On philosophy and existentialism

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!

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!

Can you give us an example of a contemporary philosopher who you believe posits an objective meaning to life?

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.

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.

I was always under the impression that the term "gnostic" referred to an early offshoot of Christianity.

Anyway, let me attempt to simplify this to myself a bit: You are saying here

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

That someone who claims that there is no meaning to life and claims no proof of that is taking the default and rational position. In other words, they're not sure if there is a meaning to life or not. Right?

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.

And here you're saying that anyone who claims to have evidence that there is no meaning to life is mistaken until proven otherwise, correct?

But then, if that's so, could you not argue the other way, that there is meaning to life unless proven otherwise? You get into a logic loop here and the only actual way out of it is to either provide some proof or step back into the aforementioned "default and rational position", which due to its skepticism doesn't hold much real discussion.

At the end of all this, though, I don't really see what your final conclusion is trying to say. Are you trying to say that all atheists are nihilists and vice versa? If so, it could be argued that the meaning of life is to grow up, contribute to, or produce something for, the human species, mate and bring a new human into this world, and then leave it a more pleasant place than it was before?

On a final note, forgive any stupidity, blunders, or outright mistakes you see (and please, kindly point them out). I'm working on figuring out just what you're trying to say here as well as what I want to say.

EDIT: Also,

@MikeGosot said:

@nintendoeats said:

And I'm far too busy playing Counterstrike to delve into them in detail.

Counter-Strike: The philosophy killer.

I need to go practice my CS, I really suck at that game.

...Yikes.

/leaves thread

You should really look up existentialism and nihilism before you use them so much. Neither of them are really applicable to the conclusion you are trying to reach.

@believer258 said:

@MikeGosot said:

@nintendoeats said:

And I'm far too busy playing Counterstrike to delve into them in detail.

Counter-Strike: The philosophy killer.

I need to go practice my CS, I really suck at that game.

It's not that you suck, it's that everybody who plays it has been doing so for a decade and a half. I'm happy that I can average just below a 1:1 KDR.

@believer258 said:

It could be argued that the meaning of life is to grow up, contribute to, or produce something for, the human species, mate and bring a new human into this world, and then leave it a more pleasant place than it was before?

:|

@Video_Game_King said:

@believer258 said:

It could be argued that the meaning of life is to grow up, contribute to, or produce something for, the human species, mate and bring a new human into this world, and then leave it a more pleasant place than it was before?

:|

Hey, you're the one who insists that visiting your planet is a declaration of war. Why should we care about looking after you?

@nintendoeats:

A.) Visiting my.....

A.1.) The Moon isn't a planet.

A.2.) Visiting my Kingdom isn't a declaration of war, but sticking a flag in it and claiming it as your own certainly is.

B.) His statement essentially boils down life to human life. I'd argue that that means that my life holds no meaning, but Lunarian traditions don't really acknowledge life as having meaning in the first place. And most of my people don't really give two shits about that.

@Video_Game_King said:

@nintendoeats:

A.1.) The Moon isn't a planet.

So wait, if it isn't a planet...then it's a moon...which means that it is a moon of the Earth...which means that your celestial body is subservient to ours...

@nintendoeats:

No, not quite. Natural forces have no bearing on cultural exchanges in this fashion. The cultures themselves would, and given my Kingdom's vast cultural and technological advantages, you would be subservient to us.

@Video_Game_King: And yet, you would still be called Lunarians. If skin colour is a valid basis for racism, then that sure is.

@nintendoeats:

A.) Visiting my.....

A.1.) The Moon isn't a planet.

A.2.) Visiting my Kingdom isn't a declaration of war, but sticking a flag in it and claiming it as your own certainly is.

B.) His statement essentially boils down life to human life. I'd argue that that means that my life holds no meaning, but Lunarian traditions don't really acknowledge life as having meaning in the first place. And most of my people don't really give two shits about that.

