Nihilism

[sqishy]

Due to motivations from off-topic stuff in the Islam & Muslims megathread, I've decided mostly on whim to start up this thread on Nihilism.
[http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2026975&page=4]

I've not much to say really, which is a good start taking the topic. Anything general or specific, directly or indirectly related to nihilism and/or opponents to it, and what is or is not nihilist, are free to be included here.


I'll start off a 'seed' of sorts by saying that modernism and empiricism are not nihilistic.


Vlerchan Judean Zealot phuckphace Porpoise101 xbob18

- - - - - - - -

Here's also a cake to celebrate this unusual occasion:

http://www.themaritimesite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cake-fail-last.jpg

[Porpoise101]

Why do I get tagged lol. I'm so illiterate in philosophy. I guess if I have something to say, I guess it's that modern and post-modern society resort to nihilism periodically, especially if that society is feeling bad.

[phuckphace]

I think modernists/leftists want it both ways.

they're nihilists almost to the point of solipsism when it suits them, but also keep a moral dogma handy for when it doesn't. I've met several of these types who want a totally amoral social order ("it's all relative maaaaan we're all just conglomerations of atoms you know") except when it comes to things they feel strongly about, such as eating meat or voting for Hitler.


http://i.imgur.com/W1gmuEq.png how can morals be real if gawd isn't real

http://i.imgur.com/5Kv8CMw.png 14/88 race war now

http://i.imgur.com/W1gmuEq.png WOW UM OKAY THIS IS PROBLEMATIC

[SethfromMI]

It is a pretty bleak way to view the world/life. to each their own of course, but as the cake suggests, it is a world view/philosophy which basically says nothing matters (the very simplified version, but in truth maybe one/the most important part). Even if one does not believe in God, most still say their life and the lives of others matter and what they do/others do matter (going into a more existentialistic world view/philosophy).

[Porpoise101]

It is a pretty bleak way to view the world/life. to each their own of course, but as the cake suggests, it is a world view/philosophy which basically says nothing matters (the very simplified version, but in truth maybe one/the most important part). Even if one does not believe in God, most still say their life and the lives of others matter and what they do/others do matter (going into a more existentialistic world view/philosophy).
I was actually wrong about my complete illiteracy about this topic, I read a few passages in French class from Albert Camus' "L'homme révolté". From what I understood, he argued that if life is meaningless, then the fact that we continue on living in spite of that is something to celebrate. In other words, if we accept life's worthlessness and still go on, we give life purpose.

[SethfromMI]

I was actually wrong about my complete illiteracy about this topic, I read a few passages in French class from Albert Camus' "L'homme révolté". From what I understood, he argued that if life is meaningless, then the fact that we continue on living in spite of that is something to celebrate. In other words, if we accept life's worthlessness and still go on, we give life purpose.

I am by no means an expert, I want to take some philosophy classes in college, at least one. that is interesting though how a nihilist would still find purpose in just living life even though it is meaningless. it makes great sense of course. the traditional school of nihilism would not be so much concerned how you live your life (at least as I understood it, could be wrong) since in the end nothing matters. but that is quite interesting.

I know being a Christian, I would fall more towards the existentialism (and I guess there is Theistic Existentialism). even for those in existentialism who don't believe in God, they still think it is important to be the best person one can be and still do one's part to make the world a better place.

kind of a cup half empty vs half full outlook between nihilism and existentialism (though again, that is over simplifying the debate/issue)

[Judean Zealot]

Disregarding the reams of epistemological objections there are to nihilism, I say that regardless it ought to be suppressed. For if it is false, it is obviously a pernicious doctrine that erodes the legitimacy of the truth, whereas if it were true, there would be no harm in it's suppression - on its own account - considering the subversive and antisocial role it plays in society.

[Babs]

I personally think nihilism is kind of a silly idea. What is and isn't moral is difficult to define; and to reject the idea of morality or any sort of meaning to life is kind of depressing and perhaps counterproductive. So, I think it's best to live your life the best you can based on your own principals.

[sqishy]

Why do I get tagged lol. I'm so illiterate in philosophy.

Personally I am not good with motivation for reading much so I consider myself half illiterate :P . Anyway, I don't think any level of knowing philosophy is required in doing it.


[...]I read a few passages in French class from Albert Camus' "L'homme révolté". From what I understood, he argued that if life is meaningless, then the fact that we continue on living in spite of that is something to celebrate. In other words, if we accept life's worthlessness and still go on, we give life purpose.

Yes, finding no meaning in the world does not have to mean finding a nihilist viewpoint of the world. If we go on in spite of the meaninglessness, it is meaningful.

