Nihilism

[Karl]

In time I have grown into nihilism.

 

But why do you think a nihilist would be a danger to someone? I'm quite kind, actually.

 

I was just comparing the traces of a meteor and what you read here. I'm not denying this body of "mine" and the meteor (although they aren't real for real either).

 

Because historically nihilists have always proved destructive.

 

You have to be real in order to deny reality. If you weren't real then you would exist. Maybe you think you are something that you aren't, but that is mistaken thinking and not non-existence. As you pointed out, if you keep asking how do you know you don't exist then you must continually rely on existence to prove that you don't. If you go down the neti neti route you will find yourself with a loss of purpose.

[Karl]

If there was a purpose, what would it be? Who would have set it? How could someone (a person) exist? If it's someone who has set it, would we have to obey and organize our philosophies according to it? Would it be an absolute purpose then? If the purpose is impersonal, it isn't a purpose. Purpose cannot exist.

 

Your purpose is your own satisfaction of wants and needs-ultimately it is your own happiness. If you are hungry then you must eat, if you are tired then sleep, if you are cold then warmth, if you are lonely then people. Each need requires action. Even inaction is action. You choose one thing over another thing and this is the opportunity cost of that action.

 

You are writing here because it is the action that gives you the greatest positive improvement. Even a self destructive action requires a positive intent.

 

 

[doc benway]

I do have purpose in my life. But from absolute point of view, it's all just stories.

 

What purpose could there be without conceptual thinking? If I sit on a beach and watch everything happening, what's really happening there (without conceptual, inner storytelling)?  "I" is a story (even without language it's there as a concept, just like in animals), beach is a story, events are stories.  Without these stories all that is left is somekind of unified happening, where waves, sounds, wind, body and experience are not separated, because they aren't conceptualized. They are not "they".

 

There's no room for the Absolute, Purpose or authentic Self on that beach. There's no room for anything. And no room for eternal.

 

And yet we are living in this life and are faced with the day to day... so the relative invariably comes in to play.

 

I agree with all you have said except the last piece.

The Absolute, Purpose, and the authentic Self ARE room - space/awareness

 

That space IS eternal, all else is story as you point out. 

The problem with nihilism is that it denies that very awareness of being on the beach, without the stories and the concepts, without the distinction of beach and beachgoer.

 

That very being remains as it is. 

One cannot say it is nothing anymore than say it is something.

It simply is - so we let it be as it is.

[Karl]

the Nihlist says it's nothing, the idealist says it is both. Surely it's time to grow out of these pre Socratic philosophies ?

[Perceiver]

No, there is just experience. It's all that is certain. No "I". Descartes didn't get it. If there is a thought, there is a thought. No proof of "I". Language tricked Descartes.

 

It doesn't matter, the connection is the same: There is consciousness. That consciousness perceives. But that consciousness cannot be absolutely sure that it perceives all that is. Therefore, other and larger forms of consciousness may exist outside of it. Therefore, a purpose might be, but it wouldn't know.

 

It may all be very real. Every particle and event in reality may be imbued with purpose, but we wouldn't know.

 

And you by the way make the mistake of enlarging your own consciousness to be the beginning and end of all of reality. As if your consciousness is all that exists. Nihilists and relativists often do that. But there are things outside your own consciousness, such as other people.

 

Yesterday I hurt myself and felt some pain. You can't feel that exact pain that I felt. That pain was experienced by me only. There is a you and an I.

[PLB]

I do have purpose in my life. But from absolute point of view, it's all just stories.

 

What purpose could there be without conceptual thinking? If I sit on a beach and watch everything happening, what's really happening there (without conceptual, inner storytelling)?  "I" is a story (even without language it's there as a concept, just like in animals), beach is a story, events are stories.  Without these stories all that is left is somekind of unified happening, where waves, sounds, wind, body and experience are not separated, because they aren't conceptualized. They are not "they".

 

There's no room for the Absolute, Purpose or authentic Self on that beach. There's no room for anything. And no room for eternal.

This is more or less what Descartres said. From the point of view of his "telling the story", there is only telling the story; including the story of "I am." 

It is a misreading of the text to say that the expression is an axiom regarding the absolute. He embarked on a circular argument to make the absolute necessary with the clear understanding that stopping with just that statement left him with just that statement.

Much as you are using the concept of the absolute to make it not necessary.

[3bob]

without true self or the working in that direction in one way or another "all is the vanity of vanities" which is where I'd say some nihilistic prone Buddhists end up. 

[dawei]

 

without true self or the working in that direction in one way or another "all is the vanity of vanities" which is where I'd say some nihilistic prone Buddhists end up. 

 

This is not vanities but destinies...  Acceptance of this is chicken soup for the soul...

[3bob]

Dawei, apparently you misunderstood my Solomon quote or I misunderstood your reply?

[doc benway]

the Nihlist says it's nothing, the idealist says it is both. Surely it's time to grow out of these pre Socratic philosophies ?

 

You forgot to mention that the materialist says it is something...

 

Yes, let us let go of all the philosophy and just let it be as it is.

 

That is the highest (non)practice

[Karl]

You forgot to mention that the materialist says it is something...

 

Yes, let us let go of all the philosophy and just let it be as it is.

 

That is the highest (non)practice

 

The materialist says that everything is something in the sense of a mechanical toy. Even thought and emotion are mechanical artifacts.

 

Do you believe it is our ability to reason which produces your greatest suffering ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

The materialist says that everything is something in the sense of a mechanical toy. Even thought and emotion are mechanical artifacts.

I'm not too sure about that.

[Karl]

I'm not too sure about that.

 

It's a monist philosophy, as is idealism. One states everything is material, the other that nothing is material. These are the classic definitions of these two philosophies which are somewhat twisted by modern interpretations in a way that no doubt will please idealists :-)

[Marblehead]

Well, I'm not an idealist but I do consider myself a materialist. 

 

So, here I sit, trying to find a way to suggest that thoughts and emotions are not material things.

 

Sure, for me, my thoughts and emotions are real.  In this sense it could be said that they are material things.  However, you cannot experience my thoughts and emotions so for you they are not material things.  So we would have to place limiters on the truth.

[Karl]

Well, I'm not an idealist but I do consider myself a materialist. 

 

So, here I sit, trying to find a way to suggest that thoughts and emotions are not material things.

 

Sure, for me, my thoughts and emotions are real.  In this sense it could be said that they are material things.  However, you cannot experience my thoughts and emotions so for you they are not material things.  So we would have to place limiters on the truth.

 

They exist regardless of my ability to experience them. Reality is real. Existence exists and only existence exists.

 

[Seeker of Wisdom]

[...]So, here I sit, trying to find a way to suggest that thoughts and emotions are not material things.[...]

 

They aren't made  out of particles.

[doc benway]

The materialist says that everything is something in the sense of a mechanical toy. Even thought and emotion are mechanical artifacts. Do you believe it is our ability to reason which produces your greatest suffering ?

 

No - the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance, failure to recognize our true nature.

One aspect of that could be stated as mistaking our ability to reason for who we are, so it is a not the ability to reason that causes the problem - it is identification with that ability.

 

In the philosophical categories, it's also useful to include the Buddhist view which is the fourfold negation of the modes of existence, first applied to things, then to self, then to emptiness:

It cannot be said that things have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things both have and do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things neither have nor do not have inherent existence

Each of these four ways of describing the inherent nature of things has validity and flaws from different perspectives.

 

Buddhist logic and reasoning has been elevated to very high levels and is a fascinating study (and I'm no expert).

Here's a book I've heard is quite amazing on the subject but I've yet to read it, philosophy is not that important to my current practice:

http://www.shambhala.com/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

[Karl]

No - the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance, failure to recognize our true nature.

One aspect of that could be stated as mistaking our ability to reason for who we are, so it is a not the ability to reason that causes the problem - it is identification with that ability.

 

In the philosophical categories, it's also useful to include the Buddhist view which is the fourfold negation of the modes of existence, first applied to things, then to self, then to emptiness:

It cannot be said that things have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things both have and do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things neither have nor do not have inherent existence

Each of these four ways of describing the inherent nature of things has validity and flaws from different perspectives.

 

Buddhist logic and reasoning has been elevated to very high levels and is a fascinating study (and I'm no expert).

Here's a book I've heard is quite amazing on the subject but I've yet to read it, philosophy is not that important to my current practice:

http://www.shambhala.com/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

 

Existence exists.

[FmAm]

It doesn't matter, the connection is the same: There is consciousness. That consciousness perceives. But that consciousness cannot be absolutely sure that it perceives all that is. Therefore, other and larger forms of consciousness may exist outside of it. Therefore, a purpose might be, but it wouldn't know.

