Discussing nihilism is pointless
Is there truth to Nihilism and if so, which version is the most accurate?
Posts
Total:
131
-->
@That1User
Discussing nihilism is pointless
Only if it's true.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
dictionaries don't give meanings but rather usages.
And I stated they give both, via my clarification examples. Context of the sentence and context of the conversation. Biology, astro-physics, dog training, etc.
How would you say one handled that in an academic setting when we need words to have clear meanings?
Thats the point of using it in a sentence as dicitonaries do. Again, we can start with dictionary of known common agreements, and the bottom-line is what two or more people agree to, with the context of their specific localized conversation. Qunatum phyiscs, astro-physics, dog training, biology etc.
Fullers adopted word 'tensegrity' was found to be used in the body.
This is mostly just wishful thinking on my part. But I think conversations would be a lot easier if dictionaries were replaced by books filled with non equivocated tautologies. Which is to say each word has a single rigid definition. Philosophers do this obviously, but every philosopher has a different book.
A good picture/paintng is worth a thousand words ---ole saying---
The aborigines pass on the history via stories told along with theater and music. A trinary approach of relating their historical narrative.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Discussing nihilism is pointless
Only if it's true.
What's the point of discussing it if it's false?
-->
@That1User
Because people can still believe in it if it's false.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
At least this came back to nihilism.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
indeed. meaning can be found in nature. Humans tend to ignore this, because it doesn't seem meaningful to them.
Motion has meaning because it means that thing will change space and interact.
Stasis has meaning because it means that the object is occupying space.
Collision has meaning because I means a physical interaction.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I am sure nihilism refers to there is no objective meaning in a sense we can't know of it.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Is the meaning of motion not objective?
Is it not always true apart from our opinion?
To say we can't know it would be skepticism on top of nihilism. If so, what is the reason for your skepticism in this case?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Is the meaning of motion not objective?
In our framework yes since it gives consistent results.
Is it not always true apart from our opinion?
What do you mean by opinion?
What do you mean by true?
To say we can't know it would be skepticism on top of nihilism. If so, what is the reason for your skepticism in this case?
I never asked the question can we truly know. I stated we can't truly know. There is a difference and why I wasn't showing skepticism. I hate the skeptic community too so I would never call myself that due to people who were and I don't know if they still are surrounded by it.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
to the second point.
Is it true regardless of what I think?.
Please don't ask for the definition of true. There's only one.
to third point.
Fine, you claim we can't know, what's your justification for that claim?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Is it true regardless of what I think?.Please don't ask for the definition of true. There's only one.
I asked two question and do use speech marks so that it less time for to know what you are talking about. I would still like definitions.
to third point.Fine, you claim we can't know, what's your justification for that claim?
That information is out of our reach. We are perceiving our reality using our mind which is subjective. We require it to understand the world so we can't just remove and replace it with something that is not subjective.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
asked two question and do use speech marks so that it less time for to know what you are talking about. I would still like definitions
and I gave you two answers.
That information is out of our reach. We are perceiving our reality using our mind which is subjective. We require it to understand the world so we can't just remove and replace it with something that is not subjective.
We think with our minds and that is subjective. We perceive with our senses and those are not subjective because my senses happen regardless of my opinion. Therefore, your claim is invalid. Would you like to revise it?
I'll be away from computer for a bit.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I said this:and I gave you two answers.
I would still like definitions
You said:
We perceive with our senses and those are not subjective because my senses happen regardless of my opinion. Therefore, your claim is invalid.
No but what you interpret from that is your opinion. I can say x people in this study didn't like chocolate. My opinion is most people don't like chocolate.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Is it not always true apart from our opinion?What do you mean by opinion?What do you mean by true?
Alright, I'll do it again just for the sake of completeness. This was my question and these were your clarification questions, so this means that after I clarify, you should be able to answer the question.
Opinion = How I think or feel about something.
True = That which is conforms with reality.
Now your answer good sir.
No but what you interpret from that is your opinion. I can say x people in this study didn't like chocolate. My opinion is most people don't like chocolate.
It doesn't matter what my opinion of my senses is. I might have an opinion about my sense of touch, but my opinion does not change what I experienced. That's the part you're missing. You think the things we're sensing start out subjective but they don't. They start out objective, and then we can make a subjective assessment about that which we sensed. However, If my subjective assessment matches what I sense, then it's also objective because they're identical. I want to stop here and ask you. You do know that in some cases the subjective and objective can be the same thing right?
When people use subjective the way you are, what' they're usually trying to say is that I'm expressing my feelings about something rather than describing it. Now those two statements you made right there. The first one is objective and therefore true, the second one is your opinion. Nothing about your senses forced you to arrive at that opinion. Your senses gave you objective information and you took it beyond the information and made it subjective. If you had only made the first claim as your opinion. "It is my opinion that x people in this study didn't like the chocolate" it turns out in that case that your opinion also happens to be objectively true.
It's like if I say "it is my opinion that 2 + 2 = 4" Cool.. That's subjective, but it's also objective at the same time.
Also, the fact that you have an opinion is also objective.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Opinion = How I think or feel about something.True = That which is conforms with reality.
I didn't understand your questions as well. Can you rephrase it?
Is it not always true apart from our opinion?
