Thanks for this post I couldn’t agree more with your arguments ! I have a question ... some philosophers argue like Parfit that if there aren’t objective normative reasons for action (and thus meaning ) then nothing matters. I hold a subjectivist view point , that reasons for action aren’t objective but provided by human nature like you argue . However Parfit argues that using our human desires ( that aren’t objective ) as a guide to action are wholly contingent and therefore arbitrary . Therefore nothing matters . I have seen this argument a few times ( that our subjective reasons if they are contingent are arbitrary ) . What would you say to this ? Thank you!
Thanks, as always, for your thinking. What if a Cosmic Nihilist asserted that the universe is simply indifferent? Would you find that acceptable or does that also offend your thinking?
Apropos your observation that "meaning is local and constructed, but not whimsical" I present this item from that famous philosopher Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes, February 23, 1992):
This article seems to derive from the false dichotomy that western civilization has spent the last 1700-2000 years or so constructing that there is either a divine creator, or there is nothing.
Despite her choice of words, this author doesn't actually seem to be arguing for nihilism. She's arguing for meaning independent of divine providence. Unfortunately that's still a somewhat radical idea in Euro-American civilization in 2023.
She seems to arrive at the correct answer by a cattywhompus route and provides a confusing explanation.
The article reminds me of what I say to theorists who claim 'time' does not exist because it is built out of some deeper level of something: Does a house not exist because it's made out of bricks?
This post has inspired me to reread The Black Tower, by P.D. James, the mystery writer. I was looking for something a little lighter and this novel might be it. The main reason I remember it is an argument between Adam Dalgleish, the detective, and the murderer which is tangentially related to this post. The murderer, an atheist, argues that since there is no god, he can be perfectly happy doing the selfish and evil things he likes to do. Dalgleish, also an atheist, counters that there are plenty of people who don't believe in a god or gods, who nevertheless find reasons to act ethically and take satisfaction in that.
Brilliant takedown. I agree completely with your assessments, even though I find a lot of humor in nihilism, especially of @Nihilist_Arbys on Twitter (https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys?lang=en). Cosmic indifference to our existence on this particular rock is undeniably true but nihilism about anything else doesn't necessarily follow.
“You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.”
-- Jeeves
“Carry On, Jeeves”, P.G. Wodehouse
Thanks for this post I couldn’t agree more with your arguments ! I have a question ... some philosophers argue like Parfit that if there aren’t objective normative reasons for action (and thus meaning ) then nothing matters. I hold a subjectivist view point , that reasons for action aren’t objective but provided by human nature like you argue . However Parfit argues that using our human desires ( that aren’t objective ) as a guide to action are wholly contingent and therefore arbitrary . Therefore nothing matters . I have seen this argument a few times ( that our subjective reasons if they are contingent are arbitrary ) . What would you say to this ? Thank you!
Thanks, as always, for your thinking. What if a Cosmic Nihilist asserted that the universe is simply indifferent? Would you find that acceptable or does that also offend your thinking?
Wonderful reasoning; I agree.
Apropos your observation that "meaning is local and constructed, but not whimsical" I present this item from that famous philosopher Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes, February 23, 1992):
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/02/23
Bull's eye! Nietzsche (& all his adherents) is/are dead. I loved your oxymoron "the convinced nihilist" :)
This article seems to derive from the false dichotomy that western civilization has spent the last 1700-2000 years or so constructing that there is either a divine creator, or there is nothing.
Despite her choice of words, this author doesn't actually seem to be arguing for nihilism. She's arguing for meaning independent of divine providence. Unfortunately that's still a somewhat radical idea in Euro-American civilization in 2023.
She seems to arrive at the correct answer by a cattywhompus route and provides a confusing explanation.
The article reminds me of what I say to theorists who claim 'time' does not exist because it is built out of some deeper level of something: Does a house not exist because it's made out of bricks?
Same thing with ethics.
This post has inspired me to reread The Black Tower, by P.D. James, the mystery writer. I was looking for something a little lighter and this novel might be it. The main reason I remember it is an argument between Adam Dalgleish, the detective, and the murderer which is tangentially related to this post. The murderer, an atheist, argues that since there is no god, he can be perfectly happy doing the selfish and evil things he likes to do. Dalgleish, also an atheist, counters that there are plenty of people who don't believe in a god or gods, who nevertheless find reasons to act ethically and take satisfaction in that.
I think the movie "The Big Lebowski" contained the best refutation of Nihilism. But I'll give you second best. :-)
Brilliant takedown. I agree completely with your assessments, even though I find a lot of humor in nihilism, especially of @Nihilist_Arbys on Twitter (https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys?lang=en). Cosmic indifference to our existence on this particular rock is undeniably true but nihilism about anything else doesn't necessarily follow.
No to nihilism.
Agree with your reasoning. This mornings read was very insightful & sure reading & thinking thoughts stated does add meaning to my life.