Existential Nihilism & Atheism...

[Adrift]

Crude rudeness here doesn't hurt anything except your own capacity to engage in useful discussion. It's ugly, but not actually hurtful in any other sense.

Well then, I suppose the truth can't help but sometimes be crude or rude then. Of course, it wasn't my intention to be rude. I didn't say what I said because I thought "Oh, I hope that someone will be offended by this". I said it because I genuinely believe it to be the true.

I'm not just trying some kind of return attack for slurs on integrity and honesty. But honestly, you're kidding yourself if you think this kind of nonsense "hurts". Goodbye. Good riddance. I'll stick to discussing the subject with people who are able to keep to the subject matter and argue for propositions without derailing into presumptions that their confidence on truth of their position necessitates dishonesty on those who don't accept their arguments.

You're free to do what you like, of course. I don't believe I've attacked anyone using slurs, but if that's you're opinion, that's fine. I do find it a bit silly and ironic that you are doing exactly to me what you're saying I've done to you, and that you say you won't do. You say that you won't return attack on integrity, but immediately go on to say that I'm kidding myself. I don't think I'm kidding myself anymore than you think you're being dishonest with yourself, but we each hold views about the other that we sincerely hold are true.

At any rate, if you find the simple phrase, "I believe that were an atheist honest with himself, then yes, his worldview ought to naturally lead to nihilism", so crude that you're willing to stop all conversation with a person, then we probably didn't have much to talk about anyways. Which isn't really an issue as far as I'm concerned seeing that in the decade plus I've been on this forum I've engaged with you maybe...a dozen times?

[seer]

As I understand the terms, I'm existentialist, but not nihilist.
Cheers -- sylas

Sylas, I don't see how those things are mutually exclusive. The existentialist believes that we all create our own meaning (subjective) which fits in with existential nihilism. That is exactly what Tim said in your link, we all create our own meaning. There is no overriding meaning or purpose - that by definition is existential nihilism.

[sylas]

Adrift -- I was not trying to stop conversation. I was basically requesting you to engage in it with more civility and friendliness. The aside into honesty added nothing useful and just gave a distraction. It was rude, but more seriously it suggests discussion is unlikely to be useful. Why would you want to engage with me if you are already convinced disagreement has to be dishonest? It's just weird. It looks like you consider that you've got the truth of this all figured out, and just want to make a pronouncement of "truth" and a slam at the integrity of those who can't accept that truth.

I'll still actually engage with anyone -- you included -- when there's something more useful engage with. That wasn't it. There was pretty much nothing of analysis or real critique to deal with. Which is okay. Position statements have their place. No hard feelings; if you prefer not to cater to my sensitivity or or show respect for the honesty of my views, so be it. If sometime you write something with a bit more detail that I might be usefully comment upon or engage with, I won't necessarily be stopped by one rather crass aside in previous posts.

----

Seer -- you said you were "just wondering why you guys don't accept and embrace Existential Nihilism as defined in the OP". I tried to answer that previously. My difficulty with the phrasing of the definition in the OP (taken in turn from wikipedia) is that it appears to conflate "no intrinsic meaning" (in the first sentence) with "insignificant, without purpose" in the second.

My position (which I think can probably be labeled existentialist) is that the meaning we have is indeed not intrinsic, but is a construction of conscious minds, and hence subjective. But that's not the same as no meaning or significance. Subjective significance is still significance. It is, IMO, the only kind of significance there is. And it's plenty for me! I think that's what Tim Minchin is getting at when he says he is not a nihilist. I think it would be very misleading to see Minchin as a nihilist.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. Seer, we crossed posts! In response to your latest: yes, of course I agree existentialism and nihilism are not mutually exclusive. As I see it, the range of possible philosophical perspectives can include both, or one without the other, or neither. As I understand the terms, my philosophical perspective is probably best seen as existentialist but not nihilist. Other people (and other unbelievers) may of course be different.

[seer]

Seer -- you said you were "just wondering why you guys don't accept and embrace Existential Nihilism as defined in the OP". I tried to answer that previously. My difficulty with the phrasing of the definition in the OP (taken in turn from wikipedia) is that it appears to conflate "no intrinsic meaning" (in the first sentence) with "insignificant, without purpose" in the second.

My position (which I think can probably be labeled existentialist) is that the meaning we have is indeed not intrinsic, but is a construction of conscious minds, and hence subjective. But that's not the same as no meaning or significance. Subjective significance is still significance. It is, IMO, the only kind of significance there is. And it's plenty for me! I think that's what Tim Minchin is getting at when he says he is not a nihilist. I think it would be very misleading to see Minchin as a nihilist.

Cheers -- sylas

Sylas, but like I said both you and Tim would fit in with existential nihilism. That definition includes subjective meaning or purpose but that there is no overriding meaning or purpose. There is subjective significance that we assign, but there is no significance for us as a species.

[sylas]

Sylas, but like I said both you and Tim would fit in with existential nihilism. That definition includes subjective meaning or purpose but that there is no overriding meaning or purpose. There is subjective significance that we assign, but there is no significance for us as a species.

There is the usual problem again! If there is subjective significance, then one shouldn't say "no significance".

That last sentence would work if the second instance of "significance" was qualified with "objective".

That is... there IS significance, and it is subjective. There is, however, not an objective significance. Don't say "no significance". I don't mind that other people don't find the same things significant that I do. In practice, I think there's an innate tendency within humanity that nearly all of us find certain things to be significant. From my perspective, that does not mean the significance itself is objective, but it does mean there's an objective reality to the tendency of humans to give significance to certain things.

That is gives a sufficient basis for shared identification of significance and meaning in our relationships, for example.

I need to tread cautiously at this point as I am not really a philosopher.... but I think this is where nihilism arises. It comes not merely from a lack of objective meaning, but lack of appreciation of the sufficiency of subjective significance for a meaningful life.

I might add... I think Tim's right that its a bad idea to search for meaning. Meaning is, IMO, better seen as a concept that can be useful for reflecting on our philosophical foundations. But I don't actually search for meaning. I'm too busy working on what is (what I find) meaningful!

Cheers -- sylas

[Adrift]

Adrift -- I was not trying to stop conversation. I was basically requesting you to engage in it with more civility and friendliness. The aside into honesty added nothing useful and just gave a distraction. It was rude, but more seriously it suggests discussion is unlikely to be useful. Why would you want to engage with me if you are already convinced disagreement has to be dishonest? It's just weird. It looks like you consider that you've got the truth of this all figured out, and just want to make a pronouncement of "truth" and a slam at the integrity of those who can't accept that truth.

I'll still actually engage with anyone -- you included -- when there's something more useful engage with. That wasn't it. There was pretty much nothing of analysis or real critique to deal with. Which is okay. Position statements have their place. No hard feelings; if you prefer not to cater to my sensitivity or or show respect for the honesty of my views, so be it. If sometime you write something with a bit more detail that I might be usefully comment upon or engage with, I won't necessarily be stopped by one rather crass aside in previous posts.

sylas, I wasn't initially talking to you, or any atheist for that matter, in the first place. I was replying to seer, a fellow Christian. So if you didn't find anything useful to engage with, or nothing of analysis or real critique to deal with, that's probably because the post wasn't addressed to you. If you think my (in my opinion) relatively benign remarks here crass, then any future discussion may end up proving equally fruitless. I've seen far worse over the years from others in the subforums you typically post in, but don't recall you ever engaging in as much finger-wagging. But do as you please.

[sylas]

but don't recall you ever engaging in as much finger-wagging

Actually, I have indeed got into trouble with that before, several times... from my fellow unbelievers at times also when I engage in a bit of "friendly fire". Try not to do it too much, but sometimes I succumb to temptation. I do have a long standing in interest in facilitating constructive engagement between different views, and online behaviour generally. Criticism of conduct is rarely welcome, though, which is understandable. But never pointing out problems in discourse doesn't work either, IMO. Anyhow... sorry... I'll desist for the nonce.

[seer]

There is the usual problem again! If there is subjective significance, then one shouldn't say "no significance".

That last sentence would work if the second instance of "significance" was qualified with "objective".

That is... there IS significance, and it is subjective. There is, however, not an objective significance. Don't say "no significance". I don't mind that other people don't find the same things significant that I do. In practice, I think there's an innate tendency within humanity that nearly all of us find certain things to be significant. From my perspective, that does not mean the significance itself is objective, but it does mean there's an objective reality to the tendency of humans to give significance to certain things.

Well let's look at the definition again:

With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence

So EN is not denying subjective meaning or significance, but that in the totality of things we, individually or collectively, are not significant. If humanity went extinct tomorrow what significance would that have in the big picture?

I might add... I think Tim's right that its a bad idea to search for meaning. Meaning is, IMO, better seen as a concept that can be useful for reflecting on our philosophical foundations. But I don't actually search for meaning. I'm too busy working on what is (what I find) meaningful!

Cheers -- sylas

Right, we invent our own meaning - you yours, the Maoist his, the Jihadist, and so on. Tim made a point in his talk that I found interesting - how he passionately spoke of how he would judge those that took advantage of the 'least among us." As if that had any real meaning apart from his personal opinion...

[Adrift]

I do have a long standing in interest in facilitating constructive engagement between different views, and online behaviour generally.

That's good to hear. Believe it or not, it's something I've had a long standing interest in as well.

Criticism of conduct is rarely welcome, though, which is understandable. But never pointing out problems in discourse doesn't work either, IMO. Anyhow... sorry... I'll desist for the nonce.

Well I apologize if my bluntness was mistaken as intentional insult. That was not at all my intent. But I'm a constant work in progress. In the future I'll attempt to find more delicate ways of expressing my views.

[sylas]

Right, we invent our own meaning - you yours, the Maoist his, the Jihadist, and so on. Tim made a point in his talk that I found interesting - how he passionately spoke of how he would judge those that took advantage of the 'least among us." As if that had any real meaning apart from his personal opinion...

Right. Tim's judgement is his own, and not anyone else's.

Although as I have tried to emphasize several times in the thread... subjective does not mean arbitrary. Tim's judgement is shared by many many people: you also I suspect. So his judgement IS actually the same as other people's, though other people would not appeal to Tim the authority for their own judgements -- nor do I think he would want that.

So: we have as a point of fact that Tim (who does not recognize intrinsic meaning) and a believer (who considers meaning to be objective and God-given) BOTH are critical of those who take advantage of underdogs in society

From my philosophical perspective, this commonality is unsurprising, because humans as social beings do have a strong tendency to put value and significance on other individuals of society. It's normal for humans to be critical of someone who takes advantage of the less fortunate.

I'm not sure (you can correct me if I mis-state your perspective!) but maybe you would see it as a kind of fortuitous accident that an unbeliever happens to have values that align with the objective meaning they don't actually recognize?

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

So: we have as a point of fact that Tim (who does not recognize intrinsic meaning) and a believer (who considers meaning to be objective and God-given) BOTH are critical of those who take advantage of underdogs in society.

Generally agreed, but that ideal is not universal. As confirmed by our long dark history.

From my philosophical perspective, this commonality is unsurprising, because humans as social beings do have a strong tendency to put value and significance on other individuals of society. It's normal for humans to be critical of someone who takes advantage of the less fortunate.

Is the lack of commonality, which we also see, unsurprising too?

I'm not sure (you can correct me if I mis-state your perspective!) but maybe you would see it as a kind of fortuitous accident that an unbeliever happens to have values that align with the objective meaning they don't actually recognize?

Cheers -- sylas

Well I would say that all men are created in God's image (we are ethical beings), and have a God given moral sense. Though sin has fractured that moral sense.

[sylas]

Generally agreed, but that ideal is not universal. As confirmed by our long dark history.

Quite so. I note with some amusement this applies even when we limit consideration to those who believe in objective meaning, and objective ethics. Knowing only that someone has a belief in objective meaning or ethics is by no means sufficient to tell what meaning they give to things or what ethical behaviour they adopt.

It has sometimes been said that religion is one of the most effective tools to lead good people to do bad things. (PS. And I am not denying that there's a lot of good done in the name of religions as well!)

Is the lack of commonality, which we also see, unsurprising too?

Yes. It's not surprising that humanity is extraordinarily diverse, but with some qualities that tend to be common (though not of course universal).

Well I would say that all men are created in God's image (we are ethical beings), and have a God given moral sense. Though sin has fractured that moral sense.

Nicely put. That's a consistent perspective of the diversity and the recurring widely shared qualities we both see in humanity.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Quite so. I note with some amusement this applies even when we limit consideration to those who believe in objective meaning, and objective ethics. Knowing only that someone has a belief in objective meaning or ethics is by no means sufficient to tell what meaning they give to things or what ethical behaviour they adopt.

I don't disagree, but...

It has sometimes been said that religion is one of the most effective tools to lead good people to do bad things. (PS. And I am not denying that there's a lot of good done in the name of religions as well!)

I can tell you this, I am a better man because I am religious, as opposed to my agnostic days. I know dozens and dozens of people who are morally better now than before their conversion. I personally doubt that the world would be a better place today if we were never religious as a species - even with all the warts that come with religion. But these things are hard to quantify.

Yes. It's not surprising that humanity is extraordinarily diverse, but with some qualities that tend to be common (though not of course universal).

But wouldn't you have to say that these differences are merely, at bottom, the result of genetic differences? So can we bring moral judgement to genetics?

Nicely put. That's a consistent perspective of the diversity and the recurring widely shared qualities we both see in humanity.

Cheers -- sylas

Cool...

[sylas]

But wouldn't you have to say that these differences are merely, at bottom, the result of genetic differences? So can we bring moral judgement to genetics?

No.... because genetics does not determine how we live and think.

Take yourself. You say you are a better man since becoming religious. I have no reason to doubt that. And it is common for people to change views and perspectives and conduct and philosophical perspective.... while having the same genes. So, obvously, genes don't determine eveything about you.

There is great significance to our own actions and interactions with others! (Whether you consider significance to be objective OR subjective.) Because how we treat others and interact with others will contribute and be a part of how they develop. Our actions and interactions with others can be destructive, and constructive, and hugely influential in how another person develops. If we find significance in others -- and nearly all of us do, whether we think that significance is intrinsic, or whether we take it as a subjective aspect of our own attributions of meaning -- then our interactions take on significance as well.

I deal with this question at my work quite a lot. I work in aged care, as a lifestyle officer. Most of the people I work with have some level of dementia, and many are extremely so. The interactions of staff with residents is very significant for them. It is also transient. Many cannot remember things from one moment to the next. One of the guiding principles I and my lifestyle colleagues apply is that people with dementia live in the moment; and we aim to give them lots and lots of good moments. The interactions we have with family (for whom the experience is really difficult) and with residents and with other staff give an immediacy to thoughts of meaning and significance. But I don't spend time at work searching for meaning. The notions of meaning and significance are a scafold for introspection and reflection later on, in down time.

Cheers -- sylas

[robrecht]

Sylas, I don't see how those things are mutually exclusive [existentialism, nihilism]. The existentialist believes that we all create our own meaning (subjective) which fits in with existential nihilism. That is exactly what Tim said in your link, we all create our own meaning. There is no overriding meaning or purpose - that by definition is existential nihilism.