:up: Indeed. I can't imagine saying that I know there are no gods.

... do you suppose that there might be something primordial, in the sense of an idea and not necessarily temporally, on which purpose is founded and out of which it arises. — tim wood

How might we demonstrate this? My intuition is that the organizing principles organisms employ to survive build purpose and meaning. We seek comfort and sustenance - these are achieved through purposeful goal setting and may eventually becoming culture.

Atheists don’t need “beliefs” in the religious sense. Scientifically, there is no evidence for God (unless you believed eyewitness accounts of miraculous physical events maybe). Without evidence, there is nothing to examine, so nothing to conclude. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude there is no God. — Fire Ologist

Atheists do not always conclude there are no gods. I am an atheist. My position, like that of many other contemporary atheists, is that I have encountered no good reason to believe the proposition that gods exist. I am familiar with the classical arguments but none of them resonate.

I do not believe in gods. This is all it takes to be an atheist. Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist by some evidence in the future, or an as yet to be identified compelling argument remains open.

Interesting. Aust and US are more similar that I would have guessed. I remember having critical thinking taught to me in around 1983. It was also called 'argument analysis'. I found if fairly easy but many students really struggled to follow the concepts.

The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? — tim wood

Isn't purpose contingent on culture and language - an indication of worldviews and values and how we like to privilege our time? I've generally held that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose and that purpose can be found in destruction as much as creation. No doubt there are evolutionary advantages in many forms of purpose (social cohesion, reproduction, survival, wellbeing) and perhaps people often follow a purpose they are not fully convinced of, but undertake that path out of obligation and enculturation. I don't think purpose is necessarily rewarding or worthwhile to the person pursuing it.

Where does it come from? Being human, the act of making sense and having to make choices.

According to ChatGPT - if this is correct - we have this:

Some countries where rote learning has historically been more prevalent include:

China: Traditional Chinese education has often emphasized rote memorization, especially in subjects like mathematics and language.
India: Rote learning has been a significant part of the education system in India, particularly in subjects like mathematics and science.
Japan: Japanese education has traditionally valued memorization and repetition, although recent reforms have aimed to encourage more critical thinking and creativity.
South Korea: Rote learning has been a common method in South Korean education, particularly for preparing for standardized tests.
Singapore: Singapore's education system has historically placed a strong emphasis on rote learning, although there have been efforts in recent years to promote more holistic learning approaches.
Some Middle Eastern countries: In some Middle Eastern countries, rote learning has been prevalent, particularly in religious education and language studies.

And France?

This is somewhat a strawman commentary on a point I never actually made. — Benj96

Ha! No, I'd say it is more a reasonable response to what you asked -

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

But in my nation as with my neighbouring one, the concensus is that rote learning is alive and well in many "big players" of the west. — Benj96

Consensus? Which big players? I wish I had had more rote learning and less discursive lessons. At school, the flaccid discussions bored me, so I paid little attention. Talk is cheap.

I would imagine rote learning has been replaced in many countries - especially those which emphasise conceptual understanding versus facts.

I'd be interested if you had any empirical data on the prevalence of rote learning versus other styles in world education practices.

A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself. — Paine

Could be. Not being a philosopher, I’m mainly interested in behaviour.

That is interesting. Cheers.

Not sure it is a movement as such and I haven't made a survey of this, but it seems to be an emerging view here in some of the posts and orientations of members (and various people I know personally) and you can count thinkers like Canadian academic John Vervaeke, David Bentley Hart, even Jordan Peterson likes to potter about in this space.

I was first conscious of a contra-enlightenment school when sociologist John Carroll wrote a polemical text called Humanism 1993. The argument (and I am simplifying) generally points to the consumerism and toxic relativism of contemporary culture, pins this 'loss of meaning' on enlightenment thinking (death of God) and recommends we return to Aristotle (and, if Christian, Aquinas).

Moreover, it's not so clear what "propaganda" is, either. But we would not want to make this a discussion about the use of "words..." — Banno

1) yes I was going to make the same point and 2) clever bugger.

Keep in mind that the folk hereabouts are not philosophers. — Banno

Thank goodness. Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project?

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

That's for sure. I could even say that one of the most nuanced philosophical thinkers of the 20th century (Heidegger) seemed to find the Nazi narrative acceptable. But that might be gauche.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. For me, the critical thinker is resilient to rhetoric and propaganda, the fact learner is however....not. — Benj96

Is anyone on earth an expert on global education? Who would even know 1% of what takes place in the realm of education on the planet?

