Nihilism and Evolution

[Alejandro C]

I admit that I haven't studied a lot of philosophy, but I have studied evolution very deeply. My question for you who know better than I is:
DOESN'T EVOLUTION PROVE NIHILISM?

It seems to me that after the intellectual community figured out evolution that there were profound effects in all other areas of science and the humanities. In my mind, no area is more effected than philosophy.
For the thousands of years that people thought about philosophy almost all of them thought of it in such a way that they could never be sure that they would be able to "PROVE" their ideas. But doesn't evolution prove that all of the old philosophers were wrong. Doesn't it prove that there actually is 'one' correct answer to the great questions?

[The Feral Underclass]

I admit that I haven't studied a lot of philosophy, but I have studied evolution very deeply. My question for you who know better than I is:
DOESN'T EVOLUTION PROVE NIHILISM?

It seems to me that after the intellectual community figured out evolution that there were profound effects in all other areas of science and the humanities. In my mind, no area is more effected than philosophy.
For the thousands of years that people thought about philosophy almost all of them thought of it in such a way that they could never be sure that they would be able to "PROVE" their ideas. But doesn't evolution prove that all of the old philosophers were wrong. Doesn't it prove that there actually is 'one' correct answer to the great questions?

What do you think evolution and what do you think nihilism is?

[Holden Caulfield]

time proves most of the old philosphers are wrong but this is progression for you, the ideas are still interesting and relevant

[razboz]

Doesn't it prove that there actually is 'one' correct answer to the great questions?

No it does not. Evolution does not have a purpose or any end goal. As such it cannot tend to towards any one "answer". Evolution does not have an end. It is a process which, caeteris paribus, will continue forever.

Also define the "great questions"?

[Mariner's Revenge]

Please define what you mean by one "correct" answer.

When looking into this you have to differentiate science and philosophy. What can technically be proven and lies more or less in science is that we live in a cage that does not favor any organism or material over another. But once you start getting into meaning of life or personal philosophy we have moved into a completely different field that I personally do not believe can mesh.

If you said that evolution "proves" we live in a nihilist world or cage I would be interested and ask for your reasoning but if you said that evolution "proves" the personal philosophy of nihilism I will completely blow you off.

[Alejandro C]

The definition of Nihilism that I was using was the one you put up TAT, especially and specifically the "belief that there is no meaning or purpose in existence". I took that from your post for philosophy for beginners, which is appropriate because I'm very much a beginner.

I would say that in response to Comrade Mariner's Revenge that I was thinking about the way evolution proves that we live in a Nihilistic world.
The big questions I was referring to are "Why are we here?" "Fate vs. float" (the forrest gump question) "Moral relativism vs. Moral abosolutes" "Is there a higher purpose to living" "Is there a God?" and other such questions

From my studying of evolution, it can explain everything in our lives except three things: religion, art, and humor. I've read successful explanations of why we eat what we eat, why we mate how we mate, why we have language, why we have morality, why we look how we look; everything about us can be explained by evolution except those three things, which because I believe art and religion are very closely related, I guess you could say two things. I'm not saying these things are inexplicable, but just that they haven't been explained so far.

The most important revelation for me was that morality is a by-product of evolution. This fantastic truth doesn't give us an answer to questions like "moral relativism vs. moral absolutes" because it negates the question. Morality only exists in the human brain, and is simply an artificial way for us to make decisions without having to think about them. I think of it as a mental shortcut.
Maybe because I'm just a beginner, but it seems to me that a lot of argument in philosophy are about, or depend on, distinctions between right and wrong and what those words mean. Evolution leads me to believe that there is no 'right and wrong' to use in philosophical arguments. 'right and wrong' are simply things that were developed within our species in order that we may be more successful. This makes ethics, morality, and a lot of philosophy simply an artificial construct and a by-product.
The reality must be that there is no meaning, no goal, no purpose, no god, no morality, no right, and no wrong. -which is what I was using as a definition of nihilism.

This is an idea that is very newly forming in my mind and I'd love to refine it a lot more so please let me know what you think

[Mariner's Revenge]

When looking at morality and other features that us humans have evolved you have to remember that we evolved these traits to live in a hunter-gatherer environment and not the world we live in as of now. So how would art, religion, and humor have helped humans survive in a hunter-gatherer society?

I do not have answers to those questions but my best guesses would be that art served not only as entertainment and a hobby (humans had lots of free time back then) but as a means to mark and communicate, religion would be a habitual social structure to produce stability from generation to generation, and humor would be solely entertainment. Humor and entertainment is shown to improve health and extend lifespans so assuming humor and entertainment worked the same way back then as now you can see an obvious fitness advantage.


For the nihilistic part, I do agree with you. I have not thought about it enough to say that evolution proves a nihilistic world but I cannot think of an opposing argument as of yet. I would love to hear a rebuttal theory to this though.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, first understand that evolution != natural selection. There are plenty of things that clearly evolved but that don't require a natural selectionist/adaptationist argument.

As for...


religion, art, and humor.

Religion = consolation from fear, which provides psychological security that lets us carry on our daily affairs and get through those dark and stormy nights.

Art = A part of language.

Humor = Helps social cohesiveness during our clan/band-like existence phases.

