Yes, but no one is arguing that your beliefs preclude nihilism, and does not contradict what I said above.
Many, perhaps most do practice some hinduism version that has morals, but this is not necessary. One could hold that the ontology is true, but leaves no room for meaning or morals. In fact, I think that is a pretty human reaction to the hindu ontology. What meaning is there for a self that is considered not real in Hinduism? Now Hindus might say I am missing something, but you can’t tell me that. You cannot tell me that really if Hindu ontology is correct I should think there is meaning and objective morality. Because you are not a Hindu. Further there really is no objective morals in much Hindu metaphysics.
Your belief system suggests a life, most likely, after today. That doesn’t give meaning or rules for human interaction.
That is not relevant to the issue. The issue was whether belief in souls or God precluded nihilism, and they do not.
All belief systems insist that an I is part of transcending truths. To a materialist, your eye is part of natural selection processes leading to organisms that suit their environments until they do not. That truth transcends you, explains you, puts you in a narrative. It does not, however, give you objective morals or meaning. Nor does Calvinism. You’ve also, here, added more meanings to nihilism and I was responding to the ones you listed in the other post. Does this mean that you concede that those facets of what you consider nihilism can apply to people who believe in souls spirits and/or God and that is why you now present new facets or wordings?
My vocabulary relating to value judgments on this side of the grave – as they are connected to my fate on the other side of the grave – is no less an existential contraption. Just as in the past the vocabulary I used as a devout Christian was.
Here and now, it seems reasonable to think as I do. Just as in the past it seemed reasonable to think in very, very different ways. But sans God where is the “final vocabulary” that anchors mere mortals to an objective moral and political agenda?
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “I” am not now privy to it.
- so Rorty is only talking about vocabulary in relation to morals? It seemed like a more general set of ideas about language in general.
*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
*Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.[/b]
So when you say that you think that human interactions are ‘absurd and meaningless’, when you use that particular vocabulary, you do not think those terms are closer to reality than the terms other people use to describe life, even those that contradict those words and your vocabulary?
Here I go back to what appears [to me] to be common sense:
That there is certainly an enormous gap between what “I” think/believe about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know this.
After all, isn’t that the whole point of inventing the Gods? Gods provide mere mortals with a teleological foundation – a Creator – that can turned to and relied upon to close that gap.
You clearly did not answer my question. You restated things you have said many times. I specifically asked about that quote from Rorty as applied to your statements which I cited in the context of those quotes. It’s a rude habit to shift to restating your opinions instead of interacting with the response.
If you do not think they are closer to reality, why keep using them? Why say you think X, if you think X is not closer to reality than Y that, say, a religious person uses or a non-nihilist?
As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, we have little choice but to “use” them to either attain or to sustain particular goals. But why do we choose one set of values here over another? Can these value be understood objectively? In other words, making them obligatory for all those who wish to be thought of as rational human beings? Or, instead, are they embedded/embodied more in the components of my own existential contraption: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.
And this is precisely the same rudeness.
From this perspective then how might one grapple with “Abrahamic spiritual nihilism”.
I went more general. I could probably come up with a way to describe what that specific kind of nihilism might be, but the meta-level objections and questions seemed more clear.
Nothing here is less clear to me than those who speak of folks said to be spiritual nihilists and then refuse to note how they embody this relating to actual interactions with others out in a particular world.
To me “meta-level” philosophy is just another tool employed by the modern equivalents of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.
What the fuck are you talking about. You made statements, I criticized them and asked questions. You did not answer the questions or, in the main, respond to the criticism. You shifted the ground of the debate by introducing new facets of nihilism, without acknowledging the reason you needed to do this. You restated opinions, instead of interacting with what seem to me contradictions between what Rorty wrote and what you have written. I have no idea what you mean by meta level philosophy. When I referred to meta-level, it meant that I was challenging your ideas in general, the assumptions in your post. On the other hand I did go into specific cases to raise the met-level issues, the kind of thing Durant thought was important. I did not do it in relation to Abraham. So apart from the fact that you are appealing to authority as justification for an ad hom aimed at me, it doesn’t even fit. Ironically, you don’t seem to understand that you are constantly raising the same epistemological issue, so of course, in a philosophy forum, or on the fucking street, you are going to encounter discussions of how one knows, at a general level. You repeatedly present your meta-epistemological positions or do you not notice that. You did it here in response to me, in fact instead of responding to points I raised. I found Hinduism precisely nihilistic, though I became convinced that much of the ontology and the use of those words you mentioned were useful and valid. I am quite sure at that point you will want me to demonstrate that it was rational for me to think that. BUT THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE. The issue was: can one be nihilistic and use those words: yup. You have no curiosity about that and that is why you shift, as you did in this post, to epistemological issues - how do you demonstrate Brahma, etc.
I still find you lacking in integrity and will return to ignoring you, since you clearly think you have nothing to learn and the only possible actions of anyone reading you are to agree with you or prove objective morals, even though your posts deal with all sorts of issues and a discussion is one where both sides get to evaluate, criticize, question beliefs and arguments.
And seriously, an appeal to authority ad hom? Keep talking to yourself, it’s what you seem to be what you want.