I have read a fair amount of dystopian fiction, but the idea of a society based on this would be problematic.That is not to say that the realisation of utopia is without problems too. I can see your point about entropy.I I read book 'Utopia by Thomas More' at some point, but I don't think it impressed me much because I can't remember it.

I probably do have utopian dreams, but I also can relate to dystopian and post-apocalyptic fiction more easily because they speak more about aspects of our times. I do see them as imaginary and do not think that they can be applied practically. But the one aspect which I wonder about is what effect the ideals do have upon us on a collective level, consciously and subconsciously? Do these dreams and fantasy scenarios have a self -fulfilling prophecy, or do they give us scope for a critical understanding of culture?

As both concepts are each on the opposite side of the same spectrum, when a civilization approaches the limit, they eventually should reach the other side — Gus Lamarch

How's that? If I activate a blast furnace used in old smithing, or take an old volcano, if it becomes hot enough it will eventually become freezing? Or if I place a frozen pizza into a subzero freezer it should eventually burst into flames?

If both are in the end, the samething, what if this ideas are nothing more than humanity's way of accepting the entropic end of existence by creating of the illusion of choice between the "perfect good" and "perfect evil"? — Gus Lamarch

What if indeed. Well, then they are. Lol. Nothing long and drawn out about it really. In more traditional terms, utopia vs. dystopia one means generally perfect with little complaint and the other means generally ineffective with much complaint. Though the idea of "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. We need a little rubbish and imperfection in our lives, a little strife, angst, anxiety, and struggle. A few hurdles too. After all, without, where would passion come from? All of which is easily and readily available by just reading the news, history, looking around beyond our circle of trustworthy, civilized people every now and then.. which of course can be balanced by the incredible progress made in modern society vs. that of times long past, the dark ages, primitive times, etc. It's a balance, perfect in a way. Yet imperfect in others. Oddly enough, some say these are the best times with the least amount of global suffering ever achieved. Though of course, the same could be said, factually too, of any time in history. :grin:

How's that? If I activate a blast furnace used in old smithing, or take an old volcano, if it becomes hot enough it will eventually become freezing? Or if I place a frozen pizza into a subzero freezer it should eventually burst into flames? — Outlander

The point that you didn't get is that what I say is that the consequence of both extremes is, in conclusion, the same result - in the case of extreme fire, compared to extreme cold, the sensation would be the same, because in at some point, fire and/or cold hit the other side of the spectrum -. In the case of "topias", the "best" world, if somewho achieved in the Universe - as it is impossible to turn something metaphysical into real - this world, would not be any better or worst than the dystopian one, because when you get to it, you hit the other extreme - and vice-versa -.

But the one aspect which I wonder about is what effect the ideals do have upon us on a collective level, consciously and subconsciously? Do these dreams and fantasy scenarios have a self -fulfilling prophecy, or do they give us scope for a critical understanding of culture? — Jack Cummins

I'm reading a lot of Mainlander's - 19th century german philosopher - work and the more I read, the more I'm convinced that humanity's only reason for existence is to reach death. As I said in the original post:

"What if this ideas - of utopia and dystopia, as was religion during the middle ages, and culture during antiquity - are nothing more than humanity's way of accepting the entropic end of existence by creating of the illusion of choice between the "perfect good" and "perfect evil"?"

Even if we construct order, that's just a means to blind ourselves of the real purpose, that which is "to cause death and/or death to itself - aka increase the entropy of the Universe -".

Quoting Mainlander:

“But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!”

After thinking about the possibility of mankind's annihilation yesterday evening I felt really sad. But the whole question of annihilation as a goal that is a good question.

I used to believe in life after death. I often wonder about personal death as an eternal sleep and it seems better than some traditional ideas about eternal life. But the idea of annihilation of the human race seems a different matter. I certainly believe that there is an inherent tendency towards life and death, as expressed in Freud's conception of the forces of Eros and Thanatos.

But I would wonder about the philosophy of the writing you are speaking about. I think that such nihilism, alongside the whole philosophy of antinatalistism, might be symptomatic of the negativity underlying the current fragmentation of our culture. I have thought about the end of the world in terms of nothing forever. Of course, there may be other universes that have or might have some life on them. But if the material structure of the universe ceased to exist would there be anything or nothing? What is annihilation? Is it the end of the spark of consciousness?

But the whole question of annihilation as a goal that is a good question. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me that if the purpose of the entire Universe - in this case, of the things that exist in it - is not the complete apotheosis to the absolute of self-realization - egoism -, only non-purpose remains, which in this case, is completely placed in the hands of the entropy of time - death -.

