Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nihilism

tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:31:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In a debate between (Pro) Cody_Franklin and (Con) OMGJustinBieber titled "The Normative Contingency Thesis (NCT) is a compelling objection to Moral Realism" http://www.debate.org...

I posted that: "Pro's says "nihilism is not making an argument". This means that nihilism does not speak to anything and so it says nothing; ergo, it says nothing about Con's position. It is equivalent to not answering a question or replying with a contradiction or a meaningless set of words like "delicious purple fantastical" or "sdfagqrvreg". As such, Con's objections stand."

And Cody replied: "Well, I'm not going to challenge your vote because I think that would be petty, but, if you would like to argue that in a PM or something, I have some objections to that reasoning."

So I would like to argue with you about it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nihilism definitionally cannot assert something positively. All it does is draw doubt on various moral or epistemic theories such that nihilism is the only viable position.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 3:43:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Nihilism definitionally cannot assert something positively.
As oppose to what, asserting something negatively? So it's an unasserting assertion! That's my point!

All it does is draw doubt on various moral or epistemic theories such that nihilism is the only viable position.
1) Nihilism doesn't say anything so consequently it can't draw doubt on anything.
2) Nihilism isn't a position, it's a contradiction in meaning.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 4:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How is it meaningless to be told that man ought not to kill, and to respond by showing how nihilism's regression makes this no more objectively true than "man ought to kill?"
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 4:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 4:20:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
How is it meaningless to be told that man ought not to kill...
It isn't, but then again, I never claimed that "man ought not to kill" is meaningless. Are you reading my posts?

...and to respond by showing how nihilism's regression makes this no more objectively true than "man ought to kill?"
Nihilism's regression? I didn't mention any "regression" either. Are you reading someone else's posts? Or could you be posting some bold assertions? I wonder...

Anyways, what's this regression you refer to? Is it like square-circle's regression: it's a square; it's a circle; it's a square; it's a circle...?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 3:31:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
In a debate between (Pro) Cody_Franklin and (Con) OMGJustinBieber titled "The Normative Contingency Thesis (NCT) is a compelling objection to Moral Realism" http://www.debate.org...

I posted that: "Pro's says "nihilism is not making an argument". This means that nihilism does not speak to anything and so it says nothing;

Actually it says things, but doesn't advance them in the form of a justifiable proposition. The truth condition for nihilism is its unprovability, and nihilism is a direct statement about the limit of justificationalism, so, ipso facto, trying to argue for it--i.e., to prove that it's the case--isn't useful.

ergo, it says nothing about Con's position.

Con's position was a deconstructive critique of my case for NCT. So, I'm not sure what that means. His primary objection was just that I was also using first principles, which commits me to some kind of certainty claim. I accepted that, but made a distinction between my use of FPs and the stronger commitments made by realists. My point was that I don't have to have certainty to make the case for nihilism, so trying to counter my comments by labeling them self-defeating doesn't hold.

Plus, like I pointed out, you could nihilism your way out of nihilism by denying first principles of logic, etc. It would make all discourse meaningless, but that just means that you still reject realism, not because ethical justificationalism fails, but because you're so meta to everything that nothing has content that can be discussed.

It is equivalent to not answering a question or replying with a contradiction or a meaningless set of words like "delicious purple fantastical" or "sdfagqrvreg". As such, Con's objections stand."

I don't actually think it's anything like that--I mean, Con's whole point was to try to get me to concede the certainty-validity of first principles, or to keep denying until my case fell apart. Like I said, I pointed out the distinction between my foundations and the foundations of realism, but also pointed out that if you just recursively fire the nihilism ray, you end up emptying discourse of all content, which still makes contingency a compelling objection, albeit not one that I intentionally brought up. That's what the whole business about "taking the scenic route" means.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 5:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 4:54:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/30/2012 3:31:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"Pro's says "nihilism is not making an argument". This means that nihilism does not speak to anything and so it says nothing;
Actually it says things, but doesn't advance them in the form of a justifiable proposition.
It says things in the same way a "square-circle" says things. It's just that what it says is meaningless!

The truth condition for nihilism is its unprovability, and nihilism is a direct statement about the limit of justificationalism, so, ipso facto, trying to argue for it--i.e., to prove that it's the case--isn't useful.
Truth conditions cannot be applied to Nihilism because they cannot be applied to commands, questions, or meaningless strings. Nihilism, as well as any other contradiction, falls under the latter. Regardless, even if we allowed truth conditions for contradictions (ie meaningless things) we would get an infinite progression (or regression, however you want to see it) of paradoxes which are all equally as meaningless.

ergo, it says nothing about Con's position.
Con's position was a deconstructive critique of my case for NCT. So, I'm not sure what that means. His primary objection was just that I was also using first principles, which commits me to some kind of certainty claim. I accepted that, but made a distinction between my use of FPs and the stronger commitments made by realists.
OK.

