(October 5, 2014 at 4:22 am)genkaus Wrote: Even this possibility is insufficient - if the result of human existence is brought about by god's will then the purpose, meaning or value of human life would be subject to god's will. That makes it subjective. Going by this definition, nihilism should be the logical extreme of theism, not atheism.

Perhaps. However, if God's will is the ideal, the most perfect good possible, the locus of meaning, the essence of value, the purpose of purpose, per se, then...?; whether or not these are actually meaningful concepts or merely abstract phrases unduly placed in the form of a question--devoid of intelligibility--is, again to repeat myself,

(October 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: another matter.

I think it basically boils down to whether or not any ideal is properly considered objective or not. If not, then it's only personal preference, and nothing is quintessentially better or worse off for it. If we can agree that certain ideals are binding in some way, through logical necessity or what have you, then the theist could just substitute God for the ideal, and avoid your nihilism, could they not?
Here, admittedly, I seem to have contradicted myself earlier by stating that

(October 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Outside of intentional design... as in God, I can conceive of no other possibility for what might be considered objective meaning, purpose, or value.

And then:

(October 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Why must objective morality or value depend on the imposition of an outside being rather than one's self that exists, relatively briefly, in an objective material world?

Rather, if ideals are objective, then it would seem that objective values can exist in a godless Universe (I think the confusion on my part arose from conflating meaning and values), although with regards to meaning and purpose, I still think existential nihilism logically follows from atheism.

Quote:Buddhism provides an adequate counter-argument to that. Buddhists don't believe in a gos, but they believe in the law of Karma - a universal moral law inherent and intrinsic to human nature and one that provides your life with objective purpose, meaning and value. That is the problem with "atheism implies nihilism" argument - it assumes god can be the only possible source of objective meaning etc. whereas we know there are many alternate sources.

I'm not sure I quite understand the rationale in how a "a universal moral law inherent and intrinsic to human nature and one that provides your life with objective purpose, meaning" can follow where the existence of such laws are only defined by individuals in a particular species (values, as in morality I think, requiring separate consideration, where the universal moral law seems tantamount to the ideal).

For my part, I've come to the conclusion that nihilism is incoherent. Meaning is an inherently subjective phenomenon. It's like value; there is no such thing as objective value. The phrase "objective meaning" has no sensible interpretation. I would also suggest that people can never escape meaning; they can never avoid their lives having some meaning or other, to themselves. A life being imbued with final purpose, lasting value, and significance may have a lot of meaning for someone, but that doesn't make that meaning objective. If nihilism is coherent, then it too is a nihilistic existence. Purpose, value, and significance are always purpose, value, and significance from some perspective. It doesn't become objective by postulating a lot of it, or deriving it from some super being. Nihilism has become the bugbear of modern philosophy, and I deny that it has any meaning as a position. It's nothing more than a category error; applying a concept to things to which it cannot apply.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote: For my part, I've come to the conclusion that nihilism is incoherent. Meaning is an inherently subjective phenomenon. It's like value; there is no such thing as objective value. The phrase "objective meaning" has no sensible interpretation. I would also suggest that people can never escape meaning; they can never avoid their lives having some meaning or other, to themselves. A life being imbued with final purpose, lasting value, and significance may have a lot of meaning for someone, but that doesn't make that meaning objective. If nihilism is coherent, then it too is a nihilistic existence. Purpose, value, and significance are always purpose, value, and significance from some perspective. It doesn't become objective by postulating a lot of it, or deriving it from some super being. Nihilism has become the bugbear of modern philosophy, and I deny that it has any meaning as a position. It's nothing more than a category error; applying a concept to things to which it cannot apply.

You sound like a nihilist, rasetsu! That many, perhaps most, people strongly disagree with your assertion that "Meaning is an inherently subjective phenomenon. It's like value; there is no such thing as objective value" is probably why nihilism is still relevant.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Perhaps. However, if God's will is the ideal, the most perfect good possible, the locus of meaning, the essence of value, the purpose of purpose, per se, then...?

Even if it is all that and more, all those things are still subject to god's will and therefore subjective by definition.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think it basically boils down to whether or not any ideal is properly considered objective or not.

Depends upon the ideal and on what basis it is considered so.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: If we can agree that certain ideals are binding in some way, through some logical necessity or what have you, then the theist could just substitute God for the ideal, and avoid your nihilism, could they not?

That is what theists often do - and that is what results in self-contradictory and illogical nature of their god.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I'm not sure I quite understand the rationale in how a "a universal moral law inherent and intrinsic to human nature and one that provides your life with objective purpose, meaning" can follow where the existence of such laws are only defined by individuals in a particular species (values, as in morality I think, requiring separate consideration, where the universal moral law seems tantamount to the ideal).

It doesn't have to be defined by individuals in a particular species - the law would be applicable to all entities capable of rational consideration. It just so happens that humans are the only known species capable of it.

The rationale here is that the universal moral law can only apply to beings capable of moral action - that is, rational beings - and values, purpose and meaning derived from it would be objective because the law does not depend on any one's will or desire but is tantamount to a fact of nature.

(October 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm)genkaus Wrote: Depends upon the ideal and on what basis it is considered so.

I think you're right that theism offers no viable solution but on what basis do you think an ideal could be called objective?

(October 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm)genkaus Wrote: It doesn't have to be defined by individuals in a particular species - the law would be applicable to all entities capable of rational consideration. It just so happens that humans are the only known species capable of it.

The rationale here is that the universal moral law can only apply to beings capable of moral action - that is, rational beings - and values, purpose and meaning derived from it would be objective because the law does not depend on any one's will or desire but is tantamount to a fact of nature.

The problem is that no facts of nature actually confer universal principles of this sort beyond the ideals that human beings themselves espouse.

(October 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think you're right that theism offers no viable solution but on what basis do you think an ideal could be called objective?nature.

There is no simple answer to this. We'd first have to define the terms and the context within which we are considering the question.

(October 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The problem is that no facts of nature actually confer universal principles of this sort beyond the ideals that human beings themselves espouse.

Facts of nature are not relevant here. We are talking about beliefs. Specifically, beliefs compatible with atheism which - if true - would confer objective meaning and purpose. Whether or not those beliefs are true is doesn't affect the answer.

(October 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote: For my part, I've come to the conclusion that nihilism is incoherent. Meaning is an inherently subjective phenomenon. It's like value; there is no such thing as objective value. The phrase "objective meaning" has no sensible interpretation. I would also suggest that people can never escape meaning; they can never avoid their lives having some meaning or other, to themselves. A life being imbued with final purpose, lasting value, and significance may have a lot of meaning for someone, but that doesn't make that meaning objective. If nihilism is coherent, then it too is a nihilistic existence. Purpose, value, and significance are always purpose, value, and significance from some perspective. It doesn't become objective by postulating a lot of it, or deriving it from some super being. Nihilism has become the bugbear of modern philosophy, and I deny that it has any meaning as a position. It's nothing more than a category error; applying a concept to things to which it cannot apply.

When I become too doddery to think properly I may request to have my synapses wired to your own. This is what I believe as well.

But I wonder if you have an opinion about whether it makes sense to talk of nihilism in a manner divorced from feeling and emotion as purely the intellectual stance of rejecting objective purpose, value and significance? If that were all it is, then I'd be happy to own my nihilism. I'd just want to make it clear that I am quite satisfied with the robust nature of purpose, value and significance which I find in my life. It isn't ever-ever land, but it feels like reality and that's just peachy with me.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 11:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There can be none; that purpose is defined by a deity, and is inherently subjective, just as any morality derived from the same source must be.

(my bolding) That seems contradictory.

It is okay for the Judeo-Christian god to kill folks and torture them ... but such actions are rightly regarded as loathsome when perpetrated by humans. Clearly, this is no absolute morality in play here, else killing would be wrong for both god and man under identical circumstances.

That purpose too would be inhernetly subjective is borne out by the fact that the believer must first believe in the deity in order to accept that the deity might have a purpose for him or her ... and even then, given the strange silence of the deity, the believer my=ust himself discern any putative "meaning" or "purpose" this deity might supply.

In other words, it still devolves onto the human, because the gods ain't talkin'.

---

(October 5, 2014 at 4:35 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 12:05 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I disagree. It can be wrong for me to kill someone for no good reason, and right for you to do so given appropriate impetus -- say, I'm charging you with a knife. From your viewpoint, killing a person is right at that point, because you are defending your own life.

That means that the propriety of killing is subject to the conditions pertaining at the time of the killing; it is subjective.

Point of correction - dependence on the conditions and facts on the ground makes it conditional - not subjective. Being subjective would require dependence on an entity's wishes or desires.

It would also almost surely be subjective, in the sense that no one wants to be a murder victim; we therefore think of it as wrong.

I get what you're saying, and I certainly should have worded it better. Thanks.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It is okay for the Judeo-Christian god to kill folks and torture them

Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

Where is there evidence of this? There are claims, but the actions don't match the words. It's suspicious that anyone would look at something normally considered evil, and say it must be good because otherwise god would be a liar. Maybe he really is an evil god who just thinks he's good. Actions speak louder than words.

Why make excuses for actions instead of thinking the claims are false?