Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 226

Thread: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

  1. #181

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    Wow, you just typed a whole lot of nothing right there.
    No, what he said was that whilst nihilism is correct if we look upon reality as a whole, in its totality, it is correct as far as humanity is concerned. Even though it is not 'real' it can still be objective as it has a demonstratable effect upon human actions, we can see that it effects human actions in a meaningful way therefore morality is objective to all intents and purposes, to see it as not real is correct in the totality - but not practical in human society where it is a real almost tangible thing. To act as if it is not real accomplishes no useful goal within human society.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    Without there being a moral truth, knowable or unknowable, than those things you just mentioned is meaningless.
    No, it has meaning practically within human society, and as almost all human activity happens within human society it is best to treat it as if it were true, or if not this then to at least assert one moral as better relative to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    So the fact stands, only moral realists can discuss what is moral and what is not because they are the ones who believe morality is real, obviously.
    No, morality can be discussed by moral relativists, as a matter of which moral is practical in carrying out the intention of a moral, the regulation of behaviour within a given society. Normally with an idea of the general well being (even if it cannot exist in any real sense) in mind.
    Nietzsche said;
    "A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be, and that the world as it ought to be does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists."
    He argued that humans 'will' meaning, much as we will morals, so that they acomplish practical meaning.
    Last edited by Napoleonic Bonapartism; August 29, 2014 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Crucial Omitted Comma etc.

  2. #182
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Morality can be discussed by anyone. It doesn't mean that everybody's opinion is equally valid...
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  3. #183
    The Last Spartan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,992

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Validity can only be supported by facts and even those that can be positively associated with any thought, regardless of its relativity. Actual relativity is the only validity when it comes to facts.

    For example.

    Imagine a scenario in which a competent representative from every different school of philosophy gathered together to debate on the meaning of life. Obviously, they will all give different answers.

    Nihilism within its existential school, points out that there is no objective meaning to life, and because every other school of thought has their own definition to the meaning of life (automatically, making it subjective) nihilism would be the only real truth, because it is the only one that points out a fact that cannot be relative and that is that life has no objective meaning.

    Further more, objectivity cannot be defined by a higher power, because not everyone will believe in a higher power (I sure don't). The very concept of a higher power is subject to the person in question, and the lack of scientific proof that a higher power even exists lends the argument (in which a higher power is the objective source of morality) gives it no credibility for any argument, what so ever.

  4. #184

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    Morality can be discussed by anyone. It doesn't mean that everybody's opinion is equally valid...
    Yeah, but I say it must have practical value, so Western Civilisation is seemingly morally superior to some terrorist band in Middle Aisa because Western Civilisation has provided (Westerners at least) a higher standard of general wellbeing. It must be noted however that in many cases the morals were cast aside for the sake of advancing Western 'Civilisation', e.g. Empires, Slavery etc. So whilst our system of morals, which stem from a long heritage of ideas + enlightenment ideals, have not always been more moral, they appear to be so due to their succesful implimentation in Western Civilisation, often at the expense of others. We must look at causality, do superior morals lead to superior civilisation, or does succesful civilisation lead to what appears as superior morals.

  5. #185
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Empires and slavery is not relevant because that is not what western culture and values are nowadays. That's literally just a non sequitur.

    Are you seriously doubting that superior morals are better than inferior morals? You're spewing out irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the real questions in mind, and that is just frustrating everybody.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  6. #186

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    Empires and slavery is not relevant because that is not what western culture and values are nowadays. That's literally just a non sequitur.

    Are you seriously doubting that superior morals are better than inferior morals? You're spewing out irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the real questions in mind, and that is just frustrating everybody.
    Sorry, no offense to anyone intended. I simply wished to point out that for all the morals we value nowdays they don't always come first. I'm not doubting superior morals are better than inferior morals, merley whether it is best to declare a moral superior due to the state of the civilisation it stems from. For example you could have a vastly wealthy society- with the best set of morals in the world, which instists all must follow its morals because look how great it is. But its fabulous scientifically educated society arose from what it now deems immoral activities. Thus if it says - it works here, look at us its great - but it got that greatness through immoral activity what right has it to preach to others about moral activity. Now we can say that if these morals led to higher society it would be good, the point is did they? If not, then elevating another society to a higher level of development will elevate them and thus level the morals. Basically a parable for the West.
    I meant no offense and I'm sorry if any was caused. Simply wanted to illustrate a point.

  7. #187
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Well I am arguing that there are morally superior positions and ones that are equally moral as well, and that we shouldn't shy away from acknowledging them or acting by them. How to best spread them is an entirely different question and I agree, just telling everyone "we're better join or gtfo" isn't the best way of doing it, most likely.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  8. #188

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    Well I am arguing that there are morally superior positions and ones that are equally moral as well, and that we shouldn't shy away from acknowledging them or acting by them. How to best spread them is an entirely different question and I agree, just telling everyone "we're better join or gtfo" isn't the best way of doing it, most likely.
    Thats all I was saying, that our morals have their own bloody history and in some cases saying - look at our civilisation, we must be onto something here, follow our lead - is a bit hypocritical, especially if its a British person talking to an Indian, or an American to the Chinese. In fact most Western countries talking to the Chinese about morality would be hypocritical.

  9. #189
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    820

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Last Spartan View Post
    Nihilism within its existential school, points out that there is no objective meaning to life.
    Existenialist would possibly say, that things (words, sentences, etc.) had meaning because things had a history and that understanding a meaning of a thing required to look on its changes over time instead on an essence within or behind (like a moral or social truth).
    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; August 30, 2014 at 07:11 PM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  10. #190

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    Empires and slavery is not relevant because that is not what western culture and values are nowadays. That's literally just a non sequitur.

    Are you seriously doubting that superior morals are better than inferior morals? You're spewing out irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the real questions in mind, and that is just frustrating everybody.

    Empires and slavery and all the past nasty people did is just as relevant as the current nasty we do. Morals are generally defined by what's valued by that culture at that time. That tends to change over time. Morality is a human concept that by default makes it subjective.

    I'd like you to explain what exactly Western morals and values are at the moment. Where did they come from? How did we come to value those things over others? How well do you think we really follow them? That kind of thing.

  11. #191
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaniCatBurger View Post
    Existenialist would possibly say, that things (words, sentences, etc.) had meaning because things had a history and that understanding a meaning of a thing required to look on its changes over time instead on an essence within or behind (like a moral or social truth). Edmond Jabès
    No absolutely not. What he said encapsulated it fine, your sentences as usual was a kind of language terrorism. Your overly complicated way of saying that language is contextual has no bearing at all on what the previous poster said. Please refrain from further philsophical terrorism.

    And look at how easy it is to say two sentences in three words.

  12. #192
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    820

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    For me that what Heidegger writes in Being and Time about the historicity of the being provides that problematic contextuality. I might be wrong but that is what comes me to mind in relation to existientialism and nihilism. What the previous poster has said, was that there was no objective meaning to life from the point of view of an existentialist. My impression is that one needs to differentiate and ask what means "objective" and "life" in terms of existentialism. The previous poster rises interesting questions with his remark. ... Edmond Jabès (the poet) came me to mind because of his association with the language of the existentialists of the time before the war. Although, there may be no objective meaning to life (as a noun) from an existentialist point of view, as the posters said, yet one could respond, that there remain objective reasons to live (The Book of Questions*).

    * a book by Jabès



    My style of writing is terrible, definitely. You are absolutely right.
    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; August 30, 2014 at 11:05 PM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  13. #193
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    Subjective morality = We define what's bad based on experience.

    Given the evidence that's how everyone seems to create his morality whether he claims it to be moral realist or made it up so there is no observable difference between the two, just that the later fits the evidence better.
    But are you saying that your experience leads you to have better morals than others? But then say what if somebody does something really "bad" to a lot of people, that guy doesn't have worse morals just different experiences that leads to a different moral system, right? By being a moral non-realist you reject the notion of moral facts. So if you are right than neither of us are in any position to judge morality, I don't care what arbitrary decisions we make based on our 'experiences'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    No, I can partake in the same debates. I just consider your position badly thought out because you have delusions of having a better foundation than me when you have not shown any reason to believe that.
    We are talking morality here, how can I possible have a better foundation than you if its entirely subjective like you claim? If you are right than neither of us have a foundation, let alone one of us having a better one. Don't you understand what 'non-real' implies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    Any particular reason you painstakenly replied to everything but my last line including a request to specify your basis for morality?
    Didn't I already say that there is no reason to believe in morality unless some sort of faith is involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleonic Bonapartism View Post
    No, what he said was that whilst nihilism is correct if we look upon reality as a whole, in its totality, it is correct as far as humanity is concerned. Even though it is not 'real' it can still be objective as it has a demonstratable effect upon human actions, we can see that it effects human actions in a meaningful way therefore morality is objective to all intents and purposes, to see it as not real is correct in the totality - but not practical in human society where it is a real almost tangible thing. To act as if it is not real accomplishes no useful goal within human society.

    No, it has meaning practically within human society, and as almost all human activity happens within human society it is best to treat it as if it were true, or if not this then to at least assert one moral as better relative to another.
    Only if you are petty enough to care, "morality" without truth seems to be such just a short-sighted thing to me.
    Last edited by James the Red; August 31, 2014 at 12:39 AM.

  14. #194
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleonic Bonapartism View Post
    Thats all I was saying, that our morals have their own bloody history and in some cases saying - look at our civilisation, we must be onto something here, follow our lead - is a bit hypocritical, especially if its a British person talking to an Indian, or an American to the Chinese. In fact most Western countries talking to the Chinese about morality would be hypocritical.
    Why should anyone give a that it's hypocritical? And how, in the seven hells, is it even hypocritical?

    We're talking about human well-being here. Why do you keep muddying the waters with this relativist talk. That our civilization once did some of the same or accommodated some cultural elements and values does not, and I repeat NOT, in any case, mean that we can't criticize the values and morality of others. That kind of thinking is going to doom us all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    Empires and slavery and all the past nasty people did is just as relevant as the current nasty we do. Morals are generally defined by what's valued by that culture at that time. That tends to change over time. Morality is a human concept that by default makes it subjective.

    I'd like you to explain what exactly Western morals and values are at the moment. Where did they come from? How did we come to value those things over others? How well do you think we really follow them? That kind of thing.
    That is a vast question. I can only answer for what I think of when I think 'Western morals and values'.

    At least the following tend to come to mind:

    - Altruism
    - Charity
    - Value of education
    - Human rights
    - Free speech
    - Democracy

    And many more that didn't occur to me now.

    So you think we're not allowed to spread these ideals around?
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  15. #195
    The Last Spartan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,992

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    People, in a general sense, will value things typically associated as "good", because it's easier for them. They will take without a second thought of consideration to the one who is giving, and even demand further generosity - all in the name of what is "right". As the old saying goes, "Give them an inch, and they will take a mile." Right and wrong, in and of itself, are subjective and what is considered universal definitions of such are sketchy at best.

    People say, "Give to those less fortunate." but when it comes time for them to do it, they do not. This is self-centered hypocrisy.

    People say, "Be tolerant." but when someone's beliefs don't quite match up to theirs, they are quick to revile it. This is bigotry.

    People are quick to take the credit for any actions that earn them some type of gain, but when things don't quite go their way, they are even quicker to blame others and/or disassociate themselves with their own failures - i.e. "It's not my fault!" or "It's not your fault!" or "It's all your fault!" Or even better, when incompetent parents blame movies, video games or television for their child's behavior. "My child did this, because of this movie/show/game and I'm blaming you!" This is complete and utter disregard for personal responsibility and accountability.

    Human behavior is quite simple, really, when you look at the facts instead of skewed opinions and misplaced hopes.

    Very few people are truly altruistic and compassionate, and usually when they are, they are selective about it.

    When I lived at a shelter, I went over this with a Jewish man that I had become friends with. He found a wallet in the bathroom, so he turned it in. He told me about it and he mentioned another patron of the shelter (that many shelter patrons disliked very much, including myself) and said, "If it was his wallet, I would have cleaned it out and threw it away." But I told him if he's going to be generous, he can't pick and choose, otherwise that's hypocritical and he's just living a lie.

    But I digress (I think )
    Last edited by The Last Spartan; August 31, 2014 at 03:40 AM.

  16. #196
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    I admit that I don't really care about hypocrisy that much. It's very situational when it actually becomes harmful.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  17. #197
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    820

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    You do the right when you do not keep something that does not belong to you. You are not generous.
    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; August 31, 2014 at 07:55 AM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  18. #198

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    I admit that I don't really care about hypocrisy that much. It's very situational when it actually becomes harmful.
    What I meant was in many cases it was the West that created the 'moral degeneracy' that we see today, for example Afghanistan, a quick google will reveal Britain has quite a habit for invading them, so when all things are considered, the USSR invasion/Muhajadeen etc. was basically the straw that broke the camels back in terms of radicalisation. Now many in the middle east hate the West and have their own moral systems often forged in the fire of colonialism that oppose our own. So when we tell them "You can't do that", and I'm not saying we should not do that, we must bare in mind we - well I say we, mostly Britain and France - our partly to blame for the state its in and the resulting moral structures etc. So what we should do is elevate the world to our level of development. All I'm saying is many should bare in mind - we (Western Civilisation) created this mess. Just look at Iraq. The West cannot simultaneously suck the world dry of resources, supporting petty middle eastern oligarchs who do massive harm to their own people, and then when the terrorism that results gets serious go round saying - you should follow our lead. Its not just moral hypocrisy, its practical hypocrisy too.
    Last edited by Napoleonic Bonapartism; August 31, 2014 at 09:14 AM.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

  19. #199
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    That's not what has been happening though. And while we might have created their hatred of the West, there have been wars and disputes going in there for centuries... it's not that when WE came in, it just exploded. That's nonsense.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  20. #200

    Default Re: Nihilism - an unhealthy, self-destructive philosophical school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maiar93 View Post
    That's not what has been happening though. And while we might have created their hatred of the West, there have been wars and disputes going in there for centuries... it's not that when WE came in, it just exploded. That's nonsense.
    I never said it was all fun and games before we came in either. Before we came in people lived off the land generally under petty local despots. They had localised moral systems in tune with the state of society at the time, many of which would seem horrific to all eyes today - India's Caste system for example, if Britain did one good thing in India it was help start the decay of the Caste system - what happened was the west stirred the pot up. The world went from groups who would meet each other now and then - perhaps fight their neighbours but that was about it to a world where everypart was interconnected to every other part. I do view this as a good proccess, but the means by which it occoured were often far from good. These global moral issues we see today - Terrorists vs. the West being the most obvious, are because the world has been so cack-handedly interconnected that instead of spreading development it has been focused on the West, and for the West. In short whilst history created the mess, the west made it hit the fan.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •