Thoughts - Nihilism

[The Unknown]

I do not know you, you do now know me, what I do is ask questions, what I wish is not answers, but only to create more questions, for the truely wise do not answer, they ask, unless my own wisdom is but a wish.

Every day I change and every minute I stay the same, I am not the same, for always I am different, I do not agree with myself in the last statement, neither do I in the next, but I will let you now glimpse into my mind.

The following is a MSN conversation I have had just some months ago, it is completely raw and unchanged, including typo's and mistells.

--

-Pedro H- siger:
Hi.
[email protected] siger:
Hello
-Pedro H- siger:
How's it been?
[email protected] siger:
Better
-Pedro H- siger:
"Better"?
-Pedro H- siger:
What was wrong beforehand?
[email protected] siger:
Nothing
[email protected] siger:
Its just better
[email protected] siger:
I was thinking of taking a vow of nonviolence and go completely pacifistic...
-Pedro H- siger:
...
-Pedro H- siger:
-_-
[email protected] siger:
Im serious
-Pedro H- siger:
Damn you... now who am I gonna kill stuff with?
[email protected] siger:
Im deadly serious here
-Pedro H- siger:
Hmm... well nonviolence is good but.
-Pedro H- siger:
What if you have to defend yourself? Hmm?
-Pedro H- siger:
Most people who are violent are too ignorant to be affected by words.
-Pedro H- siger:
And, you just contradicted yourself. You're -deadly- serious about taking a vow of -nonviolence- and -pacifism-? Deadly = violence.
-Pedro H- siger:
And, -have- you been violent before?
[email protected] siger:
Im not sinking to their level... And yes, I have, which is why I wont anymore
[email protected] siger:
I cant take it anymore...
[email protected] siger:
There is so much wrong with this world, I dont want to be part of it
-Pedro H- siger:
Hmm? You have, how so?
-Pedro H- siger:
Mmh... I used to say that to myself but, then I faced the truth, if I'm not wrong, I won't last long, at least that's -my- way of thinking. I always thought that human beings are -born- in/with such wrongness.
[email protected] siger:
Yes they are
[email protected] siger:
Humans are basically flawed
[email protected] siger:
Being nonviolent, being peaceful
[email protected] siger:
Is not human
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes, and no.
-Pedro H- siger:
Depends on the point of view of many people, to some, being violent and psychotic, or just simply wrong, is utterly in human, and others think that, being wrong, is being human, and not being wrong, is inhuman, and won't help you last long.
[email protected] siger:
It wont, if I let someone hit me while I dont fight back I will not last long
[email protected] siger:
I dont care anymore
-Pedro H- siger:
You don't care?
[email protected] siger:
It wont break me, if I can only live in this world by creating pain, I will not
-Pedro H- siger:
About your life, about your survival, about anything?
-Pedro H- siger:
Creating pain, makes people strong. Those who endure pain, become stronger. "That which does not kill me, makes me stronger."
[email protected] siger:
I wont hit back
-Pedro H- siger:
And what if you don't manage to endure the pain whoever hits you will create?
[email protected] siger:
I will die
-Pedro H- siger:
And you'll just accept that?
-Pedro H- siger:
You'll accept to fade into nothingness? To go quietly under the night?
-Pedro H- siger:
That's as far away from being human, as you can possibly get.
[email protected] siger:
Simply put, yes
[email protected] siger:
Discipline...
-Pedro H- siger:
Discipline, is not as same as being foolish, no offense meant, is actually, the oposite of it.
-Pedro H- siger:
By the way, sorry if I take a little while to respond, I'm a little sick here.
[email protected] siger:
Yes, but discipline, if I can live to that, if I can live being inhuman, and accept not creating more pain when hit with it, I dont care about mortal life anymore
-Pedro H- siger:
Why not?
-Pedro H- siger:
You yourself said that life is meaningless, and if it truly is so, then, after we're gone, there must be nothing for us, nothing at all, not even a void, -nothing-. And this would be the only time we'd have to enjoy life, to... well... you get the point. And, you'd... let it go, just like that?
[email protected] siger:
Yes
[email protected] siger:
Emptiness is enlightenment
-Pedro H- siger:
And what will be worth that enlightenment.... if you won't be able to use it, won't be able to pass it on to anyone, hell, won't even be conscious of said enlightenment because there is -nothing- in emptiness, not even your consciousness?
[email protected] siger:
Exactly
[email protected] siger:
So what does it matter?
-Pedro H- siger:
Perhaps whatever happens, whatever you do in life, won't matter in the long run. Yes, that saying "What we do in life, echoes in eternity." is just plain stupid, it won't matter. But, it will all end, so right -now-, it matters, because you will never get a chance at it again.
-Pedro H- siger:
You'll eventually live with regret.
[email protected] siger:
Of course I will
[email protected] siger:
It dosnt matter
-Pedro H- siger:
Heh
-Pedro H- siger:
You say that now.
-Pedro H- siger:
But let us see if you will still think the same after heck-knows how many ears of living with regret as your only companion.
[email protected] siger:
Of course I will say something else
[email protected] siger:
It dosnt matter
[email protected] siger:
Only few years later, it wont matter
-Pedro H- siger:
So what matters, nothing, nothing at all? Feelings, nothing?
-Pedro H- siger:
Dude, seriously, you should try thinking in different ways. If it were true, that nothing really matters... then we wouldn't even exist.
[email protected] siger:
We dont
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes we do
[email protected] siger:
You say that to yourself
[email protected] siger:
Thats why you think we do
-Pedro H- siger:
Prove that we don't then I will change my mind.
[email protected] siger:
I cant
-Pedro H- siger:
A-ha!
-Pedro H- siger:
See?
[email protected] siger:
Can you proove the opposite?
-Pedro H- siger:
That's because -we do- exist.
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes
-Pedro H- siger:
We feel, we think, we evolve, we love, we hate, we hurt, we create, we destroy, we explore... I could go on the whole day.
-Pedro H- siger:
We -live-, we -die-
-Pedro H- siger:
We reproduce, damnit.
[email protected] siger:
But you cannot proove any of that
[email protected] siger:
All you can proove is, that is what you think is going on
-Pedro H- siger:
Heh, I can't prove?
-Pedro H- siger:
Yeah right, then how do you explain you and me, right now, you sitting in your PC, right next to your bed, and me, sitting in front of my PC, we both are talking, thinking, heck pondering on the meaning of life.
[email protected] siger:
We arent
-Pedro H- siger:
Prove that we aren't.
[email protected] siger:
Prove that we are
-Pedro H- siger:
Hmm
-Pedro H- siger:
Alright, do you believe in spirits, demons, devils, all that so-called "other world" the "afterlife"?
[email protected] siger:
No
-Pedro H- siger:
Then perhaps that is the way to prove it to yourself, that we either do, or don't exist.
[email protected] siger:
I dont believe in this life neither...
-Pedro H- siger:
Find a way to contact all that stuff, it is possible, if you actually manage, then you've been proved wrong, that we do exist. If you don't manage to, then we don't.
[email protected] siger:
How can I?
[email protected] siger:
I dont even know how to contact this stuff
-Pedro H- siger:
Neither do I, but I know its possible, trust me. Believe it or not, my aunt believes that.... she's -not- screwed up in the head, but she once tried to make me believe that stuff... and try to do that stuff.
-Pedro H- siger:
I've seen her do it.
-Pedro H- siger:
Its possible, now -how- to do it... that i don't know.
-Pedro H- siger:
Another thing...
-Pedro H- siger:
Perhaps I shouldn't ask this one....
-Pedro H- siger:
Meh nevermind that last line. If you think that we don't exist, then... why? Why continue? Why be a pacifist? Why think about swearing that pacifism vow?
[email protected] siger:
For those who still believe
-Pedro H- siger:
You just sounded like you cared about life, about non-violence, about everything nthat exists around you. Now you don't care anymore?
[email protected] siger:
Heheh...
-Pedro H- siger:
Well?
-Pedro H- siger:
Hah... sounds like I got you.
[email protected] siger:
My mind is chaos... I dont believe in anything, but I believe in everything...

My way of thinking and seeing the world is never the same Pedro -.-
[email protected] siger:
Thats also why im not the same person as yesterday
-Pedro H- siger:
So I see.
-Pedro H- siger:
And to think that I sometimes think that my mind's chaotic.
-Pedro H- siger:
"Thats also why im not the same person as yesterday" Regarding that.... well... neither am I, no-one is the same person they were yesterday... but if I elaborated on why I tihnk that then I'd go into some half-scientific explanation
[email protected] siger:
Every second we die and every second we are born again
[email protected] siger:
Even a moment of silence changes us
[email protected] siger:
We are not the same, our memory, our personality is different
-Pedro H- siger:
Die, yes... born again? How so?
[email protected] siger:
Are you the same person as you were just a second ago as you read this?
[email protected] siger:
Even if the word has changed nothing, or even if it hasnt even changed your memory, you are now one second older
-Pedro H- siger:
Possibly, depends on what sense.
-Pedro H- siger:
Physical, biological? I'm not the same person I was a milisecond ago.
-Pedro H- siger:
In thought? Mind? I'm the same.
[email protected] siger:
So you can honestly say, the thought you have in your head now, is the same as a milisecond ago?
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes, and no.
-Pedro H- siger:
My main thought, is someone I'm thinking of, been thinking the whole day. But beneath that "main thought" there are countless others that I tihnk and stop thinking.
[email protected] siger:
So the main thought stay the same for you, dosnt change?
[email protected] siger:
How... Very... Interesting...
[email protected] siger:
My soul, my mind.... It is all liquid.. There is nothing constant there...
-Pedro H- siger:
Volatile, like quicksilver, huh?
-Pedro H- siger:
Not volatile, sorry... but changing.
[email protected] siger:
Yes
[email protected] siger:
Its like a buddhist school of thought, everything about you is liquid, the mind, the body, and the soul
[email protected] siger:
Nothing is constant, at all...
[email protected] siger:
What you see dosnt exist when you dont observe it...
-Pedro H- siger:
And when you do observe it?
[email protected] siger:
It exists, but only because you see it.. It dosnt REALLY exist, but the image exists, and the sensation of it being there exists...
[email protected] siger:
When you close your eyes, the sensation of it being there still exists, its texture still exist if you touch it, but the image does not-Pedro H- siger:
So it -does- exist when you don't observe it, unlike what you said.
-Pedro H- siger:
You just don't -see- it
[email protected] siger:
No, its the other way around
[email protected] siger:
It DOSNT exist when you observe it, but the sensation of it existing does
[email protected] siger:
Here is a green stick...

The green stick dosnt exist...

A picture, and a feeling of the stick, and of that it is green, exists
[email protected] siger:
But the stick itself, does not
[email protected] siger:
And once the feeling and picture is gone, it dosnt exist
-Pedro H- siger:
So
-Pedro H- siger:
The color exists,
-Pedro H- siger:
But the object, doesn't?
[email protected] siger:
The colour dosnt exist, your eyes reaction to believe they are seeing it does...
[email protected] siger:
Its like, what do you feel when you walk into a church?
[email protected] siger:
Well?
-Pedro H- siger:
Hmm
-Pedro H- siger:
Nothing, nothing at all. Most people say they feel happiness when they walk into a church, or come out of a mission or something. I don't feel diddly squat
-Pedro H- siger:
Sure, I feel the ground, the cold stone etc etc etc... but nothing else.
[email protected] siger:
What about walking into your own home?
-Pedro H- siger:
Hmm
-Pedro H- siger:
That too, nothing.
[email protected] siger:
Funny, you are possibly closer to understand this than any other people...
-Pedro H- siger:
Really?
-Pedro H- siger:
How so?
-Pedro H- siger:
I don't feel a thing, becauseI never stopped to think of it.
[email protected] siger:
When you look at "The wall"... That wall does nothing to you, the wall dosnt do so that you see it, it is you, who do it to yourself, you think you see the wall
-Pedro H- siger:
So it is entirely unrelated to his living self, to his life.
-Pedro H- siger:
Just to something he clings to.
[email protected] siger:
Yes
[email protected] siger:
So is what you see, and what you expirence
[email protected] siger:
All can be changed if you see it differently
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes, and no.
-Pedro H- siger:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
-Pedro H- siger:
The wall is still the same, nothing changes, not even a single damn brick changes.
-Pedro H- siger:
People see different things, but that does not change what the thing they see is.
[email protected] siger:
Or do they?
[email protected] siger:
The thing dosnt exist
-Pedro H- siger:
In truth?
[email protected] siger:
Only what you see
-Pedro H- siger:
They think they do.
-Pedro H- siger:
But they only see, and feel what others want them to.
[email protected] siger:
You can never prove that the thing really exist, all you can prove is that YOU can see it
-Pedro H- siger:
E-heh...
[email protected] siger:
If others can see it to, you can never know if its the same thing
-Pedro H- siger:
If it didn't exist, then it wouldn't provoke such vastly different feelings in each person.
-Pedro H- siger:
They wouldn't feel a thing, just as I do, or rather, don't.
[email protected] siger:
Why wouldnt it?
[email protected] siger:
I told you, the feeling and the fact that it IS there exist, but it ISNT there
[email protected] siger:
Only the picture and feel of it
-Pedro H- siger:
Yes
[email protected] siger:
THe bed dosnt exist, the softness of the bed and the picture of a bed exists to you
-Pedro H- siger:
But the picture and feeling can't exist on their own, they are part of each other, and of something bigger, through which the picture, -and- the feelings are sent to whoever is near, if that bigger self didn't exist, then neither the picture, nor the feeling wouldn't exist to us, because they would never arrive to us.
-Pedro H- siger:
The wall, in this case, is the "bigger thing" that exist, through wich the feelings, and the picture, is sent.
-Pedro H- siger:
Perhaps the reality might be that its nothing more than a wooden stick in the middle of nowhere, but we see, and feel it, as if it were a church
[email protected] siger:
No its not.... It dosnt HAVE to be, you keep telling yourself, holding unto the belief that these things exist, and the only reason they do exist is because you NEED them to exist, you cant possibly think of a world where they dont
[email protected] siger:
Thats why you are so sure that they exist, thats why you defend it
-Pedro H- siger:
ACtually
-Pedro H- siger:
I did not defended that it exists
-Pedro H- siger:
It might be something, insignificant, that we see as something important to us.
-Pedro H- siger:
this
-Pedro H- siger:
thus*
-Pedro H- siger:
It exists...
-Pedro H- siger:
To us...
[email protected] siger:
Yes you do, actually... You keep telling that these things exist, you keep insisting upon that the wall exists... Even if, it dosnt.. It dosnt, if you are just willing, to one second, believe it does not exist, it dosnt...
[email protected] siger:
Try, try to think it dosnt exist...
-Pedro H- siger:
Are you saying that, if I think the wall doesn't exist, then it truly doesn't exist? Its an illusion?
[email protected] siger:
Yes
[email protected] siger:
But if you keep, insisting it does...
[email protected] siger:
You feed the illusion
-Pedro H- siger:
Ah! But therein lies the complication, how can one hope, to suddenly think, to suddenly believe, that something doesn't exist, when their whole lives, their whole existence, they've been taught that it does? Hmm?
[email protected] siger:
They cant, and thats why mad people get locked away
[email protected] siger:
They have seen the illusion
-Pedro H- siger:
Ah, but what if -we- are also nothing but an illusion? Hmm? That our bodies, minds, our very cells, are an illusion? How can an illusion, hope to break another illusion? And what if we believe that -we- are an illusion?
[email protected] siger:
Now you get it...
[email protected] siger:
The Illusion exists.. Because...
[email protected] siger:
We are illusions, the world we live in is a Illusion...
[email protected] siger:
The illusion feeds the illusion
-Pedro H- siger:
Then what is the truth behind all this illusion?
[email protected] siger:
When you find that, one truth... The one truth, the one thing which is true, without requiring us to exist, without requiring US, to make a meaning to it...
[email protected] siger:
I said it before...
[email protected] siger:
That is the meaning of life, that which exist without us having to make it exist
[email protected] siger:
That which is a illusion, before we make it into one
-Pedro H- siger:
Wish to know the most hopeless part of all this? " without requiring us to exist, without requiring US" We are incapable of even glimpsing at the hope of thinking of anything that does not require us to exist. We are incapable, of thinking of something that doesn't requrie us to exist.
-Pedro H- siger:
So
-Pedro H- siger:
Even though we know that we are nothing but illusions
[email protected] siger:
We depend on those
-Pedro H- siger:
We'll never hope to find the truth behind that illusion
[email protected] siger:
Indeed...
[email protected] siger:
Now you understand it...
[email protected] siger:
Now you understand it all..
-Pedro H- siger:
So why not accept the illusion?
[email protected] siger:
Yes, why not
-Pedro H- siger:
Heh, that leads to another truth.
-Pedro H- siger:
We never changed, you are the same person that you were secodns aog, or rather, the same illusion that you were, nothing changed... you only -think- that it changed.
-Pedro H- siger:
ago*
[email protected] siger:
Of course, but it didnt exist in the first place
[email protected] siger:
Neither did my statement
-Pedro H- siger:
Exactly
[email protected] siger:
Or this log someone is reading currently..
-Pedro H- siger:
That's why you never changed.
-Pedro H- siger:
To say that an illusion exists is completely incorrect, because an illusion is exactly something that does not exist, but we have no way of saying in such manner.
-Pedro H- siger:
What log? Eh?
-Pedro H- siger:
Someone?
[email protected] siger:
This convo is too interesting to just forget
-Pedro H- siger:
Hehehe... ditto.
[email protected] siger:
Thank you for the chat, it has been most enlightening
-Pedro H- siger:
No, thank -you-

--

Looking back I agree little, but saying exactly off why, would take far too long, and I have already taken too much of your time, I was interested to see how exactly you would find this log interesting, and if you have read this far, please do comment.

I do not care off typos or other faults, only viewpoints.

- Edin

[dish]

I wouldn't call it nihilism. It seems to me like a normal philosophical discussion covering metaphysics, epistemology and some ethics.

You've reminded me of Berkeley's empiricism (does the tree still exist when nobody is viewing it?), and Herodotus (you cannot step into the same river twice). I think you've touched on many important philosophical themes, but I must confess that I just skimmed the chat log, because, well...too long.

[Felixaar]

I have only one thing to say.

In soviet russia, WALL LOOKS AT YOU.

Now that I've got that out of the way I have more to talk about. Sounds like your friend is the Brain-In-A-Jar type. I can see where he's coming from but I gotta say, I think he's a total frootloop.

It's a curious idea though, and a good way to start a book. But wouldnt one imagine that if the world as we knew it did not exist, we would be able to wake ourselves from this dream if we had discovered it didnt exist, matrix-style?

Also, couldnt you see or hear or feel (taste, smell) anything you want just because your mind power did it? Do I only get fat from eating cookies because I THINK I will? If I convinced myself that cookies would not make me gain weight, would I get thin again?

Do other people exist, or are they just figments of my imagination or part of the illusion (woman in the red dress)? I can tell you I certainly exist, or atleast, if your friends theory is correct, the part of me that receives sensory applications does, so give a hand raise if you exist.

I've always found this to be inline in my dreams - like, for instance, if I'm dreaming I'm getting chased by zombies and I realize im in a dream, I can infact make bullets fly out of nowhere. Wouldn't it be curious if we could do this in real life?

And, wouldn't it be even more interesting if the bullets wouldn't kill us, because we didnt believe they could?

Also, Pedro H. hee hee.

[ForzaFiori]

i remember hearing something about that school of thought when my sister was taking psychology (i think it was psychology) in college.

essentially, the only thing that you can prove exists and isn't an illusion is your mind (not your body, not your brain, but your mind, or whatever is making the thoughts in you head). The phrase "I think, therefor I am" originated in this idea, as the way to prove your mind is real. But after that, any and everything could, in fact, be an illusion. People have times when they see, hear, feel, taste, or smell things that aren't there, so it's possible that everything is an illusion i suppose. Then again, lots of things are POSSIBLE. in fact, in a universe infinitely large, with time going on for an eternity, EVERY THING is possible.

While this is a pretty cool idea, I tend to not like it. I have a hard enough time dealing with the illusions, and i have 16 years practice with that. I dont wanna make 'em go away, cause then i'd have to get all readjusted again. plus it would be pretty lonely with no one else here.

[The Unknown]

People dont believe the real is a dream, because the real is an illusion we need, like the illusion of needing it is something that must be, for if it isnt, the pattern is broken.

People always dream, sometimes they just dont know it.

Object A lifts object B
Object B holds object A up

Both must exist, and both do exist, if they did not both exist the whole in it would not exist, you cant take one out, since the other will not allow it.

[Illiterate Scribe]

i remember hearing something about that school of thought when my sister was taking psychology (i think it was psychology) in college.

essentially, the only thing that you can prove exists and isn't an illusion is your mind (not your body, not your brain, but your mind, or whatever is making the thoughts in you head). The phrase "I think, therefor I am" originated in this idea, as the way to prove your mind is real. But after that, any and everything could, in fact, be an illusion. People have times when they see, hear, feel, taste, or smell things that aren't there, so it's possible that everything is an illusion i suppose. Then again, lots of things are POSSIBLE. in fact, in a universe infinitely large, with time going on for an eternity, EVERY THING is possible.

While this is a pretty cool idea, I tend to not like it. I have a hard enough time dealing with the illusions, and i have 16 years practice with that. I dont wanna make 'em go away, cause then i'd have to get all readjusted again. plus it would be pretty lonely with no one else here.

Exactly - that's why we go with a philosophical datum; that is, that the world exists, as we perceive it. We've got nothing more than circumstantial evidence keeping us from solipsism, but this highlights a problem with Occam's razor, too; too many of the people who've I've seen go down the path of 'it's all an illusion, nothing's real' have actually made a bit of a leap of faith - to say that 'because we can't prove something, it doesn't exist', is just as much a logical jump as to say that 'because we can't prove something, it does exist'.

[Toastkart]

There are some interesting thought exercises here, but it's mostly moot. Yes, if you want to go by the strictest definition of existence, only the mind exists. The senses can give false data, etc. But that's a rather inoperable definition of existence. If something can be imagined it exists because someone thought it. There may be a distinction between physical and metaphysical existence, but both exist.

There's also a distinction between sensation and perception. Two people looking at a wall get the same sensation, they each have their own perception.

He is right about one thing. There is no inherent meaning. Human beings are, however, meaning-creating creatures, when they want to be. Most of us are too busy being told what to do and what to think to generate our own meaning, but the capability exists.

One final note, nonviolence is about as unnatural an instinct as it gets. Life and death are founded and propelled by violence of some form.

Read some Hume, Pascal, Kant, and James. You've hit on some ideas that they've covered before.

[Illiterate Scribe]

One final note, nonviolence is about as unnatural an instinct as it gets. Life and death are founded and propelled by violence of some form.

An appeal to human nature's not going to cut it with me, I'm afraid.


Read some Hume, Pascal, Kant, and James. You've hit on some ideas that they've covered before.

Descartes, as well.

[Telonius]

Occam's Razor (all else being equal, the simpler solution is the better one) is a very useful tool, but sometimes it's pushed past its usefulness. It becomes more useful the more information we have about something. The biggest problem with it is: how do we know when we have enough information about something to use the razor? When do we stop doubting?

[averagejoe]

While the thought leads to some interesting things, I've never actually heard of any good reason to believe it to be true. You can have an infinite illusory regression; illusions within illusions witin illusions, and so on. Heck, the only reason I can even consider the possibility of reality being an illusion is because some guy told me it is, and for all I know he could have been lying, just to screw with me.

The thing about illusions is that they're still real, just not in the way we think they are. When a magician cuts a lady in half it's an illusion. She isn't really cut in half. However, he still saws through a box, and splits the box apart, with the lady tucked in one half and fake legs tucked in the other. There is nothing about such an action that is inconsistant with what we know to be real; the thing that makes it an illusion is merely the presentation, the way he shows it to us and performs the act. Even if the world is an illusion, it's still here, it's still real. There must be some medium through which the illusion can be performed. The trick is to take a look at it from the right angle.

[Moxie]

Brings me back the the "Door is only a rectangle... in your mind." Conversation a while back.

I'm a pacifist. You know how I do it? I don't pick fights. I don't run away, either. I actually haven't gotten into a fight recently because I swore pacifism. A great man once said that if an enemy strikes your left cheek, turn him your right so he may strike it as well.

And what if I die? I won't care. I'll be dead. I'll have more things to worry about here, or if there is nothing beyond here, then I won't exist to worry. Pain, as pleasure, is only fleeting. And you'll go back to feeling numb in no time.

Reality is but perception, but tell me, thinking a rose doesn't exist doesn't make it smell any less sweet, and in the end, it's all about playing the game of reality, or breaking the game of reality.

I'm all for playing it.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, personally, I think that a lot of philosophical discussion suffers from a lack of clear definitions of terms. Here's a fun little exercise:

Can you define the word "exist" without using synonyms or near-synonyms like "existent", "real", "actual", "true", etc.? And if you have to use or more of those words, can you define them without using synonyms? You can keep on going for as long as you like, building up a list, with each entry containing the definition of a word used to define another word nearer to the top of the list. But when you define a word, don't use any word higher up on the list in its definition. Because if you do, you just wind up defining the first word in terms of itself, but indirectly. And a series of statements that reduces to "Something exists if it exists" doesn't become meaningful no matter how convoluted you make it, now does it?

Extra Credit Question: Having explored the issue related above, do you feel that the word "exist" actually means anything, any more than the word "fibblebibbleblobbergurgle"? If so, what is the distinction between something that exists and something that doesn't exist? In other words, what do all existent things have in common that all nonexistent things lack? Hopefully I have made it clear that explaining that all existent things are real is like explaining that all fibblebibbleblobbergurgle things are snikkittysnikittyboing.

[Paragon Badger]

Oh god.

*shivers*

I just had some terrible flashbacks of the the final episodes of Evangellion.

Ughhhh.

Time to smash my head against my desk in an effort to forget that atrocity (and by proxy, this thread. :smalltongue: )

To put it simply and brutally honest, Existential philosophy is a waste of time and energy. You basically come to one conclusion, 'We can only be sure that our consciousness exists, and our environment could very well be an elaborate illusion.' and then that SHOULD be the end of the discussion. But it's not usually that way, philosophers go about in circles basically 'describing' how they cannot prove or disprove this idea, and you get nowhere.

I say, yeah, we can't prove our environment is real. It doesn't change anything. Even if we knew our environment was all a figment of our imagination, it still woulden't change anything.

There is a dark, spiny, inhabitable place in my heart for Emerson and Thoreau. :smalltongue: Mainly because I was forced to sit through hours of that pseudo-intellectualism in English Literature.

(And Ayn Rand in World Literature! BLARGH!)

[Raiser Blade]

If you say a wall doesn't exist....

It still does.

It's pretty simple actually... :smalltongue:

[Eita]

This conversation has been... Fascinating...

Now then, on to business.

If we are but an illusion, then logically, one must assume that there is something viewing this illusion, something deceived by the universe itself. Of course, one could make the argument that the illusion fools the illusion, but that is circular logic and would only give you endless repetition.

[averagejoe]

Oh god.

*shivers*

I just had some terrible flashbacks of the the final episodes of Evangellion.

I don't think that's quite the same thing. I thought that was about how life is an illusion, and we're all really made of jell-o. :smalltongue:

[Eita]

Did you watch End of Evangelion?

They were obviously made of Tang.

[Gitman00]

Well, personally, I think that a lot of philosophical discussion suffers from a lack of clear definitions of terms. Here's a fun little exercise:

Can you define the word "exist" without using synonyms or near-synonyms like "existent", "real", "actual", "true", etc.? And if you have to use or more of those words, can you define them without using synonyms? You can keep on going for as long as you like, building up a list, with each entry containing the definition of a word used to define another word nearer to the top of the list. But when you define a word, don't use any word higher up on the list in its definition. Because if you do, you just wind up defining the first word in terms of itself, but indirectly. And a series of statements that reduces to "Something exists if it exists" doesn't become meaningful no matter how convoluted you make it, now does it?

Extra Credit Question: Having explored the issue related above, do you feel that the word "exist" actually means anything, any more than the word "fibblebibbleblobbergurgle"? If so, what is the distinction between something that exists and something that doesn't exist? In other words, what do all existent things have in common that all nonexistent things lack? Hopefully I have made it clear that explaining that all existent things are real is like explaining that all fibblebibbleblobbergurgle things are snikkittysnikittyboing.

Well, a quick search of dictionary.com brings up the following:

–verb (used without object)

1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

The first definition, I think, is what we're talking about. And, as you'll note, it uses the word "actual," which already violates your terms.

My own thoughts about existence are that there must be one being who is self-existent; that is, he/she/it exists apart from our perception. Aristotle's "unmoved mover". In other words, my faith or perception has no power to call this being into existence, and my unbelief or ignorance has no power to destroy it. If this being is (as it must be) omnipotent and omniscient, then all else exists by association. If something must be observed to exist, then everything exists because the omnipotent, omniscient, self-existent being has infinite and perfect knowledge and perception, and therefore continually observes the entirety of the universe.

Personally, I think the problem arises when we try to define something that doesn't exist. If something is not, then, by definition, it has no definition. How's that for irony? Ergo, the only way we can define things that don't exist is by comparing them to things that do, or by giving examples of logical absurdities. (Like, "Omnipotent being X can create a rock too heavy for said being to lift)

[Amotis]

"Are these men gonna hurt us, Walter?"

"No, these men are cowards, Donny."

[averagejoe]

"Are these men gonna hurt us, Walter?"

"No, these men are cowards, Donny."

Okay. So we take ze money you haf on you, und ve calls it eefen.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Personally, I think Nihilism is complete and utter garbage. But, as for why I think this, I can't go into the specifics, since it would be getting into banned topics on the boards. If anyone is curious/wants to discuss it, PM me.

[Cyclone231]

I only skimmed, it was tl;dr.

But this:

[email protected] siger:
You can never prove that the thing really exist, all you can prove is that YOU can see it
Is a bunch of irrationalistic nonsense. The idea of "prove" is a rather complex one which relies upon a few key concepts:

• First and foremost, the existence of objective truths.
• Secondly, the perceivability of these objective truths (for example, being able to see the objective truth of a wall relies on the wall reflecting light, stopping your hand from moving, making noises when you touch it, et cetera)
• Thirdly, the similarity in perception of these objective truths (if I see a wall, and you will also see a wall, barring hallucinogenics or the crazy)
• Fourthly, the existence of a system with which to identify these objective truths by a name identifying their qualities (the word "wall" is a descriptor of the various qualities of a wall; an opaque solid covering of a room perpendicular to the floor which cannot be moved without a lot of effort).
• Fifthly, the ability of another human to recognize the names and associate them with similar concepts.

edinsumar rejects number 3, the similarity in perception of objective reality, which means that the entire concept of "prove" becomes meaningless. He might even reject number 1, I didn't read the whole thing and the distinction between "no one can perceive objective reality" and "objective reality doesn't exist" is rather small.

Further, the rejection of similarity in perception means that language becomes functionally useless, as I cannot ensure that you are actually hearing what I am saying. Fundamentally, with this rejection of perceptibility of objective reality, if you say anything you're just talking to yourself.

With this major disconnect in the perception of reality, a simple but key truth exists: any honest attempt to communicate ideas to another human is a stolen concept fallacy, as your model of reality does not actually allow for the communication of ideas with another human.

[Gitman00]

^ Well done.

[Trog]

Trog's Thoughts:

For a thread about nihilism that first post is EXCEPTIONALLY too long. Should have been more like:

Nihilism: Meh.

[Grey Paladin]

Prove Logic exists without relaying upon it.

You can't? well then, you cannot prove anything, following Decartes's analytical approach, nothing exists.

Except, that you exist, you know that you exist because you cannot know without existing, this sentence defies the above logic (which, by the way, doesn't exists) yet is clearly true.

You cannot discuss something without using some axioms.

Secondly: The wall exists, but may not exist as you feel or perceive it, you could be a brain in a jar and it would still exist, if only as electricity.

With that said, your friend's philosophy is not Nihilism.

[Cyclone231]

Prove Logic exists without relaying upon it.

You can't? well then, you cannot prove anything, following Decartes's analytical approach, nothing exists.Define "prove" in a way that doesn't involve logic.

You can't? Well then you just discovered that you were using the Stolen Concept fallacy (http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html). The concept of "prove" relies upon the prior concept of "logic," not the other way around.


Except, that you exist, you know that you exist because you cannot know without existing, this sentence defies the above logic (which, by the way, doesn't exists) yet is clearly true.Blah blah babble blah blah Stolen Concept.


Secondly: The wall exists, but may not exist as you feel or perceive it, you could be a brain in a jar and it would still exist, if only as electricity.Occam's Razor. Equation x = Q, where Q is inscrutable, is not the best equation. What traits would exist if we were all just some pot-smoking brains in jars? Is there any way to prove that we are all brains in jars? Is there any sort of difference in the perception of reality if we're all brains in jars?

[Grey Paladin]

Cyclone: You cannot define "prove" in a way that doesn't involves logic, thats the whole point - you must relay on an axiom, the irrationality of a irrational system cannot be proven from within its limits, only when you observe a system from the outside can you be sure of its nature.

[GuesssWho]

This is closer to solipsism, isn't it?

[Cyclone231]

Cyclone: You cannot define "prove" in a way that doesn't involves logic, thats the whole pointAnd you can't define "orphan" in a way that doesn't involve "parent." So what?


- you must relay on an axiom, the irrationality of a irrational system cannot be proven from within its limits, only when you observe a system from the outside can you be completely sure of its nature.Burden of proof. The amount of evidence that logic does work to describe macroscale reality is huge, and the amount of evidence that it doesn't is nonexistent (at least to my knowledge. If you have some data...?).

This is closer to solipsism, isn't it?I think it's cognitive relativism, which is related to the whole build of irrationalism that also creates solipsism, but it isn't the same.

[Grey Paladin]

Cyclone: By its very definition, this "theory" fails when asked for a proof because it states that nothing can be proven, an irrational system can seem rational, yet you cannot prove anything from within an irrational system.

Mind you, I fully believe logic exists and that we (most likely) live in a rational system, I've simply presented this "theory" to point out how absurd the claim that nothing exists is.

[Cyclone231]

Cyclone: By its very definition, this "theory" fails when asked for a proof because it states that nothing can be proven, an irrational system can seem rational, yet you cannot prove anything from within an irrational system.
Sure, okay.


Mind you, I fully believe logic exists and that we (most likely) live in a rational system, I've simply presented this "theory" to point out how absurd the claim that nothing exists is.Wait, you were just messing with me? You don't actually follow the system?

Sigh.

[Moxie]

No, that's Solipsism, right there. Perception != Reality, then how can we prove Reality exists if we can't rely on perception? We can't. Now that means that you can believe reality exists. But since beliefs only serve to cloud judgment that otherwise would remain unbiased, we cannot have that, can we?

So, without credible observations or beliefs, how does reality exist? Hehehe, there's as much credible evidence of reality existing as we perceive it as there are aliens.

[Cyclone231]

No, that's Solipsism, right there.Solipsism is: only I exist. Cognitive relativism is: the way reality works varies from person to person.


Perception != Reality, then how can we prove Reality exists if we can't rely on perception? We can't. Now that means that you can believe reality exists. But since beliefs only serve to cloud judgment that otherwise would remain unbiased, we cannot have that, can we?If you could offer some evidence that supports an alternative point of view? Or an alternative point of view?

But of course, you can't. You're just rejecting the classical equation for reality (R = abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, and a whole lot more - that reality is a very large and complex entity) for a new one (R = unknown), which is completely unworkable and therefore useless.

So, without credible observations or beliefs, how does reality exist? Hehehe, there's as much credible evidence of reality existing as we perceive it as there are aliens.That's wrong, there are differences. Most importantly, aliens are undefined: what kind of aliens? Sapient, or not sapient? Social or solitary? Humanoid or bizarrely shaped? Quadrupeds? Tripods? Octopods?

Whereas reality is clearly defined concept with all sorts of qualities and more qualities being discovered fairly constantly, but no clear inconsistencies.

[EvilElitest]

This seems more like defeatism than nihilism

Also what wrongness are we born with? We have thumbs, you can't go wrong
from
EE