I don't see how believing in the existence of Socrates has anything to do with the merits/demerits of his philosophy? — TheMadFool

Well, Socrates isn't God, so the analogy is not apropos. We are not talking about a man's ideas. We are talking about the intrinsic moral position inherent in God belief which I have already addressed. Perfectly fine if you disagree, but I see no way out of it.

Carl Jung spoke of the importance of dreams and those coming from the collective unconscious. I do believe that the idea of the collective unconscious is useful for thinking about as a source from which images and stories evolve. — Jack Cummins

Is there any evidence that Jung was anything more than a crank? There is absolutely no evidence for any of his ideas (which I studied formally some years ago). Why would you be preoccupied by other dimensions when evidence for them is scant and there is no reason to believe, even if they can be imagined, that they matter to us at all.

Well, I'm approaching the issue from a Doestoevskyian point of view, the view that "if god didn't exist, anything would be permissible" — TheMadFool

Dostoevsky always had this the wrong way around. It should be: "With God anything is permissible." If you want to build systemic human rights violations look to religious behaviour across time and even today. The most dangerous (and ethically empty) people on earth are those who think they know what God wants us to do. And of course, religious morality is subjective and based on personal preferences of believers who think they have the right interpretation of scripture. God remains silent on morality.

What is another dimension and how does art lead you there?

Well, this in no way proves that believing in God is, in and of itself, a moral act in the same category as saving someone's life or helping the poor, right? — TheMadFool

Don't see how they are not the same. Remember moral behaviour for God is simply that which pleases him. The fist step is belief. Tick. Not believing has been traditionally seen as an immoral position by many believers. Hence, believing is a moral position.

Isn't the problem of induction something in philosophy as well ? — Swimmingwithfishes

It's a problem of epistemology so it covers the waterfront.

Nevertheless, there are also another kind of atheists who think there is nothing afterwards. — javi2541997

Of course there are. But atheism specifically means just one thing, hence the name a theism - Greek: "without God". Any other beliefs are a separate matter. But sure, some atheists share a range of secular humanist beliefs.

I haven't ever encountered a man of the cloth taking the position that mere belief amounts to a moral act, an act of goodness, an act that would be equivalent to established good actions such as charity or saving someone for example. — TheMadFool

Not many believers have read much scripture and often traditions don't come form this source. Actually it is pretty common for a Christian, Jew or Muslim (especially the latter) to see the atheist as making an immoral choice right out of the gate. In fact in Islam (in 13 countries), atheism is punishable by death.

So I guess not believing in any kind of God goes further than “not having any proof of his existence” — javi2541997

No. All an atheist is is a person who doesn't believe there are sufficient reason to believe in any form of God. There are atheists who believe in astrology and reincarnation and souls and all kinds of supernatural stuff. Some Buddhists are atheists.

There are no moral differences between atheists and theists - both camps seem to be doing fine in the ethics department as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

Untrue - Islamic State, just one example, demonstrate that religions - which all have their fundamentalist expressions - cab be ethically repulsive. And there are any number of vile acts committed by religions of all sorts from sexual abuse to bigotry.

Ancient does not refer to a specific timeframe. Generally it means the distant past - which can encompass a very wide period. Words like 'ancient' are thrown around with cavalier imprecision all the time.

Therefore I really don't know why atheists are so often criticized and thought to have a baseless set of beliefs, when their reasoning may indeed be more credible than that of someone who basically has no more than faith in the existence of God. — BBQueue

Atheism isn't a belief system as such. Atheism has one idea. That no good reasons have been provided to believe in God. Atheism is not a school of thought or a system as such.

There are however belief systems that also include atheism - secular humanism - the most common. Then you may have a set of beliefs to quibble with.

I'm agnostic atheist because the evidence for the existence of any god isn't strong enough to convince me but I don't claim to know there are no gods. — GTTRPNK

Nice. Most nuanced atheists would argue that there are no reasonable grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They would not say there is no God. An important distinction. In essence a more nuanced atheist would probably take the view that they are open to the idea of a deity existing if and when there is reasonable evidence.

This is one of those airy quotes that you can interpret however you want. I'm usually weary of quotes that reduce a whole disciple to a maxim. They usually only work when they are by humorists. In relation to the functions of philosophy or science - you can argue pretty much anything.

But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals. — Gus Lamarch

This idea does interest me - can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved?

I'm not sure that knowing thyself is even possible, but what is more important is to know thy limitations. I was a rock climber for over half a century and learned that lesson early on. — jgill

Know thy limitations is the same thing a know thyself.

"Why do many people say Camus "solved" nihilism?"

