Thanks for the comments, I mostly agree with you, except I don’t expect to find truth with nihilism, I mean I recognize that possiblility that I will, but I doubt it. Can you explain why you believe it will lead me to truth?
All depends on my free being. I exist only because of my free will.
Without free will I would not exist.
But what does it mean to be free?
It means to be unconditioned.
Unfortunately, the rational interpretation of reality doesn’t admit any unconditional.
That is, my existence could be an illusion. And I would be only “being here”.
More the rational interpretation of the reality is considered truth and more the nihilism grows.
Up to when I don’t find me in a limit-situation, that shakes me in the depth.
Then I must choose who I want to be, conscious that this is a choice for the eternity.
Choosing, my Existence turns up affirming: “I am, because I am free, against any evidence!”, and so doing she breaks the “being here”, and she gives a look to her own Transcendence.
How do you figure?
You believe you are unconditioned? You think, for example, your physiology isn’t conditioned for life on this planet? Or your thoughts aren’t conditioned to your senses?
Everything we are able to know is conditioned.
Our reality is “being here”, the original division subject-object.
In the “being here” there is not any freedom.
When I say I am unconditioned I appeal directly to my origin: “I want to be myself!”.
Free will is an action.
When I act doing what I must, I am free.
I get the impression that what nihilism is to you is to keep the beliefs/values you have down at the level of intuition rather than up at the level of commitments to fully conscious principles–wishy-washy and flexible, not firm–no?
I would suggest not replacing them at all. If my above interpretation is correct, then the intuitive level is exactly where you want to be–for the rest of your life. This is where you are most flexible and adaptible to most of what life throws at you. If you want to replace all your old beliefs/values with new ones at the level of conscious principles, that’s fine too, but just don’t cling to them.
Bobgo, what you’ve been saying about freedom is very much about what Sartre says in Being and Nothingness, the term “being here” reminds me of Heidegger’s “being there” or Dasein. I wonder what philosophy you’ve studied in the past or are these mostly you own observations? I’m going to have to think about how that description of freedom relates to finding truth, but perhaps we just have a different definition of the word truth.
Definitely.
Thanks for the advice, I’m going to have to think about that some more.
Stuart, a lot of us were given a list of “shalt nots” while growing up; we were taught in black and white. As we matured, we began to see all the shades of grey that lay between the black and white. This can present us with moral dilemmas. Can we or can we not follow the 10 Commandments exactly? This is where we have to decide 1) what the Decalog means to us in our world, and 2) are we obligated to follow them?
It depends on you. The first three Commandments have to do with God and how He’s to be recognized and worshiped; but what if you don’t believe in a Biblical God? At the same time, you may not be able to rid yourself of a God-concept completely, since it’s led to an internalized system of morals and ethics that might lead to ‘good.’ The Commandments are guidelines; only later did religions prescribe punishment for actively ‘disobeying’ those guidelines.
The following seven Commandments have to do with how to live in a social world.
Honor your father and mother. Is that possible if they’re abusive or if they flaut the law?
Don’t lie. Actually, the Commandment reads, don’t bear false witness against your neighbor–don’t accuse him falsely.
Don’t steal, don’t even want what your neighbor has, or his wife, because that might lead you to steal from him.
And so on. These are moral precepts. But they’re quasi-religion-based. You can get rid of religion without getting rid of morals and ethics.
I think that’s what Nietzsche was saying when he wrote about the ‘free-spirit’–I interpret that as meaning a spirit freed from the restrictions of strictly interpreted religious values(?) and able to think on his own. IOW, don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water.
The way you describe the ten commandments is a lot tdifferent than the description I got from some random Christian website. It seems they are as bad as I thought, but I was taught them in the same way as that website. I hear people saying so often, on this forum and eslewhere, that the best morality is to look after yourself. One must often act moral to help oneself, that’s what I intent do do, so I’m not interested in throwing away useful skills that I learned, I just want to lose all respect for them, except in how they can help me and my two close family members.
I meant they aren’t as bad as I thought.
Sorry if it’s off-topic, but, um, what?
Who says this?
The only person I can think of at the moment is Captain.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=181024&start=25
He may have only been half serious, but I’ll let you know who and where when I think of other examples. I say this a lot, but, still, to be sure you don’t get the wrong impression, that view is not one I was originally inclined to ascept and while I adopt it as a nessesity I’m don’t admire those who’ve always had that view and don’t really put any thought into it, I just think they’re much smarter than I was.
Well, Captain is nowhere near as smart as you, I’ll say that.
Cheers.
Compliments are rare and far inbetween, so thank you.
Interesting situation (and well stated).
So you want to convince yourself that you know nothing?
…except that life and family is good (I guess).
“I want to believe that all mathematics is indeterminate except 2+2=4 and 3*3=5.”
…hmmm…
I suspect your “starting all over” option would be the better one.
A person cannot change anything of himself without discipline, “faith in oneself”.
But then a person who wants to change himself has faith in what exactly?
Suggestion;
Get a blank bound writing booklet and promise yourself that you will write nothing in that book until you are 100% absolutely certain that it is either true or valuable, depending on which concern you are seeking, truth or value.
Of course, depending, you could possibly just forget the book because it would take quite a while before even the first entry, so it helps to have incentive. Two historical incentives have been;
“don’t speak until you speak absolute truth” and
“don’t move until you know absolute value”.
Of course you will want to compromise, maybe with;
“speak only of niceties until you know an absolute truth to speak instead” and
“don’t eat until you know absolute value”.
But I suspect you would want to compromise even further.
But you get the idea, right?
Thank you, as well.
Well, I think my life would be in bad shape if I believed all math is indeterminate, but I’ll believe 3*3=5 if I must, it’s not like I work with numbers in any important capacity.
I don’t even want to recognize my self let alone have faith in it. A cat has faith in life and he or she doesn’t have even the notion of self according to most zoologists. A cat will learn to hunt rats instead of mice if necessity dictates. Necessity dictates nihilism for me, and thank you for offering your view as to that question.
Actually, years of looking for truth had the incidental effect of leaving with little “accomplishments”, so you’re absolutely right. Now that I don’t believe in absolute value I’m getting a few things done here and there.
It can be an important morality depending on your situation in life. I find that, most of the time, people who are consciously and actively selfish are people who are troubled. I think it’s an instinct that turns one’s attention to the self in order to focus on self-healing (or at the very least, getting all one’s ducks in a row).
Truth is not something can be found.
We are here, now, just because there is not Truth.
However, searching the Truth, with our faith in the Truth, we can become ourselves.
I consider Karl Jaspers my master.
Although both Jaspers and Heidegger are Philosophies of Existence, to me there is a great difference among the two. I don’t appreciate Heidegger because I consider him not genuine.
I agree with how much written by Jaspers about Truth, particularly in his book: “On the truth” (Von der Wahrheit).
Sartre belongs to Existentialism, he is certainly interesting, but to me he is not as deep as Jaspers.
And it is indeed necessary to go to depth.
Because nihilism, not the strong one but the weak nihilism that is diffused wherever, is a serious danger. Weak nihilism has produced the nazism, the fascism and who knows what other evil in the future it will produce.
Forgive me for my English, is not my native language.
I’m writing here just because I have to…
^ I’m also a fan of Jaspers, and I too think Heidegger is kind of a dick. Sartre I think is just a big nerd.
I think the statement “there is not Truth” is untenable. I am the fucking truth (or you are the truth, so as to not sound conceited or something).
Sartre’s not weak! Sartre is strong! Just kidding, it’s just that I’ve studied him far more than anyone else so far.
I’m kidding too - sort of. I’m quite certain I couldn’t have a truly in-depth conversation about him, I just remember not liking him at all (had to read Being and Nothingness for school), and, not being able to pinpoint why I didn’t like him, I just decided on “This guy’s a fucking nerd, yeah that’s it.” 
It’s interesting how this OP phenomenologically reduced (literally) the concepts of faith(good or bad), free will, rationality/faith (as in either/or), being, nothingness, etc. The necessity of annihilation comes not from free will, as though it was a moral imperative, but as grounded in counter logic. If you were to say that Being and Nothingness have a logical relationship, then the next step to take is to say, we could not make the distinction, if it were not for the fact, that we have to introduce a third element, (nihilism), to be able to make the distinction. It is of logical necessity to nihilise, in order to distinguish one from the other. But the distinctions are then, reduced to a nominal -definitional distinction. If the logical reduction is not made, the idea of annihilation itself, is not possible. Therefore the reduction is prior.
In fact there is no logical need to reduce, only if you intend to make the distinction. (Between Being and Nothing-ness). So intentionality, as I understand it become the key. To the whole process. But why?
What is the object of the intention? Or it’s ground? Well that is a tough one, but another differentiation comes to mind between continental philosophy and empirical/utilitarian philosophy. The motive behind continental philosophy is traditional, and has its genesis in mostly german idealism, and existentialism grew quickly as a method to quickly align with the political crisis that was emerging c. 1848-1945. The urgency and desire to reduce the phenomenological basically cartisian-heglelian duality, -into marxian terms (sartre)—was the motivation. The ground was the economic (marxian interpretation of hegel)
So, faith in nihilism, is like looking glass. What can be seen there? A preoccupation with moral imperatives? In order to avert the dramatic revolutionary conflicts? Or is there more? A severe pessimism of political motives ascribing some connection with the notion that civilization’s discontents were basically due to repression on extremely basic levels? What can be seen? Delusions of mythic proportions on wagnerian scales again to compensate for a reality bankrupted on fallen idols?
Probably all of the above. That it didn’t work is obvious. Revolutions for idyll, bachanalles and such always reminders of who cleans up after the party, and somehow no one wants to, because everybody thought that the party would last.