@nintendoeats:

And that is your means of proving your superiority? Ignoring that (for it is too easy a target), by appealing to this notion of superiority, do you not further cement your moral (and, therefore, cultural) inferiority? Quite the paradox, I know, but I do hope you understand.

@MikeGosot:

Asura's Wrath is full of shit, at least in that regard.

@Video_Game_King said:

@nintendoeats:

And that is your means of proving your superiority? Ignoring that (for it is too easy a target), by appealing to this notion of superiority, do you not further cement your moral (and, therefore, cultural) inferiority? Quite the paradox, I know, but I do hope you understand.

That is only a valid argument if one of your premises is that morality is a universal or objective thing. Which I don't. So no problems there!

@nintendoeats:

But in claiming that my culture is subservient to yours, you are claiming cultural superiority, which, at some point, will become moral superiority. At this point, you are appealing to some type of moral standard (I would like to see you claim that the fundamental character of a human is superior to a Lunarian without some type of moral claim bandied about), and I doubt these notions of superiority and inferiority would fit well into whatever schema you so choose.

@MikeGosot:

Asura's Wrath is full of shit, at least in that regard.

@nintendoeats said:

@believer258 said:

@MikeGosot said:

@nintendoeats said:

And I'm far too busy playing Counterstrike to delve into them in detail.

Counter-Strike: The philosophy killer.

I need to go practice my CS, I really suck at that game.

It's not that you suck, it's that everybody who plays it has been doing so for a decade and a half. I'm happy that I can average just below a 1:1 KDR.

Yeah, and thus far they're all complete dicks as well. The game itself is fun, but the people involved are not pleasant.

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.

@Video_Game_King: Oh I never claimed that we would actually BE superior. Just that we would act that way. Totally different things.

@believer258: It really comes down to finding a few good servers and sticking to them. This is still the internet (I heard somebody last night talking about buying a car with his "scarface money"), but there are plenty of servers that consist primarily of laid-back people who will rarely comment on your performance, and won't insult your without a good reason (or it's really funny). This is one of the reasons that I really miss open server-structures in games that don't have them.

@nintendoeats:

Wouldn't be acting that way for long, though.

I graduated university with a double major, one of which being in Philosophy, so please allow me to offer the following:

I took a class on Existentialism, and skipped many lectures and most of the readings. I was able to not only pass, but get a decent final grade by leaning the following:

Life is arbitrary, and thus has no meaning - the meaning of life is what you make of it.

This is literally all you need to know.

@Beb said:

I graduated university with a double major, one of which being in Philosophy, so please allow me to offer the following:

I took a class on Existentialism, and skipped many lectures and most of the readings. I was able to not only pass, but get a decent final grade by leaning the following:

Life is arbitrary, and thus has no meaning - the meaning of life is what you make of it.

This is literally all you need to know.

I don't agree with the conclusion that life has no meaning, because as you said life has the meaning you make of it. ahah

Concerning the OP I think you have a problem in your logic. A man isn't based solely on reason. How many times did your sense of logic and rationality failed you in trying to grasp explanations for simple facts? To me reason is like a huge telescope that will show what we desire to see, and in the absense of desire nihilism.

If you are trying to find the meaning of life, I feel you have to grow beyond reason, as reason itself is merely a tool just as is thought, and also contemplate emotion, feeling, sensation... Only contemplating the whole man can the sense or absense of meaning of life be perceived.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@Video_Game_King said:

@nintendoeats:

No, not quite. Natural forces have no bearing on cultural exchanges in this fashion. The cultures themselves would, and given my Kingdom's vast cultural and technological advantages, you would be subservient to us.

Yes, but bit by bit you are moving away from us and we are entirely dependent on you for our existence. The meaning of life therefore is the Moon and that clearly makes you our overlord. We need to know our place.

This may sound off topic (heh), but does anyone know a good book that covers Quantum Mutation, The 13th Strand, Quantum Thread or anything else that might explain why im able to read minds. No shit. Seriously...

