3 ms·

>The trouble with articles like this is they don't explore the other factors. Maybe the simply access to information makes kids more nihilistic. And nihilism is

>The trouble with articles like this is they don't explore the other factors. Maybe the simply access to information makes kids more nihilistic. And nihilism isn't a bad thing. The universe is absurd, we have no meaning except what we give to ourselves (through religion or belief of whatever). Maybe kids are just realizing this, and it has nothing to do with technology? Maybe they're realizing that because of technology. I don't want to just write you off with a snotty, "Rubbish!", but IMHO, yes, this is rubbish. Nihilism is just plain wrong-headed. It's answering, "No" where you should answer, "Mu"[1]. [1] -- http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/mu.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/mu.html

sago 9y ago
I think it is no coincidence that in your final paragraph you don't specify the question. Can you formulate a specific question in such a way that an nihilist might answer "No", but you feel that the correct answer is "Mu"? "What is the meaning of life?" - a nihilist would answer 'mu'. "Is there any intrinsic meaning to life?" - a nihilist would answer 'no', and it seems to me that 'mu' would be an obvious copout. Is your point that the word 'meaning' itself is meaningless?
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >"Is there any intrinsic meaning to life?" - a nihilist would answer 'no', and it seems to me that 'mu' would be an obvious copout. Yes, it does seem to me that "mu" would be a copout. A binary question about a well-specified (you could say, meaningful, ahaha) concept should not be answered with "mu". >Is your point that the word 'meaning' itself is meaningless? No, more that the kind of people who ask "is there a meaning to life?" are underspecifying the word. I think it would be useful to have a companion here to "mu", meaning, "Your question is so vague as to be meaningless." An easy way to see the issue is to ask: what would it be like (whether that's what we really experience or not) for there to definitively be meaning in life? If you can't answer that, can't ground such a basically humanistic question in even potential human experience, then I charge that the question has become meaningless, and should thus be either refined or discarded.

sago 9y ago

I think it is no coincidence that in your final paragraph you don't specify the question. Can you formulate a specific question in such a way that an nihilist might answer "No", but you feel that the correct answer is "Mu"? "What is the meaning of life?" - a nihilist would answer 'mu'. "Is there any intrinsic meaning to life?" - a nihilist would answer 'no', and it seems to me that 'mu' would be an obvious copout. Is your point that the word 'meaning' itself is meaningless?

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>"Is there any intrinsic meaning to life?" - a nihilist would answer 'no', and it seems to me that 'mu' would be an obvious copout. Yes, it does seem to me that "mu" would be a copout. A binary question about a well-specified (you could say, meaningful, ahaha) concept should not be answered with "mu". >Is your point that the word 'meaning' itself is meaningless? No, more that the kind of people who ask "is there a meaning to life?" are underspecifying the word. I think it would be useful to have a companion here to "mu", meaning, "Your question is so vague as to be meaningless." An easy way to see the issue is to ask: what would it be like (whether that's what we really experience or not) for there to definitively be meaning in life? If you can't answer that, can't ground such a basically humanistic question in even potential human experience, then I charge that the question has become meaningless, and should thus be either refined or discarded.