I think modernists/leftists want it both ways.

Do we need to see/treat modernists and leftists as the same? I suppose I would be on the left side of the political spectrum here, but doesn't mean I am a modernist, described by what you give below.



they're nihilists almost to the point of solipsism when it suits them, but also keep a moral dogma handy for when it doesn't. I've met several of these types who want a totally amoral social order ("it's all relative maaaaan we're all just conglomerations of atoms you know") except when it comes to things they feel strongly about, such as eating meat or voting for Hitler.


I'm going to take the Antitheist Dawkins sort of people as a better example of what you mean. I just think they are using double standards at worst, at the least not seeing they are using multiple half-overlapping viewpoints under the guise of just one. For example, I know a physicalist who is a vegetarian for moral reasons. They're not using any of the labels universally.


I am by no means an expert, I want to take some philosophy classes in college, at least one. that is interesting though how a nihilist would still find purpose in just living life even though it is meaningless. it makes great sense of course. the traditional school of nihilism would not be so much concerned how you live your life (at least as I understood it, could be wrong) since in the end nothing matters. but that is quite interesting.

Maybe some distinction between nihilism that looks at the world 'out there' and nihilism that looks at us and our lives, could be made. It is interesting.


Disregarding the reams of epistemological objections there are to nihilism, I say that regardless it ought to be suppressed. For if it is false, it is obviously a pernicious doctrine that erodes the legitimacy of the truth, whereas if it were true, there would be no harm in it's suppression - on its own account - considering the subversive and antisocial role it plays in society.

What examples of its antisocial effects do you see? (I might not be opposed to you here.)
If we could find out if 'universal' nihilism were true or false, would it matter for us? I say if, because different views will see it as possible or impossible, for reasons of how we frame the universe with other viewpoint systems to ask this question, it that makes sense.

My stance on nihilism would be that it gets into (as I see it) an issue with itself. You can grant that there is no meaning in life, and/or there is no system that capture meaning behind the universe or that the universe just is meaningless, but that in itself is some meaning. I use an analogy that zero is still a number, different from the absence of it. Maybe nihilists wouldn't have an issue with this just as relativists don't see issues with the absolute view that everything is relative (generally), but I see that anyhow.

I also feel that there are strictly, by definition, many fewer nihilists around than those who say they are. This is not so different from my antitheist/atheist distinction which I feel would be better to have around.

Relevant to both nihilism and atheism/theism are my thoughts of gods/related. If we hold a view that a god is some principle or set of principles that is behind and beyond the world, its structure and creation, and not of any form like humans (not 'personal') then there are many more theists around than spoken of. Even physicalists would go under this, as physical processes must have some principle that 'guides' them. Many people who have faith in a god in the form of a person that they can communicate to are either bringing down this beyond-world principle to their level of cognition (for each their own), or they are actually just 'looking in the wrong place' as it were, not not looking properly at all. I would wonder who are the nihilists then, in this framework.
Just some ideas.

[Judean Zealot]

Paraxiom

You're talking about an epistemological nihilism which is scarcely, if at all, intelligible. Practically nobody believes that there are no natural principles, no realisation of the self (a favourite theme among modernists, who seem to forget that the same Delphic Oracle which tells us Know Thyself also tells Socrates to study universal truth), nothing but chaos. I do not refer to such nihilism - it is entirely irrelevant.

Instead I deal with the nihilism of the absurdist, the relativist, and of the millennials who are too debased and illiterate to even properly formulate their hodge podge of half digested ideals. I refer to moral and intellectual nihilism, that is, the rejection of an absolute truth, the rejection of any outside moral imperatives (indeed, many de facto nihilists are afraid to say this, but it is what underpins their ideas), and/or blatant refusal to entertain the notion that the human mind be proven anything higher than the machinations of a Cartesian daemon named Randomness.

Our society is such at this point - the only morality is that of biological utility/self interest, thus the current obsession with identity and the resultant identity politics. Postmodern society is, to borrow a phrase, like a train wreck orchestrated by Zeno of Elea: just when you think it's been pulverised to the greatest extent, it surprises you and hits a new low.

[sqishy]

You're talking about an epistemological nihilism which scarcely, if at all, intelligible. Practically nobody believes that there are no natural principles, no realisation of the self (a favourite theme among modernists, who seem to forget that the same Delphic Oracle which tells us Know Thyself also tells Socrates to study universal truth), nothing but chaos. I do not refer to such nihilism - it is entirely irrelevant.

So epistemological nihilism sees either that meaningful knowledge can never be obtained, or it just doesn't exist at all. I (least that I think) was talking about ontological nihilism too. Most people do believe that there are natural principle, at least one thing exists in their life and/or in reality which is 'behind' everything else - I'm not talking about whether it can be found or not in this respect, I mean that people believe in something and either have reasons to back it up or are looking for some or more, whether it be physics processes, forces good and evil, gods, the matrix, or something else. Most people do not see a chaotic world, there is order in most of our views of it. Physicalism as example is not chaotic, there is order present. Physical processes are not chaotic, not even indeterminate radioactive decay as just works through probability that we see order in.



Instead I deal with the nihilism of the absurdist, the relativist, and of the millennials who are too debased and illiterate to even properly formulate their hodge podge of half digested ideals.

With the millennials I get the feeling that you think people on average are worse off intellectually than in the past, but whatever about the state of educational systems then, more people were not in the know when it came to many disciplines than today; knowledge at the least is much more obtainable today than it was. Perhaps the greater quantity of knowledge means greater chance of abuse of it (intentionally or being foolish), but it doesn't mean that the average person today is decaying or something intellectually.

Absurdism is, well, absurd. I don't know a lot about it other than that it is relatively bizarre and haphazard maybe compared to other systems. I also assumed you didn't like relativism either, but thanks for the clarity (not intending to be aggressive here).


I refer to moral and intellectual nihilism, that is, the rejection of an absolute truth, the rejection of any outside moral imperatives (indeed, many de facto nihilists are afraid to say this, but it is what underpins their ideas)[...]

So you think that nihilism in whatever form is motivated by a rejection of moral and/or ethical systems. The rejection of an absolute truth would is either just that (a sort of 'chaotic' nihilism), or only one absolute truth that says there is no other absolute truth (sort of 'ordered' nihilism); those are some ad-hoc categories I've made just now but that's how I am seeing it.


[...] and/or blatant refusal to entertain the notion that the human mind be proven anything higher than the machinations of a Cartesian daemon named Randomness.

Is indeterminacy a bad thing in general?
I don't go with the human mind being purely 'random', but more, in one of my angles, a more complex system that arises out of less complex other systems interacting with each other.



Our society is such at this point - the only morality is that of biological utility/self interest[...]

We have a major problem in at least western society today with consumerism, celebrity and technology being used as an end in itself, I agree, but not that the entirety of it is based on just that. A large part yes, but not the whole thing - I don't see a death of thinking or anything like that, and even minorities of people who pursue alternative and/or non-consumerist disciplines and the like, still make up a huge number.

Are you opposed to an excess of self-interest (like I would be), or the very presence of it?


[...] thus the current obsession with identity and the resultant identity politics.

Can you expand? I'm assuming you mean LGBT+, race, psychological disorders and so on.


Postmodern society is, to borrow a phrase, like a train wreck orchestrated by Zeno of Elea: just when you think it's been pulverised to the greatest extent, it surprises you and hits a new low.

You predict that society and civilisation as a result is heading toward some cataclysm that will mainly came from the moral, intellectual and 'everyday' social interactions, and not other things.

I say in advance that I see many problems in the world of today that either never came up before, or have been made worse - I see us living in a dystopia rather than some utopia, so we intersect in some things I think, but mostly not others.

[Vlerchan]

There's no set reason that Nihilism needs to lead to sheer relativism.

Confronted with the universe as a brute fact one has three options.

Finding comfort in faith. I see this as intellectually untenable*.
Committing suicide. Clearly - I have not opted for this.
Embracing the meaningless which surrounds one and finding the will to continue nonetheless.
The last affirms the value contained in human existence. But human existence cannot be understood in itself without reference to a higher phenomenon: community or authority otherwise. Vlerchan is meaningless detached and abstracted from the context in which he lives and continues to embrace living. He must be understood as an aspect of a greater being and thus the affirmation of his life is an affirmation of all which he constitutes.

Thus we have an imagining of nihilism that affirms life and community and authority but nonetheless remains relatively malleable to the will of the subject and thus can be seen to also inform some potential for reform or progress or change.


---

* This isn't a denial in a potential justification. It's an observation of mine.

I'm so illiterate in philosophy.
But isn't that half the fun?

I refer to moral and intellectual nihilism, that is, the rejection of an absolute truth, the rejection of any outside moral imperatives (indeed, many de facto nihilists are afraid to say this, but it is what underpins their ideas)
Guilty as charged.

[sqishy]

There's no set reason that Nihilism needs to lead to sheer relativism.

I don't see the comparison either.



Finding comfort in faith. I see this as intellectually untenable.

Harder to catch your intellectual opponent when they keep leaping with faith :P .



Committing suicide. Clearly - I have not opted for this.

Hopefully not many people take this route.



Embracing the meaningless which surrounds one and finding the will to continue nonetheless.

This is admirable in some way to be honest, it certainly has raw motivation going for it.



The last affirms the value contained in human existence. But human existence cannot be understood in itself without reference to a higher phenomenon: community or authority otherwise. Vlerchan is meaningless detached and abstracted from the context in which he lives and continues to embrace living. He must be understood as an aspect of a greater being and thus the affirmation of his life is an affirmation of all which he constitutes.

Sounds good.



Thus we have an imagining of nihilism that affirms life and community and authority but nonetheless remains relatively malleable to the will of the subject and thus can be seen to also inform some potential for reform or progress or change.

From this angle, nihilism has an element of freedom not to be found in other places.



But isn't that half the fun?

Without sounding like a stereotypical primary school teacher, the learning makes it worthwhile. Proud to be finite :D .

[Vlerchan]

... but [zero] in itself is some meaning.
There's a fundamental difference in that zero is a rational number and thus horizontally relatable to (1, 2, 3... n).

Nihilism is a meta-philosophy and thus acts as a descriptor of ethical, epistemological and metaphysical perspectives. It is of course a meaningful proposition in itself but rather than making claims about ethics et al. it makes claims about the philosophies that wish to make claims about ethics et al.

Thus it can't be said to make claims relatable to the philosophies it seeks to describe insofar as there is vertical separation.

[Judean Zealot]

So epistemological nihilism sees either that meaningful knowledge can never be obtained, or it just doesn't exist at all. I (least that I think) was talking about ontological nihilism too. Most people do believe that there are natural principle, at least one thing exists in their life and/or in reality which is 'behind' everything else - I'm not talking about whether it can be found or not in this respect, I mean that people believe in something and either have reasons to back it up or are looking for some or more, whether it be physics processes, forces good and evil, gods, the matrix, or something else. Most people do not see a chaotic world, there is order in most of our views of it. Physicalism as example is not chaotic, there is order present. Physical processes are not chaotic, not even indeterminate radioactive decay as just works through probability that we see order in.

As I've said, I'm not addressing that sort of nihilism, as it's self negating and unpopular to boot.


With the millennials I get the feeling that you think people on average are worse off intellectually than in the past, but whatever about the state of educational systems then, more people were not in the know when it came to many disciplines than today; knowledge at the least is much more obtainable today than it was. Perhaps the greater quantity of knowledge means greater chance of abuse of it (intentionally or being foolish), but it doesn't mean that the average person today is decaying or something intellectually.

The issue isn't aggregate intelligence here. It's that we have lost, as a society, the vision of a universality of knowledge and virtue, in exchange for a cheap, shallow, feel-good notion of "openness".

Is indeterminacy a bad thing in general?
I don't go with the human mind being purely 'random', but more, in one of my angles, a more complex system that arises out of less complex other systems interacting with each other.

I don't see that vision as being in any manner incongruent with an account of the mind as truthfully interrogating our surroundings.

Are you opposed to an excess of self-interest (like I would be), or the very presence of it?

It's presence is good and proper; what is problematic is that the self is the only lens which postmodernists are willing to view the world through.

Can you expand? I'm assuming you mean LGBT+, race, psychological disorders and so on.

With the absence of any other value, the sense of identity and the self occupies the entire psyche of the modernist, thus creating a far outsized attachment to some accidental aspect of the person, be it sexuality, race, or nationality.



You predict that society and civilisation as a result is heading toward some cataclysm that will mainly came from the moral, intellectual and 'everyday' social interactions, and not other things.

Of course, but that's not my main concern. My concern is for the here and now, the mass dehumanisation of the Western spirit.

I say in advance that I see many problems in the world of today that either never came up before, or have been made worse - I see us living in a dystopia rather than some utopia, so we intersect in some things I think, but mostly not others.

I fully agree.

There's no set reason that Nihilism needs to lead to sheer relativism.

I understand that, which is why I classified absurdism and relativism as two distinct (albeit closely related) evils.

Confronted with the universe as a brute fact one has three options.

Finding comfort in faith. I see this as intellectually untenable*.
Committing suicide. Clearly - I have not opted for this.
Embracing the meaningless which surrounds one and finding the will to continue nonetheless.
The last affirms the value contained in human existence. But human existence cannot be understood in itself without reference to a higher phenomenon: community or authority otherwise. Vlerchan is meaningless detached and abstracted from the context in which he lives and continues to embrace living. He must be understood as an aspect of a greater being and thus the affirmation of his life is an affirmation of all which he constitutes.

Thus we have an imagining of nihilism that affirms life and community and authority but nonetheless remains relatively malleable to the will of the subject and thus can be seen to also inform some potential for reform or progress or change.

Yet Vlerchan sets himself against whichever account which he perceives as accentuating his sense of self, be that Irish Republicanism, elitism, class, or whatever it is that he finds a meaningful ground for himself, without regards to the utility of the others. Contrasted is the grounding in natural law, which although it is malleable to an extent, remains within the bounds of communal utility.

[Vlerchan]

Yet Vlerchan sets himself against whichever account which he perceives as accentuating his sense of self, be that Irish Republicanism, elitism, class, or whatever it is that he finds a meaningful ground for himself, without regards to the utility of the others.
Being a member of a community precedes ideological analysis of that same community and thus ideological solutions can never ignore that commitment. You cannot choose to divide a community without first recognising its existence.

---

I also want to extend the first post I made to include that I see the affirmation of my life as affirming all life. In justifying myself to a future to which I am only a potentiality, I am justifying the presumed goodness inherent to human nature.

Thus, all life must have some intrinsic value. Thus, we must aim to further it. This in turn is supposed to justify my emphasise on [1] long-run utility and [2] the Rawlsian notion that life is deserving of some minimum standard.

Contrasted is the grounding in natural law, which although it is malleable to an extent, remains within the bounds of communal utility.
The problem is that it doesn't follow through induction from the starting point I find desirable (and justifiable).

You will also need to explain to me how natural law must fit inside the bounds of communal utility.

---

[...] the learning makes it worthwhile.
If it encourages people to join in, I've actually learned everything I know about philosophy primarily from debating, and then using Wikipedia as a recourse to check the concepts I'm unsure of.

[sqishy]

There's a fundamental difference in that zero is a rational number and thus horizontally relatable to (1, 2, 3... n).

I'm not sure what you mean here, I was using zero as an example where it is an entity that denotes the absence of a quantity, as opposed to the absence of even an entity that denotes that.

Maybe zero divided by itself will be a better analogy - it is indeterminate, but still means more than the absence of it. If not that, the null set then.



Nihilism is a meta-philosophy and thus acts as a descriptor of ethical, epistemological and metaphysical perspectives. It is of course a meaningful proposition in itself but rather than making claims about ethics et al. it makes claims about the philosophies that wish to make claims about ethics et al.

Thus it can't be said to make claims relatable to the philosophies it seeks to describe insofar as there is vertical separation.

Yes.



As I've said, I'm not addressing that sort of nihilism, as it's self negating and unpopular to boot.

I'll leave it at there then.



The issue isn't aggregate intelligence here. It's that we have lost, as a society, the vision of a universality of knowledge and virtue, in exchange for a cheap, shallow, feel-good notion of "openness".

What was the universality of knowledge and virtue that was present, and when did it go away?

What specifically do you mean by this 'openness'?



I don't see that vision as being in any manner incongruent with an account of the mind as truthfully interrogating our surroundings.

Maybe our minds cannot interrogate our surroundings such that we get a complete account of truth of it, for whatever reasons. Referring to physics again, we simply cannot have a complete deterministic account of the small-scale world. Personally I feel it's a huge ask of ourselves to want to comprehend everything out in the world, through assuming we have the capacity to do so.



It's presence is good and proper; what is problematic is that the self is the only lens which postmodernists are willing to view the world through.

Alright.



With the absence of any other value, the sense of identity and the self occupies the entire psyche of the modernist, thus creating a far outsized attachment to some accidental aspect of the person, be it sexuality, race, or nationality.

So you see excessive attention being directed at what you see as contingent sets of labels we use for ourselves.

What would be 'non-accidental' aspects of ourselves?



Of course, but that's not my main concern. My concern is for the here and now, the mass dehumanisation of the Western spirit.

What was the humanity that is being lost now?



I understand that, which is why I classified absurdism and relativism as two distinct (albeit closely related) evils.

Right. What defines it to be evil?



Being a member of a community precedes ideological analysis of that same community and thus ideological solutions can never ignore that commitment. You cannot choose to divide a community without first recognising its existence.

Sounds alright (I know you are not responding to me, but I'm responding anyway).



I also want to extend the first post I made to include that I see the affirmation of my life as affirming all life. In justifying myself to a future to which I am only a potentiality, I am justifying the presumed goodness inherent to human nature.

So you start off with an inclusive stance regarding all humans in that we have the capacity to see the future full of possibilities/capacity of change that is up to us.



Thus, all life must have some intrinsic value. Thus, we must aim to further it. This in turn is supposed to justify my emphasise on [1] long-run utility and [2] the Rawlsian notion that life is deserving of some minimum standard.

So presuming that life is a good thing and not worth wasting.



The problem is that it doesn't follow through induction from the starting point I find desirable (and justifiable).

You will also need to explain to me how natural law must fit inside the bounds of communal utility.

This is something I'm interesting to see too.



If it encourages people to join in, I've actually learned everything I know about philosophy primarily from debating, and then using Wikipedia as a recourse to check the concepts I'm unsure of.

I tend to do most of my reading in randomised form online, and jumping right into things tends to be better as you learn and practice what you have learned at the same time, yes.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure what you mean here, I was using zero as an example where it is an entity that denotes the absence of a quantity, as opposed to the absence of even an entity that denotes that.
The point I'm making is that the pair are incommensurable.

The reason being is that zero stands within the numberline and thus can interpreted as a signifier akin to (1, 2, 3..., n). In contrast Nihilism does not stand amongst what it describes - it's meta - and thus can't be seen to signify something within the sphere that ethical, epistemological and metaphysical philosophies do.

So presuming that life is a good thing and not worth wasting.
In choosing to continue to live we must make this presumption.

[Judean Zealot]

Being a member of a community precedes ideological analysis of that same community and thus ideological solutions can never ignore that commitment. You cannot choose to divide a community without first recognising its existence.

The sense of community required for a more individualised outlook exists only on a trivial level - as a brute fact. It in no way leads to recognition of one's responsibility to act in the community's interest. The sense of civic duty, so integral to society, is founded upon the whims and vagaries of the individual, who in turn only factors in what makes him feel good about himself. Such behaviour crushes the social cohesion necessary for a functional society.

I also want to extend the first post I made to include that I see the affirmation of my life as affirming all life. In justifying myself to a future to which I am only a potentiality, I am justifying the presumed goodness inherent to human nature.

The 'justification' of your happiness is not a true justification, insofar as it is grounded in nothing but your own will. You aren't claiming any sort of transcendent right to that future, and thus you aren't giving that right to others either - at best you are acknowledging their right to compete with you for whatever you believe constitutes happiness. The only transcendental community you are attaching yourself to is that which completes your sense of identity. One cannot, for example, be both a humanist and nationalist in equal measure, one must choose what he emphasises and when. This 'allocation' is what I find problematic when not based on duty.

Thus, all life must have some intrinsic value. Thus, we must aim to further it. This in turn is supposed to justify my emphasise on [1] long-run utility and [2] the Rawlsian notion that life is deserving of some minimum standard.

The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. Why should all other life's intrinsic values compel me to further them, if not through a higher force of duty? You may wish to further them to develop your own identity, but you are by no means compelled to not be a parasite.


The problem is that it doesn't follow through induction from the starting point I find desirable (and justifiable).

The basis of natural law, intentionality, follows inductively from the interlocking systems of phenomena that comprise our universe, and deductively from the existence of a Prime Mover, even that of Aristotle or Spinoza.

You will also need to explain to me how natural law must fit inside the bounds of communal utility.

Unless you will deny the social nature of man, I see no way to avoid some sort of communal participation.

What was the universality of knowledge and virtue that was present, and when did it go away?

From the times of the ancients, all knowledge ("subjects") were seen as connected to one another. Thus Newton, Einstein, and Bohr were philosophers, while Aristotle and Maimonides were men of science. Nowadays we view education as mere vocational training, and there is no longer any place for the humanities in our materialist society.

As far as virtue is concerned, the fact that most users here find my talk of virtue and duty quaint and foreign is enough of an indication of where things stand.

What specifically do you mean by this 'openness'?


Unconditional tolerance of the most bizarre or subversive behaviours. Tolerance of all but "intolerance".

Maybe our minds cannot interrogate our surroundings such that we get a complete account of truth of it, for whatever reasons. Referring to physics again, we simply cannot have a complete deterministic account of the small-scale world. Personally I feel it's a huge ask of ourselves to want to comprehend everything out in the world, through assuming we have the capacity to do so.

And maybe we can. The millennial, however, refuses to even consider the question.

So you see excessive attention being directed at what you see as contingent sets of labels we use for ourselves.

What would be 'non-accidental' aspects of ourselves?

Our intellect, our capacity for moralisation, and our social nature.


What was the humanity that is being lost now?


The sapiens of Homo Sapiens.

Right. What defines it to be evil?


It's falsehood and detrimental effect on society.

[sqishy]

The point I'm making is that the pair are incommensurable.

The reason being is that zero stands within the numberline and thus can interpreted as a signifier akin to (1, 2, 3..., n). In contrast Nihilism does not stand amongst what it describes - it's meta - and thus can't be seen to signify something within the sphere that ethical, epistemological and metaphysical philosophies do.

Right, so stretching the analogy, it doesn't even have a 'number space' (number line, plane etc), that numbers are denoted in.


In choosing to continue to live we must make this presumption.

Yes.




The basis of natural law, intentionality, follows inductively from the interlocking systems of phenomena that comprise our universe, and deductively from the existence of a Prime Mover, even that of Aristotle or Spinoza.

You're saying that the presence of order spatially and temporally must have some intention from a consciousness behind it all, inductively. How do you arrive at this through induction?

[Judean Zealot]

You're saying that the presence of order spatially and temporally must have some intention from a consciousness behind it all, inductively. How do you arrive at this through induction?

Just as the biological and ecological functions primarily serve other organs or organisms, so too do the intellect and communicative faculties serve the development of community.

[sqishy]

Just as the biological and ecological functions primarily serve other organs or organisms, so too do the intellect and communicative faculties serve the development of community.

I can take that, but it seems like a jump to then say that the order around us has an intention behind it.

[Judean Zealot]

I can take that, but it seems like a jump to then say that the order around us has an intention behind it.

I am not attempting that jump. By intentionality I refer to the fact that certain capacities are intrinsically ordered towards other ends.

[Vlerchan]

Edit:

The definition of community I'd pose is, a space where individuals are bound through non-political connections*, an organic institution arising through social-intercourse amongst co-habitants. This definition should be contrasted with that which I offer society. That is, a space where individuals are bound through political connections, there affiliation arising from subjection to the same sovereign.

Societies form out of collections of communities, which hold enough in common to entrust a significant part of their own preservation-function to a greater-body, and through this a natural allegiance to the broader society is borne.

Societies require the homogenisation of the individual: the imagining of a fundamental sameness of character through which all can be engaged with on a legal-rational level - it prompts a detached governance. This is not the case with communities, which are proactive, intimate, and personalist [to use the Schmittian term]; on a communal level, homogenisation is replaced with the engagement with identities and the formation of natural hierarchies.

Now, societies, unlike communities, are bounded through information imperfections about the qualities of their subjects. The optimal state for societal government is, thus, liberal-egalitarianism. This allows for the efficient matching of people and ideas chosen from different communities, the most productive relations, which prompts a highest level of growth for the median community.

The most important aspect of communities is their function in tempering rational-legal power, the negation of egalitarianism, as is required for identity-creation.

---

I actually feel, writing this, I'm posing something that's incredibly Irish-centric. So, I should be warned about that, if I am.

* I'm also of the opinion that political connections, local government, can and should be layered on top of these.

The sense of community required for a more individualised outlook exists only on a trivial level - as a brute fact.
I feel as if this is being read into the proposition I am making though I imagine that's my fault for posting thoughts that are still relatively-rudimentary.

The manner in which I see the individual is as a component in a broader social organism: dependent and yet independent. Dependent, because his identity is intimately bound to it's workings, traditions, and so on. Independent, because he is a nexus through which the workings and traditions are interpreted and reproduced. In truth, their existence is interdependent: community could not exist without individual, and individual could not exist without community.

Thus, to preserve himself, he must preserve his community. This, quite obviously, restricts him from a preoccupation with activities that are harmful or destructive vis-á-vis the community. Furthermore, rejection of his community is rejection of himself: emphasising the individual above the community is metaphysical-suicide.

You can make entirely valid arguments that the solution is the proliferation of civic virtue. Nonetheless I make no prescriptions here because what I have presented is a framework. That might not have been clear prior.

It in no way leads to recognition of one's responsibility to act in the community's interest.
I would hope that what I wrote above is clarification enough. Nonetheless I feel I should expand on my belief's surrounding the pursuit of communal interest and welfare.

The fundamental point is that community welfare cannot be managed centrally when knowledge and understanding are decentralised. It is impossible to dictate a set of welfare maximising conditions beneath the constraints of information-imperfections. Thus, I am in support of the individual being relatively free* - **.

---

* In particular, free in terms of expression and commerce.

** Like the statement I made in the Controversial Opinions thread, the role I see for rights is in allowing our great minds to mature and come to fruition. For the not-so-great - philosophers such as myself, but more importantly bureaucrats and the electorate - predicting the fruit is impossible, and thus for our own good, we should be restricted from intervening.

The sense of civic duty, so integral to society, is founded upon the whims and vagaries of the individual, who in turn only factors in what makes him feel good about himself.
In pursuit of it's own preservation there's no reason that the community wouldn't be justified in correcting an individual that seeks to abuse their position within it. Through induction, the community must have a right to preserve it's own existence. Otherwise, we place the existence of the individuals within it on a tenuous footing.

Nonetheless, I imagine that, yes, affairs are managed a lot less centrally than what you might propose, and this creates some amount of short-run slack or waste.

The 'justification' of your happiness is not a true justification, insofar as it is grounded in nothing but your own will.
It's not a justification of happiness, it's a justification of self-worth.

Furthermore, in a situation where I am to decide between suicide - or not - and the decision rests solely with me, I would propose that my will is of insurmountable value, as, at that moment, it is stealing from the gods control over life and death*.

---

I am unsure why the will being my own undermines it in the first place.

* I had always been of the understanding that the issue with suicide is that it is an affront to god insofar as it attempts to confer His right (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-39.htm) to man.

You aren't claiming any sort of transcendent right to that future, and thus you aren't giving that right to others either - at best you are acknowledging their right to compete with you for whatever you believe constitutes happiness.
I'm not claiming a right to a future. I'm claiming a desire to face it, a desire steeped in the contemplation of my worthiness.

In doing so I am not extending a right to others. I am acknowledging the worth intrinsic to the human condition.

The only transcendental community you are attaching yourself to is that which completes your sense of identity. One cannot, for example, be both a humanist and nationalist in equal measure, one must choose what he emphasises and when.
The first point to be made is that this affirmation of life is separate from my claims about a required-attachment to a community. Human nature is common to all, regardless of their ideological beliefs, and on that ground even your enemies deserve humane treatment.

Furthermore - as I clarified in the last post - the community is not intended an ideological community. Ideology succeeds community, which is readily pluralistic - as it must be if it is malleable to the individual's will.

The basis of natural law, intentionality, follows inductively from the interlocking systems of phenomena that comprise our universe, and deductively from the existence of a Prime Mover, even that of Aristotle or Spinoza.
We both know I'm in denial of the latter, but in address of the former.

Just as the biological and ecological functions primarily serve other organs or organisms, so too do the intellect and communicative faculties serve the development of community.
That something does, or can, or primarily can, is no basis to claim it ought - no?

[sqishy]

Apologies for not seeing some of your response earlier; I respond with them now after the first one below.


I am not attempting that jump. By intentionality I refer to the fact that certain capacities are intrinsically ordered towards other ends.

Capacity is an ability to have some order projected/'imposed' upon a part of the world, yes. Where does this fit with your view in this thread? (Sorry for being half-lost here.)



From the times of the ancients, all knowledge ("subjects") were seen as connected to one another. Thus Newton, Einstein, and Bohr were philosophers, while Aristotle and Maimonides were men of science. Nowadays we view education as mere vocational training, and there is no longer any place for the humanities in our materialist society.

I can agree in that education is turning more into an industry whose end is for a specific career in sustaining the economy; this in addition with some views that the sciences are inherently more important than the arts/humanities, is a growing problem. For other reasons too, I never liked school much because it felt like the first years were a preparation for the second, and the second a preparation for the third. Now I have partly escaped that by choosing a 'useless' course allegedly by some, but this is captured by ECTS and paperwork with a degree that will lead me to a career of some sort. The functionality aspect is overemphasised for sure.



As far as virtue is concerned, the fact that most users here find my talk of virtue and duty quaint and foreign is enough of an indication of where things stand.

For the sake of 'most users here' and to keep it on point for us, virtue will be defined as?



Unconditional tolerance of the most bizarre or subversive behaviours. Tolerance of all but "intolerance".

I wouldn't call it unconditional at all, otherwise we wouldn't have most of the debates in the western world that we do. Anyhow, I see a majority of tolerance as being better than intolerance when it comes to a 'background' social setting.


And maybe we can. The millennial, however, refuses to even consider the question.

I'm taking you think the 'millenial' is arrogant with thinking they know all about the world.

If not, then I am totally fine with 'average millenials' not considering the question, because I am certainly not a normal person and wouldn't expect everyone to be doing specific stuff like this (like how I don't expect everyone to be hard football fans, or chemistry-obsessed, and so on). I know I don't consider many things, and many people would say that I should.



Our intellect, our capacity for moralisation, and our social nature.

I'm good with the intellect and our psychological predisposition for being social, and moralisation as well if you mean this by us making subconscious distinctions between right/wrong or good/bad things. It is of our nature.



The sapiens of Homo Sapiens.

The death of wisdom?



It's falsehood and detrimental effect on society.

Well we both know that this statement won't be mutually accepted or got to terms with, without at least one discussion and probably a thread to contain it.