@TheWholeDamnShow said:

This may sound off topic (heh), but does anyone know a good book that covers Quantum Mutation, The 13th Strand, Quantum Thread or anything else that might explain why im able to read minds. No shit. Seriously...

Look under telepathy.

Science may support nihilism, if you want to be cynical about it. If you subscribe to determinism, it pretty much makes all notions of free will, and moral responsibility obsolete.

@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"?

@scalpel said:

@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.

So I was right about your assertions. There is no meaning to life until proven otherwise, according to you. But if you want to be objective about it, then look at biology - the meaning of life there is to reproduce. This is true for all species - grow, multiply, die. Is that "deep"? No, certainly not, but the sort of depth you might be looking for in life is much more subjective and thus there is no final answer because subjectivity is based on personal feelings and not empirical or rational evidence. Thus, the deeper meaning of life is one of your own choosing. If you choose to give your life no meaning, then so be it. But it is a choice.

That's my conclusion, anyway.

@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.

The nature of reality is totally subjective and very fluid, always changing and evolving based on an individual's experiences. To attempt to derive any objective "meaning" from anything is an exercise in futility, but from my point of view, that is just why the world is so wonderful. Everyone's subjective reality is different. Variety is the spice of life. As for nihilists, all I can say to them is cheer the fuck up and/or take some acid. I have no time for such twaddle.

If I were to apply a bunch of silly words made for academics to masturbate to my world view, it would probably Subjective Gnostic Existentialist or something to that extent. Ultimately, I percieve in terms of oneness, the great reconciler, making all sciences, arts, philosophies and theosophies, etc, equally relevant and equally true. Of course, that directly contradicts my having no time for Nihilism, but eh.

I would go into further detail, but I lack a set of terminology to adequately describe something that is fundamentally beyond words. But that was Buddha's problem too, otherwise we'd all be existing in a state of ultimate "enlightenment."

Of course there is no meaning to life. We can only describe life, and that is the job of biologists and physicists, not some stupid philosophers. Describe the molecules that make up the universe and you will know a lot more about life than some pseudo-intellectual philosopher.

Anyway, ultimately the universe is going to end and everything in it will be gone.

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

@scalpel said:

@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"?

what about our feelings, and sensations? Don't they hold our perceptions of the reality we are imersed in? And don't we try to make sense out of reason of them? Do you believe the thought you infer from reasoning the perception you got from your senses is what you actually felt? Or is it in fact an abstraction of what you felt?

The problem with us, humans, is that we painstackingly try to find knowledge that we can all agree upon, but our own use of reason is subjective, if through it we can reach different and opposite conclusions by its use.

What I say is instead of searching for truths that hold for others we should find the truths that hold for our own selfs. And we should search not only with our intelect but with our feelings, emotions, consciousness.

New spiritualists like Osho, Dalai Lama and Dr. Celso Charuri try to bridge the gap between reason and feeling and sensing, and they don't find it laughable. Buddhism, for example, is devoted to exploring feelings and sensations.

Like I've said, if through reason you can reach different and opposite conclusions that are supposadly true, you have a bug on your knowledge acquiring process, and thus being unable to distinguish truth from illusion.

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

@Sagalla said:

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

Why waste your time with Philosophy when you can spend your time looking in to stuff that is definitely fake - right?

@Sagalla said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

You can go and look it up, that is what Occult means. "Hidden" or "hidden knowledge." It's a misconception that it is all just 'Dark-Side'-esque stuff, anything that catalyzes a state of focus and connection with the divinity, whether above or below (or rather, there is no distinction... "As above so below,") falls under the umbrella of occultism, technically. You're mistaking the connotation for the actual definition.

@Sagalla said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

You can go and look it up, that is what Occult means. "Hidden" or "hidden knowledge." It's a misconception that it is all just 'Dark-Side'-esque stuff, anything that catalyzes a state of focus and connection with the divinity, whether above or below (or rather, there is no distinction... "As above so below,") falls under the umbrella of occultism, technically. You're mistaking the connotation for the actual definition.

