indeed. and critically, in the absence of proof-readers, fact-checkers, and any meaningful notion of "accountability." depending upon whether one is a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty type, anything and everything can mean anything and everything at all, or nothing. with the internet at one's disposal, can anyone really assert that there are no black swans?
i don't know. though i'll agree with this: does a rejection of essentialism necessarily imply existentialism? IOW must one who asserts no intrinsic meaning/value necessarily posit that existence precedes essence?
Atheism is a specific focus. A branch of mathematics, if you like; an idea unto itself, but a necessary part of the whole. It does not differ from nihilism, it is a part or a subset of it. Of course happiness is possible. Does one consider a philosphical position every hour of every day? Is it not possible to smile at the play of children without reflecting upon the meaninglessness of it? While ennui may be present at times, it does not necessarily become the whole of ones existence - any more than happiness does. A man reacts in his own way to what he believes. I consider a man to be the the sum of that which has influenced him; this is a simplified perspective, of course. Most are quite happy to state theirs beliefs or a argue a position. Few are inclined to ask themselves why they believe; even fewer to consider it honestly.
I think a part of the problem is that many believe nihilism is a negation of all belief. With regard to the black swan, a nihilist is not going to say that it does not exist, or even that it has no purpose; but rather that that purpose is ultimately meaningless. My own take on the situation is contained within a single question. If all life on earth were to be wiped out tomorrow, who would care? I suppose even existentialism annoys me at times. I touched on it before, recently, in some other thread I've forgotten. It smacks of adopting a belief in order to fill a void. The question of necessary dishonesty with oneself is... exruciatingly painful.
But why doesn't one consider a/one's philosophical position every hour of the day? Why wouldn't one? Because this not considering a/one's philosophical position every hour of the day is, by implication, a/one's philosophical position.
Yes, in that sense, nihilism is a kind of meta-position. Also, there does seem to be a parallel between nihilism and what is often termed "critical thinking". Critical thinking does not assert a position, but claims to be merely a methodology. (Yet it is also clear enough that any methodology is based on some particular system of values - whereby a position is implied.) A nihilist is like a ironist or satirist - or a "critical thinker": he can sit down at the side and criticize what is going on, pointing out the faults and wrongs, without himself stating how it could or should be otherwise. He is a primarily commentator. This approach has a long-standing tradition in Western culture. It appears though that such commentators have tried to facilitate (social or personal) change that way; an ex-negativo approach based on the conviction that if that which deserves criticism is removed, then the superb, that which is above criticism will emerge or become readily visible. But perhaps this above is an unduly optimistic interpretation of their motivation, and the commentators are actually happy with the state of affairs, however deserving criticism they may be to them.
Ok - so you think happiness is only possible when one is switched off from nihilistic philosophising? But what about happiness within the remit of nihilism... i.e. if one was absolutely nihilistic, why could one not still be "happy"? Is there anything within the philosophy of nihilism that prevents one from being happy? But surely this can be regressed to absurdity such that all our influences derive from the first single-celled life. Unless, of course, you introduce an element that can give rise to new thought?
Yes… what did I mean? Well, I’ll let you know that it’s a perfect drag having to explain one’s ad-lib many hours later. Especially for one that was quick and simple, which I figured was self-explanatory. So I decided to let it pass until I realized later on that perhaps I might have offended you somehow, which was not my intent. Because from the outset I quickly ran through your responses on the topic only to see with great chagrin that the only reference I elicited on nihilism was that one single now stupid line. Well big shit then. But then I paused and thought, damn, I knew I should have used inbetweeness instead of inbetweener because inbetweener sounds too much like tweaker, drinker, stinker. Or rather, it focuses too much on the semblance of a state of mind instead of an implication for a passage of time—still drunk, remember? I meant it for a passage of time; between two states. So in my reference to nihilism, I should have used inbetweeness. Inbetweeness: a somewhat disoriented region between death and birth—that is, between the undiscovered self before God and the resurrected self after God. Everything in between is my quick and simple blurb for nihilism—the inbetweeness of being. Like being stoned.
How could the self be the alpha before God's?? Anyway, in lieu of God I could have said John Lennon or John F. Kennedy, depending on the nature of one's arrest. I don't think one aims to denounce God, but that God just doesn't matter much anymore. You know, like skipping boring conversation. You mean, spoil my grand exit??
How could the self not be the alpha before God when one does not begin from an a priori assumption of God's existence? Again - this doesn't require the strong-atheist position of denouncing God. An irrelevant God is still God - a God that does not exist is not. A meaningful entrance would suffice for now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not to be dismissive but, was there a point to that at all? The content of what you wrote is fine in and of itself (though contentious...) but you failed in any way to make it relevant to the topic at hand.
I'd say not necessarily, but definitely sufficiently. Although, I would quibble with the common 'definition' of existentialism being rendered as "existence precedes essence". In any case, I was just trying to clarify my position. Certainly a potentially interesting topic in and of itself...
Ripley, Sarkus' point here (though made in jest) is quite apt. There is no necessity to continually introduce 'god' into the discussion. However, if you feel you must do so, at the very least, do so in a reasonable manner.
RE: How can a nihilist be happy? I think nihilists and atheists alike should be very happy and feel very lucky to feel assured that they will never have to face eternal toture as they do not believe in it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
According to some Christians, you will face eternal torture - feeling lucky? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! IOW you are just as happy as you always have been because you don't think you're facing eternal torture - you don't believe you will burn in hell for eternity. THAT seems stupid to you. Other people burning forever, that makes sense to you in some warped way, but you roasting in agonizing pain for not accepting Jesus - no way!!! THAT'S stupid!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *turns to pray towards magic moon rock*
I'm not impressed. Atheists don't believe in God altogether which I was pointing out that's why they should feel so secure and happy to never worry about eternal torture. By the way in my religion we're always afraid and are supposed to ask God to save us from eternal torture, and we are not allowed to say for certain whether someone will be given eternal reward or purnishment.
The relieving part of being an atheist isn't that there's no hell: it's that there is no god. Because if there is a god, he's an asshole. I'd rather there be no god than have someone in charge of everything who's a complete prick.
