Everything is Pointless (My Favourite Blog)

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Returner

As I clarified before, when I edited my post, it is not accurate to say life is meaningless or meaningful, just as it is not accurate to ask whether or not Donald Duck will vote for Republican A or Republican B. The minute you have meaning, you have a potential for meaningless. All you seem to be referring to is a potential Deity's meaning, and even then that meaning cannot be shown to be "objective" by the nature of coming from some sentient being (when most of the known cosmos given evidence is inhospitable to life, people want to infuse a HUMAN concept onto the universe?)

First of all, I still don't know what "life" is. Therefore, to say whether life is meaningless or not, is not valid. For example, Is an atom alive? Does it exist? Does our Sun exist? Is it alive? You think I'm a madman? Not at all. We think that life is a human concept. You may say that although the Universe moves, movement doesn't imply life. Precisely, this idea is a materialistic concept. This movement that we see, atoms moving, stars, etc, may be also life. I'm saying life only. Whether it is conscious of itself or not, I have no idea. But does anybody know? We see a glass of water and all of a sudden we understand the ocean. Bravo!

The Universe is. No doubt about that. Does it exist just like that? By chance? What is exactly "chance"? You still cannot explain the fine-tuned Universe we have. Can you? Don't you find it strange that from the beginning of time the Universe, as we know it today, has physical laws? Why? I'm not talking about God's purpose, because simply, who gave God its purpose? God doesn't answer that. God may give meaning, but who or what gives God its meaning? That is one of the reasons I reject the idea of God, it doesn't explain anything.

That the Universe is inhospitable to life...? You meant human life? Yes? What about us? Do we live in another Universe perhaps? We are part of it, and we live here, therefore the Universe is not inhospitable here, and we have no idea how many more Earths are out there. Probably zillions.

...infuse a Human concept onto the Universe? Do you really think that humankind invented "meaning". When a proton follows a certain trajectory, if its movement is by chance, why doesn't it follow any trajectory, any path, or just stays still? Why does it move at all? Why is anything moving at all? It is a mechanical act? Who says? Prove it. As far as I know, other than knowing that the Universe is, I have no idea whether this Universe is moving for no reason, mechanically, or following a hidden pattern.

According to modern Science, the Universe is 10 raised to the power of 500 times bigger than our entire observable Universe. You are not going to tell me that the Universe is inhospitable to life. What do you, or me, or anybody else, know?

The problem seems to be, whether meaning is an inherent property of things (like big or small, perhaps did we invent proportions too?), or a man-made concept. It has nothing to do with any Deity. For me, obviously, meaning is not a man-made concept. It may exist objectively. As I said, I don't know.

Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Returner

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash By any chance, do you know how many people committed suicide in the concentration camps? Why I asked? I always asked myself what would these new nihilists do in a concentration camp? Would they say: finally, someone is going to get rid of my useless life? Or would they fight to be free? A nihilist is not a true nihilist. A republican is not a true republican. A democrat is not a true democrat. Why do I say this? Because no one fits the perfect extremes we would like to pin on people through ideals. This is why challenging nihilism this way is the Strawman Fallacy. Some nihilists might kill themselves and some might succumb to their biological imperative. That's my guess.

Kawabata committed suicide and he wasn't a nihilist. A friend of mine comitted suicide, stupidly, by mistake, and he wasn't a nihilist either. So, any normal person can commit suicide anytime. I'm just saying that if anyone defends nihilism, which is "to believe in anything", prove it, prove that life is absurd. Do not keep breathing like Emile Cioran, till the end, listening to tango music and writing aphorisms.

[Eternal Returner]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

...

It may be folly, Alberto, I may be wrong about the universe being inhospitable to the cosmos, the boundaries of meaning, et cetera, but I'd like to point out it is more intelligent to go by what one is familiar with than just play the fool for when the rabbit really does jump out of the hat.

In summary, what you've clarified with your philosophical agnosticism is:

1. You don't know nearly anything for sure.
2. The human race collectively barely knows anything for sure.
3. You have certain presuppositions behind these two statements: since things are so uncertain, what others must think is probably on very feeble grounds as well.
4. Meaning doesn't necessarily apply to just human invention; it could have invented before subjectivity.


Now, firstly before I go further I want to say that your presented agnosticism is a necessary component of the human psyche in realizing new paradigms of understanding and seeing things.

But I will equally say that your position is a cop-out of sorts for people who are authentically trying to put the puzzle together. There is no way you can disprove a statement that I made, that outside of subjectivity there is no meaning existent. It is a useless enterprise. And that lack of being able to disprove it (never being able to see meaning, an abstract concept) outside of our own human minds, is a sheer indicator of where this kind of thinking, taken to your extreme, goes.

I can totally even put the statements you made, 1-4 into question.

1.How do you, Hetman, know, that the human race doesn't know very much for sure? What if the human race has, embedded in their atomic structure, the fabric of every bit of knowledge present in the cosmos, and only there?

2. Instead of that, though, what if a couple of humans, instead of the collective, have had encounters with bleak forces that have explained it all to them?

3. Or number three, that everyone else, deep in their psyches, are the -only- ones who know the truth of everything, but aren't telling you?

4. What if the true meaning of existence was a Clown Puppet that appears before you only when no one is looking?

I can play this game all day, and no, while I may seem insulting to your intellect by saying this, I am not playing with you. These are the consequences of ignoring reason that, like the cosmos, evolves pragmatically over time.

See the problem here? There's nothing to discuss when you pull extreme agnosticism out in such a fashion. If you have nothing to bring back as your argument to replace what you attempt to undermine, what is being accomplished in such a discussion?

Emil Cioran could easily have proved the world was absurd by writing aphorisms and listening to Tango music as he could by killing himself: neither life nor death is more or less absurd than the other. Absurdity is a human vanity; while existent as a form within it, it is only a mockery of that Thing-In-Itself.

To abbreviate for anyone: I could be wrong, but telling me I'm probably wrong, with no counter, won't make a difference in the world. If I can't see it for myself, it isn't relevant to me. I prefer a counter-argument to just undermining, because those are just the rules I play by: vain, but common.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Returner

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash ... I can totally even put the statements you made, 1-4 into question. 1.How do you, Hetman, know, that the human race doesn't know very much for sure? What if the human race has, embedded in their atomic structure, the fabric of every bit of knowledge present in the cosmos, and only there? 2. Instead of that, though, what if a couple of humans, instead of the collective, have had encounters with bleak forces that have explained it all to them? 3. Or number three, that everyone else, deep in their psyches, are the -only- ones who know the truth of everything, but aren't telling you? 4. What if the true meaning of existence was a Clown Puppet that appears before you only when no one is looking? - o- Emil Cioran could easily have proved the world was absurd by writing aphorisms and listening to Tango music as he could by killing himself: neither life nor death is more or less absurd than the other. Absurdity is a human vanity; while existent as a form within it, it is only a mockery of that Thing-In-Itself.

I saw someone a long time ago. This man was old, in his fifties; he was sleeping in a bus stop shelter; his face was covered with dirt, who knows when he had his last bath; his clothes were almost rags, and dirty; his shoes were made of fabric, also dirty, as though he were used to walking; long beard, like Moses; he stank; and his possessions were barely something that looked like a 50 Kg. potato bag. A homeless? Yes, which was very rare in Argentina, by those years. Was he rejected by a lover? Was he laid off? Was he a man who year after year life became absolutely meaningless? Did he mock at our society and its traditions? Was he a nihilist? I don't know. But this is how I picture a nihilist: someone who rejects life, like this man (perhaps forced by circumstances). Emile Cioran most probably brushed his teeth, took frequent baths, wore perfumed clothes, and wiped his ass with tissue (I imagined that the man I saw purged his bladder and intestines in a empty lot by the river). There are no nihilists who write philosophy books, and pretend to leave (one way or the other) something behind. Cioran can speak of the Absurd as much as he wants. But do not tell me that he was a nihilist.

-o-

I'm not an agnostic (although I look like one) because I'm not sure if knowledge can finally be attained or it is useless to try. Agnostics just say that knowledge is impossible. In my case, I don't know. Your answers.

1. That's a very good question. In fact, How does Hetman know how much is out there to be known, and according to that, judge how much we know now? One needs to know the whole to evaluate a percentage (of knowledge) from that whole. Who knows if human race doesn't know already 99 % of whatever is to be known? Answer: I don't know. That the human race has embedded knowledge in its genes (you said atomic structure) may be a great idea, but where is the proof?

2. Bleak forces...? You meant evil forces? Alien forces? That's another possibility. A good one. I like it. Again where is the proof? Or who are they? To serve what purpose, bleak forces are going to meet with two people of our human race? To answer my own question, I have to speculate after an speculation. This is not a serious matter. It might be possible. But, even if it is, to Hetman, it is irrelevant. If these two people own a secret knowledge and do not share it, that knowledge has no direct influence on my private life.

3. That I'm the only one who doesn't know is another good possibility. Is it something similar to solipsism? If that is the case, everyone knows but I don't, either I give up, or I keep trying. I choose to keep trying (and thus proving that I'm not an agnostic). But if everyone else, who knows, doesn't tell me, again, that knowledge doesn't have any influence on me.

4. I don't understand the last one. First of all, I cannot affirm (or deny) that there is a "true meaning" of existence without evidence that corroborates that. I said that the Universe might have a meaning but didn't say it has. Second, as I said, the Universe looks like it is extremely fine-tuned, and ordered, from VV Cephai, down to a quark. Besides, Heisenberg uncertainty principle uses the Planck number (h divided by something)

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncertainty_principle

not any number. That is amazing. Or gravity varies with the inverse square law, and that number 2 has been verified up to the 20th digit (if there is a change it ocurres after the 20th position after the 2). These are coincidences, generated by chance...? If someone thinks that, prove it. The Universe seems to be exactly what it is for a reason (or many) and not by chance. Whether human life plays a especial role on this I don't know, I think not. But these numbers: 2, Planck constant, etc, are there before any human every conceived a number. So I think, that meaning, order, proportions, existed before or exist independently of human race. Beauty, Good and Evil, I do think are human creation.

-o-

I'm not trying to waste your time, which I think it might be precious for you. The title of the thread shocked me. "Everything is pointless". Just because to affirm just that, we need to know what everything means, or what we imply by pointless (perhaps not created by God? I would agree). I think that we could say that (unless following a certain religion) human life does not seem to serve a purpose. But at this point of human knowledge, it is too early to affirm or deny anything like that.

[Eternal Returner]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

I saw someone a long time ago. This man was old, in his fifties; he was sleeping in a bus stop shelter; his face was covered with dirt, who knows when he had his last bath; his clothes were almost rags, and dirty; his shoes were made of fabric, also dirty, as though he were used to walking; long beard, like Moses; he stank; and his possessions were barely something that looked like a 50 Kg. potato bag. A homeless? Yes, which was very rare in Argentina, by those years. Was he rejected by a lover? Was he laid off? Was he a man who year after year life became absolutely meaningless? Did he mock at our society and its traditions? Was he a nihilist? I don't know. But this is how I picture a nihilist: someone who rejects life, like this man (perhaps forced by circumstances). Emile Cioran most probably brushed his teeth, took frequent baths, wore perfumed clothes, and wiped his ass with tissue (I imagined that the man I saw purged his bladder and intestines in a empty lot by the river). There are no nihilists who write philosophy books, and pretend to leave (one way or the other) something behind. Cioran can speak of the Absurd as much as he wants. But do not tell me that he was a nihilist.

But don't you see what I mean, you aren't getting the variant of nihilist you are trying to propose from the definition of nihilist, or even from some new formulation of what "believes in nothing" has to mean. As far as I'm concerned, from what you continue to say about it, the word is empty of real significance besides emotional fictions about what it means to just one person.

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nashn

I'm not an agnostic (although I look like one) because I'm not sure if knowledge can finally be attained or it is useless to try. Agnostics just say that knowledge is impossible. In my case, I don't know. Your answers. I'm not trying to waste your time, which I think it might be precious for you. The title of the thread shocked me. "Everything is pointless". Just because to affirm just that, we need to know what everything means, or what we imply by pointless (perhaps not created by God? I would agree). I think that we could say that (unless following a certain religion) human life does not seem to serve a purpose. But at this point of human knowledge, it is too early to affirm or deny anything like that.

Well, I obviously didn't start the thread, and I see your point about stuff we don't know, but about meaning I feel like the argument is a lost cause if you want to say meaning is anything other than mind dependent. If it weren't mind dependent, it wouldn't be meaning. If you go beyond that, you're obviously talking about something else. And sure, I could be wrong. But I need a counter to that opinion for me to change my mind, which, if it is incorrect, I would prefer it to be changed. Otherwise, pragmatically, it makes no difference.

With such cylical knowledge that With Strength I Burn brings up, we really don't know anything about anything to have a TRUE, complete definition of things in themselves to define them, so isn't that already a strong argument for the hollow nature of meaning? Not only that, but that it changes with the human mindset?

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

There's no way to determine if that is a coincidence or purposed what so ever.

Do you think that respectable scientists that are trying to determine precisely that (if that is a coincidence or not) are wrong? How come they don't see that there is no way to determine that?

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

All knowledge is cyclical. It is gained from a CLOSED SYSTEM about the CLOSED SYSTEM, so you cannot think anything inside of it, from inside of it, drawing from inside of it, as anything but inside of it, which means that you have no contrast or comparison or anything to know if it is meant or not meant! And I doubt it is meant, besides all that. Or fine tuned for that matter, whatever that means.

It hasn't been proved that the Universe is not a closed system. We don't have any evidence to suppose that it is not. Other dimensions, branes, parallel Universes, etc, etc, etc, have not been observed yet. As far as we know, now, the Universe behaves like a closed system. That gravity might be escaping to other dimensions (did you mean that?) as claimed by String Theory is mathematical speculation. That doesn't count unless some evidence is shown. Gravity might be explained someday with elements of our Universe without any need to suppose extra dimensions.

You apparently are claiming that the Universe is not a closed system. Can you prove it? If you can't, and I'm assuming that you can't because nobody proved it yet, although you are free to suppose whatever you want, Science, based on no other evidence but what we know until now, has to suppose that it is a closed system.

To refute your claim I'm proposing this example for you to be considered. Math is a closed system but immersed in our Universe. I mean, there are other things that exist in it, other than math. Math is not everything. However, you claim...

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

...so you cannot think anything inside of it, from inside of it, drawing from inside of it, as anything but inside of it, which means that you have no contrast or comparison or anything to know if it is meant or not meant!

... and although I have no other "math" to compare with, and math is a closed system within a much bigger system, all mathematical conclusions derived from mathematical axioms and rules are true within this frame. Math is a closed system that makes sense and can be explained without any need of anything else.

You also claim that all knowledge is cyclical. Can you prove it?

I'm going to tell you what I mean by proof.

Example 1: I claim that Ligotti was created by Stephen King. You have 3 options now: 1) ignore my claim, 2) accept it, 3) ask me: Hetman, Can you prove it?

Example 2: I claim that I am Ligotti, and I feigned grammatical errors to make everyone believe that I speak Spanish. You have 3 options again. 1) ignore my claim, 2) accept it, 3) ask me: Hetman, Can you prove it?

In both examples, you will certainly ask me for proof, but whenever Hetman asks for proof, most people would think: "again, this Hetman asking for proof". That's not fair.

Worst of all. Example 3: A nihilist claims: "life is meaningless". Again we have 3 options. And because nobody can prove it, a nihilist (a person who believes in nothing) would tell me: "Hetman, you have to believe what I claim". We have a strange case of a nihilist asking from us to believe him, or Can he prove it?

Again, Can you prove that the Universe is not a closed system? No. Can you prove that we can't infer anything by being immersed in the Universe? No. Therefore, these fine-tuned Universe exist, and we can't explain it. If they are coincidences or not, or cannot be explained with elements of our Universe, hasn't been proved. You seem to have the position that they are nothing by coincidences, but provide no proof whatsoever of what you are claiming. On the other hand, I claim nothing about it. I just say that I see patterns, are they real? are they coincidences? I have no idea.

[binoculars]

I've read much of this thread with mild interest. The most valuable thing I've ever learned is that truth is an endlessly flowing river. You will never know what it is in any circumstance because the minute you stop to try, it has traveled further away. Personally, that has given a sliver of meaning to my life. In a subtle, almost imperceptible way, it has shown me that life isn't exactly pointless.

I would characterize my general temperament as cynical. To me, everyone is burdened with motive and that motive always involves the advancement of one's ego. Like you, I don't have an ounce of confidence in our ability to solve problems. In fact, it seems history has proven that mankind continuously exists just below the total chaotic inferno line. What keeps us from crossing it? Religion may be one thing. Technology may be another.

I'm not religious and I have my own ideas about what is commonly referred to as "God" which I'll not entertain you with here. But consider this- how much worse off might we be if the idea of an all loving God promising a rapturous eternal life after death hadn't been introduced to human consciousness?

I know religion is a superficial band-aid that can't possible keep the world from bleeding... perhaps to death. Maybe there's a reason it's present in our lives that our limited consciousness hasn't considered before.

The only possible explanation for our existence I can come up with is purely physical. We are part of the thin organic layer covering the earth that is partly responsible for the general maintenance of the planet, and probably to a lesser extent, the universe. Animals behave in full accordance with this maintenance; man does not. If we accept this, our thoughts seamlessly become involved with serving nature and not ourselves. It takes the stress out of living, out of wondering and crying over why life must be lived in constant turmoil.

Of course, theres no way to know if the preceding paragraph is the truth. I don't think about it very much at all. It seems most of you have the good sense to at least admit you don't know what the truth is. But immediately after the admittance you defend your argument as if it were your truth being attacked. It's absurd.