Even the term 'critical thinking' is contextualised through interpretations and iterations and is always subject to a criterion of value which is itself contingent.

Too many education systems rely heavily on "fact-spouting" and "rote learning" over "debate/discussion/discourse". — Benj96

Really? Rote learning seems to have been out of favour for decades. There are some
vestigial traces of it left, but education in parts of the West seems to have moved on. Even when I was at school, we did not have to learn dates and facts. They were seen as the product of outmoded Victorian era educational practices.

My daughter's generation (she is 27) were very much given a discussion/debate/discourse model of education. But as I hinted above, different countries do different things.

What we probably need to do is cite specific educational approaches as implemented and then subject them to some evidence based scrutiny rather than just present untheorized opinions on 'education'.

So far, I don't see reason to think so. I think you were just really fortunate not to have had your spirit crushed early on. From what you've said so far, I surmise you can't take credit for being a happy nihilist.

Not to focus on you in particular, but we could use you as a case study in how happy nihilists come about. — baker

I don't take credit for being a cheerful. I don't think we can take full credit for our emotional lives.

Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits.
— Tom Storm
Braggart. — baker

Not really. Most people in Australia seem to apprehend no meaning or purpose outside of their own experiences and appear content with what Joshs calls 'concrete experience'. However if one is afflicted by illness or hardship this may change things.

I've never believed that everything must mean something or that we are part of an absolute purpose, or that there is an ultimate reality humans can understand. There's a hole in reality. We are adrift and we seem to invent stories to help ourselves cope. Some of those tales have a type of magic for a period of time, even centuries, and eventually those stories lose power. Right now we seem to be in a transitional period and are overwhelmed by pluralism. We don't seem to know who should be in charge any more, Some people want to go back to the Greeks, others want more scientistic approaches. Some want to reconcile the two. I'm not an academic, so I'm happy to watch from the sidelines. But I suspect we need fresh world views and models rather than romantic nostalgia projects.

Only if one ties the value of those day to day events with some overarching or absolutist meaning of life, and rejects such an absolute, is one a nihilist about concrete experience. — Joshs

That seems right to me.

Thanks for the nuanced response.

It was more of a "do they practice what they preach" thought than an actual question. — Sir2u

Ok. In that case, no they often don't.

The bible is a collection of life guides that was collected from many ancient cultures. — Sir2u

I particularly appreciate the advice it provides me on how to select and treat my slaves. :wink:

...his insistence on the "solidarity" of our existence, yet not really having this solidarity evidenced in his basic philosophy; just the opposite: truth is made not discovered, he writes in Irony, Contingency and Solidarity. From whence comes this allegiance to reason given that reason itself, as Hume said long ago, has no ethical content, no content at all. Reason as such would just as soon wipe out all humanity without flinching. — Astrophel

I don't have philosophical background but you've concisely summarized a reaction I had to Rorty which I assumed might have been my lack of philosophical sophistication. How do you imagine Rorty might respond to this frame of his ideas? Surely it was put to him as it seems an obvious critique.

I remember hearing a lecture by Rorty (early 2000's) He said something like - 'If life has a meaning it is to make things better for our descendants.' How would he provide justification? I tend to think that Rorty, despite the Irony and anti-metaphysics, was essentially a romantic figure.

When he knew was dying of inoperable cancer he wrote -

...I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. Rather, it is because I would have lived more fully if I had been able to rattle off more old chestnuts — just as I would have if I had made more close friends. Cultures with richer vocabularies are more fully human — farther removed from the beasts — than those with poorer ones; individual men and women are more fully human when their memories are amply stocked with verses.


I wonder if his solidarity is a vestigial trace of Romanticism.

Sounds like a case of this:

It is incredibly easy to control people when you have them afraid. — Scarecow

What always amazes me is the fact that despite so many people writing articles and even books about this topic, there are literally hundreds of them online, so many people live unhappy lives. — Sir2u

Isn't this the self-help Ouroboros in action? The more unhappy people seem to be, the more the market peddles solutions.

I would really like to see some statistics about the writes of these ideas to see if they have achieved what they preach using the ideas they tell others to use. — Sir2u

Well Jordan Peterson, a recent prime example, has become one of the richest, unhappy men on the planet. Not that long ago, he nearly died following a benzo addiction and a nervous breakdown. Alan Watts, an influential early self-help figure and counter culture icon tackled his sorrows with booze rather than the spiritual teachings he was famous for. I remember meeting a rather famous Buddhist teacher here who drank close to a bottle of Johnnie Walker a day and seemed untouched by his own teachings.

I suspect that those who can, do, those who can't, teach. But that doesn't mean what they teach is useless. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that someone who is flawed can't also be a conduit for wisdom.

It is incredibly easy to control people when you have them afraid. Under the rule of Enver Hoxha, citizens were not only afraid of the government, but also of the outside world. — Scarecow

A common enough tool. Consider the West's decades of bombastic Cold War rhetoric and syphoning of funding out of the public sphere into military spending and it's apogee, the Military Industrial Complex. All in the name of freedom.

It seems the best of philosophers have something in common, which is that they saw philosophy as bringing us to that more aesthetic/holistic understanding of reality. Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility. What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not? — schopenhauer1

I have often wondered this myself. I tend to think that aesthetics and emotion are foundational to people's beliefs - explaining the ideas they are drawn to and what characterises their sense making process. Some find the idea of a world of transcendence more beautiful and pleasing. The theme that the world has become disenchanted by unattractive and instrumentalist post enlightenment thinking and scientism seems to bring many people back to classical ideas and a search for harmony and metanarratives.

Can’t disagree with that.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics — Jack Cummins

The issue is that there is no objective basis for morality under religion; it always comes down to personal preferences or interpretation of what gods want. Hence, even within one religion, views on a single given moral problem vary considerably. Personal preference and culture seem to be the source of our ethics.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. I used to associate with a particular group of socialists who were something like the Russian nihilists. They had reached the point where they approved of NOTHING in capitalist society. They were not good socialists, they were bitter old men.

A problem with the term nihilist is that it is absolute and without nuance. It's like "anarchist" in that way -- when used by adolescents it has an extreme, unmodified meaning.

Whether nihilism is a good term or not, carry on with your program of joy. — BC

You raise some good points. I don't want to create the impression that I live in a Panglossian or Disneyesque place of happiness and tap dancing. But most days have some joy in them.

Bitterness, as you describe it so well, is something which corrodes many peoples lives.

From Wiki:

Nihilism (pronounced: /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) refers to sets of beliefs which negate one or more apparently meaningful aspects of Reality. Some are forms of existential nihilism, which argue that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

I think what bugs me most about people's reaction to nihilism (at least as I have understood it) is this idea - 'If you think there no inherent meaning to life then you must be marooned in meaninglessness." This echoes the OP wherein depression and nihilism were connected.

Sure, many depressed people appear nihilistic in the common usage of the word. But more accurately they are likely to be experiencing anhedonia.

I consider myself a nihilist, if by this expression we believe that there is no meaning to human life and no transcendent meaning to reality (whatever that is). I can't be certain, but I recall that this is the conclusion I came to as a boy. It just seemed to fit my sense making process and was not the product of any trauma. Perhaps this makes me an antifoundationalist.

But as a romantic and perhaps an absurdist, a la Camus, I find that meaning is something we make as individuals and as families, or friends or communities. We can't help ourselves. All any of us have is the exercise of personal preferences, which creates our worlds. Even the religious can't escape this process. Their understanding of god's will is also the exercise of individual preferences and interpretations of what they think god is and wants.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. — BC

Yes, it sounds like Monty Python by way of Nietzsche. The Joyous Nihilist.

Thanks Mark,

:up:

This is territory you understand very well. Maybe you can help me tweak my position here. Camus insists on seeing Sisyphus happy. Is this something approaching my position? Am I, perhaps, an absurdist too?

I take nihilism to be a lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose - a lack of transcendent meaning. I will concede however that people view nihilism variously.

Surely this has no bearing upon what I love and enjoy or whether it’s worth getting up in the morning?

There's a difference between Meaning and meaning if you catch my drift. My joy matters to me and some of the folk I know, but it matters not a jot to the universe. It is of no importance.

It’s not intrinsically meaningful.

Are there happy, productive nihilists who bounce out of bed in the morning, glad to be alive, despite the absence of meaning? — BC

it's useful to differentiate the idea of 'feeling meaninglessness' from the phenomenon of believing there is no transcendent meaning (nihilism). The latter doesn't necessitate the former. — Tom Storm

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning. Perhaps it's because I've had practice? I've been a nihilist for close to 50 years. Of course, as meaning making creatures, we can't help but find or make meaning wherever we go. Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits.

Still, I do think nihilism is more merits more respect than anti-natalism, because I do believe that most people have felt periods of meaninglessness, without going all the way to claiming that the whole of life is meaningless. — Manuel

Yes. I often think it's useful to differentiate the idea of 'feeling meaninglessness' from the phenomenon of believing there is no transcendent meaning (nihilism). The latter doesn't necessitate the former.

I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S

I don't see how this is 'not trying to do ethics' when you appear to be trying to develop a foundation for morality. Is 'moral guidance' a separate avenue of study to morality?

You may have spoken to this already, but what are you hoping to achieve with all your threads on morality? Are you hoping to write a manifesto/book which will transform how we conceptualize our moral life?

May Day Eve – my fear today is, however, that MAGA terrorists will try to make the US ungovernable (therefore, acutely vulnerable to national security threats from Russia, China and/or the Middle East) in the weeks and months following, if not before, the ROEvember election. The US military may have to be deployed to impose Martial Law, reminiscent of the 'state of emergency' during the weeks after "9-11" (but worse by an order of magnitude) in order to secure federal, state & local elections and to protect key officials and vital infrastructure. :fire: :mask: — 180 Proof

Interesting you say this. I was wondering if this might be the path events take.

I love Gimps of Putin... :lol:

isn't the reflexive association of 'dogma' with 'transcendence' itself a kind of dogma, or at least a stereotype? — Wayfarer

Could be. But that wasn't my intended point. The idea of being free of dogma and doctrine was a separate point and benefit of nihilism - from my perspective.

It doesn't necessarily manifest in dramatic ways, it might just be a shrug, a whatever, a 'makes no difference'. I — Wayfarer

I can see this argument but I would probably call this apathy which isn't necessarily the byproduct of nihilism, given how many apathetic Christians and Hindus I have known through work.

When I think depression ...I think "what's the point?" or "I have no self worth". For me the philosophical school of thought and the state of mind are very much overlapped. — Benj96

I worked for many years closely with people practicing in the Catholic Church. If you want an example of depressives, try there. Of all the folk I've known, these were amongst the most miserable I've ever seen.

When I think Nihilism ...I think "nothing matters" or "everything is meaningless". — Benj96

I think it you already tend to look at life negatively, this might be your conclusion. For me, as a nihilist, I find the idea that there is no transcendent meaning rather joyous and exciting and one full of possibilities. I am unencumbered by dogma and doctrine and need not concern myself with following any preordained path.

I'm not really sure what subject we are discussing any more. Probably my fault for rambling.

I am skeptical of the notion that people are completely indifferent to the status of their own intellect, such that they can honestly I say things like: "I hope my core beliefs are fundamentally flawed and that I blunder through my life in ignorance. I also sincerely hope that I will never know what will lead me to happiness, but rather I wish to remain ignorant of this. I hope my intellect is profoundly stunted such that I really never understand what is going on around me." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not all people. Many people. And I'm not sure about totally indifferent. Many seem content to wing things spontaneously and not pay too much attention to mistakes or inconsistencies. I am not convinced they have significant notions of the good or even the reasonable, just that which seems to be the right thing to do at the time. I don't think such an approach is more likely to result in unhappiness.

But if we've made ourselves miserable, then we clearly haven't chosen well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not sure about this. Is it a logical necessity that one's beliefs should bring comfort or happiness?

May I ask you a question? If you were to summarise how the average person might best approach a good life (outside of the manifest complexities of formal philosophy) what would you recommend?

You are correct to place McCarthy's ideas in America and the quote was in a discussion of war. Nihilism is a position which can be slipped into easily and it involves attitude as opposed to logical arguments. — Jack Cummins

I've read the novel twice: isn't the point of it an account of Manifest Destiny and the moral nihilism of the war of atrocities against First Nations people in the pursuit of more land and the expansion of settlement?

Again very thoughtful and well articulated. You may be right, however here's what I make of it. Written in haste.

Hence, people say things like "I have ruined my life," or complain that "my life has become meaningless to me." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Perhaps. But it seems to me generally only when things go wrong. If you can lie and cheat and stay on top... regrets are less frequent. Success is often experienced as virtue.

It's also clear that "what is good," is generally not obvious. People often make choices that, upon later analysis, they decide were bad. "If I only knew then what I know now," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is that what is good is often also what is bad. It often depends on how we choose to look at it. But it might be better to consider specific examples.

The nihilist might say, "but there is no Good, so any search is doomed." However, it's hard to see how they can know this from the outset. — Count Timothy von Icarus

For me, a responsible nihilist will say, 'I have yet to see a demonstration for how the good can be identified and I have no reason to think it can be done'. But it should remain an open question. Just as a responsible atheist should probably see no good reason to believe in gods but is open to any evidence or new reasoning.

No one buys a car without any consideration of if it is a "good car." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You haven't met my wife. She buys cars based on the colour. Good is something she can't even conceptualise when it comes to cars.

Think about it this way: people don't knowingly want to believe falsehoods. People are often upset with what the truth reveals itself to be. They might even prefer to not know the details of certain specific truths. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Based on my experience of people, I'm not convinced this is the case. I'm not sure true or false comes into people's process unless pushed.

If Aristotle is correct, and there is an identifiable purpose to human life that can effectively guide us to happiness and flourishing, who would want to remain ignorant of this fact? It seems like everyone would want to know it. But then certain virtues are required for exploring this question effectively. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think Aristotle may not be right about this. I think it's certainly a cultural belief held by many throughout history. We long for meaning and coherence because as sense making creatures this works pragmatically. But it is very loose and tentative and often leads to problems, such as dogma and doctrine.

Likewise, if the Good reduces to personal preference, it is still true that we can make better or worse choices relative to this deflated Good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Well only subject to some criteria of value. Again which one to pick?

But I am not sure how you plausibly explain the development of the natural philosophy into the modern scientific method or mathematical proofs being emotion "all the way down." It doesn't seem like any methodology for solving problems should be any better than any other in this case — all claims about methodology would reduce to emotional preferences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said earlier, pragmatic results are pleasing to us and emotionally satisfying. I do believe that empiricism and experience play a role in modifying chosen methodologies so that what begins as emotion may be continually modified by experience and results. And I didn't intend to argue that people arrive at decision making in a vacuum of emotionality. Obviously we all see had hear stories about things working, or not working (from science to method acting) and chose to participate or not, subject to our affective response. I think this is a very complex interplay of interpretations and concomitant choices.

Isn't the "mustn't" there an ought statement? But wouldn't this just be an expression of emotion? Or something to the effect of "I am fine with people discussing things so long as it is frivolous. But no one can make meaningful decisions about how society works unless their position agrees with my view." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think I'm right to say one mustn't mistake this for absolute truth (but if you insist, we can say 'had better not'). And yes, I believe I arrived at this, like you, based on a complex interplay of emotional reactions and empirical feedback which is reinterpreted again by one's affective response.

I suspect that most of us share a bedrock desire for connection, coherence and comfort. They are probably all elements of the same preverbal or primordial impulse, located in the amygdala. I suspect that we all work towards satiating these feelings through any number of ways, noting results and consequences. But maybe I'm just saying all this because I find it comforting. I live for performative self-refutations.

Maybe, Tom Storm is right to see it as an artistic statement more than anything else and, despite the way McCarthy's book is seen as a literary classic, I wonder to what extent the quote has been looked at as a philosophy statement. If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

I didn't say that was all there is to it. I would probably agree with (and not endorse) McCarthy's statement. But in the context of that baroque ode to violence and moral depravity and America's moral history, the quote takes on additional meaning.

I think people generally interpret morality to suit their worldviews. No one can demonstrate they have access to an objective morality - even the religious folk can do no better than interpret god's will based on personal preferences, which is why even within a single religion views on moral issues are subject to manifold disagreement.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Sure. It's also a standard nihilistic account. A view I held from childhood. Morality is a code of conduct that ususally supports the powerful. But while this is how things transpire in the world, this does not mean that morality is meant to be this way.

But only a very few are born into property, and everyone else has more access to debt than to property. There is no free market and there never has been. — Vera Mont

Indeed. The myth of the level playing field is pervasive.

(Btw, fucking "healthy livers" are overrated, mate.) :smirk: — 180 Proof

:up: Could be. I gave up smoking, then booze and now I'm kind of healthy but bored.... :death: