The terms: Exist, “do anything”, create and live have no substance unless we fill them with action. Until that they all refer to the same description of something. The problem is to replace this something with actions, and here we find the problem. What should we do that is meaningful? Every human that care to get up of the bed in the morning do this because they have some pattern to follow. This pattern is this individual’s objective meaning. The reason why he/she cares to get up is because it feels meaningful. So every person that care to do anything believe their action have meaning, and this person have a subjective-objective reality: A structure he has made up to give his actions meaning.
BUT is this objective reality really meaningful? If there is no objective reality this person could jump up in the morning and do anything, it would not matter - and he would feel happy about this anything. This is not the case. If we say that it does not matter what you do there will not be any meaning to act at all.
BUT after a little while this person start to feel hungry! OK, I must cure this hunger, and he finds out that food can cure this hunger. THIS is practical objectivism that is not abstract.
BUT can he do what he likes to cure his hunger? When he get out in to the world he find other people that also are hungry. How should he act? Should he take all food that is available and run home, or should he work together with the other people. Should he kill the other people, or what? He decide to kill the others and bring home the food.
BUT he then realized that he killed ALL the females as well, and when he was dying he felt he was missing something in his life, maybe a son or a daughter. Hi did not act right; immoral.
Meaning was given this person, and he did not get up and drunk a bottle of chlorine for the same reason.
The above is just a fragment, and there are more complex structures of meaning to be found in a holistic universe when we really take the consequences of this reality. The fact that we are existing in the same field and that our experience can float in this field and interact with other dynamic structures; become those structures, would give real substance to moral. The only thing that keep people from killing eachother in a materialistic universe is God.
"The problem is to replace this something with actions, and here we find the problem. What should we do that is meaningful? Every human that care to get up of the bed in the morning do this because they have some pattern to follow. This pattern is this individual’s objective meaning. The reason why he/she cares to get up is because it feels meaningful. So every person that care to do anything believe their action have meaning, and this person have a subjective-objective reality: A structure he has made up to give his actions meaning. "
I guess what I was getting at is that “lying in bed”, or “inaction” is action. Not doing anything is an action. When you do nothing, you are deciding to do nothing. The question as I orginally understood it was “why do anything”, and I am saying that to do nothing, is to say “I will do nothing”
"If we say that it does not matter what you do there will not be any meaning to act at all. "
Perhaps (and I think it is best to explain here that I am a philosophical agnostic) it is not the meaning of the act, but the act itself that is all there is.
"BUT after a little while this person start to feel hungry! OK, I must cure this hunger, and he finds out that food can cure this hunger. THIS is practical objectivism that is not abstract. "
Agreed, but the original question may have intimated that one can ignore those feelings of the body and still choose inaction.
"BUT can he do what he likes to cure his hunger? When he get out in to the world he find other people that also are hungry. How should he act? Should he take all food that is available and run home, or should he work together with the other people. Should he kill the other people, or what? He decide to kill the others and bring home the food. "
BUT he then realized that he killed ALL the females as well, and when he was dying he felt he was missing something in his life, maybe a son or a daughter. Hi did not act right; immoral. "
I guess we are getting into hypotheticals. He could have taken some, all or none of the food he first found. He could have planned for tomorrow, or just attended his hunger until it disappeared at the moment. He could have gone in search for food more his liking. He could have become side tracked by the different sense perceptions, forgotten his hunger and gone for a walk. He could have found meaning in these actions, or he could have just acted out of caprice.
"The only thing that keep people from killing eachother in a materialistic universe is God. "
Or faith in God, or a decision to act as though God exists even though God does not, or a decision not to kill because it is more work than not killing, and cooperating instead, or becoming a recluse.
First I want to say that my last post was not very good, maybe not wrong but unclear and with many loose ends.
Then you can accept my club of marmalade tossing members. That does not provide a reason for what they are doing?
My point is: One action only exist if there is a pattern, there exist no separate acts. Even if your hypotetical character chose to stay in bed he do it for a reason.
Can you declaire your motto? If I try to guess your motto it is:
There are no pattern that we exist within. The individual’s lifespace is a blank space, and he can make up his own goal that he want to acheave. The only reason would be pleasure (this is also a reason!).
In that case it’s indeed a nihilistic philosophy. The ultimate moral question; can you kill if you think you benefit from it? (the benefit; reason is maybe not nessesary either?)
Please try to provide your motto. I think it’s good that we are clear about this before we continue to see how such a person will form some kind of practical lifestructure (so we can stay with the topic of this thread).
And one more comment: It’s not possible to “do nothing”. To walk away from an act is also an act. Activity will always be the case. So my “not going up from the bed” scenario will still be filled with activity; probably a depressed individual that is thinking about killing himself because he can’t see the meaning.
"My point is: One action only exist if there is a pattern, there exist no separate acts. Even if your hypotetical character chose to stay in bed he do it for a reason. "
Actually we both agree on this, that staying in bed is an action, that is decided upon.
"Can you declaire your motto? If I try to guess your motto it is:
There are no pattern that we exist within. The individual’s lifespace is a blank space, and he can make up his own goal that he want to acheave.
The is indeed a nihilistic philosophy. "
Actually what I was trying to do was provide a way out of the consequences of the original posters nihilism - if you are a nihilist, then you can still posit “why not” as well as “why”
Personally I am not a nihilist, but the original poster is a nihilist, so only a nihilistic answer will prevent him from accepting inaction as the only path of nihilism. Because he is a nihilist, he will not accept any other philosophical framework for meaning or action.
Put succinctly, if one is a nihilist, one can still act, without meaning, if one understands that inaction is also an action. Or rather, as long as one exists, it is impossible not to act.
Personally I think that nihilism is an error because of the reasons you bring forth, that one has a body, that exists in the universe, that exists in a social system(s), that has needs separate from questions of meaning or philosophy. (Bear with me, it’s been about 15 years since I communicated philosophical ideas with other people)
I think this is your core here so I will use this as a starting point:
First I also agree that total nihilism is irrelevant. If you both want to live and cut down all trees on the earth at the same time you will realize that trees have a value if you want to live. One example is enough; there exist values.
But let’s continue with the nihilistic standpoint anyway: What makes the nihilist want to act, and not lay in bed and thinking about killing himself. It must be pleasure, right? Is it possible to feel pleasure without meaning?
Example: Life has no meaning, but even though I’m a nihilist i feel pleasure when I eat, so I eat.
Eating then have a meaning; a value. But this have already started a kausal chain. Why do you feel pleasure when you eat? Because my body needs it. Why does your body need it? Because it requires new building material. This chain is now far from linear; it now has an endless of new branches. What material does it need, from where does it come, how can I get it, ETC, ETC.
So if the nihilist should find pleasure he must start to look at objective values to be able to have this pleasure. He is now back in our world of objective laws, and structures. He must now act right; moral.
There are two kinds of moral:
I act moral because I benefit from it in the end- egoistic moral.
I act moral because everyone benefit from it in the end - altruistic moral.
Depending on the metaphysical ground it will be #1 or #2.
Here is a question: For me I only need the following for life to be meaningful: 1. that my act should be a part of a pattern that is endless (premiere) and 2. that I feel pleasure (secondary). What do you require?
i am unable to comprehend and the previous two posts.
but pleasure gives a subjective meaning and is not meaning in an actual self but rather, an incentive.
eg the epicurean philosophy where one seeks pleasure to avoid pain.
thus pleasure becomes a mode of survival, and the quest for it is a survival instinct and therefore negating the statement :
notot say that mere instincts have no meaning, but it is something done just to be done which gives it little value.
same goes for living just because . which renders all following quests for pleasure without meaning.
Actually it’s a little strange to talk about meaning. We exist therefore there is a meaning. The real question is how to act in relevance to our existence. We can not say that; if I don’t get to meet Santa when I die there is no meaning to live. We can not make up fictive goals that and then say that life have no meaning if this does not happen. No matter what the substance of life is we have to adapt to this substance. Even if the universe is Newtonian-mechanic we must see the structure where we exist and act after this structure.
Happiness is indeed an incentive as Jedi says; a secondary function that follows after meaning. It’s an indication that we are acting right within a system/structure. It’s however not an indication that we are acting right in relation to other larger structures. You get to know larger structures by knowledge and/or intuition. With larger structures i refer to structures that are premiere; that have influence over other structures but not the other way around.
One example: The individual in a society has to obey by the society’s laws if he/she should harmonize with this structure. The society is the larger structure. The society must in it’s turn harmonize with nature. If the society does not harmonize with nature, then the individual that harmonize with the aspects of society - that does not harmonize with nature - act immoral.
At a certain point we must look at the metaphysical ground to be able to determine the nature of moral. Are we individuals that develops or are we a structure that develops. I have pointed out (a few times ) that the existence is a holistic structure; or one field that develops. This perspective give us a altruistic moral. If we are separated individuals that develops this give us egoistic moral.
Those of you that have not been studying holistic metaphysics and transpersonal psychology should really do this. It will replace the need of religion with a logic altruistic structure that give us a relevant moral. In my opinion this is indeed the picture of the universe that is taking place right now. For those of you that are religious, here you will find the best possible God there is. God is a dynamic field that everything exist within. God is the structure wherein you exist, and you can become one with this God. You have never been separated from God or other individuals. But you must be innocent as a child to meet God. So stop reading abstract information and seek unity and understanding through meditation. Books can lie, but your body and nature will tell you the truth.
In times like this I think this is more important then ever.
No.2 may sound a bit stretched but pleasure and happiness are the body’s way of telling you that you have completed or are doing something that has kept your species healthy or alive in the past. Or in other words to be successful. So for life to have meaning you have to have a purpose and be successful?
I don’t think that you have to be happy, just that you stay alive.
And a purpose? Apart from staying alive is there anything that all humans are supposed to do? Something specific that applies to everyone?
I do not disagree with you, but your statement is still a little naked.
= staying alive.
But if you “just” stay alive you will probably see some forms and movement during this time and feel pleasure. A pattern that is endless is the same as creativity. From my perspective i see creativity where you see “staying alive”. This probably have to do with that I see natures development through the holistic perspective and not a Darwinistic perspective.
This is why I say that pleasure is secondary.
I have a purpose, the key is to understand my purpose, and the meaning. If I do this I will be successful. Success = A creative developing process.
I also think that the fact that death (the opposite to alive) does not exist in a holistic perspective is different from your metaphysical standpoint. Nothing dies; the substance just moves.
