Nihilism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2011, 07:18 PM
RE: Nihilism
(03-03-2011 12:08 PM)Diclonius Wrote:  What are your thoughts on Nihilism and Nihilistic thinking? .

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid.
-- It keeps me warm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2011, 08:25 PM
RE: Nihilism
Objective would imply that its independent of the mind no?

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2011, 09:02 PM
RE: Nihilism
(03-03-2011 08:25 PM)sosa Wrote:  Objective would imply that its independent of the mind no?

Not exactly. "Objective" would imply that it is independent of the observer. Morality is inherently a construct of the mind; there is no "morality" element. If morality was objective, it wouldn't be independent of the mind, but it would be unchanging no matter who was considering it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 02:10 AM
 
RE: Nihilism
(03-03-2011 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The evidence for lack of objective morality is the lack of evidence for objective morality. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if no evidence exists where it would be expected.

If morality were objective, we would expect all conscious beings to possess matching moral codes. Since not all conscious beings possess matching moral codes, we know that morality is not objective. Any "objective" code of morals which, for some reason, does not affect all humans equally behaves in all ways exactly as though it is subjective, and therefore is.

This is not the case. Mathematics is objective, yet we are not born with an innate ability to perform it. We do not even intuitively know ANY mathematics. It is objective, yet not persisting innately in anything. Gravity is also objective, yet we don't intuitively know about gravity. We know about gravity through our own observations and learning.

In fact, most objective things are /not/ innate.

Quote:Except that, for this to be true, there must be an external standard. There is no external code of objective morality. Any external source with a different code, by definition, is just another moral code, and is subjective, not objective. If it were objective, everyone would share it.

Here, my quote didn't really explain things well, try reading the full paper by Rachels:
http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Phil%20...achels.pdf
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 06:09 PM
RE: Nihilism
(06-03-2011 02:10 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  
(03-03-2011 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The evidence for lack of objective morality is the lack of evidence for objective morality. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if no evidence exists where it would be expected.

If morality were objective, we would expect all conscious beings to possess matching moral codes. Since not all conscious beings possess matching moral codes, we know that morality is not objective. Any "objective" code of morals which, for some reason, does not affect all humans equally behaves in all ways exactly as though it is subjective, and therefore is.

This is not the case. Mathematics is objective, yet we are not born with an innate ability to perform it. We do not even intuitively know ANY mathematics. It is objective, yet not persisting innately in anything. Gravity is also objective, yet we don't intuitively know about gravity. We know about gravity through our own observations and learning.

In fact, most objective things are /not/ innate.

Entirely true, but irrelevant in the case of morality - and in mathematics.

See, math isn't objective. Math doesn't exist objectively any more than "blue" exists objectively. Math is just our way of describing the universe through models. Blue is just the way we interpret certain wavelengths of light. Both blue and math exist, but they only exist because we defined them, and they exist only as definitions and descriptions. The number four doesn't exist objectively. It's just a description.

Morality also isn't objective. It doesn't exist objectively. It's just a description.

I'll read the paper when I have more time. Thanks for the link, though.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2011, 10:10 AM
 
RE: Nihilism
(06-03-2011 06:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-03-2011 02:10 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  
(03-03-2011 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The evidence for lack of objective morality is the lack of evidence for objective morality. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if no evidence exists where it would be expected.

If morality were objective, we would expect all conscious beings to possess matching moral codes. Since not all conscious beings possess matching moral codes, we know that morality is not objective. Any "objective" code of morals which, for some reason, does not affect all humans equally behaves in all ways exactly as though it is subjective, and therefore is.

This is not the case. Mathematics is objective, yet we are not born with an innate ability to perform it. We do not even intuitively know ANY mathematics. It is objective, yet not persisting innately in anything. Gravity is also objective, yet we don't intuitively know about gravity. We know about gravity through our own observations and learning.

In fact, most objective things are /not/ innate.

Entirely true, but irrelevant in the case of morality - and in mathematics.

See, math isn't objective. Math doesn't exist objectively any more than "blue" exists objectively. Math is just our way of describing the universe through models. Blue is just the way we interpret certain wavelengths of light. Both blue and math exist, but they only exist because we defined them, and they exist only as definitions and descriptions. The number four doesn't exist objectively. It's just a description.

Morality also isn't objective. It doesn't exist objectively. It's just a description.

So you're saying the number four as a concept does not exist objectively? I'm saying that the concepts of things, like what the number one represents is an objective idea. And that idea is true for all people.

Take the axiomatic principle of a line. We don't intuitively know what a line is, we have to find out for ourself. It turns out that it is so basic that we deem it self-evident. The concept of a line, whether you call it a phlet or a clatter, is still going to be the same.

Language is a good example. We say four. The French say quatre. The Germans say vier. But the concept of the number remains the same.

I don't think it would be too far a reach to extend this to morality. Is there some objective principle on which morality can be based? On the outset, it doesn't look like morality doesn't have any objectivity, but I don't think it can be solved so easily. When you ask hard questions it gets sticky and people get really confused.

Are you morally responsible for a death that you could have prevented?

Remember, philosophy is based in logic. It's looking for a logical solution to the problem. In ethics, mostly what it circles around is, "how do we make morality less sticky?"

There is no reason to assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive either. There is some objectivity in subjectivity and vice versa.
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2011, 12:07 PM
RE: Nihilism
(07-03-2011 10:10 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  So you're saying the number four as a concept does not exist objectively?

No. I am saying that the number four, period, does not exist objectively.

Of course there is a concept of "four". But that's all it is: a concept. An idea. A description. If I hold up four fingers, I don't magically make "four" appear.

Math, as a concept, does exist. But math as an actual thing exists only inside our heads. It's just a description of the world around us. It's a model. It's a very, very good model, but a model nonetheless. It doesn't exist any more than Discworld does.

Quote:I don't think it would be too far a reach to extend this to morality. Is there some objective principle on which morality can be based?

Of course. Morality is based on real-world things, like empathy and desire. But it is not itself a real-world thing. It's just an idea.

Being based on real things does not make you real.

Quote:Remember, philosophy is based in logic.

Depends on which philosopher you're reading. Tongue

Quote:It's looking for a logical solution to the problem. In ethics, mostly what it circles around is, "how do we make morality less sticky?"

Exactly. They assume that there is such a thing as morality and work from there, rather than starting with an attempt to prove morality exists.

For more information, you may want to see my ongoing conversation in the "Ethics - Moral Relativism" thread.

Quote:There is no reason to assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive either. There is some objectivity in subjectivity and vice versa.

Uh, no. "Objectivity", in philosophy, is the property of being independent of the observer. Something is "objective" when it does not depend on an observer's opinion of it. "Subjectivity" is the property of being dependent on the observer. Things which are not objective are subjective, and vice versa. There is no overlap. For overlap to exist, something would have to both depend on the mind and not depend on it - it would have to be both A and not-A. That violates the law of noncontradiction.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: