Nihilism vs Silly Faerie Stories

[AlbinoClock]

We're talking meaning. Morality, value judgements, all that stuff: objective or subjective?

Are ideas like good and evil, valuable and worthless, important and unimportant intrinsic properties of objects and events, or are they only given meaning in the context of the understanding and motivations of organisms capable of thought and perception?

The title makes my position obvious enough.

[DWARFINATORclock]

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.

[Thor]

The terms have meaning in that they have a definition. Insofar as you can find a consensus on what a term means it has meaning.

For example, the word good has the same basic principle behind it in almost all interpretations of the word. Most would say that being kind to others is good, and murdering people is not good. In this way, good and evil has a meaning which is objective. The same applies to all those other things you listed.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.

seems like a waste of chain. You shoulda just taken them off.

[AlbinoClock]

do you want a real reply or trolling?

your title makes me think its the latter.

A real reply.

[AlbinoClock]

The terms have meaning in that they have a definition. Insofar as you can find a consensus on what a term means it has meaning.

Agreed, but that consensus can be based in superstition or ignorance, in which case the agreement about the definition may not reflect reality in a meaningful way.

For example, the word good has the same basic principle behind it in almost all interpretations of the word. Most would say that being kind to others is good, and murdering people is not good. In this way, good and evil has a meaning which is objective. The same applies to all those other things you listed.

But that's not true, because people often disagree on what is good and what isn't. Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, religion, capitalism, the list goes on forever. People have a wide variety of different opinions about what is and isn't acceptable, so there can't possibly be one single definition that's derived from consensus. We have enough trouble deciding what's a cookie and what's a biscuit.

[Thor]

Agreed, but that consensus can be based in superstition or ignorance, in which case the agreement about the definition may not reflect reality in a meaningful way.

That doesn't change the fact that the definition of the word is an accurate definition of the word. It's impossible for it not to be. When you're talking about the "meaning" of a word there's nothing guaranteeing that the meaning is true to real life, just that when people think of a word they (usually) think of the meaning.

But that's not true, because people often disagree on what is good and what isn't. Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, religion, capitalism, the list goes on forever. People have a wide variety of different opinions about what is and isn't acceptable, so there can't possibly be one single definition that's derived from consensus. We have enough trouble deciding what's a cookie and what's a biscuit.

goodââ,¬â€š ââ,¬â€š[good]  Show IPA adjective, betÃ,·ter, best, noun, interjection, adverb
adjective
1.
morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2.
satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3.
of high quality; excellent.
4.
right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5.
well-behaved: a good child.

I think that's something that could pretty much be agreed upon by everybody. There's always going to be the fringe weirdos of course.


While I'm a nihilist I still think that words have an inherent meaning to them based on how society defines them. There is definitely such a thing as evil, since it is defined as something that a person could easily be. I don't see any reason why a lack of God would make it impossible to have rigid definitions of moral terms.

edit; Mostly though I'm just trying to be contrary. This thread woudl be really boring if everybody was all like "yup nihilism that's good shit" and then left to wank to hentai (which the clock crew loves)

[AlbinoClock]

Those are all descriptions of subjective opinions that depend on the context of an individual's experience for meaning. You can have a concept called evil and criteria for labeling something with that term, but that doesn't mean that concept is inherent to the thing being labeled.

[AlbinoClock]

Then why do they beat women in public for showing their ankles in some countries? When did slavery start having inherent meaning? Even if people do agree on something, that doesn't make it so. Gravitation wasn't arrived at due to consensus.

I'll go read that article now.

[AlbinoClock]

Ok, I read the article and it has nothing to do at all with debunking any sort of nihilism. People in groups being able to come up with ideas better than individuals doesn't suggest that things like morality are objective.

[AlbinoClock]

[AlbinoClock]

I never said it did. The article is there simply to prove that the general consensus will always reach the correct answer. Always. I was the one to expand that idea to morality.

So you admit that you have no evidence of any actual "correct answer" to questions of morality?

[DWARFINATORclock]

albino pullin a ribs

[AbsintheClock]

I don't think there is any such thing as good and evil. There is only the right view, right intention, right speech, and right action. This can be achieved by being mindful of your present moment, and acting accordingly. To stray from that comes in so many other forms. Usually it's done because of anger, entitlement, greed, feeling the need to follow tradition when the tradition has outworn it's welcome, or just plain old ignorance. The fact of the matter is everybody is ignorant, and nobody is perfect. It's when we stray, and to what degree we stray that defines the concept of things like evil. As for evil, I feel like that's a concept created to take the burden of responsibility from the person. Abrahamic religions tend to do that with the idea of sin. More specifically the sinner is not the sin, and thus separated from it to a degree which absolves some sense of responsibility. This degree of separation is incorrect, because the fact is all the people in the world collectively really do make the world go round. If you punch somebody in the face, they're going to have a bruise and it will be your fault. Just like the reaction of the person getting punched is their responsibility. What we have is a chain of folks just reacting to everybody. That's essentially good and evil.

As for nihilists, it seems they confuse transience with meaninglessness. This is a very blind way of looking at the world. Just because something is temporary, does not stop it from moving. Just because something ceases to continue moving, doesn't mean that there isn't something else going on somewhere. This would be like saying a waterfall is futile because the same molecules of water don't pass over the falls over and over. Just because your life is short compared to the timespan of all history, does not make it meaningless. Just like when you break a glass, that doesn't mean when it was still a glass that was useful before it was smashed. It's just how the world rolls.

[AlbinoClock]

I think you're attributing something to the word meaning that isn't intended in this case. The idea is easily demonstrable, consider written language. I can write words on a page, but if I show them to someone who can't read english, they won't mean a thing, they require the context of their language to make them understandable. As we know well from the internet, you can even write a sentence to be read by someone who understands the same written language as you, but fail to transmit the concept you're trying to get across. This isn't to say that our projected ideas are or bad (as those are subjective value-judgements), but that they're projected. While we shouldn't necessarily reject them, we shouldn't mistake them for objective reality either.

[AbsintheClock]

But it is meaningful, even if the person can't read it. It's all a matter of the effort you put into finding out what it means. The potential for meaning is always there, and that potential is what is important. I agree emotion is important, and it should not be mistaken for reason. That being said, I also believe that emotion can have a positive and negative influence on people's decision making. That goes back to right thought, right speech, right action etc etc. Key word in this whole block of words is potential. I think nihilists have a hard time seeing that.

[d u m p y]

i vote butt option

[Silly Putty Clock]

do you want a real reply or trolling?

Is there a difference?

[F U Clock]

I think what is morally good can be achieved by living under two moral codes:

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Obviously there are still judgement calls and these two could conflict at times but I think they're pretty good catch-alls.

[Sombra]

I think what is morally good can be achieved by living under two moral codes:

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Obviously there are still judgement calls and these two could conflict at times but I think they're pretty good catch-alls.

Are you arguing "morally good" in this case as a subjective good or objective good? If objective, what justification are you using to claim that the codes are universally good?

As for #2 I've always been opposed to utilitarianism on some level. It mandates self-sacrifice instead of celebrating it as a heroic action that is appreciated but not expected.

[AlbinoClock]

As for #2 I've always been opposed to utilitarianism on some level. It mandates self-sacrifice instead of celebrating it as a heroic action that is appreciated but not expected.

It's as metaphysical and dogmatic as any other set of ideas about ethics or morality. Why limit oneself? If I can't rely on myself to make my own decisions how would I be able to conform to anyone else's sensibilities with any real understanding?