There is a good metaphysical argument to be made that the concept of "objective reality" is an illusion, a human invention. — T Clark

Hi. I hope you don't mind me jumping in. What do you make of this old problem? How is 'there is no objective reality' meant to be understood if not as a statement about objective reality? Is it a fact that there are no facts but only interpretations? I understand the appeal of the denial in terms of its openmindedness, but I'm not aware of any strong retorts to the issue above.

But what if someone is just a basic deist? They believe that there is a creator of some kind out there, but they make no necessary statements about exactly who, what, how, or why it is, beyond that it exists and does not intervene in the physical world. How can we falsify such a god? This is why I call such a proposition unscientific. — VagabondSpectre

Bingo. I almost made this point myself. It's not that such beliefs are meaningless. They may offer comfort to their purveyors. But they are suspiciously vague. It's hard to imagine a Deism otherwise empty of content offering much comfort. A retreat to such contentless divinity is likely an insincere rhetorical move. A god with no worldly manifestation doesn't seem to offer much. If he doesn't answer prayers, reward the good, punish the wicked, then what's the appeal? Only a philosophical itch is scratched, which is perhaps why I am not aware of such a deism having many adherents.

But that's the thing! The minutia-mongerer doesn't care (or need!) intellectual underpinnings. Their formulas and applications speak for themselves. That is what moves the world. That is actually doing the work. The printing press, not the content in them (unless it's about building things like printing presses). That is the useful stuff! — schopenhauer1

I hear you and I agree. I guess it's only a matter of emphasis or arrogance. A person can politely tolerate or even empathize with those who cling to underpinnings or arrogantly deny the possibility of underpinnings. To deny the underpinnings is to fall back into metaphysics, but it's hard to avoid if one bothers to show up to that kind of party. To me the 'profound' reading of Wittgenstein makes this mistake. 'Metaphysics is metaphysically impossible.' It seems more stylish to sketch the advantages of an alternative and move on.

As a minutia-mongerer in career terms (and for philosophically reasons lately, I'm more impressed by someone who can code up a convnet in C than by someone who wants to preach politics or metaphysics to me. Still, I have this view to some degree because I was various (anti-) philosophers. I also tried on various grand narratives for size and they didn't wear well. 'Let them take it, for there's more enterprise in walking naked.'

The tech people (in this context) are those who make millions selling shovels during a gold rush. Let others dig for Truth. One useful truth is that digging for Truth requires a shovel. Of course shovels are laptops, etc.

The philosophical version is to stop worrying about Truth and learn to make due with truths.

But the pragmatist-scientist would say just kind of have an amused mild laugh and roll their eyes.. — schopenhauer1

I'm currently playing at a milder version of that with my forum persona. Does anyone live entirely without 'blather and nonsense'? I don't think so. But it's possible to be a skeptic in the face of grand claims and stay close to the facts of life and theories that prove themselves practically. There's still some faith involved, faith for instance in that there is not a God who has mischievously hidden himself and that death is real.

At the end of the day, religion doesn't make the human world do anything outside of extremists and/or ways to alleviate boredom with the mundaneness of modern life. Rather, THEY are the ones who are deriving useful equations and concepts from the universe and applying it such that humans can use it to their wants and needs (through avenues of commerce and trade of course!). Look at extremist Islamic terrorism.. For all their talk about going back to the 600s, they use modern technological means to achieve it. Hypocrites to say the least. But that is the way technology dominates human pursuits. It is ready-at-hand, and people will take every opportunity to use it. — schopenhauer1

Good points. But consider that we are here talking this meta-blather and meta-nonsense when we could be reading about convnets. A certain amount of identity-bolstering blather seems to be an important part of a balanced intellectual diet. Some kind of philosophical scaffolding seems necessary. An anti-religion is still a religion, that sort of thing.

Yes but that's what makes these guys superior. I call it "minutia-mongering". Those who not only tolerate, but REVEL in complex mathematical formulas, theories, and applicable functions of physical materials. These are ones doing the superior things. All else is blather and noise. — schopenhauer1

You are presenting a position that is not your own, correct? As I understand it, you are attributing this opinion to an ideological opponent, to mock it. If so, I agree that a few people think like that. I suggest (to be clear) that all else is not blather and noise. Philosophy and religion and literature are indeed valuable pursuits. The scientist does not have the highest status, but merely a high status. I think it's safe to say that religious people value their religion more than science and therefore give their religious authorities a higher status than physicists for instance. It's only a certain kind of a philosopher (something like a positivists or a pragmatist) who wants to dismiss non-science as 'blather and noise.' If the view above was dominant, then wouldn't we elect scientists as leaders? Who do we actually elect as leaders? And what do they say to convince us to do so? Stuff about freedom, equality.... the 'blather' that moves millions after all.

As to the quoted example, well that's just nerding out (which is fine for a nerdy place like this forum.) Because the stuff is hard to learn and generally respected, it's always tempting to drag it out for display. This site seems more or less built for intellectual showoffs. That's why I'm here (to jokingly oversimplify). The game is more about Pepsi versus Coke than water versus soft drinks. If showing off technical knowledge is resented, there's probably some envy involved. One of my philosophy professors (in a surprisingly candid moment) admitted that he wasn't good at math and (in short) envied scientists. And he has a point. Who really thinks a philosophy professor has special access to the truth? Few think scientists have the deep truth, but most agree that they have valuable, reliable truths for practical life. Philosophy in the eyes of many doesn't offer that much, or, when it does, it's not the academic stuff.