@Jeust said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

You can go and look it up, that is what Occult means. "Hidden" or "hidden knowledge." It's a misconception that it is all just 'Dark-Side'-esque stuff, anything that catalyzes a state of focus and connection with the divinity, whether above or below (or rather, there is no distinction... "As above so below,") falls under the umbrella of occultism, technically. You're mistaking the connotation for the actual definition.

That was an unexpected turn... Magic, spiritism, divination... I feel this train of thought won't lead to the meaning of life. It's an escape from our actual ignorance.

Of course it won't lead to the meaning of life. These are just tools to expand your knowledge and appreciation of the world around you and to help appreciate what you as an individual have to give to the collective. Meaning is something that is derived personally based on your experiences. But the meaning you derive from your life and the learning you partake of bounce off one another.. All interlinked.

Pragmatic Spiritualism? Fuck yeah!

@Lysergica33: True, but we are going off course. :p

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@Sagalla said:

I took a unit in philosophy and... realised that philosophy is a waste ot time! You know what's cool? The Occult!

Occult meaning "Hidden," or more completely: "knowledge of the hidden." So... Philosophy then?

Anyway, Science is great for the "how," but does not really answer the "why." Our consciousness is essentially more than the sum of its parts. We can say that everything is essentially chaos all we want, but that does not change that the human mind ascribes meaning. For an individual to state that they believe everything to be chaos still holds meaning, even if they believe that the inherent chaos means everything is fundamentally devoid of meaning. It will mean something for that person and shape how they live their life, how they think, how they act, etc.

As for me? One man's chaos is another man's order. Reductionism got me no-where, so I embraced the glorious irrationality that is human consciousness and allowed my free-associative nature to flourish instead of continuing to oppress it. But that's just me. I don't see any approach or world view as being wrong. I see the sciences, mathematics, art, religion and spirituality as being different ways of expressing the same thing and dabble in all equally. When I look into sacred geometry, it deepens my appreciation for the world around me, thus deepening my appreciation of science, having a knock-on effect with the way I create art, leading to a particular brand of spirituality that picks and chooses from various theosophies and philosophies with a good measure of quantum physics.. There was a point in time when I saw them as all being seperate but I started seeing connections and patterns I just couldn't ignore once I made the cognitive leap to allow myself to free-associate without my ego butting in.

So to come back to that word "Occult" for a moment, I have essentially just described the purpose of all religious, spiritual and occult pursuits.. To build a world view or state of perception in which everything ripples through everything else, to account for the chaos but to be able to see the order in it. When religion talks of "The One God" this state of perception is essentially what it is referring to. Using such terminology as "The One God" is just meta-narrative.

No, THE OCCULT means summoning demons, talking to spirits, divination, that kind of stuff. And I don't think you have described anything successfully at all, sorry... :/

You can go and look it up, that is what Occult means. "Hidden" or "hidden knowledge." It's a misconception that it is all just 'Dark-Side'-esque stuff, anything that catalyzes a state of focus and connection with the divinity, whether above or below (or rather, there is no distinction... "As above so below,") falls under the umbrella of occultism, technically. You're mistaking the connotation for the actual definition.

I can assure you I don't need to 'look it up'. Of course it encompasses 'dark stuff', it's the occult. Philosophers don't summon demons, do they? Philosophy is a discourse, and as a discipline or 'mental excercise' it will forever be ignorant about life after death. Have you heard a philosopher claim to have knowledge of other lives, or the future?? I think not... Look I can appreciate that you are trying to work this stuff out, but you aren't really in a position to try and teach anyone about this field. Think of it this way, an occultist 'experiments' with other realities and unseen entities and tries to interact with them directly. A philosopher speculates about other realities and unseen entities and can not uncover 'hidden knowledge' because once they claim to have uncovered 'hidden knowledge' about other realities they are NO LONGER A PHILOSOPHER