Let me answer that question with a falsehood, since it has the same value as the truth.

I suppose it depends on how you view subjectivity. Subjectivity is quite solipsistic and centered on the individual but it doesn't mean that the individual perspective is invalid.

It seems a truly objective perspective would entail that even an omnipresent God would have to inhabit every possible perspective.

I think that subjective knowledge is valid if we just add to gather every available or hypothetical perspective to get a multi-perspectival knowledge.

i think inherent meaning is possible but it might require teleology or a creator/designer.
Objective morality seems impossible because even if God created its own morality it would still be subjective.
It is hard to see where binding moral facts could come from and how they could be Bestowed without being subjective or arbitrary or coming from a subjective law maker.

Overall I think nihilism is important to explore and society is made inauthentic by not challenging the roots of it's assumptions. I think there is something nihilistic about living on false or inadequate beliefs. Like living with a convenient fancy and ignoring available truths or challenges to your beliefs.

In reading through this topic I stepped into a void of nothingness. This is what nihilistic thinking is, it has no value whether secular or spiritual inclined. How can value be placed upon assertion which project life has no distinct meaning or purpose when this topic is meaningful to its participant's expressions? What is the logic for nihilism? Does it matter what nihilism state or not when all thinkers who enter this 4square circle of human living are on a mission of nihilism? What philosophy, religion, socialistic moral, or religious consciousness will seed words and usher mankind beyond the reciprocal dialog here, when these elements of the human race has not changed relativism to Oneness of Consciousness which constitute the activity of eternal meaning for all who live?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Agreed, in the sense that, the relative cannot contain the absolute. However, I also think that in any well-defined condition (with strict parameters), there is a maximum or most comprehensive amount of value/knowledge/morality which can be expressed.

Change your relative scope. It is an absolutely meaningless scope that has no real foundation, no actual purpose and it does not really exist. You pulled it from your subjective well, so just change it. You have that power.

In a world void of all meaning we are free to shape it however we want. Purpose is a prison and nothingness is the best possible position to be in, as it gives you the most amount of freedom.

I believe that truth and falsehood are only determined relative to certain unprovable premises or conditions. For example, "I see a green apple" requires the premise "Visual perception is reliable" for it to be considered true. So no they do not hold the same value in my view BUT the statement "Truth ought to be valued over falsehood" IS completely arbitrary (has no syllogistic proof) and I only take it as true arbitrarily. So, essentially, I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value but I think that way for no reason.

Agreed. Refer to comment above for elaboration

Subjectivity is quite solipsistic — Andrew4Handel

Not in my view it ain't. :wink: Solipsism is one of the many viewpoints that could glory (?) in the label "subjective", but it doesn't work the other way around, I don't think.

The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

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

See, I see a sort of enigma with nihilism in that according to it, believing in objective morality, God, superstition, etc is just as good as believing in nihilism. It is the most humble and liberating school of thought out there. If I were to draw a pokemon analogy it would be like ditto

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

For example, "I see a green apple" requires the premise "Visual perception is reliable" for it to be considered true. — khaled

Yet, it is you who decided what is "reliable". If you are going to say nothing has meaning let's be consistent here.

yeah it IS me that said that. I didn't claim it is universal.

So, essentially, I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value but I think that way for no reason. — khaled

See the "I" in "I don't think". Most of my posts are written using personal pronouns for that reason

You are conflating 'no reason' and 'no proof'. There is no proof that my bed is still in my bedroom where I left it, at least until I go upstairs and it proves to be there. But I have good reason to think that it is. And I have good reason to think we can communicate, and thus that the truth has value, though I cannot prove it. If values have equal uncertainty with the material world, that is enough for me, and for most people - one does not hear folks complaining that objects are not objective.

I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value — khaled

So it turns out that nihilistic relativism doesn't exist. :cool:

So it turns out that nihilistic relativism doesn't exist. :cool: — unenlightened

No because I don't think my opinion of "I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value" has to be universal as I've said towards the end:

So, essentially, I don't think truth and falsehood hold the same value but I think that way for no reason. — khaled

There is no proof that my bed is still in my bedroom where I left it, at least until I go upstairs and it proves to be there. But I have good reason to think that it is. And I have good reason to think we can communicate, and thus that the truth has value, though I cannot prove it. If values have equal uncertainty with the material world, that is enough for me, and for most people - one does not hear folks complaining that objects are not objective. — unenlightened

You have just implied that knowledge begins with unprovable premises when you said "There is no proof.... But I have good reason to think..." Which is the whole point of relativistic nihilism. Since knowledge begins with unprovable premises picked out of a potentially infinite set of unprovable premises, it is impossible for there to be an objective value/knowledge/morality.

Note: I don't mean objective as "agreed upon" I mean it as "impossible to disagree with"/"self evident"

Since knowledge begins with unprovable premises picked out of a potentially infinite set of unprovable premises, it is impossible for there to be an objective value/knowledge/morality. — khaled

Just so, your nihilism is universal, and does not pick out morality in any way. Knowledge is impossible - for no reason. End of conversation, I think.

no knowledge is impossible if you assume logic works. There is no reason to assume logic works but I don't recommend you get rid of logic. To elaborate: nihilism is present in the very structure of a syllogism as you can start an argument from any premise. If you want to discard nihilism you'd have to discard logic to be consistent (or worse yet discard the need to be consistent then you're just screwed). Once again I think you are using "agreed upon" instead of "objective" (I'd love to continue this but it's 12 am where I live and I have school in 6 hours)

I never claimed you claimed it was universal. I am pointing out the fact that nothing has meaning because you decided it does not have meaning. You could just as easily decided it has meaning. Nothing is stopping you from doing so, and all your standards at which you derive things as meaningless and /or non-existence are meaningless and non-existence themselves.

I think you are using "agreed upon" instead of "objective" — khaled

Not at all - we don't agree! But logic is truth preserving, not truth creating, and it has value because truth has value. Start with life, not logic. My bed is upstairs, we are communicating, you have school. Beds, schools, communications - these are objects, they are there whether we reason or not.

Then, because we value truth in communication, and must do so, or give no value to communication, then we use logic to preserve the truth in what we say about beds and schools.

There can be no logic to nihilistic relativism, for nihilism cannot exist when everything is a continuation of The Oneness which constitute not only the eternality of thinking, but also the infinity of life and being. Surrounded by the continuum of The Living One (you), and life indwelling all within and without the surround of that living one, the thought of nihilism can't be anything but nothinglessness, and, therefore, nihilistic relativism can't be anything but a misnomer in the mind which entertain such a thought, or utter it from windpipe. But this is typical of a metaphoric thinking intellect. It is no different than fishing in a dead sea. What is the logic for fishing in a dead sea?

I have seen surprisingly few posts on this philosophy to which I adhere which is starting to make me think it might have some gaping logical hole somewhere that I'm not seeing. I am open to having my mind changed in any way (God, inherent meaning in objects, cosmic Consciousness, etc) so present your best arguments against this philosophy.

Quick definition: The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

The position is as incapable of being attacked as it is incapable of defending itself, and therefore is just as easily dismissed as it is proffered.
You have made a number of conflations, such as arbitrary and not objective meaning the same thing. All in a days work I suppose, living in a realm of zero accountability to the means by which humans can know things as you do.
I mean, what do you expect from the responses? You have framed your request precisely to prevent the response you claim to be looking for, essentially asking “prove it, but do not use any proof”.

I can decide whether it has meaning or not but in doing so I will have effectively decided that it does not have an objective meaning which is what the philosophy is about, non Existence of objective meaning. It doesn't say anything about subjective meaning. In other words I cannot decide it has objective meaning because the presence of the word "decide" in that sentence means that another decision was feasible thus making my decision subjective

I agree but under that paradigm, these "objects" or "life" or whatever it is you decide to start from BEFORE reason is necessarily subjective and unverifiable correct? (Since it does not imploy reason, it's a pre-reasoned premise). That's the point of nihilism. That's the definition. SINCE the beginning of logic is unreliable, any conclusion can be said to be true if the right starting premises are chosen and thus all conclusions hold equal value in terms of being based on unproven premises and since there is potentially infinite unproven premises from which to start reasoning, there is potentially infinite conclusions all of which are equally valid and your choice of one over the other relies on an arbitrary distinction of their starting premises. For example:

these are objects, they are there whether we reason or not. — unenlightened

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. The split between idealists and materialists is unsolvable by either philosophy, because this "life" as you called it that both ideologies start from is different and that is a gap unbridgeable by logic thus leaving the choice between the two up to the individual (arbitrary). That's the point of nihilism

I really don't get what you're saying would you mind being less poetic?

You have made a number of conflations, such as arbitrary and not objective meaning the same thing. — DingoJones

How is that a conflation? That's a definition

what do you expect from the responses? — DingoJones

People suggesting alternatives to nihilism and us arguing about whether or not they work

All in a days work I suppose, living in a realm of zero accountability to the means by which humans can know things as you do. — DingoJones

You haven't given anything for me to argue or be accountable for.

prove it, but do not use any proof”. — DingoJones

Now THAT'S a conflation. It's more like "prove it in a way that no one can ever disagree thus making it objective and making relativistic nihilism as defined above, incorrect". If alternatives to relativism exist I should not be able to disagree with them

I can decide whether it has meaning or not but in doing so I will have effectively decided that it does not have an objective meaning which is what the philosophy is about, non Existence of objective meaning. It doesn't say anything about subjective meaning. In other words I cannot decide it has objective meaning because the presence of the word "decide" in that sentence means that another decision was feasible thus making my decision subjective — khaled

Subjective and objective are the same things, and they have always been the same thing, ever since people thought them up. Subjective and objective are just classifications based on perceived characteristics. You are the one giving meaning to these words, it is not the other way around.

Subjective and objective are the same things — Jeremiah

I highly doubt many people go by that definition. If they were the same thing why do we have 2 different words? According to me:
Subjective: seen true by one observer
Objective: seen self evidently true by all observers with an impossibility of any observer disagreeing honestly

I don't really care about colloquial usages. Everything that we considered objective, to be considered at all, must also be subjective, a subjective consideration that in truth is an objective process.

well I was using the words as defined above

If your world is so easily shaped by words, then you are not much of a nihilist.

At any rate, I am using the words properly. I am starting to think that you like the idea of nihilism, but that you don't really understand it.