[removed]

Nihilism is underrated and much hated from religious (and some non-religious) people and I find it sad. It is my entire mindset and I don’t understand why people throw it away. I think it’s much needed in our time, taken that you care for the earth but not for humans.

This is ecofascist ideology gg

I never blamed immigrants wtf

That's not what ecofascism is that's just disgruntled old republicans.

I searched it up and all it showed was why eco fascism is bad, the dark side, white supremacy💀 Yeah I blame humans for the wreck they caused but I’m not a bad person. I genuinely don’t care about anything but it still reaches me knowing I’m living on a decaying planet 😐

I'm not saying your a bad person, I'm saying that the line of thought in your comment was leading to ecofascist ideology. I don't think you mean anything bad by it but that seemed to be the direction your line of thought was going

Was it meant as an insult? Because from what I’ve read it is an insult

No mb, just descriptive 🤖

Okay, good😂 I’m sorry, didn’t mean to sound harsh it’s just rare I’m told stuff like that. Ways to think are always made to sound horrible from one perspective or the other. Philosophy is a slippery terrain.

Yeah that is pessimism. In nihilism there is no room for that but it is the opposite even, loving that everything is as it is.

So you do care about something?

Didn't have time to finish this this morning, only got through the section about meaning but I'm curious: can you define nihilist for me in the context in which you're using here.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Nihilism is a Poison. If you are not familiar with it, please do not look into it further.

I'm familiar with the dictionary definition, as you can see it's too broad to do any philosophy with, that's why I was asking for the op to clarify.

To be fair… I may be 98% Nihilist were it not for the hardcore trauma I had concerning animal abuse. So no I don’t care, yes the world could be destroyed but then why am I holding back from doing it if I really don’t care? Because I think the earth is pretty. Maybe it’s selfish, but to be fair, if there was a way to get rid of a few billions of humans to make the earth better I would do it. I suppose that’s strong misanthropy and existential nihilism.

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.

So you care about the Earth because it's pretty? When you say you don't care about anything I think perhaps you mean you don't care about anything in the moral sense but you do care about some things in a broader sense.

That’s.. not it.😐

It's not clear to me what the psychiatrists position on meaning actually is. He says that it's a human construct; does that mean that we invented it? He later says that it's irrelevant after prescribing that the patient use his intuitions alone to resolve the issue. Why give him advice on how to resolve the issue if it's irrelevant? Is the psychiatrist really a nihilist with respect to meaning or merely a relativist and an intuitionist.

I think you're very apt to point out that it's not surprising that our intuitions will often contradict each other. The solution is clearly that we can't rely on intuitions as foundational truths. If two intuitions contradict each other then at least one of them must be unreliable.

Does that mean that we are epistemically (as opposed to metaphysically) hopeless with respect to meaning? Well only if we accept that intuitions are the only candidate for foundational knowledge about meaning. In this piece the phrase "feelings and intuitions" is used but I think that they're importantly different. One can have an intuition that A is true and also a different intuition which logically implies that A is false. But a feeling is actually nothing like a belief in this respect. Feelings can't contradict each other in this way. They can be inconsistent in the sense that yesterday I was sad and today I'm happy. They can even be inconsistent in what once made me happy may one day make me sad, but there is no actual contradiction here.

I would argue that it is only through examining what feels meaningful to us that we can learn what is really at root meaningful to us. To the extent that our beliefs about what is meaningful to us are dependent upon other beliefs then they're going to be dependent on those other beliefs in specific ways and knowing in which ways they are dependent upon other beliefs will help us to further abstract those beliefs away and get closer to the root of what is meaningful to us.

I would differentiate what is meaningful from what is good generally speaking and say that meaning is a specific type of good. To the argument about instrumental vs intrinsic good I would say that I think we both agree that there are instrumental goods and I think we both know what we're talking about when we use that term. Could it be that all goods are instrumental? Not unless you believe that there is a never ending infinite chain of good things. Since I find that implausible I have to say that there probably are goods which are not instrumental and I would call those intrinsic goods.

Now are the good and the meaningful specifically "human constructions". I'm not sure I know exactly what that means but let's suppose that they are. Does knowing that make a difference? Perhaps what is meaningful to me is purely a product of the culture I was raised in. So what? If that's really true then that means that fundamentally the type of entity that I am is culturally determined. Does that make it any less relevant? If so, why?

Ok can you help me understand? You say you don't care about anything but you don't want the Earth to be destroyed because it's pretty. How is not wanting something to be destroyed different from caring about it?

I did not defend nihilism to prove myself, I was just emitting my opinion. I don’t think anything matters enough to be fought about. I think one way, you think the other and that’s all. If you really wish to know, and I’d understand since psychology interests me too- the best way I’d explain my thoughts is: I like animals. I hate children. I hate people. I think that the world is comforting. I want more knowledge and I think the world is overpopulated. Every problem the world is experiencing now is because of humans. Natural disasters are pretty, even if people hate them I understand that they’re necessary for balance. Science is fascinating, humans are painfully boring. What I do find interesting about humans (and why I don’t just go and kill everyone because they don’t matter) is their brains. Some humans have the conscience that allows them to see things objectively. That’s existential nihilism. I find it wonderful. Philosophies are an art, they’re the part of the human brain that mixes objectivity and subjectivity via acquired knowledge. Nature, on the other side, is an art- the very first and main art form. While I’m not the type to go hug trees and cry watching deforestation videos, it disgusts me to know that we’re ruining it just so we can expend our population and pretend that the world is just fine. I fought over racism, sexism and overpopulation and that alone shows me that humans aren’t as artful as I often give them credit for. My dislikes comes from people forgetting to use their heads, going about their lives with the simple desire to live and nothing else. It is not that I don’t care, I care but not for their lives. I care for the impact of their lives. I hope it makes sense?

Thanks for your detailed reply and thoughts!

I think by "irrelevant" as used the in the context "to put it more simply, logic and human intuitions are, at the most basic level, irrelevant," I just mean that logic is not inherently related to human intuitions. I do not mean the question of "meaning of life" is irrelevant. I actually do not take a stance on whether the question "what is the meaning of life" is relevant/important.

The psychiatrist's basic point (and my current position on the issue) is that: "meaning of life" is a human construct. Being a human construct, its definition inherently depends upon each and every individual's different human intuitions. Since different people have different definitions of "meaning of life," there's no hope at arriving at a universal answer to the question---so there is no thing in the universe that is objectively meaningful and have intrinsic good/value to all humans. That is my first point. The second point is that because the whole concept of "meaning" is very much an intuition of the human mind, and human intuitions are not always logically consistent, may be we should not trust logic so much as a tool to arrive at an answer to the question, "what is the meaning of MY life." If two pieces of intuitions are logically contradictory, it is not because one piece of intuition is "true" while the other piece is "faulty." Both intuitions are valid---we should not extrapolate intuitions too much using logic. Because human constructs are based upon individualized human intuitions, there is no such a concept as "universal truth" with regard to human subjects. This is not a claim that is isn't "universal truth" about any question in the universe. It is just a claim that there isn't "universal truth" about human-related questions in the universe. So, the basic claim is that logic is overused in arriving at answers about meaning of life, and it is perfectly fine living a life that intuitively feels meaningful to you without giving much weight to a logical argument that tries to disprove your intuition about what is meaningful to you.

​

>I would argue that it is only through examining what feels meaningful to us that we can learn what is really at root meaningful to us. To the extent that our beliefs about what is meaningful to us are dependent upon other beliefs then they're going to be dependent on those other beliefs in specific ways and knowing in which ways they are dependent upon other beliefs will help us to further abstract those beliefs away and get closer to the root of what is meaningful to us.

I agree with that!

Sounds like you havent consumed enough yet.