Not that these ARE the explanations you're seeking, only that they CAN be explained in terms of adaptations that were subject to natural selection. I'm sure part of that has to do with "social" selection as well and it will be a couple decades before we can provide a plausible account for these three things. Still, the point is that natural selection DOES provide a self-contained, consistent explanation/hypothesis.

[Alejandro C]

These do seem to satisfy one or both of the conditions for selection (intra sexual and inter sexual) but it doesn't quite satisfy my curiosity the way that I'm used to evolution explaining things(in a clear eureka sort of way). However, these are by far the best explanations that I've heard so far and thank you for them.

Also for those of you out there who are not beginner students of philosophy: I'm assuming that this is not an original idea on my part and would be extremely grateful if you could point me in the direction of some people who have, I'm sure, expressed these ideas in a clearer and more refined way.

[Alejandro C]

So.. am I right or am I right?

[Alejandro C]

So no help, no criticisms, no agreements, nothing. Well, I thought I was on to something, but if it's this boring to everyone maybe I'll have to give it up.

[Chicano Shamrock]

So.. am I right or am I right?
LOL how ironic. I don't know I am so confused about everything that went on in this thread.

[Justin CF]

DOESN'T EVOLUTION PROVE NIHILISM?Short answer: No.

Long Answer: Evolution is really just an explanation of how things happened, not why. The argument that theists make is that god could have had a long, drawn out plan which culminated in the creation of man through seemingly natural means. The end result of this (us) could, therefore, have a greater purpose/meaning/etc. than is readily apparent. The problem with this logic is that god (a supposedly infallible deity) would have wasted billions of years when he could have simply done things genesis-style. The theist response to this is that "god works in mysterious ways", which is simply a way of avoiding giving a real explanation.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Evolution and Intelligent Design should not be compatible.

[Luís Henrique]

From my studying of evolution, it can explain everything in our lives except three things: religion, art, and humor.

Evolution can only explain things in the realm of biology. To use it to explain anything else is foolish.

Luís Henrique

[Dystisis]

Obviously evolution and/or natural selection refers to a specific theory or part of our knowledge about the universe (which scientists can't yet synthesize into a theory of everything), and thus would not suffice to explain everything up to this point... for example it wont account for natural disasters, random occurences, and a bazillion of other things.

[Decolonize The Left]

"Evolution" is any any process of development. I believe you are referring to 'evolution through natural selection,' which is the process which has brought organisms from single-cell creatures to the complex, thinking, beings we are today.
"Nihilism" is the denial of any sort of objective basis for truth, and by extension, the belief that 'life is meaningless' (although this phrase is a bit worn). Basically, nihilists do not believe that there is inherent meaning in anything - in other words, it is an extreme form of skepticism.

Now, 'evolution through natural selection' is a fact - it happens. Nihilism, on the other hand, is a philosophy. It is not a fact, but one way of relating to the world which surrounds us. Hence evolution through natural selection can be used to justify nihilism, but it in no way proves it. As a previous member mentioned, theists can attempt at synthesizing evolution through natural selection with the existence of a deity.

So, to answer the original question: No.

- August

[Alejandro C]

The fact that theists can attempt to reconcile evolution and nihilism shouldn't make any difference. They think its possible for people to die and then come back from the dead. They think its possible for snakes to talk. Basically they believe in magic, their leaps of logic could connect anything.

I think that evolution (through natural selection) can explain everything about us, the other animals and everything else that is alive.

If evolution through natural selection is a fact then the only reason for our life here is to spread our genes. The only reason we are here is that our genes have been good at spreading themselves. Things like altruism, nationality, love, hate, selfishness, work ethic, are all just means to this one end. These are all artificial things in our mind and no where else that serve our genes to spread themselves. If these things exist only in our minds as a purposeful construct isn't that nihilism. If everything about our society and all of the living things is just a tool for spreading genes, and the spreading of genes is meaningless, doesn't that mean that life is meaningless?

[trivas7]

Science impinges on philosophy only indirectly IMO. OTC, it's paradigm shifts in human thinking -- the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science -- that revolutionizes science.

[Decolonize The Left]

If evolution through natural selection is a fact then the only reason for our life here is to spread our genes.

That is the only biological purpose of life, yes.


The only reason we are here is that our genes have been good at spreading themselves. Things like altruism, nationality, love, hate, selfishness, work ethic, are all just means to this one end. These are all artificial things in our mind and no where else that serve our genes to spread themselves.

Firstly, we are not trying to "spread" our genes. We are always, as a species, trying to further our genetic line. That is all.

Secondly, those characteristics of human behavior can be reduced to methods of furthering gene lines, but this is not always logically coherent. For example, many people choose not to have children - if our only purpose was to do so, then these people should not be alive (but they are, and quite happy with that decision I assume). Hence my earlier distinction between biological purpose and meaning.


If these things exist only in our minds as a purposeful construct isn't that nihilism. If everything about our society and all of the living things is just a tool for spreading genes, and the spreading of genes is meaningless, doesn't that mean that life is meaningless?

The furthering of genes is the purpose of life. It is not the meaning of life. The meaning of life is determined by each individual for his/herself. Nihilist arguments which draw on evolution make the mistake of confusing the two terms.

- August

[Alejandro C]

Firstly, we are not trying to "spread" our genes. We are always, as a species, trying to further our genetic line. That is all.

Rather our genes are trying to spread themselves and we are the vehicle to do it. I hope we can all remember that evolution (by natural selection) does not always mean progress, just adaptation and survival. So I don't understand the distinction between spread and further.


The furthering of genes is the purpose of life. It is not the meaning of life. The meaning of life is determined by each individual for his/herself. Nihilist arguments which draw on evolution make the mistake of confusing the two terms.

I guess so. Please define each of these for me.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rather our genes are trying to spread themselves and we are the vehicle to do it. I hope we can all remember that evolution (by natural selection) does not always mean progress, just adaptation and survival. So I don't understand the distinction between spread and further.

Genes do not have "wills." Therefore they cannot "try to spread themselves" as they have no "selves" to will such spreading.

As living beings, it is our purpose to further our genes: i.e. pass them on to the next generation thereby engaging a further possibility for mutation and adaption.
It is not our purpose to spread them: i.e. have sex with as many partners as possible in order to produce the largest possible amount of combinations of offspring.

Now, while "spreading genes" may be a part of furthering them, it is not the primary purpose of life. Furthermore, this notion of "spreading seed," taken alone, would inevitably lead to the collapse of our species as we vastly over-populate any given territory.


I guess so. Please define each of these for me.

A purpose is a reason why something is done/made/occurs. In other words, it is an explanation for why something is taking place.

A meaning is the significance/import/what that thing is intended to be of a thing. In other words, it deals with the what something is.

Meaning and purpose can be synonymous in many cases, but in terms of evolution by natural selection they are differentiated.
The purpose of life is the furthering of genes.
The meaning of life is dependent upon the individual creating this meaning for his/herself.

- August

[Alejandro C]

Genes do not have "wills." Therefore they cannot "try to spread themselves" as they have no "selves" to will such spreading.

I know they don't have wills, but when thinking about genetics it's best (as in it explains the most metaphorically) if we think like they do. For example the commonly used argument against evolution by natural selection is the presence of altruism. For example if you were presented with a situation where you could save a hundred people if you died you might do it. If natural selection was true (the way you're thinking about it) there would be no way we would do this because our line would stop. But if you think about it from the genes perspective and realize that we (for the very very vast majority of the lifetime of our species) used to live only with closely related family members, it would make sense for the gene(s) to program the body to sacrifice itself for the furthering of others (because the 100 other are sure to have more of the gene(s) than you). I (and I think it's an analogy Richard Dawkins used in 'selfish gene') always think of the person as a computer and the genes like the computer programer (a programmer that only gets one first chance at programming and then has to quit). This way of thinking helps us understand genetics better than thinking of an individual or a group of individuals.



Now, while "spreading genes" may be a part of furthering them, it is not the primary purpose of life. Furthermore, this notion of "spreading seed," taken alone, would inevitably lead to the collapse of our species as we vastly over-populate any given territory.

i think you are drastically underestimating the ability of our species to adapt. If we over-populated the territory to the extent that our species was in trouble there would be a massive tragedy and lots of people would die, but we would adapt to the situation, not just end the species.



A meaning is the significance/import/what that thing is intended to be of a thing. In other words, it deals with the what something is.

So the meaning of life is (or deals with) what life is. Because of my understanding of evolution (by natural selection) I know that life (at it's most basic level) is chemical combinations replicating themselves (and sometimes adapting and evolving into 'higher' forms). This is a scientific fact. And a fact that seems to me to well support nihilism.

If people assign 'meaning' to their life it's only an artificial construct in their head. Moreover, it's an artificial construct that was designed by evolution so that that person will be more 'successful' in doing what it is supposed to be doing: continuing the replication.

[Decolonize The Left]

I know they don't have wills, but when thinking about genetics it's best (as in it explains the most metaphorically) if we think like they do. For example the commonly used argument against evolution by natural selection is the presence of altruism. For example if you were presented with a situation where you could save a hundred people if you died you might do it. If natural selection was true (the way you're thinking about it) there would be no way we would do this because our line would stop. But if you think about it from the genes perspective and realize that we (for the very very vast majority of the lifetime of our species) used to live only with closely related family members, it would make sense for the gene(s) to program the body to sacrifice itself for the furthering of others (because the 100 other are sure to have more of the gene(s) than you). I (and I think it's an analogy Richard Dawkins used in 'selfish gene') always think of the person as a computer and the genes like the computer programer (a programmer that only gets one first chance at programming and then has to quit). This way of thinking helps us understand genetics better than thinking of an individual or a group of individuals.

Your counter-argument of altruism is faulty for the following reason. You are taking a concept which stems from a decision, that is to say it is an act which has been willed by a self, and applying to an object with no self/will/subject. In other words, you are inappropriately personifying the characteristics of human beings onto genes - which are purely segments of proteins.


i think you are drastically underestimating the ability of our species to adapt. If we over-populated the territory to the extent that our species was in trouble there would be a massive tragedy and lots of people would die, but we would adapt to the situation, not just end the species.

I am doing no such thing, though I was not thorough and precise with my previous wording - I apologize. I agree that such an event would not lead to the "end" of our species. What I meant to say is that our augmentation of population size (and the culture, society, etc... that comes with it) would cease to increase, and therefore would collapse. As you noted, it does not follow that the species would end, as we most certainly would adapt.


So the meaning of life is (or deals with) what life is. Because of my understanding of evolution (by natural selection) I know that life (at it's most basic level) is chemical combinations replicating themselves (and sometimes adapting and evolving into 'higher' forms). This is a scientific fact. And a fact that seems to me to well support nihilism.

If people assign 'meaning' to their life it's only an artificial construct in their head. Moreover, it's an artificial construct that was designed by evolution so that that person will be more 'successful' in doing what it is supposed to be doing: continuing the replication.

The definition I provided before was sparse, and has subsequently led to an ill-formed reductionist argument. You are correct that life, at it's most basic level, is chemical combinations replicating themselves. But we are not merely such replications, though we owe our current existence to theirs. We, among many other talents/abilities, can reflect back upon our existence and determine its meaning. What this means is that we can determine its significance within a larger context.

To claim that because things started one way, and have given rise to different things, that those latter things can be reduced to the first is not necessarily logical. Othello, by William Shakespeare, is not a only a book constructed of paper and other substances - it is also a play, a dialogue, a philosophy (perhaps), among many other things.

You see that your nihilistic argument ultimately collapses under its own weight. For, after all, everything is merely a cloud of atoms - including me, this computer, yours, you, the ground upon which we stand, etc... But one cannot live as such. One can only live with meaning. Meaning which one has created for one's own life.

- August

[Alejandro C]

Your counter-argument of altruism is faulty for the following reason. You are taking a concept which stems from a decision, that is to say it is an act which has been willed by a self, and applying to an object with no self/will/subject. In other words, you are inappropriately personifying the characteristics of human beings onto genes - which are purely segments of proteins.
I thought it would be obvious that natural selection makes the decision for them. Genes that predisposed people to sacrifice themselves for their family (and their famlies genes) would have a better 'fitness' than genes which did not.
When I wrote:
But if you think about it from the genes perspective and realize that we (for the very very vast majority of the lifetime of our species) used to live only with closely related family members, it would make sense for the gene(s) to program the body to sacrifice itself for the furthering of others (because the 100 other are sure to have more of the gene(s) than you)I wasn't using personification or assigning a decision to the gene. Natural selection is the decider, genes are just the actors.


About the other things: I'm wondering if you agree that your search for meaning, or your belief that there is meaning, is a product (or byproduct) of evolution, just like your love, hate, hunger, height, curiosity, creativity, skin color, etc; which is helpful for you (and your genes) to replicate.

And on a more specific point, I'm wondering what you think the meaning of life is.

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought it would be obvious that natural selection makes the decision for them. Genes that predisposed people to sacrifice themselves for their family (and their famlies genes) would have a better 'fitness' than genes which did not.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I do not have an issue with your analysis of evolution, but I am taking point with your terms. Natural selection cannot make "decisions." It is not a person with free will - and hence does not have the ability to make choices.


I wasn't using personification or assigning a decision to the gene. Natural selection is the decider, genes are just the actors.

By saying that natural selection, which is a biological process, makes "decisions," you are personifying onto that process. By extension, genes are not "actors." They are strands of protein which code for traits within a living being.


About the other things: I'm wondering if you agree that your search for meaning, or your belief that there is meaning, is a product (or byproduct) of evolution, just like your love, hate, hunger, height, curiosity, creativity, skin color, etc; which is helpful for you (and your genes) to replicate.

All human activities can be reduced to products/byproducts of evolution. Evolution is a fact, a constant process - hence all activities can be reduced to its workings. I am not claiming your point is false. I am claiming it is pointless, as human beings cannot function (read: cannot live) without applying meaning to most, if not, everything.


And on a more specific point, I'm wondering what you think the meaning of life is.

I cannot tell you what the meaning of life is, or isn't - you must create your own meaning. I can only speak for myself in terms of life-meaning. The meaning of my life is to overcome myself in the further pursuit of my principle values: freedom and equality.

- August

[Alejandro C]

All human activities can be reduced to products/byproducts of evolution. Evolution is a fact, a constant process - hence all activities can be reduced to its workings. I am not claiming your point is false. I am claiming it is pointless, as human beings cannot function (read: cannot live) without applying meaning to most, if not, everything.



I cannot tell you what the meaning of life is, or isn't - you must create your own meaning. I can only speak for myself in terms of life-meaning. The meaning of my life is to overcome myself in the further pursuit of my principle values: freedom and equality.

- August
I guess my main point is that because our meanings of life are only the byproduct of evolution that they are not real. These meanings are an illusion, something that has evolved to give us a better fitness. There is no objective meaning that exists outside of our minds. That everyone has different meanings for life (and according to you we create them ourselves) strongly supports this idea.

[Decolonize The Left]

I guess my main point is that because our meanings of life are only the byproduct of evolution that they are not real. These meanings are an illusion, something that has evolved to give us a better fitness. There is no objective meaning that exists outside of our minds. That everyone has different meanings for life (and according to you we create them ourselves) strongly supports this idea.

Then what is real? Is evolution real? It is our perception of events, and our perceptions are not full-proof. Furthermore, "evolution" is a concept used to describe what we believe is an actual occurrence. It is meaning which we have applied to represent what we believe is an actual thing.

If you wish to claim that no objective meaning exists, fine. I accept that.

But if you wish to claim that subjective meaning is not real simply because it exists in our minds, that it is an illusion - then why are you here using illusions to describe other things to us?

See how nihilism collapses under it's own weight? If all meaning is illusory, and language is by definition a system of symbols which containing meaning, then language is illusory and you cannot even talk/express how meaningless everything is.

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

...
See how nihilism collapses under it's own weight? If all meaning is illusory, and language is by definition a system of symbols which containing meaning, then language is illusory and you cannot even talk/express how meaningless everything is.

- August

Nihilism doesn't necessarily entail this absurd regress if subjectivity would be your only vantage point. That is to say, that there is only me, myself the ego experiencing and expressing it's own beliefs and judgments without hoping for some false idea of objectivity. Like in nietzschean thought where rationalizations are only mere biological expressions ad hoc to validate ones own subjective actions. Everything I do is my "wille zur macht" expressing it's existence. But by that idea 'evolution' is just as pathetic as "ancient" morality, evolution in nihilism would be to transcend all slave morality. And in a sense our idea of objective/emprical evolution is just a slave expression to maintain our importance in the universe.

I think that the whole reductionist view that we only have scientific fact as key holder of objectivity lacks any a priori argument for itself as a wholely subjective endeavour. We cannot go beyond our senses and qualify 'evolution' to be objective fact. Hence 'reality' is fundamentally undermined by our own existence.

Hope the above makes some sense, and my apologies if my made some grammar/spelling mistakes.

[Decolonize The Left]

Nihilism doesn't necessarily entail this absurd regress if subjectivity would be your only vantage point. That is to say, that there is only me, myself the ego experiencing and expressing it's own beliefs and judgments without hoping for some false idea of objectivity. Like in nietzschean thought where rationalizations are only mere biological expressions ad hoc to validate ones own subjective actions. Everything I do is my "wille zur macht" expressing it's existence.

The first point which must be made is that Nietzsche was not a nihilist, nor was he arguing for nihilism. Quite the opposite. Hence you cannot use Nietzsche's philosophy to argue for nihilism - it's like using Nazi theory to argue for equality...

What you have described is a vague outline of Nietzsche's conception of the self, but this has no relationship to nihilism other than it negates it from the beginning. For nihilism does not accept "claims to objectivity," and hence cannot accept language, science, or anything agreed-upon and inevitably ends in infinite regress.


But by that idea 'evolution' is just as pathetic as "ancient" morality, evolution in nihilism would be to transcend all slave morality. And in a sense our idea of objective/emprical evolution is just a slave expression to maintain our importance in the universe.

Incorrect. Evolution can be observed by anyone, unlike "Zeus." Furthermore, it can be repeatedly observed by anyone. This is what gives science the claim of "objectivity." It is not that it is metaphysical, for science is always questioning itself, but it is the most "objective" thing we have.

On another point, "evolution in nihilism" would not transcend slave morality. Nihilism cannot "evolve" into master morality, for it cannot accept morality in the first place. You forget that Nietzsche was concentrating on exactly how to make you, and I, and each individual who understood themselves the "most important thing in the universe." Hence science may have aspects of slave morality within its organization, but it is not an attempt at value, rather an attempt at explanation.


I think that the whole reductionist view that we only have scientific fact as key holder of objectivity lacks any a priori argument for itself as a wholely subjective endeavour. We cannot go beyond our senses and qualify 'evolution' to be objective fact. Hence 'reality' is fundamentally undermined by our own existence.

Lol, our existence is reality... how can something undermine itself? Secondly, science claims "objectivity" because it can be repeatedly observed by any individual, it's as close as we can get... No scientist will claim that evolution is an "objective theory," but they will claim it's a fact. Just like the fact that you are looking at a computer screen reading this...

- August

[Raoul_RedRat]

...Hence you cannot use Nietzsche's philosophy to argue for nihilism - it's like using Nazi theory to argue for equality...

I don't think I was arguing for nihilism by using Nietzsche, I tried to mitigate your rigid conclusion that if you would allow for nihilism to have any weight in conceiving reality, that all talk would be nonsensical.


What you have described is a vague outline of Nietzsche's conception of the self, but this has no relationship to nihilism other than it negates it from the beginning. For nihilism does not accept "claims to objectivity," and hence cannot accept language, science, or anything agreed-upon and inevitably ends in infinite regress. Sure I do agree that Nietzsche doesn't allow for the pure nihilist statement "no claims to objectivity can be true", yet he does take a radical subjective turn in his understanding of objectivity wherein 'objectivity' loses it's prior meaning of something that can be known by an independent disconnected subject by means of reasoning. It is in this sense Nietzsche who thinks through the consequences of nihilism and argues for a different kind of "objectivity".

Perhaps this doesn't make him a nihilist, but if you are charmed by the idea of nihilism, Nietzsche gives a probably answer in resolving the problem of losing every meaning and not being able to speak at all. This and this only was the point I tried to convey, not necessarily relying on Nietzschean thought but to show by token that nihilism doesn't have to end in an infinite regress.


Incorrect. Evolution can be observed by anyone, unlike "Zeus." Furthermore, it can be repeatedly observed by anyone. This is what gives science the claim of "objectivity." It is not that it is metaphysical, for science is always questioning itself, but it is the most "objective" thing we have.I have trouble to belief that I can observe evolution, what should I be observing that I can call 'evolution'? Sure I allow for evolution to be true, because my somewhat informed reasoning tells me so, but I can't seem to grasp the idea that anyone can observe evolution.


On another point, "evolution in nihilism" would not transcend slave morality. [...] Hence science may have aspects of slave morality within its organization, but it is not an attempt at value, rather an attempt at explanation.I'm sorry I think I made some errors in my English which made it ambivalent. What I meant to say is that the notion of 'evolution' could be seen as equally dishonest as any other expression of slave morality. Since it does try to value by explanation, it relies on the belief that there is fact independent of our beings c.q. doings in the world.


Lol, our existence is reality... how can something undermine itself?Firstly, I don't think that the claim 'our existence is reality' as apparent your 'lol' makes it to be. You would still be obliged to go into the details of what constitutes 'our existence' and moreso what the predicate 'reality' means.

Secondly, our existence can undermine reality. Wherein 'reality' is the concept sought for, we seek to know an intelligible truth by which we can say that something exists, but not just exist. It exists independent from my thoughts. The underminging feature is the fact that we are part of the objects to be researched. And it is in this sense that I say that our existence undermines reality. Under the presupposition that you hold this view of reality allow objectivity to be something achieveable.

And in short, nihilism would never suffice for the fact that we are very actual for ourselves. But taking the subjective turn that Nietzsche and also Heidegger has made, you have to rethink the way we merit science.


Secondly, science claims "objectivity" because it can be repeatedly observed by any individual, it's as close as we can get... No scientist will claim that evolution is an "objective theory," but they will claim it's a fact. Just like the fact that you are looking at a computer screen reading this...What importance and meaningfulness can science offer us? Science would in your explanation just as fruitfull as nihilism. The first only shows us what can already be observed and presents it as 'observable fact' and the latter says that there is no objective meaning to be found, we only act/observe without any merit. Science doesn't deliver in this sense much more than nihilism does. Yet we allow science to be more guiding than nihilism.

[Decolonize The Left]

I really have no idea how I missed this reply. My apologies.


I don't think I was arguing for nihilism by using Nietzsche, I tried to mitigate your rigid conclusion that if you would allow for nihilism to have any weight in conceiving reality, that all talk would be nonsensical.

Nihilism is a philosophy which relies on the extreme limits of skepticism. It posits, through skepticism, that there is no actual reality - i.e. there is no objective truth.

Since it is using skepticism to argue as such, it loses at its own game. For skepticism can be turned against language as well. Language is nothing but a set of symbols - symbols which contain meaning. Yet the nihilist is unable to accept this meaning, it is utterly meaningless (as is everything). Hence the nihilist cannot communicate the supposed fact that everything is meaningless, for to do so requires the nihilist to use an accepted meaning-symbol system. Furthermore, this meaning system is as 'objective' as science (a point I shall elaborate on later).


Sure I do agree that Nietzsche doesn't allow for the pure nihilist statement "no claims to objectivity can be true", yet he does take a radical subjective turn in his understanding of objectivity wherein 'objectivity' loses it's prior meaning of something that can be known by an independent disconnected subject by means of reasoning. It is in this sense Nietzsche who thinks through the consequences of nihilism and argues for a different kind of "objectivity".

Indeed. But that is simply because the notion of "an independent disconnected subject" is insane.


Perhaps this doesn't make him a nihilist, but if you are charmed by the idea of nihilism, Nietzsche gives a probably answer in resolving the problem of losing every meaning and not being able to speak at all. This and this only was the point I tried to convey, not necessarily relying on Nietzschean thought but to show by token that nihilism doesn't have to end in an infinite regress.

Ah, but once you have taken Nietzsche's road and adopted the notion of will to power, or eternal recurrence, as your own, you are no longer a nihilist. In fact, you now have a most extreme form of value in your hands.

Nihilism does end in infinite regress - what you are saying is that Nietzsche offers a way out, but that is no longer nihilism...


I have trouble to belief that I can observe evolution, what should I be observing that I can call 'evolution'? Sure I allow for evolution to be true, because my somewhat informed reasoning tells me so, but I can't seem to grasp the idea that anyone can observe evolution.

You can observe evolution. You will need to go to your local university and their respective biology lab. There you can spend a couple of days watching fruit flies evolve - you can watch evolution. (Fruit flies multiply and die very quickly allowing for a lot of possible mutations).


I'm sorry I think I made some errors in my English which made it ambivalent. What I meant to say is that the notion of 'evolution' could be seen as equally dishonest as any other expression of slave morality. Since it does try to value by explanation, it relies on the belief that there is fact independent of our beings c.q. doings in the world.

The fact that English is not your first language is something which we will merely work through, it is no reason to apologize. I am thankful that this conversation need not happen in your first language, for then I would be forced to learn a whole new language...

I am confused as to how science attempts to value by explanation. Could you explain this?


Firstly, I don't think that the claim 'our existence is reality' as apparent your 'lol' makes it to be. You would still be obliged to go into the details of what constitutes 'our existence' and moreso what the predicate 'reality' means.

Indeed.
"Reality" is 'the state of being real.'
"Real" is that which is true. Since truth is put into question, we turn to the second definition.
"Real" is that which exists.

Hence reality is synonymous with existence. They are one and the same. To say "I exist" is to say "I am real" is to say "I am truth."

You may attempt to question your own existence, but you have already begged the question. For how could you question your own existence? You are necessary in order to question!


Secondly, our existence can undermine reality. Wherein 'reality' is the concept sought for, we seek to know an intelligible truth by which we can say that something exists, but not just exist. It exists independent from my thoughts. The underminging feature is the fact that we are part of the objects to be researched. And it is in this sense that I say that our existence undermines reality. Under the presupposition that you hold this view of reality allow objectivity to be something achieveable.

Ah, we are indeed part of the "reality" which we wish to discover/examine. But this undermines nothing. Allow me to explain.

In order to explain/examine/understand something, you must occupy a perspective. For how can there by "something" which "I" wish to understand, if there is not a perspective which I inhabit in order to understand? Hence "reality" can only be understood from within, for if one was without, one would not exist!



What importance and meaningfulness can science offer us? Science would in your explanation just as fruitfull as nihilism. The first only shows us what can already be observed and presents it as 'observable fact' and the latter says that there is no objective meaning to be found, we only act/observe without any merit. Science doesn't deliver in this sense much more than nihilism does. Yet we allow science to be more guiding than nihilism.

But you see that you now ask the value of science. This is for you to determine, I can only share my own. Science is the attempt to explain our collective (and by extension, individual) reality. That is all. An attempt at explanation. It is the best (value judgment) attempt we know of, because it is shared by all human beings and hence is true. It is in this sense objective, because all human beings can experience it (all can conduct experiments, etc...) - it is like language for all can learn, share, experience, and change it. It is true to this extent, not True, for there is no Truth, other than that very statement - quite a lovely paradox.

- August

[Geno]

Nihilism is a philosophy which relies on the extreme limits of skepticism. It posits, through skepticism, that there is no actual reality - i.e. there is no objective truth.

Since it is using skepticism to argue as such, it loses at its own game. For skepticism can be turned against language as well. Language is nothing but a set of symbols - symbols which contain meaning. Yet the nihilist is unable to accept this meaning, it is utterly meaningless (as is everything). Hence the nihilist cannot communicate the supposed fact that everything is meaningless, for to do so requires the nihilist to use an accepted meaning-symbol system. Furthermore, this meaning system is as 'objective' as science (a point I shall elaborate on later).


You are assuming that language is some objective meaning, clearly it isnt. Once you realise that fact your whole paradoxical argument abour nihilism collapses.

[Decolonize The Left]

You are assuming that language is some objective meaning, clearly it isnt. Once you realise that fact your whole paradoxical argument abour nihilism collapses.

Incorrect. In fact, in the quote you noted I state myself that "Language is nothing but a set of symbols - symbols which contain meaning." I then further qualify this statement by saying that language is "an accepted meaning-symbol system."

It is obvious that language is merely a bunch of symbols instilled with meaning by individuals. But when you consider that there exist different languages, and that these languages have dictionaries, grammar, spelling, and other agreed-upon sets of meaning - language becomes as objective as science.

For example, I cannot say "bumbliedided slimpisonlionsgusonf gounso." And follow that statement by saying, "well, I just communicated with language." If your claim was correct, I could do so logically.

- August

[Geno]

Just because there are rules to language it doesn't make it objective. Words will carry slightly different meanings to different people, there understanding of it is subjective.

This is a moot point really as your argument about language is a logical fallacy, by saying that truth and meaning are the same thing.

Semantics is no substitute for logic.

[Decolonize The Left]

Just because there are rules to language it doesn't make it objective. Words will carry slightly different meanings to different people, there understanding of it is subjective.

This is a moot point really as your argument about language is a logical fallacy, by saying that truth and meaning are the same thing.

Semantics is no substitute for logic.

It seems as though you mean non-subjective by objective. If so, drop it because it's a moot point. You can claim nothing is objective, since we all assess life and experience from a subjective perspective - welcome to nihilism.

But should you have thought about this point, or read any number of philosophers who have discussed this issue in detail, you would realize that "objective" does not mean "non-subjective." Rather, "objective" is that which can be assessed as an object from any subject's point-of-view. Hence science is 'objective' as any person can conduct the experiments and receive the same result - that's why we call these results "facts."

Likewise, language is an agreed-upon symbol system which allows us to communicate (just like science is an agreed-upon analytical system which allows us to understand the world). You see the parallel?

It appears as though you do not understand the complexities of linguistics and pragmatics. There is a difference between the sound emitted from my mouth when I say "I"m hungry" and the meaning which those sounds strike in the mind of one who hears my sounds. Meaning is interpersonal.

You claim semantics is no substitute for logic, but you fail to realize that semantics involves logic and is to a large degree fundamental to logic. Perhaps you ought to address more semantics in your claims to logic - it might make them more logical...

- August

[Geno]

So you the only counter to nihilism you can present is that it requires the use of language to express. You are not going to present a laid out arguemnt for the existence of objective truth?

Language has only become homogeneous in modern times, even if I was to accept your rediculous arguement it breaks down when language is not formalized.

[Decolonize The Left]

So you the only counter to nihilism you can present is that it requires the use of language to express. You are not going to present a laid out arguemnt for the existence of objective truth?

Ugh - do you even read what I write? Against nihilism:
1) Collapses under it's own argument, cannot express itself.
2) Collapses due to an over-simplified conceptualization of objective/subjective (upon which the entire theory is based), as well as a posited dichotomy between the two.
3) Ultimately leaves the nihilist unable to act, speak, engage in any sort of relationship, or function in society.

Hence nihilism is pragmatically useless as well as being theoretically unacceptable.


Language has only become homogeneous in modern times, even if I was to accept your rediculous arguement it breaks down
when language is not formalized.

Who said anything about homogenization of language? All I said was that language was an "agreed-upon meaning structure."

And when was language "not formalized?" And what does this mean?

You do not help your own case when you call my arguments "rediculous" and then proceed to offer a 'counter-argument' which is nothing but an unjustified claim.

- August

[Geno]

Ugh - do you even read what I write? Against nihilism:
1) Collapses under it's own argument, cannot express itself.
3) Ultimately leaves the nihilist unable to act, speak, engage in any sort of relationship, or function in society.

Hence nihilism is pragmatically useless as well as being theoretically unacceptable.


1,If nihilism collapses under its own argument, why does it still exist?
3,So what are the people in society who can speak and claim to be nihilists?

We are currently in a nihilist epoch-Postmodernisty.

But I think your phrasing here is crucial to understanding where your coming from

Hence nihilism is pragmatically useless as well as being theoretically unacceptable.

I like it how you don't say illogical, you say theoretically unacceptable. So from a purely logical standpoint you cannot counter nihilism so you merely reject it from the basis of what you find acceptable in your worldview.

You are not proving the existence of objective truth, even though it is the easiet way to rebut nihilism.


Who said anything about homogenization of language? All I said was that language was an "agreed-upon meaning structure."

And when was language "not formalized?" And what does this mean?


You are claiming that language is an objective set of symbol meanings. I am stating that that is not true. There was nothing objective about language before it was written down and given formalized rules. Nothing was agreed upon, nouns varied from region to region even within the relatively small island of Britain.

[Ken]

'evolution through natural selection' is a fact

wrong.

saying this with a Nietzsche quote as your signature really puts a dent in your reputation.

evolution is more philosophically based than nihilism.

evolution is unproven, not backed up by any empirical scientific data, but a paradigm widely believed to be fact, resonated throughout the West since its conception.

nihilism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything is inherently valueless until attributed by human valuation.


I admit that I haven't studied a lot of philosophy, but I have studied evolution very deeply. My question for you who know better than I is:
DOESN'T EVOLUTION PROVE NIHILISM?


have you read much in the few months since starting this thread? i have found nihilism to be incredible to read about and very exciting. as for your question... no. i believe you have it the wrong way around.

nihilism disproves evolution.

by evolution, i am referring to what i perceived you to believe was evolution; natural selection. there is no objective truth, only subjectivity. try reading Twilight Of The Idols by Nietzsche, its awesome.

[Geno]

I believe that the origainal poster was slightly confused by terminology, I think he was more in the thinking the evolution proves existentailism, which is a fairly valid claim.

[Decolonize The Left]

wrong.

Oh yeah? Burden of proof is on your back my friend. Evolution by natural selection is most certainly a fact, it can be observed, repeatedly, by any individual.

So unless you can prove that this is incorrect, you're going to need to change that "wrong" to "I don't believe in evolution, oh, and I have no justification."


saying this with a Nietzsche quote as your signature really puts a dent in your reputation.

I highly doubt this.


evolution is more philosophically based than nihilism.

Not only does this make little sense, given that evolution by natural selection is an observable fact, while nihilism is a way of relating to the world, it's also completely unjustified.


evolution is unproven, not backed up by any empirical scientific data, but a paradigm widely believed to be fact, resonated throughout the West since its conception.

Says "Ken" on revleft... and "Ken" disagrees with a consensus of scientists and professors, namely, those who spend their life studying what "Ken" says isn't true... :lol:


nihilism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything is inherently valueless until attributed by human valuation.

Actually, nihilism is the belief that everything inherently meaningless - it is only by extension valueless.



nihilism disproves evolution.

A fish doesn't have inherent meaning. A fish which has appendages capable of walking on solid ground also doesn't have inherent meaning. The period of time in which those fish with appendages capable of walking on ground navigated and survived, repopulated, and grow appendages more capable of survival upon solid ground also doesn't have inherent meaning...

But wait... that's evolution....:confused::rolleyes:


by evolution, i am referring to what i perceived you to believe was evolution; natural selection. there is no objective truth, only subjectivity. try reading Twilight Of The Idols by Nietzsche, its awesome.

Ugh... you need to read what I wrote about the use of the words "objective" and "truth."

And I've read Twilight of the Idols, and it is awesome - but it seems as though you sorely misunderstood most of it (not uncommon).

- August

[Geno]

Evolution by natural selection is most certainly a fact, it can be observed, repeatedly, by any individual

Adaptaion via natural selection is what your meaning, humans exist on too short a timescale for macro-evolution to be observed.


But what I think the origainal poster was really meaning was

Accepting that life started at random, and evolved to it current state. Is also to accepting existentialism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Adaptaion via natural selection is what your meaning, humans exist on too short a timescale for macro-evolution to be observed.

Really? Evolution:
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." (dictionary.com)
"The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations." (wiktionary.com)

It is entirely possible to observe many, many, many generations of most beings and record the genetic results... hence one can (and many people do) observe evolution...


But what I think the origainal poster was really meaning was

Accepting that life started at random, and evolved to it current state. Is also to accepting existentialism.

But this is not true. "Existentialism" has nothing to do with how life started on our planet, or whether or not one believes in evolution by natural selection - it has everything to do with how one relates to one's own life.

Existentialism deals with existential issues, philosophical, even political issues - evolution by natural selection is a biological fact....

- August