The internet, the product, the device, the software, the hardware, and all that surrounds it to make it come about. THAT is what matters. Everything else is just noise. — schopenhauer1

Aren't you forgetting what people use that stuff for? To surf porn, watch Peterson videos, see how Game of Thrones ends, or argue politics? Customized horoscopes, conspiracy theory videos, life hacks, interviews with rappers, funny sermons from John Oliver.

Speaking loosely, science is not the truths that people want. It's the truths that get in the way of what they want. It's the annoying truths that they have to deal with either directly or by paying someone to do so. What they want is poetic theories of everything made of words that guarantee them cosmic justice, an afterlife, the correctness or superiority of their values and politics, a deep explanation of why we're here and not just a description useful for prediction and control. And they also just want to be entertained with a good story, laugh at a good comedian, enjoy a song and dance from a pop star in his or her underwear. What do the kids want to be these days? Many of them are selling their personalities, snowflake romanticism (love it or hate it.) That's far more glamorous than an objective discipline which requires a certain humility and interest in the sub-personal. Is engineering a sexy field? Maybe for the chick with the 'I love nerds' T-shirt. And for the nerds.

The actual DOING and KNOWING fully of what one is doing in hard-to-grasp concepts that are mastered and used to create new technologies or contribute to the research that can then be applied or used for predictive purposes- that is something these people will offer. They will by default win by the de facto nature of the ability to create things which "work", and are governed by principles that cannot be argued due to the fact that they in fact do work as technology. If I wax on about Schopenhauer, and fdrake waxes on about equations of probabilities that actually map to processes of entropy, and he can back this up with equations that "work", his is the superior topic by default.. at least to a cadre of people who may judge what is meaningful. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that most people still value something or other more than technology. In a free society they just choose or find themselves with differing spiritual beliefs/practices while relying on the same physical technologies. Maybe a few people make technology their religion, but they strike me as an eccentric minority who have chosen one version of spirituality among others. Arguments against them seem like one more metaphysical/spiritual issue.

From this perspective, the 'equations that work' are superior in a practical context to religious/philosophical musings. I probably don't care about my electrician's religion or philosophy. That's not what he's selling. Technology has a kind of independence from philosophy and religion that's being neglected here. On the other hand, if you are some other metaphysician tell me exactly what I need to hear to feel at home in the world, I and other consumers/voters might make you rich or elect your president. Maybe we'll even drink poison to catch a ride on a UFO.

Indeed this is very close to what I'm getting at. The de facto nature of being able to DO the hard maths and science that WORKS being deemed as superior and more meaningful in its default nature of de facto WORKING. — schopenhauer1

We are mostly on the same page, but I mentioned other high-status careers in the aesthetic realm to emphasize that technical people aren't alone on the pedestal. Tech efforts just offer a more objective measure of success. Does the machine work? How fast is it? How accurate are its predictions? These things can be established against the bias of those who want the machine to fail. What's challenging in this world is convincing others of what they don't want to hear. As animals with various needs and vulnerabilities, we can't get away with ignoring those who can transform and predict the environment reliably --not for long anyway.

Philosophical types sometimes envy/resent physicists in particular as direct competitors. The 'metaphysicists' would like their TOE made of words to be respected as true. But such theories don't seem to get much work done beyond preventing boredom and increasing self-esteem --from the point of view of those who aren't already convinced. There's a market for this stuff, but there's something for everyone on the shelves. You can have Plato or Crowley or Icke or Buddha or Schopenhauer or Peterson or Wittgenstein or... On other shelves there are machines that work whether you believe they work or not. They promise less but deliver what they promise to all consumers. People still prefer their Plato or Jesus or Trump or Warren to gadgets, but they all meet in their need for the gadgets, which they can then use to broadcast the superiority of their spiritual products on social media.

Nothing matters more than a mathematically derived formula that “works” in predicting a physical event or creating a useful technology. You can put that on a t-shirt! — schopenhauer1

I gotta say: I don't think you'll find many who will put it in those terms. Behind whatever hype is out there is still the old fashioned appreciation for a discipline where fine phrases alone don't cut it. If some are peering into the secrets of the cosmos, others are just building a faster racecar or GPU. Of those I know who chose that path, only one was a true believer. Others thought it was solid way to make a living, given the reliable income and (let's be honest) its respectability.

After all, has the world ever been more crammed with opinion, opinion, opinion? Some 'metaphysically' minded science types may indeed wax poetic, but maybe a taste for facts as opposed to interpretation is more important here. The personality I have in mind and relate to no longer bothers with grand, vague narratives that can be debated endlessly. Why does it all mean? Don't know. Prolly nothin'. Let's build something cool.

Someone who thinks Shakespeare (or any "classics") is great will feel that 4 years of required English class in high school is well justified. My thoughts are that poetry and literature should be reduced to electives with the rest of the arts (just to add, I entirely support teaching or encouraging "art" in school. — ZhouBoTong

I've like many of the classics, personally, but I do have my doubts about forcing them on students, especially when students have to pay for the privilege and the experience is tainted with having to squeeze points out of some teacher. To me there's something gross about using a profound work in a game of grade-chasing. Responses are graded, implying the inferiority of the student's perspective.

Let's say we free up the situation: no grades, just talk. Well anyone can do that already. Unless the professor is charismatic, there won't be any customers. I'm no Jordan Peterson fan, but that's an example of a more honest product, honest in terms of students gathering around someone charismatic willingly and not being randomly assigned to a hit-or-miss piece of the academic machinery. If the student isn't engaged and is just hacking some 'stupid requirement,' the class may even be counter-productive, a turn-off -- especially if the teacher doesn't inspire respect. It's just hard to see what purpose forced and graded literary studies serve other than indoctrination, and some of my classes in the humanities did feel like lengthy sermons, with a little knowledge sprinkled on top at no extra charge.

I have myself sometimes thought or argued that there was no thinking without words, but I had a particular understanding of thought in mind. If (and it's context dependent) we include knowhow within thought, then suddenly most of our thinking is arguably happening without words.

The whole business of reducing Nietzsche to some dichotic game of ‘objectivity’ versus ‘subjectviity’ or the weighing of this or that ‘interpretation’ as ‘true’ versus ‘false’, is to me at least, beside the point — I like sushi

I didn't understand all of your post, but I can relate to this. Nietzsche is a fascinating personality to hang out with. He contains multitudes. If I pick on him for this or that, I'm razzing an old friend for laying it on a little thick. A lonely wolf in his own time, he's almost common sense now. This morning's Don Draper thinks he's the first person to fall in love with his secretary gaze into the abyss. Because it can be an intensely negative and debilitating experience, the new arrival is sure that others can't really be gazing into the void ---for how could they be functioning as if nothing happened? or as if Nothing didn't happen...

For you that cannot think in anything other than words I can still offer up the ‘landscape’ of words, language itself hidden from itself, as a worthy foe to battle with and wrestle some vague notion of meaning from as it twists and turns, shifting shape form and pattern, leaving the narrative of being a living, breathing chaos, the falsely dichotic, dynamic, ever-writhing Dionysus, that is - for want of a better term - the human ‘spirit’. — I like sushi

FWIW, I think it's clear that concept alone is far from being all that matters. Reality is not just words, and performing effectively in it is not just a matter of concepts. Know-how is only partially verbal. Nietzsche and quite a few other philosophers use rhetorical strategies that have a cumulative, emotional effect. The strong philosophers tend to drop killer metaphors, with no exact meaning but plenty of suggestive power. Nietzsche is strong black coffee--disturbing, inspiring, with an effect that is not just propositional.

But when he says, at 98, that even the vaguest sentence has "perfect" order, isn't he saying exactly what you are saying that he is cautioning against? But instead of saying that the perfect order is something we seek with ideal languages such as mathematics and logic, he is saying that perfect order is already right there, in even the vaguest sentence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's the passage in context.

Thought is surrounded by a halo.—Its essence, logic, presents
an order, in fact the a priori order of the world: that is, the order of
possibilities, which must be common to both world and thought.
But this order, it seems, must be utterly simple. It is prior to all
experience, must run through all experience; no empirical cloudiness
or uncertainty can be allowed to affect it——It must rather be of the
purest crystal. But this crystal does not appear as an abstraction;
but as something concrete, indeed, as the most concrete, as it were the
hardest thing there is (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus No. 5.5563).
We are under the illusion that what is peculiar, profound, essential,
in our investigation, resides in its trying to grasp the incomparable
essence of language. That is, the order existing between the concepts
of proposition, word, proof, truth, experience, and so on. This order
is a super-order between—so to speak—super-concepts. Whereas, of
course, if the words "language", "experience", "world", have a use, it
must be as humble a one as that of the words "table", "lamp", "door".

98. On the one hand it is clear that every sentence in our language
'is in order as it is'. That is to say, we are not striving after an ideal,
as if our ordinary vague sentences had not yet got a quite unexceptionable sense, and a perfect language awaited construction by us.—On the
other hand it seems clear that where there is sense there must be perfect
order.——So there must be perfect order even in the vaguest sentence.
99. The sense of a sentence—one would like to say—may, of
course, leave this or that open, but the sentence must nevertheless
have a definite sense. An indefinite sense—that would really not be a
sense at all.—This is like: An indefinite boundary is not really a
boundary at all. Here one thinks perhaps: if I say "I have locked the
man up fast in the room—there is only one door left open"—then I
simply haven't locked him in at all; his being locked in is a sham.
One would be inclined to say here: "You haven't done anything at all".
An enclosure with a hole in it is as good as none.—But is that true?

100. "But still, it isn't a game, if there is some vagueness in the
rules".—But does this prevent its being a game?—"Perhaps you'll call
it a game, but at any rate it certainly isn't a perfect game." This means:
it has impurities, and what I am interested in at present is the pure
article.—But I want to say: we misunderstand the role of the ideal
in our language. That is to say: we too should call it a game, only we
are dazzled by the ideal and therefore fail to see the actual use of the
word "game" clearly. — Wittgenstein

I wouldn't make too much of 'perfect order.' Making too much of that little choice is perhaps to be 'dazzled by the ideal.' If you zoom in on this or that phrase looking for awkwardness, you will indeed find it. I don't see how writing a perfect PI is possible. Anyone who gets the gist could do their own imperfect version. As I see it, it's a fuzzy insight communicated fuzzily. I'd caution against losing the spirit in the letter. Most people don't need the book in the first place. It's aimed at those with a peculiar itch that drives them to talk about their talking when they might be better served by talking about the wide world outside of talk where the less itchy get things done, somehow doing so without a profound theory of language.

Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither
explains nor deduces anything.—Since everything lies open to view
there is nothing to explain. For what is hidden, for example, is of no
interest to us.
One might also give the name "philosophy" to what is possible
before all new discoveries and inventions.
127. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders
for a particular purpose.
128. If one tried to advance theses in philosophy, it would never
be possible to debate them, because everyone would agree to them.
129. The aspects of things that are most important for us are
hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to
notice something—because it is always before one's eyes.) The real
foundations of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact
has at some time struck him.—And this means: we fail to be struck
by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful. — W

For 'philosophy,' I think we can substitute 'what I'm about.' There is an important tension here. On the one hand, nothing is hidden. And yet aspects of important things are hidden after all because of their familiarity. They are too close to our eyes for us to see them clearly. So nothing is hidden...except the fact that nothing is hidden. As an aphorism out of context, it's just mystification. Fortunately the cumulative effect of the reminders and some grasp of who Wittgenstein is trying to be in the text can give that mystification some anti-profound content. To be fair, getting the anti-profound message can feel pretty profound at first. Other good books are the same way. Then it wears off and becomes taken for granted, leaving us perhaps with better habits.

Doesn’t that count for something? Doesn’t the fact that the process to create a microchip being so complex yet some people can construct and engineer one mean something? — schopenhauer1

Well it's cool, no doubt. Depends what you mean by 'mean' here. I mentioned the 'itch' earlier. I kinda sorta know what you mean by mean, but that's maybe because I suffer/enjoy the vague itch.

All the people who can comprehend, analyze, and make new technologies, aren’t they the ones keeping society going? Aren’t the ones who make the very things we use, who can translate scientific principles into complex equations...aren’t they somehow doing the real shit? — schopenhauer1

What they do is impressive. Whether it's the real shit is a matter of opinion. Some of them probably think so. And I respect them and work in that field myself. Is the inventor better than a great actor or doctor or reliable auto mechanic? I don't think so. An actor is as concerned with the details as an engineer. The difference is that success is more ambiguous in the aesthetic realm. Those who are paid well and admired in their own lifetime in the aesthetic realm are probably higher on the hog than a respectable but mediocre engineer. I don't see how it goes any deeper than that, though others might.

What do you think about (81 & 98), old? Is a fuzzy, imprecise, vague concept, which readily gives misunderstanding, just as "perfect" as a precisely defined mathematical concept? if so, how would you understand "perfect" in this context? — Metaphysician Undercover

I read those passages as us being cautioned against projecting some kind of exact, quasi-mathematical meaning 'behind' language. The fact that we can ask Joe to elaborate on his 'feeling shitty' doesn't imply that his feeling-shittiness has some exact nature that we can approximate with arbitrary precision by talking about it long enough. Joe doesn't even know exactly (ideally, perfectly) what he means. He doesn't need to. Maybe he's explaining why he wants or does not want to walk in the park.

As far as your question goes, I'd say that ideal languages like math are better for certain purposes. Still, we have to construct them using vague concepts. For instance, we have a vague sense of what an algorithm is. Various people have defined the concept precisely (in terms of Turing machines, for instance.) But whether Turing machines conform to our intuitive sense of what an algorithm is ...is not a mathematical question. What formal/ideal languages 'mean' in the context of our existence as a whole is not a formal question. In short, our fuzzy language is something like our basic situation. It's what we build everything on, despite its fuzziness. A distaste for this fuzziness encourages the questionable notion that maybe it has some exact skeleton beneath the fuzz that can serve as a foundation for a superscience. Such a superscience would allow us to say exactly what science is or whether a statement is meaninglessness or not, restoring the philosopher to a position above all others. This philosopher would know what others were trying or failing to say better than they do.

I think one of the traits we have in our survival toolset is not wanting to pursue pointless endeavors, yet once we find life as a whole to be ultimately pointless we enter a deep conflict between our will to survive and our will not to pursue life, and that's what bothers us and that we see as absurd. — leo

I think you nailed it. And I thought your post was great from start to finish.

I want to believe there is something more after death, but I can't get myself to believe it without seeing any sign here in my life. And me reacting that way is probably yet another trait in my survival toolset, not to believe in something without seeing evidence first. — leo

That makes sense to me. I also speculate that maybe part of us likes the 'dark' view. As much as it freaks us out and can even drive us to suicide, there's something thrilling about it, like sailing into the storm in a tiny boat alone. At the same time this sailing lonely into the storm that will drown us is universal. I am one more human being coming to terms with absurdity. It provides some comfort some of the time. By giving up on 'infinite' solutions, I can turn my attention to 'finite' solutions. I can play the game of the world well despite knowing that it's ultimately rigged or absurd. This is only a 'finite' comfort, and it's not guaranteed to save anyone. Indeed, no one is saved for long. How's the ride to the void? Did I die in my crib from SIDS? At 16 from drunk driving? At 27 from suicide? At 56 from heart disease? At 88 from prostate cancer? Was it pleasant or unpleasant? Both of course. Mostly one of the other? Perhaps. Did it 'mean anything' if I lived to 88 and dodged SIDS? Well, it meant something to some people for a little while. But that seems to be about the sum of it. Am I glad to have been hurled into the this game? At the moment yes. Occasionally no.

Life is very much different depending on what we believe. I think I could ponder these questions forever and still be as lost in the end. I am really lost, and afraid about a lot of things. I want to live, but I live in fear. When we feel good we don't look for meaning, we've already found it. It is when we stop feeling that absurdity appears and meaning is nowhere to be found. — leo

Ain't that the truth! And I am also full of fear at times. We are sensitive little animals caught in a vast machine. Naturally those absorbed in something fun aren't in the mood to hear it, and they are right! Chances are that they already know and are enjoying being able to forget. The basic 'finite' 'cure' seems to be just getting engrossed in something. Rack up love, prestige, money, etc. These are finite games that make sense to us, the kind we seem to be 'designed' for.

I don't know what it is we are looking for beyond all that, maybe it is just another survival tool, that keeps us living and wondering and reproducing, — leo

I relate here too. It's not clear what we itch for, though the itch is common enough. As others have written, immortality doesn't necessarily solve the problem. We might just itch forever for something beyond eating, love-making, sleeping, our various projects, etc. The itch probably does help us survive by keeping us restless, so that we move from project to project, expanding our skill set and keeping our brain warmed up for the thousand 'finite' tasks that make sense to us.

Nietzsche isn't the only philosopher to put the fact-value distinction into question. Quine, Donald Davidson, Hillary Putnam, Thomas Kuhn and Nelson Goodman are among many who have reached similar conclusions.. — Joshs

Indeed. I'm familiar with some of those above and with others who also question the distinction. I also understand that defending the distinction is likely to come off square or unexposed.

To be objective, one would have to have some set of mind-independent objects to be designated by language or known by science. But can we find any such objects? — Joshs

I'm a little iffy about the first sentence, but I'll respond to this as well as I can. Is the Lincoln Memorial a mind-independent object? How about the moon? What about what you or I ate for breakfast?

Surely we can look at the world from different perspectives, but that 'perspective' metaphor already implies that it's one and the same thing that's being looked at. The notion of interpretation also includes something like fact that is being interpreted. Saying there are no facts but only interpretations is like saying there are no sons/daughters but only fathers.

A point in space seems to be perfectly objective. But how are we to define the points of our everyday world? Points can be taken either as primitive elements, as intersecting lines, as certain triples of intersecting planes, or as certain classes of nesting volumes. — Joshs

For my money, a mathematical example is less than ideal here. If math has an objectivity, I think it's a result of the discourse being normal. I do understand the value in showing the limits or breaking points of various important concepts, but perhaps there's a tendency to dwell on these atypical breaking points and ignore the typical success of the concepts. When you or I watch the news, for instance, do we not almost automatically sort the facts from the spin? And maybe the pizza delivery guy 'made bank' last night. I'd be tempted to ask him how much he made, rounded to the nearest dollar.

I define "power" as basically influence over another's decisions--and it's a matter of degree with each person. I don't think a great deal of rationality is necessary. It doesn't take a lot to have a high degree of worldly influence and independence: ask a gang leader. — yupamiralda

I see your point, and I agree that a person doesn't have to know physics or philosophy, for instance, to rise in the world. I would't limit rationality to things like physics or philosophy though. Perhaps the dominant form of rationality is know-how. To become a gang leader requires interpersonal know-how. For me the 'rational' way to figure out how to get such a position is to observe and question those who already have that position. It seems possible that their account of their success would be less useful than observing them closely. Sometimes we know how without knowing exactly how we know how.

Anyways, look at this example of scientific/technological complexity about how a computer processor is madel — schopenhauer1

Nice.

Does this ability to even comprehend the world in such a rigorously refined and exacting way, analyzing very difficult information in such a way, make life inherently more meaningful? — schopenhauer1

Personally I'd say no. I see no ultra-deep meaning to be had. I like Ecclesiastes. In thousands of years, how much progress has really been made on this issue? We get various 'religions' of progress, moral and scientific and creative. Most of them have their charms, but none of them have the power of belief in a dude who can break all the rules of everyday life at will and hurl us into paradise or torture. I know well enough what you mean by inherent meaning, but I think the concept can be further analyzed. Is 'meaninglessness' experienced with the perception that all things are temporary? That seems like part of it. On the other hand, immortality in a world that was somehow indestructible might not even touch the problem of 'inherent meaning.' It's as if we itch for something that we can't quite specify.

