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.

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. — daldai

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?

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. — daldai

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.

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. — daldai

Get a girlfriend.

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." — daldai

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.

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

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.

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. — daldai

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.

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

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:

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. — CasKev

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. "

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)?

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

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

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

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

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.

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!

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, — daldai

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.

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

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.

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. — daldai

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)

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

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.

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. — Wayfarer

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

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. — daldai

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