It’s kind of like if there isn’t a who you are or anything inside to guide you then why bother living or what do you do?
I mean do what you want doesn’t apply since there is no “you”.
There is a listener to the story of “you”, else how would you know it?
What is it that you want “you” to be? A supernatural immortal soul being that inhabits your body? Will that make your life and all life worth living? Will that give you motivation to lead a moral life?
Life can be worth living and people can be motivated to lead moral lives without having to believe the fiction of having a supernatural immortal “soul”.
Yes Patrick, I also don’t think that all atheists arrived at their “not believing in God” by pure rationality. And for many who have come to that rational conclusion, it has been a long and winding journey.
Lausten: "The pessimism of strength sounds like a privileged mode of thinking." Did I miss something? When did this get introduced? And why? I assume you are talking about Nietzsche.Guilt here. #299752 back on page 15. I was simply tossing down one of them Tao slap downs. See what happened.
Actually, don’t know squat about the learned philosophy behind it. It was just a cute sounding thought I’ve played with, trying to figure out what it means. It resonates with me probably for reasons that have nothing to do with Nietzche’s thinking.
Specially since I keep turning it around in my mind - the Strength of Pessimism - not expecting too much, thus not being all too bent out of shape when not much is received, and that sort of jazz. Ability to find satisfaction in what one is holding in their hands, rather than obsessing about the other side of fence. That I can relate to on a very personal level, and possessing that gift has made all the difference in my modest, but oh so interesting life. But, then I’ve also been in a very privileged place, materially poor, but a fit and pretty white boy. Had I been brown skinned, my life and lot would have looked a hell of a lot different, and I became aware of that before I hit 21 and never forgot it.
Xain, u want an entity that is supposedly the real “you” inside of you, to guide you. And if u can’t have that, then, according to you, there is no reason to live or be nice to others.
There is a you inside of you. It is not immortal. It is not separate from your body. It is not the universe. It may substantively be stories that you tell yourself, but it is still you. And that “you” can learn to guide you.
But if you forever choose to tell the story of “you” as being “there is no reason to live or to be moral”, that ain’t gonna work out too well for ya.
Is it really a true story that life is not worth living, and there is no reason to be moral, just because you don’t have a separate immortal entity living inside of you, that you want to be the “real you”?
I suspect that you are mostly just angry that there is not a separate immortal entity that you can call “you” possessing your body and mind. Cause that’s the way you have always thought it should be, until you started questioning the veracity of that premise.
Guilt here. #299752 back on page 15.I was searching for text instead of scrolling. The point of the slide you posted was also an important one. I saw it when searched the phrase, but I'd already made a long post so didn't include it. Xian of course just sees things, throws them into his bucket of everyone else is wrong, and moves on. It does appear that he values personal comfort over just about anything. Either he needs a reason to care about people, to do anything or else he'll just lay there and let the world rot around him, or he wants someone to summarize 3,000 years of philosophy and hand him the answers to life, the universe and everything. He can't seem to find value in anything, even the most basic things like an honest day of hard work.
Yeah Tim.
I started out as brain washed Catholic. Started serious questioning at 16. Was living at home, so , I carried on until I was called up at 20.
At that time I called myself an agnostic. I was very confused.
Spent the next 20 odd years having a look at all kinds of woo, from the occult to Jewish and Islamics mysticism, to Theosophy to Yogananda. I was nearly 50 when I finally realised I no longer believed. It was a tortuous journey . I think I eventually, rationally, reached the inevitable position [for me] of agnostic atheism.
I still can’t quite understand how a rational person can claim “there is no god”; any claims about god, positive or negative, are unfalsifiable. However, nota point I will argue. In the end it’s a semantic distinction to me, because I live as if all woo is false.
Ever opinionated,I can become quite testy over some woo, such as “aliens did it” or about just how amazing some alleged medium has been.
It took me just about as long. We humans are not primarily rational creatures and our world is not a primarily rational world.
Indeed.
It has been said that we humans are a rational-ising species rather than a rational one. History has shown that humans are capable of rationalising literally any behaviour. The claim is that our reptilian brain stem has far more control than we imagine. Less control suggests less free will. I also accept the notions of genetic , psychological and situational determinism as likely… As metaphysical questions tend to be, any claims about free will are unfalsifiable.
Day to day, I live as if I have free will. My perception at the time is that I make free choices. On reflection, I’m more likely to see many choices as determined, inevitable, given the determining factors I’ve mentioned.
Rationally, I think believing that life is fully determined should make me miserable. But it doesn’t. I think this may be in part due to my atheism. I concluded long ago that the meaning of life is itself. Day to day, that hinders my enjoyment of life not at all…
I admit to being somewhat nihilistic, but that’s an intellectual, not an emotional position.
I’m in mind of an inscription on an an ancient tomb, on the Via Apia, just outside Rome:
"I was not.
I was.
I am not.
I don’t care."
The point of the slide you posted was also an important one. I saw it when searched the phrase, but I’d already made a long post so didn’t include it. Xian of course just sees things, throws them into his bucket of everyone else is wrong, and moves on. It does appear that he values personal comfort over just about anything. Either he needs a reason to care about people, to do anything or else he’ll just lay there and let the world rot around him, or he wants someone to summarize 3,000 years of philosophy and hand him the answers to life, the universe and everything. He can’t seem to find value in anything, even the most basic things like an honest day of hard work.Except the truth of reality is nihilism, being that there is no value in things if you don't make it. There is no value in hard work. I don't just throw it in the bucket of everyone else is wrong, but more like the reality of what we live. Making meaning is just a poor shield from the reality of meaninglessness.
“Except the truth of reality is nihilism, being that there is no value in things if you don’t make it. There is no value in hard work. I don’t just throw it in the bucket of everyone else is wrong, but more like the reality of what we live. Making meaning is just a poor shield from the reality of meaninglessness.”
I think that just about covers it, except that I don’t make any truth claim about nihilism.
I accept the nihilist statement " A few things matter a bit, nothing matters much" reflect world my view. However, I admit that a large part (if not all) of my nihilistic views are based on experience. IE emotion, not hard reason.
My world view has certainly changed over the last 50 years; at 20 I was a romantic, and committed pacifist., plus a whole lot of other things, which gave me a naive and unrealistic world view.
Today, I am unconvinced that that religious philosophical and moral/ethical positions are based on reason, as a abroad principle.
It was Carl Jung who stated* that our most strongly held beliefs/attitudes/prejudices are the result of direct experience. But then , Jung also believed in poltergeists, and coined the term " synchronicity" to describe ‘meaningful coincidences’. So who knows?
- Source: "Memories, Dreams and Reflections’ Autobiography by Carl Jung
Your comment about about honest work is a bourgeois value statement, I think based on a Calvinist work ethic. That ethic led directly to the notion of the deserving poor in the nineteenth century. It remains a basis for Welfare systems in many developed countries, including US, Uk, Canada and Australia.
MY version? That there should be only one criteria for charity/welfare; need. IF not, who judges worthiness?
–I worked for Federal welfare for most of my working life. I was put in the position of having to constantly assess worthiness for a range of benefits. There was no consensus among the people who made those decisions. Whether a person received benefits was often a matter of luck.
Making meaning is just a poor shield from the reality of meaninglessness.I said way back at the beginning of this thread that there is no inherent meaning in life. So I didn't learn that from you.
The question is, why do you need a shield from reality?
The question is, why do you need a shield from reality?
Perhaps a tad harsh. Most human beings need such a shield, hence religion. Such beliefs meet very real needs. EG dealing with the fear of death to some degree, imposing a feeling of order and reason to life, providing the powerful illusion of being in control of one’s life, and of course a sense of belonging, of community.
The theist might well ask the atheist "Why don’t need such a shield?'. I’m not convinced the answer is about superiority of any kind. I can accept atheists tend to have a very different zeitgeist from theists .I think we are able to have our needs met in different ways or that we tend to experience those needs differently, perhaps with a lower intensity.
Well you will have to convince me that honesty/reality is not superior to a potential unlimited # of lies/fictions. Defense mechanisms become dysfunctional eventually. They are good as bandages/crutches, but not meant for forever unless someone has a wound or impairment that won’t heal.
Pretty sure Camus said that making meaning was running from the problem, though his alternative isn’t much better to be honest.
I don’t have to convince you fiction is better, you just have to see it. It gives people comfort and things make sense . I see it every day. The atheist argument, while sound, is pretty flimsy when it comes to the meaningless nature of existence. Nothing matters, not inherently. I mean you can try pleasure and entertainment but those don’t last. And you won’t have a meaningful life unless you pretend things have meaning (aka the “fiction” you argue against). It’s not something I want to agree with, but I can’t deny it. I mean I don’t see a reason to be moral because it’s “good” (good and bad are arbitrary distinctions), more like to just enjoy what society offers. Empathy was learned for me. I don’t feel others pain or whatnot, but I have to pretend to lest well, consequences.
Its almost laughable in a sad way.
Not sure I can do that Tim, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. I have no desire to even try to change the way a person thinks of anything. I could say it’s none of my business, but that’s a half truth. In reality (ahem) I really don’t care what others believe unless their beliefs effect me in a negative way. Hence my hostility towards believers who insist on imposing their beliefs on others , especially when I am one of the others.
The argument that most people seem to believe in something ‘more than themselves’ is a basic logical fallacy; argument by consensus, so that may not be used.
However, for the bulk of human beings, it is my observation that it’s a matter of “if ignorance is bliss t’is folly to be wise”. There have been times I have wished to be stupid and happy rather than moderately bright and fracking miserable. I think it’s a bit like being poor and miserable or rich-ish and miserable. I’ve been both . I recommend rich-ish.
Patrick D - Perhaps a tad harsh. Most human beings need such a shield, hence religion.I’m pretty sure that religion was not created after people agreed life was meaningless. It was developed out of feelings of connectedness, mistaken notions of agency in the wind, and probably a sense of gratitude for a world that seemed to magically provide us with what we need. From the modern perspective, I don’t find many people who sit down and logically work out that the religious life is better and decide to believe based on that.
I can understand what you’re saying are reasons for why religions persist, but we also have this desire to know more about our surroundings, and that led to fact based knowledge. You can’t just wish away things that you already know. So,
TimB says, Well you will have to convince me that honesty/reality is not superior to a potential unlimited # of lies/fictions.Which I think is rhetorical. I think he’s pointing out how difficult it would be to convince him. Also, he points out a theory that religion was a way for humans to convince others to band together into larger tribes and work toward a common good. There’s also the theory that we were happier as hunter gatherers, but I doubt we would have developed vaccines or the ability to predict hurricanes if we had not developed cities organized around agriculture. That’s a longer discussion.
That’s not really why I asked the question though. The question is based on what we know now, and includes the truth that we don’t know everything and are most likely wrong about a lot of things. That’s reality as we know it now. We have access to many possible explanations of life and we are protected from people who will brand us heretics and burn us at the stake for considering them. I know this isn’t true of all humans everywhere, so I’m not suggesting everyone thinks like me, your culture might require different choices.
So, picking a phrase from Camus, or some lie from some website is no way to develop a worldview. Making up counter arguments like “the atheist arguments” is simply a straw man since there is no such thing. Being deliberately obtuse is just annoying, as in, stating nothing matters then saying you need a reason to care about people, or being aware of consequences but only as they effect you, mostly, knowing good and bad or happy and sad are arbitrary then choosing bad and sad. It’s laughable.
TimB: "There is a you inside of you. It is not immortal. It is not separate from your body. It is not the universe. It may substantively be stories that you tell yourself, but it is still you. And that “you” can learn to guide you."Well said. All of you folks have said lots of good things, but this quote beautifully summarizes the answer to Xian's endlessly repeated (and answered) question.
I’m glad the thread has taken an interesting tangent- it’s worth reading again.
Well said. All of you folks have said lots of good things, but this quote beautifully summarizes the answer to Xian’s endlessly repeated (and answered) question.Not exactly, they haven’t answered the question about the apparent nonexistence of the self. There is no “you inside of you” (the idea itself is contradictory in a sense). What follows doesn’t have logic or evidence to support it. Nor does it address the claim the you are really just a story that is told. When you stop telling it then there is no you. Or that “you are more than the story”.
The final line just doesn’t hold either. How can you learn to guide you if there is no you? If there is no permanent self to serve as a guide then you aren’t really being guided.
Ive long since discounted your opinion since it amounts to dismissal without consideration or argument
From what you just said, Xain, I think you have meaning: It is to enjoy what society has to offer and what living offers. (If you had empathy, you might find meaning in helping others <e.g. friends, family, mate> or in helping your larger society. But you don’t have sufficient empathy. So that’s out.)
So maybe you’re just left with enjoying what society and living has to offer. That’s something. It motivates you to behave acceptably within society. You don’t like the fleeting nature of pleasure and entertainment, but you just have to accept that no one can be constantly entertained or experiencing heightened pleasure. We are not built that way. But the ability to feel pleasure/enjoy entertainment tends to keep coming back around, while you live. That it doesn’t last forever doesn’t make it nothing. (And who knows? Maybe one day, you will find pleasure in promoting something that is outside of yourself.) Anyway, if transient but recurring pleasure is your “meaning” for your life, that is something. It exists. Only temporarily, but you can say that about almost anything.