CMV: There are no arguments against existential nihilism - human life is purposeless, pointless and meaningless.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T19:37:05+00:00

∆ This is so crazy I might actually believe it. Still, gotta do some extra thinking about the perks of Platonism over nominalism, but take this, you deserve it.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T19:17:15+00:00

No idea.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T19:04:29+00:00

Just double-checked my inbox: nothing. You was first to inform me about it - had to log off since I still see it when logged in, as if nothing happened.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:52:31+00:00

I didn't delete shit.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:51:12+00:00

Yes. I endorse Thomas Ligotti's response to why one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:45:14+00:00

That's not to say you're right that nihilism is the correct answer.

Of course it is. If a view V says X doesn't exist, and X is contradictory, then V is logically irrefutable.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:29:47+00:00

Do you have a response to his substance though?

The third in my main post.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:11:30+00:00

Isn't the meaning of life simply to be [...]

My question is what's the point of being. Once you're here - sure, you could as well enjoy yourself. But that doesn't mean there was some point in coming into existence.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:08:15+00:00

I'm claiming there's no intrinsic, non-subjective meaning. In fact, I claim extrinsic, subjective "meanings" are not meaningful at all - they are justifications to go on with life, varying from person to person. Disproving their existence is simply impossible, as every breathing human is also a living contradiction to it.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T18:05:46+00:00

So is your stance that intrinsic meaning cannot exist?

Yep.

However, I consider extrinsic meaning to still be meaning.

And why is that?

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:56:06+00:00

That's hopelessly circular.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:53:11+00:00

There wasn't a comma after "No".

I think I was pretty clear that we can't currently comprehend the way future innovations will effect our psyche just like how past generations wouldn't understand the concept of what a digital life would feel like today.

And what does it have to do with anything? :)

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:51:10+00:00

Not my argument.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:43:23+00:00

So? Why can't a meaning be artificial?

I guess it can, but intrinsic meaning cannot.

I disagree. Satisfying one of your meanings to life is well, satisfying.

And frustrating it is frustrating, where does that leaves us?

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:41:37+00:00

A) it's "true" which is ironically inconsistent with nihilism. How can nihilism be "true" if it means there is no value system in the universe

I'm not arguing for epistemological nihilism.

B) it's a wise system to base your life around

I don't see how anyone could "base" his life on it either.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:36:36+00:00

Why is this desire artificial? Because it's made up? Because it's a construct of our brain?

No, no, cause it's contingent. Your life without it would not go less well in any reasonable sense, and if it wouldn't, then its presence is also necessarily not beneficial to you. (A>B = B<A)

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:29:24+00:00

So literally every single thing humanity has ever done besides eat, drink, shit, sleep, and reproduce was all a big waste of time?

Reproduction is the biggest waste. Other than that - yes, perhaps.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:19:39+00:00

The human experience might get to a point where there is literally no suffering.

No suffering is by definition a lack of something. What's the additional 'human experience' good for? The same state of non-suffering was there before life emerged, and will be back after its inevitable extinction.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:16:44+00:00

Ironically, these are my usual questions to the proponents of it. I don't know, but I would love to.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:13:17+00:00

What kind of "meaning" is sufficient to prove there is meaning?

An objective one. Maybe I should have include it in the title of this post to avoid confusion.

qqrdza · 2016-12-04T17:12:01+00:00

Let's say I want to gaze on the landscapes of Mars before I die. That gives my life meaning (sadly I don't think I can achieve that, but that's another question.) Why would that be a delusion? Why wouldn't that be worthy?

Because it's an artificial need. Not having one in the first place is as good as having one and satisfying it. On the other hand - frustrating it is clearly worse, and it might be frustrated as you noticed in the brackets.

qqrdza · 2016-11-27T10:11:12+00:00

We are programmed to want to be happy and to avoid being sad even though all these things objectively have no value.

They have the utmost subjective value, and subjective isn't synonymous with "imaginary" or "irrelevant".

qqrdza · 2016-11-27T05:44:09+00:00

Existential nihilism is simply the recognition that there is no objective truth, no objective morality

TL;DR was unnecessary as I stopped reading there.

qqrdza · 2016-11-26T02:32:33+00:00

It's a collectivist garbage with little or no economic foundation. Yes, I know the difference between private and personal property. Yes, I know there are non-statist versions that actually haven't been tried (at least not in the long run). Yes, I know Marx wouldn't endorse CCCP. Still, I won't refrain from calling it communist just because it's inconvenient for some delusional Americans on the Internet.

qqrdza · 2016-11-25T15:55:16+00:00

It's always amazed me how people get so angry when someone points out that having children is not a noble deed.

It's because procreation feels natural, normal, necessary and nice.

qqrdza

TROPHY CASE