My point was that I don't have to have certainty to make the case for nihilism, so trying to counter my comments by labeling them self-defeating doesn't hold.
There is no case for nihilism, because it is a meaningless thing. It is the case for a square-circle, which is no case at all.

Plus, like I pointed out, you could nihilism your way out of nihilism by denying first principles of logic, etc. It would make all discourse meaningless, but that just means that you still reject realism, not because ethical justificationalism fails, but because you're so meta to everything that nothing has content that can be discussed.
That's like square-circling your way out of square-circling. What does that even mean? What you have stated is equivalent to a blank post or "asda sdf asd faf as fasd" or an empty set.

It is equivalent to not answering a question or replying with a contradiction or a meaningless set of words like "delicious purple fantastical" or "sdfagqrvreg". As such, Con's objections stand."
I don't actually think it's anything like that--I mean, Con's whole point was to try to get me to concede the certainty-validity of first principles, or to keep denying until my case fell apart. Like I said, I pointed out the distinction between my foundations and the foundations of realism, but also pointed out that if you just recursively fire the nihilism ray, you end up emptying discourse of all content, which still makes contingency a compelling objection, albeit not one that I intentionally brought up. That's what the whole business about "taking the scenic route" means.
Now I am confused: I thought you were using Nihilism to discredit Con?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 8:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: ITs garbage. The are just forgeting to say it necessary contingent, and the immoralist are burned.

Its this easy, Insofar as moral share a relation to positive affect. aka emotion they are necessary contingent. The difference is because contingent out of nothing is false. Why? because it0 1 out of infinite. which makes it zero. That is its a possiblity out of nothing. Aka a bold assertion fallacy. Be at least it says something about those you don't help us with making a moral system but actually slow us down.

Straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 8:30:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
THe Fool: Nihilsm is always FALSE. Because of what is IS, And Nihilism is about what is NOT. But what is not does not exist. RIP Nilhilsm
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 9:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit:
The Fool: They are taking advantage of the fact that people don't meantion that its necessary contingent. Immoral I mean Not-moral.

All you have to do is say what you mean by moral. aka I use the 'word' moral rule to refer to rule that favour over all positive affect. (life quality, satifaction. minimize pain and suffering)

That is by giving a clear definition with univirsal human entities such a positive affect you Ground the conception of morals as universal. The universe is as Real as it gets. So this grounding makes it necessarly contingent as appose to simply contingent. Which is a possiblity out of zero possibity which is false. AKA impossibe
Because contingency alone makes no sense. Its a fallacy because by modal logics possible worlds conception. But here is the Fatal blow. All you have to say is by Universe I mean Absolutly all that exist, by creating a the highest possible category it makes no sense to speak of possible worlds. Because that is Absolute Universe is THE WORLD! it is impossibe for there to be any other worlds. Why? First you would have create a new definition of world. If you change the definition you have change Topics. Secondly to use the 'word' world with a different reference then it was meant before is an intentional equivication.
Modal logic can still be used but not as a infinite system, and instead of worlds, they must be regarded as epistemological possibilies.

But at least we know who is helping us as a society and who is making it harder.

Straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 9:38:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 5:53:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/30/2012 4:54:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/30/2012 3:31:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"Pro's says "nihilism is not making an argument". This means that nihilism does not speak to anything and so it says nothing;
Actually it says things, but doesn't advance them in the form of a justifiable proposition.
It says things in the same way a "square-circle" says things. It's just that what it says is meaningless!

No, because nihilism isn't contradictory. The language of nihilism is apophantic, but not in a way that claims to be justifiable. The set of all true propositions doesn't coincide with the set of all provable propositions, so you'll always end up with some assertions which, while true, can never be demonstrated as such. This includes nihilism, since the condition under which it's verifiably true is that it cannot be proven.

The truth condition for nihilism is i
ts unprovability, and nihilism is a direct statement about the limit of justificationalism, so, ipso facto, trying to argue for it--i.e., to prove that it's the case--isn't useful.
Truth conditions cannot be applied to Nihilism because they cannot be applied to commands, questions, or meaningless strings.

Nihilism is apophantic, so this criticism doesn't apply.

Nihilism, as well as any other contradiction, falls under the latter. Regardless, even if we allowed truth conditions for contradictions (ie meaningless things) we would get an infinite progression (or regression, however you want to see it) of paradoxes which are all equally as meaningless.

1. It isn't a contradiction.

2. We always get infinite regression. That's the lynchpin of the NCT, and of my rejection of justificationalist epistemology.

ergo, it says nothing about Con's position.
Con's position was a deconstructive critique of my case for NCT. So, I'm not sure what that means. His primary objection was just that I was also using first principles, which commits me to some kind of certainty claim. I accepted that, but made a distinction between my use of FPs and the stronger commitments made by realists.
OK.

My point was that I don't have to have certainty to make the case for nihilism, so trying to counter my comments by labeling them self-defeating doesn't hold.
There is no case for nihilism, because it is a meaningless thing. It is the case for a square-circle, which is no case at all.

Those are not analogous.

Plus, like I pointed out, you could nihilism your way out of nihilism by denying first principles of logic, etc. It would make all discourse meaningless, but that just means that you still reject realism, not because ethical justificationalism fails, but because you're so meta to everything that nothing has content that can be discussed.
That's like square-circling your way out of square-circling. What does that even mean? What you have stated is equivalent to a blank post or "asda sdf asd faf as fasd" or an empty set.

Like I said, those aren't analogous. Nihilism is obviously comprehensible--it just denies stuff (e.g. knowledge) without claiming certainty regarding its denial.

It is equivalent to not answering a question or replying with a contradiction or a meaningless set of words like "delicious purple fantastical" or "sdfagqrvreg". As such, Con's objections stand."
I don't actually think it's anything like that--I mean, Con's whole point was to try to get me to concede the certainty-validity of first principles, or to keep denying until my case fell apart. Like I said, I pointed out the distinction between my foundations and the foundations of realism, but also pointed out that if you just recursively fire the nihilism ray, you end up emptying discourse of all content, which still makes contingency a compelling objection, albeit not one that I intentionally brought up. That's what the whole business about "taking the scenic route" means.
Now I am confused: I thought you were using Nihilism to discredit Con?

Like I said, Con's case was a deconstruction of mine. I was using nihilism to discredit realism, which he didn't defend. Instead, he made the objections listed above, and I responded in kind.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The more and more that I think of nihilism, the worse I feel about ever using it as a framework for anything. I think it could be because I'm less of a philosophy nut then I once was, and likewise because I've grown up a bit. There are a few objectives that I think could be illuminated through a nihilist lens (ironic, I know), but I think that they (I don't think it's purposeful to include them here) are complicated, and to do so is to circumvent the rigor that perhaps one otherwise may be occasioned to endure. I'm tired right now (been up for very long time), but I hope that's clear enough.

But on nihilism though, it is guilty, in the Nietzschen sense of guilt, insomuch as it perpetuates itself. Perhaps this is a bit bold, but then again this is DDO, but it seems to me like nihilism is bad conscience of the mind. I think it's the natural extension of the mind's rational inability to entertain a perpetual cognitive dissonance that, at the precipice of its condition, results in a crippling effect. Although clever enough, and while it's necessary to distinguish the function of something from the utility that it entails, in a teleological sense, nihilism is no more or less than a precursor to the sort of Jacques Derrida-esque deconstruction that bastardized the field of philosophy, literary and political theory to the extend that it was able to permeate into it.

It seems that, on perhaps a deeper level, nihilism is irritating because it is not affirmative, but responsive, and born thusly in response to, what I theorize, is the genealogy of everything else that precedes it. As a former student of philosophy who was fascinated by the concept of existence, I regard it as more cheap than I ever did. Maybe I'm becoming more of a Nietzschen. Maybe not. Who knows.

What I do know, though is that the world is everything that is the case. I can know that the world is everything that is the case because I can see it, experience it and feel it. And if my senses are misleading me, then I am better for the experience. I know that all I can know is what I can see. I can accept as facts that which has been or could be empirically proven, but until I prove it I merely stand on the shoulders of giants (a term, I would submit, which is wholly overused in academia).

What I also know is that I'm less likely to make a nihilistic argument now then I once was. I think teenagers (especially the book-worm types) especially may be more predisposed to nihilism than others because (1) their grounding in the world is less substantive than someone older and (2) they have not internally accepted the world around them because they have not yet developed the emotional/intellectual maturity to recognize what is before them. Perhaps the same could be said of Descartes, but that's another thing entirely.

Random thoughts. I might make a few more posts and then I'm off to bed. Long nap time. Long nap time indeed.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Nihiism is philosophy, only in using the 'word' philosophy in such a broad sense that it has no meaning at all.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:13:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:09:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Nihiism is philosophy, only in using the 'word' philosophy in such a broad sense that it has no meaning at all.

Want to elaborate?
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 12:14:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:13:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:09:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Nihiism is philosophy, only in using the 'word' philosophy in such a broad sense that it has no meaning at all.

Want to elaborate?

The Fool: A 'word' is only as good as it demarcates a difference. A particular entity. For example we all know "everything" by the age of 5 or when we can speak it.
But the conception which the word refers to carries the least information of all. But even that demarcates something, but that something is nothing in particular. So a word with no demarcatable or consitent critiria is almost useless. Might as we make a new one with clear demarcation. It will actually communicate something. After the Enlightment. aka age of reason. The 'word' philosopher or 'philosophy', was no longer used to refer to the samething. In fact Hegel marks the turn to simply changing the definitions in stead of really doing anything. But an Ideological intity is created when someone mistake the word For the reality. That is by using a different definition for the 'word' philosophy, is to just discommunicate yourself from what other previous philosophers or people were talking about when they refered to philosophy.

Those who do that do not recognize self-subsiting enitiy floating around which is THE PHILOSOPHY IN ITSELF. And they are just doing a different kind of THE PHILOSOPHY IN ITSELF.

1. if it is different from the Philosophy in itself, well it follows by necessary that they are not doing philosophy.
2. The only thing that is the same, is the TERM "philosophy". But for the most part they are doing something else.

Anyways overtime everybody with an opinion and back labling to eastern Theology mostly. But with the TERM philospohy, it broaden and broadens to the point where it doesnt have any particlure mean or critiera. In that my Cat is a philosopher in so far Nilhism is a philosopher. And I think its really damaged the meaning. Like when Stephen Hawking says philosophy is dead. Its sad because its the word philosophy that is dead. Analytic was an attempt to break away from the garbage. and the garbage keeps trying to smear the lines. OH you are just using a difference language. NO we are trying to get as far and as seperate from Ideology as is can get.
Even just calling Kirkagaard a philosopher contridicts the entire notion to what anybody before ever meant by philosophy. That would make philosopohy something itself and its contradiction. At the same time.

Anyways the point I was making about is that Nihilism is only a philosopher as anybody just talking is a philosopher. Under that definition of philosophy MY CAT IS A PHILOSOPHER. He makes proposition that I don't know. That are true but unproven. I think there has to be some critiria when its fair to say that is not philosophy. if not that everything is a philosophy.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 12:15:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 12:14:42 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:13:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:09:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Nihiism is philosophy, only in using the 'word' philosophy in such a broad sense that it has no meaning at all.

Want to elaborate?

The Fool: A 'word' is only as good as it demarcates a difference. A particular entity. For example we all know "everything" by the age of 5 or when we can speak it.
But the conception which the word refers to carries the least information of all. But even that demarcates something, but that something is nothing in particular. So a word with no demarcatable or consitent critiria is almost useless. Might as we make a new one with clear demarcation. It will actually communicate something. After the Enlightment. aka age of reason. The 'word' philosopher or 'philosophy', was no longer used to refer to the samething. In fact Hegel marks the turn to simply changing the definitions in stead of really doing anything. But an Ideological intity is created when someone mistake the word For the reality. That is by using a different definition for the 'word' philosophy, is to just discommunicate yourself from what other previous philosophers or people were talking about when they refered to philosophy.

Those who do that do not recognize self-subsiting enitiy floating around which is THE PHILOSOPHY IN ITSELF. And they are just doing a different kind of THE PHILOSOPHY IN ITSELF.

1. if it is different from the Philosophy in itself, well it follows by necessary that they are not doing philosophy.
2. The only thing that is the same, is the TERM "philosophy". But for the most part they are doing something else.

Anyways overtime everybody with an opinion and back labling to eastern Theology mostly. But with the TERM philospohy, it broaden and broadens to the point where it doesnt have any particlure mean or critiera. In that my Cat is a philosopher in so far Nilhism is a philosopher. And I think its really damaged the meaning. Like when Stephen Hawking says philosophy is dead. Its sad because its the word philosophy that is dead. Analytic was an attempt to break away from the garbage. and the garbage keeps trying to smear the lines. OH you are just using a difference language. NO we are trying to get as far and as seperate from Ideology as is can get.
Even just calling Kirkagaard a philosopher contridicts the entire notion to what anybody before ever meant by philosophy. That would make philosopohy something itself and its contradiction. At the same time.

Anyways the point I was making about is that Nihilism is only a philosopher as anybody just talking is a philosopher. Under that definition of philosophy MY CAT IS A PHILOSOPHER. He makes proposition that I don't know. That are true but unproven. I think there has to be some critiria when its fair to say that is not philosophy. if not that everything is a philosophy.

You return.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 12:21:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 12:16:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
A negative argument is still definitely an argument.

The Fool: What is a negative argument?
testing ya
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 12:24:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 12:21:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/31/2012 12:16:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
A negative argument is still definitely an argument.

The Fool: What is a negative argument?
testing ya

A negative argument is X = strong positive argument

A negative argument may be X = weak positive argument

A negative argument is not X = strong negative argument

A negative argument may be X = weak negative argument

No answer = non-argument
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 12:45:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: If Kant heard focault talk about enightenment. He would pull out a gun and shoot focault in the head, On the spot for being such a complete idiot. And Plato would shoot Hiedighter is he could.
There was no defining things in to existence in the enlightment. No body would ever say I am defining an existing entity which is enlightment. As if there was some self-subsisting EnitityTHE enlightement floating around that you can actually change it by defining it in this way or that way. Everyone of the enlightment philosophers made sure to say "I use the 'word' to refer to such and such description."
It would be INSANE then to even think you can define a thing in itself. (OF KANT even more so..<(XD)
Focault is so far off base in LA LA Land reasoning, he is not talking to Kant at all. He is talking to His definition of Kant. Which is subjective therefore nobody could know what he is talking about when he says Kant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 1:29:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 12:24:17 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/31/2012 12:21:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/31/2012 12:16:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
A negative argument is still definitely an argument.

The Fool: What is a negative argument?
testing ya

A negative argument is X = strong positive argument

A negative argument may be X = weak positive argument

A negative argument is not X = strong negative argument

A negative argument may be X = weak negative argument

No answer = non-argument

The Fool: There is no negative argument in the real sense of the meaning negative. In fact negative only makes sense in terms of positive, it is only a Relative conception. As in negative numbers are only in relation to positive numbers. But we can un relativize then and take the Abosolute Value. Which is not a positive or negative but existing value. We call the absolute value between the two The Difference. In that what exist is really a relative difference between thing. For example not matter where you are right not free, in comparison to just me and you. We are always in opposide, (contradictive directions.)
For example you can have a 3 books on a table. If I ask you to take away 6. After three you are pretty much beat. Because existing is of absolute value, there is no opposite., Because as I say many times there IS only existence.
And existence is absolute.
And existent=necessity. We confuse the notion negative and positive with the absolute sense. But there is never a reason to speak of positive with out a relative negative.

In America it is popular because of Religious Fundementalism, to say proof how its not existenting. But always remember, it is only in a small section of the planet .To the rest of the world it is complete INSANITY!!! BOP is always on the claim of existence.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 3:15:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit 1.1
The Fool presents: This that and the other thing..
At 8/31/2012 12:21:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: There is no negative argument in the real sense of the meaning negative. In fact negative only makes sense in terms of positive, it is only a Relative conception. As in negative numbers are only in relation to positive numbers. But we can un relativize them and take the Abosolute Value. Which is not a positive or negative but existing value. That is the absolute value. We can take the absolute value of a negative which is simply the difference between two things. In that what exist is really a relative difference between thing. It doesnt matter who is reading this, you and the fool, are always in opposite locations to each other. That is in a relative context to each other, but in context to The Universe(absolute) There exist and Absolute distance between us which is The difference between our location.

Another example:

For example you can have 3 books on a table. If I you are promised a million bucks you could never take away more then 3. Because existing is of absolute value, there is no opposite., Because as I say many times there IS only existence.
And existence is absolute.
And existent=necessity. We confuse the notion negative and positive with the absolute sense. But there is never a reason to speak of positive with out a relative negative.
.

Straight from the hill!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 8:39:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've developed a theory that carries a large amount of explanatory value.

You know that feeling you get when you've walked into a room but you forgot why you went in there?

Maybe that's what Canadians feel like all the time.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 11:43:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:49:48 PM, YYW wrote:
The more and more that I think of nihilism, the worse I feel about ever using it as a framework for anything. I think it could be because I'm less of a philosophy nut then I once was, and likewise because I've grown up a bit.

Is the implication that nihilism is just for kids, or...?

There are a few objectives that I think could be illuminated through a nihilist lens (ironic, I know), but I think that they (I don't think it's purposeful to include them here) are complicated, and to do so is to circumvent the rigor that perhaps one otherwise may be occasioned to endure. I'm tired right now (been up for very long time), but I hope that's clear enough.

No, it isn't. I think nihilism is useful for substantially more than just "a few objectives". I think it has a really nice redemptive function that helps to empty out the bullsh*t and pave the way for positive appropriation of those things in culture.

But on nihilism though, it is guilty, in the Nietzschen sense of guilt, insomuch as it perpetuates itself. Perhaps this is a bit bold, but then again this is DDO, but it seems to me like nihilism is bad conscience of the mind. I think it's the natural extension of the mind's rational inability to entertain a perpetual cognitive dissonance that, at the precipice of its condition, results in a crippling effect. Although clever enough, and while it's necessary to distinguish the function of something from the utility that it entails, in a teleological sense, nihilism is no more or less than a precursor to the sort of Jacques Derrida-esque deconstruction that bastardized the field of philosophy, literary and political theory to the extend that it was able to permeate into it.

It seems that, on perhaps a deeper level, nihilism is irritating because it is not affirmative, but responsive, and born thusly in response to, what I theorize, is the genealogy of everything else that precedes it. As a former student of philosophy who was fascinated by the concept of existence, I regard it as more cheap than I ever did. Maybe I'm becoming more of a Nietzschen. Maybe not. Who knows.

Nietzsche argues that the positive function of nihilism is precisely its ability to raze everything to the ground to prepare for value reconstruction, so...

What I do know, though is that the world is everything that is the case. I can know that the world is everything that is the case because I can see it, experience it and feel it. And if my senses are misleading me, then I am better for the experience. I know that all I can know is what I can see. I can accept as facts that which has been or could be empirically proven, but until I prove it I merely stand on the shoulders of giants (a term, I would submit, which is wholly overused in academia).

