I admit that does sound a bit preachy but I really don't think science should tell people what they ought to think (some scientists think they have this right (yeah, I'm looking at you, Dawkins) but they're wrong).

that's not really what I'm getting at. Naturalism, scientific realism, or what have you, is an instinctive stance we have nowadays. It is the air we breathe, the way we see the world. I think that has a lot to do with the nihilism you're feeling. Why? Because it tells us that the world 'out there' is essentially meaningless (hence: nihilism), and that meaning is subjective, 'in here'; but what's 'in here' is just a kind of accidental byproduct of the external world.

Tell me if I'm getting warm.

With arts, one must study the creator as well as the creation. To learn to be creative is a very long journey.

"What is an absolute believe, and why should the lack of having one be a problem? Why do you expect anyone should have them?"

I'm not sure what I meant. What did you mean by "belief"?

"So when you're trying to figure out the answer to a question, you just pick random answers? I doubt it. I suspect that you have a system, conscious or not, by which you test possible answers and determine, at least provisionally, which one is the best answer for the moment. You almost assuredly employ heuristics, even if you don't use formal methodology. That's what conscious humans do."

No, I google it. Really though, I think of that as a set of proven logical, rational rules for solving problems that have nothing to do with belief. As for heuristics, if someone asks me how I am I think about it before answering.

"It's common enough to not be abnormal, but it isn't the only logical option. That's up to you, be as bitter as you want to be, but I doubt it has anything to do with philosophy. If you don't want to be bitter, you don't have to be. That's also up to you.

Regarding if it's why you're isolated, you can dismiss what I've said, but as a rule, people don't gravitate toward bitterness, and bitterness isn't something that is likely to drive you toward people, so it seems pretty logical that it might be a factor, and maybe even a big one."

I think you're reading too much into my use of the term "bitterness", or I misused it. But if you can choose how you emotionally respond to a given situation, you're a better man than me.

"What do you think nihilism is, if not a philosophy? There's a whole entry on it in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. I mean you can just say "I don't have a philosophy" all you want, but you clearly think that whatever you imagine that "nihilism" is, it's the only logical way to think about things, and that you wish that wasn't the case (you ask for a cure to it). I'm telling you that you're wrong, and that the "cure" is to stop being wrong. That means that you stop hiding behind "I can't explain it". That's a sign that you haven't thought it out clearly. Maybe you can't explain it because it doesn't make sense? If it doesn't make sense, then you should stop believing it."

Again, we're getting things back to front here. I don't regard nihilism as the "logical way to think", but the logical conclusion to any open-minded enquiry into the nature of the universe, and that's why I don't consider it a philosophy. If it wasn't the only logical conclusion I would be wrong (and cured) but it is, so the only cure is stop thinking about things in a purely logical way, but I don't know how to do that. I admit that the connection between my social limitations and the logical way I look at things may be more correlation than causation, or that there may be something I'm missing.

If it was an instinctive stance nowadays, then we'd all be nihilists, wouldn't we? No, I think the instinctive stance is still to look for something deeper. Not me, of course, but if you look on YouTube you'll find plenty of crackpots talking about grand conspiracies with thousands of followers. The religious mindset is still the norm, it's just gravitating away from mainstream religion.

I'm not sure what I meant. What did you mean by "belief"? — daldai

Something you think is the case. The same thing everyone means, isn't it?

Quick formatting note: If you highlight the text of someone's post, a black box with the word "quote" will appear. Click on it, and you'll get the fancy looking quotes people are using.

No, I google it. Really though, I think of that as a set of proven logical, rational rules for solving problems that have nothing to do with belief. — daldai

Solving problems like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow"? Then you have a belief system. You have a systematic methodology to arrive at dispositions regarding states of affairs. Or in more common language, you believe things, and you have methods for arriving at those beliefs.

I think you're reading too much into my use of the term "bitterness", or I misused it. But if you can choose how you emotionally respond to a given situation, you're a better man than me. — daldai

To some degree I can, and to some degree I cannot. I can create habits. I can intentionally exploit the loopholes in my own psychology. I can be aware of the psychological and external precursors to the sorts of emotional responses that I would prefer not to get caught up in and, to a degree manage those in order to avoid those emotional reactions. So I'm not totally the master of my emotions, but, like with my environment, I do have some control. Anyone is capable of that, at least to some degree.

Again, we're getting things back to front here. I don't regard nihilism as the "logical way to think", but the logical conclusion to any open-minded enquiry into the nature of the universe, and that's why I don't consider it a philosophy. — daldai

Fine, if you don't want to call it a philosophy, that's fine by me. So what, exactly is this conclusion? What question does it answer?

If it wasn't the only logical conclusion I would be wrong (and cured) but it is, so the only cure is stop thinking about things in a purely logical way, but I don't know how to do that. I admit that the connection between my social limitations and the logical way I look at things may be more correlation than causation, or that there may be something I'm missing. — daldai

I disagee. I think your logic, to whatever extent you've shown it here, is flawed, imprecise, and it doesn't look like you've even questioned if it was. It's intellectually lazy, as far as I can see. Perhaps if you want to explain your reasoning, you'll show me to be wrong.

Solving problems like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow"? Then you have a belief system. You have a systematic methodology to arrive at dispositions regarding states of affairs. Or in more common language, you believe things, and you have methods for arriving at those beliefs. — Reformed Nihilist

It sounds like you're trying to convince me that there is inherent meaning in the pursuit of knowledge, but I'm not dismissing it, it's certainly how I used to think, and maybe I was wrong to throw that baby out with the bathwater. This little experiment does seem to have had a positive effect, and I appreciate your feedback, as well as the other people who got involved. This is the internet after all, most places I would have just been abused.

To some degree I can, and to some degree I cannot. I can create habits. I can intentionally exploit the loopholes in my own psychology. I can be aware of the psychological and external precursors to the sorts of emotional responses that I would prefer not to get caught up in and, to a degree manage those in order to avoid those emotional reactions. So I'm not totally the master of my emotions, but, like with my environment, I do have some control. Anyone is capable of that, at least to some degree. — Reformed Nihilist

You must be a nightmare when your partner is looking for an argument.

It sounds like you're trying to convince me that there is inherent meaning in the pursuit of knowledge — daldai

Nope. I don't think the idea of "inherent meaning" is coherent. Meaning is something that words have, and a dictionary can give you most of the meaning you'll need in life.

Again, I just suspect that you think that you've reasoned yourself to what you think are the only logical conclusions. For some reason you're unwilling to test that reasoning against criticism. I'm telling you I'm pretty sure you're mistaken, but unless you walk me through this reasoning, we'll never know.

You must be a nightmare when your partner is looking for an argument. — daldai

My partner doesn't go looking for arguments. I lucked out with that. We're both pretty non-confrontational in our personal lives.

@daldai

Let's see if I'm getting closer to understanding your situation.

You have logically concluded that there is no grand purpose or meaning to life.
You have a desire for deeper relationships, but your ways of thinking isolate you from others, and prevent you from forming meaningful connections.
You feel as though you have nothing to offer beyond basic social interaction and sexual urges.

Since you've decided to keep living in spite of the meaninglessness of life, I imagine your goal would be to minimize the amount of suffering you experience, such as the feelings of isolation and loneliness.

I think we all start off as loving and compassionate beings, likely as a result of our instinctive need for community, family, and procreation. I think these natural feelings may be buried under your nihilistic thoughts of meaninglessness. While you can't ignore hunger, thirst, and sleep for an extended period of time without the survival instinct kicking in, things like relationships can be ignored indefinitely. Though doing this may not threaten your immediate survival, it definitely goes against human nature, and will make your life much more unpleasant.

Unfortunately, unless someone shares your strong nihilistic views, they will likely not be satisfied with superficial interaction. So you have to find a way to engage more deeply in life, without it feeling fake or forced.

Perhaps if you are able to look at relationships as a biological need, you will be more willing to accept people with differing beliefs, and engage in the sorts of things that other people value, despite them being illogical.

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. — Wayfarer

How does this make sense? If science is functioning as a religion or system of meaning why would it's adherents, and our nihilist friend daldai, be suffering from a lack of meaning?

ukelele playing — mcdoodle

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs.

Firstly, I like to apologize for signing up specifically to start a topic and not to get involved in other discussions, but I really do need help here. I have googled around but mostly seem to run into adverts aimed specifically at the depressed and vulnerable. I am not clinically depressed, vulnerable or easily offended and would appreciate any feedback. — daldai

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I'm glad you've participated in the discussion (26 entires so far). Sometimes someone signs up with an interesting question and then doesn't contribute to their own thread. Bad practice.

Are you finding this discussion helpful? It looks a bit like sparring practice--which is perfectly fine. A lot of what goes on here is sparring practice, as well it should be. Better that than a brass knuckle switch blade street fight over philosophy.

A question: How old are you--I'm asking "How long have you been dealing with this?" I take it your life is not unusual -- you have a job, you do a lot of thinking, you have friends, you bathe regularly, do your laundry, and so on. BUT... despite all that, something isn't working well. You have girl friends, you like sex (most people do)... it's just that you are still lonely. You and most of mankind are lonely. It seems to go with the territory.

...you'll find plenty of crackpots... — daldai

So, you're either nihilist or crackpot, right?

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs. — Bitter Crank

It's perfectly OK so long as you wear an Hawaiian shirt whilst so engaged.

I think history, and non-secular cultures today, tell us this [truth and meaning act in opposition]. When societies have religion peoples' lives have meaning. When western culture embraced scientific realism, people's lives lost meaning. — daldai

This sounds like a sort of pre-rational romanticism. And I think your meaning may be clearer if you use a term like 'rationality' or 'skepticism' rather than truth.

Both reason and meaning are driven by our values and, just thinking out loud, that may be the essential reason why they can't really act in opposition. We don't apply our capacity to reason on things we don't value, and things that we don't value are meaningless to us. Conversely, we may apply our reason vigorously to things that we do care about, like truth, and find that activity meaningful. If this is the case, then it would seem that the real problem is confusion about, or the obscuration of, our true values. I think it's possible to lose touch with our values, due to over-intellectualizing, and this can cause anxiety which may further obscure our real values.

Searching for the meaning of life is taking the process of justification beyond the point that it is useful. You could call it the existential justification fallacy. — daldai

Searching for meaning in life makes sense to me. Searching for the meaning of life, a singular meaning, seems nonsensical. We are surrounded by and saturated in meaning.

Neither do I; I didn't say that. Everyone has a worldview; the evidence for this is the basic values they put out into the world. Someone without a worldview would have no beliefs, but your own beliefs are being revealed in your responses in this thread, as well as in your original post.

How does this make sense? If science is functioning as a religion or system of meaning why would it's adherents, and our nihilist friend daldai, be suffering from a lack of meaning? — praxis

I don't know if Scientificism (the religion of Science-Worship) is a system of meaning. For many it's a system of no-meaning.

But, either way, it can be said that different Scientificists worship their religion in different ways...that iit has "denominations", if you like.

Evidently, at face-value, daldai's Science-Worship is causing him great angst.

But, when someone's belief is presumably making him unhappy, but he adamantly advocates an unusually extreme, doctrinaire and dogmatic version of it,, and isn't considering letting go of it, will anyone be able to help him?

With all issues, be skeptical.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't know if Scientificism (the religion of Science-Worship) is a system of meaning. For many it's a system of no-meaning. — Michael Ossipoff

Can you imagine anyone adhering to a meaningless religion? The only essential thing a religion needs to provide is meaning. If it fails to do that it will die, or never takes hold to begin with.

But, either way, it can be said that different Scientificists worship their religion in different ways...that iit has "denominations", if you like. — Michael Ossipoff

There are of course different branches of science. What does that have to do with it being a religion? How exactly do Scientificists worship?

Evidently, at face-value, daldai's Science-Worship is causing him great angst. — Michael Ossipoff

That is not at all evident.

But, when someone's belief is presumably making him unhappy, but he adamantly advocates an unusually extreme, doctrinaire and dogmatic version of it,, and isn't considering letting go of it, will anyone be able to help him? — Michael Ossipoff

I suggest you review what daldai has written in this topic.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing is that I wouldn't say I have a problem accepting other people's beliefs, when they are not forced on me (I'm far from perfect, but I do value respect and try to be respectful of others, although there is a reply above where I may have let myself down a little bit).

What you said about biological needs is relevant and will help me to clarify what I am trying to say. My concern is that my nihilism means that my identity is not defined well enough to be able to meet the biological needs of others.

Thanks, I may actually hang around here bit a when I get the time. I haven't really done much philosophical sparring since my dope-smoking college days.

Better that than a brass knuckle switch blade street fight over philosophy. — Bitter Crank

That rings a bell... Pynchon?

There's a lot of terminology I'm throwing around here without defining it properly. Yes, I have beliefs in the sense of - there is enough evidence for X, that I believe X even though I don't know X. An example for me would be if X="global capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and will lead to either totalitarianism or chaos." What I don't have is a belief in the sense of - I choose to believe X in spite of there being no evidence for X, because it enriches my life in some way. This is what I mean above when I say that I don't have the ability to "choose" or take a leap of faith.

NO. God, please, stay away from ukulele playing, at all costs. — Bitter Crank

Once again, I don't have a world-view. Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this. If you adopt a world-view you cannot end up a nihilist. If you don't you can only end up a nihilist. Maybe it's because you are used to people using the term as some kind of badge of honour. — daldai

For me, on the contrary: your claim is that nihilism is comprehensive and admits of no exceptions. It's an all-encompassing attitude to things. That to me is a world-view. I think you're splitting hairs to claim otherwise for the sake of a good chat.