It seems the source of nihilism is the end of life, which is inevitable death, rather than life now, which is suffering and not being perfect.

Because even if it is hard now, people can try to make it better for the future. That is hope and potential to be good and meaningful.

But no matter how successful one is, having a fantastic perfect life right now, it will not be forever. It will not last. He / she is getting older every day, heading towards old age and inevitable death. All the billionaires will leave the billions behind, all the powerful figures in politics and nations will have to come down from the throne, all the celebrities with fame, beauty and mega money will fade into old age, and all have to die one day. That is why life is viewed as tragic, therefore nihilism is realism.

Unless they can fully explain, replicate, transfer the workings of the full intelligence and consciousness from one being to another and demonstrate, it would be a difficult theory to convince the most.

Explanations and demonstrations on more complicated human mental activities such as emotions (worries, fears, jealousy, anger, happiness, love, care, desires..... etc), intuitions and creativity and reasonings and doubting with any type of physical or biological constructions and mechanisms look not easy, if not impossible task to achieve.

Demonstrating some light detections and simple perceptive phenomenon via the workings of the particles, molecules and electromagnetic forces is as much meaningful attempt as saying when you open the blind on the window, it will pass the sun light into the room.

For instance, if you wrote "Nonsense, babytalk" then you must back up that utterance with clear and solid logical argument, why you came to that conclusion which drove you to make the utterance.
Not doing so, will leave the others to embark on their psychological investigation and analysis on the utterance, and come up with any judgment they think might be the case. Not a good position the utterer to be in. Same with the silence or all category of emotion ridden no factual statements. If that is what the utterer, poster or silencer intended, then fair enough.

Honestly, doing things like reading the poems of Arthur Rimbaud, but, I would imagine that there is a kind of joie de vivre that I could actualize upon. — thewonder

Sure. I like the Rimbaud poems. They are mostly surreal, dark and nihilistic, but the vocabulary and atmosphere it creates is deep and rich. Problem with pleasure from life is that they can run out of steam, and take us back to the entrance to nihilism. And still time will keep dragging all of us to the dark reality of the future, where death is waiting.

Buddhism tells us the best way is, to detach every good thing in life. Desert everything, and just have a rag around the body, and beg to survive meditating and praying. Then life becomes so simple, banal and painful, death will feel like rescue from this world of suffering, taking us into some nirvana world. Understandable logic to some degree, but not for everyone, and definitely not for me.

What would be your ways of revolting against death?

When the posters suddenly change the subject in the middle of discussing on the points or topics, or make emotional or unclear statements or utterances with jokes, cliches or rhetoric or proverbs, they are then subjected to psychological or psychoanalytic readings on their intentions, presuppositions or  mental states, which might work for or against the discussions and the poster.  If they were all under the agreement on their points and emotionally aware of the situation under the engagement, it will be positive, but otherwise it is likely to go negative in reaching the constructive conclusions from the discussions.

  Because usually statements or utterances like that do not carry relevant succinct or logical meanings, and do not present useful communicational messages to the other parties.  Even silence can be interpreted as symbolism for either accepting the other posters suggestions or conclusions, or just abandoning the discussion with no comments or disgust.  It all depends on the contextual stream of the discourses.

Yet there is but one reality. So are these statements in conflict? Is there a trick of language? What's going on? — bert1

I think it is not one reality. Reality is on its own in a closed box of the owner's mind only free in its own imagination and thoughts like the monads of Leibniz, and there are billions and billions of different realities. When the owner of the mind dies, the reality of the owner dies too, evaporates into nothing.

"I" is for the sayer who means the sayer itself, no one else.

What is the casual story that resulted in you being corvus and not Cheshire? — bert1

I was born as "Corvus", and Cheshire was born as "Cheshire".   It is not a very meaningful answer, because it is a causal explanation of the origin of individuals in physical existence.
As I said, if I were asked to explain any further than that, as soon as I try to come up with my answers, it will spiral into either religious mysticism, metaphysics or shamanistic stories, which might be meaningful to me, but not to you.

"why" questions can only be asked meaningfully in the situations where answers come from either one's psychological state or motivation or physical cause of the changes of matters.

When asked why did you do it, why did you say it or why did you go there, the meaningful answers are based on one's psychological motivation, feelings or dispositions. Because I just wanted, because I didn't understand, because I was to meet her in the cafe etc.

For the examples of "why" questions for the causality of matters could be, "Why does it go faster, when the accelerator is pressed down?" Because more fuel is entering the engine chamber, resulting in faster and more gas explosion. Why does it make sound when the button is pressed? Because it is connected to the speaker, and when the current and voltage flows to it, the cones inside the speaker vibrates etc.

Anything pertaining to metaphysical or ontological questions such as why were you born, why are you you, why am I I,  this type of WHY questions cannot yield meaningful answers.

If you desperately want the explanation based on psychoanalysis, it is an attempt to hide the ignorance with crude juvenile proverbs.

Yep. One person's turd is another coprophagic's lunch. — 180 Proof

That sounds like a babytalk.

I reject the expression. Not really relevant.

like babytalk and jabberwocky, glossolalia and pseudo-science — 180 Proof

Pseudo-science is a fully established formal concept in Philosophy of Science.

Nonsense to you could be meaningful statements, proposition or belief to others.

Looks like a really interesting video. Only watched first 8 minutes, but sounds inspiring. I am always interested in some new or different view point on the subject or topics. Will bookmark and watch the whole lot either tonight or this weekend. Thanks for sharing. :up:

I believe in God … I used to be atheist then went through personal experiences which left me in awe …simple as that. I do not try to convert though …each to their own — Deus

Sure. Religious faith is a personal system arrived by personal intuition, insights and beliefs. No logic to prove anything is required.

True statement can happen anywhere. Superman can say 1+1=2 and even though he doesn't exist that statement is still true. — hope

Statements need verification to be true.
Existence is the precondition for thoughts and actions.
No existence, then no thoughts and no actions.

It’s only been four days since.......

The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing,
— Mww — Mww

Thanks for reconfirmation. It sounds new and fresh concepts no matter how many times I go over them :D

.....the thing-in-itself can never conform to the mind; that is precisely what it cannot do. If it did, or if it could, the entire Kantian transcendental treatise drops headlong into the metaphysical crapper. It may stand in such relation in other doctrines, but not in this one. — Mww

Does God belong to the thing-in-itself in Kant? Maybe yes maybe not. What type of objects actually are classed / regarded as the thing-in-itself? Or is the thing-in-itself supposed to be a concept of its own?

I'm inside your solipsism. — hope

My solipsism informs that your statement is not true. Because for a statement to be true, it must have happened in reality. It has not happened in reality, therefore it is false.

“Look down on me and you see a fool, look up at me and you see a god. Look straight at me and you see yourself.” — hope

I looked down, and saw my feet.
I looked up, and saw the ceiling.
I looked straight at you, and there was a computer screen.
Where are you?

see. Maybe then you have to look up the word confusion. Well, I'll make it easier: "Uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required", "a situation of panic or disorder, the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something", "a situation of panic or disorder" (Ofxord LEXICO). Did I "look" I was in any of these states? :gasp: :worry: :yikes: — Alkis Piskas

Well, the lesson is that sentences also carry emotions, not just meanings. What was radiating from the OP was a sense of confusion and panic. I stepped in to rescue you, as anyone would for the person drowning into the river of philosophy of language limited and shadowed by presence of the unfathomable universe.

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. If I was confused about something, this was with your overall response. Which is evident, since ended with questions ...
And I didn't get "brighter" with your new response.
It's not a big deal, though. Let's pass over it, shall we? — Alkis Piskas

Well the OP sounded like the author was in deep confusion. Because you were talking about - the world is limited and the infants don't have their worlds because of the linguistic deprivation. And you were also wondering how you can use the computers even without knowing the linguistic abilities to describe the workings of it ... etc.  It sounded a bit dramatic.  I thought you were thinking as if the language is limited, so the world is limited, and the childrens cannot have their worlds etc.
I simply said, that the world is not affected at all, no matter how limited your languages are, even if you don't have language.
Well, I didn't reply to you to make you any brighter. I don't believe that anyone can make anyone anything. You make your own self whatever you want to be.   No one said it was a big deal. See, you making out something which is not, and making out which is not, to something. It is just communication, which has been initiated by you, if you think it over. I couldn't quite understand what you meant, when you asked if I agreed with you, and I was just clarifying the whole situation, in case you were misunderstanding something further.

Sure. Great points. Thanks. :fire: :up:

I thought about it, and this is what I feel.
If you say, the origin of knowledge is the sensory organs, then it would be like saying, the origin of photographic images are the lens of cameras, which may sounds not wrong, but not meaningful either.
The photographic images are the copy the objects in the external world, and the external world's objects are the origin of the images sounds correct.

And if you say, the external world does not exist, because without the sensory organs we cannot perceive anything or all we get is just illusion, then you are a sceptic. If you say, the external world do exist regardless of the sensory organs and all the illusions we get, then you are a realist. But in both occasions, you are an empiricist.

completely. I also think that is a pretty beautiful way of thinking. — javi2541997

and Philosophy is the coolest subject in the universe. :)

There might be afterlife, who knows? When we philosophise and read many books, and make us wiser, we might be back to the earth with wiser minds, newly born bodies but without any memory of the previous lives. Sure, this idea is from pure insight and faith, but there is no proof to say, it is wrong. Therefore it is true. :D

Not at all. Empiricism is a claim about the source of knowledge as primarily sensory (as distinct from say, first principles a la Descartes). It does not necessarily entail the existence of a 'material world'. Only that, whatever there 'is' - ideal or otherwise - we come to know it though the experience of our senses. It is about the relation between a knowing being, and that which is to be known, and not the relata themselves. In the SEP for example:

The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Empi — StreetlightX

Great point.

I used to think in terms of, how can sense experience ever happen without the material world? It will be just empty space we will be facing and staring. Shouldn't empiricism suppose the existence of the external world, and base it as the source of the all sensory data? But you are right on the points. I will read the link article, and mull it over. Thanks.

I take empirical idealism to mean that we are only acquainted with the private data of our own minds. — darthbarracuda

Empirical idealism, to me, sounds like a contradictory concept. Empirical means from out in the material world, and idealism means from within mind. But maybe that is what Kant wanted to say. Perception requires the both, i.e. data from the external world which enters the mind of the perceiver.

Another contradiction in the CPR seems, the concept of space. Space is normally regarded as part of the external world, but in Kant, space is a priori schema in mind. It is presupposed for all perception of the objects in the material world. NKS says that space is being added when perception occurs. How can there be two types of space? One in the material world and one in the mind of perception, although they are different kinds. Could we not just say, there is just one type of space, and it is the one in the material world?

Death is a total cease of the being and being as an existence in this world, which includes the being's conception, perception and all the mental activities for good. Without the mental activity, it would be illogical to suggest that the being can conceive anything.

This I think says it all. We admire reason and logic and try to live up to them as standards, but they don't capture everything. I would say not just faith and religion, but life is not ultimately reasonable. Which is why I find a lot of contention over fine points of logic to be frustrating, especially when there are clearly extra-logical factors involved. — Pantagruel

Logic can be a little help at times, but its capability is limited for dealing with the real world and life problems in logical manner.

Perhaps and phenomenologically speaking, it could be the reason why Phenomenology has been born.

Because I am god. So I know of my existence directly the same way you know of yours.

:strong: — hope

I got a funny feeling that I might had seen you before. :chin:

If the brain in the vat was given the faculty of reasoning, then it will keep doubting about itself. Sooner or later, it will find out, that something is not right. It might say "I perceive, therefore I am connected."

Thank you Corvus for your repsonse. — Alkis Piskas

You are very welcome.

Right. So, should I then conclude that you generally agree with my position? Or have I missed something that supports Wittgenstein's position, namely, that language does indeed limit our world? — Alkis Piskas

In the OP, I was under the impression that you were in deep confusion with the understanding of Wittgenstein's quotes and his philosophical points with his sayings regarding the limitation of the world and language.  Hence I explained in detail what I think about the quotes and its meanings in my post.

I was expecting your reply whether you agreed with my points or not.  Of course I agree with me.

"My world" is small or large depending on what I do in the actual world, how many things I know about life, the actual world and the universe, how many things I have experienced and I am experiencing in my life. And then I can also add the following to "my world": my sufferings, my losses, my feelings in general, my consciousness, my ideas, my intelligence, my skills and abilities, ... All those are part of my world and are dependent only in part on my language. — Alkis Piskas

It is not about the ontology of the world, but the whole point is Wittgenstein's ideas about the relation of language to the world.

Think on that a bit. I've bolded the problematic word. In what way is the real world outside of language? Tell me about something which cannot be put into words. — Banno

That is not physically or materially "outside". It means "not possibly described by". Or over the limitation of linguistically describable.

Yeah, it does.

But yeah, lies to children. — Banno

Could you elaborate on that please?

Now, you may ask why I gave such an importance and started a discussion on that statement-quote, namely "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". Well, it's not the only one! There are a lot of statements-quotes by prominent philosophers that have been disputed over time. I leave them for some other discussion! :)

For the moment I would really like to hear your opinion on all this ... Thank you. — Alkis Piskas

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" does not mean that he denies the existence of the real world outside of the linguistic world. It just means that outside of the proper linguistic world, there are many metaphysical objects such as afterlife, God, free will, infinities ... etc, in which clear and meaningful linguistic communication is not possible due to the limitation of language.

They are, in Wittgenstein, a senseless world. It does not mean it is a useless or illusory world, or non existing world. They are senseless in the sense that logical and clear communication is not easy, if not impossible. They are a senseless world but they rightly exist, and are an important part of the universe.

So, that explains the situation with babies with little or no linguistic capabilities. Their world does exist quite rightly so. They will see and hear and perceive what we do. But due to their limitation of language, they cannot communicate with the grownups in business or engineering skills level, that is all. Their world does exist.

For using computers and driving cars without linguistic knowledge, it is because the computer programmers and motor engineers have designed those devices to be used without any detailed knowledge on how they work. But you still must know how to use the computer i.e. power it on, and login and start your apps or internet browsers to work it. And cars, you must know how to start it with you key or fob, and check the petrol level, and how to put into 1st gear, the next gears and move forward and steer into the direction you want drive safely - you know the skills how to do these things, as you know how to make yourself coffees and drink and make your meals, and how to use your washing machine to do washings etc. These are skills that have nothing / very little to do with linguistic capabilities unless you are writing instruction booklets for them.

There have been some materialists in the ancient times, but they were just a few individuals scattered here and there, and in the pre socratic times. It is not that they were the materialists who denounced minds and souls, but when they were asking what the universe is made of, the materials were what they were seeing and touching. In that regard they were not the diehard materialists as such, but rather pseudo or scientific materialists.

The main domineering philosophical school was the idealism headed by Plato and his followers.

Great info and the links. Thanks. :fire: :up: