19 ms·

A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

119 points by nickwritesit 3y ago

svieira 3y ago
> Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing Since science† doesn't have anything to say on the subject of purpose (since it's literally meta-physics that speaks on purpose) we're already off the rails. However ... > Few things are meaningful all by themselves; most derive their meaning from the things they point to. Of course, the buck has to stop somewhere, at some source of inherent or axiomatic meaning. This is true of all things that are connected with being/existing (also known as the transcendentals - classically known as "Truth", "Goodness" and "Beauty"). ---- † I presume here the author means "natural philosophy" by "science" not its broader meaning of "knowing" since that would be presuming the consequent.
- nateb2022 3y ago
  Sapienti sat est.
ttctciyf 3y ago
What's next, a solipsist's guide to social interaction?
- RosanaAnaDana 3y ago
  A hedonists guide to temperance.
  - WJW 3y ago
    Epicurus would approve.
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      As would utilitarians, per context anyway.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  This is a new one to me, so forgive me if this is answered, but wouldn’t solipsism require that the individual be able to manipulate their own reality as it posits reality is personal in construction? Similar to a lucid dream state.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    Not really, for all intents and purposes we are a brain in a jar with a bunch of electrodes sending signals.
    - nullindividual 3y ago
      Ok, that perspective makes more sense. Thanks!
adasdasdas 3y ago
Can "nihilists" stop conflating rejecting objective meaning with having no meaning (nihilism).
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  This topic interests me, but I've never really studied it. Would you mind sketching out your take on it?
  - notnaut 3y ago
    The universe has no ethics. Humanity has no ethics inherent, besides that which is directly encoded in our dna. That doesn’t mean it’s not good/useful for people to have ethics. That doesn’t mean it’s not a meaningful pursuit, to people in a context. It’s just that the context holds the value, rather than the thing itself. I think nihilism often goes beyond this though.
  - adasdasdas 3y ago
    It goes back to the answer to the question of, "what is the meaning of life", or its darker brother of a question "why bother living when you can kill yourself and end the suffering". A Christian might respond with, "God tells me to live and spread the gospel, raise children, and feed the needy". A Christian will tell you that this is how you ought to think too because all truth comes from the bible, which is why I call it objective meaning. There is a single source of truth. An atheist might say, "I find meaning through living life, understanding the world, human connection, etc". This person will usually readily admit that what makes them happy might not make you happy. Hence, subjective meaning. A real nihilist in my opinion would probably kill themself because there is not purpose in life. A fake nihilist will say, "I can make sense of my suffering" which makes them not a nihilist because they found meaning.
    - nateb2022 3y ago
      > A Christian will tell you that this is how you ought to think too because all truth comes from the bible, which is why I call it objective meaning. There is a single source of truth. This is a grossly uninformed misrepresentation. Some Protestants do espouse the idea of sola scriptura, however these groups are largely the minority of Christians. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, and Anglicans/Episcopalians vastly outnumber the Lutherans, Pentecostals, Calvinists, and Baptists. Catholic philosophy (Catholicism being the largest Christian group and approximately as large as all the other groups combined[0]) holds that faith and reason are the two pillars by which we can come to know truth. By faith is meant in general the knowledge received through revelation (e.g. the Bible). By reason is meant the workings of the intellectual processes, empirical evidence, and scientific knowledge. Through the working together of faith and reason, we can come to know the fullness of the truth. The Bible is not the sole source of truth to Catholics. See also Fides et ratio by Pope St. John Paul II. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... (data as of 2011) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_ratio
pmarreck 3y ago
> This may be nihilism, but at least it's good-humored. Whiffed on the fact that humor itself here is meaning. Explaining away positive experiences as "illusory" (which is, without evidence that it IS in fact "illusory" instead of just being conjecture based on currently-known facts, simply "gaslighting" to me), is the problem of nihilism (IMHO). Anyone ever consider the odd fact that every nonliving thing in the universe always tends toward higher entropy, but living things take this weird (and unexplained, thus far, to me) detour into lower entropy/higher organization, at least for a time (until death permits entropy to take over again)? That to me is particularly peculiar, and seems to fly in the face of materialist arguments that basically equate life to "non-life, but with more steps".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cosmojg 3y ago
  You reminded me of this old article: "A New Physics Theory of Life" https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o... I've always thought of biological life as being the macroscopic analog of enzymes. We're literally big balls of protein catalyzing reactions and overcoming activation energies to accelerate the heat death of the universe.
- supazek 3y ago
  >living things take this weird detour into lower entropy Take a look at “Into the Cool” by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. It’s about as academic as it can be while remaining accessible. It’s basic premise builds off of the truism that “nature abhors a gradient” and attempts to lay out a theory that the gradient of solar energy falling on the planet (along with a plethora of other rarer factors) generated higher-complexity constructs as a way to absorb and reduce that gradient. There are plenty of non-living phenomena in nature which are subtly very organized but which result in net increases in entropy in the longer term. One of the examples described in the book are a kind of voronoi cell pattern that emerges when heating a thin layer of oil which succeeds in reducing the temperature gradient very effectively. Even if it isn’t a hard hitting proof of the abiogenetic mechanism it is still a very interesting read.
grrdotcloud 3y ago
I am always curious why one continues to believe the beliefs that lead to pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Even if correct is being miserable worth it?
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  It's morally repulsive to me to believe something just because it makes me feel better.
  - z3c0 3y ago
    If it's morally repulsive to do otherwise, wouldn't this stance be for the sake of feeling better? I do agree with you; I just love the barber paradox as well.
    - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
      Good point, I'm basing my rejection on my repulsive feeling. I'm not familiar with philosophy but I'm sure there are philosophers that have built up arguments on why a life based on seeking truth and logic is worthwhile.
  - sezycei 3y ago
    Why?
    - pmarreck 3y ago
      (I wrote this whole comment to you only to find out just now that you deleted the original comment. Sorry, I had to convey it somehow. LOL) I understand your confusion about using "entropy" outside a thermodynamics context, and you're absolutely correct to point out that the term "entropy" originated in the field of thermodynamics. However, the concept has been extended metaphorically in other fields to describe systems of complexity and order. It's in this latter, metaphorical sense that I'm using the term. Now, let's apply this to living systems. Organisms are highly ordered, containing complex structures at various scales from cells to organs. They can maintain and even increase their internal order, or decrease their "entropy," by consuming energy from their environment (like food). This is the "detour into lower entropy" I was talking about. While this seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, remember that organisms are not closed systems – they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment. The increase in order within the organism is more than offset by the increase in disorder in the environment, resulting in an overall increase in entropy in the universe. This is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. What I find fascinating is that life can maintain this high degree of organization for such a long period of time, despite the natural tendency towards disorder. This is not to say that the process is unexplained; science has a lot to say about how this happens, but rather that it's a remarkable (and seemingly unique) characteristic of life. Does this make more sense? I hope this clarifies the concept a bit.
thenerdhead 3y ago
> I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel. This shows when you call both Watts and Vonnegut a nihilist. Absurdism for example is not the same as nihilism.
- loughnane 3y ago
  That quote is weird. In technical fields you wouldn’t read the classic literature (mechanical engineers don’t read Euclid), but there’s no fear of reinventing the wheel since modern books take account of fundamental works; if not by name then for sure in content. I’m surprised how you can get a philosophy degree and then be afraid of “reinventing the wheel”. I suppose the author is self-aware enough to know what he doesn’t know… but still. It’s odd.
  - bamfly 3y ago
    It's more like a math major speculating on some possible route to a proof of a hard problem without having dug specifically into the literature on that problem in particular, such that there's a good chance they're barking up a proven-unproductive tree or ineptly re-discovering something well-known to those who have so-studied.
    - loughnane 3y ago
      Which is a fine thought experiment for a person to go through and at the same time a waste of time for anyone to read. I don’t begrudge the author for writing it, blogging is in large part a “this is what I’m thinking about, take it as you will”, and that’s ok. Just noisy.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    I just don't understand how you can get a philosophy degree without a course on like "Classics of Western Philosophy" or similar. Technical fields have similar fundamental courses...
  - HKH2 3y ago
disadvantage 3y ago
> In lieu of meaning, I mostly adopted the attitude of Alan Watts. Existence, he says, is fundamentally playful. It's less like a journey, and more like a piece of music or a dance. And the point of dancing isn't to arrive at a particular spot on the floor; the point of dancing is simply to dance. Vonnegut expresses a similar sentiment when he says, "We are here on Earth to fart around." Ikigai[0] is worth exploring if you find yourself questioning the grand meaning of things: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai > The Oxford English Dictionary defines ikigai as "a motivating force; something or someone that gives a person a sense of purpose or a reason for living". More generally it may refer to something that brings pleasure or fulfilment.[1] > The term compounds two Japanese words: iki (生き, meaning 'life; alive') and kai (甲斐, meaning '(an) effect; (a) result; (a) fruit; (a) worth; (a) use; (a) benefit; (no, little) avail') (sequentially voiced as gai), to arrive at 'a reason for living [being alive]; a meaning for [to] life; what [something that] makes life worth living; a 'raison d'être'. Personally though I've found the pursuit of this philosophy very hard to integrate into life. It's one of life's hard problems. It means somehow intersecting 'play' with 'work', but as many people say: 'work is something people don't do voluntarily'. Hence its name: 'work', we don't naturally want to do it. But if you can make work as a form of play, you already are living in Ikigai.
- qsantos 3y ago
  There is nothing special about 生きがい (ikigai). It's just Japanese for “reason for living”. There is a wider phenomenon where people attribute deep meaning to mundane Japanese words, such as 改善 (kaizen, improvement), 引きこもり (hikikomori, recluse), or even 看板 (kanban, board). This sounds like a case of exoticism.
- naasking 3y ago
  > It means somehow intersecting 'play' with 'work', but as many people say: 'work is something people don't do voluntarily'. I don't think that's true. Lots of work can be fun and satisfying as well. I think the distinction between work and play is more about purpose. Work has a purpose, a specific goal that we're working towards, and play does not.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
gooseus 3y ago
Long post and having only skimmed it for now, I think I mostly agree... though I don't think I could ever call myself a nihilist. The last section captures what I've tried to say in my own (not currently online) writing on the subject of life, existence, and purpose/meaning. > As far as we know, we and our societies take the prize for being the most complex structures the universe has yet evolved. This is where I end up in a lot of my own musings on the subject. Another point I typically make is that we KNOW that the immense diversity and complexity that exists on Earth will end in the future, unless some intelligence is able to spread life outside of Earth. Personally, I think that one of the most important human activities should be actively trying to seed other nebula, stars, and planets with archaic life, since this increases the overall probability that life will continue to evolve somewhere, even if humans fail to expand beyond Earth. We could be parallelizing the process of life across worlds and creating potential for other interesting life to evolve to solve the unique problems of other parts of the universe. By spreading life from Earth, we also increase the likelihood that future intelligence could find evidence of our (and each others) existence, which would be _very_ interesting (for them), and could help them get through the difficulties we face now. I'm not sure how you resolve the opening of "we're just here to fart around / dance" nihilism with what you mention at the end about how Earth, life, and humans being the most complex and interesting thing going in the universe, but I like the style/format, and I'm definitely going to give this a longer read later. Thanks for sharing!
- verisimi 3y ago
  >> As far as we know, we and our societies take the prize for being the most complex structures the universe has yet evolved. > This is where I end up in a lot of my own musings on the subject. Another point I typically make is that we KNOW that the immense diversity and complexity that exists on Earth will end in the future, unless some intelligence is able to spread life outside of Earth. "Knowing" is NOT a group activity. Either one knows (because one has personally verified whatever-it-is) or one believes/assumes/hypothesises. PS The point of my comment being that if one doesn't understand what "knowing" is, I don't see how it is possible to approach finding "meaning".
  - 3y ago
mensetmanusman 3y ago
"Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" Is this type of misunderstanding of what Science is that common? It's painfully lacking and I can't tell if it is written as sarcasm...
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made
  - tivert 3y ago
    >>> "Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" > Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. No. At worst it's only technically false, but broadly on the right track. If you're a materialist/physicalist; and Science requires you to take that position, at least methodologically; so "it's all just [particles, fields,] and the void."
    - 1970-01-01 3y ago
      I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically
      - interhater 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - tivert 3y ago
        > I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? There are. You're going to have to look at it from the perspective of colloquial shades of meaning. I thought the meaning was pretty obvious, so I'm not going to spend much effort to explain it, but "technically" carries connotations of "insignificant."
jmdeon 3y ago
I believe this is existentialism, not nihilism. They both start from the premise that the universe is inherently meaningless, but in existentialism you can create meaning while in nihilism you cannot.
- fellowniusmonk 3y ago
  I'm an inverted existentialist and a post-nihilist. My explanation may be a little silly to read. Existential dread is a weird psychological state for people who need the psychological comfort of ultimate or external meaning, it starts with laying awake at night telling yourself "things matter" and hearing that quiet rebuttal. "What if nothing matters". Pulling that thread organically leads people to existentialism, they are raised to insist that life "must have meaning", and then reject it. Existentialism is for people who were inculcated with some permutation of "god", just world phallacies, ultimate meaning, and/or a belief in a "sensible" reality and found the obvious holes. And just like nearly any position there are strong existentialist and weak existentialist If you are born dead, if you know nothing matters, you don't lay awake at night, you just avoid going to bed at night because "nothing matters"... and if this is really your deep down than your existential thought becomes inverted. "What if everything really does matter." And then you spend the rest of your life trying to push discovery and research forward. Existential dread turns into a sort of existential hope and nihilism and the most common expressions of existentialism appears to come from an arrogant place of certainty, or an emphatic wish fullfillment, or a cocksure defeatist state. I'm just one person, I know some things but there is far more I don't know than do... so.. what if it does matters? Pushing humanity's bounds of knowledge and having a thriving, dynamic society that can prosper and fund the pursuit of that question is perhaps the only important thing.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    > Pushing humanity's bounds of knowledge and having a thriving, dynamic society that can prosper and fund the pursuit of that question is perhaps the only important thing. I love your view, and how you described it helped me think. I've learned a lot thanks to everything that's available online and I know a lot now, but there's still so much I don't know that I want to share and improve knowledge It's both for myself and others, and I don't need much more meaning in life than this!
abdulhaq 3y ago
For a nihilist this feels like a lot of verbiage about meaning
c-hendricks 3y ago
> Nor was I satisfied with the obligatory secular follow-up, that you have to "make your own meaning." > ... > I mostly adopted the attitude of ... existence is fundamentally playful. Sounds like you've made your own meaning! > This may be nihilism It's not. Literally, nihilism ends at "life / existence has no meaning". Trying to put a positive or negative spin on it takes it away from nihilism. Or, positive nihilism is closer to Hedonism, and negative nihilism is curmudgeonisn. I think I hate philosophy.
- more_corn 3y ago
  I disagree with this definition of nihilism.
  - c-hendricks 3y ago
    Howso? Not attacking, curious what your definition of nihilism is. I don't know the proper term, but nihilism, as a word, stops itself short. I almost think "nihilists" are like centrists, they need to shit or get off the pot
- ryanklee 3y ago
  There is a whole strain of nihilism called positive nihilism initiated (explicitly) by Nietzsche.
  - c-hendricks 3y ago
    "However, Nietzsche thought of nihilism as a disease, calling it ‘pathological.’ He argued that we should strive to rid ourselves of it." So if Nietzsche argued we should use "positive" (/active) adjective to rid ourselves of nihilism, wouldn't that mean that putting a positive spin on it removes the nihilism?
photochemsyn 3y ago
Logic is a convenient tool, and it underpins mathematical reasoning and thus all mechanistic explanations of the universe. This does seem to imply a lack of meaning due to predetermination if we follow Descartes... but that's all fallen down due to all sorts of revelations, including quantum indeterminancy, special and general relativity, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the world of physics, and incompleteness (Godel) and undecidability (Church-Turing) in the mathematical world. Mathematics is now like a castle floating in the sky, holding itself up by its own bootstraps, and physics is as much probability as it is predictability. We can go to great efforts to create systems that provide the illusion of predictable, logical behavior (e.g. computers), but cosmic rays still flip bits occasionally. I've adopted this viewpoint as a result: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." - Frank Herbert, Dune
dang 3y ago
Discussed at the time (of the article): A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078784 - July 2016 (249 comments)
JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
Everybody in this thread better forget all this BS if they want a shot at happiness and satisfaction. Go lift weights and stop living inside your head, we were never made to be so comfortable to have time to ponder these concepts
- ryanklee 3y ago
  It's important to touch grass, yes, but dismissing the project of figuring this stuff out is unwise. There is a reason that these problems keep coming up for people, and it's not because they aren't hitting the gym enough.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    It's because people are too comfortable, we evolved to think about the next 24 hours, not the next 24 billion years. If you didn't do the former you'd literally die, now that's not true anymore, but it doesn't mean that we are equipped to do the latter, and in fact those who try always end up with a huge burden of anxiety and unhappiness. The same mental energies should be focused back again on the next 24 hours. We are not at risk of death in the next 24 hours anymore, but we should be able to find the subtle differences that make our day better. A better brand of coffee, exercise, walking the dog, talk to strangers, join a club or a sports team etc. It's not that grandiose compared to discovering the true nature of reality or the writing the "guide to meaning" (whatever the fuck that means) , but at least it's real, actionable and doable, NOW!
jononomo 3y ago
"Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing; the kind of meaning most people yearn for — Ultimate Meaning — simply doesn't exist." Sheesh, what kind of BS science did this guy get taught? Science discovered the Big Bang, which is essentially a proof of God's existence, and the more science we do around the molecular biology and the origin of life the more obvious it becomes that life was intelligently designed. At this point the existence of life can be considered a definitive proof of the existence of God. This guy got a second-rate science education for sure.
- nurettin 3y ago
  "Big bang cosmology proves (my particular brand of) The Almighty God" is what is known in the academia as "Facebook science". It may sound great, it may conform to your beliefs, it may be satisfying to say, and feel just right. But I'd imagine out of the thousands upon thousands of papers published on the topic of big bang cosmology, there would be just one which says "oh and by the way this is definitive proof that a God exists". And none do.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    You do realize why the term "The Big Bang" was coined, right?
    - nurettin 3y ago
      Yes, Fred Hoyle was making fun of the concept on a radio show.
      - jononomo 3y ago
        Why was he making fun of it?
        nurettin 3y ago
        I think he was satirizing the public understanding of the theory where people think the universe just magically popped into existence.
Aerbil313 3y ago
How ironic. People (excerpt from article) "from an early age learn to accept the basic meaninglessness of the universe" then go on to write an article titled A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning. All of science is based upon human intuition axioms, yet people reject some human intuitions and accept others so stubbornly. A video which discusses this among other things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNlEtBZxML8&list=PLcnL9bB-q3ymnRNcpZGcVVjiDOy-ocjp9&index=2&pp=iAQB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNlEtBZxML8&list=PLcnL9bB-q3...
reliablereason 3y ago
Very few words about meaning as i would define it, but lots of words about things in life that have emotional value. Meaning as would define it is this: "The purpose or a description of something (as described within some context)/(in relationship to some model)." A core difference between my view and the authors view seams to be that the author somehow starts with the premise that the sentence "what is the meaning of life?" is somehow a valid question. With that as a start the author manufactures a context around the question that answers the question, by doing that the author reframes the question in to a new question that can be answered. The new question is however not the same question as the original one and the answer is thus not the answer to the original question. The original question lacks a context and is thus an invalid question, invalid questions can not be answered(only reframed, then answered).
jeffrallen 3y ago
> Deep down, maybe I still yearn for more than dancing and farting. Got me to smile with that, thanks.
pcwelder 3y ago
> Supposing there's no ultimate, objective, metaphysical thing called meaning I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves. For one thing, we can objectively discard some types of utility functions, for example, the utility functions that have arbitrary discontinuity in time. One also might argue, for example, that utility functions should be approximately constant at time scales much smaller than our perception. If no single utility function, we can at least objectively find a class of utility functions (or purpose).
- gxs 3y ago
  >> I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves. Ah, I love HN for these types of comments - I’m not even being facetious here. The author casually dismisses the idea that you make/find your own meaning, then spends the rest of the article doing exactly that. He’s trying to find an explanation for the general case, yet in the end it will be his own personal opinion explanation. Interesting article, nonetheless.
mawadev 3y ago
Absurdism > Nihilism
nkingsy 3y ago
I should have stopped at the beginning like the author recommended. I wholeheartedly agree with "play" as the central element. And by play I mean to fully engage and enjoy the activity at hand. To be detached enough to stop and take stock of what's going on, to poke at things and see what happens, to care nothing for "time invested" because you know you enjoyed that time and will enjoy your time spent digging back in the other direction. It is so so easy to lose that playful approach. Thousands of times per day I find myself drifting into attachment and boredom and some days I start there and never get out. It think this is probably the real benefit of meditation: building muscles to redirect yourself back to playful detachment. Maybe tomorrow I'll start a practice.
ta20220714 3y ago
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis
beltsazar 3y ago
If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. That also means that there's no good or bad. There are only what traits are advantageous to survival and what traits aren't. For example, being trustworthy is "good" because trust within a group is a prerequisite for achieving a relatively advanced society like Homo Sapiens has built. Breaking into someone's house is "bad" because otherwise we would only be as advanced as other primates that take each other's territories all the time. But when you think about it, there are "good" things that aren't advantageous (or even are harmful) to survival, and there are things advantageous to survival that are considered "bad" by most people. Many examples would be highly controversial, so I'd pick a less controversial example, but probably not the best one: eugenics. So, how exactly do we know which is good, which is bad? Is there even an objective good or bad without invoking the idea that some higher beings say so?
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?
  - kogus 3y ago
    As it says: It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything. As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I'm an agnostic (absolute, textbook definition) but I disagree. As a human with consciousness and free will (whether that's an "illusion" doesn't make a difference from where I'm standing), I define meaning in my life. Not all consciously, but I have thoughts and desires. If it'll all be irrelevant when I die, why should I care? I'm not dead yet. If there is no afterlife, I won't be around to care. If there is, I'll figure it out on the fly.
catsarebetter 3y ago
I've found that the antidote to pessimistic nihilism is optimistic nihilism. Going from the "world has no meaning, why do anything" (perhaps existentialist) to meaning the "world has no meaning, why don't I just do a bunch of things?" is a reasonable leap. The antidote to nihilism itself could be to accept lack of free will. Accepting lack of free will means that you get to enjoy the passage of time. Jimmy Carr said this and I really like it. Relinquishing control in a way that you allow your nature and your perception of the world to unravel itself to you. Ironically it makes the journey so much more beautiful.
- shrimpx 3y ago
  This reminds me of Dostoevsky's saying "God is dead, therefore everything is permitted".
  - vacuity 3y ago
    This whole thread seems ridiculous to me. It just looks like "people needlessly complicating how they think about life". Why do you have to permit yourself to do anything? At least appealing to a higher power justifies why you would feel restricted. Nihilism just isn't for me, I guess.
    - shrimpx 3y ago
      Things being "permitted" wouldn't occur to someone born recently in a secular context. This is a historical artifact in relation to the 1700+ year grip that Christianity had on people's minds.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        I suppose so, but nihilism doesn't seem to mesh with religion anyways.
        shrimpx 3y ago
        As far as I understand, nihilism and existentialism were both reactions to the "death of religion". Nihilism concludes that everything is devoid of meaning. Existentialism concludes basically the same thing, but then is like "so let's go be ourselves and have fun, find ways to enjoy life" basically. I think this is where the "is permitted" part comes in. But anyway nihilism is related to religion in the sense that it's a reaction to the end of religion.
regus 3y ago
I have often heard people say things like "I don't believe the universe or our lives have any meaning, so I choose to make my own meaning." If the universe is meaningless, and all the things in it are equally meaningless (ourselves included). How is it possible to create meaning? How can a meaningless thing or action within a meaningless system have any meaning? I guess we could just declare that this thing has meaning, but isn't this just a delusion? Like thinking 0 + 0 = 1?
- vacuity 3y ago
  > If the universe is meaningless, and all the things in it are equally meaningless (ourselves included) That is an assumption in itself. No one is obligated to act under that premise. > How is it possible to create meaning? I guess we could just declare that this thing has meaning, but isn't this just a delusion? Like thinking 0 + 0 = 1? We perceive meaning all the time. This thread came to be because many people hold some meaning or another to the topic, the thought of discussing it, or something else along those lines. There is no reasoning to this phenomenon. It is not even an axiom, something taken to be true and not provable (or disprovable). If we didn't ascribe meaning to things then this conversation wouldn't be happening. I don't live in a world without meaning because I just don't. I couldn't imitate a bacterium if I wanted to. Now it's just a matter of whether I find it permissible for me to act on personal desires.
  - nateb2022 3y ago
    > That is an assumption in itself. No one is obligated to act under that premise. No, it is not. By definition, "[t]he universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist."[0] If we hold that everything is without meaning, we cannot hold that anything has meaning. It would be a contradiction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Even if the universe is all of existence, that the universe holds no meaning is an axiom. If that means that I can't hold anything to a meaning, I reject that axiom because I do hold things to have meaning. I'm not mindlessly typing out this reply; I have thoughts about philosophy that I think to present. I at least hold meaning for studying philosophy and participating in a discussion about philosophy.
grog454 3y ago
I think the purpose of life is clearly demonstrated by what it does all the time: resist and reverse entropy.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  Locally perhaps, but when a lake freezes it also reduces its local entropy. Does that also count as purpose?
asdf6677 3y ago
The meaning of life is to entertain Mr. God.

119 points by nickwritesit 3y ago

> Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing Since science† doesn't have anything to say on the subject of purpose (since it's literally meta-physics that speaks on purpose) we're already off the rails. However ... > Few things are meaningful all by themselves; most derive their meaning from the things they point to. Of course, the buck has to stop somewhere, at some source of inherent or axiomatic meaning. This is true of all things that are connected with being/existing (also known as the transcendentals - classically known as "Truth", "Goodness" and "Beauty"). ---- † I presume here the author means "natural philosophy" by "science" not its broader meaning of "knowing" since that would be presuming the consequent.

nateb2022 3y ago
Sapienti sat est.

ttctciyf 3y ago

What's next, a solipsist's guide to social interaction?

RosanaAnaDana 3y ago
A hedonists guide to temperance.
- WJW 3y ago
  Epicurus would approve.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    As would utilitarians, per context anyway.
nullindividual 3y ago
This is a new one to me, so forgive me if this is answered, but wouldn’t solipsism require that the individual be able to manipulate their own reality as it posits reality is personal in construction? Similar to a lucid dream state.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Not really, for all intents and purposes we are a brain in a jar with a bunch of electrodes sending signals.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Ok, that perspective makes more sense. Thanks!

adasdasdas 3y ago

Can "nihilists" stop conflating rejecting objective meaning with having no meaning (nihilism).

CoastalCoder 3y ago
This topic interests me, but I've never really studied it. Would you mind sketching out your take on it?
- notnaut 3y ago
  The universe has no ethics. Humanity has no ethics inherent, besides that which is directly encoded in our dna. That doesn’t mean it’s not good/useful for people to have ethics. That doesn’t mean it’s not a meaningful pursuit, to people in a context. It’s just that the context holds the value, rather than the thing itself. I think nihilism often goes beyond this though.
- adasdasdas 3y ago
  It goes back to the answer to the question of, "what is the meaning of life", or its darker brother of a question "why bother living when you can kill yourself and end the suffering". A Christian might respond with, "God tells me to live and spread the gospel, raise children, and feed the needy". A Christian will tell you that this is how you ought to think too because all truth comes from the bible, which is why I call it objective meaning. There is a single source of truth. An atheist might say, "I find meaning through living life, understanding the world, human connection, etc". This person will usually readily admit that what makes them happy might not make you happy. Hence, subjective meaning. A real nihilist in my opinion would probably kill themself because there is not purpose in life. A fake nihilist will say, "I can make sense of my suffering" which makes them not a nihilist because they found meaning.
  - nateb2022 3y ago
    > A Christian will tell you that this is how you ought to think too because all truth comes from the bible, which is why I call it objective meaning. There is a single source of truth. This is a grossly uninformed misrepresentation. Some Protestants do espouse the idea of sola scriptura, however these groups are largely the minority of Christians. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, and Anglicans/Episcopalians vastly outnumber the Lutherans, Pentecostals, Calvinists, and Baptists. Catholic philosophy (Catholicism being the largest Christian group and approximately as large as all the other groups combined[0]) holds that faith and reason are the two pillars by which we can come to know truth. By faith is meant in general the knowledge received through revelation (e.g. the Bible). By reason is meant the workings of the intellectual processes, empirical evidence, and scientific knowledge. Through the working together of faith and reason, we can come to know the fullness of the truth. The Bible is not the sole source of truth to Catholics. See also Fides et ratio by Pope St. John Paul II. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... (data as of 2011) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_ratio

pmarreck 3y ago

> This may be nihilism, but at least it's good-humored. Whiffed on the fact that humor itself here is meaning. Explaining away positive experiences as "illusory" (which is, without evidence that it IS in fact "illusory" instead of just being conjecture based on currently-known facts, simply "gaslighting" to me), is the problem of nihilism (IMHO). Anyone ever consider the odd fact that every nonliving thing in the universe always tends toward higher entropy, but living things take this weird (and unexplained, thus far, to me) detour into lower entropy/higher organization, at least for a time (until death permits entropy to take over again)? That to me is particularly peculiar, and seems to fly in the face of materialist arguments that basically equate life to "non-life, but with more steps".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cosmojg 3y ago
You reminded me of this old article: "A New Physics Theory of Life" https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o... I've always thought of biological life as being the macroscopic analog of enzymes. We're literally big balls of protein catalyzing reactions and overcoming activation energies to accelerate the heat death of the universe.
supazek 3y ago
>living things take this weird detour into lower entropy Take a look at “Into the Cool” by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. It’s about as academic as it can be while remaining accessible. It’s basic premise builds off of the truism that “nature abhors a gradient” and attempts to lay out a theory that the gradient of solar energy falling on the planet (along with a plethora of other rarer factors) generated higher-complexity constructs as a way to absorb and reduce that gradient. There are plenty of non-living phenomena in nature which are subtly very organized but which result in net increases in entropy in the longer term. One of the examples described in the book are a kind of voronoi cell pattern that emerges when heating a thin layer of oil which succeeds in reducing the temperature gradient very effectively. Even if it isn’t a hard hitting proof of the abiogenetic mechanism it is still a very interesting read.

grrdotcloud 3y ago

I am always curious why one continues to believe the beliefs that lead to pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Even if correct is being miserable worth it?

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
It's morally repulsive to me to believe something just because it makes me feel better.
- z3c0 3y ago
  If it's morally repulsive to do otherwise, wouldn't this stance be for the sake of feeling better? I do agree with you; I just love the barber paradox as well.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    Good point, I'm basing my rejection on my repulsive feeling. I'm not familiar with philosophy but I'm sure there are philosophers that have built up arguments on why a life based on seeking truth and logic is worthwhile.
- sezycei 3y ago
  Why?
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    (I wrote this whole comment to you only to find out just now that you deleted the original comment. Sorry, I had to convey it somehow. LOL) I understand your confusion about using "entropy" outside a thermodynamics context, and you're absolutely correct to point out that the term "entropy" originated in the field of thermodynamics. However, the concept has been extended metaphorically in other fields to describe systems of complexity and order. It's in this latter, metaphorical sense that I'm using the term. Now, let's apply this to living systems. Organisms are highly ordered, containing complex structures at various scales from cells to organs. They can maintain and even increase their internal order, or decrease their "entropy," by consuming energy from their environment (like food). This is the "detour into lower entropy" I was talking about. While this seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, remember that organisms are not closed systems – they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment. The increase in order within the organism is more than offset by the increase in disorder in the environment, resulting in an overall increase in entropy in the universe. This is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. What I find fascinating is that life can maintain this high degree of organization for such a long period of time, despite the natural tendency towards disorder. This is not to say that the process is unexplained; science has a lot to say about how this happens, but rather that it's a remarkable (and seemingly unique) characteristic of life. Does this make more sense? I hope this clarifies the concept a bit.

thenerdhead 3y ago

> I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel. This shows when you call both Watts and Vonnegut a nihilist. Absurdism for example is not the same as nihilism.

loughnane 3y ago
That quote is weird. In technical fields you wouldn’t read the classic literature (mechanical engineers don’t read Euclid), but there’s no fear of reinventing the wheel since modern books take account of fundamental works; if not by name then for sure in content. I’m surprised how you can get a philosophy degree and then be afraid of “reinventing the wheel”. I suppose the author is self-aware enough to know what he doesn’t know… but still. It’s odd.
- bamfly 3y ago
  It's more like a math major speculating on some possible route to a proof of a hard problem without having dug specifically into the literature on that problem in particular, such that there's a good chance they're barking up a proven-unproductive tree or ineptly re-discovering something well-known to those who have so-studied.
  - loughnane 3y ago
    Which is a fine thought experiment for a person to go through and at the same time a waste of time for anyone to read. I don’t begrudge the author for writing it, blogging is in large part a “this is what I’m thinking about, take it as you will”, and that’s ok. Just noisy.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  I just don't understand how you can get a philosophy degree without a course on like "Classics of Western Philosophy" or similar. Technical fields have similar fundamental courses...
- HKH2 3y ago

disadvantage 3y ago

> In lieu of meaning, I mostly adopted the attitude of Alan Watts. Existence, he says, is fundamentally playful. It's less like a journey, and more like a piece of music or a dance. And the point of dancing isn't to arrive at a particular spot on the floor; the point of dancing is simply to dance. Vonnegut expresses a similar sentiment when he says, "We are here on Earth to fart around." Ikigai[0] is worth exploring if you find yourself questioning the grand meaning of things: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai > The Oxford English Dictionary defines ikigai as "a motivating force; something or someone that gives a person a sense of purpose or a reason for living". More generally it may refer to something that brings pleasure or fulfilment.[1] > The term compounds two Japanese words: iki (生き, meaning 'life; alive') and kai (甲斐, meaning '(an) effect; (a) result; (a) fruit; (a) worth; (a) use; (a) benefit; (no, little) avail') (sequentially voiced as gai), to arrive at 'a reason for living [being alive]; a meaning for [to] life; what [something that] makes life worth living; a 'raison d'être'. Personally though I've found the pursuit of this philosophy very hard to integrate into life. It's one of life's hard problems. It means somehow intersecting 'play' with 'work', but as many people say: 'work is something people don't do voluntarily'. Hence its name: 'work', we don't naturally want to do it. But if you can make work as a form of play, you already are living in Ikigai.

qsantos 3y ago
There is nothing special about 生きがい (ikigai). It's just Japanese for “reason for living”. There is a wider phenomenon where people attribute deep meaning to mundane Japanese words, such as 改善 (kaizen, improvement), 引きこもり (hikikomori, recluse), or even 看板 (kanban, board). This sounds like a case of exoticism.
naasking 3y ago
> It means somehow intersecting 'play' with 'work', but as many people say: 'work is something people don't do voluntarily'. I don't think that's true. Lots of work can be fun and satisfying as well. I think the distinction between work and play is more about purpose. Work has a purpose, a specific goal that we're working towards, and play does not.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago

gooseus 3y ago

Long post and having only skimmed it for now, I think I mostly agree... though I don't think I could ever call myself a nihilist. The last section captures what I've tried to say in my own (not currently online) writing on the subject of life, existence, and purpose/meaning. > As far as we know, we and our societies take the prize for being the most complex structures the universe has yet evolved. This is where I end up in a lot of my own musings on the subject. Another point I typically make is that we KNOW that the immense diversity and complexity that exists on Earth will end in the future, unless some intelligence is able to spread life outside of Earth. Personally, I think that one of the most important human activities should be actively trying to seed other nebula, stars, and planets with archaic life, since this increases the overall probability that life will continue to evolve somewhere, even if humans fail to expand beyond Earth. We could be parallelizing the process of life across worlds and creating potential for other interesting life to evolve to solve the unique problems of other parts of the universe. By spreading life from Earth, we also increase the likelihood that future intelligence could find evidence of our (and each others) existence, which would be _very_ interesting (for them), and could help them get through the difficulties we face now. I'm not sure how you resolve the opening of "we're just here to fart around / dance" nihilism with what you mention at the end about how Earth, life, and humans being the most complex and interesting thing going in the universe, but I like the style/format, and I'm definitely going to give this a longer read later. Thanks for sharing!

verisimi 3y ago
>> As far as we know, we and our societies take the prize for being the most complex structures the universe has yet evolved. > This is where I end up in a lot of my own musings on the subject. Another point I typically make is that we KNOW that the immense diversity and complexity that exists on Earth will end in the future, unless some intelligence is able to spread life outside of Earth. "Knowing" is NOT a group activity. Either one knows (because one has personally verified whatever-it-is) or one believes/assumes/hypothesises. PS The point of my comment being that if one doesn't understand what "knowing" is, I don't see how it is possible to approach finding "meaning".
- 3y ago

mensetmanusman 3y ago

"Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" Is this type of misunderstanding of what Science is that common? It's painfully lacking and I can't tell if it is written as sarcasm...

1970-01-01 3y ago
Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made
- tivert 3y ago
  >>> "Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing" > Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know. No. At worst it's only technically false, but broadly on the right track. If you're a materialist/physicalist; and Science requires you to take that position, at least methodologically; so "it's all just [particles, fields,] and the void."
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically https://wikidiff.com/literally/technically
    - interhater 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - tivert 3y ago
      > I don't understand that. Are there any differences when used here, in this context? There are. You're going to have to look at it from the perspective of colloquial shades of meaning. I thought the meaning was pretty obvious, so I'm not going to spend much effort to explain it, but "technically" carries connotations of "insignificant."

jmdeon 3y ago

I believe this is existentialism, not nihilism. They both start from the premise that the universe is inherently meaningless, but in existentialism you can create meaning while in nihilism you cannot.

fellowniusmonk 3y ago
I'm an inverted existentialist and a post-nihilist. My explanation may be a little silly to read. Existential dread is a weird psychological state for people who need the psychological comfort of ultimate or external meaning, it starts with laying awake at night telling yourself "things matter" and hearing that quiet rebuttal. "What if nothing matters". Pulling that thread organically leads people to existentialism, they are raised to insist that life "must have meaning", and then reject it. Existentialism is for people who were inculcated with some permutation of "god", just world phallacies, ultimate meaning, and/or a belief in a "sensible" reality and found the obvious holes. And just like nearly any position there are strong existentialist and weak existentialist If you are born dead, if you know nothing matters, you don't lay awake at night, you just avoid going to bed at night because "nothing matters"... and if this is really your deep down than your existential thought becomes inverted. "What if everything really does matter." And then you spend the rest of your life trying to push discovery and research forward. Existential dread turns into a sort of existential hope and nihilism and the most common expressions of existentialism appears to come from an arrogant place of certainty, or an emphatic wish fullfillment, or a cocksure defeatist state. I'm just one person, I know some things but there is far more I don't know than do... so.. what if it does matters? Pushing humanity's bounds of knowledge and having a thriving, dynamic society that can prosper and fund the pursuit of that question is perhaps the only important thing.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > Pushing humanity's bounds of knowledge and having a thriving, dynamic society that can prosper and fund the pursuit of that question is perhaps the only important thing. I love your view, and how you described it helped me think. I've learned a lot thanks to everything that's available online and I know a lot now, but there's still so much I don't know that I want to share and improve knowledge It's both for myself and others, and I don't need much more meaning in life than this!

abdulhaq 3y ago

For a nihilist this feels like a lot of verbiage about meaning

c-hendricks 3y ago

> Nor was I satisfied with the obligatory secular follow-up, that you have to "make your own meaning." > ... > I mostly adopted the attitude of ... existence is fundamentally playful. Sounds like you've made your own meaning! > This may be nihilism It's not. Literally, nihilism ends at "life / existence has no meaning". Trying to put a positive or negative spin on it takes it away from nihilism. Or, positive nihilism is closer to Hedonism, and negative nihilism is curmudgeonisn. I think I hate philosophy.

more_corn 3y ago
I disagree with this definition of nihilism.
- c-hendricks 3y ago
  Howso? Not attacking, curious what your definition of nihilism is. I don't know the proper term, but nihilism, as a word, stops itself short. I almost think "nihilists" are like centrists, they need to shit or get off the pot
ryanklee 3y ago
There is a whole strain of nihilism called positive nihilism initiated (explicitly) by Nietzsche.
- c-hendricks 3y ago
  "However, Nietzsche thought of nihilism as a disease, calling it ‘pathological.’ He argued that we should strive to rid ourselves of it." So if Nietzsche argued we should use "positive" (/active) adjective to rid ourselves of nihilism, wouldn't that mean that putting a positive spin on it removes the nihilism?

photochemsyn 3y ago

Logic is a convenient tool, and it underpins mathematical reasoning and thus all mechanistic explanations of the universe. This does seem to imply a lack of meaning due to predetermination if we follow Descartes... but that's all fallen down due to all sorts of revelations, including quantum indeterminancy, special and general relativity, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the world of physics, and incompleteness (Godel) and undecidability (Church-Turing) in the mathematical world. Mathematics is now like a castle floating in the sky, holding itself up by its own bootstraps, and physics is as much probability as it is predictability. We can go to great efforts to create systems that provide the illusion of predictable, logical behavior (e.g. computers), but cosmic rays still flip bits occasionally. I've adopted this viewpoint as a result: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." - Frank Herbert, Dune

dang 3y ago

Discussed at the time (of the article): A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078784 - July 2016 (249 comments)

JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago

Everybody in this thread better forget all this BS if they want a shot at happiness and satisfaction. Go lift weights and stop living inside your head, we were never made to be so comfortable to have time to ponder these concepts

ryanklee 3y ago
It's important to touch grass, yes, but dismissing the project of figuring this stuff out is unwise. There is a reason that these problems keep coming up for people, and it's not because they aren't hitting the gym enough.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  It's because people are too comfortable, we evolved to think about the next 24 hours, not the next 24 billion years. If you didn't do the former you'd literally die, now that's not true anymore, but it doesn't mean that we are equipped to do the latter, and in fact those who try always end up with a huge burden of anxiety and unhappiness. The same mental energies should be focused back again on the next 24 hours. We are not at risk of death in the next 24 hours anymore, but we should be able to find the subtle differences that make our day better. A better brand of coffee, exercise, walking the dog, talk to strangers, join a club or a sports team etc. It's not that grandiose compared to discovering the true nature of reality or the writing the "guide to meaning" (whatever the fuck that means) , but at least it's real, actionable and doable, NOW!

jononomo 3y ago

"Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing; the kind of meaning most people yearn for — Ultimate Meaning — simply doesn't exist." Sheesh, what kind of BS science did this guy get taught? Science discovered the Big Bang, which is essentially a proof of God's existence, and the more science we do around the molecular biology and the origin of life the more obvious it becomes that life was intelligently designed. At this point the existence of life can be considered a definitive proof of the existence of God. This guy got a second-rate science education for sure.

nurettin 3y ago
"Big bang cosmology proves (my particular brand of) The Almighty God" is what is known in the academia as "Facebook science". It may sound great, it may conform to your beliefs, it may be satisfying to say, and feel just right. But I'd imagine out of the thousands upon thousands of papers published on the topic of big bang cosmology, there would be just one which says "oh and by the way this is definitive proof that a God exists". And none do.
- jononomo 3y ago
  You do realize why the term "The Big Bang" was coined, right?
  - nurettin 3y ago
    Yes, Fred Hoyle was making fun of the concept on a radio show.
    - jononomo 3y ago
      Why was he making fun of it?
      - nurettin 3y ago
        I think he was satirizing the public understanding of the theory where people think the universe just magically popped into existence.

Aerbil313 3y ago

How ironic. People (excerpt from article) "from an early age learn to accept the basic meaninglessness of the universe" then go on to write an article titled A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning. All of science is based upon human intuition axioms, yet people reject some human intuitions and accept others so stubbornly. A video which discusses this among other things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNlEtBZxML8&list=PLcnL9bB-q3ymnRNcpZGcVVjiDOy-ocjp9&index=2&pp=iAQB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNlEtBZxML8&list=PLcnL9bB-q3...

reliablereason 3y ago

Very few words about meaning as i would define it, but lots of words about things in life that have emotional value. Meaning as would define it is this: "The purpose or a description of something (as described within some context)/(in relationship to some model)." A core difference between my view and the authors view seams to be that the author somehow starts with the premise that the sentence "what is the meaning of life?" is somehow a valid question. With that as a start the author manufactures a context around the question that answers the question, by doing that the author reframes the question in to a new question that can be answered. The new question is however not the same question as the original one and the answer is thus not the answer to the original question. The original question lacks a context and is thus an invalid question, invalid questions can not be answered(only reframed, then answered).

jeffrallen 3y ago

> Deep down, maybe I still yearn for more than dancing and farting. Got me to smile with that, thanks.

pcwelder 3y ago

> Supposing there's no ultimate, objective, metaphysical thing called meaning I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves. For one thing, we can objectively discard some types of utility functions, for example, the utility functions that have arbitrary discontinuity in time. One also might argue, for example, that utility functions should be approximately constant at time scales much smaller than our perception. If no single utility function, we can at least objectively find a class of utility functions (or purpose).

gxs 3y ago
>> I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves. Ah, I love HN for these types of comments - I’m not even being facetious here. The author casually dismisses the idea that you make/find your own meaning, then spends the rest of the article doing exactly that. He’s trying to find an explanation for the general case, yet in the end it will be his own personal opinion explanation. Interesting article, nonetheless.

mawadev 3y ago

Absurdism > Nihilism

nkingsy 3y ago

I should have stopped at the beginning like the author recommended. I wholeheartedly agree with "play" as the central element. And by play I mean to fully engage and enjoy the activity at hand. To be detached enough to stop and take stock of what's going on, to poke at things and see what happens, to care nothing for "time invested" because you know you enjoyed that time and will enjoy your time spent digging back in the other direction. It is so so easy to lose that playful approach. Thousands of times per day I find myself drifting into attachment and boredom and some days I start there and never get out. It think this is probably the real benefit of meditation: building muscles to redirect yourself back to playful detachment. Maybe tomorrow I'll start a practice.

ta20220714 3y ago

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis

beltsazar 3y ago

If physicalism were true, and abiogenesis happened without any intervention of "higher being"(s), and Darwinism were correct; then life wouldn't be meaningless. Neither would its purpose be determined by each individual. Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. That also means that there's no good or bad. There are only what traits are advantageous to survival and what traits aren't. For example, being trustworthy is "good" because trust within a group is a prerequisite for achieving a relatively advanced society like Homo Sapiens has built. Breaking into someone's house is "bad" because otherwise we would only be as advanced as other primates that take each other's territories all the time. But when you think about it, there are "good" things that aren't advantageous (or even are harmful) to survival, and there are things advantageous to survival that are considered "bad" by most people. Many examples would be highly controversial, so I'd pick a less controversial example, but probably not the best one: eugenics. So, how exactly do we know which is good, which is bad? Is there even an objective good or bad without invoking the idea that some higher beings say so?

andrewjl 3y ago
> Life would have exactly two objective purposes: to survive and to reproduce. Why does abiogenesis and Darwinism being correct lead to those two being the objective purposes for humans?
- kogus 3y ago
  As it says: It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live. Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything. As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I'm an agnostic (absolute, textbook definition) but I disagree. As a human with consciousness and free will (whether that's an "illusion" doesn't make a difference from where I'm standing), I define meaning in my life. Not all consciously, but I have thoughts and desires. If it'll all be irrelevant when I die, why should I care? I'm not dead yet. If there is no afterlife, I won't be around to care. If there is, I'll figure it out on the fly.

catsarebetter 3y ago

I've found that the antidote to pessimistic nihilism is optimistic nihilism. Going from the "world has no meaning, why do anything" (perhaps existentialist) to meaning the "world has no meaning, why don't I just do a bunch of things?" is a reasonable leap. The antidote to nihilism itself could be to accept lack of free will. Accepting lack of free will means that you get to enjoy the passage of time. Jimmy Carr said this and I really like it. Relinquishing control in a way that you allow your nature and your perception of the world to unravel itself to you. Ironically it makes the journey so much more beautiful.

shrimpx 3y ago
This reminds me of Dostoevsky's saying "God is dead, therefore everything is permitted".
- vacuity 3y ago
  This whole thread seems ridiculous to me. It just looks like "people needlessly complicating how they think about life". Why do you have to permit yourself to do anything? At least appealing to a higher power justifies why you would feel restricted. Nihilism just isn't for me, I guess.
  - shrimpx 3y ago
    Things being "permitted" wouldn't occur to someone born recently in a secular context. This is a historical artifact in relation to the 1700+ year grip that Christianity had on people's minds.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I suppose so, but nihilism doesn't seem to mesh with religion anyways.
      - shrimpx 3y ago
        As far as I understand, nihilism and existentialism were both reactions to the "death of religion". Nihilism concludes that everything is devoid of meaning. Existentialism concludes basically the same thing, but then is like "so let's go be ourselves and have fun, find ways to enjoy life" basically. I think this is where the "is permitted" part comes in. But anyway nihilism is related to religion in the sense that it's a reaction to the end of religion.

regus 3y ago

I have often heard people say things like "I don't believe the universe or our lives have any meaning, so I choose to make my own meaning." If the universe is meaningless, and all the things in it are equally meaningless (ourselves included). How is it possible to create meaning? How can a meaningless thing or action within a meaningless system have any meaning? I guess we could just declare that this thing has meaning, but isn't this just a delusion? Like thinking 0 + 0 = 1?

vacuity 3y ago
> If the universe is meaningless, and all the things in it are equally meaningless (ourselves included) That is an assumption in itself. No one is obligated to act under that premise. > How is it possible to create meaning? I guess we could just declare that this thing has meaning, but isn't this just a delusion? Like thinking 0 + 0 = 1? We perceive meaning all the time. This thread came to be because many people hold some meaning or another to the topic, the thought of discussing it, or something else along those lines. There is no reasoning to this phenomenon. It is not even an axiom, something taken to be true and not provable (or disprovable). If we didn't ascribe meaning to things then this conversation wouldn't be happening. I don't live in a world without meaning because I just don't. I couldn't imitate a bacterium if I wanted to. Now it's just a matter of whether I find it permissible for me to act on personal desires.
- nateb2022 3y ago
  > That is an assumption in itself. No one is obligated to act under that premise. No, it is not. By definition, "[t]he universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist."[0] If we hold that everything is without meaning, we cannot hold that anything has meaning. It would be a contradiction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Even if the universe is all of existence, that the universe holds no meaning is an axiom. If that means that I can't hold anything to a meaning, I reject that axiom because I do hold things to have meaning. I'm not mindlessly typing out this reply; I have thoughts about philosophy that I think to present. I at least hold meaning for studying philosophy and participating in a discussion about philosophy.

grog454 3y ago

I think the purpose of life is clearly demonstrated by what it does all the time: resist and reverse entropy.

tasty_freeze 3y ago
Locally perhaps, but when a lake freezes it also reduces its local entropy. Does that also count as purpose?

asdf6677 3y ago

The meaning of life is to entertain Mr. God.