Beauty and truth are words we use to describe particular things. Discussing the words truth or beauty in isolation, (in themselves so to speak), is usually circular and vague and unrewarding. What is truth? Who knows? Beauty? Ditto. We have a range of theories, epistemologies and/or metaphysical views to choose from.

It is generally more useful to look at a specific example of something - a proposition about the world, say or an artwork, for instance and then ponder whether this is true or not, or beautiful or not respectively. For me, truth and beauty are just words which don't have anything more to them except, associations, traditions and usage. The idea of an 'eternal truth' seems to me to be vague and suggests a remnant of Greek philosophy and not something I accept as useful. I totally reject any intrinsic connection between truth and beauty, that's a bit of old fashioned romanticism right there. But I do think being told the truth at the right time can be a beautiful thing

A few other disadvantages of organized religion could include:

- justification for prejudice
-Justification for bigotry
-justification for violent behaviour

Religion like corporations or governments can often be thuggish, intolerant and appallingly behaved.

[reply="Darkneos;502771" I've always found the idea that 'the only meaning there is is the one we chose to make' to be liberating and an aphrodisiac for living. The practical consequence of nothing matters does not need to be abyss. You can fill the space with a simple question. So what now? Nothing matters is also at the heart of Buddhism (not that I am an adherent).

I'm not aware of anyone saying Camus 'solved' nihilism. Only that his version of existentialism is one potential approach if you are of the view that life is absurd and pointless.

I think nihilism can make a lot of sense, but I have usually found it an empowering and uplifting notion rather than a depressing one. 'Nothing matters' doesn't have to come with a 'how awful' stamp unless you have already made the assumption that transcendent purpose is critical.

Sure, it can be argued that nihilism is circular - as in - if nothing matters than nor does nihilism. But many presuppositions we use in life are circular - eg, logic. You can't use logic to defend the use of logic. Will we now abandon logic?

Not sure I follow this. Can you express this via an example in action even if theoretical.

For me David Lynch often makes mainstream 'surrealist' movies full of self indulgent devices and visual non-sequiturs. I have often found his work to be grating, dull and repetitive stuff. Bombastic student movies are made like this all the time. Lynch's great talent is being a minor player in mainstream cinema despite his uncommercial material. How are you determining that Lynch's movie illusions are more real?