scalpel

At birth it gains the rights of humans.

@believer258: My own life absolutely has meaning, but it is of course merely subjective. That's the existentialist part of nihilism. The view I discuss here is that I reject claims that there is objective, intrinsic meaning to life based on a lack of evidence and why this is the default position. Subjectivity has no place in the discussion when it comes to making such claims.

@Jeust said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jeust said:

How many times did your sense of logic and rationality failed you in trying to grasp explanations for simple facts?

Perhaps that was a limit of human ability, not of logic itself.

You could say that, still if you consider science itself, past the individual limitations, with all the centuries of discussion by various, multiple and brilliant minds, there are still many questions that elude it, and are object of multiple reformulations. I feel the problem is logic and reason, because as we all know from experience, there is a lot that it doesn't explain even in our daily lifes, and by following logic and reason blindly we are blind to the rest of existence. What about emotion, sensation, feeling, the inner struggles that dull or sharpen our reasoning abiity? I feel that Truth is beyond reason.

Of course there are questions that science cannot yet answer (and may never be able to answer) and of course scientific theories are constantly being reformulated. Improving our current knowledge and thus gaining new knowledge is one of the main principles of the scientific method. To say that logic and reason are somehow a "main problem" I find laughable. How do we follow logic and reason blindly? What other system of gaining knowledge do you propose we pursue? And what is your basis for "truth being beyond reason"?

@nintendoeats said:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH. Well to start with, existentialist nihlism isn't a thing. Existentialism is, in fact, a denial of nihlism. A nihlist believes that nothing matters, an existentialist believes that nothing matters but the self.

Further, placing philosophy below science is problematic, because science IS a philosophical enterprise. A scientist is practically applying a world view that was derived from a branch of philosophy, and proper scientific practice is something that is decided through philosophical means.

Ok, it's not that you are aggresively wrong in any way that matters. The problem is that you are touching on a whole bunch of deeply complicated topics about the nature of knowledge and reason. And I'm far too busy playing Counterstrike to delve into them in detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

Although it may be the case that the umbrella of philosophy does cover science, my point was that science is based on a method that values evidence and dismisses baseless speculation while the philosophy I (perhaps colloquially) refer to in this thread is based on naught but intuition. One of these methods I consider valuable when it comes to finding truth and one I do not.

@believer258:

Allow me to clarify as my 5 am writing was, perhaps, not fantastic (if you'll excuse the excuse).

I think there's confusion between us about who carries the burden of proof. Let us suppose that a person (A) asserts that there is objective meaning to life. Although they may elaborate on this position and provide reasons for why they think there is objective meaning to life, they can go no further because they have no testable or observable evidence. Let us then suppose that a second person (B) analyzes this assertion and comes to the conclusion that because the claimant provided no evidence and did not meet his burden of proof, there is no rational reason to believe it. So far, so good?

Alright. Suppose then, that this person (B) analyzes every single such philosophical assertion they can find and comes to the same conclusion of disbelief. Because they have found no reason to believe any such claim, they conclude that although they cannot know the answer for sure, there is no reason to believe that there is meaning to life. Someone who puts that there is meaning to life but provides no evidence requires belief for his view, as it makes assumptions that it cannot prove, and belief is not a pathway to truth.

Person (B) thus takes an agnostic nihilist view; he does not claim to know the answer, but until there is evidence for the contrary there is no reason to make baseless assumptions. Fantastical claims requires fantastical evidence, and an agnostic nihilist makes no such claims. He is simply taking the default position.

An analogy for this can be found in the American judicial system. You are on trial for a crime. It is a fact that you are either guilty or innocent. However, the jury isn't asked to consider this dichotomy, they are asked to consider the question of guilt. The jurors either vote guilty or not guilty - they do not vote guilty or innocent. This is because they could not possibly know if you actually did or did not commit the crime. They must make a decision based on the evidence at hand. The burden of proof is on the prosecution as they are the ones asserting guilt. If the prosecution does not provide reasonable evidence for their charge, the jury votes not guilty. Some jurors may actually be convinced that you are innocent, but this is not a requirement. The system works this way because of where the burden of proof lies.

Person (B) is the juror who is voting not guilty on the assertion that there is objective meaning to life. You cannot, then, argue that there is meaning to life unless proven otherwise because this is shifting the burden of proof and making an argument from ignorance.

Finally, no, I'm not trying to say that all atheists are nihilists and vice versa. It was simply a point I made about how with the same logic a person should reach the conclusion that there is no reason to believe god-claims until the burden of proof has been met.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

This is bullshit. First you insult some of the greatest minds in history, then you go on to say that if you think there is no point, then it's rational, but if you think there is, then it's insanity. To claim one or the other is to claim to have absolute knowledge not only about life, but death as well.

Elaborate and we can debate because the only part of your post I can decipher is that you're upset that I don't lick the boots of your favorite philosophers.

Hello, Giant Bomb, long timer caller, first time listener here. I'd like to talk about something that interests me. In this thread I will posit and argue why existential nihilism is the default and only reasonable position on the question of life's objective meaning.

As a disclaimer, I don't study philosophy. I use the words "agnostic" and "gnostic" to mean "not claiming to absolutely know" and "claiming to absolutely know" respectively, without any connection to religion. This is not a topic on religion.

As an introduction to my point, allow me to explain something about philosophy.

Philosophical claims will always be nothing more than speculative, intuition-based assertions. Trying to better understand the world without the foundation of empirical rationalism is pointless and only ever leads to unfalsifiable claims--this is why philosophy has never been considered a science. Those who talk about infinities without studying or caring for mathematics; who argue for the reasons of life and morality without ever studying biology or evolutionary psychology; who talk make claims about the reasons for consciousness without ever studying neuroscience--are doomed to making baseless assertions based on flawed intuition.

This brings me to my point: an existentialist or a nihilist who makes no gnostic claims of knowledge is taking the default and rational position. Those who make claims on the meaning of life, regardless of whether these are agnostic or gnostic, are making assertions that carry with them a burden of proof. But as these claims are unprovable and unfalsifiable the rational thing position to take when faced with them is to disbelieve; until fantastic claims come with fantastic evidence there is no reason to believe them. Nihilism also makes the fewest assumptions - it makes no assertions. Now that I've invoked both Hitchens' and Occam's sharp shaving blades, I will continue.

If you agree or can at least concede that disbelief in unprovable claims is a rational person's default position but are wondering why then nihilism isn't a belief, here is your answer: agnostic nihilism is not a belief because it offers nothing to believe in. Someone who doesn't buy the claims that there is objective meaning to life is by definition a nihilist. In this respect (and in others), nihilism is much like atheism, although again, this is not a thread on religion.

I realize a gaming forum may not be the best place to discuss this, but it's the off-topic board so why not. I look forward to any responses!

@iAmJohn said:

I'm sure he plays it up for ratings and Fox standards (as it was well established that Glenn Beck kind of did), but really, you can't say the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth and sell it unironically like he does if you don't actually believe it.

For $20 million a year, I bet you could.

Bill O'Reilly is certainly intelligent. The television demagogue Bill O'Reilly is likely quite different from the off-air Bill O'Reilly. This does nothing to make him less despicable. The character he plays for tens of millions of dollars a year does real harm.

@patrickklepek said:

I removed "Camwhore" from the headline. It's not important. Moving on!

Why? What a genuinely pathetic thing to do.