I used to believe in life after death. — Jack Cummins

Philosophically, it does not make sense not to have something after death for the simple fact that death is something exponential - it goes into infinity - the infinite of time, as death is completely out of it - - and infinite things, in a finite existence, are impossible. I repeat, not having something after death does not make "philosophically" sense. Physically, things die all the time - just in this minute, 1000 people worldwide died -.

Honestly, reality and existence contradict each moment, so it is not surprising that perhaps the fact that existence does not have a purpose could be its only purpose.

I do not believe that the picture you have is wide enough in its scope. One writer, who you may well have heard of, is Fritjof Capra. I came across his systems theory when I was a student, while doing a module on economic ethics. His thinking has influenced my own understanding, especially ecology.

I have been looking at his book 'The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter' (1996). He sees all systems as related networks and interdependent. He also does not believe that physics should be seen as the dominant science and draws upon the idea of Gaia from James Lovelock, the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson and many other thinkers. He summarises the systems view as one in which: 'Nature is seen as an interconnected web of relationships, in which the identification of specific patterns as "objects" depends on the human observer and the process of knowing.'

One point which I would make here is that you speak of the lack of purpose in the universe and I would say how can we know? Really, we all probably project our fantasised views of how life works onto the universe. It is much bigger than us and the concerns of our human egoism.

I won't go on any longer about the ideas of Capra because I would imagine you may be aware of his outlook, although not all people who read your thread are likely to have read his work? What do you make of the systems view and the perspective of deep ecology? I also find Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance helpful. He speaks of the underlying invisible patterns behind nature.

With all these theories, it is hard to know how much truth they present. I am certainly not a biologist or physicist and, apart from philosophy, I suspect that your specialist are is history. What I do think though, is that while we are not likely to know the answers fully, the biggest danger is the route of nihilism because then we become just like the people who are indifferent. We would just give up. Personally, I read and question deeply but my ideas shift around quite a bit.

Your starting point was the question of utopia vs. dystopia. I believe that it is not possible to create an actual utopia but I still believe that it is better to focus on what possible changes can be made for the better rather than collapse into nihilism. I, and many others I know, have got into states of depression about life, death and where we are going. I can even relate to death metal music but I do try to rise beyond all this.

One point which I would make here is that you speak of the lack of purpose in the universe and I would say how can we know? Really, we all probably project our fantasised views of how life works onto the universe. It is much bigger than us and the concerns of our human egoism. — Jack Cummins

If my view tended to fully agree with Mainlander's philosophy, your claim that "Man has no way of knowing whether or not there is a purpose for its existence" would simply defend even more the idea that we - humanity - do not have a future on the grand scale of reality. However, I am not a pessimist - unically pessimist - therefore, I still believe that there may be an objective and/or purpose for the individuals that make up our species, but one that is the foundation, means, and ends of Being - you, for already being well accustomed to my school of thought, must know what it is -.

What I do think though, is that while we are not likely to know the answers fully, the biggest danger is the route of nihilism because then we become just like the people who are indifferent. We would just give up. Personally, I read and question deeply but my ideas shift around quite a bit. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism is not completely harmful, because in its eventual absolute future - theoretical maximum where the regression of our current cycle will meet - we - humanity - will have a brand new soil just waiting to be sown again. We - speaking of both of us - only had the misfortune to be born and to be able to witness the death of this same soil. Does this mean that it is not worth going on? Obviously not, but your main purpose should be to know how to dance while falling into the abyss. In this case, to project yourself through your own legacy to the next generations, that of course will be less fortunate than us... Much less fortunate...

Your starting point was the question of utopia vs. dystopia. I believe that it is not possible to create an actual utopia but I still believe that it is better to focus on what possible changes can be made for the better rather than collapse into nihilism. — Jack Cummins

The ancient Greeks already knew that holding on to hope is the worst of choices - in certain cases -. It is not by chance that it - hope - was in the deepest pits of Pandora's Box. I believe that giving ourselves on to the positive side of nihilism today is our best choice - and only choice -. Stirner, Nietzsche, and Bauer are cases where the potential of the positive nihilism was seen as a driving force for the remains of an societal collapse. I believe that even those who use the concept of nihilism to put their philosophies into practice -Marx, Engels, Sartre, etc... - subconsciously know that this nihilistic force can be used because it is useful - in theory, it appears to be -.

