Arguments for and against nihilism

While I disagree with the nihilist view that there is no ultimate meaning in the universe, I have a hard time coming up with arguments against it. I believe meaning is inherent to consciousness itself. I believe the very act of understanding entails the preexistence of meaningfulness in the fabric of reality. How would YOU argue for or against nihilism? Consider for example trying to tell a man about to jump off a bridge WHY he shouldn't do it. How would you justify his continued existence in a universe totally void of meaning and purpose?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you not confusing objective and subjective "meaning"? One can accept and live due to a subjective meaning that we ascribe to ourselves without necessarily adhering to the notion of an objective meaning in the "fabric of reality".
I am not sure why you think the "very act of understanding entails the preexistence of meaningfulness in the fabric of reality", at least not if by that statement you refer to an objective meaningfulness.
Perhaps you could explain your thoughts?

So what do you think is the "ultimate meaning in the universe"?
If you could describe it and validate it, this would be an argument against nihilism, would it not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I tend to lean toward a nihilistic view but it is a slippery slope when trying to defend it or defend against it. We just don't know enough about consciousness and the nature of reality to come to a definitive conclusion. That being said. I believe consciousness is our best friend but also our worst enemy. It gives a means to ponder our own existence in any number of different ways. Whether that be an optimistic view point or a more pessimistic one. It's all about altering ones consciousness and/or taking deep excursions into it, coming out the other side and interpreting it a certain way.

However, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that since we can perceive our own existence it must therefore mean we are a part of something bigger. It does seem to go against our instinctual wiring to take a nihilist viewpoint. It's interesting to note that cultures throughout the world in ancient times separated on different continents we're altering their consciousness and worshipping deities because simply experiencing consciousness feeds some intrinsic need to be a part of something bigger.

I think it comes down to thinking rationally rather than emotionally. It's a horror to be alive and most people need that security blanket of believing in something more.

As far as the man jumping off the bridge analogy; It all depends on how much value he puts on his life. Does he feel life is interesting and dynamic enough to see it through? He can see and experience things he might find joy in that aren't diminished just by the sheer fact that it won't matter in the end.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd tell him that he had his "sides" of the universe mixed-up. That after an 18 to 75-plus year vacation from it, he was about to return to being one with the meaningless / purposeless version. "Just make sure your nihilism isn't standing on its head, Bub... Then do whatcha want."

 

I disagree. I don't think anyone has an experience of subjective meaning without it being objectified in some sense. For instance, I may feel that I'm part of a cosmic surge toward harmony and beauty. But have I not at the same time entailed something about the nature of reality--that it is also a teleologically directed process toward aesthetic and moral values. Yes I have. Noone who has a subjective experience of meaning turns around and invalidates that as subjective only. It is the nature of subjective experience to project itself into objective scenarios wherein it finds its own validation.

I can only understand something if it has meaning. How could you possibly understand anything in a reality that has no meaning whatsoever? It'd be like trying understand a dream from the standpoint of being the dreamer. Understanding assumes meaning--the linking together of details that form an overarching order and harmony that we ourselves did not originate.

At this present stage I can't say for sure what is the ultimate meaning of the universe. But that doesn't mean I can't know there is one. I believe it has something to do with the evolution of consciousness, the lack of which would entail a universe happening totally "in the dark" and without any realness in itself.

 

There is that: the horror and terror of facing a reality that we know nothing about and can't predict in any sense. But the evolution of man's mind has disproven this prospect, at least in a general sense. It falls to us individually to find our own personal meaning amidst the cacophony of random and unforeseeable events that bombard our daily lives. How do we anchor ourselves in a world that seems totally indifferent to our presence within it? That's the existential question facing all of us in this age of relative truths and narratives.

 

This opening paragraph from H.P. Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu" really hits the nail on the head to me. This knowledge we seek if we ever find it or are even able to grasp it's meaning may haunt rather than enlighten us.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

 

You may certainly think that your subjective meaning entails an objectification in some sense, but that does not equate to it being so. Unless it applies to every thing and every one then it is surely not objective. The underlying laws / rules / interactions may be objective (I.e. The same for all) but how they manifest might be unique. If you see meaning in something it does not mean that others will see the same meaning. Just because what you feel leads you to conclude that the universe is a teleologically directed process toward certain things does not mean that it is.

Further, no one invalidates an experience of meaning by referring to it as subjective only; to identify it as subjective is to understand where that meaning is derived from.
If you think the universe has an objective meaning, please do explain what it is, and why you think it is objective, 'cos I am currently of the opinion that all "meaning" is subjective, even if there might be a shared subjective sense of it.

If something has no meaning then we apply meaning to it, in as much as we use it for something, or it stirs some emotion within us.
If you saw an object on the floor and had no idea what it was, you might think it a meaningless object. But if you began to experience it (touch it, hold it, play around with it etc) you would begin to understand what it might be capable of. You then utilise that object in a situation, and through that context you apply meaning to that object.
This development of meaning is dependent upon context, and is irrespective of what the creator of the object actually intended.
You have created a "meaning" for the object. It is subjective.

This is what we, as pattern-recognition and conscious self-aware things do: apply a contextual meaning to that which we use yet would otherwise not understand.
Even if the object's creator tried to explain the meaning they intended, the meaning to us would still be contextual and subjective, albeit now informed by what the object's creator intended.

This would be an argument from fear / consequence / conclusion etc... i.e. you conclude X because you can't seem to accept the alternative Y.
It is also arguing from a position of consciousness already having already evolved, and thus trying to put meaning behind that evolution.

 

First I guess we should clarify just what would constitute a meaningful experience/event. Eating a steak is a meaningful experience. Having a baby, sex, graduating, buying a new car, taking a trip to Paris--all these would be meaningful events. Are these experiences purely subjective and without any objective existence? No, I wouldn't say so. Most all other humans share the same experiences. Is it therefore not appropriate that we should say that reality happens in an objectively meaningful way to human beings? Yes. Note this does not entail purpose. Meaning happens often for its own sake, without any purpose or planned design having to preexist it. When I fall in love, the meaning of that event is self-evident in its experience. Did it need to be purposed like some part of a plan or a machine that is reducible only to functions? No..the meaning is inherent. Life, and consciousness, are inherently meaningful events. Therefore meaning exists in the universe.

Consciousness is subjective. Yet it happens as an objective event as well. I AM really conscious of my world. Why can't meaning be the same way?

I don't even think meaning CAN be purely objective. Most nihilists blur the distinction between purpose and meaning. They assume the universe can only be meaningful as a vast machine in which events are purposed before they happen. I disagree. I think that sort of mechanical reductionism already entails a universe without meaning--of a vast Rube-Goldberg machine that performs its various functions but has no meaning in itself. What I suggest is that the universe is meaningful precisely BECAUSE it lacks purpose. It is not a thing that has to have its value imposed upon it from some outside. The meaning of the universe is inherent to its being. Events happen for their own sake, particularly in our own lives. We don't require purpose because meaning emerges spontaneously from consciousness itself.

You limit meaning to a utilitarian context, as if meaning is a function or purpose we have to impose over things. That misses the whole other aspect of aesthetic meaning--of a thing experienced as what it is in itself. There is iow meaning that is inherent to a thing or event's existence without having to use it for some purpose. I stop and admire a particularly vivid rainbow for example. Do I need to find some purpose for it's existence to find meaning in it? No..the event of it, as well as my lucky witnessing of it, are of value in their own right. It inspires me with a sense of beauty and awe at the harmony of nature. It IS a meaningful event in itself, as it indeed would be for any other human.

But we all do this all the time don't we? Choose what we think is the more rational and "better" scenario because we can't tolerate the alternative? We do this with rationality itself, assuming reality to be ordered and structured in accord to laws and principles that humans can grasp, simply because we can't bear the alternative of having to live in an insane universe where nothing makes sense. I do the same with meaning. I assume meaning to exist because frankly the alternative is despair and depression and an admission of the futility of everything I value and cherish. And I assume meaning because it happens to me all the time, as the story of my life.

 

But that's only because your specific notion of meaning requires there to be objective meaning to the nature of reality. Meanwhile, the sense of purpose or meaning I find my own life might make no reference to the universe at large. Say, helping people. Or telling stories. I may find personal meaning in those endeavors simply because they make me and others live better or feel better.

Now we're muddying the sense of the word "meaning," and perhaps that of "understand." If you mean meaning in a cosmic sense, then no such meaning is required. I don't need to know what love is to understand it on a practical level; whether it is a chemical reaction or fundamentally numinous, its characterstics, benefits, and pitfalls are well-known. The same is true of anything.

If you're suggesting, however, that this understanding is evidence of cosmic meaning whether we accept it or not, I'd say you're just complicating things. Aside from your own personal sensations, you really have no basis to make such a claim.

Wellllllll...I don't know if that's exactly true. I mean, what makes you so sure? Above, I interpreted your statement, "I may feel that I'm part of a cosmic surge toward harmony and beauty..." to mean that you had some personal sensation of being part of some universal truth. Am I wrong? Could you explain how it is you know?

This is the old "When a tree falls in the woods..." conundrum. Humans are a recent addition to the universe, and we know the universe is capable of operating without us. I see no reason, therefore, to assume it requires human consciousness to be "real."

 

I think there's a difference between an experience and "meaning".
I do consider meaning more akin to purpose than to merely the experience of something.
So yes, I would say those things have a subjective meaning only.

A shared subjectivity is not the same as it being objective.

I disagree in that meaning is applied after the event, after the experience, and applied not only by the experiencer but is contextual.

To you it is. Not necessarily to anyone else. It is a subjective experience that others may share though.
[qupte]Did it need to be purposed like some part of a plan or a machine that is reducible only to functions? No..the meaning is inherent. Life, and consciousness, are inherently meaningful events. Therefore meaning exists in the universe. [/quote]Says the rocks that bang in to each other in the Kuiper belt.
Meaning is something that we apply to experiences, events etc. because we are conscious and require meaning to be able to understand. But that does not mean that meaning, or at least an objective meaning, is inherent within the object, event, experience.

Because consciousness is merely an activity. Meaning is not... Meaning is the interpretation by consciousness of the event or experience.
[qupte]I don't even think meaning CAN be purely objective. Most nihilists blur the distinction between purpose and meaning. They assume the universe can only be meaningful as a vast machine in which events are purposed before they happen. I disagree. I think that sort of mechanical reductionism already entails a universe without meaning--of a vast Rube-Goldberg machine that performs its various functions but has no meaning in itself. What I suggest is that the universe is meaningful precisely BECAUSE it lacks purpose. It is not a thing that has to have its value imposed upon it from some outside. The meaning of the universe is inherent to its being. Events happen for their own sake, particularly in our own lives. We don't require purpose because meaning emerges spontaneously from consciousness itself. [/quote]And is thus subjective, given that people find different meaning in the same exerien es or events.
I.e. You seem to be arguing that we are applying meaning ourselves at a subjective level, and thus arguing against your own position.
Is it an objective fact that we, as conscious entities, apply meaning? Yes. But the actual meaning is subjective.

I don't understand your lack of distinction between meaning and the experience itself? What is this "aesthetic meaning" if not an interpretation by our consciousness of an experience?

Indeed, and the meaning (and value) is wholly subjective to you. Or do you thin I that everyone shares your sense of meaning in the same event?
[qupte]It inspires me with a sense of beauty and awe at the harmony of nature. It IS a meaningful event in itself, as it indeed would be for any other human.[/quote]No it wouldn't necessarily be for any other human. Some probably couldn't care less about it. It IS a meaningful event... to YOU. I.e. It is subjective. And a shared subjective does not equate to objective.

Yes, but we should also be mindful of why we reject alternatives, and know when we are being logically fallacious in doing so.

A false dichotomy, and a flawed example. I don't doubt that some might consider things to be rational or not on that basis, but not everyone does.

And that is why your argument is one from consequence, from fear etc. and is thus logically fallacious if this is why you think it is the truth.

 

But even those activities presuppose meaning in that helping other people IS meaningful and telling them stories IS meaningful. If it were not part of reality to experience these activities as meaningful you wouldn't subjectively experience them as such. I mean it's not like you're having a hallucination in your head of meaning that doesn't exist in the real world. You interact with other people and your world in a meaningful way, a way that is important to more than just you and has meaning to other humans as well.

But we all know those subjective feelings of love DO have a preexisting purpose, in the very least to bond you with another human being in an altruistic relationship that promotes both of your survivals. For heterosexuals there's even the prospect of having children and passing your own genes down thru them. So in this sense knowing what love IS, and how it is biologically ordered in our very physiology, DOES help us appreciate it as a meaningful experience. It has objective meaning, and certainly transcends any subjective feelings you may have of it.

I suppose what makes me certain that I'm part of a cosmic surge toward harmony and beauty is the meaning encoded into my very consciousness and brain structure. It's certainly nothing I originated, nor is it a hallucinated pattern like seeing pigs in clouds. It is just a fact that I am a conscious existing participant of the universe, and that to me is an amazing expression of what the universe is to some degree. How could it not be an expression of it? We're all thinking and feeling stardust!

The universe IS capable of operating without us. But it isn't capable of being conscious of itself without us. Without eyes to shine on the stars wouldn't shine near as brightly. Without a moist brow to cool, the breeze would never blow so sweetly. The universe rises up in our experience clothed with our subjective projections. There is simply no point in even trying to describe it apart from how it manifests its presence to our mind and senses. A vast chaotic mesh of colorless soundless intangible waves of energy interpenetrating each other? But then isn't that what science shows us it really is? A ghostly idealized abstraction floating in a nowhere and notime we call our own mind?

 

These events and experiences ARE meaningful to the person they occur to. They don't just FEEL meaningful. Of course they involve subjective feelings of happiness and importance. But that is not the source of their meaning. There is real significance in these events that occur to you. Everybody understands this. They're happening to YOU. So ofcourse they are relevant and important to you in the scheme of your life. Not just subjectively, but objectively as well. It's just a fact that the events that happen to oneself ARE meaningful to oneself and not just in some subjective sense.

Shared meaningful events are not just subjective either. They have an objective significance to the people they occur to, regardless of their subjective feelings about them. It might be for instance that a man has no subjective reaction to being promoted in his job. He is totally indifferent to it. And yet, the event of his promotion is STILL a meaningful event in his life. It has significance for his life and for the lives of his coworkers. It is in this sense that the meaning of the event is objective.

I guess we'll just have to resign to disagreement here. Cuz when I experience an event in my life, I don't sit around and apply meaning to it after the fact in some robotic fashion. I experience the meaning as part of the event itself. AS soon as it happens. I didn't create that meaning, and I'm certainly not just interpreting the event to have that meaning. When my mother died last Christmas morning, that event was meaningful. There is no way it couldn't be, given who I am and who she was.

I think all nonsociopathic humans would find meaning in anyone falling in love. It doesn't have to be about just you to be meaningful. Love wherever it has a chance to sprout up in this cold concrete world is an objectively important and beautiful event. It's meaning lies in it's own nature.

Oh those rocks banging into each other have meaning as well, at least to the extent that they effect the chances of an asteroid hitting earth and ending life here forever. You don't think that such an event is a very real and objectively significant possibility? I do..

Meaning is like Velcro. It doesn't stick to just anything. It is applicable only to events that are already relevant and meaningful to our existence. The meaning has to be in the event/experience in the first place for us to prioritize it for ourselves personally. We don't just make up the meaning it is going to have for us.

Meaning is activity as well. We can't experience what happens to us without regarding it, at least in the immediacy of its happening, as meaningful. Someone sneaks up behind you and pops a balloon. You jump because that experience has meaning for you, at least at first. It occurs to you as something potentially harmful. There is no interpretation going on here. After the fact when you see it was just a prank, you realize it was not significant in the sense you fear it was. That's what I mean by meaning being sort of hardwired into consciousness. Our world happens to be literally saturated with meaning and possibility.

People can react with different emotions to the same event, but the meaning stays the same from person to person. Lots of Americans were very unhappy when Obama got elected. Lots of others were ecstatic. But regardless of these varying subjective interpretations of that event, the event was STILL very meaningful and significant to most all Americans. That's what I mean by objective meaning.

You just bought a Picasso painting at an auction. You may not even particularly like the painting. But you're a collector of fine art. You value it highly because it is a Picasso. The meaning of the painting is not a subjective interpretation on your part. It is part of the painting itself. Does that help?

I'm not hallucinating the beauty of the rainbow. Nearly all non-sociopathic non-colorblind human beings would perceive the colors and contrasts and harmonies of it as objectively beautiful and inspiring and a little amazing. IOW, my mind is responding to real properties that inhere in the rainbow itself. If it wasn't then maybe it would be entirely subjective. But it isn't.

Yes, a vivid rainbow is a significant and meaningful event to just about every normal human being on earth. Just like fireworks are, or an eclipse, or a halo around the moon, etc. I don't know about you though. Maybe you're immune to objective beauty?

Not fear...just a wise intuition about what is true and real in my own experience. For all I know the solipsists may be right too. But I'm not going to believe it just because it is logical or can't be refuted. There's lots of equally logical beliefs out there that we refuse to adopt on pragmatic grounds. That's just human nature. What we believe in we help to make true, particularly when it comes to living in a meaningful universe. Our deepest philosophical assumptions express who we are as individuals. And that doesn't invalidate them in any sense.

 

I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. I laughed out loud. You're so caught up in the grandness of the cosmos and your own personal truths you set upon reality. It's almost as bad as a raving creationist arguing for god. The universe doesn't care about our subjective projections. We can behold the universe with a sense of wonder but not to the extent that our rational brain starts leaking out of our ears.

I don't mean for that come off in a backhanded way. You're free to interpret things how you see fit but it's not much of an argument when you say things like that.

 

Ofcourse you did or you wouldn't have. For the record, I don't take to ridicule and flaming very well, especially regarding my deep personal convictions. So you're on your own now buddy. Enjoy your meaningless existence.

 

But that meaning only goes so far as maing people and myself feel good. It honestly doesn't have to have any value beyond that to be worthwhile or meaningful. Happiness or serenity or knowledge are all their own ends.

We all know this? Very few people actually consider that to be the purpose of love. But even if everyone did, that definition makes no reference to value or higher purpose, so the point stands.

That prospect exists for homosexuals, as well.

Again, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find real people who actually think of it in such terms. And (again) even if they did, there's no reference here to higher or greater meaning. We find value in the acts themselves, without regard for cosmic meaningfulness. There's no need for there to be some plan to find meaning in your life. Just ask any nihilist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(or atheist, for that matter)

That's...nice, and all, but it really doesn't answer the question. It's more you just restating the claim.

How do you know? (And seeing a pig in the clouds is not a hallucination, btw. Our minds are wired to see patterns, even where there are none...something to think about, MR)

That's all well and true, but I'm again left without any real explanation for how you got to "There's meaning to life."

It's certainly not an abstraction, and I'm curious as to why you think that human perception precisely is the universe's "true" form. I mean, our particular senses aren't the only ones to perceive the universe, so why do you place such importance on it? There are better examples of every single one of our attributes, save intellect, just here on Earth. Why is it our eyes that make the universe whole, when a hawk's eyes are sharp enough to read a newspaper from the length of a football field?

And what about subjective perception enhances the universe? In what tangible way is the universe improved by the existence of conscious beings? Hey, I'd settle for an explanation of how it's any different. All the things you see would be there even if you weren't--and most of them will still be here long after we're gone.

And if we're "surging toward harmony and beauty," what do you make of entropy?

 

Those are a real pain.

 

I can't post a link due to not having enough posts yet but there is a news story that just came out scientists have discovered how to turn consciousness on and off when applying electricity to a certain part of the brain.

Interesting that it really is just that simple. I think we have just enough consciousness to only get a small glimpse of reality and that's really all we can handle. If we had a larger amount we would surely all stroll hand in hand to suicide. I see consciousness as not completely futile in the fact that it is perhaps a world wide web of all living things that connects us all in some deeper way as we live throughout our lives but once the switch is turned off there is nothing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_Know_(The_Twilight_Zone)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTKrZpY7Krc

 

yeah, your system(body and mind) does it already since the day of your own creation.
it's called sleeping.
take this concept and figure out it's mechanics and mechanism, and it's easy to achieve.
nothing new or special.