Yeah I agree. The confusion is about the use of the term “meaningless”, and because it is used the wrong way…the argument ensues. Unless a particular object is indicated for having the meaning, or lack of, the term is used in the statement as if it is an object itself. It is a concept, which must relate and refer to a particular object. To state that there is “meaning” one must indicate what has that property, or quality, or whatever you want to call it. This necessity forces the term to be meaningless itself…without a proper use.
The nihilists are saying “the universe is not-any-kind-of-isness”, which is ridiculous. Once they realize that meaning is not in the value of a thing but its objective reality, they will be cleansed and take up a rational, stoic, Spinozean attitude toward the universe…one of interested indifference.
I will tell you how nihilism started. It was a reaction to the horribly designed metaphysical philosophies, the “anthropomorphic religions”, which claimed that the universe was desired and created by an intelligent being. This anthropocentric view is a dangerous principle which seduces and instigates man into entering into a kind of psychological game with man and God. It is precisely because this intelligence is “humanized” that people inadvertently attribute to God also their own flaws. God becomes, as Freud put it, a cosmic father figure…and humans discourse with this idea of God as if they were negotiating with their family or peers.
The scientific revolution dealt the death blow to faith. This put man into a peculiar spot, which eventually resulted in his nihilism. First, he was taught to believe an impossible God could exist (rather than reading Spinoza). Next, he has the adequate experiences which demonstrate many of those problems…he experiences the irrationality of something…he becomes more and more skeptical…etc. Finally, in addition to the absurdities he has experienced, the gaining authority of science makes it easier for the person to simply surrender entirely to it. Now they have a theory which explains our origins and purposes, and it is much clearer and… “ethical dilemma” free.
The nihilist is the type who has the sentimentality and emotional obsession with the sense of failure to the extent that he is skeptical with religious conviction. Because he had expected to be pleased by existence, he becomes angry that there is no God to make it that way…even if that means enduring the trials and tests, which, recall, are what we took issue with in the first place.
Now the nihilist becomes frustrated. Now he almost prefers that God did exist because he was conditioned to conceive of God as a figure who had the power to make anything better. Metaphorically speaking, the nihilist can often be the person who is so let down by the death of God that he never recovers. There is no compulsion left to think new radical thoughts.
Nihilism is a neurosis, not a philosophy. Interesting and fun though.
I have a simple formula. Of all the characteristics of the term “meaning”, the one remaining characteristic that is part of every possible definition is “purpose”. What a thing means is what it is for and the “how” of that “using”. In this instance what a thing “meant” would be the sum of its purposes. But it is equally feasible to say that it is possible to make objective statements about a thing’s characteristics without having to have reasons for those characteristics. “This ball is blue” is an existential statement and sound without intent, reason, or purpose for its being true. It “means” that “a ball is blue”. Therefore, the sum total of all particular existential statements that are possible could only be proposed as an existential statement itself, such that the entire universe, itself, is meaningless…because it only means “all the things that mean something”. So when we ask “hey dude, is the universe meaningless”, we must answer “yes, but everything about it is not”.
Any takers?
You must understand that intent only exists where there is awareness. For the entire universe to have a purpose, it must be externally founded on a prior reason…“God’s attempt”…and God’s own consciousness and awareness is like ours- “being-there” and “being-for-itself”. If God existed transcendently, the universe would have to be likened to a toy that a child was messing with…not sure about what might happen, since for God, awareness is fundamentally structured at least as much as our own. What the universe “meant” for God would have to be something he intended it to be…and for this he must be at a distance from it, transcendent to it. This is almost certainly not possible.
