akaMechsmith,
I wrote a cosmological thesis myself on the existence of other intelligent life in the universe. I know full well what you mean.
If you've read some 50 books on the subject of cosmology, you'll know that there is more evidence for the happening of a beginning in spacetime than there is evidence for an eternal steady-state universe.
However, this beginning was -- as the latest theory purports -- an inflation out of a quantum vacuum 'mother sheet', i.e. the sheet in which energy pops out of nothingness. A small disturbance raised its energy, and inflation did the rest. We call this disturbance Big Bang, others call it God.
Semantics.
But the fundamental importance of quantum fluctuations in primordial cosmology is now fully ascertained: the beginning of a universe can possess different vacuum states, and the transition from one to the other can explain why this universe possesses many unusual properties which would otherwise be a complete mystery to us
-- such as the highly expected universal existence of life.
We are bound by this initial disturbance, all of us, and all other lifeforms in the cosmos. The ethical consequences of this are not far away.
Sorry about being so very late to this post.
A common (but misleading) description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance, they are invalid serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome. Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense. Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so". All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.
Faith in Nothing.
Sorry again for taking so long. Forgot to check for a while, but I'm back.
Your definition is linguistically valid. But nihilism itself is an erroneous, incorrect abstraction of reality.
Science and common sense tell us that there is a basis for a natural, scientifically translatable ethics. The very fabric of the universe -- including ourselves -- contains no supernatural beliefs, but it does contain an ethical reality. And that's a lot.
How so?
Many see the universe as something irrelevant, because it exists out of their daily context. That would be wrong of course. We are part of a greater whole. We do not live in a chaotic universe. We do not live in a sterile universe. We live in a living cosmos because of the precision with which physical patterns were shaped in the vacuum fluctuations preceding the so-called Big Bang. That fluctuation was an inexplicable event. Yet, it formed the unity of the cosmic world we inhabit.
We discover the remains of this creation in our quantum science: the energetic fields that underlie our physical world are intrinsically interconnected, influencing each other like one big energetic web. Hence, how we live influences everything else. That's ethics we're talking.
No place for nihilism here.
That greater whole to which we belong is not called 'holy' because some priest said so, but because it's made of one whole interconnected universal unity; not a holyness, but a universal 'whole-ness' and 'one-ness'. The root of 'cat-hol-icism' is precisely the same: universal wholyness.
Therefore, while I agree with you that man cannot randomly inflict judgments of faith upon reality, he can do so if there is a physical, yes scientifical reason to do so. And there's my whole point.
wolf;
Point taken, and well related.
However, on one point of "attitude" we differ; the laws of physics, the "ethics" of existence are not such a pure and sacrosanct item; they are merely a scientifically accurate description of the cosmos "as it exists".
The way things are can be described as a kind of ethical set of laws, but that also implies they are mutable in some way which they are not, and special by being unique, which they are not.
They simple "are"!
Yes...! Hence their strength. The fact that we are energetically connected to everything else on this planet gives us a certain role, whether you like it or not, or however the laws of physics turn out; we have a responsibility and a power.
That's no longer the privilege of Eastern spiritualism, it has become an accepted view among quantum connoisseurs, and it best became a way of life a.s.a.p.
By the way... we should be grateful the universal law is the way it is, for it made us.
I believe I just invented an Anthropic Ethical Principle. Again, no room for nihilism.
These concepts are too difficult for my simple brain to digest. If there is a one word definition, I might be able to understand it; like, is nihilism anything like freedom? c.i.
nihilism in two words (one hyphenated): self-indulgent petulance . . .
I guess you can understand that one, cicerone :wink: I find it a quite apt definition; although you won't find it in any encyclopedia.
My attempt was rather to show why nihilism is scientifically wrong. Some things do matter. Nihilism believes (!) the contrary.
Why give nihilism such a bum wrap?
After all it's just nothingism, and nothing is the alter ego of "everything".
Wholiness, I really hate the word, the meaning, the pun, it just agitates me, even worse than the word whacky. I would write some intelligent response and have a really long "discussion" about why you believe I am wrong about everything but being the nihilist that I am, I care more about myself and my life than trying to argue someones opinions into conforming to what I see as reasonable when I shouldn't care what anyone thinks of anything. The world needs to be destroyed, I would say and built over, but how could you fix such a dire mistake?
Science is built on theories, theories built on faith.
Why give nihilism such a bum wrap?
After all it's just nothingism, and nothing is the alter ego of "everything".
I like BoGoWo, in every topic he always states a point very neatly and precisely without offending anyone. COOL BEANS
Demonstration of the argument to absurdity . . .
How very tedious . . .
Nihilism is not only morose and puerile, it is the epitome of callow arrogance. It would be amusing, were it not so boring.
If that offends anyone, cool beans. (
)
What does it make you when you don't care about anything outside yourself, including defining nihilism?
here, let me drag this in from another thread where i've just quoted it:
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, commenting on life in a state of nature:
"And in that state of nature, no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
This is why nihilism is such a bankrupt load of crap, and largely appeals to the adolescent character--the leisure to torture oneself with such speculations only comes to those who benefit from someone else's efforts to assure the security and survival of the fool indulging in the speculation. Daddy, send me another check . . .
True Set, those who need to worry about paying for crap don't have much time to ruminate over the meaninglessness of life.
There are two definitions of nihilism in the Oxford dictionary of current English, one ethical and one ontological:
1) Ethical: nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles. If you define nihilism as such, we have a problem. I used to be a staunch nihilist myself. Until I discovered something: the existence of free will. Your free will is what creates novelty, what creates evolution, what shapes the world into what it is. The universe changes because of it. This gives you and me a responsibility, there's no way around it, because what you do with that free will is influencing the whole thing.
Next, what we choose to do is precisely ethics. You just have to cast the burden of history's religious cliches from your shoulders -- I think I know how you feel. Tthere is a universe, and we are in it, and we do possess a free will, and free will unavoidably forms ethical or moral decisions. Nihilism is the negation of this. Ergo: it's the negation of the universe itself.
2) You will wonder: what then? How to live? This brings us to the second, ontological, definition of nihilism: 'doctrine that nothing has real existence'. BoGowo, if you define nihilism as such, I'm with you. After all, our world is based on ON/OFF quantum fluctuations of energy. Inside the atomic matter, we are surfing on a sea of energetic interactions between existence and non-existence. Its essence, however, its core, can not be found in one these separate polarities, but within their interaction. In the interactive game of polarities arises order, creation, consistency and reality. Life is the highest result of this process. Mind and free will are its most elaborate representatives. Yet, they are still connected to everything else that was created out of the nothing/something interaction.
What to do with our free will in this world? Antique Eastern spiritual philosophies give us a way out -- or a way in. The subtle difference between nihilism and the philosophy of taoism, for instance, is that even if this ultimate truth of interconnectedness between nothingness and reality cannot be adequately described in words, it can be experienced, nurtured and communicated. In nihilism, nothing can be communicated, and the truth cannot be known or told. Nihilism chooses sides, just as any philosophy that tries to force the world into something. Nihilism is arrogant, by thinking that only the non-existence of the outside world matters and that the inner mind has no influence whatsoever. Fascism is the contrary, it's arrogant, by thinking only the inside decisions of the mind matter, and can be inflicted on the outside world.
How to escape both of these in real life: you must concentrate on the perceiving of the nature of dependency and relationality in the total context of being (the wholeness of things, not their separateness). This is where meditation enters to pacify or calm down the grasping nature of the mind. This grasping nature belongs to the unsettled mind, which has not as yet captured the middle way of existence. It's still hovering between the substantive and the non-substantive; the extremes of which are nihilism and self-destruction. The middle ground of existence is captured only when one perceives rightly the rise and fall of experiential events, or, more precisely, when one is not attached to the elements of this process. Happiness resides in the middle way -- literally, the Tao -- in the connection to everything, including nothing, and not in the sole adherence to nothing or something.
But the essence of the Taoism experience is that our human ideas, words, and expressions, don't suffice to reflect the depth of being.
Metaphors.
Nihilism says "Who Cares?" and spits at the world. Taoism says "Who Cares?" and smiles and plants a tree.
Wolf, I like you. Everything you wrote in the last post I rather enjoyed.
Personally the only thing I think differently than your writing is- well actually I don't think it's thinking differently, it's more of forced living, it's that I can't be reasonably comfortable with all of the knowledge and yet still be happy. Self destructive I guess. Of course I find distractions however, typing this being one. It's all so very depressing... I should really go buy some trees.
Setana, If you've never met the Chimichonga fairy you really shouldn't say Cool Beans.
Yeah, right . . . since that expression is well over twenty years old, i'd wonder if you were born when it was coined . . . anyway, i don't care for chimichangas, but i do love flautas . . .
