Nihilism and justice/fairness?

[PenguinHunter]

Before I start this, I just looked up the definition of nihilism on dictionary.com and their 5th one made me laugh.

5) Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

I've never heard of this before but it sounds like some kind of INTP joke. I can just see some psychiatrist talking to an INTP and the discussion shifts to beliefs. The INTP, just for fun, argues reasonably convincingly that (s)he doesn't exist. The psychiatrist says, "Weird, sounds like you have a mental disorder. Here are some amphetamines."


My actual post....

So I did a search for nihilism on the INTPcentral website and didn't find that much... which is a bit strange because some links that I know should have come up didn't but anyways I apologize if this series of thoughts has been discussed many many many times before. I'm not even totally sure I would classify what I am talking about as nihilism but anyways here it is.

So, while at work the other day, (my job takes no mental power) I was thinking about the universe. I was thinking first about how there are a few major broad ways the universe is described. 1) there is a God and he's sweet and you don't mess with him. 2) there is a God and he's evil and you don't mess with him. 3) there's no God, the universe began with the big bang. 4) there is no God and the universe goes in cycles, expansion/contraction theory. 5) various combinations of 1,2, 3 or 4. 6) add a determinist stance or a free will stance to any of the above. (I know that was quick and my rushed crappy summaries may hurt my discussion later but I don't know how else to do it).

In each case it seems to me that there is no good argument for the existence of justice or fairness on our little planet. In any situation involving a God/Creator of the Universe I don't see how anyone can: 1) say anything in the world is "unfair." God has a plan just accept it; 2) Argue for the need of a justice system. If someone does something wrong it is between him and God (free will scenario), or there is no such thing as "wrong" (determinism scenario).

If there is no God then from a moral standpoint I see three scenarios.
1) Determined universe where at some point (either the beginning or sometime after, but before we came into existence) the universe set out on a predetermined path. There is only one way the particles can move. Nothing in that universe can be "unfair." And anything that happens was going to happen anyways so there is no rational reason to punish someone for something they have done wrong.

2) Random universe. There are events that are completely unpredictable which means we have choices. However, it seems like no one could say that anything is unfair. It would be like calling a game of cards (where the dealer did not use his quick hands to ensure his own victory) unfair. The winner just got a better hand and there was nothing you could do. Then I would think you could extend that to the world of justice, where the strongest/smartest/fittest/whatever person cannot be considered "bad," because, by the luck of the draw, they define what "bad" is.

The conclusion is that there is no such thing as a "bad"/morally wrong action.

But I don't really like this conclusion. I feel like there must be some counter argument but I am having trouble thinking of a good one. I have two sort of weak arguments, that are not exactly against it but help soften the blow.

1) We require a justice system so that we can live longer. No rules = shorter life expectancy. Still nothing is "bad," but at least we don't lose our justice system.

2) (sort of related to 1) The justice system is actually just the voice of the strongest/smartest/fittest/whatever people in the Random Universe argument.

But there is still no such thing as a wrong action, how can just straight up going downtown and killing and raping random people (until you are forced to stop) not be a morally wrong thing to do? Or is that just social conditioning talking?

Again I apologize, this debate has probably happened a lot so at least if you wouldn't mind directing me to some old threads that would be sweet.

[PenguinHunter]

Ok i just thought of Kant for a second here too. I don't know him that well but I have read a bit. He talks about using people as a mere means rather than as an end in themselves... so that could address the last question BUT what does he say about the what you do if someone breaks that rule? Surely the current justice system uses all convicts as mere means' rather than ends in themselves.... and Kant doesn't like hypocrisy.... but wasn't he also a fan of the pretty brutal Prussian rule?

[Hypnos]

But there is still no such thing as a wrong action, how can just straight up going downtown and killing and raping random people (until you are forced to stop) not be a morally wrong thing to do? Or is that just social conditioning talking?
Even if you are entirely devoid of empathy, you might want to live in a peaceful society where you can ply your trade or pursue other interests. This would be the "social contract" theory of society.

While I do have empathy, this is what I subscribe to since invariably I empathize with/care about different things than others.

[PenguinHunter]

yeah i've read about social contract theory and agree with that too... it sort of goes along with the "extending life-expectancy" thing I mentioned briefly... I guess maybe you could define a "wrong" action as something that goes against your interests... but that doesn't help the question of the existence of morality... does it? It seems like that should involve people other than yourself.

[cjs55]

2) (sort of related to 1) The justice system is actually just the voice of the strongest/smartest/fittest/whatever people in the Random Universe argument.

But there is still no such thing as a wrong action, how can just straight up going downtown and killing and raping random people (until you are forced to stop) not be a morally wrong thing to do? Or is that just social conditioning talking?

As some sort of nihilist who believes in your random universe...it seems that you are searching for a universal right/wrong axis to base actions on. This doesn't exist. However subjectively this axis is always being created by human beings. But generally the reason it's wrong to kill and rape random people is because no one wants to live in fear of being killed or raped, not because it is inherently wrong to kill or rape (killing certainly is justified in many scenarios, and maybe even rape could be as well [ATTENTION TO FEMINISTS: I AM NOT WILLING TO ARGUE THIS SPECIFIC CLAIM).

But what your intuition is aiming towards is correct: There is no freedom of moral choice. If one bases morality on a naturalist basis, which seems inevitable for a nihilist, then our subjective views of morality are based on our natural strengths and weaknesses.

This used to bother me, but it doesn't anymore. I'm not too into the concept of freedom in and of itself like I used to be. I also don't think a natural basis of selection is entirely confining, instead almost liberating as the human consciousness explores it's own self.


It seems like that should involve people other than yourself.


Nah, I don't think it ever does. Everyone helps people just to make themselves feel better. It's a good thing though to feel better by making other people feel better (a very positive way to do it)

[PenguinHunter]

I wouldn't say it "bothers me." It just seems like so much of our world is based on a definitive sense of right and wrong that I would like to hear a sweet argument from that point of view.

[cjs55]

Well a natural right/wrong is pretty definitive if it does exist...

[Hexchild]

Even if you are entirely devoid of empathy, you might want to live in a peaceful society where you can ply your trade or pursue other interests. This would be the "social contract" theory of society.

While I do have empathy, this is what I subscribe to since invariably I empathize with/care about different things than others.


Darn, you beat me to it :D

Although I'm more in the lines of individually deciding to improve society by being nice to others, rather than looking at it as a "contract", if that's what you mean.


Oh, and don't get me wrong; I'm not an anarchist. I believe some people need to be led by laws and traditions, and those people who'd do well without might as well follow the same ones or it'd be hard to keep any sort of order. As for my own actions, I have a few principles set up that I don't break, ever, unless they conflict with one another in which case I stick with the one with the highest priority. Sort of like Asimov's robot laws.

Then again, I don't think I'm a true nihilist either. I just acknowledge the ideas of nihilism as one of several possibilities.

[mgb]

I think some of the premises you have about the universe might be wrong. In your examples you are are still looking for some sort of truth as to why the universe exists and/or how it was created. The universe is neither determined nor random. It just exists and knowing anything more than that is unimportant and irrelevant. By definition, to assume either is wander away from nihilism.

Everything is subjective.

Does morality exist? As much as the nihilist wants to submit themselves to the society that has created the idea of morality. Of course, we can rationalize pretty much everything we do, which is I think what cjs55 was getting at, however, to be part of society including the benefits, must come at some cost, which is living by societies moral code.

[Hypnos]

Darn, you beat me to it :D

Although I'm more in the lines of individually deciding to improve society by being nice to others, rather than looking at it as a "contract", if that's what you mean.
I think we are agreement -- I adhere to a convention ("weak contract"), more than feel an obligation ("strong contract").


Oh, and don't get me wrong; I'm not an anarchist. I believe some people need to be led by laws and traditions, and those people who'd do well without might as well follow the same ones or it'd be hard to keep any sort of order.
Nah, I think people who can't adhere to the convention can just be locked up in jail. If the convention is untenable, revolution will occur. I don't make any sweeping statements about human nature, and how that should inform gov't, apart from what history reveals.

[nonsequitur]

I used to be a nihilist. I still do believe that it is almost impossible to make a judgment about "right" and "wrong" in absolute terms.

However, as my moral standard, I realise that my actions, big and small, can have repercussions on people around me. Like when a pebble is dropped into a pool of water, one small action by myself can have increasing, ever-widening effects that I may not anticipate. Therefore, I must consider my options carefully, and their possible results.

I realise that this logic may not work with people who simply don't care about others outside their social sphere, and therefore recognise the practical usefulness of things like the law and religion, which set a sort of social standard, preventing anarchy. However, I do have many issues with the legal system and I'm a firm agnostic, so.. I can only have concepts of Justice/fairness in this sense - by using my sense of empathy.

[PenguinHunter]

I should just say quickly that I don't just go around hurting people at every chance I get (it didn't sound like anyone thought that anyway though). I'm tend to be very careful about what I say and do. ("pebble effect" i suppose)

I also like the hypnos' and hexchild's "weak contract," that's how I tend to think of the world. I also like "I also don't think a natural basis of selection is entirely confining, instead almost liberating as the human consciousness explores it's own self" from cjs55.

To mgbradsh - I didn't intend to come across as looking for a source or definitive truth about the universe. I was trying to set up all the possibilities I could think of and then show that in each one there can be no absolute morality within it.

However, I was hoping for an argument from a completely different perspective. But I'm thinking this is probably the wrong forum to get that from haha. If anyone has read Kant, and doesn't mind attempting to explain it to me... I think I remember him talking about certain rules that define an absolute sense of morality beyond oneself. Maybe I'm wrong about that though...I should go dig through my books and try to find that again. If you know of any good arguments please direct me to them...

[mgb]

To mgbradsh - I didn't intend to come across as looking for a source or definitive truth about the universe. I was trying to set up all the possibilities I could think of and then show that in each one there can be no absolute morality within it.


I think you did too much work then. I guess it would be fair to assume that nihilism can be the result of an exhaustive search for truth and meaning, and not finding it.

[PenguinHunter]

heh

[Hypnos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant#Kant.27s_moral_philosophy

[PenguinHunter]

haha, i was just reading that... wikipedia will one day be that supercomputer from A.I. (generally crappy movie but I thought it started off ok). Thanks though. It seems like the Categorical Imperative ends up coming back to self-interest as well though....Oh well. Kant probably deserves his own thread but I don't know if there would be enough interest to make it worth starting one. Maybe I will later tonight.

[Hypnos]

I think you did too much work then. I guess it would be fair to assume that nihilism can be the result of an exhaustive search for truth and meaning, and not finding it.
While that's correct, I don't think nihilism is quite what PenginHunter's getting at. Rather, existentialism, in that there is no objective truth or meaning; but, there is meaning within one's self.

[PenguinHunter]

Yeah, I'm not really sure what I'm trying to get at. I probably shouldn't have had a "Nihilism" in the title. At the moment I'm thinking that it is possible that there is no objective truth or meaning in anything at all, BUT it is not possible to live your life in our world from that perspective. It seems like that perspective would most often lead to difficult contradictions invoving the shortening of your own life and freedoms unwillingly (jail or capital punishment). My difficulty is that it is so easy to imagine the universe from both Hypnos' existentialist perspective and from the ultimate Nihilist perspective. Added to that is the appearance that both scenarios are ultimately entirely based on self-interest.

Now I'm wondering if the guilt I would have from stealing several million dollars is simply socially constructed in me or if it is innate. I would highly doubt it is innate... But if guilt is just a social construct then it has no universal relevence (.... I don't think...) which makes it seem strange that it exists at all.

[Hypnos]

PenguinHunter,

* I don't understand the difficulty you see with the existentialist perspective. Perhaps an example would be useful.

* In the weak contract theory, behavior is proscribed by convention, but emotions like guilt are innate. I think psychopaths who live in society peacefully make an interesting example.

[PenguinHunter]

Ok, I still need to think about this more but here is where I am at the moment.

First, I think the main purpose behind this thread was to attempt to find a perspective that does not focus so much on self-interest. It seems to me that, by focusing on the meaning of the individul, the existentialist perspective is possibly:

a) Deluding itself into thinking they are somehow more important than the rest of the universe (including the other humans in it), when everything is actually equally meaningless.

b) Missing something larger. Because each existentialist is caught up in promoting their own sense of meaning they miss a larger more unified meaning that involves the rest of the universe (or at least the rest of mankind).

What I would like to find is a good argument from perspective b), not because that is what I believe or want to believe, but because it seems as though so much of our world focuses importance on not harming others (even specifically helping others). It seems as though there must be some school of thought that claims that helping another individual should be an end in itself not just a means to further oneself. And I'm curious as to what such an argument might be like.

Second problem is the difficulty I have defining existentialism. Is each existentialist's definition of existentialism is necessarily unique to that individual? If that is the case then any attempt to define it is circular. The definition of existentialism to allow each individual to define existentialism. Or would that be neo-deconstructionism ( http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/twenty/gratia.html ...second paragraph) applied to the world, something different from existentialism? So my not understanding the concept very well contributes to the difficulties I'm having.

That said, I still like what I (think I) understand of existentialism. I like to think of the universe from I nihilist perspective but the problem with that is if nothing means anything then there is no definition of nihilism... which means nihilism doesn't exist (?). Also something that seems to come up in nihilism is the belief that nothing exists which seems to go against my intuition. So now I sort of want to combine the two and say that (like I think cj said something along the lines of) I am a nihilist operating in an existentialist world. Don't ask me to define that, I can't (not yet anyway).

For your second point I would disagree that guilt is innate. I haven't studied child psychology or anything but I tend to think very young children have no sense of guilt. They will purposly harm others to get what they want and will only make a show of feeling bad once they get in trouble. I suppose you could argue that they don't understand that they are doing harm and I can't really refute that but I dunno....

child A hits child B to get a toy.
child B cries.

Surely there would be a connection there that yes, I have harmed child B and no, I don't care. I would say that we are all psychopaths who live in a society peacefully.

Sorry for the lack of examples but I hope I made my position a little clearer. Thanks for continuing to try to understand my rambles, I tried to make this post more precise.

[Hypnos]

My definition of existentialism is just the rational conclusion that there is no spiritual fiber to the universe -- no greater purpose, morality or consciousness. All of these are human inventions/behaviors. As cjs55 says, applying this view to our biological basis, it provides a tool for reflection and personal transcendence.


Surely there would be a connection there that yes, I have harmed child B and no, I don't care. I would say that we are all psychopaths who live in a society peacefully.
Interesting. I think that dyssocial psychopathy can be a social construct, but primary psychopathy is something entirely different (recently, there has been evidence of a neurological basis).

[PenguinHunter]

As cjs55 says, applying this view to our biological basis, it provides a tool for reflection and personal transcendence.

Yes, I do like that; it's very well put. Thanks to all for their contributions.

[PenguinHunter]

It seems as though there must be some school of thought that claims that helping another individual should be an end in itself not just a means to further oneself. And I'm curious as to what such an argument might be like.

*slaps self in face* That would be form of utilitarianism... sorry to put this back to the top but I couldn't just leave that comment as it was.

[nihilist]

That said, I still like what I (think I) understand of existentialism. I like to think of the universe from I nihilist perspective but the problem with that is if nothing means anything then there is no definition of nihilism... which means nihilism doesn't exist (?). Also something that seems to come up in nihilism is the belief that nothing exists which seems to go against my intuition. So now I sort of want to combine the two and say that (like I think cj said something along the lines of) I am a nihilist operating in an existentialist world. Don't ask me to define that, I can't (not yet anyway).


IMHO, I think nihilism diverges from existentialism in two areas. Firstly, nihilism implies that moral, spiritual, and societal institutions are not only meaningless but ALSO deleterious to the individual. Secondly, nihilism mandates subversive action in order to completely renounce the impeding moral and political conceptions. In order for that to transpire, man must regress to nothingness as to transcend towards the state of existence where one can ask and answer questions without being hampered by the subjective biased complexities of our previously learned states. Essentially, one is relinquishing the identity that he defined in relation to others. I may be wrong, but I try not interpret the nothing exists part too literally.

[Hypnos]

nihilist: IMHO, you're describing Nietzschean existentialism. He explicitly rejects nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nihilism_and_Nietzsche).

[nihilist]

nihilist: IMHO, you're describing Nietzschean existentialism. He explicitly rejects nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nihilism_and_Nietzsche).


Yes, I have perused over that wikipedia entry many times in the past. I am not certain but I think Nietzschean existentialism begins at the stage of renouncing old instititutions and then creating new ones for individualistic purposes. Nihilism tends to remain constant after the level of rejecting everything, fixating on the inherent belief in nothingness. It makes sense that Nietzshce would reject nihilism because nihilism doesn't include the positive self-attaining outcome. Anyway, I do see your point, and it's a likely possibility that I have no idea of what I am talking about.

[Hypnos]

Well, you describe nihilism as a doctrine correctly. So much so that you expose the liars paradox/stolen concept: if you believe in nothing, how can you believe in nihilism?

[nihilist]

if you believe in nothing, how can you believe in nihilism?


I have often ruminated about that. The belief that nothing exists is essentially a belief contradicting the doctrine of nihilism because nihilism is a belief. However, logically, nihilism should reject nihilism including obviously every other doctrine. Then, it's implied that ultimately nothing exists paradoxically validating nihilism.

[Hypnos]

You could always take it as a religious article ;)

[cjs55]

Some thoughts on nihilism and existentialism.

Nihilism is not so much a belief as it is a state of mind. And, just like in nature, it is a vacuum which is immediately filled with value. Thus it is a gateway to other forms of understanding, but in and of itself can never be an understanding by its very nature. If I call myself a nihilist, it means I have gone through this process. In my opinion however, anyone that does go through the process will come to the same conclusions post-nihilism, which means I reject existentialism.

[Hypnos]

[...] In my opinion however, anyone that does go through the process will come to the same conclusions post-nihilism, which means I reject existentialism.
Please expand on this.

[cjs55]

That'll be really difficult because it's what I'm working through right now (very recently, since after this thread started in fact), but I can try.

An object in the external world has no value in and of itself (nihilism). But all things are connected, and within the connection value does exist. I.E. (a ridiculously simplified analogy) a tree by itself is neither tall nor short, but a tree in a forest can be tall or short based on the other trees in the forest. The universe is an incredibly huge network of objects that are all judged by each other, resulting in a totally natural value system in the external world.

Now in this value system you can't say what is 'good' or 'bad' across the board. But this is fine, because there are no universal 'good' or 'bad' in the natural order. But for every species or object, one can put it in comparison with others and realize it is either superior or inferior. This is because every object in the universe is aiming towards something in the grand whole of...well everything. A beaver by itself is valueless. A beaver around a bunch of other beavers can be considered a 'good' beaver if it is exceptional at cutting down trees or whatever a beavers' niche is. This ties in with darwinism extremely well (it isn't just darwinism replacing God however.)

Humanity is a special beast, and because of this concsiousness thing is capable of screwing this up like nothing else is (like it has recently with movements such as egalitarianism). I don't attack human freedom in and of itself, but I think the wiser of human beings have to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. (by the way, this post is hard)



Bringing up some earlier statements now...

Statement 1: You said earlier "My definition of existentialism is just the rational conclusion that there is no spiritual fiber to the universe -- no greater purpose, morality or consciousness."

Statement 2: I said earlier "But what your intuition is aiming towards is correct: There is no freedom of moral choice. If one bases morality on a naturalist basis, which seems inevitable for a nihilist, then our subjective views of morality are based on our natural strengths and weaknesses."

I currently disagree with both of these statements. The first is incorrect because I believe that there is a greater purpose and morality inherent in the universe. The universe itself defines it through the natural value structure inherent in the relationship between objects. Examples of this exist everywhere you can think of, from the relationships between various atomic elements to the relationships of the various species on earth.

The refutation of the second statement brings this together in a cool way. I think that initially, post-nihilism, the void of value is immediately filled with a personal one ala existentialism. However, one can destroy this as well (buddhists are all about this, even if they are crazy), and begin to understand the natural value system. We can't entirely understand it because of our perceptual filter, but we learn more and more if we can experience everything without being held back the societal value structure or the personal one. I don't advocate destroying the self entirely, but I definitely don't believe in coloring the world to fit ones own strenghts.

I believe the world has some of its own coloring to begin with, if we can just manage to see it somehow. Seeing more and more of this is wisdom.

----

PS This current thought process was inspired by this question:

One can't say for sure why Beethoven was a brilliant composer (add in lots of other examples here as well). But he was, and only a fool would dispute it . It seems to be beyond subjectivity. How is this possible?

[Hypnos]

One can't say for sure why Beethoven was a brilliant composer (add in lots of other examples here as well). But he was, and only a fool would dispute it . It seems to be beyond subjectivity. How is this possible?
I'm not sure this is the best example (biological basis for the psychoepistemology of music), but it's a philosophical question physicists struggle with: most great advances are made on an aesthetic basis, not a mathematical one. Does this mean that there is some tendency to beauty, and so some spiritual connection to us?

I'd say that rather, physicists are attracted to such beauty, and the most productive are the most receptive to its charms. There are many people in this world who don't give a fuck, and not all of them are stupid or benighted.

[PenguinHunter]

Damn, I missed this while on holidays... Definately interesting posts. I sort of thought I solved my problem with the nihilist paradox while on holidays but I'm still not sure. i'll have to read your guys' posts again tomorrow when I'm less tired and drugged (wisdom teeth came out today so maybe I shouldn't post here at all any more :shock: but being a fool has advantages I suppose...).

Anyways, I was thinking that maybe the actual term "nihilism" cannot exist with the "nihilist" but it can outside of the nihilist. A nihilist shouldn't consider a term like nihilism applicable for themselves. Rather it is used by others to descibe this bizarre state of existence without meaning. Basically, I think what I'm trying to say is nihilism is a term for non-nihilists.

I'm still struggling with the seeming contradiction involved with thinking as a nihilist and operating in a world where to do anything seems to require an acceptance of meaning.

It made sense in my head a while ago but it is hard to put into words. Hopefully when I read these posts again tomorrow I will be able to make more sense.

[Helios]

My old "Africa,Darwin,God and Bono" thread which ironiclly just resurfaced, was about the impact of all this. To me no one but a sociopath could accept these concepts on an operating emotional basis. You could only "know" them in an abstract way. But you can't incorporate their meaning (or should I say lack there of) into your life. (sanely)

When I look at the universe, things happen for a reason. Perhaps the reason is gravity or some other force we do not yet know, but there is order and reason everywhere. To strip the whole of meaning seems to me to deny the obvious that this is all here, and all seems to be "doing" something.


Because the whole is billions of years old, it is very likely that the meaning is beyond our immediate grasp. I doubt many of the ants that live in my house have any idea of the "universe" they inhabit, but the ultimate truth remains. What they "think" about bug spray or bits of food that drop from the sky doesn't matter. Regardless they fit into a system much bigger than they ever see.

Shit, I had a closing point but I got sleepy and forgot.............maybe it will return later.

[floyd]

i ran across this take on nihilism - http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.counterorder.com/faq.html - which is basically that nihilism is about a rejection of faith and teleology.

i find the above take on nihilism is somewhat compatible with my world view.

[PenguinHunter]

cjs55: I read your post a few times now while more fully concious and I have a couple of questions so far. I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying but I'm still struggling with a few things.

1) Does there need to be an animate being for your value system to exist? Let's suppose the only things that exist in the universe are a hat and a rock. You say that one of these things on their own has no value at all but if you add a second thing, their dimensions, make-up etc. can be compared giving both objects meaning. (is that right?) But can that value system exist without a third party to make the comparison?

2) Also, shouldn't nihilism extend beyond the material world? I'm still not clear on the way you are allowed to accept "value" in a "connection" and still consider yourself a nihilist. It seems that if one can accept that a singular connection can have meaning on its own the a singular object should be able to as well. (Maybe this criticism doesn't work though simply because the universe ISN'T just a hat and a rock.)

(It's not that I necessarily disagree with what you say, now I'm just trying understand what it should mean to be a nihilist. I understand what floyd is saying with rejection of faith and teleology but I think it should be possible to take it further than that.)

I think at the moment I'm also partly with Helios. It seems to me that nihilism is more like a perception of how the universe exists than a belief. An insight maybe. (this also maybe solves the annoying contradiction... nihilism is not a belief.) We can "understand" in an abstract way that nothing has meaning but because of what we are we can't operate on that "understanding" alone. It can however help us to learn about our world from a different perspective. This may also relate back to your "post-nihilism" idea.

That's all I have for now, I guess.

[meshou]

I'm not sure this is the best example (biological basis for the psychoepistemology of music), but it's a philosophical question physicists struggle with: most great advances are made on an aesthetic basis, not a mathematical one. Does this mean that there is some tendency to beauty, and so some spiritual connection to us?

I'd say that rather, physicists are attracted to such beauty, and the most productive are the most receptive to its charms. There are many people in this world who don't give a fuck, and not all of them are stupid or benighted.I would say that is quite simple-- the idea that the beautiful is often brilliant shows that the "feeling" function is as cognatively valid as the thinking function.

Subjectivity does not mean it is incorrect. Those who are best at making something beautiful, or recognising its application out of its value as a subjective preference are, themselves brilliant.

The reason why it is viewed as supernatural is because that is the only way to effectively experience feeling reasoning. It does not make it any more supernatural (or any less effective) than the thinking way of doing it.

[cjs55]

1) Does there need to be an animate being for your value system to exist? Let's suppose the only things that exist in the universe are a hat and a rock. You say that one of these things on their own has no value at all but if you add a second thing, their dimensions, make-up etc. can be compared giving both objects meaning. (is that right?) But can that value system exist without a third party to make the comparison?


Value is created by usefulness, and usefulness is mainly determined through interaction. The numbers of these interactions are virtually infinite in the real world. A universe consisting of a hat or a rock would have very little interaction, and thus very little value in and of itself. It would require an observing party (dasein/humanity) to make any sort of 'value judgements'. But in the massive mesh that is the universe, we don't need necessarily an observer to determine value: It already exists through the tug and pull of the millions of inter-connections between objects that makes up the universe. This is a circular or spherical system of value, not a linear progression, which is one of the reasons it doesn't make much sense sometimes.

How does this work? Take the concept of evolution and stretch it out a bit. Evolution assigns value to reproductive success. But reproductive success is dependent on environment. Environment is dependent on chemical interaction and physics. The value of any given life form is reliant on the entire makeup of the universe. But the chemical interactions that resulted in the environment to be created has value as well. A good monkey does this and this, a good chemical reaction goes like this and this...

Value in this sense could possibly be defined as the capability to exist in the world and to help create new existance. Maybe.

I've been looking at heidegger a bit and I think I resolve the existence before essence....but not existentialist...issue with this. Human beings determine essence post existence...but they can be flat out out of touch with reality. Humanity is the determiner of meaning (this is the main thing that human beings do). But this determination is only a guess at what is how things connect to each other in the universe. No other object in the universe cares about this, instead it just sort of ontically exists. However human beings hopefully must learn and eventually live at peace with the world around them. By learning about the world, making observations, one knows more and more how things are interrelated, and this knowledge alows humanity to predict the future with great accuracy and to adapt accordingly.

What classifies as useful knowledge is different for every human being because everyone is a different point on the massive graph of inter-connectedness. But understanding of the universe is similar across the board.

I'm not really happy with all of this, not to say that I don't like the overall picture, just that I'm not smart enough to really clarify it and get through some of the objections I'm having trouble even raising.




Finally...Nihilism is nothing more than a process of eradicating previous value structure. I don't think it has much relevence past that.

[Hypnos]

Value in this sense could possibly be defined as the capability to exist in the world and to help create new existance. Maybe.
That's poetic. But, what makes the universe the appropriate valuing agent, moreso than an individual's own subjective preferences?

[cjs55]

Yeah, I'm not sure I can really answer that. I'll attempt.

Subjective preferences concerning the meaning of things around us are what makes humanity unique. But they can be very self-destructive. For instance, a human might value water so much that he wishes to be surrounded by it, and thus live a long and fulfilling life. No matter how much he believes that this is a good thing for his well-being, he will soon drown. This is a failure of valuation to come to terms with the inherent nature of the universe.

This is a very simple example...in reality, valuation failures would often be far far more complex and not very easy to explain out in simple terms.

Self-destructive preferences are I guess the 'bad' value in the universe. You could argue that this is only my subjective valuation...but I'd argue this is the only way anything can be created in the universe (including eventually the creation of humanity). I don't know if this really solves the problem...I'm kinda tired =p.

[Hypnos]

Subjective preferences concerning the meaning of things around us are what makes humanity unique. But they can be very self-destructive. For instance, a human might value water so much that he wishes to be surrounded by it, and thus live a long and fulfilling life. No matter how much he believes that this is a good thing for his well-being, he will soon drown. This is a failure of valuation to come to terms with the inherent nature of the universe.
I'd take a more conservative tack. The individual has subjective value preferences (e.g., feeding, fighting, fucking), and he exercises his reason on the universe in order to achieve these values. In the end, the principle of behavior is cost-benefit.

In your example, if the drowning person truly values water over his life, who are we to say otherwise?

[cjs55]

If the person values something that does not align with his intended goals, then this is a failure. In my earlier example, the human valued water and life. He unfortunately over-valued water as a preserver of life, and ironically died because of it.

I value a cave as shelter. Some other dude values a hat as shelter. We both want the same thing out of shelter. He dies, I live. My valuation was more accurate.


The individual has subjective value preferences (e.g., feeding, fighting, fucking), and he exercises his reason on the universe in order to achieve these values

But using reason to achieve an end requires one assign values to objects that will help one achieve it. In my shelter example, I thought a cave was 'good'. Some other guy thought a hat was 'good'. My valuation was better, because it led me to my end. It led me to my end because a cave works better as shelter for human beings than a hat does, and this occurs because the universe works a certain way.


I'm sort of trying to merge together these ideas here...

Forgive me if I'm missing your point.

[Hypnos]

But using reason to achieve an end requires one assign values to objects that will help one achieve it. In my shelter example, I thought a cave was 'good'. Some other guy thought a hat was 'good'. My valuation was better, because it led me to my end. It led me to my end because a cave works better as shelter for human beings than a hat does, and this occurs because the universe works a certain way.
My point is that you describe a failure of knowledge and reason, not in valuing per se. The ultimate value you are serving is security/comfort. You can ask the question: what yet-higher value does security/comfort serve? Then you're getting into Maslowian territory :)

[cjs55]

I see now. Can an end goal of a human being be judged by anything other than its own subjective state?

Tough one, because what it is to be a human being is to be subjective. This sort of brings us back to that heideggerian paradox of existance before essence and the 'correct' goal of the dasein/humanity. I'd love to go deeper but I'm too tired I think tonight. Thanks for the input so far hypnos!

[Hypnos]

I look forward to continuing when you are rested :)

[PenguinHunter]

So here I am at 4am trying to read interpretations of Heidegger in relation to this topic. It is going to take me a little while to get to a well thought out response to this.

"Can an end goal of a human being be judged by anything other than its own subjective state?"

I think this question may sum up my fledgling, disorganized thoughts on your (cjs55) most recent main argument/discussion post. (I'm not entirely sure though, school work is currently preventing me from giving this my full attention). So, at best, consider me to be up to this point in the discussion, at worst, stuck somewhere back in Heidegger interpretations.

To help me along here, since I've never read Heidegger, would you consider wikipedia's discussion of him to be reasonable? Particularly the Being and Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger#Being_and_Time) bit, since that seems most relevent here. If you have a better link please do pass it along.

[illusivemind]

I see now. Can an end goal of a human being be judged by anything other than its own subjective state?

No.
For something to be valuable, it simply means that it is valued. Presumably by a creature that is capable of valuing things (eg. a human being).

This is a Humean conception of the role of reason in attaining desires, (Instrumental Reason). Reason deduces the best way to go about getting a drink of water if your goal is to drink some water.

However there is argument over whether or not this is the same kind of reasoning used when coming to a belief whether the glass in front of you is full of water or vodka.

Defenders of instrumental reason will say it is the same, but instead of quenching your thirst, your goal is now to form true beliefs, thus if you were to smell alcohol from the glass but still conclude it to be water, you would be acting irrationally.

So one might argue that if the end goal of person is based on false beliefs then we can judge it as folly. For example if your life's goal was to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

However the value of having 'true beliefs' and deeming what is and what is not a true belief is subjective in itself. So ultimately all preferences, views and beliefs are subjective. It is only by agreeing to a set of constructs that we can give quasi-objective value to certain ideas. For example whatever we may define 'truth' as.

They are objective only in the sense that they constitute a consensus reality. Something that can be shattered by your dissent, but go around denying the idea of truth and you are sure to end up being treated by a doctor. (The reality enforcer!)

[Garyincinci]

Plato's "The Republic" will answer your question completely and thoroughly.

The entire premise of the work is to determine what Justice is and why a man should live a "just" life.

[Hypnos]

Sorry Meshou, I missed your reply.


I would say that is quite simple-- the idea that the beautiful is often brilliant shows that the "feeling" function is as cognatively valid as the thinking function.
Again, I'm more conservative: some people just have good taste, and in the absence of information or rational deduction the way they fill the gaps happens to match Nature's. I'm taking "taste" as something less than cognition.


Subjectivity does not mean it is incorrect. Those who are best at making something beautiful, or recognising its application out of its value as a subjective preference are, themselves brilliant.
Perhaps we agree?


The reason why it is viewed as supernatural is because that is the only way to effectively experience feeling reasoning. It does not make it any more supernatural (or any less effective) than the thinking way of doing it.
Yes, the existentialist conclusion is that it's mere chance. Reasoning not only helps you experience it, but gain feedback. Then, one can posit a disorder where somebody's tastes have absolutely no concordance with reality, causing frustration and eventually depression. It might be called being INTP :P

[Hypnos]

Plato's "The Republic" will answer your question completely and thoroughly.

The entire premise of the work is to determine what Justice is and why a man should live a "just" life.
Even conceding the existence of Platonic universals, Plato's argument that they are objective standards of goodness is unconvincing -- in the end, it relies on the values existing in nature (begging a valuing agent), or that all valuing agents happen to agree on what they value. The first rationalist, I guess.

[Hypnos]

They are objective only in the sense that they constitute a consensus reality. Something that can be shattered by your dissent, but go around denying the idea of truth and you are sure to end up being treated by a doctor. (The reality enforcer!)
How do you know that there is a consensus, if reality itself is a consensus construct?

[illusivemind]

How do you know that there is a consensus, if reality itself is a consensus construct?

See this word 'chair', do you agree that it describes this particular kind of thing that you sit on? Yes, consensus. I don't think you need to to take it to the extent that the chair doesn't 'exist' if we don't consent to it, but shared meaning can only be consenual. Could you create a reality for yourself that had no consensus? Quite possibly yes.

[Hypnos]

See this word 'chair', do you agree that it describes this particular kind of thing that you sit on? Yes, consensus. I don't think you need to to take it to the extent that the chair doesn't 'exist' if we don't consent to it, but shared meaning can only be consenual. Could you create a reality for yourself that had no consensus? Quite possibly yes.
Right. So you're describing linguistic convention, rather than the problem of universals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals), which is the real pickle.

For example, in French the pack in a bicycle race is called the "peloton," or ball. The English speaker understands the metaphor once the meaning of peloton becomes known -- easy enough. But, the question is, how do both the French and English cycling fans understand the metaphor? There indeed must be some universal idea of "ballness" that's applicable to the situation.

I have no idea how to resolve this. Maybe it really is just a semantic issue, and Saussure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure) can come to the rescue. *shrug*

[kuranes]

I've always found this "universals" issue to be an interesting one. It's been so many years since my days studying these kinds of things that I hesitate to ask about them, though, of people who are far more current on the subject of what has "already been discussed", and who know where, if any, there has been substantial consensus agreement.

I remember enjoying Bergson, Santayana, Wittgenstein and others - but I'm sure they could have slipped a few "mistakes" by me ( using a sort of verbal "slight of hand" without me catching it ) on this "universals" subject or others.

Thanks for the link, Hypnos, which, in turn, introduced me to "prosentential truth."

[Zephyrus055]

When I was 14, morality was on my mind, because if I didn't figure it out, I knew I was going to blow up and die from confusion. Morality was something necessary for me to establish order from the chaos of this crazy world.

Here's what I came up with. I owe some of my theory to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, with the term social contract.



Humans are egocentric (egocentrism often connotes parasiticism, but this is not what I'm referring to).
Humans are social creatures who maximize survival and reproductive success by developing social structures like tribes, city-states, and nation-states etc.
Human societies produce things like social heirarchies, ethics, programs, and armies etc., to maximize the success of the utilitarian good (synergistic) or the interests of a group in that society (parasitic).
Consequently, morality is a pragmatic construct either designed to cement people together in synergy or cater to the interests of a select few.

The measure of morality is its logical consequences from the synergistic advantage of society, because the synergistic pursuit is in my selfish interest. DIE PARASITES! DIE VERMINS DIE!

That which produces a synergistic advantage is the most in line with my selfish interest.

[kuranes]

Bump

[Hypnos]

I'd say that morality is a construct that does not exist in nature, because it presumes value. So if it's societal "cement," what is its origin? Evolutionary development of empathy, I'd say -- useful in overcoming the prisoners' dilemma/externalities problem of individual choice so you can get group things done.

[kuranes]

I'd like to hear more about the universals issue. See above post.

[Zephyrus055]

I'd say that morality is a construct that does not exist in nature, because it presumes value. So if it's societal "cement," what is its origin? Evolutionary development of empathy, I'd say -- useful in overcoming the prisoners' dilemma/externalities problem of individual choice so you can get group things done. I don't think morality has much to do with empathy. The origin of its cement is human thought. It doesn't exist in nature, no. It proceeds from human nature. Like the ENTP whose nature is to invent, his invention proceeds from his nature.

[Hypnos]

I don't think morality has much to do with empathy. The origin of its cement is human thought. It doesn't exist in nature, no. It proceeds from human nature. Like the ENTP whose nature is to invent, his invention proceeds from his nature.
Ok, so how does human thought arrive at a system of morality?

[Zephyrus055]

Ok, so how does human thought arrive at a system of morality? If you want society to share a synergistic advantage, you produce a solution, including but not limited to, morality.

[Hypnos]

If you want society to share a synergistic advantage, you produce a solution, including but not limited to, morality.
My objection is that I think only recently has this become a conscious decision. The ruthless king or chief might institute an ideology, but how do the masses accept it? I point to empathy, or at least some sense of communal feeling.

[Zephyrus055]

My objection is that I think only recently has this become a conscious decision. The ruthless king or chief might institute an ideology, but how do the masses accept it? I point to empathy, or at least some sense of communal feeling. Fair enough. I can see how our primal instincts, which give us an evolutionary advantage to develop complex societies to maximize survival and reproductive success etc., can also be significantly involved with how we perceive morality and good conduct. Only I would not attribute our primal instincts to produce these social advantages soley to empathy.

I think that the fact that religion and primitive philosophy often attempt to rationally explain morality and connect it with success or failure, suggests an atleast partial historical use of conscious thought with issues in morality.

Tehe. I think the masses generally accept an ideology because it comports to their selfish interests or conditioned values.

[Hypnos]

I'd like to hear more about the universals issue. See above post.
Fine ;P

I'm not sure what I have to offer. I mentioned Saussure because his model of semantics being differential is compelling (a "chair" means what it means because it's not a ball or goat). This dispenses with qualia as a fundamental semantic element, thus circumventing the problem.

However, this raises an issue IllusiveMind might find interesting: taking this to be an acceptable resolution, does this mean that truth can only be known on a comparative basis? Are there no absolute statements?

[Johnny]

The problem of universals, I think, is summed up by William James quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

"From every point of view," he wrote, "the overwhelming and portentous character ascribed to universal conceptions is surprising. Why, from Plato and Aristotle, philosophers should have vied with each other in scorn of the knowledge of the particular, and in adoration of that of the general, is hard to understand, seeing that the more adorable knowledge ought to be that of the more adorable things, and that the things of worth are all concretes and singulars. The only value of universal characters is that they help us, by reasoning, to know new truths about individual things."

[kuranes]

Fine ;P

I'm not sure what I have to offer. I mentioned Saussure because his model of semantics being differential is compelling (a "chair" means what it means because it's not a ball or goat). This dispenses with qualia as a fundamental semantic element, thus circumventing the problem.

However, this raises an issue IllusiveMind might find interesting: taking this to be an acceptable resolution, does this mean that truth can only be known on a comparative basis? Are there no absolute statements?

What do you think of Bergson, Santayana etc. on universals?

I enjoyed the link on the "universals" Wiki page to "truth".

[indie]

2) Also, shouldn't nihilism extend beyond the material world? I'm still not clear on the way you are allowed to accept "value" in a "connection" and still consider yourself a nihilist. It seems that if one can accept that a singular connection can have meaning on its own the a singular object should be able to as well. (Maybe this criticism doesn't work though simply because the universe ISN'T just a hat and a rock.)


This is one of the major problems when debating universality/singularity. For example, the Universe could, theoretically, be just a rock that is sheltered by velvet fabric of a hat. . . scale of perception becomes important, but again. . . perception/value are human constructs. It's fairly intuitive to assume that there has to be some sort of opposition/comparison point at which to divide one from the other: the "universality" from the "singularity"

And I don't really agree with cjs55's statement that nature assigns "value" to certain things. Utility might be a better word, but not really. Perhaps here on planet Earth there's some underlying order to the stability that perpetuates "being" of objects, but assignment of value is not necessary.

[cjs55]

Ok I keep thinking about this.

There are two divisions of value, micro and macro value. Micro-value is determined in relation to a macro-value. Macro-values are like the end goal we were talking about before. A micro-value is good or bad if it helps one accomplish the macrovalue.

Everything that happens in nature is something working towards a macro-level value. This may be too large for us to understand. What is, is in the big picture good (with one exception). However, on a individual level there are various sub-values working beneath the scenes. This is best emphasised by evolution. There is the greater macro-value of evolution (the differentation of species to reproduce in various environment). Then there are micro-values depending on the specific environment at hand. There is energy in sources a, b, and c, and those variations of species that excel at aquiring the energy needs to survive and reproduce are labeled good. The ones that do not are labeled bad. However, this distinction between good and bad on the micro-level is necessary for the achievement of the end goal.

More later.


A question: If human beings could create their own end goal ala existentialism, why not simply create an end goal that is immensly easy to achieve, like total laziness? It seems that most enlightened would choose a very easy goal, to maximize fulfilment.

There is something else driving human beings than created value, and I think it has to do with our place in and connection with the universe.

[Hypnos]

A question: If human beings could create their own end goal ala existentialism, why not simply create an end goal that is immensly easy to achieve, like total laziness? It seems that most enlightened would choose a very easy goal, to maximize fulfilment.
I'd say humans inject "macro" value where there is none, rather than create it from thin air.


There is something else driving human beings than created value, and I think it has to do with our place in and connection with the universe.
Like evolution and neurochemistry?

[Hypnos]

What do you think of Bergson, Santayana etc. on universals?
I admit ignorance here, I don't know what their specific views were on universals.

I can give you my thoughts on pragmatism concerning the problem of universals. Simply, nominalism betrays itself by the universality of "psychological facts." How can we agree on anything, if not that our minds are also in nature, and that they communicate/process by the same principles? Those very principles, then, are universals extant in nature. Kant offered the other resolution, that there is a God and that we are all effectively brains-in-the-vat.

I think this needs more development, and any criticisms are welcome.

[cjs55]

I'd say humans inject "macro" value where there is none, rather than create it from thin air.
From where can they get the macro-value to inject?



Like evolution and neurochemistry?

I think evolution is a viable path to wander on to understand our species as a whole. And neurochemistry is a representation/result of that evolutionary development. So yeah.

But part of me also wants to add in this concept of humanity as revealer of essence. This is where things get complicated. Assume humanity are the only beings capable of this in the universe (just for the hell of it). Essential nature resulted in us, then, basically. We are the stopping point in a sense for the objective universe. Humanity destroys the entire framework of the essential universe by it's very definition as revealer of essence. Only with humanity are existance and essence seperable. So what is our role in the universe, in that context?

I want to say based on intuition two contradictory things... we exist to both: A) dictate our surroundings/place in the universal whole and B] come to peace with our surroundings/place in the universal whole.

I don't really know how to get there though.

[Hypnos]

[...] So what is our role in the universe, in that context?
That, as Satre said, "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does" ? You can speculate, but nothing is more correct than the simple theory that our consciousness is an artifact of the physical laws of the universe, placing us in an ironic position.

This is where religion and other forms of spirituality start for rational people. Perhaps, if we ever unlock the secret to self-awareness or other complex phenomena on a scientific basis the situation may change. :whistle:

[cjs55]

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does"

Indeed. But also, what should we do? When should we be resposible for doing something wrong? How do we determine our own macro-value in this role of condemning freedom?

I believe it lies in our study of our place in the world. The more we learn about the universe, and the more we learn about ourselves, we find that there is something that determines how we came about. Not just science however, because as you mentioned our own consciousness is a participant, and answers can be found in internal observation. Self-reflection is the self trying to assign an essence on itself that fits! This is why we have so much trouble sometimes, not understanding our own selves. Because there is a natural position of the human being in relation to everything around us, and the more we learn about everything, the more we learn about the connection, the closer we can come to pinpointing it.

Sometimes 'simple' people are the happiest. Maybe ignorance is bliss, or maybe they haven't clouded their perception of the world with idelogical concepts which detract from the pure observation of their place in it? I don't know if they are models or not. Hell I don't know if they really exist anyways.


Finally, just as one can look at an animal in it's natural environment and say, 'this one is a good lion.' One can say 'I've been a successful me', to one's self. And maybe one can say, 'humanity, it is doing well.' with certainity. Or 'humanity, it is doing poorly.'

It's just much more complicated and requires self-reflection into the nature of one's own being. Maybe.

[Hypnos]

Indeed. But also, what should we do? When should we be resposible for doing something wrong? How do we determine our own macro-value in this role of condemning freedom?
Maybe we should do what we feel happy doing.


It's just much more complicated and requires self-reflection into the nature of one's own being. Maybe.
Yeah.

[cjs55]

Maybe we should do what we feel happy doing.

Hmm, this brings me back to the micro-value I proposed earlier. Maybe that we must go through pain, which is bad, to become something better in the whole. This is an odd twist an maybe incompatible with what I was thinking before, but it does coorespond to the evolution analogy.

No, no, I think I've failed. They are incompatable thoughts. If micro-value is determined by macro-value, then how can anything that leads to the macro-value being achieved be 'bad?' I think I fucked that whole thing up. What I mean to say is that what we consider to be bad may be re-evaluated later and turn out to be good. This makes me feel like a happy taoist : P

Maybe some people aren't 'meant' to be happy at all. Is happiness the only end-goal worth reaching for a human being? I don't think so. It may be for some. I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure that some heroes of humanity may be fairly unhappy and lead painful lives. The martyr I guess.

And shit, if you think of humanity itself, and then our place in it, maybe we should be doing what will serve the macro-value of the species as a whole...maybe that should be our quest, to understand that.

Or maybe we will serve it just by understanding and particpating in our own personal pursuit of an end value. Yeah, that seems better.

Sorry for rambling.

[Hypnos]

I'll only add that you're assuming that the character of humanity and individual happiness are intimately connected. Sounds plausible, at least on biological and situational bases, but the relationship is rather problematic as evidenced by this forum :)

[cjs55]

heh, obviously, some people just haven't examined their relationship with the universe enough. /sarcasm

But point well taken (as long as I'm getting it). It's very difficult to say that people are unhappy because of a lack of clarity concerning their situation without, well, living in their skin (and not in a silence of the lambs way).