Looking for a cure to nihilism

First of all, I believe you might have too much faith (Yes faith) in science. Science may give answers to what we can experience and observe. It is true in that aspect but it doesnt necessairly say anything about how the world really is. And what happened before that tiny fraction of a second after the big bang? What caused it? Not how the world is, but the fact that it is, that is the mystery and really interesting thing. To be cured of nihilism, try to answer the following: What is a person?
Also, if you havent, I recommend reading Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and Wittgenstein. And perhaps Simone Weil.

Welcome.

Quoting daldai

The "leap of faith" is a problem for me, as I have had a sceptical, scientific approach to understanding the world for as long as I can remember. I hope we can all agree that this approach can only lead to nihilism, but for a long time I was naïve enough to equate truth with meaning.

What do you mean by "leap of faith"? Soren Kierkegaard would have seen science as requiring a leap of faith itself.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say truth does not equate to meaning. Surely the pursuit of truth is itself a form of meaning? Or do you mean to say that the pursuit of truth results in disillusionment or something like that?

Quoting daldai

There is a quote which, if memory serves, is attributed to Socrates - "all I know is that I know nothing." Well, that might have been true 2,400 years ago but with all the knowledge science has given us I now claim to know everything - in the wide sense of course. What I mean is that I can now close my eyes and see, generally, how everything fits together from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang right up to now and, even in this age of specialization, I know I can't be the only one - that really would be absurd.

Remember also how Socrates said knowledge itself is useless?

How has science really helped you see how "everything hangs together" (the general goal of metaphysics)? Certainly it can add valuable information but it still hangs on metaphysical views itself.

Quoting daldai

Anyway, this isn't about justifying nihilism (ha!), it's about finding a way to cure it, because I no longer care about the truth and I am lonely.

Get a girlfriend.

Quoting daldai

This is not a joke, I want to cure myself of nihilism and would consider hypnotism or even brain surgery in order to become someone capable of taking a "leap of faith."

Or, alternatively, go study phenomenology and purge yourself of some of that "scientific" reductionism. 8-)

Consciousness is inescapably subjective. It will always be meaningful, it will always be becoming, it will always be revealing and obscuring. The idea of a perfect "god's eye view" of the world, impartial and unbiased to everything, is a myth.

Quoting daldai

The more truth you know, the less meaning your life has.

Could it be that the more of certain facts you know, the less meaning your life has? Knowing facts and knowing the truth might not be the same thing.

Quoting daldai

Well, that might have been true 2,400 years ago but with all the knowledge science has given us I now claim to know everything - in the wide sense of course. What I mean is that I can now close my eyes and see, generally, how everything fits together from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang right up to now and, even in this age of specialization, I know I can't be the only one - that really would be absurd.

You seem here to have fallen for the scientistic hubris of our age. You need to realize that one scientific paradigm has always led to another. There were physicists in the 19th century arrogantly bloviating about how there was nothing left to discover about the universe and then along came Einstein. Don't take the bait of those preaching a similar sermon today. This doesn't mean you have to reject truth, mind you, only its transparency and ability to be found in a way that matters existentially in the sciences.

Reply to daldai

Go watch some Jordan Peterson lectures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteWutitFM&t=184s

Reply to daldai Well, there's nothing much we can do for you NOW. The world is pretty much without meaning - anything we can latch onto dies, decays and literally vanishes. If science is to be believed, not even the universe is spared this sad fate.

However, view it from another perspective - the one that believes human and all conscious (I mean aliens) pursuit of knowledge can be interpreted as the universe trying to understand itself. So, our search for meaning is not just a case of one sad species that's awakened in a cold indifferent world. It's the universe itself that has gained self-awareness and it's the universe itself that yearns for meaning. That being the case, we needn't look for a higher power in our quest for meaning because we can give life any meaning we want. Of course we need to reason well and use the right emotional guidance to achieve a meaning which meets the criteria of wisdom.

I started a discussion recently that I think addresses what you are asking. In it, I wrote:

Quoting CasKev

Recently, I came across some writings by Peter Wessel Zapffe, that seemed to ring true with my current core beliefs. What I got from it was that humans are basically animals with highly evolved intelligence and consciousness, who develop coping mechanisms - mainly rejection of negative thought, anchoring on items or ideas of importance, and distraction - to deal with the absurdity of life. In the absence or rejection of such coping mechanisms, one can end up over-thinking life, and searching for meaning where no such meaning exists.

My hope is that the same 'over-evolved' brain that finds despair in lack of meaning can move past this dilemma in a positive way. Perhaps if I can accept that life has no great purpose (or none that will be undeniably proven during my lifetime), I can be content with focusing on satisfying what seem to be our basic instinctive needs - food, shelter, family, community, love, freedom from pain, etc.

Here is the discussion link if you want to see what others had to say in response:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1543/achieving-stable-peace-of-mind

The more I look at things in this way, the more it seems to make sense. I think I can feel my beliefs shifting toward this outlook, and I think it is having a positive effect on my overall mood. I have gone through major changes in belief in the past - via cognitive behavioral therapy and the like - so I realize it is still very early on. I guess time will tell whether the effect will strengthen, and whether it will be lasting.

The most relevant interpretation of a "leap of faith" in my own case of overcoming the absence of meaning life is to take the risks I'm currently unwilling to take to increase agency. The potential I'm squandering makes me well up and proclaim: there is no potential there really and don't regret my person. Incentives and reason unravel to the base state of just avoiding suffering out of instinct or habit, trading happiness for what is bearable.

Honestly, I'm a "pussy" given vulgar parlance of the playground. I've always been one.

If you ever see a homeless man in the park arguing with someone who isn't there, filled with neurotic rage, I'm the precursor to that person. Just a few missteps and I will be that person.

I fear what I shouldn't fear too much and am exhausted by it.

Now some Joseph Conrad quotes:

"How does one kill fear, I wonder? How do you shoot a specter through the heart, slash off its spectral head, take it by its spectral throat?"

"A man that is born falls into a dream like a man who falls into the sea. If he tries to climb out into the air as inexperienced people endeavor to do, he drowns."

"The way is to the destructive element submit yourself, and with the exertions of your hands and feet in the water make the deep, deep sea keep you up. "

Reply to Beebert Reply to Beebert For me, what we experience and observe is the universe, unless you want to get into the whole brain in a vat thing. Modern science describes this almost completely and it doesn't require faith. We are not told science, like we are told religion, we are shown science. Every piece of it is a little part of how the universe works and the fact it all fits together so perfectly and has given us all this amazing technology is proof - you don't have to believe medicine is going to cure you in order for it to cure you.

There are plenty of mysteries still left, one of the main ones is how the different scales - quantum, our level and interstellar - link together. Cause and effect appears to be only a part of "our level" science so the "what caused the big bang question?" may not be relevant.

