Any Nihilists here?

[The Grand Nudger]

You disagree, but people disagree that facts are facts all the time. I can find you a whole army of children that can't get the answer to a math problem right and are adamant in their own wrong answers.

Here's something to chew on. Nihilism is a noncognitive position. A nihilist can't -coherently- agree with or use subjectivism, even, as an argument. Subjectivism is equivalently cognitivist to realism. It states that our moral proclamations are fact-alike, but that they misrepresent the purported fact...asserting some other also fact alike thing, instead.

Subjectivist objections, from a purported nihilist, actually advance the case of moral realism, rather than impeding it.

[FrustratedFool]

I think the problem at this point is that as far as moral realism goes I don't think you understand my position, and I think I find yours unreasonable. You probably feel the reverse.

I'm not sure what to say at this point. I don't think we can effectively communicate.

[The Grand Nudger]

We could effectively communicate, but it would be deleterious to a position you've spent a great amount of time asserting.

So we won't.

[FrustratedFool]

You have more confidence than I do. I'm being honest and sincere. I'm sorry you seem to think it's an act. I genuinely believe we are not capable of having a profitable discussion. I'll take the blame if you want.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think it's an act at all. I think it's sunk cost playing out. This isn't a new experience for me. I've had this exact conversation many times. It doesn't matter that you can show how moral realism is rational even if it's not true - people who come in claiming it's nonsense, as opposed to just wrong, tend to go out claiming the same.

I did it too, even as it was was eating at me. The only solution, imo, is to stick with it until we're (at least) disagreeing on equivalent terms. I strongly suspect that I would also call what you insist must be the criteria for moral realism to be nonsense, fwiw.

[FrustratedFool]

I don't think sunk cost is my issue. I've only identified as a nihilist for a couple months, and have left religious views I dedicated my whole life to. No, that's not it.

I think it's what I said. We can't communicate.

Does it not concern you that you've had this same conversation multiple times and multiple people have found your unreasonable?

[The Grand Nudger]

That you think the two are related is the first thing that pings my radar. So you've left your religious worldview. So what, leaving those doesn't imply or certify nihilism - though the religious constantly conflate the two states which leads many people into earnestly believing that they're related.

They aren't. Many religious systems are more legitimately nihilist than non or irreligious systems.

Does it not concern you that you've had this dame conversation multiple times and multiple people have found your unreasonable?

Framing. People haven't found me unreasonable, they've insisted that I must be though they cant correctly or consistently identify why. Insomuch as they have - and it's a malleable situation...people go back and forth....Abgrboda (who's logical acumen I deeply respect) has been able to concede, for example, that I'm at least describing something rational - but may not feel that way any given day.

No, it doesn't bother me, like I've mentioned, it just puts me in the same position that professional ethicists are in when they talk to the teeming (educated) masses.

In the end, that's what "broke" me. I realized that although I strongly felt as though something must be amiss with realism, there really wasn't. The transition was just a matter of understanding what the other guy was saying and deciding, for myself, whether i could rationally agree or disagree. I still harbor a or irrationalist objections. They've become realist modifiers to moral desert. I also fundamentally identify with dissent - so there's that.

End of the day, when I make a moral pronouncement what I'm trying to do is use the same mechanics you and I both use when we make statements about cats. If it's just straight up fucking nonsense then the cat shit is nonsense too...and we can't communicate. If, otoh, it's not straight up nonsense and we simply disagree because you're not sure something is right then you are misrepresenting both the possibility of our being able to effectively communicate and your error theory as nihilism. If, as I suspect, you're actually an error theorist, then we're both cognitivists. Which is to say we both think something about nihilism is wrong, even if one (or both) of us think nihilism got something about moral theory right.

Namely, that there is no ultimate this or that.

[FrustratedFool]

I went through a few views before becoming a nihilist.

Oh well, it doesn't matter. I need to research more. And talking to you has helped me work out my own current views and realise why I disagree with yours. That's profitable at least. Thanks for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC. It takes more than one bite to eat an apple. One of us is the worm, who knows which.

[FrustratedFool]

I dont think either of us is a worm. That's a bit harsh.