Philosophy of Zero

em-

I think that the definition you quote of nihilism ought to be,at the least,accompanied by a warning that young impressionable people would be better off not reading it.I can't see what use it is either to such people or to society in general.

In the last analysis I consider it subversive on sites to which young people have access.The very common rooms in which philosophers sit on their backsides cogitating such ideas in order to shock or prove their "superiority" are completely dependent on the rest of the population feeling that life does have a meaning and that their individual contributions do have a value.

If I was a mod I would strike it out.As an American judge once ruled-"Free speech does not include the right to shout "Fire!!" in a crowded theatre."

Imagine a young soldier in Iraq reading that after a particularly harrowing week of duty.

Those people who blithely argue for pure scientific Darwinism to be exclusively taught in schools ought to be made aware that stuff like that is on the end of it.

Spendius, I often think that some of your notions are over the edge, but this one beats them all. We should conceal from young people certain ideas that we feel are dangerous for them?
I personally view the world as originally without meaning, which is to say--with existentialism, Nietzsche, and zen buddhism--that WE create the meanings we impose on reality. I have no idea why you consider that dangerous, or why my saying so is subversive. Your attitude is a bit facistic, don't you think? When I realized that I, and all the generations before me created the culture we call our Reality, I rejoiced. When I realized, as Nietzsche did, that there are no apriori meanings, provided us by some Cosmic Architect, I was elated. When Nietzsche announced that "God is Dead", he was making a sociological observation, namely that societies need no longer rest on the notion of a Divine source of authority (except, of course, for theocracies). These "dangerous" nihilistic realizations told me how absolutely free I am. I would not have absolutists like you deny that freedom.
There IS meaning in our lives, but it is OUR creation, which is what we mean by culture, worldview, etc. Nihilism is bad only when it is a philosophy, when we advocate an irrevocably meaningless existence, not when it is a realization of our condition of freedom. With the nihilistic realization, comes the awareness of our responsibility to create our lives, and to take responsibility for our creations.
This is a kind of this-worldly piety. A good news so much greater than the so-called "good news" of Christianity.
Rejoice, brother of the flesh.
Hmmm, I hope that doesn't sound too far over the edge.

Anti-foundationalism is not a philosphy of dispair; it is a philosophy of freedom.

JLN wrote-



How can I be the one "over the edge" when what I said is in line with the policy of every Government in the world,every media source and every family.

I suspect that you are not fully cogniscent with the full gamut of things that are concealed from young people and that you are operating within the limited field of what has been revealed to you.

One presumes that the sections of the Vatican library and of the British Museum which are closed to the public view are,in your opinion,a pointless exercise and that you think they ought to be thrown open.Those are an aspect of the Reality you mention which have been created by "all the generations before" you.

And Nietzsche was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum at the summation of his existence I believe.

I think a society in which the views you express are widespread is a doomed society.

Even Bob Dylan in Mr Tambourine Man only allowed "one hand waving free" and elsewhere he says "are birds free from the chains of the skyways?"

The idea of "freedom" is a twee self-indulgent sentiment.

Spendius, what you say to me is exactly what I say to you, namely, " you are operating within the limited field of what has been revealed to you. " And you have a paranoid worldview, full of metaphysical dangers from which we need protection by "authorities".
BTW, Nietzsche's "insanity" may be very well not be what we think it is. But only the most open of minds (e.g., those who read R.D. Laing) would be open to that topic.

By the way, the secrets of the Vatican may be more of their attempts to mystify the public. Their only important secret is the recently exposed fact that in their original documents priests were instructed with regard to sex, to CELEBRATE, not be CELEBATE.

JLN wrote-



No.I'm not paranoid in the least and I'm not worried about metaphysical dangers whatever they might be.

Are you unable to detect confidence in literary productions or do you turn a blind eye to it in order to facilitate cheap jibes.

Have you an alternative to the "authorities"?

I congratulate you on your invulnerability.

Woah.....
Deep.
Its good to hear people with intelligent thoughts in their head. I dont think its happened notably IRL.
Not sure about spendius tho. I often have difficulty seeing how his sentences fit together, or indeed what he is saying.

I think this really depends on what you mean by not having a philosophy. If you believe that the world is uncategorizable via philosophy, that is a philosophy, IMO. On the other hand, if you simply decline to make up your mind on the subject, that isn't one.

On the same note, I think atheism is a religion of sorts because an atheist has made a conscious decision that God does not exist, while the agnostic is the one who has made no decision at all on the matter.

Rufio,

Try to get out of assuming the meaning of "existence".

"God" is a concept with which (1) believers have a positive relationship (2) agnostics have a neutral relationship (3) atheists have a negative relationship. By "relationship" we mean "effect on actions and thoughts".

If "religion is" a system of prescriptive action and thoughts - a definition which encompasses ALL religions (not just monotheistic ones) then atheism does not qualify.

I suppose I didn't quite mean 'religion' in that post. What I meant was more along the lines of 'belief' which is closer to 'philosophy' than 'religion' is, anyway.

Rufio, this atheist has not concluded after much thought that there is no God. He simply sees no sense in the notion. He also does not acknowledge the existence of goblins.
The agnostic thinks that there is a 50% chance that a God does exist, and a 50% chance that it does not.
I agree, essentially, with your first paragraph.

I completely agree with Fresco's notion of the RELATIONSHIPs people have with the referents of their ideas.

Don't you have to give thought to something to conclude that it makes no sense?

I don't think it is simply that the atheist does not believe that God exists, but that he believes that God does not exist - and therefore he believes something. I think most people also believe that goblins do not exist by the same token. If a goblin were to present itself, they would refuse to believe it was a goblin, and consider it a cleverly made puppet, or something of that sort. If someone had no beliefs at all regarding goblins, and found something that they thought qualified as a goblin, they would probably believe that it was a goblin.

No, to your first sentence. If I were to hear for the first time of a big man in the sky who created everything, like a construction company that built my house, I would be puzzled by the absurdity of anyone entertaining such a notion.
Regarding the goblin, if someone presented to me a little figure and described it as a goblin with an explanation of its extra-natural nature, I would be inclined to give it some thought--to actually examine it (as I did not with the god notion). But this would be because you showed me something to examine. With "God", there is nothing but a notion to consider, and if it's absurd to me it takes up none of my time.
I'm curious, Rufio. Do YOU believe in a God?

Would you consider the notion of a big man in the sky absurd because you have never seen him? You would have had to at least consider what deemed something too absurd to believe in. To cite something often used by theists, you cannot see the wind, but you believe that it is there. Certainly there are differences between the wind and God, but you would have to determine those before determining that the wind exists and God does not.

As for not having a God to examine - fresco continually referrs to God as being a concept that influences people, and not a being, and I think I agree with him on that count. With that veiw of God, there is something for you to examine, or choose not to examine, if you will.

I consider myself agnostic. I find other people's conceptions of God interesting, but since it doesn't matter to me either way whether God exists, I have never worried about it enough to make a decision.

No, it dosn't make itlesf a philosophy. I agree with Greyfan, if put that way, there is no philosophy if you don't have one.

'If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.'

(RUSH, 'Freewill')

when you will think about zero in negative mode result is zero is zero.. And in other view you will find zero is hero

If every body have own philosophy then why not applying?