Freedomain Radio

I was going to post this as a response to a thread, but as I wrote it I realised that it no longer fit the discussion.  What follows is my stance on Nihilism.

If there is no objective meaning to life, (objective as in existing external to conscious, mind created values), that is called nihilsm.  Nihilism is not a belief, it either is, or it is not.  The condition of the universe is either that there is an objective meaning to life or that there is none.  Nihilism is like gravity.  I arrived at the conclusion through observation and reason just as I hold gravity to be a condition of the universe. 

I recognise that the universe is nihilistic in the strict definition:  Without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.  The only thing capable of giving meaning, purpose and value to the universe is consciousness, particularly intelligent consciousness.  As consciousness is subjective, all meaning, purpose and values it gives to the universe are subjective.  Therefore, the condition is still nihilism.  The universe does not have meaning on its own.  I give it meaning.  You give it meaning.  But that meaning is subjective whether it is private or shared.

Just because I recognise that man is mortal, and there is no afterlife, does that mean I say: "Well then why bother to learn anything.  Why bother to love people, in the end they will die.  Why continue eating?  I'll just die anyway.  Why try to live as long and healthily as possible in hopes of seeing medicine make man immortal?  I'll most likely die before it.  Why even bother getting out of bed today.  I could be hit by a bus tomorrow and it would have all been for nothing."?  No.  Even though the chances of me dying are almost exactly 100%, I choose to value the time before that happens.  This is important, because some argue that mortality gives life meaning.  I argue that it does not, further, that it jeopardises the meaning we give it.

I would like to correct the idea many hold, that property rights or indeed, morality is incompatible with holding that there are no objective morals (what is being reffered to here as moral nihilism).

I recognise that there is no objective morality, and that is that.  But also I realise that if I create my own moral code to the best of my rational ability, I can improve my life experience with others. 

There is no objective code saying that I have to eat meat from animals that have no concept of death, that have lived healthy, good lives and died quickly, without suffering.  But my empathy with other consciousness is such that in order for me to be happy, I must follow this subjective rule I have created for myself.

There is no objective code stating what property rights are and that they must be followed.  I create or hold previously created concepts such as property in order to interact with people in a mutually benificial way.

There is no objective code saying I must not rape, murder or steal.  But my empathy allows me to share to a degree the experience of the victims of these things and share the value not to have them happen.  My rationality allows me to see that I could not function and enjoy society if I did these things.  Likewise if everyone did these things it would be horrible for me.  I create morality, and/or I share it with others, who too have created it.  I behave in the way I wish others to, and encourage them to, that I can be more happy.

I once debated a socialist in a pub in another town.  He had no money left, but he was quite nervous and I wanted him to have a pint so that he'd relax a bit and thus keep the conversation more enjoyable.  I bought him a pint of his choice.  He said he would be unable to repay, I said I knew.  I asked him after he had taken a few swigs if he would be upset if I took his pint back.  He said he would be mildly upset, but in order to remain true to his beliefs, he would not object.  I likewise told him that in order to remain true to my conclusions, I had to insist acting that anything he posessed was his property, (unless aquired without consent) regardless of his lack of belief in property.  I bought him that pint as a gift, it is now his property: I cannot take it back at his expense without violating my code, the violation being called the concept theft.  We were both trying to achieve the same goal:  An enjoyable life in a functioning society, though our means differ.  There is no objective "thing" that said any of that was necessarry.  Nothing that said we had to have that goal, nothing to hold us to our means and rules, nothing to punish any subjective moral transgression on our part.  Only our created values.

I think that there is a fear: that when a moral objectivist looks past man's campfires into the void and sees no guiding light, he wrongfully assumes that his campfires have more power than he gave them.  That ideas, concepts and thoughts have solidity beyond his will and the existence of his mind.  That it is his fire which is eternal, invulnerable, immortal and not the darkness and cold uncaring space beyond.  He forgets that it is his fire.  He forgets that he and it are precious and unique.  He forgets that if he should die, the fire will go out and all will be in darkness as it was before.

Nihilism, moral nihilsm, these are either states of the universe, or they are not.  I truly think they are.  That position does not prohibit me from creating, or sharing the created meanings, purposes, and values, subjective as they are, with other individuals.  I learn.  I eat.  I make and keep friends.  I love.  I look forward to tomorrow.  I need no values or goals other than my own.

But I also have want for company. 

You have my company.

I say that the words "objective meaning", when put together, form an oxymoron. Meaning only applies to symbols, not to existent things. A rock doesn't have to mean anything. A rock is just a rock. What would a rock mean if it meant something? What would it mean for the rock to have innate meaning in itself? I don't think the idea that it could have innate meaning is a comprehensible idea. A rock is just a rock. There's no meaning.

Symbols have meaning, and only, ONLY, to the people who use them to communicate. The meaning of symbols is dependent, then, on the subjects using them. In other words, it's subjective. We note that there are who-knows-how-many hundreds of languages on the planet. If the meaning of symbols is objective, does this mean that there is only 1 objectively correct language? Is that what the concept of objective meaning implies? All other languages are wrong? The universe speaks English and God is an American?

I don't think there's any case for objective meaning (except maybe for the second meaning of the word "meaning", which is related to causality).

@Dustin  This is beautiful man, I couldn't have put it better myself.

kremlin:

You have my company.

I say that the words "objective meaning", when put together, form an oxymoron...

...I don't think there's any case for objective meaning (except maybe for the second meaning of the word "meaning", which is related to causality).

That's great!  And I have to agree.  Things certainly have properties (in fact, there is no distinction between a thing and the sum properties of said thing), but intrinsic/objective meaning?  I have yet to see how it is possible, or as you state comprehensible.

kablamos:

@Dustin  This is beautiful man, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Thank-you, that means a lot to me!

What do you think about the idea that man wants there to be objective morality (e.g. because it makes it easier to live in communities) and self-breeds to conform to common moral code(s)?  People who differ too much from the flock -- particularly if they are perceived to endanger others -- are rehabilitated, ostracized, or killed.  I think we can take the success of religions to demonstrate this desire.  Even the success of states.  It seems UPB is a newer incarnation of this desire. UPB is clearly interested in minimizing violence, but I think we could even see religion as interested in minimizing violence, by using the threat of imaginary hell violence rather than the infliction of real violence (most of the time, anyway) to encourage conformity.

If this is the case, I think merely focusing on the objective vs. subjective question kind of misses the point.  Man largely shares moral codes because we have bred and trained ourselves to do so.  That doesn't make it objective, but I don't think subjective quite captures it, either.

So is it a subjective statement to say that Nihilism is true?  Or would that contradict your entire theory..

Logos:

So is it a subjective statement to say that Nihilism is true?  Or would that contradict your entire theory..

I don't think you've quite understood, Dustin didn't say anything about truth being subjective, that is a matter of opinion.

Annabelle:

What do you think about the idea that man wants there to be objective morality (e.g. because it makes it easier to live in communities) and self-breeds to conform to common moral code(s)?  People who differ too much from the flock -- particularly if they are perceived to endanger others -- are rehabilitated, ostracized, or killed.  I think we can take the success of religions to demonstrate this desire.  Even the success of states.  It seems UPB is a newer incarnation of this desire. UPB is clearly interested in minimizing violence, but I think we could even see religion as interested in minimizing violence, by using the threat of imaginary hell violence rather than the infliction of real violence (most of the time, anyway) to encourage conformity.

If this is the case, I think merely focusing on the objective vs. subjective question kind of misses the point.  Man largely shares moral codes because we have bred and trained ourselves to do so.  That doesn't make it objective, but I don't think subjective quite captures it, either.

This is an interesting idea but I wonder if this belief "we need to force conclusions of morality on people otherwise they will be dangerous" is really true at all or whether it does more harm than good. Kremlin posted something about children not being any more likely to hit their classmates when they were told it was okay to do so. Certainly it isn't proof, but it shows us some evidence. Are more moral cultures more violent than less moral ones? I guess this is a slippery question because it depends on how you are determining a culture's level of morality, but I think it is important to consider.

Well said, Dustin. Great post. Thanks for sharing it.