Evidence that we are not just biological machines driven by feelings that have been selected through evolution as a survival aid, evidence that there is a point in spending great efforts in understanding the world other than it being an instance of us being survival machines that attempt to understand so we can predict better and increase our chances of survival, evidence that there is a point in exploring the universe other than it being another instance of us being survival machines attempting to spread as much as we can like an invasive species, evidence that helping others feels good not just because evolution selected it as a trait that made our species survive, evidence that love isn't just another meaningless drive whose only purpose is to make us reproduce and preserve one another, evidence that there is more to existence than just it being one big survival game until we die, that we aren't just puppets controlled by our feelings whose only purpose is to keep us alive until we die. — leo

Wow, I enjoyed that. It's raw and gets right to the point. FWIW, I don't know of any great evidence like that, but I do think that the situation which you describe, even if it's ours, still allows for a more user-friendly interpretation.

If it's true, then what does it mean that we are bothered by it? Wouldn't our desire for something beyond all of that ultimately be some masked version of the same 'will-to-survive' that it finds so offensive as a foundation? Humans do seem to live on the edge in a way that others animals don't. Do elephants contemplate their own mortality and/or absurdity? I know they react to the death of other elephants in ways that humans find impressive.

Anyway, some traditions deny the quoted perspective and others accept something like it and concentrate on doing the little stuff well. I'd like to say that I chose the second, but 'choice' is a strong word. I can't sincerely deny the truth-in-some-sense of what you want evidence against and therefore adapt by trying to get the details right (or righter.)

Could you expand upon this (or anyone else who happens to agree)? I'm genuinely curious. I have no philisophical knowledge of Witty at all. — emancipate

I think the later Wittgenstein is great too, though he may only be especially important for those with a tendency to get lost in form on their way to content. While some perhaps understand him to offer theories about language, I like to understand him as destroying theories about language that get in the way of just using it effectively. These bad theories are destroyed by paying attention to what we actually say and do all the time --comparing the theories to what's actually going on and finding them wanting.
It's maybe not that simple, because some of us really want to be masters of reality without having to get off the couch. While this quote oversimplifies the situation, I like the spirit of it:

The real lesson here is that the concepts we use in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard. Even a concept as dear to us as 'I.' It took me a while to grasp this, but when I did it was fairly sudden, like someone in the nineteenth century grasping evolution and realizing the story of creation they'd been told as a child was all wrong. [2] Outside of math there's a limit to how far you can push words; in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings. Everyday words are inherently imprecise. They work well enough in everyday life that you don't notice. Words seem to work, just as Newtonian physics seems to. But you can always make them break if you push them far enough.

I would say that this has been, unfortunately for philosophy, the central fact of philosophy. Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by "free." Do abstract ideas exist? Depends what you mean by "exist."

Wittgenstein is popularly credited with the idea that most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language. I'm not sure how much credit to give him. I suspect a lot of people realized this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than becoming philosophy professors.. — Graham

http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

I'd personally change 'most philosophical debates' to 'most bad philosophical debates.' It also responds to what you said:

Perhaps it's because I read mostly continental stuff, yet this doesn't seem like a unique vision. — emancipate

Personally I don't think it's a terribly unique vision either. He's just clearing out some cobwebs. Taoism comes to mind. We are mostly on the way without trying to be. Wittgenstein offers some tips and reminders for keeping on the way. Not the righteous or holy or true way, just a somewhat less annoying and more efficient way.

What might offend some in the Graham quote above is the idea that those who reacted 'by simply not studying philosophy' might have had the gist of the later Wittgenstein without having read him or conferred with the professional Wittgenstein scholars. In any case, Wittgenstein is often inflated so that experts are needed to decode his profundities, which is not to say that some of those experts don't enrich a reading of the book, but only that there's a danger in turning a quality anti-guru into a guru all over again. Yet if he wasn't such an interesting personality, he might have just been ignored. Is he some theorist to be debated or ultimately offering koans? Or something else?

Thanks.

They are fair, but not accurate. Nietzsche leads the casual reader to such conclusions, but dig down and Nietzsche is rational but, in his own words, not irrationally rational. — Fooloso4

Good point. FWIW, I've read lots of Nietzsche. He was my favorite for many years. Personally I could never find just one Nietzsche. For me he offered a portrait of a personality in all of its complexity.

I like the phrase 'irrationally rational.' I think there's wisdom in that. I like Nietzsche when he's not so manic that he's no longer funny. I suppose he's also funny when he's manic, but it becomes unclear whether he's still in control. Ecce Homo is quite a ride.

Shakespeare might be performed in London by The Royal Shakespeare Company and attended by the elite. What of it? That’s what they like and pay for it. — Brett

Indeed. And let's not forget the groundlings. If I remember correctly, the elite were snobby about Shakespeare. He was a self-made man, only slightly educated, and his plays were rough as opposed to polished. He was as much pop culture as high culture. The theater was disreputable. It was controversial, sinful, the rock-n-roll of its day perhaps. But wait a few centuries and what was once pop culture is understood as something higher than pop culture.

Even if some students are asked to study one of Shakespeare’s play it’s hardly forcing it down their throats, it’s just an aspect of English studies. — Brett

I agree, and it seems to me that English studies don't have much weight. It is important to choose one's words carefully, as always, but then we have direct access to those who are praised and blamed and the kind of language they are praised and blamed for. Anyone who really cares will read and write in their lives outside of school, in the wild where English really lives.

