Non-belief and Nihilism

This topic is meant to explore the idea of whether or not a lack of belief in an Absolute leads logically to nihilism.Definitions (my own):Nihilism--the idea that there are no absolute standards for behavior nor is there any meaning to life. Life is an accident of a mindless universe. An individual life is a hodge-podge of accidental happenings, sometimes creating great misery, sometimes a modicum of temporary happiness, for no reason and without much control over it by the individual, whose character is mostly pre-determined. There are no standards for behavior that are real, and there is really no particular reason to do or not do anything. When we die, our friends, if we have any, will bury us and perhaps even place a stone. The world will go on, somebody will fill up our place, and in a little while our life and death will be of no more significance to anybody else than that of some dog that died in a ditch. That is the sum total of an individual life.The Absolute--a generic term that does not have to mean God or god in the Western sense but must include a standard for behavior that is ultimately meaningful and purposeful. It does not necessarily have to include the idea of an after-life.Contention: The notion of something in between belief and nihilism, some relative morality, some personal meaning or even some political creed which we decide to live by is not valid, for such standards are ultimately arbitrary--in other words, one either has to be a nihilist or a believer in the Absolute to be logically consistent.My own belief at the moment: nihilism.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi RR,Here's some of my thoughts. This topic is easier to reply to because it's based more on opinion and internal ethic than on scientific fact. I'll get a response to you in your "mind from matter" thread soon... just not yet. Need to think more... and my SOP is not done yet. I'm OK with this. I'm not sure about this, but I'll skip for now. I completely disagree with this (pending a definition of 'character'). Character is a combination of 'pre-determination' and experience. Character is not static AT ALL; it is constantly changing. Don't let the concept of "I" or "being" make you believe that "you" are something constant. You're not! It is the continuity of perception and memory of self-identity that makes the "I". Otherwise, you (your character) are constantly changing. And you change based on experience.The 'pre-determined' part of character, in my view, is just a set of potential results. Your choices and choice of experiences is what makes your character. DNA, protiens, chemicals mean nothing, DO nothing, unless they are in the 'right situation.' You shape yourself by how you choose to live. I think there are no standards for behavior that are absolute... but plenty that are real. We all live within societies, micro-societies, families, etc. There are real rules with a real purpose. The community that you choose to participate in is up to you. Even if you live alone, you can live in a larger community (the earth). We do live within some structure. That is our society. I don't think there's some overarching reason to do anything. Only to do what you believe will make you ultimately feel happy and satisfied inside. That requires forethought and anticipation. No doubt about that! Well... there's lots of ways to have significance. In the least, you have significance to those who care about you. That usually matters to people; it does to me. You can impact society if you want; you can make a notable impact there. It kind of depends what you mean by 'significance'--what level of significance matters to you?Is it any different if there is an absolute or God? If God told you what is right, what is wrong, and you did them, and then you went to heaven, what would you do there? What would you feel there? Is that any different than how you could make yourself feel here on Earth?I guess my answer is no, and my goal is to make myself feel whatever I would have felt in heaven.Ben

Hi Ben,I'll disagree and set forth a classic advaitist position or determinist position. I'm not entirely convinced of this position but it gives a third way of looking at the situation RR sets forth.The universe proceeds cause and effect everything is fully determined.
There is no self or person only the appearance of one. This appearance has arisen to allow consciousness to participate in and enjoy the universe it created but it has forgotten that it is the source and not the object. Consciousness awakened to itself in certain people has led them to teach and function to awaken suffering consciousness in individuals to its actual state.The error RR is making is to seek meaning outside himself in the universe. It's like looking at a Monopoly game and asking what is the point. It has no point true, but the meaning of it comes from the players not the game.So the solution is to look to the source of the sense of self, the temporary configuration of consciousness, like a wave is a temporary configuration, or process of water in the ocean, but it's all water. A wave dies on the beach, the water returns to the ocean.lfen

I agree. I'm sorry

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

I agree with Ifen in comparing life with a game. His comment is accurate--and a reinforcement of the nihilist point of view.But I only stratched the surface of the revelations that support the nihilistic stance:1. That mentality is an illusion (the idea that all is physical)2. Any denial of the idea that one might have a "self." I've heard a lot of that lately.3. All denials of free will, which would seem to include the above.All of the above degrade human dignity. But I suspect they might be true.I welcome all comments on this issue, which to me is very important, no mere exercise, both from believers in the Absolute and non-believers.I've noticed that some on this forum treat believers with contempt. I would never do that.Definiton of "character":some people are smart, some are stupid.some people are brave, some are cowardly.some people have will power, some give up easily.Some people are naturally friendly, others are loners.Such traits as these form one's character, and my opinion is that people are born with these traits, or develop them very early in life through no fault of their own. Such is "character."

What's logical is that game theory shows how we each gain the most over time, individually, by working together. Those rules that help us do that are called "morals".I don't know that acting morally is logically defensible in the face of a lack of an abolute moral judge, but it's certainly the most practical course of action, and that pretty much seals it for me.

The very term "game theory" reinforces nihilism.

I would say that the ego finds this humbling to the point of feeling embarrassed. But the subject you is not the ego and is not implicated in it's pride or feeling of loss of face. My point about the game is not that life is nihilistic but that you are looking in the wrong place for meaning. You are looking at the externals instead of that which is looking. The Buddha and Ramana to cite two of my favorites in this area didn't feel degraded. Beyond the world of relative is something that does not participate in good/bad, right/wrong. The western religions in placing the absolute in the world of relativity create a conflicted unstable model. God is both the absolute source and one end of the relative continuum.I do suggest you read some Buddhist, or Advaitist thinking on this. The absolute is a different order and because it's present in your subjective consciousness it's immanent but of a different kind then the manifest universe.There is a third alternative but it's not ON the continuum you are examining so you won't find it there. It's beyond language. So thinking about it is only an initial part of the process. That is one of the functions of meditation, to go beyond the conceptual models of language and experience your being in a more direct mode.lfen

Are you suggesting that there is an Absolute?

Not only is that a fairly idiotic statement, it's no rebuttal at all to my position.

Nihlism is the end of the road. The abyss. All is absurd and arbitrary. Yep but sex is pretty good, and morning coffee aint to bad either.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Yes, but it is not an absolute that can be measured, it's not one side of a dicotomy. I'll offer this from the Dharma Master Lok To in his introduction to Huang-Po's The Dharma of Mind Transmission.

It is refreshing to see all of you expanding your faith philosophy. Robinrohan, this was your original contention: In order to keep up with you guys, I thought I would nail down your definitions so as to understand the premise.
According to Webster: Explain to me why there can be no gray area in between? I, for one am an absolute Monotheist. It seems to me that some people are professing Christians, yet they deny Inerrency and somehow have a different idea of God than I do. They still claim Christianity, yet seemingly fail to bow to Christ. Or perhaps they fail to bow to MY idea of Christ.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-12-2004 05:00 AM

lfen,Your explanation is much closer to my own belief than my own words. I listened (and read) a talk by John Searle today (requiring RealPlayer again, but there's a transcript this time)--I found his philosophy to match mine VERY well. That's encouraging.There's a sense where both causal reduction (the mind is caused by the brain) and non-reduction (there is explanatory power and reality in the mind) are important. Both are, in the same sense real.The point is, it's a determinist position. Yet at the same time, it supports a non-determinist understanding, if desired. I don't feel the need for a non-determinist position; I prefer a philosophy something like yours. I'm still putting off the investigation, ... but hopefully in January I'll get to it.The non-determinist words I write are for those who seem to 'play that game.' Like I said in another thread, there are some things that are incoherent in that line of thinking, but many things can be explained fine. I prefer the determinist, bottom-up language for its cleanliness and relativistic view (that I derive from it).OK, well.. I feel like I'm spreading my cognitive tracks all over the board these days. I just wanted to say that I like what you wrote, and it's meaningful to me. And that it is much closer to how I think than what I wrote in response to the OP.Ben