For a biological organism, success is reproduction. — yupamiralda

What about mules?

They're unsuccessful.

Have you asked them if they feel unsuccessful? Maybe they feel better off.

To be a successful biological organism all you need to do is stay alive. All the other things you mention are optional to your declared purpose.

Sure, but the choice of purpose is totally arbitrary, and it's hard to get excited about something superfluous. — yupamiralda

That's not a matter of wanting there to be purposes where there are none, though.

It's an issue of not being satisfied with the fact that purposes are something that we create for ourselves.

They're not arbitrary in the sense of "random," by the way.

So what we'd need to diagnose is why self-created purposes aren't intuitively good enough in your view.

So what your ideas are better than others, is basically what you're saying. Just as all others with their own idea of what matters, self-assuredly convinced you're the one making sense. You are not a nihilist, you're just someone who believes their interpretations are better than those of others.

Reproduction is the measure of success? Go reproduce then, grow old, and just before you die and with a smile on your face tell yourself "good job". Your nihilism is not nihilism though, Your opinion, however, puts you in the category with the majority of people, who are like you, not nihilists.

Sacred entails non human. Fully valorizing what isn't human, and fear of autonomous history or time without subjecting it to abolition and recreation. In a way, prehistory or the Golden Age could be considered sacred. It doesn't make sense to attach special importance to recorded, additive time, lineal historicity, or to treat modernity as more advanced. It isn't more advanced for all we know. — Anthony

Cockroaches and viruses are non human. Are they sacred?

Animism is more the opposite of what you say here. — Anthony

I also said that it is an anthropomorphic projection of a human mind onto the universe. I gave the definition per Wikipedia in that same post, where it is believed that everything has a spiritual essence. What is the difference between the spiritual and the mental, or the spirit and the mind?

The Enlightenment has led to transhumanism, the most human-centered orientation ever; to be sure the post human thinks he is the focus of creation. It's already an anthropocentric view to think in terms of a creation, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. — Anthony

You're forgetting how modern science has taken humans off of their pedestal and placed them squarely within the natural domain, as a product of natural processes, and moved human's home - Earth, from the center of the universe to a remote place in the universe. Science is what has shown us that we aren't as important as we think, and it is science that the religious fear because it removes humans special place in reality. Science humbles. Religion inflates one's own self-importance. Just look at the haughty claims made by the religious and spiritualists. They make claims of truth and don't question it. Science constantly questions its own claims.

For a biological organism, success is reproduction. With mammals this includes child-rearing. With humans one could argue it includes "culture". — yupamiralda

Exactly. How can a human reproduce without participating in culture?

This type of talk also exemplifies the limited way in which most people view reproduction. What does reproduction entail - just sex? Did one successfully reproduce if the child is never born, or the child dies before coming of reproductive age themselves? What if the child becomes a mass murderer? Is that a successful reproduction? It seems to me that "being a good parent" is just another way of saying, "successful reproduction". If one finds meaning in being a good parent, do you get to tell them that that is meaningless? Who, or what, defines one's own meaning? What is "meaning"? I gave my take in the first post of this thread because as always in these philosophical discussions, the terms we use need to be clearly defined.

By pointing out the error in the claim, of course. — praxis

For one, I never said there were errors in your claims. I said that they were incoherent, hence the follow-up questions that you avoided.

How is something that is successful, bleak? — Harry Hindu
Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party: — praxis

I dont see the bleakness in the above quote. — Harry Hindu

This isn't an error that I pointed out and you ignored?

I haven’t claimed to be avoiding your questions. — praxis

:roll: I never said you "claimed" to be avoiding my questions. You don't need to claim avoid a question, you actually do it. Actions (or inaction in this case) speak louder than words.

I didn’t assume that you cared. I simply pointed out an absurdist when you inquired about the meaning of the absurd. — praxis

Why would you assume that I didn't care if I was participating in the discussion? Again actions speak louder than words. My actions speak for themselves, so how you assumed that I didn't care, I have no idea. When someone abandons the discussion, then that is when they show that they no longer care.

Why do some think it is? Because they’re not comfortable with not knowing, I suppose.

What do you think?
— praxis

I think that you have just described the God of the Gaps.
— Harry Hindu


Nonsense, I’ve made no metaphysical description or claim whatever.

What do you think? — praxis

You made a claim about why people think life is absurd. I pointed out that is equivalent to a God of the Gaps argument. Some people aren't comfortable with not knowing something, so they create their own answers, or meanings for their existence. That is fine, as it is what I said in the my first post in this thread. One can create has meaning in their actions. It is when they project that same meaning onto others - as if they have the same meaning - is when we run into debates like this.

Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter. — praxis

What exactly does this mean - that philosophy doesn't provide answers or even knowledge to such questions, so we should keep in the philosophical domain to never be answered?

By pointing out the error in the claim, of course.
— praxis
For one, I never said there were errors in your claims. I said that they were incoherent, hence the follow-up questions that you avoided.

How is something that is successful, bleak? — Harry Hindu
Well, legend has it that Sisyphus successfully rolled a rock up a hill. :party:
— praxis
I dont see the bleakness in the above quote.
— Harry Hindu
This isn't an error that I pointed out and you ignored? — Harry Hindu

I knew that you knew what I meant with the Sisyphus reference. You even readily acknowledged your feigned ignorance. Then you fault me for ignoring the question, and go on to suggest that pretending to be ignorant is a good method in philosophizing.

A waste.

I didn’t assume that you cared. I simply pointed out an absurdist when you inquired about the meaning of the absurd.
— praxis
Why would you assume that I didn't care if I was participating in the discussion? — Harry Hindu

I don't presume to know how you feel about absurdism. I still don't know your thoughts about it.

You made a claim about why people think life is absurd. I pointed out that is equivalent to a God of the Gaps argument. Some people aren't comfortable with not knowing something, so they create their own answers, or meanings for their existence. That is fine, as it is what I said in the my first post in this thread. One can create has meaning in their actions. It is when they project that same meaning onto others - as if they have the same meaning - is when we run into debates like this. — Harry Hindu

Why do we care if people are making that fallacy if they're not participating in this debate?

Anyway, if that were known it wouldn’t be a philosophical matter.
— praxis

What exactly does this mean - that philosophy doesn't provide answers or even knowledge to such questions, so we should keep in the philosophical domain to never be answered? — Harry Hindu

People usually need to think about a question before they can answer it. Some question may never be answered, at least not within our lifetime.

I knew that you knew what I meant with the Sisyphus reference. You even readily acknowledged your feigned ignorance. Then you fault me for ignoring the question, and go on to suggest that pretending to be ignorant is a good method in philosophizing. — praxis

So now youre claiming to be able to read minds. I didnt get what you meant. Really. Because it is logically inconsistent. If what you meant was so easily obvious then why not explain it instead of wasting your time with what you typed.

Your arguments are pathetic.

I didnt get what you meant. — Harry Hindu

I seriously don’t know if I can believe that at this point.

Because it is logically inconsistent.

What is the inconsistency? I asked you before what the error was and you failed to point it out. Are you just trolling?

Maybe your hostility expresses a frustration with an intellectual or existentialist approach to dealing with the absurd. There are only two ways, as I mentioned earlier, to effectively deal with it. Either pragmatically develop meaning in your life and/or transcend it through contemplative practice. Those are the only real choices.

Your arguments are pathetic.

I don’t recall making an argument in this topic, at least not in dealing with you.

I basically believe that nothing has any meaning. — yupamiralda

Since meaning depends on the individual, there is no absolute meaning, but there is personal meaning.

Watch how the concept of meaning arise. Say you want to build a shack, and you need a hammer to build it, then you feel the hammer is meaningful to you, because you need it to reach something that you want. More generally, we deem something to have meaning when we deem it useful to reach something that we want.

So it is obvious many things have meaning to many people, and presumably many things have meaning to you, for instance you deem it meaningful to come on this forum because you consider it might help you reach something that you want. Which is to know what you should do, to know what to do with your life, to find some absolute standard that would tell you why you should pick a specific course of action over some other one.

And your trouble here is with the idea that there is no such absolute standard, no absolute meaning, no desire shared by everyone and nothing seen as useful by everyone. But why does this trouble you? Why should you only do something that is seen as useful by everyone, what would be the problem with doing something that other people see as useless? You fear that they might judge you negatively? And if they do, so what?

You want to live, so live your life how you want to live it. Then you will see meaning in a lot of things. These things won't have absolute meaning, but you won't care, because they will have meaning to you.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

No, this is wrong, for the very obvious reason that the relationship between cause and effect is meaningless without value and purpose. One thing does not cause another thing to happen. Causes are identified based on our values and goals.

Meaning is everywhere, possibly the fabric of reality itself. — Harry Hindu

What is that supposed to mean?

If nothing had meaning then there would be no way for us to communicate, as communication requires shared meaning. Your scribbles on the screen mean something that I try to get at when I look at them. They mean the ideas in your head and your intent to share them with others as that is what caused the scribbles to appear on the screen. — Harry Hindu

Communication requires shared values and goals. That's what makes communication possible. If an alien intelligence with entirely different values and goals tied to communicate with us, even the most basic forms of communication would appear nonsensical or meaningless.

Humans are very versatile (thanks to their large brains an opposable thumbs) and the variety of ways in which we choose to be successful organisms can make it seem like we have transcended our biology, but that is an illusion. — Harry Hindu

Then how are choices, such as religious celibacy, hunger-striking, or simply suicide, possible?

Sounds like you find meaning in being a good parent. Why would you think this is absurd or deserving of criticism or insults? — Harry Hindu

Because of the incongruity between his desire for meaning and the apparent lack of meaning in the world that he lives in.

You want to live, so live your life how you want to live it. Then you will see meaning in a lot of things. These things won't have absolute meaning, but you won't care, because they will have meaning to you. — leo

It is the old Taoist paradox: finding meaning in the meaningless. That it is all meaningless, is something that we should be greatly worried about. Here, there is meaning enough for all.

It is the old Taoist paradox: finding meaning in the meaningless. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not so much of a paradox if we realize that we're creating meaning "in the meaningless."

It's not so much of a paradox if we realize that we're creating meaning "in the meaningless." — Terrapin Station

It is analogous to the notion of "something out of nothing"; which also isn't much of a paradox if we realize that nothing is creating something.

It is analogous to the notion of "something out of nothing"; which also isn't much of a paradox if we realize that nothing is creating something. — Merkwurdichliebe

You just need to have a non-Aspie understanding of "create."

You just need to have a non-Aspie understanding of "create." — Terrapin Station

A post-copulous intellect.

To be a successful biological organism all you need to do is stay alive. All the other things you mention are optional to your declared purpose.

I disagree. We're not even individuals on the level I'm talking about, we're just machines for the transmission of our selfish genes. So why not accept that, and base one's values around that?

It only makes sense if you actually want to have children or whatever. If those things are actually meaningful to you, rather than you merely adopting social cues as to what's meaningful.

The so-called 'selfish genes' doesn't much care if you propagate your genes because it knows that you have siblings and such, who's genes are practically the same as your own. As long as you're supportive of them the selfish genes are selfishly happy.

I like how you use the word "diagnose", giving the connotation of my views being some kind of sickness.

Anyway, when I said that "nothing has meaning", I really meant something along the lines of "nothing has any value". All human values are equally meaningless, hence the selection of them is more or less arbitrary (they have nothing objectively to recommend them over other values). So why not go prior to the "human" and back to the animal? One of the least controversial things that can be said (leaving aside christians or scientologists) is that humans are evolved machines for genetic transmission. Values based on that account of existence would be prior to any socially derived value.

we're just machines for the transmission of our selfish genes — yupamiralda

Wouldn't we be any and everything that we do?

All human values are equally meaningless, hence the selection of them is more or less arbitrary (they have nothing objectively to recommend them over other values). — yupamiralda

If you realize that values are subjective, why would you even look for something objective to recommend them? Isn't that looking in the wrong place in that case?

I'd still describe it as nihilism, at least in regard to the value of products of the human mind, which, in the case of something like "do no harm", are the elevation of a bit of evolutionary prudence (that only applies within "us" anyway, as opposed to "them") to some kind of dogma.

Your tone of blame implies that you think your view is superior to mine.

I'm trying to transcend social cues. The social is clearly derivative from the biological.

Are you really going to try and tell me my DNA "knows" I have siblings? Tsk, tsk.

Wouldn't we be any and everything that we do?

Well, you could certainly subvert this principle with a view such as "I'm not going to have kids because it's selfish".

I'm trying to transcend social cues. The social is clearly derivative from the biological. — yupamiralda

Out of curiosity, would you call mathematics biological - as they're clearly social?

It's impossible to make choices without some rank of values, otherwise why would you prefer one thing to another? The idea that all values are subjective is transitional (Nietzsche viewed it as such); from that point you can go two ways (well, if you have intellectual conscience): schopenhauer or Nietzsche's imperative to find a philosophy that is naturalistic and life-affirming.

I think I see where you're going with this--does math exist "out there"? and hence is it prior to biology?--I'd respond, provisionally, along the lines of "we only know math because of our evolved senses" (does time exist? or is it just a biological perception of existence?)