 

It may all be very real. Every particle and event in reality may be imbued with purpose, but we wouldn't know.

 

And you by the way make the mistake of enlarging your own consciousness to be the beginning and end of all of reality. As if your consciousness is all that exists. Nihilists and relativists often do that. But there are things outside your own consciousness, such as other people.

 

Yesterday I hurt myself and felt some pain. You can't feel that exact pain that I felt. That pain was experienced by me only. There is a you and an I.

 

I know pain, but I don't know "consciousness". I know happiness, but I don't know "I". Has someone experienced consciousness? I haven't. This is what I've been trying to explain all along: "consciousness" is something learned and assumed. As a newborn, I didn't even know "I", but that didn't take away the emotions and sensations. It just took away time, consciousness, I, me, etc.

 

If a tree falls in China, it isn't a tree not falling in USA. But where is your pain if I don't know that the pain I'm feeling is my pain? Without "I" it's just pain.

[Karl]

I know pain, but I don't know "consciousness". I know happiness, but I don't know "I". Has someone experienced consciousness? I haven't. This is what I've been trying to explain all along: "consciousness" is something learned and assumed. As a newborn, I didn't even know "I", but that didn't take away the emotions and sensations. It just took away time, consciousness, I, me, etc.

 

If a tree falls in China, it isn't a tree not falling in USA. But where is your pain if I don't know that the pain I'm feeling is my pain? Without "I" it's just pain.

 

You are conscious of pain.

You are I. It is the same thing.

Conscious is neither learned nor assumed it is axiomatic.

There is no 'knowing' I. You are I. You feel emotions and sensations.

[doc benway]

Existence exists.

That is a rhetorical tautology but not a logical one.

 

The Buddhist (Indian) investigation into modes of existence goes much deeper and is more consistent with modern physics than the materialistic view you propose.

 

Materialism is so 19th century.... It was essentially disproved by Heisenberg in the 1920's.

[FmAm]

Because historically nihilists have always proved destructive.

 

Who are these historical and destructive nihilists? The most destructive people in history have furiously believed in themselves and in some other abstract ideas (such as free will, responsibility, judgement, nation, ideology, value and race).

 

You are conscious of pain. You are I. It is the same thing. Conscious is neither learned nor assumed it is axiomatic. There is no 'knowing' I. You are I. You feel emotions and sensations.

 

There is no proof for I so far (except these little lines called letters and the sounds called words).

Edited October 5, 2015 by FmAm

[Karl]

That is a rhetorical tautology but not a logical one.

The Buddhist (Indian) investigation into modes of existence goes much deeper and is more consistent with modern physics than the materialistic view you propose.

Materialism is so 19th century.... It was essentially disproved by Heisenberg in the 1920's.

 

My view is not materialistic as I have already confirmed. I do not believe that everything is material. Thoughts exist for the thinker of those thoughts. They have neither dimension nor coordinates yet they exist never the less.

 

A reference to authority is bad argumentation.

[3bob]

Yes, the four fold negation delineates the limits of reason nicely but it is not very uplifting to the heart in comparison to the T.T.C. where it simply says, "the Tao gave birth to the One", understand that and all these questions about existence are like beating our heads against the wall.  (on purpose )

Edited October 5, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

Who are these historical and destructive nihilists? The most destructive people in history have furiously believed in themselves and in some other abstract ideas (such as free will, responsibility, judgement, nation, ideology, value and race).

 

 

 

There is no proof for I so far (except these little lines called letters and the sounds called words).

You want to get jiggy about sounds ? Frequencies and amplitudes, resonance and harmonics. Then you should know that the universe is composed of it. That 'I' is part an parcel of that resonance taken form as word. That every bit of material including your body and mind are composed of the same. Every sense works with frequency and amplitude. A structure feels smooth or rough as you pass a finger over it and feel the number and depth of the surface, a noise is high pitched/low pitched, red shift, colour and all light is frequency. Even food and smells have frequency and amplitude.

 

A Nihlist is the worst kind. It is an abdication of life itself. It is the attitude that nothing matters, that everything is apathy. A Nihlist is a drain, a useless appendage like a rotting limb. It is better that a Nihlist has the courage of their own convictions and ends their own lives as to hang around infecting everybody else's. However, they never have the courage of their convictions and so they are never true nihilists and instead use their philosophy in far more damaging ways. They are happy to support tyrants and dictators.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Karl