the consciousness is totally dependent upon the body for existence, then this assumes an external world, and if this external world does exist, does not that mean that consequences exist?

Where is the if consciousness then no "real" consequences? Where is the tie that binds?

To explain what I mean, an imagined consequence of killing oneself is that one would be dead. But a person never is dead - there is no them to be dead; no them to experience being dead. So this is not a real consequence of killing oneself, and thus should not be referred to in the decision process.

But once again, if consciousness is dependent upon the body and the body thence, an external world and a mother and father, for instance, there is only no real consequences to you. Honestly though, who cares about only "you"? Who is selfish enough to only care about "I" to put it in those terms? I am value, value is I am?

LadyShea

01-12-2005, 05:30 AM

Um, there is need to concern oneself. If existence is all there is, and I care about others feelings during existence, then it doesn't matter that I won't experience the consequences. Imagined probable consequences are also valid and real concepts while I still exist. Gah I can't figure out how to put this into words.

But aren't the consequences of the form of 'If I did this, my family would be hurt. I would not want to see my family hurt. Therefore ....'?
The thing is, you would not see your family hurt. From your perspective, there never would be such hurt.

Hmm, make that 'If I did this, my family would be hurt. I would not want my family to hurt. Therefore ....'?. I don't need to see it for me to know it will happen, and I am still failing to understand why the self is the only important thing in this conversation. A large part of ME and EXISTENCE for me is empathy. Empathy requires imagining and possibly preventing non actualized consequences. Why is that not valid?

Now, a different version could run like this, 'Thinking about my family being in pain in the future hurts me now.' This is a consequence of thinking about the act. Once the act is done, there will be no hurt.

Okay, understood. But I still don't see why I need to be the one experiencing hurt to not want to hurt others with my actions regardless of my not experiencing the actual consequences.

But an imagined consequence that can never come to pass is not a real consequence. Yes, they impact on our decision making. But the question is whether they should.

Concepts and feelings are real, therefore yes, I think they should. Also the consequences will be experienced by someone, and that's important to me NOW.

To explain what I mean, an imagined consequence of killing oneself is that one would be dead. But a person never is dead - there is no them to be dead; no them to experience being dead. So this is not a real consequence of killing oneself, and thus should not be referred to in the decision process.

My "being dead" is not a consequence I imagine because I cannot imagine non-existence. I imagine my family's suffering and the consequences to others. Still nobody has explained why the self is the only thing that matters.

Similarly, the suffering of your relatives is an imagined consequence that will never be. You will not see this suffering. Once you are dead, there will be no suffering from your perspective (because of course you will not have one). If you think rationally through it, there can be no consequences to your decision to kill yourself.

Just because I won't experience it doesn't mean it won't be. It will be to THEM and that's important to ME. Since I am my existence my imaginings are of the utmost importance.

You care about future suffering that from your perspective will not exist? Is that a rational decision making process or a non-rational one? I think it is non-rational (not that there is anything wrong with that, necessarily).

Yes, I care about future suffering NOW, while I exist. I think that is the only rational line of thinking.

Is it rational, for example, to make a decision based on events that you know will never come to pass?

They will come to pass for someone.

We need to remember that, from your perspective, your relatives will not suffer.

They will suffer from my current perspective which is all there is.

Some people believe that if they die they will go to heaven. They may indeed make choices in their lives based upon this belief. Are they being rational in using these conceptualised yet non-actualised consequences as motivators for action?

From their POV, yes. Rational is a subjective term, is it not?

You know, in my head I am the only one making sense here....really the nihilistic POV sounds like gibberish to me. Why is that? VM mentioned something to me in IM, he said only depressives seem to be persuaded by or even comprehend the arguments for nihilism...wonder if our differing brain chemistries come into play ;)

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:38 AM

There will be no hurt to "I", but to me if the consciousness is totally dependent upon the body for existence, then this assumes an external world, and if this external world does exist, does not that mean that consequences exist?

Where is the if consciousness then no "real" consequences? Where is the tie that binds?

There are no consequences at all.

Imagine an abreviated consquence chain from birth to death.

Born = > consequence is that you live = > consequence is that you suffer => consequence is that you die.

No matter what decisions you make, the final consequence is death (which is not a consequence at all, if you remember, as you never experience it.)

But once again, if consciousness is dependent upon the body and the body thence, an external world and a mother and father, for instance, there is only no real consequences to you. Honestly though, who cares about only "you"? Who is selfish enough to only care about "I" to put it in those terms? I am value?

