Nihilism's nihilism

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Judaka » June 30th, 2018, 8:34 am

There's no such thing as practical nihilism but moral nihilism is as different from ontological nihilism as any two ideas can be different without being opposites. Nihilism is typically associated with a despair over a lack of meaning since there is no meaning when subjective assertions are considered insufficient. Certainly the first time I've heard that nihilists are actually despairing because there are too many meaning haha.

I don't really see how this argument of perception fits into anything and it's very hard to understand.

You say "where is the perceiver" and I respond with the typical "I think therefore I am".

Perception must be interpreted, there is no message within perception to follow and so there is no moral lessons present in perception without interpretation.

You appear to argue for ontological nihilism or Solipsism when you question where you or others are and what they are. Perception is so fundamental that when you question it, you also question all empirical evidence or even the credibility of the concept of evidence. At the level of perception we have no choice but to take things at face value, the alternative is ontological nihilism.

Hence it is confusing to talk in a thread you've created to refute nihilism with ontological nihilism, I have no interest or respect for arguments akin to ontological nihilism. The connection between these ideas and the refutation of nihilism can be dismissed, perception is not capable of teaching, instructing or really doing anything without interpretation. So it doesn't seem like there's anything further to discuss.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Maxcady10001 » June 30th, 2018, 12:28 pm

Judaka

The haha was unnecessary, do you honestly think it is a ridiculous position to hold that people are afraid of life? Have you ever heard of anxiety?

Responding with I think therefore I am, means considering oneself to be thought. Ideas. Also, only the I part of that statement is necessary, since I is an expressed thought, it already supposes thought, certainly according to you and the certainty of thought from facial expressions.
Considering I to be thought, or an idea, what is an idea? An idea is a remnant of a perception or some combination of past perceptions. But when was I perceived? I is obviously a collection of different perceptions in a series of moments.

Have you ever heard of the argument over universals and particulars? During the middle ages people argued over the existence of universal terms, such as small or human or trees. This began with Plato's ideas, particular things take part in absolute ideas. It was argued whether there existed human independent of any individual human. Whether the idea of tables existed independent any particular conception of a table. Whether tree existed independent individual trees. Trees partake in the absolute idea of a tree. But unversals vs particulars is not the same argument as Plato's ideas.

These terms are obviously used to describe likeness between individual parts, and are not existent on their own. Consider human, a human is a description an animal that walks and talks, it describes all animals that behave this way. It is a general or universal term for a bunch of particular characteristics. Eyes, ears, feet in a certain place. A brain a certain size, human describes an animal with these characteristics.

Now try to separate the idea of a human from its collection of individual characteristics. It's features. It is impossible. Human describes a collection of features, but also similarity between collections of features, i.e., other humans. Argument over universals come in here, as a proposed solution to how are there many individual things but also one. How are there so many parts to a human but one human? How are there so many humans but one human race? There must exist a universal human of which all humans are derived.

However, universals are not existent in themselves, as a universal human independent individual humans would suggest.

Now apply this to I. I is a collection of perceptions, with no I existent in itself. It is a likeness between different perceptions. Consider the question what is thinking? Is it I? There is the perception of an idea, namely the linkage between thought and body, as the main proof. The idea is a result of the constant conjunction between thought and bodily actions. The I, once again a series of perceptions. But where is the I? There is sight, there are feelings, but for there to be a perception of an I there need be the perception outside of perception, a perception of a perceiver. Because the I is so far only a collection of perceptions in succession. Try to perceive what is perceiving.

What do you mean there is no message within perception to follow? Try to read this post without reading this post. Look at it without understanding the words. You will find it impossible.

Why don't you employ analogies or examples in anything you say? You've only made assertions with no explanations behind them. Are you familiar with Hume or traditional conceptions of being? Like the soul? Also, how in the world are you separating moral nihilism from an overall ontological nihilism? That would be like saying reality does not exist but I do. A ridiculous position.
I am not questioning perception, I am explaining it.
Also, the I think therefore I am was super lazy.
You should try harder to defend your beliefs if you are unwilling to change them.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Judaka » June 30th, 2018, 2:31 pm

Yet again you've refuted an argument that I didn't make, "I think therefore I am" is not an argument for considering oneself to be a thought but saying since I have consciousness, I am able to think therefore I must exist. The same idea would exist in saying "I perceive therefore I am", this was Descartes idea of the first thing that one can be sure exists. Even if I am wrong about everything else, I know that I exist.

You ask, where is the perceiver, i.e me. You question the very most basic thing that we absolutely know to be true (without any help), that we exist because we can think. I am unclear of whether you are skeptical of such a fundamental piece of truth or not. In my view, "I think therefore I am" refutes the idea that something outside of the perceiver needs to perceive the perceiver, though I don't even comprehend fully what you're talking about.

You say you're explaining perception but really for the most part, you're only sharing your ideas about perception.

Clearly ontological nihilism does not agree with the idea of "I think therefore I am" and asserts, "actually you are not". It has pretty much no relevance to other forms of nihilism. I am more interested to hear about how you can even draw a link between moral nihilism and ontological nihilism. Being flabbergasted that I separate the two is confusing to say the least.

Some definitions of nihilism that I've seen, don't stop at rejecting objective meaning but also subjective meaning, the idea being that life is meaningless and this is a cause for despair. I know that people can be afraid of life and experience anxiety about lack of meaning but I've never heard of a case where someone was anxious about their lives having too much meaning. Certainly to associate such a person as a nihilist would pretty much the most counterintuitive thing you could do.

I don't know what you need me to give arguments for, so far you've only really spent effort in arguing against claims that I haven't made. I can link you to arguments for nihilism that I've made on this forum if you want but so far I don't think anything I've said has been contentious or hard to understand.

interpretation literally means "an explanation or opinion of what something means" - Cambridge dictionary.

Perception creates the "what" in that definition, as I've said before there cannot be interpretation without perception. The "what" is insufficient for many things and one of those things is morality, another is direction.

It might be confusing to you because you are treating it as though you are perceiving ideas and words that are already laden with interpretations. For instance you said "Also, the I think therefore I am was super lazy" and this is clearly an interpretation of my behaviour as being lazy. Without the interpretation, what remains is my behaviour, I said "I think therefore I am". The challenge here is to find a way of saying anything "meaningful" about that without using interpretation. Quite the challenge since interpretation literally means to explain or have an opinion about what something means.

You can't say it's the right or wrong thing to do, you can't say it's lazy or stupid, insightful and brilliant - or anything at all. If your comments can't be perceived by the five senses then you're not talking about your perceptions, you're talking about interpretations. How do the five senses tell us anything about how to live in the world? What is right and what is wrong?

No objective truth, regardless of origin, can reconcile itself against the existence of subjective yet valid interpretations. My idea that "blue is a sad colour" cannot be contested by anything, it doesn't exist in the dichotomy of objective truth or falsehood. The concept of objective meaning is inherently flawed, meaning is a necessarily subjective distinction and so it simply translates to "objective subjective distinctions. Objective morality is no different, distinctions cannot be asserted over other distinctions in the same way that physical truth claims can be asserted over each other.

The whole world can agree that blue is a happy colour and it won't have any bearing on my idea that blue is a sad colour, they can think it's an objective truth that blue is a happy colour and all the same, I am free to think blue is a sad colour. They may even change the word blue to mean "the happy colour of blue" and all the same, I am free to think the colour referred to by blue is a sad colour. There is no actual truth here, blue is just a colour.

Whether blue is a happy or sad colour doesn't even exist on the level of perception, where interpretation is entirely absent. Needless to say, this applies to any distinctions more advanced than this as well.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Maxcady10001 » June 30th, 2018, 3:05 pm

That was a mistake I was making. I've only just understood what you meant by ontological nihilism. Though it is not being said that nothing exists, but rather all is perception.

We don't absolutely know there to be an I. There is only the absolute truth of perception. Perception is what cannot be denied, not that there is an immutable self. That can be denied all day, as there is no perception of such a thing.

Never heard of a case of anxiety over too much meaning? Consider a table with 20 jars of jelly and a table with 3. Now which table causes the most choice anxiety?

A challenge in finding meaning in perception? Behavior isn't already laden with Interpretation? Did you try the exercise of looking at a post without reading it?

Why are you making a distinction between Interpretation and sensations? Thoughts are experienced for me as a voice in my head, or as images.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Judaka » June 30th, 2018, 4:14 pm

We don't absolutely know there to be an I. There is only the absolute truth of perception. Perception is what cannot be denied, not that there is an immutable self. That can be denied all day, as there is no perception of such a thing.
'

I do absolutely know that I am, if I were not then I could not think.
Never heard of a case of anxiety over too much meaning? Consider a table with 20 jars of jelly and a table with 3. Now which table causes the most choice anxiety?
We're slowly scaling down the level of intensity here... I'm not saying it isn't hypothetically possible to experience anxiety over too much meaning but that it's not a documented problem of nihilism.
A challenge in finding meaning in perception? Behavior isn't already laden with Interpretation? Did you try the exercise of looking at a post without reading it?
You are proving to be quite the expert in missing the point or just misreading/misunderstanding what I say. I never said behaviour was laden with interpretation, I said words and ideas are. I also have said many times that perception is independent of interpretation and that it serves as the foundation for it.

Well honestly it seems like you're just making no effort to have a conversation here. I draw a distinction between interpretations and sensations because they aren't even remotely similar concepts. Sensations are a component of perception, the five senses (at least).

Anyway it's unfortunate we can't have a real discussion where ideas are exchanged but I've wasted enough time with talking past each other. I am moving on from this thread now.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Nihilism's nihilism

Post by Maxcady10001 » June 30th, 2018, 4:20 pm

If the two aren't remotely similar how can there be answer to how we interpret? Since, all Interpretation is in the form of a sensation.

Post Reply