I would stress ultimate here. A nihilist perhaps reasons (1) that he will die and (2) the human species will become extinct. My personal death argues that all value is temporary. I act now in terms of a finite future, which is to say in terms of hopes and fears that do not extend indefinitely into the future. I may fantasize that I can contribute to science, art, or philosophy for instance in a way that gives me a sort of immortality. I can "crystallize" my personality in some work that will survive me. I "upload" my best self or spiritual fingerprint by adding this work (which hopefully is truly great and maintained in the minds of those who survive me), and I can enjoy this notion while still alive. I can comfort myself that death will not be as absolute as it might otherwise be. But (2) or the eventual extinction the species threatens even this comfort. It seems that even Newton, Shakespeare, and Plato will be erased --will become as if they had never been. From this perspective everything is radically temporary. Nothing is ultimately meaningful. Everything is finally empty or rather emptied or erased. To me this is both terrible and beautiful. This realization (or rather belief/myth) creates a "space" outside of everything finite. Life becomes a vivid dream. The only absolute is the impossibility of any other absolute. — Visit0r

I invite you to consider the absolute of the present moment (that is, the moments of your life). These moments are temporary with respect to passing time, but the moments themselves are permanent. If a thing is well done, or done as well the moment allows, and you know it, that's really all the epitaph that matters, Comparisons are conjectural, memory unreliable, only the moment is real; self reflecting on itself is the ultimate beauty and monument.

But (2) or the eventual extinction the species threatens even this comfort. It seems that even Newton, Shakespeare, and Plato will be erased --will become as if they had never been. From this perspective everything is radically temporary. Nothing is ultimately meaningful. Everything is finally empty or rather emptied or erased. To me this is both terrible and beautiful. This realization (or rather belief/myth) creates a "space" outside of everything finite. Life becomes a vivid dream. The only absolute is the impossibility of any other absolute. — visit0r

I don't hate this formulation, but I think it's a bit cute. It avoids the main issue with verbal sleight of hand. The scope of nihilism, as normally discussed, doesn't deal with things happening billions of years from now. It deals with human lives now and especially human values and institutions.

Nothing in reality is immune from relativism unless you assume the existence of objective reality, which I don't. I think the concept of objective reality can be useful and productive in some situations. On the other hand, it can lead us not to recognize the extent to which human interactions influence our view of truth.

The thought that objective reality does not, might not, or need not exist is not a new or radical one. If its existence is a fixed absolute, then there is no need to continue this conversation. — T Clark

Only a few things are better than talking with one who knows! Just minutes ago I post that I don't really know what reality is, and you know just enough about it to venture out on the ice where I'm afraid you've fallen through. Perhaps you'll say what reality is, and if not, then perhaps you can make clear whether it's reality that falls under relativism, or the things in reality - but how can you do that unless you already know what reality is?

Want to give it a try?

Only a few things are better than talking with one who knows! Just minutes ago I post that I don't really know what reality is, and you know just enough about it to venture out on the ice where I'm afraid you've fallen through. Perhaps you'll say what reality is, and if not, then perhaps you can make clear whether it's reality that falls under relativism, or the things in reality - but how can you do that unless you already know what reality is?

Want to give it a try? — tim wood

First of all "what is reality?" is a question of metaphysics. It doesn't have an answer. It only has different ways of looking at things that are more or less useful. Do I have what I consider useful ways of looking at the question? Yes. There are many other threads on this website which deal with the question. I'm guessing you have participated in at least one. Examining the issue will take forever, go round in circles, and never get resolved.

Facts are claims made with great certitude from a relative perspective. — Rich

Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.

As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts.

Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.

As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts. — Terrapin Station

What do you call statements that describe facts?

I've been going through a bunch of posts which ask what firm base relativists nail their facts to. I have my answer ready, but you've beaten me to the punch. It's consensus. Even if you believe there is some final, definitive, concrete ground of being, e.g. objective reality, which I don't, the only thing we have to work with on a day to day basis is agreement among them what knows. Consensus. — T Clark

I don't know if that's what javra was getting at with me. If so, that's why there was some confusion. Given the way that I use "facts" and that I'm a realist, (the simple version is that) facts aren't things that people do, facts are what the world does.

Propositions.

Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.

As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts. — Terrapin Station

As can be ascertained by my statement, I view facts as a manifestation of inter-human behavior.

What is out there is simply a mass of waves that are constantly in flux. It is the human mind (acting as a reconstructive wave) that manifests some images that we perceive from our individual perspectives.

What's out there and in here are undergoing constant change, the amount of change we are perceiving is dependent upon our internal time clocks, and when there is some agreement (because it is changing slow enough for agreement to take place) people agree to call it a fact.

Propositions. — Terrapin Station

Then what do you call statements that don't describe facts?

Nothing in reality is immune from relativism unless you assume the existence of objective reality, — T Clark

I think there is an objective reality--the subjective part of reality is only a very small part of it--but objective reality is not at all immune from relativism.

Again, by "relativism," I'm not at all implying anything about people.

The same thing would be the case if there were no people, if there was no life.

If one judges a proposition to correctly describe facts, it's a true proposition.

If one judges a proposition to incorrectly describe facts, it's a false proposition.

"Description" doesn't imply "correct."

If one judges a proposition to correctly describe facts, it's a true proposition.

If one judges a proposition to incorrectly describe facts, it's a false proposition. — Terrapin Station

But what about a proposition that actually describes (or doesn't describe) a fact, irrespective of our judgements?

Mind-independently? That's a nonsensical idea.

I'm having that same discussion in another thread at the moment, too.

Mind-independently? That's a nonsensical idea.

I'm having that same discussion in a other thread at the moment, too. — Terrapin Station

But you believe in objective states-of-affairs; of there being facts even in the absence of people. How does this not entail that some statements can describe facts even if judged not to (or vice versa)?

Yeah, definitely. That in no way implies that propositions would objectively, accurately describe facts or not.

I don't understand that at all. If, for example, one of these objective facts is that there are two balls in the bag then the statement "there are two balls in that bag" would actually describe a fact and "there are three balls in that bag" wouldn't actually describe a fact, even if I were to judge otherwise.

It sounds like we have completely different ontologies. If I weren't a realist then yeah, I'd need some other conception of facts. I'm just a garden variety realist though

Objectively, "There are two balls in that bag" is just some pixels activated on a monitor (or mobile device screen or whatever the case may be).

Objectively, "There are two balls in that bag" is just some pixels activated on a monitor (or mobile device screen or whatever the case may be). — Terrapin Station

And "facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts" is just some pixels activated on a monitor.

Notice how this doesn't actually address the issue?

The issue is that objectively there's no "accurately describing" or not of a proposition. It's a matter of an individual judging whether the proposition matches. I had explained that, and you said "what about actually (correctly) describing" as if it would be something different. Descriptions don't match or not match anything mind-independently.

The issue is that objectively there's no "accurately describing" or not of a proposition. It's a matter of an individual judging whether the proposition matches. — Terrapin Station

And that also includes the proposition "there are objective facts that in no way depend on there being humans of persons"?

Of course.

Your position seems contradictory to me.

Well you seem to be conflating propositions and what propositions are about (facts) at this point.

It sounds like we have completely different ontologies. If I weren't a realist then yeah, I'd need some other conception of facts. I'm just a garden variety realist though — Terrapin Station

There is something real out there but whatever it is under constant flux. How we each perceive it is also under constant flux, but something about it may be just consistent enough for a long enough duration that humans may form a consensus to call it a fact. However, this is very much a rarety, which is why so-called facts are in constant dispute.

Facts are useful but unfortunately are subject to constant change.

There is something real out there but whatever it is under constant flux. — Rich

I agree with that. The flux out there is the facts. (Well, keeping it simple again, when I detailed the exception earlier that just caused confused, so I'll keep it simple.)

Well you seem to be conflating propositions and what propositions are about (facts) at this point. — Terrapin Station

No, you are. When I talk about the fact that there are two balls in the bag you respond by saying that the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" is just pixels.

If one of the objective facts is that there are two balls in the bag then the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" actually describes a fact, even if I were to judge otherwise.

No, you are. When I talk about the fact that there are two balls in the bag you respond by saying that the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" is just pixels. — Michael

You specifically asked me about descriptions, right?

What I disagree with is the idea that the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" mind-independently describes anything, correctly or incorrectly.