Is there truth to Nihilism and if so, which version is the most accurate?

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph ,

Posts

Total: 131
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
Just want to hear some thoughts.  Lets keep it civil. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
you've been tagged. \m/
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Using this site:

There is:
metaphysical nihilism
political nihilism
existential nihilism

The one that makes the most sense is existential because politics can be ignored. Metaphysical and existential is a tricky one. I doubt there are very many metaphysic nihilists because then you can't trust anything but with existential nihilism you can trust what you see and still come to the conclusion life has no objective meaning. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Sounds about right. 

when you say objective meaning do you mean that nothing has value apart from the opinion of humans? 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
when you say objective meaning do you mean that nothing has value apart from the opinion of humans? 
Nothing has value apart from what we attribute as value. This can be opinions of humans or not opinions of humans. 

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Right so you think that all value is endowed by humans.  Just for fun.  Would you say that motion has a value?  or weight? I realize the numbers themselves are chosen subjectively, but is there no value in motion? 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Right so you think that all value is endowed by humans.
Which is represented as logic. If there logic is humans ought to create children then someone not fulfilling that is illogical to them.
 Would you say that motion has a value?  or weight? I realize the numbers themselves are chosen subjectively, but is there no value in motion? 
We can never truly know if it does but something being reliable by being consistent is good enough to know numbers are a good source of information. That is the best it can get and it is not that bad in a way to know how good something is. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Since you're an existential nihilist I believe,  Would you say that physical world has a physical value and that this is not the same thing as the subjective value that is place on thoughts and feelings? 

For instance.  While you have your subjective value of needing to walk somewhere.  You have to impose your body onto the objective values of physics to meet your subjective goal.  


Thoughts? 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Would you say that physical world has a physical value and that this is not the same thing as the subjective value that is place on thoughts and feelings? 
Well since all we perceive goes through our brain it does become subjective value. If there was physical value then we would never know it but we can using what we can know and in what we interpret that into an idea of physics.
While you have your subjective value of needing to walk somewhere.  You have to impose your body onto the objective values of physics to meet your subjective goal.  
Yes we require to have a grasp of physics to understand how bad a walk can be. That is elevated to being objective because it has shown to be consistent. Objective should mean consistent I don't like the current definition of the word.

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Well since all we perceive goes through our brain it does become subjective value. If there was physical value then we would never know it but we can using what we can know and in what we interpret that into an idea of physics.
Well, we could know it's out there via our interaction, but we might not ever see it "intrinsically" which as I've mentioned before, I think if we seen reality how it actually was it would be impossible to navigate. 

Yes we require to have a grasp of physics to understand how bad a walk can be. That is elevated to being objective because it has shown to be consistent. Objective should mean consistent I don't like the current definition of the word.
Well the difference between objective and consistent is like the difference between induction and deduction.  You're basically saying that you prefer induction because it keeps your reality updated, so to speak, without you having to make too many assumption, whereas deduction you have to have sound premises that lead to a sound conclusion and you don't like taking that step because you feel like you're professing knowledge out of your view.  But changing the terms never works.  I get you're just saying you wish it was like that.  I wish synonyms didn't exist myself, lol. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
I think if we seen reality how it actually was it would be impossible to navigate. 
I think it would be im-probable but eventually humans might get their bearings. It will still be going through our brain like the current world we live in but if have improved senses then it would open more doors in science but would still be hitting the same roadblocks.
You're basically saying that you prefer induction because it keeps your reality updated, so to speak, without you having to make too many assumption, whereas deduction you have to have sound premises that lead to a sound conclusion and you don't like taking that step because you feel like you're professing knowledge out of your view.
I am sure to be consistent would require sound premises but it would also require consistent results in order to get a good conclusion. 
Sound premises ---> Consistent results ---> Conclusion
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
I am sure to be consistent would require sound premises but it would also require consistent results in order to get a good conclusion. 
Sound premises ---> Consistent results ---> Conclusion
Well this is where people tend to disagree on what is sound.  This comes down to the Black Swan argument. 

I'll use gravity as an example.  Gravity has a 100% induction rate.  That is to say that every time we've expected gravity to act like gravity it does so.  Some people see this as sound and others take it as a presupposition but say it's not justifiable.  If you're in the first camp, then deduction is easy and one should do it.  if you're in the second camp.  Then you don't get "sound" premises but rather you have "weak" and "strong" inductions.   I feel like you fall toward the second camp but you go the extra step and say the "strong" induction is sound which I'm okay with. 
I think it would be im-probable but eventually humans might get their bearings. It will still be going through our brain like the current world we live in but if have improved senses then it would open more doors in science but would still be hitting the same roadblocks.
I don't think we could every observe better with our senses, but rather we could develop a new sense apart from the others.  Like for instance.  Neutrinos don't really affect us but let's say we had a gene that produced this thing that interacted with neutrinos, we would then be able to sense how fast they flow through our body although I'm not sure this would do anything for us, but I could be wrong. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Here's a link on induction.  You might find it interesting. It's a decent form of knowledge for people who don't like absolutes. 

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Induction is always the first step to reaching sound deductions.   If you do a deduction without induction, then it's valid but you don't know if it's sound so induction always ends up in the mix.  
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist


Here's one that shows an induction that isn't just mere math. If the math part confuses you, just keep in mind that all logic is reducible to math so all words can ultimately be given mathematical values and applied to a type of "word arithmetic" 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't like reading but maybe I might read some of it.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
No biggie, the beginning part is the most important.  The math is just jargon and isn't required to understand the base concept.  I'm not throwing shade on math because it's awesome.  Just saying you only need to understand the beginning part to use it. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
How would you feel about basing meaning off of internal cues that are objective?  Just a thought experiment. Essentially "meaning" is just a word and we can try and figure out what people are really saying when they say meaning.  One way to do this is to presuppose that X = meaning and then take it for a test drive to see what happens. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
One way to do this is to presuppose that X = meaning and then take it for a test drive to see what happens. 
If X did equal meaning then nihilism wouldn't even be relevant at all.
Is the X different between individuals? 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
Not necessarily.  The conclusion would have to support that we're justified to call that thing meaning.  It would have to not conflate with other words (like if we took the word rock and put it in for example)

Even if it was something close, the result would have resemble what we see in the real world and then of course there would have to be science, lol.  So don't think of this as you conceding nihilism, think of it as proving your nihilism by contradiction.  If you can assume nihilism is false and still get nihilism or a logical contradiction, then it proves nihilism and it's a good thought experiment 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
So don't think of this as you conceding nihilism, think of it as proving your nihilism by contradiction.  If you can assume nihilism is false and still get nihilism or a logical contradiction, then it proves nihilism and it's a good thought experiment 
Don't understand this. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
it's a philosophy thing.  It's one way of proving something. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
it also works in math. 
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,987
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Essentially "meaning" is just a word and we can try and figure out what people are really saying when they say meaning.
This is partly why dictionaries came into existence.  To show a common agreement of definition

LINK ..."There was dissatisfaction with the dictionaries of the period, so in June 1746 a group of London booksellers contracted Johnson to write a dictionary...."

..."Until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary 173 years later, Johnson's was viewed as the pre-eminent English dictionary."....

There exist two primary kinds of information;

1} Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, ex pattern and shape, and,

2} occupied space bits { quanta, pixels ergo molecules etc }

Ex the word "meaning" has a definition{s} ergo a meaning to the human. However, if take the same number information bits/pixels and rearange the patterned sequence ...agminen... of their occurrence then the meaning may be lost

It has been shown that as long as the first and last letter are correct, then when context is also known, then that more often than not, the word can be figured out ergo it has meaning to the human.