Nihilism vs. Existentialism

[Beth]

I am not a nihilist, although I have been been both clinically and situationally depressed. I don't even think one must be a nihilist to try to commit suicide. I don't think I could be called an existentialist, either. Maybe a realist?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

That's just an answer as such, it is presupposed by the others that there is no possible soul, there is no reason to believe there is, and thence all there is death, I disagree. To me, for a man, there is really no such thing as death.

That's what I meant. Your comments in this thread presuppose that humans have an eternal soul, whereas pretty much everyone else who has posted presupposes that humans don't have an eternal soul. I'm not arguing who's right or wrong, just pointing out that fundamental disparity in starting viewpoints.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Beth

I am not a nihilist, although I have been been both clinically and situationally depressed. I don't even think one must be a nihilist to try to commit suicide. I don't think I could be called an existentialist, either. Maybe a realist?

Oh I didn't mean to imply that all depressives are nihilists or that all suicides are motivated by nihilism, only that all nihilists appear to be depressives from my limited experience.

Existentialism is realistic, IMO. I have never studied any of this, just tried/am trying to put a convenient label on my philosophy of life.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh I didn't mean to imply that all depressives are nihilists or that all suicides are motivated by nihilism, only that all nihilists appear to be depressives from my limited experience.

Existentialism is realistic, IMO. I have never studied any of this, just tried/am trying to put a convenient label on my philosophy of life.

I've always been called a stoic, but from reading existentialism, I cannot say that I an existentialist. I do not think I am a stoic either. I certainly do not want to be rid of love, passion, and anger. I learn from these emotions. I do not agree with some of the philosophy existentialism and some of it comes off to me as hogwash. I mean, are we all either nihilist or existentialist?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Beth

I've always been called a stoic, but from reading existentialism, I cannot say that I an existentialist. I do not think I am a stoic either. I certainly do not want to be rid of love, passion, and anger. I learn from these emotions. I do not agree with some of the philosophy existentialism and some of it comes off to me as hogwash. I mean, are we all either nihilist or existentialist?

Truth be told I have never even read any existentialist literature so would appreciate hearing which bits you consider hogwash. I use the term from my own understanding of the world as it seems to fit the best. Basically to me it means nothing more than "I am here. Dunno why. Might as well make the best of it." I could be way off base though.

Sometimes finding correct labels for complex sets of views is difficult and I just try to pick the closest to make things easier.

[Dragar]

I'm assuming you mean the game is lost in a move, but you still have to move something in order for the game to progress, yes? Do you see then that there is no importance whatever to any different move? Value has been destroyed because of the inevitability of defeat. This is what occurs when we know we will lose. Given that we should in fact know this from the start of the game, all moves are equally without value from the beginning.

And your assumptions:

Assumption: I desire to win.
Assumption: I do not desire to play, merely to win.

But we must move. How then to decide? Quite simply, which ever brings about the quickest path to check-mate.

Why does speed matter? If all moves are worthless, why not laugh, and have a great time playing, even though you know you're going to lose?

It's not like we can look back and say, "Hah! I lost quicker you!", is it? There's no reward after playing for playing quickly, no reward after playing for playing slowly.

But if playing is fun, why not keep playing?

This is why in professional chess, you find a great majority end in 'surrender', rather than playing out until mate.

Professionals play to win. Read my sig.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Beth

I mean, are we all either nihilist or existentialist?

I think in very simple terms, everyone who discounts the possibility that anything resembling 'you' will continue to exist after death is either a nihilist (in the sense of: therefore life doesn't matter) or an existentialist (in the sense of: therefore only life matters). I could be totally wrong about that, though.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Truth be told I have never even read any existentialist literature so would appreciate hearing which bits you consider hogwash. I use the term from my own understanding of the world as it seems to fit the best. Basically to me it means nothing more than "I am here. Dunno why. Might as well make the best of it." I could be way off base though.

Sometimes finding correct labels for complex sets of views is difficult and I just try to pick the closest to make things easier.

Well I looked at the first paragraph in the Wiki article just now and I suppose I could be existentialist. But, my main beef with existentialism was that it seemed to push aside the idea that some things are done for the good of man as a unit, and instead stresses the individual in everything. It seemed, to me, to promote a selfishness of sorts. But then, I am for the individual rights and freedom of people, but I also think there are times that we may need to suspend individual freedoms for the good of the unit. Like, in society, we have laws. Some of our freedoms are denied because those freedoms would be bad for the good of the unit.

But, I suppose that the main reason why I thought it all a bunch of hooey is because of the wording. The way many of the things I read on the subject were written sounded so nutty and turned me off instantly. The Wiki entry is much more rational.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I think in very simple terms, everyone who discounts the possibility that anything resembling 'you' will continue to exist after death is either a nihilist (in the sense of: therefore life doesn't matter) or an existentialist (in the sense of: therefore only life matters). I could be totally wrong about that, though.

Well, I make no firm claim either way. It could be nothing, or I could join essenses with the person I love and float off into the universe as a conscious bit of matter.

I could have some sort of existential hell, like in Beatlejuice, hmmm, I think my personal hell would be trapped in a house with screaming kids. Oh, no! That's life. Or I could just be forced to live to rest of eternity in a room of monochrome colors with no words to read and no one to speak to.

I may be totally aware for all eternity, even with no brain. I really don't know and don't care. That sort of thing is of no concern to me. What concerns me is the present and the future that I hold while I am alive and the future I leave behind for my children and their children.

I also thought that existentialism has a hard time coming to grips with the concept of no god.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Beth

Well I looked at the first paragraph in the Wiki article just now and I suppose I could be existentialist. But, my main beef with existentialism was that it seemed to push aside the idea that some things are done for the good of man as a unit, and instead stresses the individual in everything. It seemed, to me, to promote a selfishness of sorts. But then, I am for the individual rights and freedom of people, but I also think there are times that we may need to suspend individual freedoms for the good of the unit. Like, in society, we have laws. Some of our freedoms are denied because those freedoms would be bad for the good of the unit.

But, I suppose that the main reason why I thought it all a bunch of hooey is because of the wording. The way many of the things I read on the subject were written sounded so nutty and turned me off instantly. The Wiki entry is much more rational.

I agree with you as I personally find high importance in empathy and the consequences of my actions on others and society.

The ditionary definition

A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Seems to me that "freedom of choice" and "responsibility" can easily include the free, individual choice to care about others and society and feel responsibility towards them. I don't know that there can necessarily be any dogma of "you must feel this" or "you must think that" to be an existentialist. What do you think?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That's what I meant. Your comments in this thread presuppose that humans have an eternal soul, whereas pretty much everyone else who has posted presupposes that humans don't have an eternal soul. I'm not arguing who's right or wrong, just pointing out that fundamental disparity in starting viewpoints.

Well, it's kinda tricksy though.

We have just been dropped into a stream where presuppositions lead to conclusions and conclusions become presuppositions. My only primary presupposition is that I exist and I cannot exist in a void ie: the nature of the case is that I cannot be self-subsisting, that is my starting viewpoint.

[Sweetie]

Question:

If the Universe is just energy and there are different manifestations of energy, however evolution has caused energy to be formed this way or that way, how can we ask why? Why should I continue to exist? Why shouldn't you, the Universe just evolved that way, why shouldn't energy continue to exist in the form of you and why should you cause it not to continue to exist in the form of you?

Could nature produce something greater than itself?

If there is a reason to discontinue to exist then there is a reason for your existence, no? If that reason is merely evolution in the sense of, just because we evolved that way, to exist, how can you then say that man then can choose to discontinue to exist? If nature says you should exist because you do exist, how can you circumvent her by then saying that you should not exist?

I wonder, I guess that's like saying in a way that the Universe should not exist or the Universe should not exist the way it exists but then.....hmmm..

Hm, if we evolved to question our own existence, nature produced us this way, a natural occurance with a naturalistic explanation then nature is not being circumvented because it has dictated that you should exist even if it's only that you should exist in the same way the Universe should exist, it just does because, and then that you should question your existence (but then just because you can question your existence, it doesn't mean that you should) and therefore conclude that you should not exist and therefore give you the wherewithall to extinguish your own existence at will, but then not at will, by determinism but then that would not apply just to you but to everybody which would ultimately dictate that we should not exist but then we do so then it's true both that we should exist because nature has caused us to exist, ie: what should be is what nature does, and we should not exist because we think, but then nature would've caused that too, we should exist even if only to extinguish our own existence.

Yikes:

"Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? [Aren't] they both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?"

[Dragar]

[Sweetie]

I revised this paragraph and even made it worse trying to answer my own question:

If we evolved to question our own existence

Which is a truth to the materialist, correct? Consciousness is a product of evolution not necessarily to question our existence, but it has caused us to be able to question our own existence but there is not necessarily a direct link between we can question our existence therefore nature has caused us to question our own existence.

No, that's not true. Thinking and questioning is what man does, it is his essence, what differentiates him from beasts. If we were to have evolved this way to build better societal structures, to do whatever, but honestly now that I think of it, I have never heard a really great explanation for why humans evolved in the first place, what purpose does nature have for a thinking animal as opposed to a non-thinking animal? Too, nature causes things to evolve or de-volve perhaps. When crabs needed eyes they had eyes, when the no longer needed eyes because they lived in the dark, then they no longer grew eyes. What purpose is the human brain?

nature produced us this way, a natural occurance with a naturalistic explanation

Which is the naturalist/materialists position, correct? We are as evolution caused us to be in whatever form of energy it happened to become. The naturalistic explanation is "just because". We can use other words like there were this many atoms in one place which caused this to counteract with that, etc., etc., but that would still say it just happened to become that way just as the Universe just "happens" to exist, just because. Should the Universe be different? No, it should not be any other way than the way it is because it just is.

If it just happens that nature produced a being and then that you should question your existence

So then, once again, it just happened that a being such as man evolved and it just happens that he can question his own existence and how he came to evolve.

and therefore conclude that you should not exist

So then, if it just happened to be that man evolved, the ability to question himself evolved as well, then it just happens that man can conclude that he should not exist.

and therefore give you the wherewithall to extinguish your own existence at will

And since you can question your existence you have the power to extinguish your own existence, you have evolved to think and the power to think is to have the power to cease thinking or to prevent the ability to continue to think, you can use your power to disable yourself.

Animals kill each other or get killed for other natural reasons, but do they kill themselves?

but then not at will, by determinism

But if there is no free-will then we each individually only evolve as circumstance has happened to cause us to evolve, we cannot will to cease thinking, we cannot will at all, but we especially cannot will to cease thinking (ie: by suicide) if we cannot or have not thought that we should cease thinking, been given reason to. If it has not entered our thoughts, it cannot be done.

but then that would not apply just to you but to everybody

So then, justaman's arguement is about a universal "should." My thought at this point was, what should be is what is. The Universe should be because it is and it should be this way because it is, so then ultimately there is no should. We were caused to be therefore we are. We think therefore we know we are and we know we were caused to be. We think therefore we can cause ourselves not to be.

so there is no should. which would ultimately dictate that we should not exist but then we do so then it's true both that we should exist because nature has caused us to exist, ie: what should be is what nature does, and we should not exist because we think, but then nature would've caused that too, we should exist even if only to extinguish our own existence.

So it's both/and. We should exist just because we do, we just exist. We should think just because we do, we just think. We should cease to exist just because we just exist and we just think but this is where things get really difficult.

It just is that we exist, we live and we die, but why shouldn't energy continue to exist in our form as opposed to any other?

I think the assumption that there is no why would be to say there is no reason not not to exist in the first place but then you would have to ask why if you wish to discontinue your existence and if there is no why, there is no why. The one asks for a why the other one undercuts it by saying, "why not" "it just is."

But then that reasoning applies to both cases, if you start at now and then say I just exist and I just think and I just think I should not exist, then you can ask "why not die, it just is."

But since existence comes first and then thinking and then the thought to become non-existent then the first "it just is" undercuts the latter. It just is that you exist, it should not be other than as it is.

[Zoot]

'Preferable' and 'true' become interchangable when there is only one practical available course of action to an individual.

Practicality itself refers back to values. Practicality deals with the achievement of a goal, and the goal is set by values. There's no such thing as a "just plain practical" action. It has to be practical in terms of achieving goal-set-by-value.

I'm gunna give this next bit a shot but I may give up, given that I'm trying to compress a year's argument into point form and I really don't like my chances.

If your argument is rational, logical, it should be at least possible.

I'll get each step understood before moving to the next.

1. Objects move towards each other in space.
2. The temperature of material tends towards a static mean.
3. Humans operate on a cause-and-effect paradigm.

In what way?

The trouble is emotion works very hard to not let us accept 9-12. Remove emotion, and you'd have something like what we've got here. Kinda.

Emotion is not the trouble, and everyone's insistence that it is, is distracting you from what I think is the real problem in your position.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Practicality itself refers back to values. Practicality deals with the achievement of a goal, and the goal is set by values. There's no such thing as a "just plain practical" action. It has to be practical in terms of achieving goal-set-by-value.