This is not what I am saying
It doesn't matter what my opinion of my senses is.
I am saying we perceive this from those senses using our brain.
You do know that in some cases the subjective and objective can be the same thing right?
So like this was my opinion on this day? So basically a objective subjective opinion you made?
Your senses gave you objective information and you took it beyond the information and made it subjective.
Yes but we use our brain to perceive it right?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Humans are spiritual-1, 2, 3 and 4.
All humans that have access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo the ability to access moral principles.
Since those humans above are primarily spirit-2, and have access to metaphysical-1, spirit-of-intent, they cannot they wholistically nihilistic.
Spiritual is synonymous with moral principle ergo all humans are spiritual to some degree.
-->
@mustardness
I would probably use different words, but I agree.
On the metaphysical 1 statement. I see you make that a lot.
What are the other metaphysical types? Are you just denoting a dictionary usage number?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What are the other metaphysical types?
See my Cosmic Trinity LINK
The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinitys
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i },
.....1a} absolute truth,
.....1b} relative truth,
.....1c} lies.
--------------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
.
3} spirit-2, as occupied SPACE Universe aka Uni-V-erse of Observed Time { /\/\/ } aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
.....3a} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
.....3b} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
None have ever offered any rational, logical common sense that adds to, or detracts from the above. I doubt any ever will.
9 days later
-->
@mustardness
Absolute truth seems succinct enough.
What do you mean by relative truth? Do you mean true in the moment like a synthetic truth?
Lies seem pretty straightforward. Where do opinions fit into your model?
-->
@mustardness
meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinct kinds of meta-physical
I've never heard this before. Is this historical, dictionary based, or is this some kind of mustard speak?
-->
@That1User
What's the point of discussing it if it's false?
Many people discuss things that are false. This can be using DA if you mean by something being electronic to be false or in reality where people believe in views that are false. This can be conservatism, neo-liberalism, Religion etc. There are false things that people talk about. It shouldn't be about if it is false. It should be about whether we can learn from it or not.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@That1User
I would say that knowing falsehoods is practical and logical as it can grant you proof by contradiction of it's logical negation.
I would say that knowing falsehoods is practical and logical as it can grant you proof by contradiction of it's logical negation.
Yeah what he said.
Hopefully I don't use big words like you so that I am more accessible.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
For me, it depends what I'm talking about.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I've never heard this before. Is this historical, dictionary based, or is this some kind of mustard speak?
Yes M-Tard { mustardness } spoke it. Truth is truth irrespective of who states it.
If you cant handle mustard speaking it then that is a problem on your end, not mine.
See my Cosmic Trinity LINK
The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinitys
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i },
.....1a} absolute truth,
.....1b} relative truth,
.....1c} lies.
--------------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
.
3} spirit-2, as occupied SPACE Universe aka Uni-V-erse of Observed Time { /\/\/ } aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
.....3a} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
.....3b} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
None have ever offered any rational, logical common sense that adds to, or detracts from the above. I doubt any ever will.
-->
@mustardness
Yes, I read you link. The problem is that, while the link defines things, it doesn't explain why they are defined that way. You just say Spirit and Meta and add numbers and honestly it's kind of silly. Don't you care if your beliefs are true? How can you know your beliefs are true when you shield everyone from them?
Yes, I read you link.
So we can presume you now understand my original comments regarding Greek >< meta. Maybe you still dont see the connection and think meta is just mustard speak.
The problem is that, while the link defines things, it doesn't explain why they are defined that way.
You will have to ask the greeks why the chose to use "meta" in their definnging what is beyond the physical/energy aka Observed Time { /\/\/ }.
You just say Spirit and Meta and add numbers and honestly it's kind of silly.
Again, you do not actually quote what I stated, because your ego is still leading your charge.
Don't you care if your beliefs are true?
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense that adds too or invalidates my comments as stated. You do not, because you have not to offer us. Ego is leading your charge not philosophical search for truth.
How can you know your beliefs are true when you shield everyone from them?
More of you ego based false/bogus claims/charges against me with no evidence to support them.
Ive always assisted those with sincere spirit-of-intent who offer rational , logical common sense. You rarely do any of the above.
Ego based false charges is mostly what you have to offer in my regards.
-->
@mustardness
So we can presume you now understand my original comments regarding Greek >< meta. Maybe you still dont see the connection and think meta is just mustard speak.
I know what meta means and that's the problem. You don't apply it's etymology correctly. You say it means "beyond" but it doesn't. it means "at or beyond the limits of"
That means that something meta could also be within the observation realm as well. If we know something 100% then it's metaphysical regardless of what it is.
Whatever a rock actually is, that's what it is metaphysically. That's why I asked you about your comments about the 4 kind of metas that you stated and an honest person would have explained it because it's arrogant and ignorant of you to think that people know the same words the same way you do ESPECIALLY when you don't use the definitions in a traditional way.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
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?
There are two primary ontological categories.
QUANTA: Quantifiable, measurable, rigorously defined, scientifically observable, tautological and emotionally meaningless.
QUALIA: Qualitative, experiential, personal, broadly defined, not scientifically observable, and emotionally meaningful.
Everything that is "important" is QUALIA.
Everything that is "real" is QUANTA.