The fact that there is so much art and so much different art, high and low, suggests that the elites play very little part in art. Sotheby’s might sell painting for millions of dollars, but that has nothing to do with art, elite or not, it’s commerce. Of course there’s nothing to stop the very rich thinking they’re elite, let them, they pay a lot for it and they only influence each other in the end. — Brett

Right. And as I commented on another thread, the dominant art of our time is on Netflix and Spotify. A tiny group of rich people can spend millions of dollars on possessing one-of-a-kind 'magic' items. Conspicuous consumption will perhaps always be with us. On the flipside we'll have poor junkies making extreme noise music in basements and feeling above everything safe and tame. Perhaps one function of art is to serve as an indicator of 'true' and not merely apparent status. At its most intense, art seems like religious iconography, with subjective content substituted for supernatural content. And perhaps the supernatural was a language for subjective experience all along, at least for some or partially.

Fascinating post. That's a good example of the one of the sides of Nietzsche. Is this side really different from the founder of a religion?

Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? — Nietzsche

I recall a line when he described conquerors as artists, imposing a form on the conquered. I found it to be an illuminating metaphor. Accusations of irrationalism seem fair here, though presumably Nietzsche in such a mode would dismiss rationality as some kind of superstition of the weak. Nevertheless, worldly power seems to require technology and the efficient coordination of human effort. In short, I don't see an escape from unromantic forms of rationality for anyone who isn't satisfied with an otherwise impotent self-love. At his strangest, Nietzsche was an autoerotic fireworks display.

Nietzsche is arguing that all fact IS interpretation. Truth is perspectival in nature, and all perspectives are value systems. — Joshs

I agree that he says that, but it seems to be that this has to be taken as an exaggeration or a wicked joke. While writing the line in a particular mood, I suspect that Nietzsche that he was sharing a fact and not just an interpretation. I understand the charm of 'no facts, only interpretations,' but I doubt that we can live or speak without absurdity without such a central distinction.

As I read Nietzsche, he's an intellectually stimulating mess. His work for me is the portrait of a powerful mind at work. It doesn't stick together, though of course it's not unrelated fragments either. Sometimes he's a prophet, sometimes a skeptic, etc.

I think that still comes down to defining good art as ‘ I know what I like’, which doesn’t really help in deciding whether elitists are defining art and therefore owning it and forcing it on us. — Brett

Fair enough. Let's focus on the elite. Do they have much power to control art these days? At one time it may have been important to drop learned references. But now just about everyone can leap into school debt and sit through an English class. 'Shakespeare' is more likely to indicate an out-of-touch pretentiousness than a connection to money and the levers of power. Same with Rembrandt or whomever. It's not that expensive to visit a museum or by a coffee table book. I guess I just don't see much forcing of art on anyone outside of school. Some have complained that art has become too political/ideological in schools. In any case, I don't think it's very potent. A sophisticated cynicism seems to be the rule. Conspiracy theory is the mood of the times. Someone somewhere is pulling the strings from behind a curtain. Plato's Allegory of the Cave, The Matrix, political talk. While some people have more of a tug than others, I'd still wager that the world is just too complex for anything more than influence. After all, where are those who believe what they are told about good art? They are likely to be young people trying to decide on a public persona, which is to say choose a tribe.

I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like. — Terrapin Station

My tastes have definitely broadened, but indeed I do find that only some of what I loved when younger is still enjoyable.

So at some juncture in a person’s life, after certain experiences, a piece of artwork that previously did nothing much for them - or maybe even repulsed them -comes to the fore as they’ve grown emotionally and/or have a more investigative interest in art in general. — I like sushi

Good point. I think the process happens in reverse too. Lots of things I liked when younger are impossible to enjoy now.

We can not (should not) say Shakespeare's work is sophisticated and Jerry Seinfeld's is not. — ZhouBoTong

On a personal level, I think we all have our preferences. Maybe we identify with sophistication or authenticity or some other concept. We'll probably praise the art we like with terms that we'd like applied to us and our kind of people. Am I eager to be understood as serious and intellectual? Or am I charmingly unpretentious? We can mildly signal group membership with the right references. I can mention Last Week Tonight or James Joyce or Harry Potter or Lil' Wayne. Our personal brand is largely a curated blend of references. I'm not complaining, because I think it's an effective and efficient system. If I know your 5 favorite writers or musical artists, that may be more than enough information --though these days I'm more likely to be interested in business relationships and therefore in skills and conscientiousness.

It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

Perhaps 'sophistication' is a better word than 'education' here. Do young people really take the tastes of their professors seriously? Maybe a few. They are forced to pretend to study this or that book as they chase a piece of paper that will help them get a career they want. Free them from that insincere role, however, and they may passionately distinguish between this and that TV show or pop musician --often the art that actually moves them and informs their identity.

Some of the books one studies at school are great IMO and others not so great. Personally I think Seinfeld is more important than Plato for students now. I don't have historical importance in mind, and it's that historical importance (what has moved people) that arguably justifies taking a look at books that are otherwise over-praised. To pick on Plato for a moment, I was recently reading the Apology and found it melodramatic and sentimental. It was a sermon. It was propaganda. But then lots of serious talk is like that. It wants your soul.

