Nihilism vs. Existentialism

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

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?

[FormerFundie2004]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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?

[FormerFundie2004]

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

[FormerFundie2004]

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]

Originally Posted by FormerFundie200419

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.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by David Gould

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.

[FormerFundie2004]

Originally Posted by David Gould

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]

Are there any Existentialists here?

[David Gould]

Originally Posted by FormerFundie200419

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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]

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.

[viscousmemories]

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]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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.

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by David Gould

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

Good point!

[Sweetie]

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]

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]

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..

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]

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.