My interest in nihilism is embedded at an intersection – an intersection between what someone thinks it means and how someone embodies that meaning in their interractions with others. Interactions that, in particular, come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a God or a No God world. With God [said to be omniscient/omnipotent] what can it really mean to speak of nihilism at all? With No God what can it really mean to speak of a meaning said to be applicable to all?
Or, rather, in the is/ought world existentially.
The Hindus have a narrative that you note above. But how is this really not a meaning? It provides something in the way of a guideline for living on this side of the grave. After all, how do those who practice the Hindu faith make that crucial distinction between “the right thing to do” and “the wrong thing to do”? Why one set of behaviors and not another?
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.
Here is my own bottom line though [on this thread]: human interactions require rules of behavior. Why one set of rules and not another? Based on what assessment? Based on what assumptions? How is any particular individual “ontology” – or a Hindu ontology – demonstrated to be the optimal or the only rational manner in which these “rules of behaviors” are to be predicated.
Sooner or latter “general descriptions” such as yours must be situated out in a particular context out in a particular world in which behaviors have come into conflict. Then what? Who is to decide how the conflicts are best resolved? And how is this related to one’s perceived fate on the other side of the grave?
That’s the whole point of this thread.
And it seems to clearly suggest a life after death.
Your belief system suggests a life, most likely, after today. That doesn’t give meaning or rules for human interaction.
That’s my point though. With God, meaning and rules are subsumed in an essential, trascending font. With No God meaning and rules are subsumed in existential contraptions rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time in the world teeming with contingency, chance and change.
On the other hand, why their narrative and not one of the others? And how do they go about actually demonstrating the part about reincarnation and Brahma?
That is not relevant to the issue. The issue was whether belief in souls or God precluded nihilism, and they do not.
What is relevant [to me] is the manner in which one understands the meaning of nihilism. And then the meaning of God. And then the extent that one insists that their meaning reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of them. An omniscient/omnipotent God [as most understand Him] precludes nihilism as I understand it.
But I would never argue that my own understanding of it is any less an existential contraption than yours.
Again, my “take” on this here revolves around this:
This sort of thing does not reflect the manner in which I understand the meaning of nihilism. As long as they can point to an entity – God – said to be “behind” their “fate”, meaning is necessarily subsumed in that. “I” becomes part of a transcending truth. And death is not oblivion.
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?
This is all numbingly abstract though.
What I focus the beam on is why particular individuals choose particular behaviors in particular contexts. How do they rationalize these behaviors in terms of what they construe [here and now] to be the meaning of such things as “freedom” “will” “justice” “moral obligation” “religion and God”.
To what extent are the values of others here not entangled in my own dilemma. A dilemma predicated on the manner in which I construe the components of moral nihilism: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.
Let’s note a context, a set of behaviors in conflict and situate the meaning that we give to the words above in 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.
There are clearly vocabularies that we use in discussing such things as mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical facts, the logical rules of language. How much conflict is there here? When doctors perform abortions as medical procedures there are any number of things they can all agree on objectively. There are quite simply biological truths here that are applicable to all doctors.
But what of ethicists discussing the morality of abortion? What objective truths – philosophical truths – are applicable to all of them?
*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.
My understanding of Rorty is no less an existential contraption than his understanding of ironism. Only when these “general descriptions” are implicated in actual conflicted human behaviors can we ever hope to illustrate our “texts” here. So, I repeat myself:
You choose the context, you choose the conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting behaviors and let’s explore all of this more substantively.
Me from a “No God” perspective.
And what would your perspective revolve around?
You speak of things being “closer to reality”. What reality? If the discussion were to revolve around, say, the plight of the “Dreamers” here in America, how then might Rorty’s points be understood?
Again, from my point of view, you seem more intent on yanking this discussion up into what I construe to be basically the clouds of abstraction.
To wit:
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.
Me: What “on earth” does that mean though?!
To wit:
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.
Looks like we’re stuck then. You can find others here to discuss/debate all of the technical issues. How a “serious philosopher” would go about discussing/debating the relationship between Abraham, nihilism and conflicted human value judgments/behaviors.
Good luck with that. I’m far more intent on exposing the technical assessments/assumptions derived from that to actual flesh and blood human interactions predicated on conflicting moral/political narratives that precipitate actual consequences out in the world that we live and interact in socially, politically and economically.
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.
This is bordering on “huffing and puffing”. Making me the issue. You level these charges against me but my chief concern is still the same: bringing your own “epistemology” down to earth and testing it “out in the world” of actual conflicting behaviors.
Instead, you are slipping more and more into a subjunctive reaction that exposes much more about you than about me. Why the sudden outburst of chagrin? Why do you feel it necessary to reconfigure the discussion into an attack on me?
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.
Note to others:
What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.
From my perspective, he’s just another Prismatic. He has spent any number of years concocting this elaborate Intellectual Contraption that allows him to present himself as a bona fide Serious Philosopher.
In my view though he falls somewhere between the autodidact and the pedant.
Ever and always intent on keeping philosophy up in the clouds.
Me the “meta-epistemologist”?
Yeah, right.