Nihilism or Determinism? OR???

[FromNowhere]

Interesting, why would you think that determinism and nihilism are the two dominant worldviews when it comes to the quesiton whether the universe is intelligently designed or coming together random? Don't think this is a typical modern question, in the sense that it is a widely discussed question. I studied philosophy for several years and never came across this question. The more obvious alternative would simply be that of determinism vs indeterminism.
I have to admit that I don't see the connection between determinism/indeterminism and god or an intelligent creator, which makes the question of whether the universe is intelligently designed or coming together at random a bit strange to start with. Why shouldn't the universe be intelligently designed and random (random as in not determined)? Admittedly I don't know anything about the intelligent design movement and the theories they do or do not promote, so maybe determinism is what they promote. But apart from the framework of this movement, there is nohing inconsistent about the thought of something that is intelligently designed, yet indeterministic.
That's why I don't understand what's funny about being atheist and determinist either. Why shouldn't one believe that there is no god, yet the universe is a deterministic system? After all determinism was largely fueled by the obervations and theories of physics, especially classical mechanics. But this is field that isn't necessarly at best terms with religion (even though a lot of physicists believe(d) in god), so it would actually fit quite well that one believes in determinism and atheism.
On the other hand you don't have to believe in determinism, to believe that you are living in a simulation. What do you mean with unless the simulation is run by humans from the future?


On the thought of consciousness. Decartes cogito ergo sum argument is indeed controversial. It relies on the premise "I think". Therefore one kind of accepts that an "I" exists as a premise, for the very conclusion that an I exists. This is obviously problematic.



Why do you think our reality apperas to be paradox, if anything?
How long it would take a thousand randomly typing monkeys to write Macbeath can't be answered, after all it is possible they never write it. Given the amount of letter in Macbeth and the typing speed of the monkeys it shouldn't be too hard to give probabilities for how long they would need. Probably not that long on an evolutionary scale.
Even though the probability that one monkey writes macbeth first try is somewhere around 1/((1/26)^70000), if one assumes 26 letters occuring and an estimated amount of 70000 characters. Which is obviously pretty fucking low.
If that was meant as a contra evolution and pro intelligent design it might also be said that selection is not random.

Yes, I'm using Nihilism in the place of indeterminism because I am a little biased and the implications of indeterminsim are typically nihilistic. Plus Nihilism is dangerous sounding and much cooler to say and none of us are in school anymore, and nor do we want to be. So maybe I am using some terms interchangeably and being more casual and less academic about it, which is okay. Having said that, I am happy to come to terms and get really specific on things too. I'm not the type of person to try and wiggle out of a good debate even though I may be confused about something.

I never understood why evolution means that intelligent design could not exist, so I am with you there when it comes to that kind of nuance. However, the spirit in which I created this thread was just getting a general sense of what kind of worldviews people have and why. I fully acknowledged that there were alternatives, but in my mind most people I meet believe existence to be here for no particular reason or there is definitely some planning behind it.

Totally happy to get into a deeper philosophical discussion of course.

 

[fig]

though not entirely on topic, and less intelligently developed than the above comments (re: existential aristocracy and the compatibility of an unintentional universe with a rational 'order'), i'd like to raise the question of objective morality. again, I've never been to a university or studied these ideas devotedly. but I know that a lot of Sartre's and camus' writings deal with a consideration of what morality consists of, or relates to. and I've encountered the arguments against responsibility or ethics, on the basis of all lives being brief and no action sustainable beyond a maximum of perhaps a millennium or two. basically, the idea that 'nothing matters'. I have a contention with this because although our actions aren't going to directly, probably even indirectly, affect anybody by the year 3000, they do affect our current environment and the consciousnesses we exist with. regardless of permanence, we have an impact on the day, the moment. although our ideas of what constitutes a positive influence can vary, should vary, I think there is an obligation to try and be a positive element. and if not an obligation then at least a motive, because more joy in the world and in our lives, more fulfillment even in kinds of dissatisfaction, seem to me to be objective positives. if we're happy but not confronting the sources of others unhappiness (ie: exploitative corporate practices, abuse etc.), then our happiness may not be entirely positive as it is contingent upon neglecting the happiness or well-being of others. if we're taking action, but unhappy, then we're improving the world but still existing in a mental space that needs its own improvement. is it better to be happy and inactive, or active and unhappy? either thoreau or emerson said something about trying to consider any situation as separate from their own, individual moral code. i'm conflicted about that idea. trying to understand our opponents is important for a number of reasons. to approach resolution through empathy and actual relation, namely. but we feel strongly about our personal ethics for a reason, whether that reason is right or wrong. recognizing our fallibility and ignorance, while not devaluing our intention and strength, seems essential to any consideration.

I should probably edit this to be more cohesive, but i'm not going to. hope everyone here is alright today.

 

[FromNowhere]

though not entirely on topic, and less intelligently developed than the above comments (re: existential aristocracy and the compatibility of an unintentional universe with a rational 'order'), i'd like to raise the question of objective morality. again, I've never been to a university or studied these ideas devotedly. but I know that a lot of Sartre's and camus' writings deal with a consideration of what morality consists of, or relates to. and I've encountered the arguments against responsibility or ethics, on the basis of all lives being brief and no action sustainable beyond a maximum of perhaps a millennium or two. basically, the idea that 'nothing matters'. I have a contention with this because although our actions aren't going to directly, probably even indirectly, affect anybody by the year 3000, they do affect our current environment and the consciousnesses we exist with. regardless of permanence, we have an impact on the day, the moment. although our ideas of what constitutes a positive influence can vary, should vary, I think there is an obligation to try and be a positive element. and if not an obligation then at least a motive, because more joy in the world and in our lives, more fulfillment even in kinds of dissatisfaction, seem to me to be objective positives. if we're happy but not confronting the sources of others unhappiness (ie: exploitative corporate practices, abuse etc.), then our happiness may not be entirely positive as it is contingent upon neglecting the happiness or well-being of others. if we're taking action, but unhappy, then we're improving the world but still existing in a mental space that needs its own improvement. is it better to be happy and inactive, or active and unhappy? either thoreau or emerson said something about trying to consider any situation as separate from their own, individual moral code. i'm conflicted about that idea. trying to understand our opponents is important for a number of reasons. to approach resolution through empathy and actual relation, namely. but we feel strongly about our personal ethics for a reason, whether that reason is right or wrong. recognizing our fallibility and ignorance, while not devaluing our intention and strength, seems essential to any consideration.

I should probably edit this to be more cohesive, but i'm not going to. hope everyone here is alright today.

From what I gathered, I think you are saying there is value in objective morality, as opposed to moral relativism. I agree with this. I think the ideas of Sartre and the postmodernist movement are very dangerous and harmful because they basically point to life as just a succession of power games in which objective morality really has no place. Nobody has all the answers, but I think there are guidelines that certain traditions have given us that are worth paying attention to.

 

[Deleted member 20683]

interesting question! i am for sure not a philosophical nihilist, as i too believe in a Deity, but i don't think i am either determinist or indeterminist (i may be a political nihilist, but that's another topic).

i think it's just one of those paradoxes that comes from believing in what we believe. if we believe the Deity is omnipotent then it seems to know everything in advance, like it is all written down in a big book somewhere, which i can accept on some level. but i think trying to live with this belief also means accepting that we have some kind of free will, otherwise why would It try to guide us to live one way or another, to inspire us to be better or more ethical selves?

it is really pretty paradoxical but i want to point out that denying the Deity does not solve this problem otherwise we have the secular-nihilist view that freedom is the most important thing and everyone should be free to do whatever they feel like, but with no divine plan informing the cosmos its all just a bunch of billiard balls slamming into each other forever and we actually have no freedom whatsoever. sorry - paradoxes are just everywhere in philosophy! except in logic but of course this is beyond logic. if you don't want to believe there is a Creator who cares about how we act, no one can prove or disprove that logically, scientifically or whatever, but it will show in your attitude toward life and how responsible you feel for your choices. so i would say with kant, make the choice that makes your life better.

i think what a lot of spiritual and philosophical traditions are about is *achieving* freedom, freedom through harmonization with the divine order of everything. it's the only way we get out of being billiard balls and the only way to find meaning, by constructing our own understanding of the meaning that is inherent to everything. if nothing happens that is not already written, we still can't see where it is written so in some sense it doesn't really matter to us except as how it shakes out in terms of how we live our lives. everything is written but from our point of view, nothing is. if that makes sense....! thanks for the prompt to some highfalutin talk

 

[deleted user]

I do want to mention that I think energy has probably always been, and doesn't really have an origin. our thought patterns are organized in a linear pattern, but time is really nothing other than the processes of decay and growth, measured by the movement of the planets. we expect there to be a beginning and end for everything, but I don't believe that's necessarily the case. quarks and neutrons may have been circling around themselves forever, literally eternity. which, like nothingness, is a concept we might not be capable of fully envisioning.

stukov: i think basic morality isn't exactly a result of arbitrary chemical relationships, but an evolutionary development. have you ever read kropotkin's 'mutual aid'? and maybe the will to survive, individually and as a part of any collective, whether human or animal or just alive, maybe that's arbitrary in a way. but meaningless doesn't mean irrational. a beautiful song or scene can be perfectly meaningless and still powerful, satisfying, inspiring. i hope i'm not proselytizing. i'm a bit drunk and half asleep and it is so important to me that everyone know how lovely it is to be alive, even when it really doesn't seem that way.

Hahaha, your good. I'm also partial to sobriety right now too. I have not read mutual aid, alot of posts about literature recently, gonna have to order some books.


A little bit of apathy in the right places keeps magic alive and my experience of life going to better use. Guess it's like a shrouter's cat thing. Unnecessary observations, usually by strangers with authority, tell me a fact thats info only changes my view and feeling of the world around me. The rain was cooler when I believed it was god spilling his beer, etc, etc. I like a colorful world, nihilism sits down real quick when you believe in your mental illness or chemical relationships solely insight morality.


I forget who says it but,

"All suffering is bearable if as seen as part of a story".

Ideally, if it matters.

That's what I choose, or not have a choice to. Either way it's nice that it captivates me from spurning into turmoil sometimes, even if my opinion on that turbulence is arbitrary.


That's were my mind is right now away, life is a c- student, needs improvement, fails to pay attention, needs drugs, disruptive, developmentally challenged, among many other things.

(I'm pretty fucked up but I'm proud of this^ analogy, I have a hard time believing I didn't hear some where before though)


That's awesome you find life lovely. I wish I could find refuge in existing more readily and tangible. subjectively, I could leave the fair early content with the over hyped tilt-a-whirl thrashing that I'm ready to sleep off. But, I'd rather be here. Leaving a example of annihilation behind to remind and occupy the minds of people around me I care about is cold. Nobody wants to be the last man standing. Still, doesn't stop me from fastening weekend at Bernie's type schemes in my mind.


Also Fuck anyone who swings nihilism recklessly at the experience of someones peace while achieving nothing.

Be thoughtful of others if you're a black hole. It's not anyone's fault we don't matter.

Same thing for misanthropy but that's for a different place.