What is a person? Well, the biological aspect which I assume we both share but you could also say that having a belief system is part of it, in which case I'm not really a person. Love Dostoevsky, he has quite a few characters I can relate to, on the boundary of the "person" definition. I like Kierkegaard, but he's a Christian so absurdity for him is not being able to know what God wants him to do, which is not really relevant to me. I've never read the others you mention (I wouldn't dare try Wittgenstein to be honest).

Reply to darthbarracuda Well, Kierkegaard would say that since he's trying to justify his faith against what was perceived as the opposition. These days it makes him sound like creationist arguing against evolution.

As for truth and meaning, I can only speak of my personal experience. Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back.

Reply to Thorongil I'm not sure I follow this, but thanks. I don't think you can compare scientific knowledge now to the end of the 19th century. Vastly more progress has been made since then than the rest of history.

Reply to TheMadFool It's no good saying "look at it this way" because I'm not looking at it in any way. Nihilism isn't a choice, it's what happens when you don't make a choice. I just want the ability to make a choice.

Reply to CasKev I've come across Zappfe before and it's interesting stuff but my problem is not how do I deal with "meaninglessness" on a personal level it's how do I let other people into "my world" and have a positive effect on them. I'm lonely so I need people to understand me, but if they empathise too much they may not be able to handle it. I know from past experience that you can have

Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back.

Reply to daldai

With this God's-eye view and objectivity, do you see why we have a need for meaning?

Reply to praxis It's biological, every other animal on the planet has meaning without looking for it. Humans have gradually lost meaning and have consequently acquired a greater need for meaning. See the absurdity principle above.

Reply to daldai I dont think I am as sure så you are about science. It rather describes how we see or can see the universe. Not necessairly how it is.

Why wouldnt you dare to try Wittgenstein? How about Nietzsche(who is not a nihilist)?

Reply to daldai

Animals don't know truths (at least our truths I assume) and therefore have meaning, because you believe truth and meaning act in opposition?

Quoting daldai

how do I let other people into "my world" and have a positive effect on them

What do you do or say that tends to push people away, or have a negative effect on them?

Quoting daldai

Vastly more progress has been made since then than the rest of history.

So you think. New scientific theories that purport to explain the same phenomena could arise that repudiate or replace the current ones. Whence progress then? I admit the appearance of progress and the utility of science, but I won't give it absolute explanatory privileges and neither should you.

The basic components of meaning, for humans anyway, is purpose, community, narrative, and transcendence. All of this can be attained within a framework of truth. Religion is just a tidy little package of these basic element that others dreamt up.

The only way we can imagine Sisyphus as happy, lacking purpose, community, and narrative, is in transcendence. He is one with the rock... but of course that can't last and sooner or later he's bored as hell.

Reply to daldai

The term "Nihilism" has various meanings, but you seem to referring to purposeless and meaninglessness.

I agree with those who have been saying that your whole problem is your belief in the religion of Science-Worship.

The good news is that, if you let go of that religion, if you drop that religion, then your Nihilism problem evaporates.

You're talking about concepts, in this case nightmare bad-news concepts. So just drop the concepts.

With them, will go your issues of purpose and meaning. They're conceptual only.

What else is there besides concepts? Disregard them and find out. What else is there? Just the whole world of experience. It isn't something to describe, catagorize, or theorize, of course.

You mentioned a homeless man in the park who was talking to himself. But, even if it isn't out-loud, you've been talking to yourself too much.

Eckhart Tolle has been criticized as a Neo-Advaitist. I don't know about that, but undeniably, Tolle has had a lot useful and helpful to say about talking-to-ourselves too much. He says that, when we do, we're no more sane than that man in the park.

He said, something like, "is it normal? Sure. And it's insane."

Without realizing it, we tend to always unnecessarily be describing and evaluating things and experiences--jabbering a running narrative in our own ear. An evaluated and described experience is of course no longer an experience, but rather some discussion about an experience that's long-gone--ended and killed by the conceptual evaluation, classification and description of it.

That's a major distinction.

I mention this because your conceptual narrative has been particularly harmful to your ability to have your life.

But, though conceptual narrative isn't a substitute for simple plain experience, of course people can whorthwhile-ly discuss purposes, meanings and values.

Where would you look, to read about worthwhile general discussion about that? I'd suggest googling "Vedanta's four Purusharthas", or "Hinduism's four Purusharthas", or just "Purusharthas".

Michael Ossipoff

I will provide you a suggestion that will surely put you on a new path and create change if you are willing to change, and that is study the arts. Choices include but not limited to drawing, singing, dancing (my favorite, but not ballroom), playing an instrument, creative writing, Tai Chi, painting, etc. The idea is to begin to develop creative expression which will most surely move you to a different place in life. If this idea appeals to you, I will gladly answer any questions you have. Good luck with your new exploration into life!

Quoting daldai

For example, I have found that it is impossible for anyone to fall in love with a nihilist. If you think you're a nihilist and you think someone is in love with you then, I'm sorry, but you are wrong about one of them and I hope,

Not true. That's just an excuse. If you're having problems getting a relationship started, you need to keep working on yourself, keep trying different things, different approaches. It's not impossible, you just can't give up, especially not just because you've been rejected a number of times.

Reply to daldai

Religions have a metaphysics. The metaphysics belonging to or adopted by the religion of Science-Worship is Physicalism.

As an alternative to Science-Worship's Physicalism, I refer you to Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose in the discussion-thread "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics", in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" forum at this website

That isn't an off-topic plug for my post. It's relevant to the matter of an alternative to the world-view and metaphysics of Science-Worship, the religion that is the cause of your unhappiness.

In other words, when you drop the religion of Science-Worslhip, there's no need to believe in its metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Reply to daldai You are missing the I-you sense of how we are. There's philosophy about it but it's quite Continental and might not appeal to your scientific world-view. Like martin Buber, who has a core sense of the I and Thou, but can wander off into a rather vague mysticism. Or Emmanuel Levinas, whose approach is that individualism is a misapprehension: we are by nature cooperators, social animals, I and you not I and it or I and he/she.

As a process I agree with Rich: try more than one form of the arts, and try things that involve working with other people: choral singing, ukelele playing, watercolour classes, writing workshops, whatever you fancy. The arts are as glorious an achievement as the sciences. Watch other people and listen to them and wonder about them. Mind-reading is a marvellous skill, for instance, which you only learn by interacting with other people openly and learning how to read them as they read you. Asking questions and not being in too much of a hurry to come in with your own answers works too.

Quoting daldai

It's biological, every other animal on the planet has meaning without looking for it. Humans have gradually lost meaning and have consequently acquired a greater need for meaning. See the absurdity principle above.

Meaning seems like it is something that would only exist in the context of, well, meaning. If a being does not communicate, it doesn't think in terms of meanings. Language is a tool, and we often overuse it, or use it in the wrong situations.

Have you thought about doing something creative? Poetry, painting, something aesthetic....or perhaps becoming a vegetarian, and by doing so adopt a strong moral viewpoint against the miserable, meaningless suffering animals endure in our culture. Doing this in spite of what you say you don't know or can't be known, because you sense it's right.

Perhaps in the end atheism becomes a form of pantheism?
(I'm agnostic)

Quoting daldai

Modern science describes this almost completely and it doesn't require faith.

No it doesn't, not in the least. There are huge controversies raging in basic physics about the nature of matter, how the Universe originated, whether there are multiple universes or parallel universes, and considerably more. The feeling that 'science has the answers' is very much a product of the cultural mindset which gives rise to nihilism in the first place. Read Bertrand Russell's great essay, A Free Man's Worship, published 1903. It bemoans the fact that after all is said and done, man arises by chance from 'the accidental collocation of atoms' and everything ends in the 'cosmic debris' at the end of time. But hasn't Buddhism always said that everything is impermanent? "This life is like a dewdrop at dawn, a bubble on a stream, a flash of lightning in the dark of night." But Buddhists are not unhappy on that account.

You (and billions of others) are suffering from a cultural malaise, from the pernicious effects of taking a religious view of science, as others here are saying. But, don't let that get you down, just see through it. Science is immensely useful and powerful, humanity needs it now more than ever, but it excludes a great deal of fundamental importance.

Quoting Wayfarer

hasn't Buddhism always said that everything is impermanent? "This life is like a dewdrop at dawn, a bubble on a stream, a flash of lightning in the dark of night." But Buddhists are not unhappy on that account.

They're unhappy because of their ignorance, or rather because they fail to realize wisdom. Or so they say.

Quoting daldai

As for truth and meaning, I can only speak of my personal experience. Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back.

So, you're a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning "out there", but not a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning whatsoever? Because, to be sure, the former is coherent while the latter is not.

I think it can be scary and difficult to come to terms with, but once you do manage to accept the rather futile nature of organic existence, everything makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Really, I think you should be more scared about the meaninglessness of pain, especially extreme pain, rather than just existential meaninglessness itself.

What bothers us the most probably usually isn't despair but hope.

.
…In other words : why am I in that body ?
.
[…]

.
…why am I attached to this brain, my brain, and not to another, another person's brain ?

.
…because there is no you, other than the body that you are.
.
…because you are your body. Your body is all that you are. There isn’t any “you” other than your body.
.
Your question is a question only if you assume, without evidence, that you’re something other than your body.
.
Difficult questions, paradoxes, etc. usually mean that the premises for the question are likely incorrect.
.
Each of us is nothing other than a body, which we could also call a human or maybe a person or a being. When I say “person”, “being”, or “human”, that’s how I mean those words.
.
Well, evidently there’s a human who is you. So, based on what I said above, it’s no surprise that you’re that human. That human is the only you.
.
It wouldn’t make any sense at all for you to not be the person that you are, because you are defined by the person that you are. There’s no other you than that person.
.

The only explanation that I found was that I was the only one who was able to think, and therefore to be, and that other people were just projection of my brain. But this way of thinking is called solipsism and though it is the most attractive and frighteningly indemonstrable and solid philosophical doctrine, it is also the one that makes me most afraid and whose veracity I cannot want...

.
There’s a meaningful sense in which you aren’t the only person. For there to be you, there must be a species that you belong to, to which your parents and other ancestors belong. So, of course, in your life possibility-story, there must be the other members of your species.
.
But your hypothetical life-experience possibility-story is entirely your life-experience possibility-story. You’re its Protagonist, and it is centered on, and about, you only.
.
You’re primary to that story. As its Protagonist, you’re its essential component. A life-experience possibility-story isn’t one unless it has a Protagonist.
.
I’ve been accused of “Solipsism” when saying that. “Solipsism” has various definitions, and, when I looked it up, some of them seemed to fit, and some didn’t. It doesn’t matter. Don’t let someone claim to discredit something just by applying a name to it.
.
So, it can be fairly said that you’re the reason for your hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. …in the sense that you’re its essential component. It’s a life-experience story only because it has a Protagonist—you, in this instance.
.
My explanation, above, for why you’re you instead of someone else didn’t explain why there’s a you at all. Why should there even be that physical world that produced that person?
.
There infinitely many such stories, and there’s one with you as its Protagonist.
.
Why are there those hypothetical possibility-stories? Each of those stories is a hypothetical system of inter-related, inter-referring hypotheticals, including hypothetical values for hypothetical quantities; hypothetical “physical laws” relating those hypothetical quantities, and hypothetical if-then statements of various kinds that refer to those other hypotheticals. These hypotheticals also include such abstract facts as mathematical theorems and abstract logical facts.
.
Why are there these intricate systems of inter-related, inter-referring hypotheticals? How could there not be? No one’s saying that they have any “existence” or “reality” other than the meaning, reference and applicability of their component if-then facts, and other hypotheticals, in reference to eachother.
.
Of course the if-then facts about those hypotheticals are true, in the context of the system of hypotheticals in which they refer to eachother. No one’s claiming that system is existent or real in any other context.
.
So that’s why there are infinitely many hypothetical possibility-worlds, and infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories, set in those hypothetical possibility-worlds.
.
…including your own hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.

.

So will this problem remain eternally insoluble or do you have any other opinion that could move the debate forward ?

.
I suggest that there’s a good explanation—the one stated above in this reply.
.
You said, in reply to Rich:
.

So, your sentence "you are an intelligence (not confined to the physical brain) that manifests the physical body" pleased me very much but in this case why does intelligence manifest the physical body in this way and not another ?

.
Aye, there’s the rub.
.
That’s the problem with any unparsimonious metaphysics. And the more unparsimonious the metaphysics is, the more such “Why” questions can and must be asked of it. That’s what “questionable” means.
.
I emphasize that the metaphysics that I described above makes no assumptions and posits no brute-facts.
.
I realize that I answered the following question, at the beginning of this post, but let me answer it here too:
.

So I am a brain, my brain (or my body), I can understand that but in this case, why am I that brain in particular ?

.
Because there is no “you” other than that body that you are.
.

For instance (you may not see the link but for me it is important), let's suppose that during the great race of life, another spermatozoid than the one that led to me today reached the ovum first, what would have happened ? Probably, I would have been physically different but would it always have been "me" ? Would I be "born" ? Would my conscience have emerged like today ?

.
That happens in a different life-experience possibility-story—the life-experience story of that different person conceived as you described.
.
Obviously this hypothetical life-experience possibility-story of yours isn’t that one.
.
As I said, there are infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Quoting daldai

It's no good saying "look at it this way" because I'm not looking at it in any way. Nihilism isn't a choice, it's what happens when you don't make a choice. I just want the ability to make a choice.

You mean Nihilism is the truth? That's the only way I can make sense of the claim that you have no choice.

I agree but...

This situation, Nihilism, makes sense only in the present. I don't know if it'll still be relevant in the future. Scientific advancement is a real thing and with it will come many discoveries that'll transform our lives. May be I'm being too optimistic but there is a chance, no matter how small, that living conditions will improve.

Reply to daldai Well, if ever a thread played into my wheelhouse, this is the one, as you might guess by my username.

I share a general worldview with you. I don't think there are any spirits or forces or higher powers. The intellectual issue with nihilism is simply a lack of specificity. I know that sounds too easy, and in a way it is, because there is an emotional element underpinning the intellectual one. But let's deal with the intellectual issue. Basically, the problem is that there is no objective meaning, right? and it feels like there should be, right? So the questions are, why does it feel like it should be that way, and what would an "objective meaning" even consist of? The answer to the second question is the easier, which is that there is no satisfactory answer. If there was a God that handed down meaning from on high, you could just ask, "yeah, but why should I care about your meaning?". So we're looking for a squared circle. We have a worldview that precludes what we're looking for. So why are we looking for it? Why does there have to be a singular, objective meaning that defines our striving in one fell swoop? Because it matches with 1) the myths from our culture, and 2) evolution isn't kind enough to give us a psychology that is perfect, just good enough to keep the species going, and it fits with the flaws of our psyche.

So the cure isn't to fool yourself into thinking there is actually some meaning, but to realize that the search for the type of meaning that is universal, objective and singular is not necessary, and bound to lead to sorrow. That's where the emotional part comes in. People have evolved something called habituation, which means that no matter how good or bad we have it, we always end up getting used to what our current state is, and wanting more. It should be obvious what the evolutionary pressure for that is. That means that for the most part, people feel a vague sense, often unattached to anything they can put their finger on, that something is missing. It is common to associate this generalized feeling of dissatisfaction to a lack of meaning. I would suggest that simply being aware that such an effect is happening eases it's unpleasantness, and over time, can make it disappear. It worked that way for me anyways. I am now about as content with my life as I could imagine, and don't feel "existential angst" at all, ever.

Reply to praxis I think history, and non-secular cultures today, tell us this. When societies have religion peoples' lives have meaning. When western culture embraced scientific realism, people's lives lost meaning.

Another way of looking at it is to ask the question "what do people 'mean' when they say they want meaning in their lives?" Well, I think that when someone feels that they have a belief that is justified it acquires meaning and therefore adds meaning to their lives. But, life itself is not a belief, it's a truth (I think therefore I am), so it's a mistake to apply the process of justification to something you already know is true. Searching for the meaning of life is taking the process of justification beyond the point that it is useful. You could call it the existential justification fallacy.

Reply to CasKev It's not what I say or do, certainly in any conscious way. I do short-term, superficial, fun-driven, sex-driven relationships pretty well, but that's not enough for it to grow into something deeper. I think my nihilism means that there is not enough "me" to fall in love with, basically.

Reply to Thorongil I don't really see scientific progress (which I don't equate with the idea of societal progress that the west is obsessed with) as one theory replacing another. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He came up with a more accurate way of describing the same phenomena, but Newton hasn't lost any of it's relevance because of that. I don't give science absolute explanatory privileges but I do claim that it has now given us enough knowledge that it's safe to assume that the universe, including humanity, doesn't need any supernatural forces to fully explain it's existence.

I've just noticed that I posted a reply to the wrong discussion-thread at this website. I posted a reply to a question in a different discussion-thread at this website, but I accidentally posted it to this discussion-thread.

The post that I'm referring to is the post by me on this page of this discussion-thread, that starts with the words:

…In other words : why am I in that body ?

...the question that I was answering.

My apologies for that. I didn't mean to post it to the wrong discussion-thread.

I invite any moderators to delete that posting, above on this page, from this discussion thread.

(But my post on a previous page of this discussion-thread was intended for this thread, and was an answer to the question asked by the original-poster to this thread.)

Michael Ossipoff

Reply to Michael Ossipoff I don't know why I'm bothering here, since you've clearly copied this from a previous post, but it is perfect example of how brains are wired differently. The idea of science-worship is laughable to me, but I have come to except that a lot of people never realise that there is a very big difference between being told x=y, and being shown, logically, that x=y. I used to feel sorry for them, missing out on all the wonder and amazement one gets from studying science (it starts very young and maybe if you miss the boat it becomes impossible (maybe I missed the "leap of faith" boat in a similar way)) but now... well, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Reply to Rich I have tried writing poetry, but this happens -

We're just a happening in time and space
Or what happens when these happenings connect
We're just an engram of a memory trace
Evolution's unintended side effect
We're just characters in search of a stage
We're just an amalgamation of sense and intellect
We're just ink on a page

We're just a pile of energy and matter
Or the feelings that this pile can evoke
We're just complex, polysynaptic chatter
Evolution's little self-awareness joke
We're just characters in search of a plot
We're just an accumulation of interstellar smoke
We're just, therefore we're not

Reply to Terrapin Station I don't have a problem getting relationships started, the early parts are fun for me, I love being with a woman and I love sex. I think I put it best in an earlier post - it's like there's not enough "me" there for someone to form I deep connection with and as I get older this has become more important to me. I feel like I'm missing out.

Quoting daldai

it's like there's not enough "me" there for someone to form I deep connection with

The nihilst view of personality is perhaps that it is an accumulation of imperfections?

Reply to mcdoodle Once again, I don't have a world-view. Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this. If you adopt a world-view you cannot end up a nihilist. If you don't you can only end up a nihilist. Maybe it's because you are used to people using the term as some kind of badge of honour. For me it's an accidentally self-inflicted psychological condition that I want to cure.

Quoting daldai

Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this.

But perhaps nihilist thinking has certain psychological effects.

Reply to Cavacava "becoming a vegetarian" - you mean take something I already do for personal reasons, convince myself it's for altruistic reasons so I can feel superior to other people who do absolutely nothing wrong and pretend I'm making the world a better place when I know, deep down, that my actions are having no positive effect what-so-ever... yeah, I'll give it go.

@ daldai

Isn't the observation that an overly rational outlook makes you act in a way which tries to negate that very observation an indication of inherent meaning? You yourself conclude your life is meaningless and, like many nihilists, this creates a sense of despair which makes you seek change.

If you hold scientific realism to be true, you are bound to be aware that what makes us act isn't something independent of the rest of the universe. You purport to have difficulty in engaging in a meaningful relationship so this is not something which is working out for your Darwinian "fitness". We're also social animals and it is my view that we need a degree of (meaningful) social interaction.

To me it's a form of mind / body dualism to value rational thought over "mere" biological functioning to such a degree that the schism we hereby create turns into a form of dissonance. The power of rational thought lies in being capable to form an abstract representation of our environment and the empirical method gives us a means to correlate this symbolic interpretation with our physical environment, giving us much control over said environment. Yet somehow, thinking that life has no meaning, that we're merely here to procreate, that the rational is all there is, that we're deterministic automata, etc. doesn't suffice to convince ourselves we have ourselves figured out to the same degree as we claim to have figured out our environment. Unlike other animals, humans don't seem to evoke a sense of contentedness very easily if the basic requirements for survival are fulfilled and it's this trait which evokes a lot of specific human behaviour (among them suffering from existential crises).

What good does it do if someone claims to have a superior handle on it's environment (objective truth) while that believe has detrimental repercussion for it's existence? As far as I know it's still an emotional value which makes us capable of selecting a preferred outcome when we're rationally computing our environment, if not we'd just be computing away. If you claim that we already have enough information to fully convince ourself we know how we work (where doing so is presuming on applicable knowledge we have yet to gain in the future) your abstract representation of the environment doesn't correlate with the actual physical environment.

There's no such thing as reason / rationality which is wholly disconnected from the rest of the universe.
The new atheists vehemently attack religion, those who propose that free will doesn't exist generally run in circles to make it appear there's an objective reason to keep some form of morality, a lot of science is undertaken for the betterment of mankind or out of sheer curiosity, etc. You yourself have gotten to the point where your rationality falls short and, out of emotional necessity, you have set yourself a meaningful goal to do something about that. You're now trying to have some meaningful social interaction yet you seem to fail to observe that you have already solved your conundrum partially because your view is clouded with an overly rational bias, a bias which appears to stem from a natural mechanism which is used to gain a better understanding / more control of our environment.

Reality is that which is hardest to deny, fleeing into nihilism out of insecurity might just show a fear of engaging your environment properly. If you really value science and rationality you'll acknowledge that, what makes you act is something which is part of the natural world. The observation that what you know about what is governing your behaviour isn't something which can be explained easily in a scientific manner does not mean it doesn't exist. The idea that we might be capable of doing so in the future shouldn't be used as a justification to wait until that time has come, any justification which merely functions as a means to negate the most coherent and intimate knowledge you are able to perceive of yourself in the present is indeed an existential justification fallacy.

Reply to Wayfarer I don't have a religious view of science. I don't have a religious view of anything. Also, the cultural malaise you talk about has nothing to do with science, which the vast majority of the world's population still give no importance to, although they gladly accept its benefits. Science is hardly taking over, if anything we are, now moving in the opposite direction. The cultural malaise is the natural response to how empty and meaningless western culture has become - it's about x-factor not x-factorial.

Quoting daldai

Once again, I don't have a world-view.

You do; part of it involves:

Quoting daldai

For me it's an accidentally self-inflicted psychological condition that I want to cure.

You consider a self-inflicted psychological condition something undesirable.

Reply to darthbarracuda "So, you're a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning "out there", but not a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning whatsoever? Because, to be sure, the former is coherent while the latter is not."

I'm not entirely sure what you "mean" (if it's existentialism, then I never really bought that to be honest) which is the problem talking about this subject. That's why I started to think, not about "the meaning of life" but "existential justification" (defined in a previous post). Instead of "life has no meaning, should I just kill myself?" you get "existence can't be justified, so what?" In this way, and others, I have come to terms with this on a personal level. I don't have a problem with what the truth is, I'd just like to forget it.

Reply to Reformed Nihilist I would agree with pretty much all you've said there, except that I've never felt that there should be objective meaning in the universe. I don't even think that there should be less suffering in the world, for example, although, like most of us I really, really wish there was and we had more wealth-equality etc. but I except the world as it is, with a strong sense of bitterness and helplessness.

I don't feel any existential angst either. All I know is that my lack of a belief-system has left me feeling isolated from other people when it comes to building strong relationships. You could say that having a belief-system is part of our evolution. I'm sure you can see the advantage that it gave to early tribes over tribes that didn't have one and there must be a genetic precursor to this in pre-human history - lot's of mammals rely on cooperation and structure. Maybe it's a genetic mutation in my brain that has left me with this deficiency. I don't know, but it would explain why I seem to be suffering from such a severe form of nihilism that even other nihilists, reformed or otherwise, find it hard to understand me.

Reply to Jake Tarragon There's no such thing as "nihilist thinking", it's just thinking with an open-mind and only believing what you know is true. Then everything you know is true all fits neatly into place with no contradictions. Nihilism is the psychological effect.

Quoting daldai

There's no such thing as "nihilist thinking", it's just thinking with an open-mind and only believing what you know is true. Then everything you know is true all fits neatly into place with no contradictions. Nihilism is the psychological effect.

Have you tried psychedelics at low & high doses? I feel it is well established in the psychonaut community that meaning can only be found beyond the reaches of reason, the very reason you use to establish yourself as "a nihilist". I don't care what you say you are or how you arrive at that conclusion because what you are doing is using terms/concepts to infer truth/probability about yourself or states of affairs in the world. These terms/concepts are inherently limited in a simultaneously linked formation with the limitations of the human brain, therefore there is no way to know for certain what concepts in themselves are or what they say about you or the world. This all becomes directly apparent on usually higher doses of psychedelics, but with some lower doses too. From aldous huxley's famous novel:

"To others again is revealed the glory, the infinite value and meaningfulness of naked existence, of the given, unconceptualized event. In the final stage of egolessness there is an "obscure knowledge" that All is in all - that All is actually each"

"Red books, like rubies; emerald books; books bound in white jade; books of agate; of aquamarine, of yellow topaz; lapis lazuli books whose color was so intense, so intrinsically meaningful, that they seemed to be on the point of leaving the shelves to thrust themselves more insistently on my attention"

Of course, from reading this. You seem like a stubborn type who would refuse this so that he can cherish the vicious cycle he likes to think he is in so that he can point the blame outwards away from himself without actually taking the courage to see outside of his pathetically confined thoughts.

Reply to GooseoneReply to Gooseone Thanks for that, I read it a few times and I'm still a little confused. There's a lot of confusion all round, here. I am trying to explain myself as clearly as possible but it's not proving easy. All I will say here is that I don't overvalue rationalism, if I could be a chimpanzee I would. And, I haven't fled to nihilism because I'm scared of my emotional side. I love my emotional side it's just (I know I'm repeating myself so apologies to anyone bored enough to actually be following this) that I'm starting to notice that that emotional side is not being reciprocated by friends and lovers and it could be because they are raw emotions without an ego behind them. Maybe it's my drive to discover and not create that has done this. Do people discover themselves? Or, do people create themselves?

Reply to Noble Dust I don't think the rationalisation of an emotional state amounts to a world-view

Quoting daldai

it's like there's not enough "me" there for someone to form I deep connection with

You're claiming that every woman you have a relationship with says this?

Quoting daldai

except that I've never felt that there should be objective meaning in the universe.

Then what does nihilism mean to you, and why is it a problem?

Quoting daldai

All I know is that my lack of a belief-system has left me feeling isolated from other people when it comes to building strong relationships.

Why do you think you have no belief system? You have beliefs, right? You create those beliefs base on a certain approach (scientific materialism from what you've said), right? Are you sure you don't mean "religion" when you say "belief system"?

Also, what makes you think that it is your philosophical beliefs that is isolating you from others? Could it be that there are other factors? You say you have a "strong sense of bitterness and helplessness". Might that be it? Have you convinced yourself that bitterness and helplessness are the rationally appropriate responses to how you see the universe to be? I'd like to hear how you came to those conclusions, because I think it's based on poor reasoning.

Quoting daldai

I don't know, but it would explain why I seem to be suffering from such a severe form of nihilism that even other nihilists, reformed or otherwise, find it hard to understand me.

I don't think there are levels of severity to nihilism. Perhaps you need to explain exactly what you think you mean by the word. I suspect that I understand you pretty well. Maybe, maybe not. We can keep talking and figure that out.

Frankly, I don't think you're having a philosophical crisis (or at least nothing you've said to me indicates that you are), I think you're lonely and dissatisfied, and have just assumed that had something to do with your belief system.

Reply to daldai

Yeah It's hard for me to explain myself at times, I guess I'm some what of an existentialist who feels there's more objective reason to be so then many would easily admit to. Also I have this tendency to try and point to how people might be able to verify things for themselves instead of laying out a theory which can be intellectually (dis)agreed with (I'm more psychologically oriented).

And I might have projected a stereotype of a nihilist onto you, a lot of nihilist seem to use perceived meaninglessness as a rationalisation / excuse to refrain from actually caring for things, that latter bit certainly doesn't apply to you because you appear to care a lot for interpersonal relationship.... which is why I'm dumbfounded you consider yourself a nihilist. If you want a functional relationship and are able to extrapolate other people wanting something similar, what does it then matter that doing so might be considered "meaningless" from a particular scientific standpoint?

I can relate to having difficulty in really "connecting" with people, a lot of things which matter a great deal to others I find to be superficial and I am of the opinion that a lot of people are operating on very nihilist presuppositions (I might be somewhat anhedonic but the whole "YOLO" just doesn't do it for me). Also, raw emotions can be confrontational for others but with me, any showing of strong raw emotions (where I usually have great self control) is usually because I care about what I'm doing at that very moment, which would be opposite if I would be of the opinion that things are meaningless.

Isn't it rather that there's lots which has meaning for you (like discovering new things) but that, what you value is just not what most people value? Also, it would probably be a little off putting for people if you carry your "nihilism" as a banner while, in reality, you're more then capable of actually giving a f#ck.

Reply to Terrapin Station A lot have said something similar, but it's more of a general conclusion. Of course, I'm far from certain about this but when you've lived for 43 years and a pattern keeps repeating itself you have to ask yourself "what's different about me?". After all, women fall in love with serial killers and paedophiles so it has to be a pretty big difference and I honestly can't think of anything else.

Reply to Reformed Nihilist I have beliefs in the sense that "I believe that it's going to rain this afternoon" but absolute belief in anything that I don't know to be true, I really don't think so and this is what I mean by nihilism. Again, I can't stress this enough, it seems, but I don't have a "certain approach" - the universe approached me and said "go on, make sense of this."

Oh come on, it's perfectly normal to feel bitter and helpless in the face of what's going on in the world, no reasoning involved, and that's something I know I'm not alone in, so that's not leaving me isolated.

I never said I was having a philosophical crisis. I don't have a philosophy so how can it be in crisis. Also I've admitted from the start that my motivation here is not a sudden philosophical revelation that "nothing is real", but a gradual awareness of how I exist in relation to other people and a general desire to change in order to experience more out of life than I am currently capable of.

Quoting daldai

I don't have a religious view of science.

I took this statement to have a quasi-religious view:

Quoting daldai

For me, what we experience and observe is the universe, unless you want to get into the whole brain in a vat thing. Modern science describes this almost completely and it doesn't require faith. We are not told science, like we are told religion, we are shown science. Every piece of it is a little part of how the universe works and the fact it all fits together so perfectly and has given us all this amazing technology is proof - you don't have to believe medicine is going to cure you in order for it to cure you.

It's true to an extent - but then, people are cured by placebos, purely because they believe they will be, and others aren't cured by medicine, sometimes because they believe they won't be. We are indeed 'shown science' but the universe we experience by means of the senses (which includes scientific instruments) may still only be an aspect of the whole. There are still many things about 'how it all works together' that we don't understand in the least, and yet it does. When Brian Cox waxes eloquent about The Cosmos, sometimes feel as though he thinks that science explains how it all works, but it only explains very specific things about it. Science works by exclusion.

So what I meant was, I think you're attributing to science, what used to be attributed to religion, i.e. the guide to what sensible people ought to think. It is very much a product of the Enlightenment. It has a lot going for it, but in some fundamental way, it's still a belief system. That's what I am getting at. You say 'you don't have a worldview', but that's because your looking through it, not at it.

Reply to Gooseone I'm starting to realise that explaining this is proving pretty much impossible. You'd have to get to know me for long enough to realise you could never to know me.

Quoting daldai

I have beliefs in the sense that "I believe that it's going to rain this afternoon" but absolute belief in anything that I don't know to be true, I really don't think so and this is what I mean by nihilism

What is an absolute belief, and why should the lack of having one be a problem? Why do you expect anyone should have them?

Quoting daldai

Again, I can't stress this enough, it seems, but I don't have a "certain approach" - the universe approached me and said "go on, make sense of this."

So when you're trying to figure out the answer to a question, you just pick random answers? I doubt it. I suspect that you have a system, conscious or not, by which you test possible answers and determine, at least provisionally, which one is the best answer for the moment. You almost assuredly employ heuristics, even if you don't use formal methodology. That's what conscious humans do.

Quoting daldai

Oh come on, it's perfectly normal to feel bitter and helpless in the face of what's going on in the world, no reasoning involved, and that's something I know I'm not alone in, so that's not leaving me isolated.

It's common enough to not be abnormal, but it isn't the only logical option. That's up to you, be as bitter as you want to be, but I doubt it has anything to do with philosophy. If you don't want to be bitter, you don't have to be. That's also up to you.

Regarding if it's why you're isolated, you can dismiss what I've said, but as a rule, people don't gravitate toward bitterness, and bitterness isn't something that is likely to drive you toward people, so it seems pretty logical that it might be a factor, and maybe even a big one.

Quoting daldai

I never said I was having a philosophical crisis. I don't have a philosophy so how can it be in crisis.

What do you think nihilism is, if not a philosophy? There's a whole entry on it in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. I mean you can just say "I don't have a philosophy" all you want, but you clearly think that whatever you imagine that "nihilism" is, it's the only logical way to think about things, and that you wish that wasn't the case (you ask for a cure to it). I'm telling you that you're wrong, and that the "cure" is to stop being wrong. That means that you stop hiding behind "I can't explain it". That's a sign that you haven't thought it out clearly. Maybe you can't explain it because it doesn't make sense? If it doesn't make sense, then you should stop believing it.

Reply to Wayfarer I admit that does sound a bit preachy but I really don't think science should tell people what they ought to think (some scientists think they have this right (yeah, I'm looking at you, Dawkins) but they're wrong).

Reply to daldai that's not really what I'm getting at. Naturalism, scientific realism, or what have you, is an instinctive stance we have nowadays. It is the air we breathe, the way we see the world. I think that has a lot to do with the nihilism you're feeling. Why? Because it tells us that the world 'out there' is essentially meaningless (hence: nihilism), and that meaning is subjective, 'in here'; but what's 'in here' is just a kind of accidental byproduct of the external world.

Tell me if I'm getting warm.

Reply to daldai With arts, one must study the creator as well as the creation. To learn to be creative is a very long journey.

Reply to Reformed Nihilist "What is an absolute believe, and why should the lack of having one be a problem? Why do you expect anyone should have them?"

I'm not sure what I meant. What did you mean by "belief"?

"So when you're trying to figure out the answer to a question, you just pick random answers? I doubt it. I suspect that you have a system, conscious or not, by which you test possible answers and determine, at least provisionally, which one is the best answer for the moment. You almost assuredly employ heuristics, even if you don't use formal methodology. That's what conscious humans do."

No, I google it. Really though, I think of that as a set of proven logical, rational rules for solving problems that have nothing to do with belief. As for heuristics, if someone asks me how I am I think about it before answering.

"It's common enough to not be abnormal, but it isn't the only logical option. That's up to you, be as bitter as you want to be, but I doubt it has anything to do with philosophy. If you don't want to be bitter, you don't have to be. That's also up to you.

Regarding if it's why you're isolated, you can dismiss what I've said, but as a rule, people don't gravitate toward bitterness, and bitterness isn't something that is likely to drive you toward people, so it seems pretty logical that it might be a factor, and maybe even a big one."

I think you're reading too much into my use of the term "bitterness", or I misused it. But if you can choose how you emotionally respond to a given situation, you're a better man than me.

"What do you think nihilism is, if not a philosophy? There's a whole entry on it in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. I mean you can just say "I don't have a philosophy" all you want, but you clearly think that whatever you imagine that "nihilism" is, it's the only logical way to think about things, and that you wish that wasn't the case (you ask for a cure to it). I'm telling you that you're wrong, and that the "cure" is to stop being wrong. That means that you stop hiding behind "I can't explain it". That's a sign that you haven't thought it out clearly. Maybe you can't explain it because it doesn't make sense? If it doesn't make sense, then you should stop believing it."

Again, we're getting things back to front here. I don't regard nihilism as the "logical way to think", but the logical conclusion to any open-minded enquiry into the nature of the universe, and that's why I don't consider it a philosophy. If it wasn't the only logical conclusion I would be wrong (and cured) but it is, so the only cure is stop thinking about things in a purely logical way, but I don't know how to do that. I admit that the connection between my social limitations and the logical way I look at things may be more correlation than causation, or that there may be something I'm missing.

Reply to Wayfarer If it was an instinctive stance nowadays, then we'd all be nihilists, wouldn't we? No, I think the instinctive stance is still to look for something deeper. Not me, of course, but if you look on YouTube you'll find plenty of crackpots talking about grand conspiracies with thousands of followers. The religious mindset is still the norm, it's just gravitating away from mainstream religion.

Quoting daldai

I'm not sure what I meant. What did you mean by "belief"?

Something you think is the case. The same thing everyone means, isn't it?

Quick formatting note: If you highlight the text of someone's post, a black box with the word "quote" will appear. Click on it, and you'll get the fancy looking quotes people are using.

Quoting daldai

No, I google it. Really though, I think of that as a set of proven logical, rational rules for solving problems that have nothing to do with belief.

Solving problems like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow"? Then you have a belief system. You have a systematic methodology to arrive at dispositions regarding states of affairs. Or in more common language, you believe things, and you have methods for arriving at those beliefs.

Quoting daldai

I think you're reading too much into my use of the term "bitterness", or I misused it. But if you can choose how you emotionally respond to a given situation, you're a better man than me.

To some degree I can, and to some degree I cannot. I can create habits. I can intentionally exploit the loopholes in my own psychology. I can be aware of the psychological and external precursors to the sorts of emotional responses that I would prefer not to get caught up in and, to a degree manage those in order to avoid those emotional reactions. So I'm not totally the master of my emotions, but, like with my environment, I do have some control. Anyone is capable of that, at least to some degree.

Quoting daldai

Again, we're getting things back to front here. I don't regard nihilism as the "logical way to think", but the logical conclusion to any open-minded enquiry into the nature of the universe, and that's why I don't consider it a philosophy.

Fine, if you don't want to call it a philosophy, that's fine by me. So what, exactly is this conclusion? What question does it answer?

Quoting daldai

If it wasn't the only logical conclusion I would be wrong (and cured) but it is, so the only cure is stop thinking about things in a purely logical way, but I don't know how to do that. I admit that the connection between my social limitations and the logical way I look at things may be more correlation than causation, or that there may be something I'm missing.

I disagee. I think your logic, to whatever extent you've shown it here, is flawed, imprecise, and it doesn't look like you've even questioned if it was. It's intellectually lazy, as far as I can see. Perhaps if you want to explain your reasoning, you'll show me to be wrong.

Reply to Reformed Nihilist Quoting Reformed Nihilist

Solving problems like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow"? Then you have a belief system. You have a systematic methodology to arrive at dispositions regarding states of affairs. Or in more common language, you believe things, and you have methods for arriving at those beliefs.

It sounds like you're trying to convince me that there is inherent meaning in the pursuit of knowledge, but I'm not dismissing it, it's certainly how I used to think, and maybe I was wrong to throw that baby out with the bathwater. This little experiment does seem to have had a positive effect, and I appreciate your feedback, as well as the other people who got involved. This is the internet after all, most places I would have just been abused.

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

To some degree I can, and to some degree I cannot. I can create habits. I can intentionally exploit the loopholes in my own psychology. I can be aware of the psychological and external precursors to the sorts of emotional responses that I would prefer not to get caught up in and, to a degree manage those in order to avoid those emotional reactions. So I'm not totally the master of my emotions, but, like with my environment, I do have some control. Anyone is capable of that, at least to some degree.

You must be a nightmare when your partner is looking for an argument.

Quoting daldai

It sounds like you're trying to convince me that there is inherent meaning in the pursuit of knowledge

Nope. I don't think the idea of "inherent meaning" is coherent. Meaning is something that words have, and a dictionary can give you most of the meaning you'll need in life.

Again, I just suspect that you think that you've reasoned yourself to what you think are the only logical conclusions. For some reason you're unwilling to test that reasoning against criticism. I'm telling you I'm pretty sure you're mistaken, but unless you walk me through this reasoning, we'll never know.

Quoting daldai

You must be a nightmare when your partner is looking for an argument.

My partner doesn't go looking for arguments. I lucked out with that. We're both pretty non-confrontational in our personal lives.

@daldai

Let's see if I'm getting closer to understanding your situation.

You have logically concluded that there is no grand purpose or meaning to life.
You have a desire for deeper relationships, but your ways of thinking isolate you from others, and prevent you from forming meaningful connections.
You feel as though you have nothing to offer beyond basic social interaction and sexual urges.

Since you've decided to keep living in spite of the meaninglessness of life, I imagine your goal would be to minimize the amount of suffering you experience, such as the feelings of isolation and loneliness.

I think we all start off as loving and compassionate beings, likely as a result of our instinctive need for community, family, and procreation. I think these natural feelings may be buried under your nihilistic thoughts of meaninglessness. While you can't ignore hunger, thirst, and sleep for an extended period of time without the survival instinct kicking in, things like relationships can be ignored indefinitely. Though doing this may not threaten your immediate survival, it definitely goes against human nature, and will make your life much more unpleasant.

Unfortunately, unless someone shares your strong nihilistic views, they will likely not be satisfied with superficial interaction. So you have to find a way to engage more deeply in life, without it feeling fake or forced.

Perhaps if you are able to look at relationships as a biological need, you will be more willing to accept people with differing beliefs, and engage in the sorts of things that other people value, despite them being illogical.

Quoting Wayfarer

You (and billions of others) are suffering from a cultural malaise, from the pernicious effects of taking a religious view of science, as others here are saying.

How does this make sense? If science is functioning as a religion or system of meaning why would it's adherents, and our nihilist friend daldai, be suffering from a lack of meaning?

Quoting mcdoodle

ukelele playing

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs.

Quoting daldai

Firstly, I like to apologize for signing up specifically to start a topic and not to get involved in other discussions, but I really do need help here. I have googled around but mostly seem to run into adverts aimed specifically at the depressed and vulnerable. I am not clinically depressed, vulnerable or easily offended and would appreciate any feedback.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I'm glad you've participated in the discussion (26 entires so far). Sometimes someone signs up with an interesting question and then doesn't contribute to their own thread. Bad practice.

Are you finding this discussion helpful? It looks a bit like sparring practice--which is perfectly fine. A lot of what goes on here is sparring practice, as well it should be. Better that than a brass knuckle switch blade street fight over philosophy.

A question: How old are you--I'm asking "How long have you been dealing with this?" I take it your life is not unusual -- you have a job, you do a lot of thinking, you have friends, you bathe regularly, do your laundry, and so on. BUT... despite all that, something isn't working well. You have girl friends, you like sex (most people do)... it's just that you are still lonely. You and most of mankind are lonely. It seems to go with the territory.

Quoting daldai

...you'll find plenty of crackpots...

So, you're either nihilist or crackpot, right?

Quoting Bitter Crank

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs.

It's perfectly OK so long as you wear an Hawaiian shirt whilst so engaged.

Quoting daldai

I think history, and non-secular cultures today, tell us this [truth and meaning act in opposition]. When societies have religion peoples' lives have meaning. When western culture embraced scientific realism, people's lives lost meaning.

This sounds like a sort of pre-rational romanticism. And I think your meaning may be clearer if you use a term like 'rationality' or 'skepticism' rather than truth.

Both reason and meaning are driven by our values and, just thinking out loud, that may be the essential reason why they can't really act in opposition. We don't apply our capacity to reason on things we don't value, and things that we don't value are meaningless to us. Conversely, we may apply our reason vigorously to things that we do care about, like truth, and find that activity meaningful. If this is the case, then it would seem that the real problem is confusion about, or the obscuration of, our true values. I think it's possible to lose touch with our values, due to over-intellectualizing, and this can cause anxiety which may further obscure our real values.

Quoting daldai

Searching for the meaning of life is taking the process of justification beyond the point that it is useful. You could call it the existential justification fallacy.

Searching for meaning in life makes sense to me. Searching for the meaning of life, a singular meaning, seems nonsensical. We are surrounded by and saturated in meaning.

Reply to daldai

Neither do I; I didn't say that. Everyone has a worldview; the evidence for this is the basic values they put out into the world. Someone without a worldview would have no beliefs, but your own beliefs are being revealed in your responses in this thread, as well as in your original post.

Quoting praxis

How does this make sense? If science is functioning as a religion or system of meaning why would it's adherents, and our nihilist friend daldai, be suffering from a lack of meaning?

I don't know if Scientificism (the religion of Science-Worship) is a system of meaning. For many it's a system of no-meaning.

But, either way, it can be said that different Scientificists worship their religion in different ways...that iit has "denominations", if you like.

Evidently, at face-value, daldai's Science-Worship is causing him great angst.

But, when someone's belief is presumably making him unhappy, but he adamantly advocates an unusually extreme, doctrinaire and dogmatic version of it,, and isn't considering letting go of it, will anyone be able to help him?

With all issues, be skeptical.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

I don't know if Scientificism (the religion of Science-Worship) is a system of meaning. For many it's a system of no-meaning.

Can you imagine anyone adhering to a meaningless religion? The only essential thing a religion needs to provide is meaning. If it fails to do that it will die, or never takes hold to begin with.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

But, either way, it can be said that different Scientificists worship their religion in different ways...that iit has "denominations", if you like.

There are of course different branches of science. What does that have to do with it being a religion? How exactly do Scientificists worship?

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Evidently, at face-value, daldai's Science-Worship is causing him great angst.

That is not at all evident.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

But, when someone's belief is presumably making him unhappy, but he adamantly advocates an unusually extreme, doctrinaire and dogmatic version of it,, and isn't considering letting go of it, will anyone be able to help him?

I suggest you review what daldai has written in this topic.

Reply to CasKev Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing is that I wouldn't say I have a problem accepting other people's beliefs, when they are not forced on me (I'm far from perfect, but I do value respect and try to be respectful of others, although there is a reply above where I may have let myself down a little bit).

What you said about biological needs is relevant and will help me to clarify what I am trying to say. My concern is that my nihilism means that my identity is not defined well enough to be able to meet the biological needs of others.

Reply to Bitter Crank Thanks, I may actually hang around here bit a when I get the time. I haven't really done much philosophical sparring since my dope-smoking college days.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Better that than a brass knuckle switch blade street fight over philosophy.

That rings a bell... Pynchon?

Reply to Noble Dust There's a lot of terminology I'm throwing around here without defining it properly. Yes, I have beliefs in the sense of - there is enough evidence for X, that I believe X even though I don't know X. An example for me would be if X="global capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and will lead to either totalitarianism or chaos." What I don't have is a belief in the sense of - I choose to believe X in spite of there being no evidence for X, because it enriches my life in some way. This is what I mean above when I say that I don't have the ability to "choose" or take a leap of faith.

Quoting Bitter Crank

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs.

Quoting daldai

Once again, I don't have a world-view. Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this. If you adopt a world-view you cannot end up a nihilist. If you don't you can only end up a nihilist. Maybe it's because you are used to people using the term as some kind of badge of honour.

For me, on the contrary: your claim is that nihilism is comprehensive and admits of no exceptions. It's an all-encompassing attitude to things. That to me is a world-view. I think you're splitting hairs to claim otherwise for the sake of a good chat.