how do we argue against nihilism again?
That was easy.
>nothing matters
>yeah so?
>....
same way you argue against solipsists
>>927782
you are agreeing tho, not arguing with him
>>927769
beat a horse in front of anyone spouting its tenets, they'll quickly become hysterical and faint
>Post picture of a man who was wholeheartedly agasint nihilism and thoroughly BEFORE nihilist
>Asks how to counter agasint it
>>927769
Not being an autist
Recognizing life can still be special even though trees don't pat you on the back every time you give a homeless person money
>>927769
Do what Nietzsche did, scream defiance and refuse to think about it
>>927769
nihilists base their reasoning on a paradoxical syllogism.
nothing matters
(not even this).
is a very crude way of saying it.
tell them they have to account for paradox.
Are they nihilist because they can't resolve the paradox?
Maybe they are nihilist themselves becuase they realoze the fultililty and trivialilty involved in philosophical debates about metaphysics.
"What exists?"
"Whatever you want."
"Why?"
"Quit asking these stupid questions"
>>928017
You can just be an agnostic nihilist and say all proposed meanings are equally valid/invalid, which amounts to the same thing without the rational contradiction
>>927816
kek, this.
Nihilism isn't so much as a philosophy, as much as it is a rationalized state of physical being.
That physical state being one of low dopamine and endorphine release levels.
You're not a nihilist when you're lifting weights and high on sugar.
Nihilism is the natural conclusion you reach when you stop believing in God.
Atheists will live a depressed life and then go to hellfire when they die.
Too funny.
>>927769
Nihilism as in that the world is inherently meaningless?
Easy as fuck. First off, meaninglessness is yet another quality that one attributes to the world. Because the subject-object relationship is interdependent, and it is pointless to talk about the object on its own because it is NEVER on its own but always in a subject's view, in which it is being shaped by the subject upon analysis of it, we cannot even say "the world is meaningless" — it is a matter of "I think the world is meaningless."
Now that we know the "I" is stating this, it's time to look at the psychology of the statement. In short, to think that the world is meaningless is a psychological effect that forms when one places value into empty spaces. Putting all value into imagination / fantasy, or "the beyond", or the "afterlife", or the "soul" — anything that is not verifiable, but more importantly a non-concept stemming from an erroneous analysis of reality, that one can easily sense the falsity of or lose faith in (since faith is required for any of them, due to their unverifiable nature) makes one feel that the real world is meaningless after this discovery.
And of course, one can think the world is meaningless out of a misunderstanding of anything that was just stated above. A philosophical error. To think "the world is meaningless" is FACT just means you have failed to understand Nietzsche and you should go back and read him more, including Will to Power.
>>928024
i don't see how that gets rid of aristotilean/socratic contradiction.
something cannot be true and false at the same time.
if something is equally valid then they are completeley equal or nothing is valid. which you can't have. in aristotelian logic.
I know they have that one austrailian logic that I think puts truthiness on a spectrum rather than just making it a binary value.
>>927769
Go to your local playground and watch the kids play.
>>928017
>nothing matters
>(not even this).
thats retarded
>>927806
You're arguing against their implied conclusion.
>>927769
>beating a horse
>some nihilist literally goes into hysterics and tries to help the stupid animal
>he gets checked into an insane asylum afterwards
>>928309
Inst it about it having no objective meaning rather than inherent meaningless
>>930212
What conclusion would that be?
>>927769
>It is not enough to understand reality as empty and meaningless, you have to understand your perception of the empty and meaningless nature of reality is itself empty and meaningless...
I left nihilism after reading Plato and Aristotle.
>>930342
teleology?
>>930338
So? Even if it is pointless to believe that everything is pointless, it doesn't make the conclusion false.
>>928053
Underrated post for theists
>"so you are a nihilist?"
"yea"
>"so you basically don't believe in anything?"
"pretty much, yea"
>"so nothing is of consequence?"
"nope"
>"so I can RAPE you?!"
"..............."
>>930700
>"so I can RAPE you?!"
"you can try"
>>927769
Why would we argue "against" nihilism?
To-day everyone takes the liberty of expressing his wish and his favourite thought: well, I also mean to tell what I have wished for myself to-day, and what thought first crossed my mind this year,— a thought which ought to be the basis, the pledge and the sweetening of all my future life! I want more and more to perceive the necessary characters in things as the beautiful: — I shall thus be one of those who beautify things. Amor fati : let that henceforth be my love ! I do not want to wage war with the ugly. I do not want to accuse, I do not want even to accuse the accusers. Looking aside, let that be my sole negation ! And all in all, to sum up : I wish to be at any time hereafter only yea-sayer !
By eating 3 pounds of fruit a day, just like Neetche :)
>>930700
Is this genuinely what you think nihilism is?
if morality is just a spook, does that mean slavery is ok?
You don't need to. Just use nihilism as starting point and invent your meaning of life. You don't need to argue against blank page to write a book.
>>931187
Slavery is wrong from economical point of view.
>>931199
so much this
-isms=/= reason for reading philosphy
>>931187
Define "ok".
Just because there is no universal cosmic principle saying that this particular action is always "wrong" and "evil" doesn't mean its always productive to your goals.
Human society starts with the individual, who asserts his values by act of will [or more likely, inherits them from others], as tempered by experience and biology. Pursuing their interests, and goaded by biology, they form into reciprocal arrangements that we call society.
At least in theory anyway. Slavery is not evil, that doesn't mean its economical. Though I should also point out, that doesn't mean its not economical either. It would be altogether too convenient for the moralities we invent by fiat to be identical to the watered down Judeo-Christian morality of the west.
Some reddit levels of ignorance here, Nietzsche isn't even pro-nihilism much less a nihilist.
>>928419
If (epistemological) nihilism is true, then contradictions don't make something false.
What nihilism is really doing is exposing that all supposed knowledge is either false by infinite regression or by circular reasoning/begging. It causes meaning to just sort of vacate from words and the human condition is basically an absurdity
>>930785
>literally yes man the movie: the philosophy
Nietszche was the worst
>>931235
Maybe I missed it but did even a single person in this thread claim Nietzsche was a nihilist?
>>927769
We don't. We let 'em boil in their own solipsistic stew.
>>927769
With words.
>>931398
Spooks are also a spooks
>>931398
>>931428
A "spook" is just a mental abstraction imposed upon the physical world. It is a concept like the Buddhist concept of anatta, unique only in that whereas anatta said ALL phenomena was without inherent essence and that we imposed our mental formulas upon the world, Stirner called the self immune because reasons.
The reality is that all values are axiomatic and defined by an act of will, and therefore what you choose to want or to do is purely a matter of preference. That said, that doesn't mean all value systems are necessarily equal.
Value-systems that are anti-natalist will likely go extinct, and our biologies prevent the creation of truly novel value-systems.
Or to clarify my answer to the previous anon. No, slavery is not universally "badwrong" in some cosmic sense. That doesn't mean we should bring it back. Doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T bring it back, but "All value is created" isn't the same as "No value"
>>930276
Same shit. Talking about "objective" things is addressed in the same manner.
>>927769
You posted a pretty good refutation of nihilism
>>927769
You wait for puberty to end.
>>931206
>free labor is bad for the economy
>>931839
It really depends what side of the whip you're on
Nihilism is for mentally ill cucks, that is why you must be an absurdist, son.
So no one has a good argument against nihilism? Guess they are right then :)
>>927769
You can't they are right
>Why do you do
>Because i like
>Why do you like
>I dont know
>If you are doing what you like wouldn't that mean you are doing what you are supposed to by a predisposition
>Wouldn't that mean you lack consciousness
>are you following someone else will?
>Furthermore the feelings of pain and pleasure are easily proven to be erroneous, if you don't drink the disgusting medicine you can die
>We can't also ever reach a truth by ourselves since we see reality through our subjective censorial organs
>Not 2 people not a single person can think about the same thing twice we perceive and claim that our perception is the object.
>but i follow a cause and principles
>They are not universal they are personal constructions you claim universal, you believe in yourself who believes in the causes, its impossible for any person to lean the true principles and causes as it is to you to think about them twice
>and again whats the people's right to live which in itself is meaningless
>So whats the goal in life?
>whats the point of living
>Theres none other than thats how we work
>Does free will even exist
>Theres no beginning there's no end as no transcendental truth can be reached
>and then Nietzsche comes and tells everyone, replace Christianity which fills the void with bullshit with whatever bullshit they want but if you dont pick what he likes you are a faggots
>>927825
Wait, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist?
>>930333
Nothing is worth it? Everything is worthless and meaningless?
"Yeah, so?" completely negates the resulting apathy.
>>930700
are you being serious?
>"Nothing has value"
>This statement has value
???
Profit
ITT: What is nihilism?
>Nietzsche
>a nihilist
Anyway, you don't argue against it because arguing is the very thing that creates nihilism. The idea creates the longing for the ideal, something that can never be achieved in actual life. Instead, you should do something about it. Invite hardship into your life and overcome it. That is the best way of getting rid of nihilism
>>933380
>If you are doing what you like wouldn't that mean you are doing what you are supposed to by a predisposition
>Wouldn't that mean you lack consciousness
Predisposition doesn't refute consciousness, consciousness could be a physical phenomenon with or without free will
>Furthermore the feelings of pain and pleasure are easily proven to be erroneous, if you don't drink the disgusting medicine you can die
Implicit valuation of living as opposed to not being alive. Not nihilist
>They are not universal they are personal constructions you claim universal, you believe in yourself who believes in the causes, its impossible for any person to lean the true principles and causes as it is to you to think about them twice
What you call "true principles" probably doesn't exist, is a constructed standard in itself
>So whats the goal in life?
>whats the point of living
>Theres none other than thats how we work
"Goal" and "point" are themselves human constructs, to say there is no goal or no point is as much of a construct as it is to say that there are.
>Does free will even exist
>Theres no beginning there's no end as no transcendental truth can be reached
Again, free will and "transcendental truths" don't constitute meaning
>>928309
>it is pointless to talk about the object on its own because it is NEVER on its own but always in a subject's view
What the fuck are you talking about? Your dildo doesn't stop existing when no one is looking.
There's no point arguing :DDDDDD
>>927769
>how do we argue against nihilism again?
Same way Nietzsche did. By realizing that we are valuegivers. We give and infuse value into things.
This realization complete destroys nihilism.
>>933701
Ask them where the meaninglessness emanated from
>>933706
The meaninglessness emanates from yourself, in refusing to give life and your actions value.
It's usually because of a fear or anxiety of being free.
>>933593
He recognized very soon, that nihilism is going to be the bane of modern societies. We killed god in the sense that god simply wasn't necessary anymore in any part of society, so Nietzsche saw, that nihilism will be inevietable in society. To counter that movement he wanted to fill the void with the arts and tried to replace religion with a classical greek way of "killing time" basically. Give a meaningless life new meaning
Was Nietzsche a greekaboo?
>muh despicable gay rape orgies by savages being animals
>muh noble dionysian gay rape orgies by greeks finding their inner shrouded self
>>928053
>Atheists will live a depressed life and then go to hellfire when they die.
>Too funny.
Ah yes, the famed compassion and goodheartedness of theists..
>>927769
Why would any sane man bother attempting to argue nihilism with a nihilist?
>>933756
Well he was a philologist.
And the Birth of Tragedy is basically a lament of what happened to the Greeks after they became too Socratic.
>>931243
So do Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism count as Nihilism?
I have studied them extensively. The conclusion I have come to is that, God, the Tao, emptiness,
can never be comprehended by the human mind because the human mind is running on circular logic. Since the everything is God and the human mind would also be God the mind its self can't understand its self because it is God and can't be understood, just like everything else. God just is. Even in Christianity when Christ is asked who he is, he replies "I am". So my philosophy is let the God do its thing and not to try to understand life but to live it.
>>933676
>Predisposition doesn't refute consciousness, consciousness could be a physical phenomenon with or without free will
Yes it does
If the predispositon dictates everything you can know yes it does
>Implicit valuation of living as opposed to not being alive. Not nihilist
the point is that you have nothing to guide yourself because theres truly nothing
>"Goal" and "point" are themselves human constructs, to say there is no goal or no point is as much of a construct as it is to say that there are.
You say that, we don't know. life evolves to adapt and survive we define everything by the effect it has on another stuff its functionality, its goal
>Again, free will and "transcendental truths" don't constitute meaning
If you cant reach knowledge you can't reach true meaning if you dont have free will you are not concious else it would be a paradox of a group being composed of itself
>>927776
Fpbp
>>933833
>If the predispositon dictates everything you can know yes it does
I have no idea what form of reasoning you use here. How does what you can know negate or affirm consciousness? Let's define consciousness first because it's a really loaded term, I think a wholesome definition is "a state of being aware of oneself and the world" (pulled straight outta google).
>the point is that you have nothing to guide yourself because theres truly nothing
There's truly nothing? You're kind of not really making sense, the point I saw in that sentence was "you can't trust pleasure because some displeasing situations are necessary to stay alive".
>You say that, we don't know. life evolves to adapt and survive we define everything by the effect it has on another stuff its functionality, its goal
This doesn't respond to what I said. Please read my post.
>If you cant reach knowledge you can't reach true meaning if you dont have free will you are not concious else it would be a paradox of a group being composed of itself
1. Define "knowledge". But that's not even relevant, meaning is a human function and doesn't require anything
2. Consciousness doesn't require free will, because again it is a physical phenomenon, you can look at certain patterns in an MRI or an EEG and say "this person is conscious" (unless of course you're going to deny reality because it isn't empirically provable).
>>933701
I don't like this argument
You can't just choose to give things meaning
Things either do have meaning or they don't
And since we can't find any meaning then there's no reason to assume they do have meaning other than for convenience
We can't just say "well I give it meaning" because you don't have any meaning in the first place and meaning implies something more than arbitrary psychological desire
>>933948
>Things either do have meaning or they don't
(Unwarranted assumption)
>>933701
That is the opinion most nihilists already holds. That there are no objective value, just subjective value that we give to things.
>>933973
true by definition m8
>>933982
>That is the opinion most nihilists already holds.
No it isn't. Nihilists are people who reject the concept of meaning as meaningless itself.
>>933982
if there are no objective values, that means that the objective-subjective dichotomy is false and that there is only value, so all the nihilist moping around about muh no true values signifies that they do not truly hold that opinion
>>933661
>ITT: What is nihilism?
This. No one seem to know what they argue against
>>933984
No, meaning as a concept is in the mind. Things don't "have" meaning a priori (or, key here "don't have"), you give them that meaning
>>933997
>that means that the objective-subjective dichotomy is false
Tbqh, it's a bit of a digression, but the objective-subjective dichotomy is false, as is the subject-object dichotomy.
I mean, humans are as much of a observer of objects, as they are an object themselves.
>>933997
They say that there are no objective values, not that we can't hold values. That would be an impossible opinion to hold.
>>933929
>I have no idea what form of reasoning you use here. How does what you can know negate or affirm consciousness? Let's define consciousness first because it's a really loaded term, I think a wholesome definition is "a state of being aware of oneself and the world" (pulled straight outta google).
We could be a simulation in a computer we would never know
You cannot ever know what i know you cannot be conscious about what i know that you do not
>There's truly nothing? You're kind of not really making sense, the point I saw in that sentence was "you can't trust pleasure because some displeasing situations are necessary to stay alive".
Whats the starting point of your conception of reality? Whats your Christianity?
>This doesn't respond to what I said. Please read my post.
How doesn't it? Why do you live and not die
>1. Define "knowledge". But that's not even relevant, meaning is a human function and doesn't require anything
Exactly and we cannot reach it
>2. Consciousness doesn't require free will, because again it is a physical phenomenon, you can look at certain patterns in an MRI or an EEG and say "this person is conscious" (unless of course you're going to deny reality because it isn't empirically provable)
Using the medical definition yes
Being conscious would require having free will and knowing infinity to be the first
>My favourite philosopher is Albert Camus.
>>934036
fite me irl
>>934022
>We could be a simulation in a computer we would never know
And computer simulations can't be conscious?
>You cannot ever know what i know you cannot be conscious about what i know that you do not
Being conscious of an object doesn't preclude being conscious, that's like saying to be conscious you must be omniscient. It just doesn't follow
>Whats the starting point of your conception of reality? Whats your Christianity?
My perspective. It's the highest standard by which reality may be conceived without abstracting into some unrealistic metaphysical ideas
>How doesn't it? Why do you live and not die
Because I have made a value judgment towards life. If I decided to die or to not live I would have made a value judgment as well
>Exactly and we cannot reach it
What's "it"? I can reach meaning, I'm typing to you because I find meaning in typing to you. I refute it thus!
>Being conscious would require having free will and knowing infinity to be the first
Again, no it wouldn't. I don't know what spiritual idea you call consciousness, if you would please define it so we're not speaking different languages here.
>>934022
>Exactly and we cannot reach it
O wait i misread Knowledge is knowing a being for what it is not by for what others are which is impossible to use
Why would meaning be a human function and not a property inherent to life?
>>934133
Well you can argue other nonhuman living beings can find meaning, but I think in strict materialistic terms whatever conscious neural process translates to "meaning" can probably only be found in a few primates and mammals, but things like "consciousness" are still so ahead of current neuroscience to even speculate is to talk out of your ass.
You can always say trees find "meaning" to grow taller and get more light, but I think meaning precludes consciousness 'weighting' alternatives to use a metaphor.
>>933692
Why don't you read it again and think about it more? What you think it implies tells me you aren't following.
>>934114
>And computer simulations can't be conscious?
Is your current computer conscious?
>Being conscious of an object doesn't preclude being conscious, that's like saying to be conscious you must be omniscient. It just doesn't follow
How doesnt it, that you are given more than 2 choices doesn't mean you aren't only able to pick whats offered to you
>My perspective. It's the highest standard by which reality may be conceived without abstracting into some unrealistic metaphysical ideas
Unrealistic how?
Your brain cannot process the exact same thing my brain did, you will never ever know as i nor anyone wil lever know the same thing twice
>What's "it"? I can reach meaning, I'm typing to you because I find meaning in typing to you. I refute it thus!
Its your perception of the meaning not THE meaning itself which no one can reach
>Again, no it wouldn't. I don't know what spiritual idea you call consciousness, if you would please define it so we're not speaking different languages here.
Spiritual how? Consciousness as a physical phenomenon is different as to be conscious
If you do not know why you act from the beginning to end you are not conscious and no one can know
>>933982
Not that guy but first of all, "there is no objective value" is about as sensical as "there are no elves and orcs." You are talking about something that is fantasy, because objective reality is fantasy.
How is it fantasy? It's very hard to distance yourself from yourself, which is necessary to realize how this could be. People who can't do this respond with a knee-jerk reaction such as, "but that WALL will stop you from moving even if you argue that everything is subjective!"
However, it is a shallow response. I am not implying that everything is subjective either. If there is no objective, then there is no subjective either! You can't have one and not the other! When you dispose of the concept of "objective reality" you dispose of the concept of "subjective reality" too. To understand what is leftover, you need to be able to distance yourself from yourself. What is leftover is infinity, oneness.
Once you distance yourself from yourself you can see the oneness of the subject-object interdependency that permeates everything (and since it is a oneness, "subject-object" here is merely words to guide you to the true understanding; fragments of a now-broken concept, because our language does not have a better to approach it, or I simply don't have a better use of language to communicate it with). That wall stopped me in my tracks. But my properties define the wall's properties and my actions define the wall's actions. It could not have stopped me if I was not a moving physical body. It could not have stopped me if my body was not softer and weaker than the wall. The phenomenon depends on both energies that are interacting with each other.
>>934190
>Is your current computer conscious?
No, but my computer isn't artificial intelligence
>How doesnt it, that you are given more than 2 choices doesn't mean you aren't only able to pick whats offered to you
Being able to pick doesn't preclude consciousness
>Unrealistic how?
It doesn't describe anything like what we call "reality".
>Your brain cannot process the exact same thing my brain did, you will never ever know as i nor anyone wil lever know the same thing twice
So? Our brains are still processing stuff in such a way that we describe as consciousness.
>Its your perception of the meaning not THE meaning itself which no one can reach
Ok, but I can reach it and so it has meaning for me. And for you some other stuff has meaning, like breathing and going to pee when your bladder hurts
>Spiritual how? Consciousness as a physical phenomenon is different as to be conscious
To be conscious is to experience said physical phenomenon
>If you do not know why you act from the beginning to end you are not conscious and no one can know
See two lines above. Also, not sure what you mean by "why". If you mean in terms of "causality" you can point to whatever the evolutionary origin of consciousness is. If you mean in terms of "what meaning does consciousness have" we enter the realm of meaning which is a realm of consciousness assigning meaning, so you're talking about "what meaning does consciousness ascribe to itself" or perhaps "what meaning does consciousness assign to assigning meaning to itself"
>>934263
>No, but my computer isn't artificial intelligence
It works on the same principle
>Being able to pick doesn't preclude consciousness
If the choices come before you do yes it does
>It doesn't describe anything like what we call "reality".
How doesnt it? are you saying the exact same thing can happen twice?
>So? Our brains are still processing stuff in such a way that we describe as consciousness.
so under that definition we are no different from your computer
>Ok, but I can reach it and so it has meaning for me. And for you some other stuff has meaning, like breathing and going to pee when your bladder hurts
But its not a true meaning its whatever you decide which can be anything which is what nihilist are saying
>To be conscious is to experience said physical phenomenon
how are you different from a plant then?
>See two lines above. Also, not sure what you mean by "why". If you mean in terms of "causality" you can point to whatever the evolutionary origin of consciousness is. If you mean in terms of "what meaning does consciousness have" we enter the realm of meaning which is a realm of consciousness assigning meaning, so you're talking about "what meaning does consciousness ascribe to itself" or perhaps "what meaning does consciousness assign to assigning meaning to itself"
If we follow the whole thing we are going to reach what came before anything which we cannot know
Anything that you can come up is not it but your perception of it which can be anything which is the point of the nihilsts and since we cannot know theres no real point in anything
>>934261
Agreed.
>>931838
topkek
>>929691
Then get the cops called on you :/
>>934333
>It works on the same principle
Hue, no. Unless you mean "causality" but everything in nature is more or less influenced by causality. It's a pretty unattainable way to measure "consciousness"
>If the choices come before you do yes it does
Why? Expand on claim
>How doesnt it? are you saying the exact same thing can happen twice?
Not sure how you mean ability of events to be repeated negates or affirms the nature of reality
>so under that definition we are no different from your computer
Our computers don't process stuff in "such a way".
>But its not a true meaning its whatever you decide which can be anything which is what nihilist are saying
But that IS true, your definition of true is a concept that never existed to begin with and you can't apply meaning or lack thereof to. Like, humans are carbon and hydrogen and oxygen (et al) atoms in an organized pattern, but that doesn't mean they lack meaning, because meaning is what the mind ascribes to them. So, I may love people of think they have no worth, but it's all my mind ascribing an attitude to them. That's what meaning is, not something in the object, and that's what it has always been.
>how are you different from a plant then?
See the point before the last one. Plants don't have our brain.
>If we follow the whole thing we are going to reach what came before anything which we cannot know
What came before anything causally speaking, the first event? No, we cannot know. We can't even know if causality itself holds to the first thing or if causality is just our way of interpreting events and it breaks down at some point.
>Anything that you can come up is not it but your perception of it which can be anything which is the point of the nihilsts and since we cannot know theres no real point
1. You can know your perception. That is something, in fact for you your perception is EVERYTHING.
2. Having some sort of objective knowledge doesn't preclude meaning, because as I just said it is subjective.
>>934472
>Hue, no.
No how?
>Why? Expand on claim
You choices are set
>Our computers don't process stuff in "such a way".
its not aware is not conscious
>But that IS true, your definition of true is a concept that never existed to begin with and you can't apply meaning or lack thereof to
it does exist, everything exists regardless of you and me, your meaning would be gone if you were gone not it
>See the point before the last one. Plants don't have our brain.
If you respond to cheeses and electroshock you are doing what the plant does brain or not
>What came before anything causally speaking, the first event? No, we cannot know. We can't even know if causality itself holds to the first thing or if causality is just our way of interpreting events and it breaks down at some point.
its not, we do not know hwy we know, you cannot think about the same thing twice, you have in your head but a recollection of singularities which you cannot even recall twice
>1. You can know your perception. That is something, in fact for you your perception is EVERYTHING.
everything how?
and everything can be everything which makes it pointless ,you can say what something is that its not going to change what it actually is. You do not know why you act how do you know if you are doing what you want or why do you want to do what you want, your only argument is muh feels which were encoded by something else which means you are a literal robot, when you meet another being and say what is to be done what areyou going to do when he has opposite view
>2. Having some sort of objective knowledge doesn't preclude meaning, because as I just said it is subjective.
Your meaning is subjective, like the second or third post said, objectively everything is subjective is a paradox
>>931623
your moms a spook
>>934562
>You choices are set
You just repeated your previous statement. How does your choices being set make it so you're not conscious? Please give me like a long response cause I can't answer that statement otherwise.
>its not aware is..
That doesn't mean it has the faculty of being aware. A rock isn't aware it's not conscious. Because awareness is a feature of consciousness.
>If you respond to cheeses..
You're thinking of mice. But still, that's reductionist, human consciousness is so complex we can talk about it because we have abstract thought, which no other animals really have.
>its not, we do not know..
You mean a "stream of consciousness"?
>everything how?
I mean, because all you know about what reality may or may not be you know by perception and not a priori
>and everything can be..
Is your first language English? I'm not saying you'll perceive a rock as a bird if you try really hard, we're talking about meaning which isn't sensory
>You do not know why..
Action potentials fire in my brain and move down to my motor neurons, brain receives sensory info from and it ascribes "meaning" in the middle step of processing.
>How do you know if you....
Ultimately you're always doing what you want (in conscious action), because you do what your conscious brain commands
>your only argument is..
1. My argument isn't "muh feels". Don't strawman me
2. I'm not a literal robot, I'm a human, don't know what you call human
3. I try to convince the other person by appealing to feelings or reasoning. I can convince you smoking is a bad idea if you wanna live a long life because of interaction between your consciousness and mine. Even if you can't think exactly the same thought as me you can think something comparable to what I can think and thus we can communicate
>Your meaning is subjective...paradox
1. Meaning isn't "everything"
2. Assumption is that there is an "objective" which isn't necessary. But we treat sensory information as objective because it's useful
>>928024
like a superposition of objective value and no objective value at all?
>>927769
It is important to remember that nihilism is not simply one philosophical position competing against others. It is a historical cultural movement. More akin to a sickness affecting the social body than an ideology people actively accept (unless they are edgy adolescents)
Read some Nietzsche before you start throwing around terms he invented like buzzwords please.
>>933692
How do you know? No one is looking :^)
>>933701
Dat's subjective
>>933593
How would you even go about and argue he was a nihilist. He hated Christianity due to it being a nihilistic religions. Nihilism is something the last man embraces.
>>933593
Nope.
Remove god, fill the meaningless void with shit like the arts and philosophy. Internal stuff ya know.
Nietzsche was more of an Absurdist in my humble opinon
>>931187
Nah slaves tend to get pissed off and periodically have revolts where they try to murder their masters and anybody else who might happen to be nearby. Slave-owning societies tend to be dominated by this fear and it negatively effects them, makes them paranoid as hell. Also has horrific effects on the lower end of the labour market, like illegal immigration but on steroids.
>>934754
>You just repeated your previous statement. How does your choices being set make it so you're not conscious? Please give me like a long response cause I can't answer that statement otherwise.
You can only do what you are allowed to do
>That doesn't mean it has the faculty of being aware. A rock isn't aware it's not conscious. Because awareness is a feature of consciousness.
its not a feature its a requirement
>You're thinking of mice. But still, that's reductionist, human consciousness is so complex we can talk about it because we have abstract thought, which no other animals really have.
This is not an argument
>stream of consciousness"
You think you thought you could have thought are different things
>I mean, because all you know about what reality may or may not be you know by perception and not a priori
whats the first axiom in your perception
>Ultimately you're always doing what you want (in conscious action), because you do what your conscious brain commands
proof? How do you know ?
>1. My argument isn't "muh feels".
Yes it is, you keep going on a circular logic while not answering what i write. Your perception is a set of referential which is based on axioms that arbitrarily chosen you yourself said that meaning can be anything but its for your mind not for the world nor for yourself as part of the world. that you believe you are a sheep doesnt make you a sheep
>1. Meaning isn't "everything"
You said all meaning is subjective and your claim of meaning is subjective in itself
>2. Assumption is that there is an "objective" which isn't necessary. B
Thats your baseless assumption. When you ask yourself why should you do what do you answer? and then keep asking why until you reach the beginning that which we cannot understand or know
How do you even can tell if you are doing what you want if you dont know why you want? and in doing what you want if all humans do what they want aren't you just obeying the will of nature?
>>933833
>If the predispositon dictates everything you can know yes it does
>If the predispositon dictates everything you can know
>If the predispositon
>If
>IF
>IF
>F
>>934983
>You can only do what you are allowed to do
Ok, so we established no free will, but you didn't tell me how free will precludes consciousness
>This is not an argument
Yeah it is, you compared humans to plants and that was a false analogy. The criteria by which consciousness is defined is much more strict than "is matter, is alive"
>You think you thought you could have thought are different things
Not sure how this is a response
>whats the first axiom in your perception
Perception isn't some sort axiomatic conclusion, it's the processing of sensory information by the brain
>proof? How do you know ?
Because neuroscience, also because I tell my leg to twitch and it does so. What kind of proof do you want?
>Yes it is, you keep going on a circular logic while not answering what i write.
I'm answering to everything you write, you're making some funky arguments conflating free will and consciousness and making consciousness mean whatever suits your argument.
>Your perception is a set of referential which is based on axioms that arbitrarily chosen you yourself said that meaning can be anything but its for your mind not for the world nor for yourself as part of the world. that you believe you are a sheep doesnt make you a sheep
More to my point that you're conflating terms. We're talking about meaning, meaning doesn't establish WHAT something is. I tried to make it as crystal clear as I could in an earlier post, but you're getting really hard to reach.
>You said all meaning is subjective and your claim of meaning is subjective in itself
I reiterate, meaning establishes object value and not identity. I'm describing a characteristic, ergo a part of the identity of the abstraction that is meaning, namely that it is subjective. If I went on to say there is no meaning (meaning is meaningless), as the nihilistic position goes, that would be a statement of meaning.
(continued)
>>934983
(pt 2)
>Thats your baseless assumption. When you ask yourself why should you do what do you answer? and then keep asking why until you reach the beginning that which we cannot understand or know
You mean playing the "why?" game? All meaning follows into human desire which is describable at a neurological level. You can go further back and then we'd be asking why matter behaves the way it does, but I think that's outside of the scope of viewing consciousness and will. What do you not understand?
>How do you even can tell if you are doing what you want if you dont know why you want? and in doing what you want if all humans do what they want aren't you just obeying the will of nature?
So humans don't have a will but nature does? Doesn't make much sense
>>935126
>Ok, so we established no free will, but you didn't tell me how free will precludes consciousness
You do
but you cannot know why you do
How can yo ube conscious?
>Yeah it is, you compared humans to plants and that was a false analogy. The criteria by which consciousness is defined is much more strict than "is matter, is alive"
I compared your definition to plants
>Perception isn't some sort axiomatic conclusion, it's the processing of sensory information by the brain
Do you really have to argue semantics?
>Because neuroscience, also because I tell my leg to twitch and it does so. What kind of proof do you want?
You have no proof and wants to ask me to say something to respond to that and dodge the question again?
>I'm answering to everything you write,
You are ignoring everything that is written and yo uare the one who keeps changing what you write
>More to my point that you're conflating terms. We're talking about meaning, meaning doesn't establish WHAT something is. I tried to make it as crystal clear as I could in an earlier post, but you're getting really hard to reach.
It equals to what you think something is which is not what it actually is
so we agree
>I reiterate, meaning establishes object value and not identity
I reiterate it would be the value of the perception of the object and this is not what you wrote in previous posts where your perception is "everything"
>You mean playing the "why?" game? All meaning follows into human desire which is describable at a neurological level.
So we are robots again
>So humans don't have a will but nature does? Doesn't make much sense
>All humans claim they are different
>Im a human and im different
>>934261
>If there is no objective, then there is no subjective either!
Interesting thought. But I don't mean that there are no such concept or category as "objective values", I mean that there are nothing in that category.
We can still make a distinction between real life and fantasy, even tho there are no fantasy. neither real life or fantasy stop existing as concepts just because we find that the fantasy does not exist.
So I still have my subjective opinions about values even if there are no "higher" objective values.
Note that I just question objective values and not the whole world of objects.
>>935191
>You do
Can you prove?
>but you cannot know why you do → How can yo ube conscious?
I don't know how you think this follows
>I compared your definition to plants
I called consciousness a "physical phenomenon". Doesn't mean any physical phenomenon is consciousness.
>Do you really have to argue semantics?
You were begging a faulty question
>You are ignoring everything that is written and yo uare the one who keeps changing what you write
No I'm not. Tell me where I'm being inconsistent.
>It equals to what you think something is which is not what it actually is
You're using incredibly ambiguous terms. "Is" can talk about identity and it can talk about value, we're obviously talking about value and not identity. Which is exactly what I just explained. Did you understand me?
>I reiterate it would be the value of the perception of the object and this is not what you wrote in previous posts where your perception is "everything"
>The value of the perception of the object
What does that even mean. We're talking about meaning and value, not the ontology of perception which is what we were talking about when I said "perception is everything": Stop conflating my words, please.
>So we are robots again
I don't know about you but as far as I know I'm a human. A robot is made of metal and silicon. Your metaphor is futile because it compares robots to some sort of what, immaterial spirit with free will?
>So humans don't have a will but nature does? Doesn't make much sense
>All humans claim they are different
>Im a human and im different
Pause and read this twice and tell me how it responds to some sort of natural "will". This is the same fallacy by which you try to talk about "meaning" outside of human consciousness and say there's no meaning because you find no such objective meaning. "Will" is a human abstraction attempting to describe materialistic trends, it "exists" as much as "meaning" or "value" does
>>935306
>Can you prove?
You "act"
are you serious
>I don't know how you think this follows
We established consciousness requires selfl awareness if we were a computer program we wouldn't be concious
>I called consciousness a "physical phenomenon". Doesn't mean any physical phenomenon is consciousness.
You said brains merely respond to stimuli "process" and nothing else
>You were begging a faulty question
More like you have no arguments . I wonder why you keep replying
>No I'm not. Tell me where I'm being inconsistent.
>Conciousness is a phisical thing
>But you need to be aware because you are a robot
>ok
>consciousness is processing something
>But that would equal to plants
>fallacy you can't compare plants to humans
>neuroscience something that i have no proof or knowledge of
>thats not an argument, proof?
>what proof do you want as if its not known by everyone
>keeps cutting the parts about not being able to reach transcendental knowledge nor the beginning or end of things
>objectively everything is subjective is not a fallacy because no argument
>What does that even mean. We're talking about meaning and value, not the ontology of perception which is what we were talking about when I said "perception is everything": Stop conflating my words, please.
No you are trying to avoid answering my questions changing the subject yet again. Ontology of nothing. What you think of something is not equal to that something
>Pause and read this twice and tell me how it responds to some sort of natural "will".
You evolved to hit your head against the keyboard and post garbage , thats literally all you can do in life and thats actually all you do
are you doing what you want or what you were programmed/told to do?
>>935360
>You "act"
That isn't free will
>We established consciousness requires selfl awareness if we were a computer program we wouldn't be concious
Awareness of yourself and your surroundings doesn't require knowledge of [sic] "why you do"
>You said brains merely respond to stimuli "process" and nothing else
Just so happens our processing is more complex than what a plant or a mouse process by a ridiculous amount. "Processing" isn't a demeaning statement for what the brain does
>More like you have no arguments . I wonder why you keep replying
I wonder why you keep repeating yourself and making incoherent statements about free will and consciousnness and "but you cannot know why you do How can yo ube conscious"
>Conciousness is a phisical thing
>But you need to be aware because you are a robot
This is a strawman, in fact I've been disputing whatever this analogy means since the beginning.
>But that would equal to plants
>fallacy you can't compare plants to humans
I said false analogy because it's a reduction that brings the definition of consciousness to "responding to stimuli" where I never said it was just that. It's like you just read what you want to read.
>neuroscience something that i have no proof or knowledge
What does neuroscience not have proof of?
>what proof do you want as if its not known by everyone
Yeah, your "TWO PEOPLE CANT KNOW SAME THING HOW COMMUNICATE" thing is not even coherent speech
>keeps cutting the parts about not being able to reach transcendental knowledge nor the beginning or end of things
I already responded to your stupid "transcendental knowledge" claim in the first or second response. And I responded to whatever you meant with "the beginning or the end of things". But you just overlooked it. As usual.
(continued)
>>935360
(pt 2)
>objectively everything is subjective is not a fallacy because no argument
Again you're the one putting "everything" into the sentence and I told you not to about three times already. Please drop the self repeating babble.
>No you are trying to avoid answering my questions changing the subject yet again. Ontology of nothing. What you think of something is not equal to that something
God, it's like you're really not reading the post. Please go back to where I make the distinction between "identity" and "value". Twice.
>are you doing what you want or what you were programmed/told to do?
Told or programmed by whom? If i do something, I want that something. You're falling on the same conceptual trap and thinking "wanting" happens in some sort of immaterial way and that "YOU" exists outside of the world. it doesn't, so if all you do is bang your head against the keyboard and you are conscious, you can be said to want to do this.