I ask the question — why is suicide considered such a bad thing? — Chisholm

Let's remember that some people are hated and even told to kill themselves. Usually this kind of aggression is not in the mouths of the talking heads who largely give us a sense of norms. I will agree that the norm is more or less to speak as if suicide is unfortunate.

When young people are involved, I think the thought is usually that their despair is a kind of illusion. If they are helped through it and discouraged from acting rashly, they may become only mildly miserable like the rest of us (as happy as the rest of us). Also, 'everyone is crazy in their 20s.'

I suspect however that the suicide of older people is quietly viewed differently, at least by some. I occasionally reflect on Hunter S. Thompson.

Thompson's inner circle told the press that he had been depressed and always found February a "gloomy" month, with football season over and the harsh Colorado winter weather. He was also upset over his advancing age and chronic medical problems, including a hip replacement; he would frequently mutter "This kid is getting old." Rolling Stone published what Doug Brinkley described as a suicide note written by Thompson to his wife, titled "Football Season Is Over". It read:

No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your age. Relax — This won't hurt.[48] — Wiki

Personally I think a proud, accomplished old man of sane mind should not be blamed for choosing his moment. We put beloved animals to sleep when we think the quality of their lives has departed. Finally there is something heroic about facing death, actually walking into it, at least when the alternative is becoming a helpless burden or losing one's mind to Alzheimer's, etc. I suspect that my view is common enough. It's perhaps not talked about much.

The notion that science is useful, makes it better in some value or axiological sense. I welcome any ideas relating to that theme. The very use of its products speaks for itself, despite what comes out of the mind. But is there something missing here from its supremacy by pragmatic default? — schopenhauer1

Hi. I think I agree with a point I think you are making. There is nothing 'absolutely' deep about science, IMO. Personally I don't know what existence is all about and I don't think anyone else knows. I live as if there were no 'grand' meaning. This is fine for the most part, but it's not great for the occasional dark mood.

I like Schopenhauer, by the way, especially the essays and aphorisms. Recently I read Schopenhauer and the The Wild Years of Philosophy, which is pretty great. I enjoy various German philosophers who basically tried to make a rational, quasi-atheistic 'religion.' At the same time, none of them quite convince or convert me. So I don't have a system.

What about science makes itself immediately something to be embracing as a topic of focus and reverence? Its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. However, does this create a default meaning? Does this make it better in some way? Does it make those who are immersed in it better as a result? Is there something superior about it, more meaningful, etc.? — schopenhauer1

I think you nailed it with its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. While this doesn't give it an 'absolute' meaning, it's good enough often enough within the life of 'ultimately meaningless' mortals. At least in my opinion. I think we like building better and better mousetraps. Beavers probably like to build dams. Even this conversation seems to me like the attempt to build a better mousetrap.

I was really stirred by that passage when I first read it, and I still think it's valuable. This is the part that seems most important to me at the moment:

They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of ‘inspiration’), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or ‘suggestion,’ which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event.

This idea has appeared in other philosophers, has it not? We don't start from nowhere. We start in the middle of things, already biased and invested. We rationalize. Thinking is wishful.

The gent scholar types want to think that understanding principles of science, and applications in technology provide some inherent meaning. — schopenhauer1

Maybe there are types like that out there. I don't know. In my experience people often learn science and tech because it's fascinating, impressive, and well paid. Many of them are atheists who like dark comedy. They don't know what 'it' is all about and don't pretend to. Others are passionate liberals and seem to find more 'inherent meaning' in politics.

Does the fact that there is a can be useful information derived through mathematical-scientific methodologies make people feel there is meaning inherent in this? — schopenhauer1

For some the 'inherent meaning' just is the 'useful information.' The utility is objective compared to that of art or music. For the most part my opinion isn't valuable to others who already have their own opinion. On the other hand, they might need a tech person to fix their internet so they can share their opinion or design a memory card so they can record their child's first steps on their smartphone.

Is part of the charm of science is distance from the endlessly personal? I think so. Exact, testable knowledge can be created and shared. Relatively unambiguous progress is possible. In the world of Twitter and Facebook, it's nice that there's a realm where wishful thinking comes up against a resistance that filters out much of the delusion, confusion, and ambiguity.

Hi. I'd like to suggest that TV/movies are the dominant forms of art these days, and that just about everyone loves some kind of TV or movie. The demand is great. The product is sometimes great. And, for a few, the profit is great. For consumers the situation is arguably better than ever. For producers however the situation is arguably more difficult than ever. Perhaps I'm the best actor, director, or writer in my town or mid-sized city. I may still be uninteresting to a consumer who takes seeing the very best actors, directors, and writers in the world for granted.

Of course it's possible that I'm ahead of my time, but this is probably the 'unrealistic' fantasy that many critics of the artistic personality have in mind. I'm far more likely to be behind my time than ahead of it, and I am less willing to explore that possibility than the consumer whose money I want. From such a perspective, it's more realistic (safer) to learn a technical skill that is clearly in demand in my pursuit of making a living and achieving status.

I realize you may have had paintings and sculpture foremost in your mind, but I suggest that those are just not the forms of our electronic time.