Again, is it a value to avoid pain? It is something we must do. I'm uncomfortable in the way you relate this as a value equivalent to the others you initially mentioned. The others can be avoided/ignored, this can't. Surely this is an important distinction, yet you don't seem to give any significance to it.

If your argument is rational, logical, it should be at least possible.

Certainly I think it is, I just think it would take a long time to actually do and I've only got internet cafe access right now

1. Objects move towards each other in space.
2. The temperature of material tends towards a static mean.
3. Humans operate on a cause-and-effect paradigm.

In what way?

Well this is certainly important.

This first part is establishing that humans operate deterministically. Stimuli will result in predictable reactions.

Emotion is not the trouble, and everyone's insistence that it is, is distracting you from what I think is the real problem in your position.

Ok, well I know you've had a number of different problems with it - ought-to-is, the necessity of assuming a 'self' exists - but I do think that the reason other people often object is in relation to emotion. Certainly I think it is LadyShea's position if no other's.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Assumption: I desire to win.
Assumption: I do not desire to play, merely to win.

Overall yes, but I'm going to massage it a little:

Assumption: I desire to play in order to win.

I am very confident that when we say something is important, we don't mean "important to me" we mean "it is important." This is because importance is goal orientated.

The only way to refute me is to describe a moment that is in and of itself important. I'd argue such a moment doesn't exist, importance only ever relates to the future. More simply, an action can only ever be described as important because of the perceived future benefits.

Why does speed matter? If all moves are worthless, why not laugh, and have a great time playing, even though you know you're going to lose?

The analogy gets complicated here, but it still works if you take the time to follow it through. You laugh because you realise "this doesn't matter". So the not-winning=not-important thing still holds true, but now you have introduced an element other than chess into the analogy. This would be like introducing an element other than life into nihilism.

It's not like we can look back and say, "Hah! I lost quicker you!", is it? There's no reward after playing for playing quickly, no reward after playing for playing slowly.

This is making the mistake of assuming nihilism is active. It isn't, it's destructive. We don't value speed of others, speed becomes necessary when all other values are destroyed.

But if playing is fun, why not keep playing?

Because 'fun' is irrational.

Professionals play to win.

While this is true, you must remember that the analogy with professionals means you are no longer allowed to introduce forbidden non-life elements

And your sig - while funny - isn't completely true. Sex is about the most irrational thing humans engage in. (Some of us with gusto )

[justaman]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I think in very simple terms, everyone who discounts the possibility that anything resembling 'you' will continue to exist after death is either a nihilist (in the sense of: therefore life doesn't matter) or an existentialist (in the sense of: therefore only life matters). I could be totally wrong about that, though.

If this isn't an accepted description of the distinction, it should be.

[Dragar]

Assumption: I desire to play in order to win.

But I don't....

I am very confident that when we say something is important, we don't mean "important to me" we mean "it is important." This is because importance is goal orientated.

And now we start to see where we really differ. This, to me, reads as following:

"I am very confident that when we say something is important, we don't mean "important to me" we mean "it is jsijifsfst." This is because importance is goal orientated."

The only way to refute me is to describe a moment that is in and of itself important. I'd argue such a moment doesn't exist, importance only ever relates to the future. More simply, an action can only ever be described as important because of the perceived future benefits.

You're asking for nonsense again, Justaman. Importance is a subjective term.

The analogy gets complicated here, but it still works if you take the time to follow it through. You laugh because you realise "this doesn't matter". So the not-winning=not-important thing still holds true, but now you have introduced an element other than chess into the analogy.

This would be like introducing an element other than life into nihilism.

No...it would be like introducing a desire other than 'stay alive forever' into life.

This is making the mistake of assuming nihilism is active. It isn't, it's destructive. We don't value speed of others, speed becomes necessary when all other values are destroyed.

Why does speed become necessary?

Because 'fun' is irrational.

So?

While this is true, you must remember that the analogy with professionals means you are no longer allowed to introduce forbidden non-life elements

I think if I was a professional liver (i.e. someone who lives, not the organ), you're right - I'd abandon the game.

But I'm not. Living is a hobby.

And your sig - while funny - isn't completely true. Sex is about the most irrational thing humans engage in. (Some of us with gusto )

Again...why does this matter?

[Mustaphile]

This might be of interest to those wanting an overview of Kierkegarrd and his ideas on christian existentialism.

Christian Existentialism according to Kierkegaard

A more lengthy article.

I have some affinity with his views.

Another christian existentialist is Gabriel Marcel. A French Roman Catholic. I'd love to get hold of his stuff. It's not well known in English speaking countries.

Here is a rough outline of some of his thoughts compiled on someones website

Gabriel Marcel's 'The Mystery of Being'

A biography and summary of works

[Zoot]

Again, is it a value to avoid pain? It is something we must do. I'm uncomfortable in the way you relate this as a value equivalent to the others you initially mentioned. The others can be avoided/ignored, this can't. Surely this is an important distinction, yet you don't seem to give any significance to it.

It is a value in so far as it provides criteria for evaluating preferability of options. Until you demonstrate some reason to ignore ignorable values, it's not an important distinction.

(established premises)
1. Objects move towards each other in space.
2. The temperature of material tends towards a static mean.

(currently under discussion)
3. Humans operate on a cause-and-effect paradigm.

In what way?

Well this is certainly important.

This first part is establishing that humans operate deterministically. Stimuli will result in predictable reactions.

Choices are made from a perspective of values - criteria for determining preferability of options. It is predictable that a person will choose to act in the manner evaluated most preferable in accordance with the criteria provided by the values he holds. In that sense there are predictable reactions. If that's what you mean, I agree, and we can move on to the next premises.


4. In thought, this paradigm is known as 'logic'.

Explain this.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But I don't....

My assumption is you do even if you think you don't. It's an argument that should probably be nutted out more, because it's an important assumption that I make.

Basically, I argue that because importance is based on the future, we must therefore have positive concepts about what the future holds for us. The question is, do all future decisions necessarily impact upon present considerations of value, or do only some? I think it is ignorant to say only some do. They all must (though sometimes the affect is negligible.)

If they all must, then if we say "Death doesn't impact on the now", we must be ignoring the reality of death in order to do so.

And now we start to see where we really differ. This, to me, reads as following:

"I am very confident that when we say something is important, we don't mean "important to me" we mean "it is jsijifsfst." This is because importance is goal orientated."

I'd suggest that people don't actually conceptualise importance this way. I wasn't really accurate with that description. What I mean is that "important to me" = "important".

This is evident in the 'why' chain where we ask ourselves why we did something and why we did that, and it always boils down to a "I did it because I did it". If you are going to speak in terms of why we did things, we need a first cause. That is where the unconscious belief in objective importance comes in.

Otherwise it is nonsensical to ask why we did something. The problem, of course, is we cannot operate on the assumption that we are purely deterministic. That would completely eradicate the entire concept of what importance is.

You're asking for nonsense again, Justaman. Importance is a subjective term.

This works for subjective importance. You can assume 'important to me' in that paragraph. There is never a specific moment that is in and of itself important to you.

No...it would be like introducing a desire other than 'stay alive forever' into life.

Can you explain this?

Why does speed become necessary?

Because it is what the path-of-least resistance demands.

So?

AHAH! Gotcha

We are not satisfied with our beliefs being irrational in any other context. Why would you assume it is allowable to do so in this case?

You are articulating precisely the ignorance I am indicating (please don't take that as offensive, I mean it quite literally, I am subject to this criticism also).

Me - "Your belief system is irrational, your beliefs are based on your personal desires, not on reality."
Christian - "So?"

The reason why you are not a Christian is the same reason why you shouldn't be arguing what you are. It is a double-standard, Sheriff.

While this is true, you must remember that the analogy with professionals means you are no longer allowed to introduce forbidden non-life elements

But I'm not. Living is a hobby.

Untrue. You're a professional by necessity. Hobbies are something we can leave and go and do something else instead of.

Again...why does this matter?

As above. It doesn't need to matter, but if it doesn't, you are exhibiting precisely the same degree of ignorance as a fundamentalist Christian who believes God creates tsunamis because he hates how nice we are being to homosexuals. There's nothing objectively wrong about this, it's just unsatisfactory when we have being rational as our standard in every other aspect of life but this.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Zoot

It is a value in so far as it provides criteria for evaluating preferability of options. Until you demonstrate some reason to ignore ignorable values, it's not an important distinction.

Well for now let's just agree that there is a distinction, and come back to it when the time comes.

Explain this.

It's really just an extension of the point before. Logic is the word you can use to describe the cause-and-effect paradigm. It provides the deterministic boundaries of what we will and will not believe.

[Dragar]

Basically, I argue that because importance is based on the future...

It's not, though.

I'd suggest that people don't actually conceptualise importance this way. I wasn't really accurate with that description. What I mean is that "important to me" = "important".

This is evident in the 'why' chain where we ask ourselves why we did something and why we did that, and it always boils down to a "I did it because I did it". If you are going to speak in terms of why we did things, we need a first cause. That is where the unconscious belief in objective importance comes in.

Otherwise it is nonsensical to ask why we did something. The problem, of course, is we cannot operate on the assumption that we are purely deterministic. That would completely eradicate the entire concept of what importance is.

I operate on the assumption I am purely deterministic (or possibly indeterminate, subject to quantum events which likely are minuscale on such a large system as a human). Why do you think I don't?

This works for subjective importance. You can assume 'important to me' in that paragraph. There is never a specific moment that is in and of itself important to you.

Playing guitar is important to me. I don't play it for practice. I don't play it to perform in front of others. I don't play it for anything other than immediate, raw pleasure, right there and then.

I'm sure there's a phrase from some Eastern religion that goes, "In walking just walk. In sitting just sit. Above all don't wobble."

Can you explain this?

One of my desires is to stay alive. I have a great many more, such as 'learn physics' and 'play guitar' and so on. These are seperate to 'stay alive', and just as important a drive.

Because it is what the path-of-least resistance demands.

Who says I follow the path-of-least resistance?

AHAH! Gotcha

We are not satisfied with our beliefs being irrational in any other context. Why would you assume it is allowable to do so in this case?

You said it. "We are not satisfied with our beliefs being irrational."

Where am I holding an irrational belief?

I've already above pointed out in a post some pages back about your equivocating two seperate definitions of 'irrational' - one in the sense of drawing conclusions, one in the sense of acting due to desires and/or emotions. This is a fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation, oddly enough.

Untrue. You're a professional by necessity. Hobbies are something we can leave and go and do something else instead of.

It's more like an addiction, then, isn't it? I think the analogy is starting to fail.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's not, though.

How is it not?

I operate on the assumption I am purely deterministic (or possibly indeterminate, subject to quantum events which likely are minuscale on such a large system as a human). Why do you think I don't?

Because if you did, you would never use the word 'important' in any context. There would be no such thing, as everything that you do would be the result of what had occurred previously.

Maybe you should explain your concept of what importance actually is.

Playing guitar is important to me. I don't play it for practice. I don't play it to perform in front of others. I don't play it for anything other than immediate, raw pleasure, right there and then.

Why? I need you to really deconstruct this source of pleasure. You seem like you want to leave things as they appear superficially, but that is what I am arguing is precisely the point.

I would argue that this importance could not exist if you weren't maintaining some kind of distant dream of having other people appreciate what you are doing. I used to think the exact same thing as you do, and now I catch myself hoping that even when all the doors are shut, that someone can still hear me, and that they are impressed.

Basically, we need to deconstruct precisely what importance is. I believe it is an instinctive drive that has us imagining future benefits from present exertions. I would say that your playing guitar is entirely subject to this possibility.

One of my desires is to stay alive. I have a great many more, such as 'learn physics' and 'play guitar' and so on. These are seperate to 'stay alive', and just as important a drive.

Not separate, subordinate.

I need to stay alive -> I need to enjoy life -> I need to be challenged -> physics
I need to stay alive -> I need to enjoy life -> I enjoy playing music -> guitar

So you see your original argument does not hold here. You are still operating within the chess game.

Who says I follow the path-of-least resistance?

Determinism, physics, logic, etc.

You can't not follow the path-of-least resistance.

You said it. "We are not satisfied with our beliefs being irrational."

Where am I holding an irrational belief?

You're changing tack. First you said 'So?', indicating you don't care that you have an irrational belief. But now you're saying that your beliefs aren't irrational. I get the feeling your beginning to argue with me rather than the logic now...

I've already above pointed out in a post some pages back about your equivocating two seperate definitions of 'irrational' - one in the sense of drawing conclusions, one in the sense of acting due to desires and/or emotions. This is a fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation, oddly enough.

Well when you pointed this out you used 'rational' instead of irrational and completely confused me Perhaps you could elucidate the point again, because I really don't think I've been equivocal or even ambiguous with my usage of 'irrational'.

It's more like an addiction, then, isn't it? I think the analogy is starting to fail.

It's exactly like an addiction. How does my analogy fail?