Rationally, the only reason that you do not want your parents to suffer is because it would make you feel bad. After all, if making your parents suffer didn't make you feel bad, then you would not worry about it.

But you will not feel bad about their suffering after you die. There will be no suffering at their suffering. If there is no suffering at their suffering, then rationally their suffering should not affect you at all, should it?

The question then becomes: is a rational decision the way to approach this?

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:41 AM

You know, in my head I am the only one making sense here....really the nihilistic POV sounds like gibberish to me. Why is that? VM mentioned something to me in IM, he said only depressives seem to be persuaded by or even comprehend the arguments for nihilsm...wonder if our differeing brain chemistries come into play

I think it is telling that people who argue for nihilism are generally not dead. ;) I am of the opinion that non-rational (emotional) processes keep them (and us!) alive. And I have no problem with that.

viscousmemories

01-12-2005, 05:45 AM

I can attest that I live for purely non-rational reasons. :)

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:46 AM

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 05:50 AM

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 05:52 AM

The reason I am arguing using perspective (or self) is that that is all we have. We only have our own perspective to go on in any decision making process.

The question is, if decisions are based on consequences then when we look at suicide there are no consequences.

It is all very well to say, 'I will not kill myself because if I did my family would be sad and I feel bad now at the thought of them being sad.' However, that is not a consequence of the decision to kill oneself. In other words, what you are feeling is a consequence of thinking about the decision to kill oneself. You feeling bad prior to killing oneself cannot be a consequence of you killing yourself. Rationally, therefore, it should not affect your decision.

What preceeds the rationalizing of suicide? Existence in the first place? What preceeds your existence?

You can't say I should kill myself (should= do what is rational) but then say but then I should not have existed in the first place. Then of course, but I do exist, therefore I should not kill myself. If I should kill myself, then another should kill me, and I should kill, etc., etc.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:55 AM

This is all simple enough, I won't feel it so why should it matter, that type of thing. Almost the same as killing another, it shouldn't make me feel bad to put them out of existence, they won't care, they won't be there to care.

Good question. What are the consequences to someone if you kill them? None. So, why should we not kill?

So thence, the question comes down to selfishness.

In a sense. We only have our self to go on. I firmly believe that all of our decisions are selfish ones. The only reason we do things is because they please us. As social animals, we are programmed to form empathic bonds with others and thus their pleasure and pain becomes our pleasure and pain. So when we help another and give them pleasure we are doing so because it gives us pleasure.

justaman

01-12-2005, 05:56 AM

Man I've got like 5 bucks which only buys me 30 mins in this internet cafe so I'm going to have to wait to answer some of the stuff in this thread.

In the meantime, I have virtually identical worldviews to David Gould and Zoot, we've established this over about a year of debating. At a guess I'd say vm is pretty much the same also, especially how you describe not 'trusting' yourself enough to suicide. That is such a good way of describing how I feel.

I wonder then what is it that makes us all deviate slightly at the last minute with our conclusions about life?

Like I said before, I have this constant thought of 'It's never wrong to suicide', sitting like a poster on my wall which keeps preventing me that accepting meaning-to-me is sufficiant, or anything beyond being arbitrary. Even when I'm having a thrilling time doing whatever, I still think "If I die now, it doesn't matter. The fact that I feel good doesn't actually mean anything to me at all."

Do you guys have something like this? Do you find yourself saying "You know I agree with everything he says, but I just can't get around [X]."

I'm very curious about why we all come to such different conclusions when we have such similar ways of thinking about reality.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 05:57 AM

What preceeds the rationalizing of suicide? Existence in the first place? What preceeds your existence?

You can't say I should kill myself (should= do what is rational) but then say but then I should not have existed in the first place. Then of course, but I do exist, therefore I should not kill myself. If I should kill myself, then another should kill me, and I should kill, etc., etc.

Big difference: we cannot choose to never have existed in the sense you mean. We exist. Hence, we work from there.

Sweetie

01-12-2005, 06:00 AM

Big difference: we cannot choose to never have existed in the sense you mean. We exist. Hence, we work from there.

Nah man, that is not what I mean. I mean if we start there, rationalizing from a certain point on, we are only rationalizing forward, we have not rationalized backwards, back to the need be assumption. This is tunnel vision, it only sees one way, to the not 'real' consequences, it hasn't looked backwards at all to the consequence and consequences of one's own existence.

It assumes I think, I should exist in order to show that it is rational not to.

David Gould

01-12-2005, 06:02 AM