Anyone who follows reason will come to the conclusion that nihilism is untenable. For the same reasons we cannot prove something has objective value, we cannot disprove it. — Tzeentch
Thinkers like Sam Harris who posit that there is still an ought that relates to the promotion of human flourishing leave me unsatisfied, since this is essentially utilitarianism which I learned long ago ultimately breaks down as comprehensive ethical framework. — dazed
I am wondering if others who have lost their religion have found a path out of this sense of loss and underlying chaos and would care to share. — dazed
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" ~Freddy Nietzsche
"Whether you think consciousness to be a benefit or a horror, this is only what you think—and nothing else ... Nihilism is as dead as god." ~Tom Ligotti
Nothing ultimately matters also includes 'nothing ultimately matters'. ~180 Proof
Nothing ultimately matters also includes 'nothing ultimately matters'. ~180 Proof
I am wondering if others who have lost their religion have found a path out of this sense of loss and underlying chaos and would care to share. — dazed
My brain was set up with judaeo-christrian structure of meaning and purpose. I have lost those structures and have yet to replace them. This has led to a corresponding underlying sadness, since the world was a much more beautiful place when I had a heavenly father who had made me for a clear purpose and who loved me. When I knew that I would see those I loved again in eternal life. Now I am a biological process, a stream of consciousness that will cease to exist once the brain that I am a product of stops working. It all does seem rather hollow in contrast to my prior world view. — dazed
After reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Tolstoy gradually became converted to the ascetic morality upheld in that work as the proper spiritual path for the upper classes: "Do you know what this summer has meant for me? Constant raptures over Schopenhauer and a whole series of spiritual delights which I've never experienced before. ... no student has ever studied so much on his course, and learned so much, as I have this summer"
In Chapter VI of A Confession, Tolstoy quoted the final paragraph of Schopenhauer's work. It explained how the nothingness that results from complete denial of self is only a relative nothingness, and is not to be feared. The novelist was struck by the description of Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu ascetic renunciation as being the path to holiness.
Indeed it's the act of replacing those principles that has evaded me for some 20 years. A simple example: Abortion was clearly wrong when I was a believer because it would be termination of soul embodied human life that was sacred and in clear violation of the ten commandments.
In my current intellectual landscape, there is no clear answer but rather a set of competing arguments about what constitutes human life, when human life can justifiably be terminated, what sorts of obligations does one human owe another?
There are no clear answers in a world of indeterminacy and random chaos. And so I avoid such discussions. — dazed
what feels right for me in any given situation is ultimately linked to patterns of behaviour that arose in the context of a judaeo christrian faith. — dazed
But at a deeper level, there is an underlying chaos of thought that robs me of true engagement in life. My brain was set up with judaeo-christrian structure of meaning and purpose. I have lost those structures and have yet to replace them. This has led to a corresponding underlying sadness, since the world was a much more beautiful place when I had a heavenly father who had made me for a clear purpose and who loved me. When I knew that I would see those I loved again in eternal life. Now I am a biological process, a stream of consciousness that will cease to exist once the brain that I am a product of stops working. It all does seem rather hollow in contrast to my prior world view. — dazed
So my approach to all this is to retreat from the macro. I don't think about it and don't talk about it. I have no opinions on macro questions about what is right or wrong or what "we" should do.
I stick to the micro, I rely on my positive emotions and treat my partner, friends and family with love and care. I do things I enjoy, practice mindfulness. I am overall pretty functional one might say. — dazed
So if the emotive part of your brain gets used to something that is pleasurable, the activity is harder to shake than if your intellectual brain gets a high from something.
Religion seems to be therefore not only a metaphor, but an existent reality in its role as a drug. — god must be atheist
In simple terms you suggest aiming for what I perceive to be the good, despite not having an objectively determination of what the good is. But the issue for me is that the good used to be clear and now ), I simply can't even perceive what the good is on a macro level. (such as the abortion example I discuss above) — dazed
When it comes to tackling questions about reality, pursuing knowledge, we should not take some census or survey of people's beliefs, and either try to figure out how all those beliefs could all be held at once without conflict, or else (because that likely will not be possible) just declare that whatever the majority believes is true. Neither should we rather feed people's perceptions (instead of beliefs) into such a process, nor should we rather declare that some privileged authority's opinions (instead of the majority's) are correct. Instead, we should appeal to everyone's direct sensations or observations, free from any interpretation into perceptions or beliefs yet, and compare and contrast the empirical experiences of different people in different circumstances to come to a common ground on what experiences there are that need satisfying in order for a belief to be true. Then we should devise models, or theories, that purport to satisfy all those experiences, and test them against further experiences, rejecting those that fail to satisfy any of them, and selecting the simplest, most efficient of those that remain as what we tentatively hold to be true. This entire process should be carried out in an organized, collaborative, but intrinsically non-authoritarian academic structure.
When it comes to tackling questions about morality, pursuing justice, we should not take some census or survey of people's intentions, and either try to figure out how all those intentions could all be held at once without conflict, or else (because that likely will not be possible) just declare that whatever the majority intends is good. Neither should we rather feed people's desires (instead of intentions) into such a process, nor should we rather declare that some privileged authority's opinions (instead of the majority's) are correct. Instead, we should appeal to everyone's direct appetites, free from any interpretation into desires or intentions yet, and compare and contrast the hedonic experiences of different people in different circumstances to come to a common ground on what experiences there are that need satisfying in order for an intention to be good. Then we should devise models, or strategies, that purport to satisfy all those experiences, and test them against further experiences, rejecting those that fail to satisfy any of them, and selecting the simplest, most efficient of those that remain as what we tentatively hold to be good. This entire process should be carried out in an organized, collaborative, but intrinsically non-authoritarian political structure. — The Codex Quaerendae: A Note On Ethics
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.