Existential Nihilism & Atheism...

[Adrift]

I generally agree except... I again think it is paramount on how we view the human person. What is a human? The accidental by product of natural forces, or immortal beings created for a purpose. Is love merely a chemical reaction or is it tied to something permanent and eternal. Something certain. I'm sorry Sylas, these are very important consideration that certainly do color our worldview.



Again, even here, to even speak of worth or value is an arbitrary designation - how could it be otherwise?



How do you know that recognizing selfishness as a vice doesn't imply a universal standard? And even suggesting that a society is ethical or unethical is both arbitrary and subjective. How do you come to those conclusions?




Again, who defines "better?" The Maoist? The Stalinist?

seer, I just want to commend you for your approach to this subject. At first glimpse these all seem like very simple questions, but they're huge stumbling block for so many people. Its interesting to me to see how impatient and frustrated so many atheists get with you for their own inability to offer a reasonable response.

[seer]

seer, I just want to commend you for your approach to this subject. At first glimpse these all seem like very simple questions, but they're huge stumbling block for so many people. Its interesting to me to see how impatient and frustrated so many atheists get with you for their own inability to offer a reasonable response.

Thank you - I do however find Sylas to be one of the more reasonable unbelievers...

[seer]

The question of how I COME to these conclusions is a whole different conversation. I'm only so far trying to help explain what my position entails. (In this thread, looking at holding to existentialism without nihilism.) I've given a couple of indications of various things that have contribute to the formation of my philosophical perspective, but that's been secondary. Mainly I'm answering the question of the OP, about atheism and existential nihilism.
Cheers -- sylas

Sylas, by definition existentialism nihilism is simply claiming that there is no objective meaning or objective purpose for humankind, or overriding significance. It does agree that we could assign subjective meaning or significance. Why wouldn't you accept that definition as applying to your position?

[Adrift]

Thank you - I do however find Sylas to be one of the more reasonable unbelievers...

Yeah, I agree. When even otherwise very reasonable unbelievers struggle with these issues, in my opinion it just demonstrates how powerful these sorts of moral arguments are.

[sylas]

I bet your really believe that your ethical views are more correct and valid than let's say the Stalinist. That your view of what constitutes a better society.

I really do sincerely and honestly not accept that there is one external objective standard which makes my views ethically better than yours or a Stalinist.

I really do sincerely and honestly think that significance, and ethics, are inherently subjective. That significance is only meaningful as being significant to some thinking individual. That ethics are worked out by thinking individuals.

I really do sincerely and honestly think that there is no God... no overarching thinking individual who could stand as the definitive individual by which ethics or significance is ideally defined.

Hence, I really do sincerely and honestly think that significance, and ethics, are subjective.

I really do think subjective is not the same thing as arbitrary. This looks to me like the most important aspect of my philosophical perspective which is eluding you.

Ethics is not arbitrary, because it makes tangible differences to people's lives. This is not enough to resolve ethical disputes, but it is enough to make some basic ethical notions pretty common. Some other ethical distinctions are much trickier to resolve. And I don't have a good handle on them all. In trying to work out difficult ethical questions for myself, I am not thinking of terms of what is most "correct". I really and truly don't think there's one correct ethical standard.

I really and truly don't think of ethics in terms of what is "correct" or "incorrect". This stands out to me as like a beacon as an indication that you really don't have much of a comprehension at all of how I think, and that you are projecting in some weird way from how you used to think as an unbeliever maybe, or something else. I don't know, but for sure this is going to lead to you horribly wrong in basic comprehension of how I try to think about or resolve ethical dilemmas.

However, I DO think of ethics in terms of what impact it has on society and on individuals. I do think of some impacts as better than others. The standards I apply here are again, subjective, but for the most part pretty common. When I think of one consequence as "better" than another, I quite definitely think of that with respect to standards I personally hold or aim for myself. I also think there's sufficient commonality among people that there's a lot of overlap in standards for what we might think of as a "better" society.

... so take the example of Stalinism.

I do think of Stalinism as inherently bad. Note that Stalinism is not a term for an ethical system, though. It's a term for a political system which had real consequences that pretty everyone can recognize as bad. As a matter of fact and history it failed to have beneficial consequences by pretty much any measure you like. Some systems just don't work as claimed or intended. In economics, for example, I think we can argue as another example that "trickle-down economics" is a failure, it doesn't work as advocates had proposed.

Scientific theories and models can fail. They can be falsified against the hard reality of the physical world, when they fail to describe the world accurately.

Economic theories and models can fail, in a similar kind of way, when they fail to describe accurately the workings of markets, or other such entities.

Ethical policies can fail also, in they that may fail to have effects intended.

However, ethical principles, or economic goals, are a different kind of beast. They are not ideas that are "correct" or "incorrect". And they are chosen, not discovered. They are subjective.

Cheers -- sylas

[sylas]

Sylas, by definition existentialism nihilism is simply claiming that there is no objective meaning or objective purpose for humankind, or overriding significance. It does agree that we could assign subjective meaning or significance. Why wouldn't you accept that definition as applying to your position?

That definition seems pretty good for my position. It was the PREVIOUS definition I objected to, and I have already explained why, a couple of times.

The original definition, quoted from wikipedia, conflated no objective meaning with meaningless. Which is just wrong.

The phrasing you've given here does not have that flaw, and in fact goes to a bit of trouble to avoid it. And so ends up being something that I CAN accept.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

I really do sincerely and honestly not accept that there is one external objective standard which makes my views ethically better than yours or a Stalinist.

I really do sincerely and honestly think that significance, and ethics, are inherently subjective. That significance is only meaningful as being significant to some thinking individual. That ethics are worked out by thinking individuals.

I really do sincerely and honestly think that there is no God... no overarching thinking individual who could stand as the definitive individual by which ethics or significance is ideally defined.

Hence, I really do sincerely and honestly think that significance, and ethics, are subjective.

I really do think subjective is not the same thing as arbitrary. This looks to me like the most important aspect of my philosophical perspective which is eluding you.

Ethics is not arbitrary, because it makes tangible differences to people's lives. This is not enough to resolve ethical disputes, but it is enough to make some basic ethical notions pretty common. Some other ethical distinctions are much trickier to resolve. And I don't have a good handle on them all. In trying to work out difficult ethical questions for myself, I am not thinking of terms of what is most "correct". I really and truly don't think there's one correct ethical standard.

I really and truly don't think of ethics in terms of what is "correct" or "incorrect". This stands out to me as like a beacon as an indication that you really don't have much of a comprehension at all of how I think, and that you are projecting in some weird way from how you used to think as an unbeliever maybe, or something else. I don't know, but for sure this is going to lead to you horribly wrong in basic comprehension of how I try to think about or resolve ethical dilemmas.

However, I DO think of ethics in terms of what impact it has on society and on individuals. I do think of some impacts as better than others. The standards I apply here are again, subjective, but for the most part pretty common. When I think of one consequence as "better" than another, I quite definitely think of that with respect to standards I personally hold or aim for myself. I also think there's sufficient commonality among people that there's a lot of overlap in standards for what we might think of as a "better" society.

... so take the example of Stalinism.

I do think of Stalinism as inherently bad. Note that Stalinism is not a term for an ethical system, though. It's a term for a political system which had real consequences that pretty everyone can recognize as bad. As a matter of fact and history it failed to have beneficial consequences by pretty much any measure you like. Some systems just don't work as claimed or intended. In economics, for example, I think we can argue as another example that "trickle-down economics" is a failure, it doesn't work as advocates had proposed.

Scientific theories and models can fail. They can be falsified against the hard reality of the physical world, when they fail to describe the world accurately.

Economic theories and models can fail, in a similar kind of way, when they fail to describe accurately the workings of markets, or other such entities.

Ethical policies can fail also, in they that may fail to have effects intended.

However, ethical principles, or economic goals, are a different kind of beast. They are not ideas that are "correct" or "incorrect". And they are chosen, not discovered. They are subjective.

Cheers -- sylas

Sylas, Stalinism certainly had an overriding ethical rule. The moral good was to serve the state at the expense of the individual or individual rights. I mean you say that ethics are subjective, then you turn around and say that Stalinism is inherently bad. How can any behavior be inherently bad or good in this subjective world? As far as arbitrary - that is why I brought up determinism. I would suggest that the way we think and act are a direct result of how the forces of nature created us to think and act - and that I believe is arbitrary.

[seer]

That definition seems pretty good for my position. It was the PREVIOUS definition I objected to, and I have already explained why, a couple of times.

The original definition, quoted from wikipedia, conflated no objective meaning with meaningless. Which is just wrong.

The phrasing you've given here does not have that flaw, and in fact goes to a bit of trouble to avoid it. And so ends up being something that I CAN accept.

Cheers -- sylas

Good, but the opening line in the definition was this: Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. The rest just expounds on that. So you agree?

[sylas]

Sylas, Stalinism certainly had an overriding ethical rule. The moral good was to serve the state at the expense of the individual or individual rights. I mean you say that ethics are subjective, then you turn around and say that Stalinism is inherently bad. How can any behavior be inherently bad or good in this subjective world? As far as arbitrary - that is why I brought up determinism. I would suggest that the way we think and act are a direct result of how the forces of nature created us to think and act - and that I believe is arbitrary.

I think that's a rather idiosyncratic definition of Stalinism. I am pretty sure you are not quoting any credible reference or source with that so called ethical rule, if you can show me wrong about that then at least I'll have learned *something* here. But I don't expect that to be the case: I think the term "Stalinism" invariably refers to a political and economic system, not an ethical one.

When I said Stalinism was inherently bad, that was in the context of the conventional definitions of Stalinism as a political system, and with reference to the historical facts of how it worked. As I stated explicitly in my post. Economic systems and political systems can fail to work. Quoting myself:

As a matter of fact and history it [Stalinism] failed to have beneficial consequences by pretty much any measure you like.

Would you really disagree with that? OK if you do, but I'm surprised!

If you want to understand what I say, put in the context I give, explicitly. Conversely, if I misunderstand what *you* mean by Stalinism, then I have merely missed your point. Trying to compound that misunderstanding by taking my words into an unintended context will result in really really terrible comprehension.

[sylas]

Good, but the opening line in the definition was this: Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. The rest just expounds on that. So you agree?

As I said explicitly, I did NOT agree with the expounding. I have said explicitly early on in this discussion that the problem was in the NEXT sentence. So I DID NOT agree with the original OP, and it was NOT given as one sentence in isolation.

I've also noted the philosophical terms we are using are subtle and not well captured simply with short definitions.

It's silly to say "the rest just expounds" after we've had a long discussion on the additional baggage of the portion of the OP definition that fails to fit my philosophical position. Specifically, the conflating of "no objective meaning" with "no meaning".

[seer]

I think that's a rather idiosyncratic definition of Stalinism. I am pretty sure you are not quoting any credible reference or source with that so called ethical rule, if you can show me wrong about that then at least I'll have learned *something* here. But I don't expect that to be the case: I think the term "Stalinism" invariably refers to a political and economic system, not an ethical one.

How about this, political theories have real world ethical consequences. My point is that totalitarian political systems tend to be quite cruel.

When I said Stalinism was inherently bad, that was in the context of the conventional definitions of Stalinism as a political system, and with reference to the historical facts of how it worked. As I stated explicitly in my post. Economic systems and political systems can fail to work. Quoting myself:

As a matter of fact and history it [Stalinism] failed to have beneficial consequences by pretty much any measure you like.

OK, so the ethical consequences, like the murder of millions of dissidents, was not inherently bad. Just that the system did not live up to the hype.

[seer]

As I said explicitly, I did NOT agree with the expounding. I have said explicitly early on in this discussion that the problem was in the NEXT sentence. So I DID NOT agree with the original OP, and it was NOT given as one sentence in isolation.

I've also noted the philosophical terms we are using are subtle and not well captured simply with short definitions.

It's silly to say "the rest just expounds" after we've had a long discussion on the additional baggage of the portion of the OP definition that fails to fit my philosophical position. Specifically, the conflating of "no objective meaning" with "no meaning".

OK,

According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning. The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose". Of all types of nihilism, existential nihilism has received the most literary and philosophical attention.

Sylas, I'm really trying to understand exactly what you disagree with here. It is saying that there is no "inherent" meaning to life, but that we invent or create our own.

[Tassman]

How about this, political theories have real world ethical consequences. My point is that totalitarian political systems tend to be quite cruel.

So do totalitarian religious systems tend to be cruel.

OK, so the ethical consequences, like the murder of millions of dissidents, was not inherently bad. Just that the system did not live up to the hype.

The ethical consequences of totalitarianism, like the murder of millions of heretics, or heathen, or Gentiles, are inherently bad. This is why humanity has resorted to the concept of universal human rights.

[seer]

So do totalitarian religious systems tend to be cruel.



The ethical consequences of totalitarianism, like the murder of millions of heretics, or heathen, or Gentiles, are inherently bad. This is why humanity has resorted to the concept of universal human rights.

Tass please, the adults are trying to have a discussion here...

[Tassman]

Tass please, the adults are trying to have a discussion here...

Do you deny that totalitarian religious systems tend to be cruel? Any form of totalitarian ideology, religious or political, tends to be cruel.