Karl

That's not nihilism to me. Nihilism discussed here doesn't imply destruction. Nihilism in this context is just a word, a tool for pondering the world as it is.

Yet you ponder it as it isn't don't you ? That all things aren't real.

The universe is as we sense it. It is real. We are real.

The universe has an immensity of things to discover and understand. It is humanity in number that works together to make these discoveries. Its everyone working as an individual that allows this to happen. Argumentation is in fact a process of mental intercourse entirely necessary to push forward our greater knowledge, just as sexual intercourse creates stronger human diversity.

We are the universe discovering itself by passing around the sperm and egg of ideas through communication. Our arguments fertilise those we communicate with, but we are both donor and recipient. Just as we trade sperm and eggs, so do we trade the handiwork of our own physical production in goods and services, thus do we trade our ideas and thoughts.

Therefore there are as many types of seeker as there are people on the planet.

It's not the Nihilist who's happy to support tyrants and dictators. It's the obedient Conformist.

 

I consider myself a nihilist. I'll cherish the beautiful names you gave me: a drain, a rotting limb. But I don't want to infect anyone. I haven't said anything mean. I'm just trying to reflect and to be honest.

 

Btw, Spinoza thought that suicide doesn't exist, because a man cannot kill himself (there's no one to kill & a man doesn't make the "decision").

What is the aim of the Nihlist that remains alive ? Anhilation. It is the maggot in everything, it wants to ruin everything. It will support those who use force to get their own way in an active sense. Burn everything is the Nihlist credo.

Who are these historical and destructive nihilists? The most destructive people in history have furiously believed in themselves and in some other abstract ideas (such as free will, responsibility, judgement, nation, ideology, value and race).

 

 

 

There is no proof for I so far (except these little lines called letters and the sounds called words).

You want to get jiggy about sounds ? Frequencies and amplitudes, resonance and harmonics. Then you should know that the universe is composed of it. That 'I' is part an parcel of that resonance taken form as word. That every bit of material including your body and mind are composed of the same. Every sense works with frequency and amplitude. A structure feels smooth or rough as you pass a finger over it and feel the number and depth of the surface, a noise is high pitched/low pitched, red shift, colour and all light is frequency. Even food and smells have frequency and amplitude.

A Nihlist is the worst kind. It is an abdication of life itself. It is the attitude that nothing matters, that everything is apathy. A Nihlist is a drain, a useless appendage like a rotting limb. It is better that a Nihlist has the courage of their own convictions and ends their own lives as to hang around infecting everybody else's. However, they never have the courage of their convictions and so they are never true nihilists and instead use their philosophy in far more damaging ways. They are happy to support tyrants and dictators.

That is a rhetorical tautology but not a logical one.

The Buddhist (Indian) investigation into modes of existence goes much deeper and is more consistent with modern physics than the materialistic view you propose.

Materialism is so 19th century.... It was essentially disproved by Heisenberg in the 1920's.

My view is not materialistic as I have already confirmed. I do not believe that everything is material. Thoughts exist for the thinker of those thoughts. They have neither dimension nor coordinates yet they exist never the less.

A reference to authority is bad argumentation.

I know pain, but I don't know "consciousness". I know happiness, but I don't know "I". Has someone experienced consciousness? I haven't. This is what I've been trying to explain all along: "consciousness" is something learned and assumed. As a newborn, I didn't even know "I", but that didn't take away the emotions and sensations. It just took away time, consciousness, I, me, etc.

 

If a tree falls in China, it isn't a tree not falling in USA. But where is your pain if I don't know that the pain I'm feeling is my pain? Without "I" it's just pain.

You are conscious of pain.

You are I. It is the same thing.

Conscious is neither learned nor assumed it is axiomatic.

There is no 'knowing' I. You are I. You feel emotions and sensations.

No - the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance, failure to recognize our true nature.

One aspect of that could be stated as mistaking our ability to reason for who we are, so it is a not the ability to reason that causes the problem - it is identification with that ability.

 

In the philosophical categories, it's also useful to include the Buddhist view which is the fourfold negation of the modes of existence, first applied to things, then to self, then to emptiness:

It cannot be said that things have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things both have and do not have inherent existence

It cannot be said that things neither have nor do not have inherent existence

Each of these four ways of describing the inherent nature of things has validity and flaws from different perspectives.

 

Buddhist logic and reasoning has been elevated to very high levels and is a fascinating study (and I'm no expert).

Here's a book I've heard is quite amazing on the subject but I've yet to read it, philosophy is not that important to my current practice:

http://www.shambhala.com/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

Existence exists.

If I live long enough I will likely have to agree that quantum mechanics is useful.  It seems that there are many who believe this to be so.  I just can't handle the cat being alive and dead at the same time nor that a particle can be a particle or a wave depending on who is looking at it and how they look at it.  That's too close to being a god of some type.

You know the live/dead cat was a refutation of quantum theory ? Schrodinger was being sarcastic.

Well, I'm not an idealist but I do consider myself a materialist. 

 

So, here I sit, trying to find a way to suggest that thoughts and emotions are not material things.

 

Sure, for me, my thoughts and emotions are real.  In this sense it could be said that they are material things.  However, you cannot experience my thoughts and emotions so for you they are not material things.  So we would have to place limiters on the truth.

They exist regardless of my ability to experience them. Reality is real. Existence exists and only existence exists.

I'm not too sure about that.

It's a monist philosophy, as is idealism. One states everything is material, the other that nothing is material. These are the classic definitions of these two philosophies which are somewhat twisted by modern interpretations in a way that no doubt will please idealists :-)

I must add a short book review to add perspective. Perkins book is recommended in libertarian circles but should be considered problematical due to his faulty theory and misunderstanding of capitalism.

https://mises.org/library/hit-man-confesses

You forgot to mention that the materialist says it is something...

 

Yes, let us let go of all the philosophy and just let it be as it is.

 

That is the highest (non)practice

The materialist says that everything is something in the sense of a mechanical toy. Even thought and emotion are mechanical artifacts.

Do you believe it is our ability to reason which produces your greatest suffering ?

the Nihlist says it's nothing, the idealist says it is both. Surely it's time to grow out of these pre Socratic philosophies ?

If there was a purpose, what would it be? Who would have set it? How could someone (a person) exist? If it's someone who has set it, would we have to obey and organize our philosophies according to it? Would it be an absolute purpose then? If the purpose is impersonal, it isn't a purpose. Purpose cannot exist.

Your purpose is your own satisfaction of wants and needs-ultimately it is your own happiness. If you are hungry then you must eat, if you are tired then sleep, if you are cold then warmth, if you are lonely then people. Each need requires action. Even inaction is action. You choose one thing over another thing and this is the opportunity cost of that action.

You are writing here because it is the action that gives you the greatest positive improvement. Even a self destructive action requires a positive intent.

In time I have grown into nihilism.

 

But why do you think a nihilist would be a danger to someone? I'm quite kind, actually.

 

I was just comparing the traces of a meteor and what you read here. I'm not denying this body of "mine" and the meteor (although they aren't real for real either).

Because historically nihilists have always proved destructive.

You have to be real in order to deny reality. If you weren't real then you would exist. Maybe you think you are something that you aren't, but that is mistaken thinking and not non-existence. As you pointed out, if you keep asking how do you know you don't exist then you must continually rely on existence to prove that you don't. If you go down the neti neti route you will find yourself with a loss of purpose.

I can say that something caused the word (what caused the signals in brains etc.). But it's pointless. If I start to chase all the causes, I end up having infinite regress of causes. Again, after infinite causes, there's no cause. Every cause has another infinity of causes. So, no cause. Nothing made me use the word.

 

 

 

 

A meteor doesn't exist according to meteor. Should it stop leaving a streak in the sky?

And there in lies the problem 'reductio et babbling'. You are reduced to babbling incoherently in order to confirm non-existence because you are an existent being trying to prove a logical absurdity. If you are truly a Nihlist then you are a danger to yourself and everybody else, if you are just playing the role for the sake of experience then, in time you will grow out of it. If you don't, then you will waste your life.

Things exist outside your conscious of them. A meteor exists and you exist regardless of your attempts to deny yourself an identity. If you do not exist then you can hardly offer up a meteor of proof of your argument. In effect you are agreeing that things exist outside your consciousness of them and then denying that you have any existence. That's clearly a conflict, which steers me to the view that you are playing with the role of a nihilistic person rather than actually being a Nihlist.

Morality and Nihilsm are constructs we use to explain our relationship with the world around us.

This relationship is unclear and undecided, but the brain requires a way to sort this business out so it doesn't become parylized.

If you look at the functtion of the left and right brain, so can see that information is constantly passing between the two hemispheres in order to check the veracity of an experience.

Accord to Iaian McGilchrist, the left brain is more or less logically self consistent, meaning that if the left brain picks up a form of logic that doesn't deviate from itself, then it will accept the logic as truth.

The right brain on the other hand, tends to reject logical constructs even if they are true.

These two sides of the brain are how we judge the varacity of situations we meet and separate what is important from what is not.

In some ways, this could be described as understanding that the dragon in front of you is just a statue and it is not going to eat you, or on the other hand, that the dragon in front of you really is a dragon and you better get out of the place fast.

In studies where people have one side of their brain disabled, it becomes bluntly obvious that the logical faculty of the brain requires both sides to work proerly.

Logic must be intuitive and the creation of rules to define our relationship with the world must also be intuitive.

Even a cat knows what its relationship with you is and it never treats you like it does a mouse.

The addition of complex language and linguistic communication complicates things somewhat, but in effect, we are simply a speaking beast which can derive some sense of knowledge of self where others may not be able to.

 

Incidentally, a friend of mine is doing research into the differences between Chinese and western culture and he has hit upon how linguistically, Asian societies actually have a more difficult time separating a clear sense of "me," when compared to Western societies which have a very detached idea of what self is.

 

Hope this is somewhat germain to the topic. 

That the Chinese would have a vocabulary and language which mirrored their greater bureaucracy and societal position would make sense.

I have seen some new age theories which look at the entire earth as right and left brain with the Is-ra-el representing the mid point. That seems fanciful, as, in reality, there isn't a left/right brain split of logic/emotion and the world itself is a free floating body which has no specific orientation. North/south/top/bottom are entirely human constructs-I have a world map which is upside down, but with all the countries labelled the right way up. Always gets a lot of comments from guests who take several glances without getting it. Some ask if it's an older map of how the world used to be and look extremely confused when I tell them it's a bang up to date modern map.

Your first argument is contradictory. Either something is or it isn't. Either you agree on the necessity of defining terms or you don't. Poetry is trying to describe in colourful words, the poets feelings. A feeling isn't part of a reasoned argument. That somebody 'feels' that a god exists has nothing to do with the reality of the existence of a deity. If you are going to use words to convey concepts, then they must be defined. They are the tools of comprehension. If you want to convey feelings then I can only attempt to empathise from similar types of experience, but I will never have your experience, or the poets experience.

There is some merit in Christian morality, God has nothing to do with it as long as God remains undefined.

You do not yet know why you are here, what good is it to ask why I am here ?

You don't know what an open mind is, you have not defined growth. Think of a builder. Does he pick up random elements and then pile them up in a higgeldy piggeldy manner ? A builder must learn to discriminate, to throw away the poor elements from the sound, then he must precisely place them carefully in order that his construction will be sturdy.

At present you are stuck in the random gathering stage and you have no clue to the construction process. Unless you know what you seek, you will be unable to discover it. If you are advocating definitions then you must adhere strictly to those principles, or your seeking will produce nothing useful. Eventually you may hit upon the path, but will have wasted an inordinate amount of time on trial and error in that approach. If you cannot define, then set aside the concept, perhaps one day it might be worth returning to, but for now an undefined concept is worse than useless as it jeopardises the entire construction by its indiscriminate integration.

Closing oneself off is not caused by trying to understand something properly. It is not stagnation to evaluate and understand. It is not openness to integrate things that you haven't fully understood, that behaviour is mindless collecting and conscious ignorance. Don't confuse open mindedness for empty mindedness. Our education systems have taught us the latter, to accept what we are told because we have given away our authority to question. We were taught not to question but to accept and that acceptance would bring reward. That questioning could bring ridicule and shame.

Nothing made me use the word. No-thing. It just happened.

 

It's just a word.

How do you know that nothing made you use the word ?

That is a gratuitous assertion. The OP does not accept your assertion of existence and yet is asking questions.

 

 

 

Exactly, that is the point...

The word definition comes from the Latin for "to limit" or to bring about the end of something. 

The poem and all spiritual paths point to the inability to limit or define God, Dao, reality... whatever label you prefer

 

Limitation does not expand knowledge, it restricts it.

In the Christian tradition, the highest level of knowledge of God is to know that one cannot know... (Aquinas)

The OP doesn't exist according to him. I was trying to see if he was playing or really believes his assertion. I have no time for nihilists. As he doesn't exist he should stop posting or asking further questions. Someone who doesn't believe they exist has no need to ask anything.

There is little point in trying to communicate if you refuse to define the words that you are using. Reality is reality, existence exists.

Quoting Aquinus is just another appeal to authority. You have invited mysticism into your life and thrown reason out.

There's feeling of pain. Even though I wrote about "feeling of an identity", there really isn't one. I have never felt identity. It isn't a feeling, It's just a word. There's nothing beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts. If they cease, nothing is left. There's no "me", "being" or "consciousness" beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts.

 

Just verbs, no nouns.

"Even though 'I' wrote"

"I have never felt identity"

If there isn't I-dentity then what made you use the word ?

Well now I don't believe you anymore. First your write that you have no kundalini, experiences or bliss, on this forum and also on AYP. Then you post all your posts on this forum about trivium and reason/logic and demonstrate a fierce grasping to rational materialism. And now you tell me that you are permanently in a state of unity/bliss/samadhi?

What am I supposed to believe? Did you take too many mushrooms? Do you make it up as you go?

I'm acting in your play. You don't want to reason, you won't provide definitions so I can have any of these things on my own subjective terms. Reason/logic is in contradiction to rational materialism.

Questioning can only take place when there is one who can think in order to ask the question. If one does not exist then no question can be asked.

The poem lacks a definition for the word God.

Part of the argument-and it is an argument-is based on the rules of Aristotelian logic-that of the fallacy of composition.

Interesting post but I will speak to only this:

 

Thoughts are a natural process of the brain.  If one's brain is functioning properly it will produce thoughts.  Yes, oftentimes creative thoughts.  But othertimes destructive thoughts.

 

Not a fantasy at all.  This is what empty-minded meditation will allow a person to experience.  And no, it is not denying the existence of the thoughts, we are just telling them to go outside and play in the street.  Cause and effect play an important role here but I do not have the capability to explain it well in words.

If you have no conflicted thoughts there won't arise destructive thoughts. You can meditate and over time the number of thoughts/dark quality of thoughts may diminish. However you must then plug in cause and effect. The mere fact that you have developed the will to confront the situation is a big chunk of the difference made. The meditation reinforces the commitment to seek a way out. Practice is really nothing more than the commitment made into an action. Then, most people are practicing over a period of time. I'm in a completely different place now I'm 8 + years older than I was.

As we grow older our strong ego slips away. The reality is that we can't afford a strong ego because the body is ageing, there is consolidation of finance, less interest in running after pretty girls, less need for the trapping of a hedonistic lifestyle. We are older and less competitive. This means we have less trouble trying to keep up with peer groups. Our tide is ebbing and what was once important is less so. Thoughts run at a gentler pace. I'm generalising here, but that seems true of myself and most people I know.

Letting go of thoughts is easier if there is no precedence for the thought. It's like John Cleese said in clockwise "it's not the failure, but the possibility that makes for pain". There is a point that hope is gone and therefore the thought is not strong. Younger people struggle to let go of thoughts, they don't even know they are having thoughts, mostly it's just emotional reaction and competition that drives them. It's only when you begin to realise the world doesn't conform to the way you would like it that there arises sufficient introspection to begin to discriminate thoughts from emotional reaction.

Yes, but we have to be careful with this. To create in one's mind something that is in direct conflict with their physical reality could be deadly.

 

I do agree with what was said above regarding thoughts. As long as our brain is functioning we are going to have thoughts. A key, I think, is to just allow them to arise and then fly away like little butterflies. If we don't pay any attention to them they will eventually stop bothering us so often.

What thoughts are arising and why ?

If you have a lot of conflicting concepts and which are often quite raw, emotional triggers, then these conflicts will continually boil to the surface. In artists these thoughts are channeled into creative, physical expressions in order to realise the conflict in a material form.

Get rid of the conflicts and wrong headed ideas and the war is over. The only thing which comes to the surface is pure active expressions derived from cohesive integration instead of discord. An orchestra without a conductor in which all the music is an organic evolution of each musician, will be a discordant cacophony. It seems to be the case that people believe that by expressing themselves in this way, then eventually it will magically turn into a harmonious whole. It would be fine to believe that we could allow thoughts to evaporate, or fly away, but that's fantasy. It's actually a refutation of those thoughts which causes yet more thoughts to arise.