Perhaps the only salvation of humanity is to be found in the worst of its nightmares.

"Only by passing through the abyss will paradise be found."

What do you think of Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence? It is something that I do wonder about at times. Perhaps in aeons of time I will be writing this post once again, if everything is repeated in cycles.

The only problem I would see with the idea is, would it be exactly the same? Any slight difference would alter everything. Would the exact same individuals exist or not? For that reason, I think that the idea of eternal recurrence may be more of a symbolic truth, rather than a literal one. But it does give scope for speculation as we look into the abyss. Perhaps the idea of the eternal recurrence symbolises possibilities, and seeing beyond the moment into eternity.

So the goal of going for a walk is to sit down, because every walk ends in a rest?

The point is that, on the grand scale of the Universe, where time guides everything that exists towards the complete entropic annihilation, both the ideas of "Utopia" and "Dystopia" would be nothing more than the conscious or unconscious actions of humanity to act accordingly with the progress of universal entropy. — Gus Lamarch

Isn't this just a prosaic way of saying "nothing really matters"?

What do you think of Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence? It is something that I do wonder about at times. Perhaps in aeons of time I will be writing this post once again, if everything is repeated in cycles.

The only problem I would see with the idea is, would it be exactly the same? Any slight difference would alter everything. Would the exact same individuals exist or not? For that reason, I think that the idea of eternal recurrence may be more of a symbolic truth, rather than a literal one. But it does give scope for speculation as we look into the abyss. Perhaps the idea of the eternal recurrence symbolises possibilities, and seeing beyond the moment into eternity. — Jack Cummins

Nietzsche in his journals, made it clear to himself that the concept of "Eternal Return" had been different in different parts of his life.

Between 1872 - the year in which he published "The Birth of Tragedy" - and 1882 - where he published "The Gay Science", the first work where the idea of "Eternal Return" would appear in his philosophical discourse -, Nietzsche saw the Eternal Return as a possible hypothesis, not only philosophical, but scientific, to the point where he thought of leaving philology and entering cosmology - finally, in 1873, he decided to go to philosophy -. And on the one hand, this concept is applicable in contemporary theories about time - very complex and long theories that are not the subject of a philosophy forum - where, really, on a scale of xxxlions of years, it would not even be a possibility to your life to occur again, but a certainty - as the saying goes: "if given time, everything will occur -. Obviously this is impossible in a "mortal" - human - reality - to be physically perceived and proven true - because it is something completely removed from our existence - we can "prove" theoretically that idea, but not in practice -.

After 1882 - coincidentally, the year Nietzsche would become addicted to opium, and would find himself in almost total social exclusion - he kept in touch only with Richard Wagner during the period from 1882 - 1883 - -, the concept of the Eternal Return would become something much more symbolic and personal to Nietzsche. He would register in his journals that "the Eternal Return seems to be much more an intrinsically lover of the past", and that "it delights in making the people of the future suffer". With that phrase, it is noticeable that the Eternal Return has now become an object of motivation. One, which motivates in the fact that the perception that the Eternal Return exists, thus making the individual more likely to fulfill his desires and anxieties before regret takes over his being - this applies to Nietzsche himself, who probably already had greatly regretted not having fulfilled desires that still afflicted him, and which now - in 1882 - were more distant than ever -. What are these desires, wishes of Nietzsche? Only he could say, and he is dead, as is his god.

Therefore, the Eternal Return can be taken as merely allegorical and symbolic, as something that is real and physical. It depends on each reader's will...

My view is that both interpretations can be applied to the individual's critical-reflective thinking:

"Oh, if I will regret "NOT" having done this in the future, and again, and countless times after that, may this very reflection be the driving force for me to realize this will and to annihilate with any regret in the future."

So the goal of going for a walk is to sit down, because every walk ends in a rest? — unenlightened

The objective - within the thought that progressing the entropy of the Universe is the only purpose for humanity - would be to make your body, by consuming oxygen, die a little more, and with each step you take, create microscopic wounds on the ground where you walk. When sitting on the bench, your weight would bend - even if minimally - the material that made up the bench, causing it to decay just alittle more, and thus, sooner than later, cause the total end of existence - death in its absolute -.

Isn't this just a prosaic way of saying "nothing really matters"? — Pantagruel

The point is not that "nothing matters", but that the only real purpose of humanity is to cause "nothing to matter".

In some ways I can relate to the nihilistic conclusions you come to, although I think that is only one of possible conclusions to come to. This would include those in response to the various arguments of yours in this thread and others. Personally, I prefer to keep an open mind because at this stage I have not come to any ultimate conclusions. However, I realise that you have come to your present conclusion because it is based on the way in which you see truth, which is a fair measure. But the problem which I see is in the practical applications for life.

I know that your underlying philosophy is the position of egoism. In a sense, I can see the value of this as being about seeking to fulfill our own needs, and I am sure that this involves the instinctual ones. Personally,I am aware of the way in which I do this on a daily basis. You may be speaking important truth to people who are more caught up in the day to day following of a group.

Nevertheless, I would say that one of the limitations of the underlying nihilism which you have been presenting in this particular thread is that it is does not present a picture which allows for much scope for practical application. I realise that there are not any simple answers to the ways living. In particular, I would say that Christianity, from which I have a family background, tended to place the emphasis on the life after this one as the source of happiness. I can see the problem of this. In addition, there were many wars in the name of particular religious beliefs, as well as persecution of witches and others who challenged mainstream morality and lifestyles.

The point I would wish to make is that one still needs to find meaning on a daily basis rather than simply thinking about death. I do think that death can be something to inspire living rather than giving up. I say that coming from the perspective of having friends who committed suicide. I am certainly not wishing to suggest hope, in its shallow aspect. One book that I have read is 'Suicide and the Soul' by James Hillman, in which he sees the suicidal gesture as the confrontation with despair as a source for transformation.

I realise that you are probably not suicidal and neither am I at the present time. However, I think that the philosophy of nihilism is one which could lead in this direction, especially if a person is experiencing extremely difficult life circumstances. So, what I am saying is that it is important to see the possibility of transformation in the face of the abyss of despair rather than the just the goal of death. I do believe it is possible to juggle the ideas of death as the inevitable peace alongside the actual creativity of the struggle of life. I think that nihilism needs to engage with despair rather than simply stating it as a conclusion.

I realise that you are probably not suicidal — Jack Cummins

No, I am not, but the masses are...

I think that nihilism needs to engage with despair rather than simply stating it as a conclusion. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that's what I said in my last comment.

Nihilism should be used as a force to push foward the individual will, as a vision of rebirth, reinvention, reproposite the mind. But as the ego, they - the negative ones - distort and turn into a monster everything that could be good and new.

only one of possible conclusions to come to. — Jack Cummins

it is based on the way in which you see truth, which is a fair measure. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism at its very best.

The objective - within the thought that progressing the entropy of the Universe is the only purpose for humanity - would be to make your body, by consuming oxygen, die a little more, and with each step you take, create microscopic wounds on the ground where you walk. When sitting on the bench, your weight would bend - even if minimally - the material that made up the bench, causing it to decay just alittle more, and thus, sooner than later, cause the total end of existence - death in its absolute -. — Gus Lamarch

It seems as though you are stuck in a materialist metaphysic?

I'm just reading some Mannheim, who notes that "The error of materialism consists merely in its wrong metaphysics which equates 'Being' or 'reality' with matter."(The Problem of a Sociology of Knowledge)

Transcending this belief allows for the possibility of a melioristic optimism; I am a "melioristic optimist."

It seems as though you are stuck in a materialist metaphysic? — Pantagruel

A physical world - composed of matter - is deconstructed and recreated individually, being shaped according to the wishes, desires, wants, etc... - metaphysics - of the individual in question. That is, it seems to me that your affirmation that I'm "stuck in a materialist metaphysic" is mistaken, because what I affirm in the discussion is a "symbiosis" between the absolute - metaphysical world - with the finite mundane - "material" - world.

equates 'Being' or 'reality' with matter." — Pantagruel

"Being or reality are not "matter", but the way in which matter expresses itself upon existence"

I am a "melioristic optimist." — Pantagruel

And that - I suppose - makes you better than an egoist such as myself.

The thing is: In adopting an unique "mentality" or "school of thought", you're only proving my point.

The thing is: In adopting an unique "mentality" or "school of thought", you're only proving my point. — Gus Lamarch

I don't think there is any such school of thought - I would characterize my statement as a self-characterization. Another perspective I endorse is systems philosophy, which doesn't contradict the symbiosis of the metaphysical and the physical you describe.

Another perspective I endorse is systems philosophy, which doesn't contradict the symbiosis of the metaphysical and the physical you describe. — Pantagruel

My observation is that your philosophical position in relation to the question discussed, only affirms my central position that the ego is the basis of every individuality.

Not even a refutation is capable of being made without the expression of egoism being made present.