K. That just means "nihilism is probably true, but it feels nicer to pretend otherwise. That's fine, but it's not really relevant--you could say that about anything, so nihilism isn't unique in this regard.

What I also know is that I'm less likely to make a nihilistic argument now then I once was. I think teenagers (especially the book-worm types) especially may be more predisposed to nihilism than others because (1) their grounding in the world is less substantive than someone older and (2) they have not internally accepted the world around them because they have not yet developed the emotional/intellectual maturity to recognize what is before them. Perhaps the same could be said of Descartes, but that's another thing entirely.

Okay, I think I get what's going on here. What do you think nihilism is? You're explaining it in terms of your impressions, contrived motivations, etc., but I don't think your conception of nihilism is necessarily representative for the purposes of this discussion.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 3:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 11:43:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:49:48 PM, YYW wrote:
The more and more that I think of nihilism, the worse I feel about ever using it as a framework for anything. I think it could be because I'm less of a philosophy nut then I once was, and likewise because I've grown up a bit.

Is the implication that nihilism is just for kids, or...?

There are a few objectives that I think could be illuminated through a nihilist lens (ironic, I know), but I think that they (I don't think it's purposeful to include them here) are complicated, and to do so is to circumvent the rigor that perhaps one otherwise may be occasioned to endure. I'm tired right now (been up for very long time), but I hope that's clear enough.

No, it isn't. I think nihilism is useful for substantially more than just "a few objectives". I think it has a really nice redemptive function that helps to empty out the bullsh*t and pave the way for positive appropriation of those things in culture.

But on nihilism though, it is guilty, in the Nietzschen sense of guilt, insomuch as it perpetuates itself. Perhaps this is a bit bold, but then again this is DDO, but it seems to me like nihilism is bad conscience of the mind. I think it's the natural extension of the mind's rational inability to entertain a perpetual cognitive dissonance that, at the precipice of its condition, results in a crippling effect. Although clever enough, and while it's necessary to distinguish the function of something from the utility that it entails, in a teleological sense, nihilism is no more or less than a precursor to the sort of Jacques Derrida-esque deconstruction that bastardized the field of philosophy, literary and political theory to the extend that it was able to permeate into it.

It seems that, on perhaps a deeper level, nihilism is irritating because it is not affirmative, but responsive, and born thusly in response to, what I theorize, is the genealogy of everything else that precedes it. As a former student of philosophy who was fascinated by the concept of existence, I regard it as more cheap than I ever did. Maybe I'm becoming more of a Nietzschen. Maybe not. Who knows.

Nietzsche argues that the positive function of nihilism is precisely its ability to raze everything to the ground to prepare for value reconstruction, so...

What I do know, though is that the world is everything that is the case. I can know that the world is everything that is the case because I can see it, experience it and feel it. And if my senses are misleading me, then I am better for the experience. I know that all I can know is what I can see. I can accept as facts that which has been or could be empirically proven, but until I prove it I merely stand on the shoulders of giants (a term, I would submit, which is wholly overused in academia).

K. That just means "nihilism is probably true, but it feels nicer to pretend otherwise. That's fine, but it's not really relevant--you could say that about anything, so nihilism isn't unique in this regard.

What I also know is that I'm less likely to make a nihilistic argument now then I once was. I think teenagers (especially the book-worm types) especially may be more predisposed to nihilism than others because (1) their grounding in the world is less substantive than someone older and (2) they have not internally accepted the world around them because they have not yet developed the emotional/intellectual maturity to recognize what is before them. Perhaps the same could be said of Descartes, but that's another thing entirely.

Okay, I think I get what's going on here. What do you think nihilism is? You're explaining it in terms of your impressions, contrived motivations, etc., but I don't think your conception of nihilism is necessarily representative for the purposes of this discussion.

Recognize that I'm not necessarily indicting nihilism, I'm exploring it's appeal, and explicating it's appeal to me. But recognize also that in some sense I'm with the Fool on this, and I'll yield to him, further, because he is better at articulating this sort of thing than am I.
Tsar of DDO
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 4:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 9:38:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/30/2012 5:53:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/30/2012 4:54:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/30/2012 3:31:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"Pro's says "nihilism is not making an argument". This means that nihilism does not speak to anything and so it says nothing;
Actually it says things, but doesn't advance them in the form of a justifiable proposition.
It says things in the same way a "square-circle" says things. It's just that what it says is meaningless!
No, because nihilism isn't contradictory.
I totally disagree. It is clearly a contradiction.

The language of nihilism is apophantic, but not in a way that claims to be justifiable.
How so? And are we to now have levels of truthfulness or falseness of subjective things? If so, that's a hard one to prove without accepting more bald assertions, {cough} I mean axioms!

The set of all true propositions doesn't coincide with the set of all provable propositions, so you'll always end up with some assertions which, while true, can never be demonstrated as such.
Actually, I'm not to sure that they cannot all be proved; however, there are a VERY small number of these so called truths or axioms. These axioms are tautological, self evident, and necessary and so they do not need to be proven because they CANNOT be denied without contradiction.

This includes nihilism, since the condition under which it's verifiably true is that it cannot be proven.
Again, Nihilism is a contradiction and it's venerability is non-existent and meaningless.

The truth condition for nihilism is its unprovability, and nihilism is a direct statement about the limit of justificationalism, so, ipso facto, trying to argue for it--i.e., to prove that it's the case--isn't useful.
Truth conditions cannot be applied to Nihilism because they cannot be applied to commands, questions, or meaningless strings.
Nihilism is apophantic, so this criticism doesn't apply.
No, Nihilism is a contradiction. Please demonstrate how it is apophantic.

Nihilism, as well as any other contradiction, falls under the latter. Regardless, even if we allowed truth conditions for contradictions (ie meaningless things) we would get an infinite progression (or regression, however you want to see it) of paradoxes which are all equally as meaningless.
1. It isn't a contradiction.
It is a contradiction.

2. We always get infinite regression. That's the lynchpin of the NCT, and of my rejection of justificationalist epistemology.
A) Denial cannot cause an infinite regression because there are things that cannot be denied.
B) An infinite regression of contradictions is equivalent one contradiction which is also equivalent to meaninglessness.
C) Negation also requires axioms. If no axioms exist then negation doesn't exist which means nihilism doesn't exist which means there IS nothing existing which IS a contradiction, namely the existence of non-existence.

My point was that I don't have to have certainty to make the case for nihilism, so trying to counter my comments by labeling them self-defeating doesn't hold.
There is no case for nihilism, because it is a meaningless thing. It is the case for a square-circle, which is no case at all.
Those are not analogous.
I believe that I have shown it to be the case.

Plus, like I pointed out, you could nihilism your way out of nihilism by denying first principles of logic, etc. It would make all discourse meaningless, but that just means that you still reject realism, not because ethical justificationalism fails, but because you're so meta to everything that nothing has content that can be discussed.
That's like square-circling your way out of square-circling. What does that even mean? What you have stated is equivalent to a blank post or "asda sdf asd faf as fasd" or an empty set.
Like I said, those aren't analogous.

Nihilism is obviously comprehensible--it just denies stuff (e.g. knowledge) without claiming certainty regarding its denial.
No. It is ONLY comprehensible by accepting a CONTRADICTION as an axiom!

Now I am confused: I thought you were using Nihilism to discredit Con?
Like I said, Con's case was a deconstruction of mine. I was using nihilism to discredit realism, which he didn't defend. Instead, he made the objections listed above, and I responded in kind.
And so what I am saying is that nihilism does not discredit realism because nihilism requires the acceptance of a contradiction as an axiom. I thought I made that clear earlier? I feel as if you are purposefully obfuscating things.

Perhaps it would be easier if you simply stated the case for Nihilism, or as I call it: the case that's not the case.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 4:34:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 12:16:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
A negative argument is still definitely an argument.
Not always because: (1) Not all things can be negated, (2) Negation REQUIRES an axiom (3) Nihilism isn't an argument, it is mental masturbation that requires the acceptance of a contradiction in order make comprehensible arguments with it.

Nihilism is a contradiction because it is a claim that isn't a claim; an axiom that isn't an axiom; a contradiction. I am frustrated that people cannot see such a simple fact. However, there was a time when I too couldn't see that simple fact.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:48:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 4:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/30/2012 9:38:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
No, because nihilism isn't contradictory.
I totally disagree. It is clearly a contradiction.

Glad we've resolved this with assertions and counterassertions.

The language of nihilism is apophantic, but not in a way that claims to be justifiable.
How so? And are we to now have levels of truthfulness or falseness of subjective things? If so, that's a hard one to prove without accepting more bald assertions, {cough} I mean axioms!

Apophantic only means that it is capable of being true or false. Non-apophantic language includes things like prayers, commands, and interjections. "There are no true normative propositions" can be true or false, but "God damnit" cannot. But, like I said, there's a difference between things that are true and things that can be proven true, with the former set encompassing, but not coinciding with, the latter set. Nihilism happens to belong only to the former class of things--it can be asserted as true and "proven" with infinite examples, but there's not a deductive way of working it out.

The set of all true propositions doesn't coincide with the set of all provable propositions, so you'll always end up with some assertions which, while true, can never be demonstrated as such.

Actually, I'm not to sure that they cannot all be proved;

Well, you'd just be wrong if you thought they could. For any non-trivial axiomatic system, verification of consistency requires legitimation from some external source of justification which itself requires justification, ad infinitum. This is precisely why the infinite regress problem is so troubling.

however, there are a VERY small number of these so called truths or axioms. These axioms are tautological

Which makes them useless.

self evident

We get sense data that suggests these things are true, but we cannot be certain that they are true.

and necessary and so they do not need to be proven because they CANNOT be denied without contradiction.

"If we deny these things we assume, they conflict with other things we assume! Oh noooooooooo!"

This includes nihilism, since the condition under which it's verifiably true is that it cannot be proven.
Again, Nihilism is a contradiction and it's venerability is non-existent and meaningless.

Uh, no. There are plenty of cases like nihilism. You're acting like Bertrand Russell when Godel introduced self-reference into the "recursion-proof" Principia Mathematica. I could easily say "this statement (x) cannot be proven by formal logic." If it's true, then it's only true if it can't be proven. If it's proven to be true, it's false by definition.

Nihilism is apophantic, so this criticism doesn't apply.
No, Nihilism is a contradiction. Please demonstrate how it is apophantic.

It makes assertions, and can therefore be true or false.

All you keep doing is repeating that it's a contradiction. I realize that repeating a lie long enough usually makes it sound more plausible, but I'm not buying your bullsh*t on that one for a second.

Nihilism, as well as any other contradiction, falls under the latter. Regardless, even if we allowed truth conditions for contradictions (ie meaningless things) we would get an infinite progression (or regression, however you want to see it) of paradoxes which are all equally as meaningless.
1. It isn't a contradiction.
It is a contradiction.

You're a contradiction! Ohhhhh, see? I can say useless things, too!

2. We always get infinite regression. That's the lynchpin of the NCT, and of my rejection of justificationalist epistemology.
A) Denial cannot cause an infinite regression because there are things that cannot be denied.

Actually, they can be denied. You just reach a level where discourse is no longer coherent because it's outside the forms that make sense to us. But saying, on that basis, that something is undeniable is just appealing to uncomfortable consequences, not an argument. If someone wants to question the law of non-contradiction, for example, replying with "But that's illogical" isn't a legitimate move. It's like questioning whether human life is valuable, then saying "But that discounts the value of human life!" You're just assuming the thing you're putting on trial.

I mean, look. I don't "deny" formal logic. I deny that you can have certainty that it's true, even though I arbitrarily commit to it. Hence the difference between the metaphysics of ethics and logic--with logic, as you are so apt to point out (and as I pointed out in the debate), it's difficult to avoid, and you always have a stream of data that suggests it's true, so you may as well default to it because it tends to help function, even if we do live in the Matrix or whatever. With ethics, you don't get that immanence. Logic is basically unavoidable, and can't be substituted easily with dialetheism or whatever. Normative ethics is not only avoidable, but is a skeleton whose content can be easily substituted.

B) An infinite regression of contradictions is equivalent one contradiction which is also equivalent to meaninglessness.

lol k bro

C) Negation also requires axioms. If no axioms exist then negation doesn't exist which means nihilism doesn't exist which means there IS nothing existing which IS a contradiction, namely the existence of non-existence.

Of course we just take things for granted. But our minds work in such a way that we can't really not conceive of things in a way that conforms to formal logic. That doesn't mean that the universe is consistently bound by the same constraints, or that our species will always experience cognition this way--it just means, as Hume pointed out, that we're wired in such and such fashion, and have to deal it.

There is no case for nihilism, because it is a meaningless thing. It is the case for a square-circle, which is no case at all.
Those are not analogous.
I believe that I have shown it to be the case.

You haven't. You just keep saying it over and over.

That's like square-circling your way out of square-circling. What does that even mean? What you have stated is equivalent to a blank post or "asda sdf asd faf as fasd" or an empty set.
Like I said, those aren't analogous.

Nihilism is obviously comprehensible--it just denies stuff (e.g. knowledge) without claiming certainty regarding its denial.
No. It is ONLY comprehensible by accepting a CONTRADICTION as an axiom!

You keep saying that. Over. And over. And over. There's no argument. Just repetition.

And so what I am saying is that nihilism does not discredit realism because nihilism requires the acceptance of a contradiction as an axiom. I thought I made that clear earlier? I feel as if you are purposefully obfuscating things.

You: "Nihilism is a contradiction."

Me: "No, it isn't."

You: "Yes it is. I've proven my case."

Throw me a f*cking bone here, and make an argument. Realism says: some ethical statements are true, and they're made true by facts in the world. Nihilism says: bullsh*t. None of them are true, because infinite regress demonstrates that all first principles in ethics are just you guys pulling stuff out of your @ss and getting other people to agree with it.

Like I said, nihilism can be "proven" phenomenally. Give me any realist argument, and I'll nihilism the sh*t out of it. You can whine and call it a contradiction all you want, but it's still going to show up as a limit condition, again, and again, and again, until you throw up. And it will beat every realist argument you could ever drum up.

Perhaps it would be easier if you simply stated the case for Nihilism, or as I call it: the case that's not the case.

I took an entire
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:48:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 4:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Perhaps it would be easier if you simply stated the case for Nihilism, or as I call it: the case that's not the case.

I took an entire debate to do just that. Explain back to me what you think nihilism is, because I don't think you're getting my use right.