0
   

Nihilism: Atheism versus Theism

 
 
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 05:31 am
Which is a more nihilistic view of reality? Atheism, with a rejection of order and predefined purpose, or theism with its rejection of earthly concern and preference for extra-worldly/supernatural experience (such as heaven)?

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.
Friedrich Nietzsche

A
R
T
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,146 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2011 03:40 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Which is a more nihilistic view of reality? Atheism, with a rejection of order and predefined purpose, or theism with its rejection of earthly concern and preference for extra-worldly/supernatural experience (such as heaven)?

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.
Friedrich Nietzsche

A
R
T


I think you might be making a hasty generalization in regards to atheists, and thiests too. I would imagine that there are(is) some (at least one) atheist(s) who subscribes to the belief that the universe is an orderly place. Hell, I am one of em. Prediefined purpose I find repulsive, but I am sure there atheists out there that opt for this belief as well.

Also, your question is vague, and the options you give are also vague. For there is a multitude of different belief systems which include atheism, but are nihilistic, and there are certainly belief systems in Christianity (this is the theism I assume you are talking about. But you may not be, which makes it all the more vague) that are non-nihilistic.

So I really think you need to specify what views/belief systems/philosophical theories you want to distinguish.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2011 03:56 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Well said !
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 03:48 am
@Ding an Sich,
I meant predefined order (read: fate:) and predefined purpose. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, yes my question is vague. I am speaking to theism as a whole, NOT just Christianity. Christians seem very sensitive that any religious criticism is directed towards them. I don't have any desire to single them out in this discussion. A Calvinist and a Buddhist (nor example, but not limited to) are equally welcome for nihilist critique.

I think the question is better to be directed broadly across the spectrum of faiths and we can discuss them individually as we see fit. For the same reasons, I was reluctant to rigidly define what an atheist believes, so I kept it simple.

By all means, use your atheism as one side and feel free to evaluate it against as many religions as you can.

A
R
T
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 09:07 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

I meant predefined order (read: fate:) and predefined purpose. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, yes my question is vague. I am speaking to theism as a whole, NOT just Christianity. Christians seem very sensitive that any religious criticism is directed towards them. I don't have any desire to single them out in this discussion. A Calvinist and a Buddhist (nor example, but not limited to) are equally welcome for nihilist critique.

I think the question is better to be directed broadly across the spectrum of faiths and we can discuss them individually as we see fit. For the same reasons, I was reluctant to rigidly define what an atheist believes, so I kept it simple.

By all means, use your atheism as one side and feel free to evaluate it against as many religions as you can.

A
R
T


Last time I checked, Calvinists were also Christians.

I have no reason to evaluate my atheism against religions. I only do this when a religious or spiritual begins with the phrase "I know...".
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 09:43 am
@Ding an Sich,
I meant to say "religious or spiritual person".
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 12:26 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Yes, I know Calvinists are Christians. Did I say they weren't? I think you're putting far too much into making this difficult. Difficult, not in the question itself, but in getting to it.

A
R
T
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 02:44 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Which is a more nihilistic view of reality? Atheism, with a rejection of order and predefined purpose, or theism with its rejection of earthly concern and preference for extra-worldly/supernatural experience (such as heaven)?

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.
Friedrich Nietzsche


Although that might be the definition, I do not adhere to it as being accurate description of atheism. Most (not all) atheists don't reject the concept of god, instead they see nothing that substantiates the existence of one. Just like I don't believe that faeries or goblins exist, so does that make me nihilistic too? No, it is absolutely silly to say that disbelief makes one nihilistic. But since people cant seem to grasp the fact that god is in the same box as goblins and fairies they think making these sorts of "nihilistic" arguments work. They fail because they are trying to bend definitions and make them over lap and not examine to see weather or not they actually maintain any sort of coherence.

My atheism doesn't negate my life purpose. Those who try to claim that my life has no purpose, fails to see that I can make my own purpose. Thus I have more freedom to decide what that purpose is than a theist who suggest that there is only one purpose. My life has purpose, it is what I give to it.

So once again, your definitions although may be actual definitions, are far from accurately depicting reality. I don't have to adhere to a definition just because some people have decided that it should mean that. If I can't then I should start calling myself something other than atheist. Perhaps something like, "Self purposing skeptic realist". I doubt you would allow me that title, so it's better to actually correct the definition that is getting abused.

Let's start by making sure that you stop using the term, "reject" because that what is happening.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 07:54 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Yes, I know Calvinists are Christians. Did I say they weren't? I think you're putting far too much into making this difficult. Difficult, not in the question itself, but in getting to it.

A
R
T


Well, apart from the remark on Calvinists which, the reason for making the question difficult to arrive at stems from the ambiguity of the opening thread. I think Krumple's reply points to this as well.

failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 10:21 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Although that might be the definition, I do not adhere to it as being accurate description of atheism. Most (not all) atheists don't reject the concept of god, instead they see nothing that substantiates the existence of one. Just like I don't believe that faeries or goblins exist, so does that make me nihilistic too? No, it is absolutely silly to say that disbelief makes one nihilistic.

I don't think disbelief makes one a nihilist either. It's not disbelief unto itself. It's how a person may process their surroundings (no matter what they believe). So the question is how do various beliefs influence how people process their surroundings.

Krumple wrote:

But since people cant seem to grasp the fact that god is in the same box as goblins and fairies they think making these sorts of "nihilistic" arguments work. They fail because they are trying to bend definitions and make them over lap and not examine to see weather or not they actually maintain any sort of coherence.

Sure. And such is a a good case then to say that theism is more nihilistic. I've had theists tell me "If there is no afterlife, then life has no meaning. Why not kill yourself." In this case, it's peculiar: They hope to inform me of my nihilism, but really are expressing their own. I'm an atheist, and despite having no belief in an afterlife or a god (or faeries and goblins), I'm quite content with the meaning I find in my surroundings.

Krumple wrote:

My atheism doesn't negate my life purpose. Those who try to claim that my life has no purpose, fails to see that I can make my own purpose. Thus I have more freedom to decide what that purpose is than a theist who suggest that there is only one purpose. My life has purpose, it is what I give to it.

I agree. See above. I never said atheism negates life's purpose. It very much does reject the idea of predefined purpose. In other words, nobody else (not a god, faerie, or goblin) defines it for us; no fate. I don't know of any atheist that believes in fate.

Krumple wrote:

So once again, your definitions although may be actual definitions, are far from accurately depicting reality.

Then use your own definitions. I'm not married to any definition. Provide your own and compare as you see fit.

Krumple wrote:

I don't have to adhere to a definition just because some people have decided that it should mean that.

Of course. So when a theist asserts to you what your atheism must mean, you can absolutely reject it. They are only expressing what your atheism means to them. Seems perfectly on topic to discuss this kind of situation.

Krumple wrote:

If I can't then I should start calling myself something other than atheist. Perhaps something like, "Self purposing skeptic realist". I doubt you would allow me that title, so it's better to actually correct the definition that is getting abused.

You can, so this is unnecessary. You may also call yourself whatever you like. It really doesn't matter. This kind of meta discussion is why I have little patience for philosophy fans. So much more time and effort is poured into the semantics at the beginning, that conversations fail to launch.

I'm starting to regret asking the question, because I feel it's becoming a waste of energy.

Krumple wrote:

Let's start by making sure that you stop using the term, "reject" because that what is happening.

I said that atheists reject order and predefined purpose. I already noted in a previous post that I should have stated predefined order as well for clarity. I can't see how the term reject was used false here. If however, this is a real road block for you. Then simply omit every word in my original post and start here at this question using whatever definition you like:

What is more nihilistic: Atheism or Theism?

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 10:29 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

failures art wrote:

Yes, I know Calvinists are Christians. Did I say they weren't? I think you're putting far too much into making this difficult. Difficult, not in the question itself, but in getting to it.

A
R
T


Well, apart from the remark on Calvinists which, the reason for making the question difficult to arrive at stems from the ambiguity of the opening thread. I think Krumple's reply points to this as well.

What would you have like me to have made less ambiguous? Also, if you're siting Krumple's post in reply, then you'll note he takes exception to my being too rigid because I choose to offer an initial characteristics of atheism and theism which he objected to being boxed in by.

Here, we'll make this your question. You define in your own words (or the words of anyone you think has done well to define)

"Atheism," "Theism," and "Nihilism."

Then, use your own definitions to answer the question such that it's not too ambiguous. If Theism is too vague by itself, substitute any specific religion(s) of your liking.

A
R
T

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 12:15 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Ding an Sich wrote:

failures art wrote:

Yes, I know Calvinists are Christians. Did I say they weren't? I think you're putting far too much into making this difficult. Difficult, not in the question itself, but in getting to it.

A
R
T


Well, apart from the remark on Calvinists which, the reason for making the question difficult to arrive at stems from the ambiguity of the opening thread. I think Krumple's reply points to this as well.

What would you have like me to have made less ambiguous? Also, if you're siting Krumple's post in reply, then you'll note he takes exception to my being too rigid because I choose to offer an initial characteristics of atheism and theism which he objected to being boxed in by.

Here, we'll make this your question. You define in your own words (or the words of anyone you think has done well to define)

"Atheism," "Theism," and "Nihilism."

Then, use your own definitions to answer the question such that it's not too ambiguous. If Theism is too vague by itself, substitute any specific religion(s) of your liking.

A
R
T




But this isn't my question, and I certainly do not want it to be mine, because there is nothing for me to question concerning whether atheism is nihilistic or theism is nihilistic. In fact, I could care less.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 12:33 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Then you're trolling.

Nothing to question and you don't care. Rolling Eyes What a philosopher.

Adieu
R
T

Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 11:56 pm
@failures art,
I'd say Theists, because they deal more in subjective reality, in general. Their obsession with fantasy diminishes the value of true objective reality. Rendering it less meaningful.

I don't think God is required for order. Or at least I can imagine order existing without God. Pre-defined purpose implies a creator, but I see both order, and purpose existing in the Universe, and am unsure if God is the reason.

I used to consider myself a Theist, but now an Agnostic, because I can't prove the existence of a God anymore than I can disprove the existence of one. And According to some definitions here I may have a tendency towards Atheism. But still accept order(first), and then purpose because it appears to exist in the Universe.

I would only derive a non-nihilistic standpoint for myself through what I can observe and reason. Which is to ultimately say i don't know. While Theists on the other hand would have that view based on the fantastic.

Atheists/Agnostics can have a non-nihilistic view without God, while maintaining reason, a view based on faith/supernatural is frivolous to me, and I would consider negligible.

0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 08:14 am
Here's something I previously posted re: Nihilism. It may be of interest.

Before we get into what Nihilism really is let's look at the world's collection of definitions.

Nihilism: -noun

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity
3. total and absolute destructiveness
4. (a) in Philosophy an extreme form of skepticism; a denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth
(b) nothingness or nonexistence
5. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness
6. a delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's own mind, body, or self does not exist.
7. An approach to Philosophy that holds that human life is meaningless and that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are thoroughly empty and false. The term is from Latin nihil, meaning “nothing”.

Right from the beginning it seems that the 'world' and the 'they' don't want you to become Nihilistic. If you become nihilistic, you'll have to totally reject “established laws and institutions”, become an anarchist, a terrorist, “perform revolutionary activities”, and become totally and absolutely destructive.

If you are not the type of person to be outwardly destructive, you can become skeptical and deny “all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth”. If you can't keep your thoughts to your self you will be branded as 'delusional' and that you have same form of 'mental disorder'. (It's kinda like posting on the “Philosophy Forum” - LMFAO)

Definition #6 equates one's 'self' as the same as the 'world', the 'mind', and/or the 'body'. It's important to notice that definition #6 basically says that 'you' are a measurable, definable, thing. You are not Be-ing, you are a 'thing' called mind, body, or self and defined by world's definitions. If you refuse to be defined by the world that's Nihilism or your a “bad thing”.

Definitions 4b, 5, and 7 are kind of interesting. They point to what Nihilisim might be but they don't hit the mark because they define Be-ing as a thing called “nothingness or nonexistence” (def. 4b). Definition 5 then goes on to say that the thing called 'self' has another thing called 'consciousness' and definition 5 threatens your Be-ing by saying both 'self' and 'consciousness' can be annihilated. So, correct me if I am wrong here, the dictionary (some man typing on a computer) has determined that Be-ing is a 'thing' of this world and that 'things' of this world (body, mind, consciousness, etc.) can be annihilated. Wow, this is another good reason to not become Nihilistic.

All of the definitions above are up-side down. What they 'define' doesn't happen the way life actually happens.

Let's attempt to flip all of the definitions above right-side up. Are 'morals' and 'ethics' something that is defined by the dictionary or an ethics class and imposed from the 'outside' (society) on its members? If that were true there wouldn't be any corruption or criminals in the world, right? 'Morals' and 'ethics' come from who 'you' are and then they show up in the dictionary, in a ethics class, or as law, right?

If who you are Be-ing is a 'sense of fair play' then 'morality' and 'ethics' show up in your relationships, in your business dealings, in ethics classes, and in the law. If you're not Be-ing or ignoring your 'sense of fair play', then your relationships and business dealings are about domination and manipulation and looking for 'loopholes' in the law.

I don't want to get into a discussion about ethics and morals here. I only want to point out that ethics and morals come from who 'you' are Be-ing.

All the definitions above purport to define you from the 'outside' in. In other words, those definitions are attempting you 'sell' you on the idea that 'you' are defined by the world, society, and the 'they' (measurabilty and definability) and that the world, society, and the 'they' have the 'divine' right to tell to tell you who you get to be (more domination and manipulation through confusion and doubt).

Nihilism is not a category and it doesn't happen at the level of definition (what the world and the 'they' have to say about it). The definition Nihilism keeps us from experiencing Nihilism.

Nihilism happens at the level of Be-ing. What follows is a modified excerpt of my discussion on the “Philosophy Forum” called 'Death'.

Quote:
In terms of the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they', 'death' is interpreted as that which happens at the end of 'life'. Another word we use for the end of life is 'demise'.

For the purpose of this conversation I will use 'death' (demise) when I am speaking about what happens in the measurable, definable, world and I will use 'death' (Be-ing) when I am speaking of Be-ing.

Be aware, when people speak of 'death' they are most likely speaking about 'demise'. You can't count on them to make the distinction for you. Humans Be-ing readily interchange (confuse) the two words when they come face-to-face with their own mortality and are meaning 'demise' (what happens to a physical body, plant, animal, or man).

Let's clear up the matter of 'demise' first and be done with it. It is rather simple. 'Birth' and 'death' (demise) are two sides of the same coin. When you are 'born', 'death' (demise) is inevitable and nobody can take it away from you or do it for you. It is the only certain/uncertain certainty you have. Just about everything you do between 'birth' and 'death' (demise) is an avoidance of 'death' (demise).

Let me be very clear here. 'Death' (demise) is to be avoided at all cost and for as long as possible.

Monuments (headstones, statues, buildings) are an attempt to extend 'living' past the point of 'death' (demise) or immortality. All of this points to one thing and that is: The moment you are born you are already 'dead' (demise), you just don't know when it will happen. Put down the turd, 'death' (demise) and refuse to play patty-cake with it, you can't do anything about it anyway.

Have you ever had a bad enough accident that it made you confront how you are living your life? Have you ever been in a precarious situation and said something along the lines of “If you'll get me out of this I'll never do such and such again” and experienced a shift in your outlook on life? What I just said is a hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). When you 'close the door' on the way you have been Be-ing, that's another hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). Those 'hints' are all evidence you need to assure you of the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing).

You should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost, however, you should run towards 'death' (Be-ing) and experience 'death' (Be-ing) as many times as you can. That's where you'll find 'living' (Be-ing who you are).

'Death' (demise) is a concept we 'play patty-cake' with to remind us to 'live'. However, 'living' is not the opposite of 'death' (demise). 'Living' is something else. It doesn't happen in the realm of the measurable, definable, world, it happens in Be-ing/knowing.

'Death' (demise) is just one of a whole world of concepts we use to hide behind. Your lot in life is to deconstruct the concept of 'death' (demise) and uncover the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing/liv-ing).

Let me say it again. Your lot in life is to de-construct the 'concepts' of life and uncover the possibility that the 'concepts' of life (the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they') don't define who you are. They can only define you as a measurable, definable, thing.

Deconstructing concepts of things like gun, car, airplane are so easy that you don't even take notice. The difficult concepts are the ones that humans Be-ing use to define Be-ing. Since “you should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost”, when you come close to 'death' (Be-ing) you turn the possibility of not being able “to prove your existence in this world” into a concept (animal rationale) and then use it to represent Be-ing.

As you de-construct the 'concepts', one by one, and disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of measurabilty and definability, you come to a point where you recognize that using the 'measurabilty and definability of the world' to prove your existence never 'captured' who 'you' really are. When you discover that the 'world's concepts can no longer capture 'you', you come face-to-face with the possibility that 'you' can't prove 'you' exist, not even to your 'self'.

Physics has proven that two things cannot occupy the same space, so, when 'you' existing, come face-to-face with the possibility that you don't exist, a very interesting thing happens. When both 'you existing' and 'the possibility that you don't exist' try to occupy the same space, they cancel each other out and both disappear. What gets left in their place is 'you', Be-ing.

What you have just experienced is 'death' (Be-ing).

When you experience 'death' (Be-ing), you will discover that you are no longer a slave to proving/not proving (explaining) your existence and that now you have 'room' for you to replace 'explaining your existence' with something else. This is the essence of human freedom.

In 'death' (Be-ing) you answer the question "Who am I?"


This is Nihilism.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 08:35 am
@Dasein,
Can´t you see that plural and singular are the very same ? That you go exactly for the same mistake on the opposite stand...
...you´re right when you say they got it upside down...you did it to.
While be-ing is a thing in itself, and as an "itself" necessarily self measured...you can´t do the measure alone just like an ant in circles in a balloon cannot find the end of it. "Walking" is part of the "Thing"...

Being (be-ing) walks itself up, but not out of itself...
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:13 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

Here's something I previously posted re: Nihilism. It may be of interest.

Before we get into what Nihilism really is let's look at the world's collection of definitions.

Nihilism: -noun

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity
3. total and absolute destructiveness
4. (a) in Philosophy an extreme form of skepticism; a denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth
(b) nothingness or nonexistence
5. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness
6. a delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's own mind, body, or self does not exist.
7. An approach to Philosophy that holds that human life is meaningless and that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are thoroughly empty and false. The term is from Latin nihil, meaning “nothing”.

Right from the beginning it seems that the 'world' and the 'they' don't want you to become Nihilistic. If you become nihilistic, you'll have to totally reject “established laws and institutions”, become an anarchist, a terrorist, “perform revolutionary activities”, and become totally and absolutely destructive.

If you are not the type of person to be outwardly destructive, you can become skeptical and deny “all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth”. If you can't keep your thoughts to your self you will be branded as 'delusional' and that you have same form of 'mental disorder'. (It's kinda like posting on the “Philosophy Forum” - LMFAO)

Definition #6 equates one's 'self' as the same as the 'world', the 'mind', and/or the 'body'. It's important to notice that definition #6 basically says that 'you' are a measurable, definable, thing. You are not Be-ing, you are a 'thing' called mind, body, or self and defined by world's definitions. If you refuse to be defined by the world that's Nihilism or your a “bad thing”.

Definitions 4b, 5, and 7 are kind of interesting. They point to what Nihilisim might be but they don't hit the mark because they define Be-ing as a thing called “nothingness or nonexistence” (def. 4b). Definition 5 then goes on to say that the thing called 'self' has another thing called 'consciousness' and definition 5 threatens your Be-ing by saying both 'self' and 'consciousness' can be annihilated. So, correct me if I am wrong here, the dictionary (some man typing on a computer) has determined that Be-ing is a 'thing' of this world and that 'things' of this world (body, mind, consciousness, etc.) can be annihilated. Wow, this is another good reason to not become Nihilistic.

All of the definitions above are up-side down. What they 'define' doesn't happen the way life actually happens.

Let's attempt to flip all of the definitions above right-side up. Are 'morals' and 'ethics' something that is defined by the dictionary or an ethics class and imposed from the 'outside' (society) on its members? If that were true there wouldn't be any corruption or criminals in the world, right? 'Morals' and 'ethics' come from who 'you' are and then they show up in the dictionary, in a ethics class, or as law, right?

If who you are Be-ing is a 'sense of fair play' then 'morality' and 'ethics' show up in your relationships, in your business dealings, in ethics classes, and in the law. If you're not Be-ing or ignoring your 'sense of fair play', then your relationships and business dealings are about domination and manipulation and looking for 'loopholes' in the law.

I don't want to get into a discussion about ethics and morals here. I only want to point out that ethics and morals come from who 'you' are Be-ing.

All the definitions above purport to define you from the 'outside' in. In other words, those definitions are attempting you 'sell' you on the idea that 'you' are defined by the world, society, and the 'they' (measurabilty and definability) and that the world, society, and the 'they' have the 'divine' right to tell to tell you who you get to be (more domination and manipulation through confusion and doubt).

Nihilism is not a category and it doesn't happen at the level of definition (what the world and the 'they' have to say about it). The definition Nihilism keeps us from experiencing Nihilism.

Nihilism happens at the level of Be-ing. What follows is a modified excerpt of my discussion on the “Philosophy Forum” called 'Death'.

Quote:
In terms of the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they', 'death' is interpreted as that which happens at the end of 'life'. Another word we use for the end of life is 'demise'.

For the purpose of this conversation I will use 'death' (demise) when I am speaking about what happens in the measurable, definable, world and I will use 'death' (Be-ing) when I am speaking of Be-ing.

Be aware, when people speak of 'death' they are most likely speaking about 'demise'. You can't count on them to make the distinction for you. Humans Be-ing readily interchange (confuse) the two words when they come face-to-face with their own mortality and are meaning 'demise' (what happens to a physical body, plant, animal, or man).

Let's clear up the matter of 'demise' first and be done with it. It is rather simple. 'Birth' and 'death' (demise) are two sides of the same coin. When you are 'born', 'death' (demise) is inevitable and nobody can take it away from you or do it for you. It is the only certain/uncertain certainty you have. Just about everything you do between 'birth' and 'death' (demise) is an avoidance of 'death' (demise).

Let me be very clear here. 'Death' (demise) is to be avoided at all cost and for as long as possible.

Monuments (headstones, statues, buildings) are an attempt to extend 'living' past the point of 'death' (demise) or immortality. All of this points to one thing and that is: The moment you are born you are already 'dead' (demise), you just don't know when it will happen. Put down the turd, 'death' (demise) and refuse to play patty-cake with it, you can't do anything about it anyway.

Have you ever had a bad enough accident that it made you confront how you are living your life? Have you ever been in a precarious situation and said something along the lines of “If you'll get me out of this I'll never do such and such again” and experienced a shift in your outlook on life? What I just said is a hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). When you 'close the door' on the way you have been Be-ing, that's another hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). Those 'hints' are all evidence you need to assure you of the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing).

You should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost, however, you should run towards 'death' (Be-ing) and experience 'death' (Be-ing) as many times as you can. That's where you'll find 'living' (Be-ing who you are).

'Death' (demise) is a concept we 'play patty-cake' with to remind us to 'live'. However, 'living' is not the opposite of 'death' (demise). 'Living' is something else. It doesn't happen in the realm of the measurable, definable, world, it happens in Be-ing/knowing.

'Death' (demise) is just one of a whole world of concepts we use to hide behind. Your lot in life is to deconstruct the concept of 'death' (demise) and uncover the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing/liv-ing).

Let me say it again. Your lot in life is to de-construct the 'concepts' of life and uncover the possibility that the 'concepts' of life (the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they') don't define who you are. They can only define you as a measurable, definable, thing.

Deconstructing concepts of things like gun, car, airplane are so easy that you don't even take notice. The difficult concepts are the ones that humans Be-ing use to define Be-ing. Since “you should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost”, when you come close to 'death' (Be-ing) you turn the possibility of not being able “to prove your existence in this world” into a concept (animal rationale) and then use it to represent Be-ing.

As you de-construct the 'concepts', one by one, and disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of measurabilty and definability, you come to a point where you recognize that using the 'measurabilty and definability of the world' to prove your existence never 'captured' who 'you' really are. When you discover that the 'world's concepts can no longer capture 'you', you come face-to-face with the possibility that 'you' can't prove 'you' exist, not even to your 'self'.

Physics has proven that two things cannot occupy the same space, so, when 'you' existing, come face-to-face with the possibility that you don't exist, a very interesting thing happens. When both 'you existing' and 'the possibility that you don't exist' try to occupy the same space, they cancel each other out and both disappear. What gets left in their place is 'you', Be-ing.

What you have just experienced is 'death' (Be-ing).

When you experience 'death' (Be-ing), you will discover that you are no longer a slave to proving/not proving (explaining) your existence and that now you have 'room' for you to replace 'explaining your existence' with something else. This is the essence of human freedom.

In 'death' (Be-ing) you answer the question "Who am I?"


This is Nihilism.


I very much enjoy the last part of this monologue; would you say that the 'room' that you speak of may be correlated to lebensraum (living space)?

The problem that you raise concerning the actual 'you' and the possible 'you' seems a little vacuous. For, the actual is also the possible. So the actual 'me' is also a possible me, and they do not cancel each other out.

Concerning non-existence; say I exist now, but possibly I may not exist. But this possibility has to do with a maximal states-of-affairs in which at this present time in which I exist, there is a possible (but non-actual) states-of-affairs in which I do not exist at this present moment. Keep in mind that actuality has greater weight than mere possibility. So it is possible to be in the actual world existing at a present moment and in a possible non-actual states-of-affairs not existing. There is not difficulty in this.

How can you define Being? Most certainly not in the conventional way, but perhaps thematically through Interpretation.
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:20 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Then you're trolling.

Nothing to question and you don't care. Rolling Eyes What a philosopher.

Adieu
R
T




No. This is trolling...

http://eseanews.com/global/media_preview.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starcraftmazter.net%2F4chan%2Ffor_forums%2Ftrolling.png
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 08:30 pm
@Ding an Sich,
A state of affairs in which you don´t exist is by definition a non state of affairs about you...at best there is the possibility of considering all the possible state of affairs in which you can really exist...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 05:52 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I suppose I'm a nihilist. I feel that our world is constructed on the arbitrary presuppositions of Culture. They are our foundations and they are man-made, not given.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nihilism: Atheism versus Theism
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 02:21:41