It makes a difference only because I decided it would and my decision it would is arbitrary. — khaled

What nonsense. That is what you would say on an internet forum, it has nothing to do with what you would say if you were really in that situation. I only mentioned it to illustrate what the question would be like, if the answer actually means something. Whereas, I really don't think what you're saying means anything. There are self-described nihilists who turn up and post here, and most of them have got precisely nothing to say - which figures. How could they? If they have anything to say, then they've cut off the branch they're sitting on. Anyway, carry on, no doubt you will find plenty of willing rubes.

Ya that is a big pile of nonsense.

Truth and logic are not the same things. Logic is a tool to help us narrow in on the truth, it does not actually create truth.

I replied to your comment within 2 minutes of reading it (though I guess you wouldn't believe that). Can you elaborate on why exactly you think this is non sense. If you just call my reply non sense then proceed to make sweeping generalizations about an entire philosophy please cite the reasons you think so

Ya that is a big pile of nonsense. — Jeremiah

Or maybe you just can't understand it

logic is a tool that RETAINS truth to be specific. A conclusion is only true if it's premises are true. P3 is saying that if that's the case, you can never determine the truth value of the very first starting premise. You just have to take it as true. And if that is the case, since there are countless possible starting premises, there are countless possible conclusions

Can you elaborate on why exactly you think this is non sense. If you just call my reply non sense then proceed to make sweeping generalizations about an entire philosophy please cite the reasons you think so — khaled

I could, but unenlightened already did that in the very first response in this thread, and you just carried on. You're basically talking nonsense.

I actually have a very long history with religion and objective morality (born muslim) and my decision to move from that was based on reading and doing philosophy. I think you're over generalizing way too much. Hell what does it matter if I'm a kid OR even if I had happened to be a complete idiot. Ad hominem is not the way you argue dude.

that's not much of an elaboration. The thread literally starts with "I'm not sure if there is some gaping hole in nihilism so I ask commenters to show it to me". No one has shown me one yet or maybe I'm too stupid to see. Could you please show me why everyone thinks nihilism is such a bankrupt idea?

"P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument."

Prove that.

P1: A statement is a premise
P2: Humans can conceive of an infinite number of statements
C: Humans can conceive of an infinite number of premises

Any statement can be used as a premise. If you disagree with P2 then replace P5 with "There is a number of premises as large as the number of possible sensical statements which can be used as an argument" and that should still suffice for disproving an objective knowledge (which demands only one possible starting premise)

Prove P1 & P2,


I don't think you have ever seen a formal proof.

P1 is a definition. I already said if you don't like P2 use "There is a number of premises as large as the number of possible sensical statements which can be used as an argument" which only requires P1. Heck, if you don't like that replace P5 with "There is more than one possible premise to start an argument from" and it would still suffice for the rest of the proof as objective knowledge demands only one starting point.

You needed to assume certain premises to come to that conclusion. Had I been an idealist I would have disagreed with that statement saying that if it is not constantly remembered in "the mind of God" it wouldn't exist. — khaled

I don't need to assume anything at at all, because it's not a conclusion. A bed is simply a bed, and whether it is an idea in the mind of God or a giant quark party doesn't make any difference to it being an object. And objective existence is existing the way objects exist.

It is a sometimes handy distinction to make, between objective and subjective, as pertaining to the object or pertaining to the subject, but it is only meaningful to the extent that it carves up the world conceptually, such that, say, my taste in wine pertains to me, but the alcoholic content pertains to the wine. If everything is subjective, the term loses meaning, and one simply has to start again to distinguish these aspects with another word. Philosophers are rather prone to universalise in this way, and think they have said something profound, when they have actually said nothing meaningful at all.

"Why should one believe his experience of sensing objects (as you defined them) is reliable" is a question unanswerable neither by the existence of objects nor by logic and so in order to see the existence of objects as reliable one must make an arbitrary decision to do so. No matter where you take the base on which you build an argument the question "Why should I not pick another base" has always been askable as far as I can see.

I never claimed I am saying anything profound. In fact, as I understand nihilism, it should not affect your future behavior, nor your sense of morality in the least (because there is no should in nihilism). Had you said "you're basically saying nothing" I would have said "I agree".