My theory is that he posed it as a mathematical theorem, and then he solved the theorem. — god must be atheist

I'd love to see this theorem stated somewhere.

My understanding of Camus' solution is:life has no transcendent meaning but you can create your own meaning and joy. It helps if you realize all of life is intrinsically absurd - this will keep you sane. The ultimate expression of this absurdity is that we all die in the end. One of the best statements of Camus' philosophy is found in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life a kind of existentialist epic poem.

I still stand by my last point. Nothing mattering would just evaporate any reason for living. — Darkneos

This would seem to be true. But I have met too many nihilists who enjoy life. I have rarely met anyone for whom nothing matters, even those who say they are nihilists. Generally what they do is draw a circle around a range of subjects they say don't matter, but they still enjoy, let's say; work, food, sex, alcohol, movies, whatever.

The person who is a nihilist and dismisses all human experiences too is generally someone with a mental illness, with the classic symptoms of anhedonia (an inability to experience pleasure). I am unsure if we would count someone with chronic anhedonia as a nihilist.

Now, I am anything but anti-capitalism (it being the least ugly shirt on the rack), but beyond the economic system itself, look at the lengths people go to defraud other folks. We currently live in an era where there are absolutely no limits to the creativity of the professional class of liars, cheats, thieves, and scammers. — synthesis

I don't think this is new. All technologies do is provide new ways to do old things.

You have expressed at least two distinct ideas. First, that everyone seems to get something for nothing and second, that people commit frauds. You haven't illustrated how these two ideas are connected. There is only a slight resemblance there and that seems to come from the words you have used to describe them. Are you trying to say indirectly that all human beings have intrinsically exploitative relationships with others?

I believe you can expand this to... "Thinkers cherry-pick that which they wish to accept." — synthesis

That is sometimes true. But it depends on the cherry picking. If you are only picking that which you think you understand and you are banishing that which you don't. Then the thinking won't be so great. There's probably a vast difference between cherry picking (often used as a pejorative) and judicious selection. But I'll leave it to others to decide where the fault lines lie.

Actually i think most powerful people are nihilists — Gregory

I wouldn't know.

Nihilism is a dogmatic response to dogmatism. That's what I am getting at — Gregory

Nihilism has hard and soft variants. In philosophy I always understood nihilism to refer to the idea that there is no transcendent meaning or purpose to human life. This is not the same thing as saying there is no individual meaning. As most neophyte existentialists like to say, the meaning that matters is the one you make for yourself.

Anther type of nihilist is psychological. The person who thinks life is pointless and feels a sense of despair and depression. This form of nihilism is often more about a person’s mental health than a coherent belief system. It is usually a subjectivist claim about a personal state.

For my money I don’t really think there are practicing nihilists, just people who use the term badly. I don’t think we can easily find examples of people who actually live without any meaning. Even not having meaning ends up being a big producer of meaning.

nd there are many traditions of Buddhism, just as there are many Christian denominations. — Jack Cummins

Indeed. Say what you want about Buddhism. The opposite is also true.

I can't really reply to you as there are so many ideas going on and many of them I don't follow or don't see reasons for. I will ask you what do you mean by:

Nihilism is objective realism in disguise. — Gregory

Can you step this out in simple terms?

Are you saying that the way out of nihilism is to select a 'lie' to put your hope in. Fake it until you make it?

We have the right to obey laws external and internal and the duty to be free. — Gregory

If you are a true nihilist then the idea of 'laws' and 'obeying' and 'duty' and 'freedom' are all empty pointless terms so none of this would apply, surely?

Apart from anything else, there is the hold field of debates in theology and a lot of questions about how the Bible was put together. So, it is not such an easy task, because even the theologians have a lot of unanswered questions. — Jack Cummins

I would have thought that much was obvious. Believers cherry pick what they want to accept in all religions. My point is you have to start with what the source material says. The matter of interpretation is a separate one.

That seems an interesting concept, like a born again atheist. — Jack Cummins

All that atheism is is the rejection of the proposition that a God exists. It says nothing about a person's other beliefs. Many people who call themselves atheists believe in the occult, mysticism, numerology, astrology or other supernatural material. 'Born again atheist' is a meaningless term - born again has a specific meaning in some Christian traditions and refers to a believer's relationship with Christ.

What you are saying shows how we are all taught differently — Jack Cummins

Some of us are taught the wrong things. All religions are encrusted in a separate folklore which does not come from any holy books. I think your first step is to get to know the official tradition from the scriptures - if that material interests you. Only then mess about with alternative narratives and traditions and myths and Dan Brown style nonsense.

At least, within Catholicism there is regular confession, thought of as a sacrament, and absolution of sin. I am not sure that confessions features as strongly in other denominations. But, of course, forgiveness of sins should play an important role. We do get a picture of Jesus having his feet washed by Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, and him forgiving her sins. — Jack Cummins

Just bear in mind that it is easy to jump to conclusions. Confession is not a significant part of all Catholic practice these days and is diminishing. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. This is not supported or even hinted at in any of the Biblical texts. It's a folk tradition - like so much unquestioned nonsense in life.

I haven't read Camus but I know he was deeply involved in the whole meaning of life question but what if, just what if, his conclusion was, as Wayfarer once said, "the least worst option" or as I like to see it, the lesser of two evils? This is a question worth asking and if someone has a good answer, it'll be worth a listen/read. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I follow your thoughts. I had no idea Camus was back in fashion. I doubt that many people actually square off to nihilism, but some people are depressed...

The main reason Camus comes up so often is that he remembered for an attention grabbing somewhat hokey statement about the main philosophical question in life being, why not commit suicide? Given that Camus died young in a car crash with a bus ticket in his pocket, you can't help feeling that he was right about one question. Life is absurd.

Life is not a joyride, it's hell unless you're in the developed world. — Darkneos

That's not very accurate, is it? If you are saying that you are more likely to have a happy life if you live somewhere where there are resources, then perhaps. But the variables are so much more complex. There are very happy poor people living in impoverished places. There are vey many wealthy people in developing or poor nations. There are rich people in wealthy countries who live miserable hellish lives.

This as well. If nothing matters, then it doesn't matter that nothing matters. — Pfhorrest

I've made that joke a thousand times. Actually if nothing matters then everything matters.

As I already said:

Sure, it can be argued that nihilism is circular - as in - if nothing matters than nor does nihilism. But many presuppositions we use in life are circular - eg, logic. You can't use logic to defend the use of logic. Will we now abandon logic? — Tom Storm

Those two quotes from Augustine and Heidegger describe Jordan Peterson's entire project. What they don't do is identify if there is substance behind any transcendent notions of truth or beauty, they are mere claims.

We call those politicians around here... — creativesoul

Politicians and businessmen commit the same sins, around here. I can't generally tell them apart.

There's no question that the pursuit of the dollar often leads to a multitude of sins. Corporations have a long history of trying to get away with unethical practices in the name of cost cutting and profit. That's the primary reason why there are professional standards and binding legislative frameworks - to protect humans from corporate malfeasance, whether it be selling cigarettes or asbestos products. Like other companies, aged care service often cut costs to make money or 'increase profit' and this heightens risks which can lead to death/s. If your primary focus is on making money this is hardly surprising. And yes, politicians in granting contracts or cutting back laws, or passing others can be enablers for corporations to conduct some dubious business practices.

That said, there are many good companies which run aged care services and not all companies are bad. That's also obvious.

I don't know what your experience is, but it's generally not a matter of resources, instead, a matter of priority.

If you're saying that people can be full time mums or dads and work and do everything they need to do and be totally committed to this then you have a much friendlier idea of commitment. Which I welcome. I have not seen this in any of meditation communities I have known over the years; Hindu or Buddhist in derivation.

Of the all the people who do this sort of thing (very, very few), a minuscule amount of the them are actually willing to do what it takes to go for it. — synthesis

In my experience also, very few people have the available resources to do this.

So they always win.

Similar examples are common all over the globe and history.

Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.


I dare you to prove this wrong. — baker

I have lived in several homes around cities where the neighbors are concerned and upright citizens. Where they are considerate and mindful of how they behave. Where homes are safe and if there are any problems they can be settled peacefully following a discussion.

There are many safe and happy places like this all over the globe and in history.

Given this state of affairs, the only conclusion is that morality works and is evolutionarily advantageous.

Actually I don't make any conclusion based on my own experience or examples culled from elsewhere. How people behave in the world is a separate matter for whether or not morality or some code of conduct is useful. There are better and worse places to live and if people follow a code of conduct life tends to be better for all.

Sounds like your life is challenging and I don't minimize the risk you face.

The thing to remember is that people from all religions often find religions comforting, from the Parsi to the Muslim. Psychological help via Buddhism has also been massive in Western psychological services for some years. People also find social and sporting clubs really helpful. People are social creatures. Hardly a surprise.

I don't see how your conclusions follow from your ideas, sorry. I am a Hobbsian. No one lives without perversity to my knowledge. How would you even demonstrate this is a thing?

A society without government - can that even be described? Having said that, I am sure there are many labyrinthine Utopian theories of society out there.

Not trying to be rude but I can't see how this argument works.