Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ask a Nihilist.

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:38:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

At what point for a nihilist do the general rules for behavior adopted out of the self-interest for survival in human society become a code of morality? It seems to me like nihilism would serve as more of a mechanism for clearing philosophical dross in order to lay a cleaner foundation for whatever practical moral structure helps one to survive in a particular milieu. If it serves such a function, is it really a moral position, or just a prerequisite to a decently supported moral position based on a realistic assessment of current conditions?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

As a nihilist, you have the belief that "that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Why would a true nihilist solicit questions and inquiries about anything - if they actually believe that "nothing can be known or communicated?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:48:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
True Nihilism like True Democracy is probably not that wide-spread. What OP and I both are is probably pessimists at best.
IceCreamforBreakfast
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:06:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

What's your favorite breakfast food?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?

I don't think I hate anyone enough to outweigh the murder that will rest in my conscience for the rest of my live. So no, but for egoistic reasons.

Also for secondary egoistic reasons, such as social contract theory, there are always knock-on effects to breaking social codes, even if one is not convicted.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:27:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:38:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

At what point for a nihilist do the general rules for behavior adopted out of the self-interest for survival in human society become a code of morality?

Social contract theory & collectivist egoism make good cases for this. It's within my self-interest to remain free in society, since it provides for so many of my self-interests (food, shelter, security, etc.) thus the code of morality, which inevitably will step on the toes of my self interst in at least some ways, is sufficient to create order for most people. For some people this is simply not the case, e.g. Sadists who actually don't care that society provides for other self-intersts, their desire to harm simply overrides it. Thus deterrents are necessary (jail time, reciprocal action, etc.) for those within the social contract.

It seems to me like nihilism would serve as more of a mechanism for clearing philosophical dross in order to lay a cleaner foundation for whatever practical moral structure helps one to survive in a particular milieu.

I couldn't agree more. I debate absurd resolutions, but with the ulterior motive that our moral preconceptions need to be turned upside down and built from ground-up. Accepting nihilism is simply the first step, building a society based in values and self-interests, in which much of the good ohilosophy in mets ethics, such as utilitarianism, kantianism, etc. can make a very useful contribution to.

If it serves such a function, is it really a moral position, or just a prerequisite to a decently supported moral position based on a realistic assessment of current conditions?

Not sure how to answer that. Sorry.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:42:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

As a nihilist, you have the belief that "that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I don't agree with that definition, and it's far too simplistic. There are many sub-points covered by nihilism:

Meta-ethics
Essentialism/existentialism
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Etc.

I would regard myself as a moral, existential and epistemological nihilist, but not a Metaphysical nihilist (I am actually agnostic on that). Thus I reject being able to know things objectively, and the notion of moral realism, moral cognitivism, and purpose and value.

"Condemning existance" and"impulse to destroy" completely contradict nihilism. Nihilism says nothing about one will or should do, that's a load of horsecrap.

Why would a true nihilist solicit questions and inquiries about anything - if they actually believe that "nothing can be known or communicated?"

It's perfectly coherent to have a subjective epistemology, and then work from the assumption that others share a similar/same foundation, which allows for communication. Thus communication is possible, and knowledge is subjectively possible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:34:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:48:46 AM, Dagolas wrote:
True Nihilism like True Democracy is probably not that wide-spread. What OP and I both are is probably pessimists at best.

Pessimism implies a genuine, tangible negative state, something the likes of Schopenhauer took, and that simply isn't what nihilism is. Optimists think the glass is full of delicious wine, pessimists think thr glass is full of poison, nihilists think the glass is just empty.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:06:02 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

What's your favorite breakfast food?

Baileys flavoured ice cream.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:42:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

As a nihilist, you have the belief that "that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I don't agree with that definition, and it's far too simplistic. There are many sub-points covered by nihilism:

Meta-ethics
Essentialism/existentialism
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Etc.

I would regard myself as a moral, existential and epistemological nihilist, but not a Metaphysical nihilist (I am actually agnostic on that). Thus I reject being able to know things objectively, and the notion of moral realism, moral cognitivism, and purpose and value.

"Condemning existance" and"impulse to destroy" completely contradict nihilism. Nihilism says nothing about one will or should do, that's a load of horsecrap.

Why would a true nihilist solicit questions and inquiries about anything - if they actually believe that "nothing can be known or communicated?"

It's perfectly coherent to have a subjective epistemology, and then work from the assumption that others share a similar/same foundation, which allows for communication. Thus communication is possible, and knowledge is subjectively possible.

Given all that, I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it?

Why do you think anyone cares to know more about nihilism? Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

Trying to come of as someone who has all the answers does not seem to be something that a true nihilist would do.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:43:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*off
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:49:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:42:59 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

As a nihilist, you have the belief that "that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I don't agree with that definition, and it's far too simplistic. There are many sub-points covered by nihilism:

Meta-ethics
Essentialism/existentialism
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Etc.

I would regard myself as a moral, existential and epistemological nihilist, but not a Metaphysical nihilist (I am actually agnostic on that). Thus I reject being able to know things objectively, and the notion of moral realism, moral cognitivism, and purpose and value.

"Condemning existance" and"impulse to destroy" completely contradict nihilism. Nihilism says nothing about one will or should do, that's a load of horsecrap.

Why would a true nihilist solicit questions and inquiries about anything - if they actually believe that "nothing can be known or communicated?"

It's perfectly coherent to have a subjective epistemology, and then work from the assumption that others share a similar/same foundation, which allows for communication. Thus communication is possible, and knowledge is subjectively possible.

Given all that, I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it?

It's doesn't matter, I just do care. It doesn't matter if I *should* care either, I just do.

"A man can do as he wills, but a man cannot will what he wills" - Neitzche

I don't see why will needs a rational explanation, it just exists, there.

Why do you think anyone cares to know more about nihilism?

I work on the assumption that people would prefer to know true things over false things, and would be interested in the potential it has for reforming moral philosophy.

Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

I don't, I simply made an educated guess that they would. Inductive reasoning.

Trying to come of as someone who has all the answers does not seem to be something that a true nihilist would do.

Perhaps you should define "true nihilist", since you seem to have an ideological conception of what a "true nihilist is". I assert that the world is not that simple, it's messy and got tonnes of grey areas. I explained in detail how nihilism isn't black and white, and I would regard myself as "mostly black" from the aspects of nihilism I am in agreement with.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:54:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?

I don't think I hate anyone enough to outweigh the murder that will rest in my conscience for the rest of my live. So no, but for egoistic reasons.

Fair enough.

Also for secondary egoistic reasons, such as social contract theory, there are always knock-on effects to breaking social codes, even if one is not convicted.

How is it a bad thing that a code is broken?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:54:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?

I don't think I hate anyone enough to outweigh the murder that will rest in my conscience for the rest of my live. So no, but for egoistic reasons.

Fair enough.

Also for secondary egoistic reasons, such as social contract theory, there are always knock-on effects to breaking social codes, even if one is not convicted.

How is it a bad thing that a code is broken?

Knock-on effects that go against my self-interest
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 1:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:55:52 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:54:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?

I don't think I hate anyone enough to outweigh the murder that will rest in my conscience for the rest of my live. So no, but for egoistic reasons.

Fair enough.

Also for secondary egoistic reasons, such as social contract theory, there are always knock-on effects to breaking social codes, even if one is not convicted.

How is it a bad thing that a code is broken?

Knock-on effects that go against my self-interest

But in this scenario, there would be no ramifications. The murder would not possibly be traced to you, and would go unsolved for fall on an innocent. That happens all the time, really.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 1:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 1:05:00 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:55:52 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:54:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:10:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

If presented with opportunity to murder your least favorite person and get away with it, would you do it? Why or why not?

I don't think I hate anyone enough to outweigh the murder that will rest in my conscience for the rest of my live. So no, but for egoistic reasons.

Fair enough.

Also for secondary egoistic reasons, such as social contract theory, there are always knock-on effects to breaking social codes, even if one is not convicted.

How is it a bad thing that a code is broken?

Knock-on effects that go against my self-interest

But in this scenario, there would be no ramifications. The murder would not possibly be traced to you, and would go unsolved for fall on an innocent. That happens all the time, really.

I'm not talking about tracing it to me, but the impact on society, etc. Those secondary effects.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 1:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:49:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:


I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it?

It's doesn't matter, I just do care. It doesn't matter if I *should* care either, I just do.

Where do you suppose that comes from?

"A man can do as he wills, but a man cannot will what he wills" - Neitzche

Neitzche was obviously looking at "will" in its simplest of forms.

I don't see why will needs a rational explanation, it just exists, there.

I didn't ask for an explanation of "will."

Why do you think anyone cares to know more about nihilism?

I work on the assumption that people would prefer to know true things over false things, and would be interested in the potential it has for reforming moral philosophy.

Are you claiming to be an authority on "truth?" That would be odd - coming from a nihilist. I thought that nihilists do not believe that truth CAN be known.

Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

I don't, I simply made an educated guess that they would. Inductive reasoning.


So it wasn't satire?

Trying to come of as someone who has all the answers does not seem to be something that a true nihilist would do.

Perhaps you should define "true nihilist", since you seem to have an ideological conception of what a "true nihilist is".

I've read the definition (and now several others like it) which you claim are wrong. I also posted that definition. . . If you don't like or appreciate that definition, why would I think that you would accept any others that I might provide?

I assert that the world is not that simple, it's messy and got tonnes of grey areas. I explained in detail how nihilism isn't black and white, and I would regard myself as "mostly black" from the aspects of nihilism I am in agreement with.

Mostly black.

Got it.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 1:50:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 1:09:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:49:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:


I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it?

It's doesn't matter, I just do care. It doesn't matter if I *should* care either, I just do.

Where do you suppose that comes from?

Psychology, biology, etc. probably. It's incorrigable and just "there".

"A man can do as he wills, but a man cannot will what he wills" - Neitzche

Neitzche was obviously looking at "will" in its simplest of forms.

It was not intended as an argument, more of a contextual statement.

I don't see why will needs a rational explanation, it just exists, there.

I didn't ask for an explanation of "will."

But a will is directly related to "why would I care", which seems to be a question that isn't addressed within nihilism, the fact they care just "exists", for whatever reason.

Why do you think anyone cares to know more about nihilism?

I work on the assumption that people would prefer to know true things over false things, and would be interested in the potential it has for reforming moral philosophy.

Are you claiming to be an authority on "truth?" That would be odd - coming from a nihilist. I thought that nihilists do not believe that truth CAN be known.

I already addressed this in subjective epistemology. It's internally coherent and just relies on the assumption others adhere to the same principles, which seems to be the case.

Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

I don't, I simply made an educated guess that they would. Inductive reasoning.


So it wasn't satire?

?

Trying to come of as someone who has all the answers does not seem to be something that a true nihilist would do.

Perhaps you should define "true nihilist", since you seem to have an ideological conception of what a "true nihilist is".

I've read the definition (and now several others like it) which you claim are wrong. I also posted that definition. . . If you don't like or appreciate that definition, why would I think that you would accept any others that I might provide?

I assert that the world is not that simple, it's messy and got tonnes of grey areas. I explained in detail how nihilism isn't black and white, and I would regard myself as "mostly black" from the aspects of nihilism I am in agreement with.

Mostly black.

Got it.

=)
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 1:59:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

What's the value and meaning in that?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:10:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 1:50:14 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 1:09:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:49:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:


I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it? "

It's doesn't matter, I just do care. It doesn't matter if I *should* care either, I just do.

Where do you suppose that comes from?

Psychology, biology, etc. probably. It's incorrigable and just "there".

And you don't see that as conflicting with the nihilistic point of view?

. . . a will is directly related to "why would I care", which seems to be a question that isn't addressed within nihilism, the fact they care just "exists", for whatever reason.

Do you agree that not all nihilists "care" about the same things?

I work on the assumption that people would prefer to know true things over false things, and would be interested in the potential it has for reforming moral philosophy.

Are you claiming to be an authority on "truth?" That would be odd - coming from a nihilist. I thought that nihilists do not believe that truth CAN be known.

I already addressed this in subjective epistemology. It's internally coherent and just relies on the assumption others adhere to the same principles, which seems to be the case.

How does someone (a nihilist) define "truth" without a belief that "truth" exists?

Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

I don't, I simply made an educated guess that they would. Inductive reasoning.


So it wasn't satire?

?

It would be funny (funnier) if your OP was actually intended to be satirical.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:38:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
Do it. It's within your selfish self-interest.

Okay. Do you subscribe to a moral code? Or do you have a moral code that you believe in?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:41:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nihilism is a self-defeating belief. Any particular "belief" has intrinsic truth value. All nihilists must value truth more than non-truth in order to be a nihilist in the first place.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 2:10:16 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 1:50:14 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 1:09:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:49:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:32:00 PM, Envisage wrote:


I suppose my question better asked would have been. . . "Why would a true nihilist care enough about what others think (about nihilism) to solicit any questions about it? "

It's doesn't matter, I just do care. It doesn't matter if I *should* care either, I just do.

Where do you suppose that comes from?

Psychology, biology, etc. probably. It's incorrigable and just "there".

And you don't see that as conflicting with the nihilistic point of view?

No, it's just irrelevant.

. . . a will is directly related to "why would I care", which seems to be a question that isn't addressed within nihilism, the fact they care just "exists", for whatever reason.

Do you agree that not all nihilists "care" about the same things?

Of course.

I work on the assumption that people would prefer to know true things over false things, and would be interested in the potential it has for reforming moral philosophy.

Are you claiming to be an authority on "truth?" That would be odd - coming from a nihilist. I thought that nihilists do not believe that truth CAN be known.

I already addressed this in subjective epistemology. It's internally coherent and just relies on the assumption others adhere to the same principles, which seems to be the case.

How does someone (a nihilist) define "truth" without a belief that "truth" exists?

Subjectively.

Why do you assume they would ask you questions about it - rather than to do some reading and educate themselves some other way?

I don't, I simply made an educated guess that they would. Inductive reasoning.


So it wasn't satire?

?

It would be funny (funnier) if your OP was actually intended to be satirical.

Poe's Law is a bitch.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 3:01:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 2:41:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Nihilism is a self-defeating belief.

Let's see your argument...:

"Any particular "belief" has intrinsic truth value.
All nihilists must value truth more than non-truth in order to be a nihilist in the first place."

It's not valid. Put it into a syllogism/well-formed formula. For too long you have touted this without being explicit. If nihilism really is self-defeating then you should be able to construct a reducio ad absurdum. Show me your logic.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 3:19:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All beliefs hold truth as intrinsically valuable.
Nihilism is a belief.
Nihilism holds truth as intrinsically valuable.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 3:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 3:19:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
All beliefs hold truth as intrinsically valuable.
Nihilism is a belief.
Nihilism holds truth as intrinsically valuable.

1. Define 'intrinsically'
2. It doesn't show nihilism is self-defeating (yet), finish your argument
3. Prove p1, good luck!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 3:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 3:22:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 3:19:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
All beliefs hold truth as intrinsically valuable.
Nihilism is a belief.
Nihilism holds truth as intrinsically valuable.

1. Define 'intrinsically'
2. It doesn't show nihilism is self-defeating (yet), finish your argument
3. Prove p1, good luck!

Belonging to naturally, essential.

Nihilism holds that nothing has intrinsic value.

Because in order to to accept something as true this requires a rational choice. A rational choice is one that recognizes viable alternatives. You could believe, not believe, or disbelieve that nihilism is true. In order to accept nihilism as true, you're accepting an inherent truth value over non-truth value alternatives. Since truth value is intrinsic to any belief, and nihilism is a belief that says nothing has intrinsic value, it's self-defeating.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 3:59:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 3:32:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/15/2015 3:22:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/15/2015 3:19:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
All beliefs hold truth as intrinsically valuable.
Nihilism is a belief.
Nihilism holds truth as intrinsically valuable.

1. Define 'intrinsically'
2. It doesn't show nihilism is self-defeating (yet), finish your argument
3. Prove p1, good luck!

Belonging to naturally, essential.

Nihilism holds that nothing has intrinsic value.

Because in order to to accept something as true this requires a rational choice. A rational choice is one that recognizes viable alternatives. You could believe, not believe, or disbelieve that nihilism is true.

Sure, I can agree to this....

"In order to accept nihilism as true, you're accepting an inherent truth value over non-truth value alternatives."

Demonstrate that premise to be true. The 'inherent truth' qualifier just came out of nowhere, with no justification. Nihilists (at least epistemological nihilists) are not committed to believing an inherent truth value.

Since truth value is intrinsic to any belief

Entirely begs the question, nihilism doesn't accept that beliefs have inherent truth value as you continued. Your assertion that a belief 'has' a truth value is a bare one. Sure you can categorise propositions/beliefs into "true" and "false" by some criteria, but it doesn't follow that the proposition/belief "has" a truth value, it's inly colloquial that we make that statement.

, and nihilism is a belief that says nothing has intrinsic value, it's self-defeating.

You seem to be confusing some essentialism ontological philosophy with epistemology. How the heck can a logical proposition "possess" properties? Properties are contingent on existance, and it's only the Platonists that will accept that's the case for abstract stuff.