"Why should one believe his experience of sensing objects (as you defined them) is reliable" is a question unanswerable neither by the existence of objects nor by logic and so in order to see the existence of objects as reliable one must make an arbitrary decision to do so. No matter where you take the base on which you build an argument the question "Why should I not pick another base" has always been askable as far as I can see. — khaled

Other than experience? What other?

You cannot deny the existence of experience (without being logically inconsistent at least) but you CAN deny certain aspects of it with your choosing. For example, schizophrenics deny the existence of their experiences regularly. Some monks learn to deny the experience of pain and hunger. Some even learn to deny the experience or perception of evil. Hell some of them even deny the validity of logic (although I dismiss them). Are they wrong for doing those things? You cannot answer that question using the existence of objects or logic. There are even people who attempt to deny their own experience (some determinists) but they are logically inconsistent and we both seem to agree to discard logically inconsistent ideas. I think the only undeniable statement logically is "I am conscious" but sadly that has no further implications on knowledge/value/morality

You cannot deny the existence of experience (without being logically inconsistent at least) but you CAN deny certain aspects of it with your choosing. For example, schizophrenics deny the existence of their experiences regularly. — khaled

No. You can deny anything you please, verbally. But to deny any experience whatsoever is to abuse the language, and thus meaningless. On the basis of (other) experience, I conclude that my experienced encounter with St Augustine last night was a dream or an hallucination - but it was a dream I experienced nonetheless. Conceivably, I might conclude that my experience of this discussion is an hallucination. Thus I can distinguish within my experience real and unreal, and I can be unsure whether an experience is real or not. But I cannot meaningfully deny the experience itself.

I have never experienced schizophrenia myself, but I have experienced living with a schizophrenic in full fugue, and it is exactly this ability to distinguish reality from unreality that they lose, and in losing it, they stop making sense to themselves and to others. What they don't do is deny their experience; they are unable to dismiss any experience as unreliable or unimportant, or unreal. This can become very frightening for them.

But for philosophers, to talk of experience is precisely to talk of what is prior to the distinction of real and unreal, to talk, thus of what cannot be doubted.

I agree with everything you wrote except:

No. You can deny anything you please, verbally. But to deny any experience whatsoever is to abuse the language, and thus meaningless. On the basis of (other) experience — unenlightened

You have to do a bit more than "verbally" deny something in the case of pain. I'm pretty sure the guy tiptoeing on the spike bed is doing a bit more than "verbally" denying pain. He is actually no longer experiencing it

I am not claiming you can meaningfully (rationally) deny experience as I have said

You cannot deny the existence of experience (without being logically inconsistent at least) — khaled

but you CAN pick and choose aspects of it to deny. However, the statement "You cannot deny the existence of experience" requires the employment of logic to reach (hence the parenthesis containing "without being logically inconsistent"). Now, I don't want you to misunderstand this as me arguing for the abolishment of logic or for its unnecessity. I am a huge fan of logic and all it's given me. I am instead arguing that you cannot use logic to determine why logic ought to be universally used or objective. In other words, I chose to use logic for no particular logical reason and if someone does NOT choose to employ logic I see them as a maniac and not worth talking to. Anyone who denies experience then, is a maniac and not worth talking to but only because I arbitrarily chose to employ logic. There is no logical reason for why I or any other employer of logic does this.

You have to do a bit more than "verbally" deny something in the case of pain. I'm pretty sure the guy tiptoeing on the spike bed is doing a bit more than "verbally" denying pain. He is actually no longer experiencing it — khaled

I agree, he's no longer experiencing it. So he's not denying an experience. What he is doing is what the schizophrenic cannot do, and you are pretending cannot be done, clearly distinguishing subjective from objective. And then he controls his subjectivity.

Anyone who denies experience then, is a maniac and not worth talking to but only because I arbitrarily chose to employ logic. There is no logical reason for why I or any other employer of logic does this. — khaled

No. Anyone who denies experience is confused about what the word 'experience' means. And anyone who choses not to employ logic is confused about what logic is. Logic is simply the way we use language to talk sense. One can dispense with talking sense in this mundane way and have recourse to poetry, but poets know what logic is very well.

I am doing so and you are the only person here not helping. If all you do is attack people personally then I won't reply to you any more. I am so very sorry I tainted your highness's eyes with my lack of knowledge due to me being a beginner at this. Oh whatever will I do to atone for the sin of trying to learn by going to a free forum to talk openly.

I agree, he's no longer experiencing it. So he's not denying an experience. What he is doing is what the schizophrenic cannot do, and you are pretending cannot be done, clearly distinguishing subjective from objective. And then he controls his subjectivity — unenlightened

I never said it cannot be done. I said there is more that one way to do it and thus any distinction you come up with between those ways cannot be labeled objective

Logic is simply the way we use language to talk sense. — unenlightened

There are multiple possible logics then because there are multiple ways to accomplish this task. Fuzzy logic, logic that only allows true/false, logic that allows true/false/null, etc... I was defining logic as "Use of sound syllogisms" but if you wanna go with that definition ok

it would be helpful if instead of effectively saying "You're a fucking idiot" that you say "No because X" or "Here is a link explaining why you're wrong". If you are not being helpful then what's the point of your comment.

In a proof you must be able, when called on to PROVE EVERYTHING, and SHOW HOW ONE THING FOLLOWS ANOTHER. This does not mean just giving your subjective opinion as a proof, and it is certainly not an act of listing stuff you think is true, or you think is common knowledge and my advice, that you keep ignoring, was TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOME LOGIC.

any distinction you come up with between those ways cannot be labeled objective — khaled

Of course not. Distinctions are made, and the objective/subjective distinction is one such. It applies to some things and not others; distinctions are useful or not useful. But the problem is that you seem to deny that anything is objective, in if that is the case, then nothing is distinguished from anything else, and your claim that this or that 'cannot be labeled objective' ceases to distinguish it in any way from anything else. It is as if you want to say that 'objectively, nothing is objective', and that is a simple contradiction.

Inaccessible and non-existent are two quite different things. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Yes the belief is that it is non-existent or if it existent that it is inaccessible. There has been no proof that an objective value/knowledge/morality exists and so claiming that they do not should be rational in the same way that I can say "The flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist". Obviously, it COULD exist but since there is no proof people would just say it doesn't — khaled

"People" might do this, but I would choose not to. That may be because I'm autistic, but it may also be because I don't like to knowingly tell lies, even this sort of lie. If it COULD exist, then - IMO, and bearing in mind that this is a philosophy discussion forum - we should not say that it DOESN'T. [Nor should we say that it DOES, of course! :smile: ] We should tell the truth, and express what we do know, which is that WE DON'T KNOW. This is honest and correct, so it is unlikely to mislead us in our future reasoning, eh? :up:

P1: The application of logic requires premises
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value or if it can then none have been found so far that do so and are useful in proving anything else
P5: There is more than one potential premise from which someone can start an argument.
P6: Consequently there is more than one potential premise that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: More than one conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value

Where do you find the problem with this

ok cool :up: . I'm fine with the possibility of an objective morality existing just haven't found proof yet

But the problem is that you seem to deny that anything is objective, in if that is the case, then nothing is distinguished from anything else, — unenlightened

Please elaborate on this "if". What do you mean nothing is distinguished from anything else.

It is as if you want to say that 'objectively, nothing is objective', and that is a simple contradiction. — unenlightened

More like: The most objective thing we have found so far is that nothing is objective. There is no contradiction in that statement

I'm fine with the possibility of an objective morality existing just haven't found proof yet — khaled

As it happens, I'm not fine with objective morality existing, but the main point is the end of your sentence. When it comes to being objective about things, there is no proof that is accessible to humans, nor will there ever be. So we need a way to continue without proof. Personally, I don't think nihilism is the way. I think accepting uncertainty, and learning to deal with it honestly and openly, is the way. But that's just me. :smile:

nihilism is accepting the uncertainty. It has no bearing on how we deal with it as there is no should in nihilism. Nihilism doesn't say: it all doesn't matter so you shouldn't care. It just says: it doesn't seem so far that any of it matters

Egotistical and smug are both easy. Anyone can do them. Even me. Let's try something more challenging, eh? :wink: