/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14010011]

>Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing ‘why’.

How can anyone dispute this after Darwin and abiogenesis evidence? We're obviously just the product of billions of years of evolution. There's only subjective meaning should a person bother to seek any, but otherwise life will just survive and expand until it disappears.

[Anonymous No.14010020]

Shut up zoomer come back when you've got some actual years of reading under your belt

[Anonymous No.14010025]

How is survival and reproduction not objective?

[Anonymous No.14010041]

>>14010025
Because it doesn't apply to everyone--that's why people commit suicide or refuse to have children--, and if it stopped existing nothing would happen.

Life only survives because of natural selection: those who didn't want to survive hard enough did not survive. Nothing happens either way.

[Anonymous No.14010059]

>>14010011
>abiogenesis evidence
What evidence?

[Anonymous No.14010064]

>>14010059
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

[Anonymous No.14010080]

>>14010064
That's not evidence for abiogenesis, that's just the oldest evidence of life they have found...

[Anonymous No.14010082]

>>14010011
We, as humans, are observers. Without observers, the universe would not exist. Think about that for a moment.

[Anonymous No.14010090]

>>14010080
Yes, so maybe life appeared a bit earlier. What does it matter?

>The most commonly accepted location of the root of the tree of life is between a monophyletic domain Bacteria and a clade formed by Archaea and Eukaryota of what is referred to as the "traditional tree of life" based on several molecular studies starting with C. Woese.[56] A very small minority of studies have concluded differently, namely that the root is in the Domain Bacteria, either in the phylum Firmicutes[57] or that the phylum Chloroflexi is basal to a clade with Archaea+Eukaryotes and the rest of Bacteria as proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith.[58]

Of what importance to the argument is it if the root is X or Y?

[Anonymous No.14010096]

>>14010025
It's not that it isn't objective, rather that it's not meaning.

[Anonymous No.14010097]

You fundamentally can't dispute "this" because it isn't actually saying anything and even worse dependent on a primitive form of hylozoism.

[Anonymous No.14010103]

>>14010082
There has been an universe before we existed. Metaphysics and the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" thought experiment are just human inventions.

[Anonymous No.14010114]

>>14010090
Finding the oldest critter isn't proof of abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.14010120]

>>14010103
>If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound
it doesn't

[Anonymous No.14010123]

>>14010103
>There has been an universe before we existed
Haven't we always been observing the universe regardless of time?

[Anonymous No.14010131]

>>14010103
>There has been an universe before we existed.
Is it not possible that all geological and astronomical history is a mere extrapolation - that it is talking about what would have happened if it had been observed?

[Anonymous No.14010143]

>>14010114
Do you mean you disagree with the scientific hypothesis that life emerged from a sequence of molecular self-replication, self-assembly and autocatalysis events; or do you mean something else? All proposed hypotheses only differ only in details.

[Anonymous No.14010161]

>>14010143
I'm saying a hypothesis is not evidence

[Anonymous No.14010169]

>>14010131
It is also possible that this is all a dream and tomorrow you'll wake up in an alien colony created by Zeus. However, there is no evidence supporting this, but there is plenty of evidence for scientific theories.

[Anonymous No.14010175]

>>14010169
>but there is plenty of evidence for scientific theories
Except these scientific theories rely on the premise that the scenario I just laid out is false.

[Anonymous No.14010191]

Chad Thundercock here, just dropping by to remind you nerds that you have no value.

[Anonymous No.14010194]

>>14010161
The hypothesese are supported by evidence. The evidence is not conclusive to reconstruct every detail of the hypotheses considered, but given the current evidence they're the most likely hypotheses.

Would you like to propose a different hypothesis that has any sorts of evidence?

[Anonymous No.14010201]

>>14010194
I was originally asking what that evidence was. The Wikipedia article had no evidence.

[Anonymous No.14010203]

>>14010011
>With respect to the universe
Why should you anthropomorphize the universe then care about its fictional feelings, especially when you already have your own feelings and desires and values and priorities?
>born into the universe, barred from knowing ‘why’
Nonsense. Just ask your parents.
>There's only subjective meaning
It's still meaning. You write as if it is inferior to a hypothetical "objective meaning."
Just do things that feel good, and avoid things that feel bad, balancing short-term and long-term consequences.

[Anonymous No.14010207]

>>14010175
There are infinite scenarios with no evidence, and you are free to deny all existing evidence, but I'm talking to people who are not in denial about all scientific evidence provided the past centuries.

[Anonymous No.14010213]

>>14010201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biological_evidence_for_life

[Anonymous No.14010219]

>>14010120
The vibrations that cause sound would still have been produced.

[Anonymous No.14010224]

>>14010203
>It's still meaning. You write as if it is inferior to a hypothetical "objective meaning."
I write as if I'm referring to the quote I posted, which talks about intrinsic meaning.

>Just do things that feel good, and avoid things that feel bad, balancing short-term and long-term consequences.
Pretty much, yeah.

[Anonymous No.14010238]

>>14010207
>no evidence
Well, there's quantum mechanics, and the fact that many animals perceive the world differently than humans and other animals in a multitude of ways, suggesting reality is very open to interpretation.

[Anonymous No.14010246]

>>14010011
Fucking hell, an interesting-looking thread. Thanks OP.
>Life began in the primordial soup and developed by natural selection.
>Therefore it is without meaning, value or purpose.
Is this the genetic fallacy in action?

[Anonymous No.14010251]

>>14010238
>quantum mechanics and subjectivity exists
>therefore my theory is supported by evidence
??

[Anonymous No.14010254]

>>14010203
This. It is in our nature to assign value -- we do not need to look past our nature to justify doing so. Nihilism is just recognizing that universals are bunk; it doesn't proscribe the valuation or holding of values subsequent to our natures.

[Anonymous No.14010255]

>>14010246
No, because the quote is referring to intrinsic meaning, and I acknowledge the existence of subjective mening.

[Anonymous No.14010259]

>>14010219
That's true. But they don't become sound until they hit an eardrum

[Anonymous No.14010263]

People like you shouldn’t post on /lit/
I think bare minimum you should have at least read some actual philosophy before posting about le science and pseudo deep thoughts you copied from Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.14010264]

>>14010251
What don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.14010278]

How cns slemoke argue life has meaning? Eveb if one believes in God how does they give life meaning? Does life get meaning because someone or something says it has? That seem rather weak.

[Anonymous No.14010284]

>>14010255
You're supporting the quote by an appeal to evolution.

>Life appeared and evolved (we think) by accident, therefore life is meaningless.

Forget the distinction between objective and subjective 'meaning', 'value' or whatever. Does the premise (a naturalistic account of how life got going) really support the conclusion (nihilism)?

[Anonymous No.14010288]

>>14010264
Vague references to theories related to determinism and ontology are not evidence for your theory.

[Anonymous No.14010297]

>>14010278
>Eveb if one believes in God how does they give life meaning?
Because they can argue the meaning of life is to do God's work and fulfil the purpose he set for you.

[Anonymous No.14010300]

Lotta cringe itt

[Anonymous No.14010306]

>>14010288
They are not vague, and they are directly related and supportive to my theory. Feel free to show otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14010313]

>>14010284
Meaning can't precede the beings that find things meaningful -- so yes -- nihilism is correct (whether life happened by 'accident' or the inevitable trajectory of a deterministic universe).

[Anonymous No.14010325]

>>14010011
nothing has any 'intrinsic' meaning because the word "intrinsic" is a retarded word created by people who ran out of arguments to justify their shitty platonism (see: Christianity).
As for humans being "unlikely to change", everything is changing every second, and humans don't actually exist, only a plethora of lifeforms.
Lastly, an individual cannot be "isolated" because individuation implies something external to the individual.
As for what to do next, evolve would be the correct answer: create the overman. And that is what civilization is already doing.

So, here we are, with some fagoot on 4chan still tackling problems Nietzsche not only suffered from, but found the answers to, 120 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14010328]

>>14010011
Wow, materialists are all midwits. Science doesn’t explain ‘why’ at all.

[Anonymous No.14010330]

>>14010011
>life has no intrinsic meaning or value
this is unknowable
>>14010025
that's unknowable
>>14010041
this is unknowable
>>14010082
>Without observers, the universe would not exis
ontologically unknowable
>>14010103
>There has been an universe before we existed
this is unknowable
>>14010120
>>If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound
>it doesn't
literally unknowable

[Anonymous No.14010337]

>>14010330
>intellectual suicide as a post

[Anonymous No.14010345]

>>14010325
>humans don't actually exist, only a plethora of lifeforms
Wrong on one account. The lifeforms don't exist either, at least, not outside of the very concept designated by your brain, a concept which has no ontological grounding.

[Anonymous No.14010349]

>>14010284
Yes, if life appeared and evolved by accident, then it just became the case that the life which was genetically predisposed to seeking continual existance continued to exist. Every other form of life went extinct. This evolution continued for billions of years till the early Hominidae and then eventually Homo Sapines. It means we're here because it was in our genes to survive, but otherwise we wouldn't have existed. Today, for an individual, they're only here and seeking survival because it's in their genes. However, there's virtually no agency, meaning, goal, aim, higher goal, afterlife, etc. We're simply here because the organisms before us had in their genes to exist. If you or the entire planet disappered, there would be no meaning to it. We're not basically arbitrariness on automatic control. All man-made concepts such as political systems, rights, thoughts, dreams, etc. are simply devices we developed to continue our existence--only because it was in our genes to do so, which is birthed from the tautological proposition that only life which has existence in their genes may continue existing.

[Anonymous No.14010355]

>>14010313
>Meaning can't precede the beings that find things meaningful
Why not? If you just assume beforehand that the universe is meaningless or valueless until we're in a position to project meaning or value onto it, you're begging the question that your appeal to evolution was supposed to answer. And how do
>Darwin and abiogenesis
show life is meaningless or valueless?

[Anonymous No.14010357]

>>14010325
lmao jesus christ; truly only a nietzschean retard could make such a post.

[Anonymous No.14010358]

>>14010011
Bold of u to think that this kind of worldview, philosophy, and/or loose 'objectivity' isn't based in lived subjective experience. This kind of thinking cancels itself out like a snake eating its own tail imho. I'm gonna get all horny w/ language games here but I think the idea that just because something's unobjective doesn't make it less real. That kind of mindset usually comes from someone who's either very young or otherwise emotionally stunted.

[Anonymous No.14010367]

>>14010328
There is no 'why' to explain.

[Anonymous No.14010385]

>>14010082
Let me correct your statement, as it is very close to being correct.
>We, as humans
first mistake. We, as lifeforms. If you don't make this distinction then you get >>14010103
as a reply.
>are observers. Without observers, the universe would not exist.
broaden: perceivers

In summa: We, as lifeforms, are perceivers. Without perceivers, the universe would not exist.

Then you combine it with >>14010238
and you can even then say that the perceivers create the universe by perceiving. This is supported by science, too. Then you could add in Schopenhauerian idea of will, and extrapolate "that everyone is in fact creating his own reality at every moment, and is thus the complete master of it, with every last detail of it fully belonging to him" (icy).

[Anonymous No.14010395]

>>14010345
It is a subtle point you are missing: "if my life is illusion, I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me." (icy)

[Anonymous No.14010401]

>>14010355
I assume that, because valuation and the assignment of meaning appear to be psychological functions of our brains. Furthermore, these functions weren't occurring for the majority of time life has existed here -- they are specific to animals with a capacity for abstraction. The logic follows. If you have a different definition of meaning that would allow it to precede abstracting agents, you'd have to share it before I can argue the point.

Obviously, if you're just assuming that god exists in some form and that meaning derives from god, that's fine. I dispute that explanation of course, and I'd have to ask whether god is considered 'alive', and what the meaning of god's existence is. If you say that meaning is an aspect of god's nature, then I'd say that on some level (god's level), life 'just is' and doesn't require any justification.

[Anonymous No.14010403]

>>14010259
In fact, they're only sound when they're perceived by someone. Vibrations outside human auditory perception are, to human observers, not "sounds." Or at least, they're only "sounds" in terms of extrapolation from a theory of sound (i.e., vibrations in a medium hitting an eardrum), but they're not sounds in the more practical sense that you're referencing.

[Anonymous No.14010405]

>>14010349
You're right that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology, but I don't think the meaninglessness or valuelessness of existence is proved by that. Does it follow from
>Life appeared spontaneously and evolved by natural selection
that
>All sentences of the form 'You ought to X' are objectively false
? There's no link between the premise and the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14010406]

>>14010357
>jesus christ
your retarded religion is shitty platonism.

[Anonymous No.14010426]

>>14010349
>Yes, if life appeared and evolved by accident, then it just became the case that the life which was genetically predisposed to seeking continual existance continued to exist. Every other form of life went extinct. This evolution continued for billions of years till the early Hominidae and then eventually Homo Sapines. It means we're here because it was in our genes to survive, but otherwise we wouldn't have existed. Today, for an individual, they're only here and seeking survival because it's in their genes.
This is extremely interesting. What if the will to power isn't a rule but instead just a will that destroyed (consumed the energy of) the other wills that were not directed to powering? That would mean the will to power would be an emergent part of the system.
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.14010436]

>>14010405
This is a strawman. Nihilism does not proscribe valuation subsequent to our nature, it merely disputes the existence of universal meaning/values. Any notion of -why- 'you ought to do x' would have to relate back to one's nature -- survival, flourishing, etc.

[Anonymous No.14010442]

>>14010426
That's exactly it. Those who did not seek power and extending were conquered and exterminated by those who did. That's why humans have a predilection to conquer and extend, but there's no deeper meaning other than it makes up the traits that led to survival.

[Anonymous No.14010450]

>>14010401
>I assume that, because valuation and the assignment of meaning appear to be psychological functions of our brains
That's fair enough, but it's worth pointing out that since that's what you assume, your conclusion comes as no surprise. Also, it seems to me that perception is a 'function of the brain' too, but it doesn't follow that our percepts aren't real. Pointing out that only certain animals are ably to think abstractly doesn't prove there are no abstractions.

>Obviously, if you're just assuming that god exists in some form and that meaning derives from god, that's fine.
Set God to one side. (I don't think divine fiat gets us very far.) It seems to me that there are some value-statements that are always true. E.g.
>You shouldn't throw babies in boiling water just for fun
This strikes me as 'objectively' true in the sense that it's true in all circumstances, and would be true even if there weren't any babies. But in that case it's an objective value. I don't think accepting a naturalistic account of the origin and development of life disproves it.

[Anonymous No.14010456]

>>14010011
How does the theory of evolution prove nihilism? Because evolution disproves Christian creationism? Why is nihilism the only alternative? Evolution doesn't contradict Buddhism, why not become a Buddhist instead of a nihilist? Why can't the meaning of life be derived from the laws of nature that dictate the course of evolution?

[Anonymous No.14010460]

>>14010436
>Nihilism does not proscribe valuation subsequent to our nature, it merely disputes the existence of universal meaning/values
With respect, that's why I used the word 'objective' in
>All sentences of the form 'You ought to X' are objectively false

[Anonymous No.14010472]

>>14010011
>Evolution proves nihilism
LMAO. You're kidding right?

[Anonymous No.14010479]

>>14010442
Jesus Christ, Nietzche's will to power was a metaphysical concept, not a description of evolutionary struggle, just stop appropriating Nietzsche for your basic bitch redditoid materialism

[Anonymous No.14010487]

>>14010479
>Nietzche's will to power was a metaphysical concept, not a description of evolutionary struggle
completely, embarrassingly wrong, actually. It was created after his contemplation of Darwins idea that life is the will to survival, which Nietzsche immediately saw through.

[Anonymous No.14010497]

It is precisely due to the multifarious ''realities'' within this ''reality'' that proves it to be false.
The Real is Real, unchanging (Real for all time); it does not arise questions of whether there is meaning or not; and finally it is precisely by covering the Real with tools and categories of thought that the Real is transformed into something else, that is, our Empirical Reality. Empirical Reality is super-imposed on the Real (Ultimate Reality).

[Anonymous No.14010501]

>>14010479
not to mention it doesn't even cross your little mind that a metaphysical concept could result in an evolutionary struggle, or that evolution could cause certain concepts to emerge.

[Anonymous No.14010510]

>>14010497
It's reading stuff like this that makes me think the Vienna Circle had a point.

[Anonymous No.14010515]

>>14010497
But what if our "empirical" reality is the only reality, and is not super-imposed on anything?

[Anonymous No.14010546]

>>14010011
Then why not just kill yourself?

You are a soulless retard.

[Anonymous No.14010553]

>>14010405
That's moral nihilism not existential nihilism

[Anonymous No.14010562]

>>14010515
Because as I posted, Reality is that that is Real. Our ''reality'' isn't that Reality (Ultimate One), it is perceived on the four discrete functions:
Is;
Is not;
Both is and is not;
Neither is nor is not;

The Real is untouched by these categories of human thought. Trying to reach the Ultimate Real through them is a sterile and a never-ending (concerning empirical reality) illusion. The self-contradictory nature of empirical reality is apprehended by us and can never be solved by our rational capacities (because in the end, there is no solution at all for that which does not exist ultimately).

[Anonymous No.14010565]

>>14010297
Yes, but they does not answer the "why".

[Anonymous No.14010582]

>>14010565
Because God says so and if you do well you end up in heaven where eternal happiness and pleasure awaits you.

[Anonymous No.14010584]

>>14010553
Doesn't the one follow from the other? It seems to me that if life is without meaning or value, there are no objectively true claims about how I 'ought' to live it.

[Anonymous No.14010595]

>>14010562
Is there a whiff of Buddhism here?

[Anonymous No.14010623]

>>14010584
Then the question is whether a form of intrinsic meaning arises from the self-governing billion years process of natural selection. I can see none. Do you?

[Anonymous No.14010624]

>>14010562
what if the ultimate reality was the total of every creature's empirical reality?

[Anonymous No.14010627]

>>14010582
Why does that constitute meaning?

[Anonymous No.14010665]

>>14010623
>Then the question is whether a form of intrinsic meaning arises from the self-governing billion years process of natural selection
Why do you think this is the question, unless you're begging the question by supposing all meaning and value in life comes about by way of evolution?

[Anonymous No.14010666]

>>14010450
By what standard would that be universally true though? Let's suppose we had a species that was entirely devoid of empathy towards babies and managed to survive/floursih just fine despite this. Why would it be universally wrong for them to boil babies for fun? That would presuppose universal morality, which isn't possible if morality emerges from the nature of a being (the natures of different beings are not universal).

>>14010460
Fair enough, I thought you were disputing that nihilism (rejection of universal values) follows from abiogenesis. I agree that value propositions can be considered objectively with respect to the valuing agent, while not being matters of universal truth/falsehood.

[Anonymous No.14010810]

>Hitherto the poets and philosophers of science have used the vast expanse and duration of the universe as a pretext for reflections on the unimportance of man, forgetting that man with "that enchanted loom, the brain" is precisely what transforms this immense electrical pulsation into light and color, shape and sound, large and small, hard and heavy, long and short. In knowing the world we humanize it, and if, as we discover it, we are astonished at its dimensions and its complexity, we should be just as astonished that we have the brains to perceive it.

[Anonymous No.14010833]

>>14010810
>unrelated pseud quote

[Anonymous No.14010844]

>>14010666
>By what standard would that be universally true though?
Anon that's a good question, and I admit I don't have a good answer. I think there are a few moral truths true in all circumstances, such as the example I've given (although what 'makes' them true is beyond me). Evolution and abiogenesis don't have any bearing on them. As resident nihilist it's your job to show they do. (You haven't.)

Regarding your unempathetic species, I say your point only holds if moral claims derive either from feelings of empathy or from their helping individuals survive. I see no reason to believe either. It seems to me that if your species were boiling babies for fun, they'd be behaving badly.

The claim
>morality emerges from the nature of a being
is vague. What do you mean by 'nature'? If it's something fuzzy like (in the case of humans) 'humanity' (whatever that means), I'd say it *is* universal in the sense it is shared by all humans. If morality follows from our 'nature' in this sense, it is certainly objective.

>I thought you were disputing that nihilism (rejection of universal values) follows from abiogenesis
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. I say
>Abiogenesis, therefore some claim about meaning or value
is a non sequitur. Your premise has no connection with your conclusion.

I'm a Bong and I'm off to bed. I look forward to reading your answer!

[Anonymous No.14010855]

>>14010833
It's completely related.

[Anonymous No.14010886]

>>14010855
More like completely retarded LOL

[Anonymous No.14010904]

>>14010886
>More like completely retarded LOL

[Anonymous No.14010927]

>>14010011
Didnt Platinga prove that evolution and naturalism cant be coupled?

[Anonymous No.14010938]

>>14010927
No

[Anonymous No.14010947]

>>14010904
>Image
>Greentext

[Anonymous No.14010968]

>>14010938
If natural selection makes us more fit for reproduction, then our cognitive faculties exist only for this means. Therefore, reasoning does not exist to find truth, but to propagate genes, meaning all our perception is untrustworthy. Meaning you shoot yourself in the foot, and advocate for extreme skepticism and cannot justify any conclusion that deviates from that

[Anonymous No.14011213]

>>14010968
The EAAN is just an argument with plenty of reaponses, it is not a "proof" of anything, it certainly didn't end epistemology.

[Anonymous No.14011252]

>>14010844
Well, this just takes us back to >>14010401

I assume that morality/values/meaning refer to phenomena occurring in our brains, and are therefore directly related our natures (as in biological states). I deem this a reasonable assumption due to a preponderance of empirical evidence (evolution, genetics, neuroscience, psychometrics, etc.) that establishes a high degree of probability of this being the case. If you don't see that as a good reason to favour such an explanation vs. your admittedly vague and incomplete intuitions, then I don't think you're applying the logical standard consistently.

>I'd say it *is* universal in the sense it is shared by all humans
Our natures are not universal -- we're obviously not the same person. There is overlap (which is how morality works), but that is not equivalent to universality.
>If morality follows from our 'nature' in this sense, it is certainly objective.
Again, we have to be careful about conflating 'objective' and 'universal'. I don't dispute that morality is objective (as in it's a real phenomenon which can be investigated and analyzed factually), but I do dispute that it's universal.

>is a non sequitur. Your premise has no connection with your conclusion.
Incorrect. If life wasn't created by a valuing agent (specifically god, since we couldn't attribute universal values to any other agent), then meaning/value didn't exist and couldn't apply to life. Rather, valuation behaviours are a product of the evolving complexity of life -- they only exist because they confer some survival advantage.

In other words, it's foolish to ask 'What is the meaning of life?', because life is the purpose of meaning.

[Anonymous No.14011305]

>>14010968
Sure, but the major part of being fit for reproduction is survival. You're far more likely to survive if your faculities allow you to more accurately assess your circumstances (find truth). All our perception is technically untrustworthy in any event, as we are beings of limited perception -- this does not necessitate extreme skepticism however, as actionable knowledge need not be complete/perfect knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14012729]

>>14010025
There is no meaning to it, the only reason life reproduces is because non-reproductive life happens to inherently die out.

[Anonymous No.14012740]

>>14010968
>our cognitive faculties exist only for this means
They don't exist *for* anything, it's a mere consequence of random genetic variation. Evolution also frequently results in traits that are actually detrimental to animals e.g. our set of teeth doesn't fit in our mouth, our hair is basically a waste of energy, the ability to gain significant strength/muscle mass is uselessly inefficient since humans are better hunters using our endurance, etc.

[Anonymous No.14012816]

The introduction of Nihilism is a result of a certain group of people wanting to impose the sense of meaninglessness so that ultimately they become docile, unable to stand up and resist abuse.

It's basic trauma inducing in order to gain power over an individual. In a hostage situation, the 'owner' attempts to break the individual down to the point where they will see their captor as their sole chance for survival. This same trauma introduction is attempted through institutional propagation of modernistic, atheistic and materialistic ideas in literature and other cultural platforms.

If you no longer believe you are on this earth for a purpose, that you are the result of random trans-special genitals pounding away for millions of years, you are simply easier to control than if you believe you have a higher purpose that transcends the material world. In communist society they deliberately build undeniably depressing blocks of buildings. In society where human life is cherished and elevated, spectacular cathedrals with beautiful ornaments are erected to symbolize the strive for something eternal, greater than the material existence.

Nihilism and Darwinism is a philosophical prison, which is attempting to assert itself as a dominant thought pattern, but it is devoid of truth and meaning. Yielding it an utterly useless mind set for an individual seeking purpose. It is, however, extremely useful for an oligarch who wishes to have docile, accepting workers, and corrupt governments feeding off of tax money like parasites.

Just think if a fish got infested by a parasite, and hypothetically they were able of conscious awareness and logical deduction. As the parasite gains more and more control, do you think it would change their thinking? And if so, how? Would they look more brightly on life, or more nihilistic. If the parasite is allowed to grow unchallenged, you die, and the parasite dies. If you challenge it and resist, you might be able to defeat the parasite.

Nihilism is the Parasite of the Mind. Challenge the parasite, do not give into it. Keep looking for purpose even though you do not see it. Ask for it, pray for it, voice your search for purpose. Nihilism wants you to give up, it wants you to die. Don't let it.

[Anonymous No.14012846]

>>14012816
>t. schizo

[Anonymous No.14012860]

>>14010011
there is no evidence about evolution, let alone abiogenesis witch is super crazy even in evolutionary circles

[Anonymous No.14012908]

>>14010020
This.

[Anonymous No.14012987]

>>14010011
if meaning is subjective then how is language possible

[Anonymous No.14012996]

>>14012816

great post

[Anonymous No.14013000]

>>14012987

even the same words mean different things to different people

[Anonymous No.14013009]

>>14013000
yet communication occurs

[Anonymous No.14013012]

>>14010011
nihilism is the start of wisdom. become empty so that you can finally begin to learn.

[Anonymous No.14013015]

>>14013009

might want to read some wittgenstein or u.g. krishnamurti now to understand the actual implications of this

[Anonymous No.14013017]

>>14010096
10/10

[Anonymous No.14013021]

>>14013015
if I ask you to hand me something from the table and you do, the understanding between us is not subjective

[Anonymous No.14013034]

>>14013021

and if you're talking about a more important concept like "god", for example, you and I can talk back and forth endlessly while having extremely different conceptions of god. in your example, even the understanding of the table and the object are subjective. what if you tell me to hand you the 'red' object, and i'm color blind? for what reason do you want it in the first place? just because we're dealing with objective things in 'reality' does not mean that you can apprehend it objectively, you can ONLY apprehend things subjectively

[Anonymous No.14013049]

>>14013034
Language is complicated, but it is also simple.
Objective meanings are possible to express. If you don't place value on these meanings, that's a problem being experienced by you, subjectively.

[Anonymous No.14013155]

I've been wrestling this thought lately.

Life is meaningless, there is no objective value. Only subjective. But how could objective value even exist? Say there is a god thats power is infinite (so what is his meaning? To create the universe? why? who says? he says? then I say my meaning is to shit post on 4chan), and he says to live such a way to have meaning, but what does that amount to? Well then I guess you go to heaven to live, but isn't that meaningless as well?

I say there is no meaning. And who says that should be a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.14013191]

>>14013155
No one says it's a bad thing. It's a good thing.

Once you're born you can decide to kill yourself because it's irrelevant anyway and you can't be bothered with this shit. Or you can decide to do some shit given you're here anyway so you can pursue random goals like virtue or pleasure or knowledge or fame or whatever. This is basically just being like "huh cool I'm alive let's do something before I die lol."

That's all humanity and life. Bunch of organisms who never asked to exist but decided to wing it if they're here anyway and then die.

[Anonymous No.14013203]

>>14010011
the problem is that you mention nihilism, existential nihilism, and whatever science fact that further supports claims of the meaninglessness of existence. you need to unpack each of these before you can get a cogent answer, as each of these comes with their own assumptions and history that when properly reviewed, wouldn't lead you to the same questions. philosophy wouldn't be much at all if it had no discipline. it really isn't the stuff of wiki articles, cliffnotes, and undisciplined discussion in threads that span two days.

suffice it to say, my equally loaded response is below.

0.) i accept the form of your argument that nihilism is a present condition. but i reject your placement of the subject and subjective experience as lower than the pedestal you've placed science and objectivism. i also eschew your conflation of nihilism as a conclusion of science. you will see the irony in confusing the two later.

>How can anyone dispute this
1.) the same reasoning that comes to the conclusion of nihilism cannot be used to find a way out.
>that human life was the result of a genetic algorithm running itself over billions of years is something you've taken as an answer, whereas others would find it as another question.

2.) moreover, science can only speak _about_ nature, it is not Nature itself.
>it can bear no decree, any more than it can put blood into a fist. by definition, it cannot explain a thing that causes itself, and so by that same definition, it cannot provide a decision - that which can only be made by things that will themselves. science can inform, not decide. facts themselves are by definition, immovable. they make no difference to us except that we must decide what to do in the face of nihilism (which is itself not an objective fact).
>there is no object (the Darwinian science you're referring to as the objective conditions of our existence) without a subject (a thing that could perceive this object, and thus think it. and only then, choose what to do with it)

3.) nihilism isn't "disputed", as if to be treated as a fact that is either accepted or denied.
>this is because nihilism isn't a conclusion from objective knowledge, but is itself a conclusion from subjective knowledge of the objective world.
>to explain further, how is it that you get from point A to point B? how does point A (your references to Darwinism and abiogenesis) lead to point B (a meaningless existence)? Darwin and science cannot experimentally validate the question of meaning because it is an unfalsifiable question. nihilism is therefore, not the conclusion of science but of man.

tl;dr - there is a shorter and more competent answer to this loaded question that could be found from those better read in subject-object relationships and how those relate to truth.

i feel that i've done my best given what i know so far. please, give me your best in turn.

[Anonymous No.14013226]

>>14010213
That's still not evidence of abiogenesis. That's evidence of extremely old life. Stop being a sophist and post evidence of abiogenesis.