• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is there a problem with Nihilism?

Medusa said:
are we living in such a world having no man made morals ?
Click to expand...

I can't understand you.

The animal homo sapien has created morality. Morality itself does not exist. If other humans created Zygostratanity it wouldn't exist, either. Just another created concept. Morals don't crawl out of the water and present themselves objectively. They never existed; they're as fabricated as religion: something we believe in but ultimately doesn't exist.
 
Wake said:
I can't understand you.

The animal homo sapien has created morality. Morality itself does not exist. If other humans created Zygostratanity it wouldn't exist, either. Just another created concept. Morals don't crawl out of the water and present themselves objectively. They never existed; they're as fabricated as religion: something we believe in but ultimately doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

yes ,i agree but why cant you understand me? you can read my all posts.we evolved and this process made us human.it doesnt differ who created it ....we are humans and we cant be like animals,we need rules.if it is that easy,you can kill somebody like gold too :))))))))


Wake said:
In the absence of man-made morals, there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong." That includes killing.
Click to expand...

and please decide now.are we living in a world having no man made morals ? you just admitted homo sapien created the morals.
 
Medusa said:
yes ,i agree but why cant you understand me? you can read my all posts.we evolved and this process made us human.it doesnt differ who created it ....we are humans and we cant be like animals,we need rules.if it is that easy,you can kill somebody like gold too :))))))))
Click to expand...

At times you're misunderstood because your English is choppy and indiscernible.

Being "human" comprises absolutely every single thing humans do.

We are animals, Medusa. We don't need rules, either, because our survival predated the existence of rules.
 
Wake said:
At times you're misunderstood because your English is choppy and indiscernible.

Being "human" comprises absolutely every single thing humans do.

We are animals, Medusa. We don't need rules, either, because our survival predated the existence of rules.
Click to expand...

i never said anything that cant be understood,you may need to read it again if you cant understand sorry!!
,
if you dont need rules ,kill somebody now !!

you admitted in teh absence of morals

we are animals having brain! do you know its difference???

and you still dont answer my question....if there are man made rules ,is killing normal ??

you admit homo sapiens created the morality (of course we all know ) then you claim if there is no man made rule, there is no right or wrong

sorry but may be your english is worse than me
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
i never said anything that cant be understood,you may need to read it again if you cant understand sorry!!
,
if you dont need rules ,kill somebody now !!
Click to expand...

If you think your posts cannot be misunderstood, you're wrong.

You're emotionalizing and misrepresenting my previous posts.
 
Wake said:
It can exist if it's created, but in the end it's just another fabrication.

Remove all humans from the Earth and every single concept and moral ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

True, without humans there is no real sense of morality less there is another species of sufficient intellect to understand the concept. Morality is a byproduct of intelligence, which we possess.
 
Typically yes, Nihilism would be irrational, unreasonable, illogical (some or all of these). Depends on your claim though, if you can make them, I can show you if any of those apply. I do not understand your definition in the OP, please make it concise and clear if you would be so kind. In my experience, it's either contradictory, or nihilism is really just an emotional rage against mortality and as such, is more an expression of "whining" than anthing to be shown as true or false.

As to morality and humans, I think part of what Medusa is claiming is correct. Evolutionary ethics is objective. It's difficult to back with evidence to the degree other aspects of science might enjoy, but I think the general theory that many morals are in fact derived from reality.

You have to remember, evolutionary ethics are common and are based on and in, reality. Religious morals, in contrats, that we have come so use to hearing about in a Christian-themed society, may or may not be based on reality. So those morals, no doubt, are not objective. Other morals however, and often the more senisble ones, may have always been rules about reality with repsect to human society.

zgoldsmith23 said:
I think we have unlimited rights. Natural rights shows limitations. Those limitations come from where?
Click to expand...
Reality. Logic.
 
Last edited:
zgoldsmith23 said:
Pinkie and I recently squared off on the idea of nihilism and we agreed it needed to have its own thread so we didn't thread-jack the OP.

I see nihilism as exhibition of idea that no objective meanings, values, or morals. I don't see how anyone can contend that. Nihilism seems, to me, logical.

Is there a problem with nihilism?
Click to expand...
Nihilism, as you define it, is logical, but it is also uncertain and contradictory to most people's experience of the world.

I believe that morality, meaning and value exist only relative to the mind that carries them. However, it's entirely possible that morality, meaning and value are objective and that any perspective that differs from those objective standards are just wrong. For example, it's possible that murder is objectively wrong and that people who think it's right are factually incorrect.

Therefore, the main problem with nihilism is the same problem with every philosophy - it cannot be proved. I suspect another problem is that it's often advocated by people who are not only nihilists, but are also selfish, hedonistic and generally displaying characteristics that are either not beneficial to entire species or contrary to common moral and ethic standards.
 
Generally it takes this form:

Claim: Nothing matters
Contradiction. The above uses symbols with meaning, and the claim itself must matter if it is to be differentiated from "some things do matter".

Reasonable philosophies must accept that some things do matter. Else, they are logically no different than saying "nothing".

Wake said:
The animal homo sapien has created morality. Morality itself does not exist.
Click to expand...
The first part is demonstrably false.
The second part, is also probably false, depending on what "system" we attempt to evaluate it with.

Begin with something simple. Did we create the laws of physics? You'd have to argue the laws of physics do not exist...
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Generally it takes this form:
Claim: Nothing matters
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's this form that I consider childish and utterly illogical. The form that the OP described is fine with me, but that's not often the one the self-proclaimed nihilists advocate.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Yeah, it's this form that I consider childish and utterly illogical. The form that the OP described is fine with me, but that's not often the one the self-proclaimed nihilists advocate.
Click to expand...

To me it's all really the same. The OP uses at least part of claim that "there is no objective meaning". But that claim cannot itself have meaning, unless it's first assumed to be true, that the words had meaning in the first place, etc.
Thus, some things are self-evidently true. And I suppose depending on the defintions, that's objectively true. Which means the offered claim of nihilism is again, a contradiction.
 
Medusa said:
is it ethical if they attempt and kill ,according to you ,yes.........

no god no moral ,what a beautiful world ,so kill somebody please..:roll:
Click to expand...

Is it ethical? How can it be ethical if ethics don't exist. Is it morally permissible? Yes.
 
Medusa said:
no god no moral ,what a beautiful world ,so kill somebody please..:roll:
Click to expand...

That's an overly simplistic generalization. There is nothing which prevents morals from being established in secular or atheist environments.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Nihilism, as you define it, is logical, but it is also uncertain and contradictory to most people's experience of the world.

I believe that morality, meaning and value exist only relative to the mind that carries them. However, it's entirely possible that morality, meaning and value are objective and that any perspective that differs from those objective standards are just wrong. For example, it's possible that murder is objectively wrong and that people who think it's right are factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible but why posit things before they are shown to exist?

Therefore, the main problem with nihilism is the same problem with every philosophy - it cannot be proved. I suspect another problem is that it's often advocated by people who are not only nihilists, but are also selfish, hedonistic and generally displaying characteristics that are either not beneficial to entire species or contrary to common moral and ethic standards.
Click to expand...

True - isn't that what's great about philosophy - you're never wrong! ;)

Anyway, I think nihilism is a bit different. It "turns" on most philosophies. Instead of those philosophies which induce certain elements (meaning, etc.) it just says "until you show it, no reason to think so." I see it as an exemplifies Occam's Razor - don't make things overly complex, make them simple.
 
Ikari said:
That's an overly simplistic generalization. There is nothing which prevents morals from being established in secular or atheist environments.
Click to expand...

i know.but goldsmith ignores this fact.he ignores both universal moral values and law rules..
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Is it ethical? How can it be ethical if ethics don't exist. Is it morally permissible? Yes.
Click to expand...

why do you think we are called human ??

can you make your claim true now and kill somebody and call it morally permissible?

no validity in reality
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
True - isn't that what's great about philosophy - you're never wrong! .
Click to expand...
Stop accepting wrong philosophies and you can fix that contradiction too :)
 
Mach said:
Generally it takes this form:

Claim: Nothing matters
Contradiction. The above uses symbols with meaning, and the claim itself must matter if it is to be differentiated from "some things do matter".

Reasonable philosophies must accept that some things do matter. Else, they are logically no different than saying "nothing".


The first part is demonstrably false.
The second part, is also probably false, depending on what "system" we attempt to evaluate it with.

Begin with something simple. Did we create the laws of physics? You'd have to argue the laws of physics do not exist...
Click to expand...

We talked about this earlier. That's not the definition of nihilism.


Mach said:
To me it's all really the same. The OP uses at least part of claim that "there is no objective meaning". But that claim cannot itself have meaning, unless it's first assumed to be true, that the words had meaning in the first place, etc.
Thus, some things are self-evidently true. And I suppose depending on the defintions, that's objectively true. Which means the offered claim of nihilism is again, a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Those words have no objective meaning - they have a subjective meaning to you and I.
 
Medusa said:
i know.but goldsmith ignores this fact.he ignores both universal moral values and law rules..
Click to expand...

What fact? Atheism = / = nihlism. I ignore universal moral values because you have yet to show their existence. Simply asking "is it wrong to kill?" isn't evidence.

Medusa said:
why do you think we are called human ??
Click to expand...

The English adjective human is a Middle English loanword from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjective form of homō "man".

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mach said:
Stop accepting wrong philosophies and you can fix that contradiction too
Click to expand...

The right one being ... "42?"
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Two problems: it states objective morals. Morals can exist, just not objective morals. Other problem is, evolution doesn't matter if life is meaningless. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that some morality is objective?

Hasn't some variation of the Golden Rule existed throughout all societies?
 
zstep18 said:
Do you disagree that some morality is objective?

Hasn't some variation of the Golden Rule existed throughout all societies?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. ---
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
We talked about this earlier. That's not the definition of nihilism.
Click to expand...
You talked about it, you didn't change the outcome though. It's still contradictory. I dug it up here:
"Nihilism , essentially, says that everything is subjective to everyone. It does not state that life has no meaning, just that it has no objective meaning. "

Out of the gate it's the same contradiction the other definition engages in.
"Everything is subjective to everyone".
For this to make sense the claim itself has to be objective. Else, it has no meaning. Which is it going to be zgold? You want to make a claim with meaning, or no meaning? Up to you.

Those words have no objective meaning - they have a subjective meaning to you and I.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. They either have meaning, or do not have meaning. You want cake and eat it too...still.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
The right one being ... "42?"
Click to expand...

No, it's any one that accepts the fact that we can know the truth. Anything else is logically inconsistent.

Try claiming we cannot know the truth, it's the same contradictory circle you engage in above, and that I have seen you yourself critisize in some of these posts (!).
 
Mach said:
You talked about it, you didn't change the outcome though. It's still contradictory. I dug it up here:
"Nihilism , essentially, says that everything is subjective to everyone. It does not state that life has no meaning, just that it has no objective meaning. "

Out of the gate it's the same contradiction the other definition engages in.
"Everything is subjective to everyone".
For this to make sense the claim itself has to be objective. Else, it has no meaning. Which is it going to be zgold? You want to make a claim with meaning, or no meaning? Up to you.
Click to expand...

It gives subjective meaning to those that support it. It doesn't claim it has an objective truth.

Irrelevant. They either have meaning, or do not have meaning. You want cake and eat it too...still.
Click to expand...

They have subjective meaning, not objective meaning. Nihilism negates objective meaning, not subjective meaning.
 
Medusa said:
evolution has no brain but we have evolved and became human. and we have a brain. and yes morality is an objective phenomenon.can you kill somebody?
Click to expand...

Yup, happens every day. Don't you read the papers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom