#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What do you seek when life becomes meaningless?
Add New Argument |
This video may dispel your nihilism: Intrinsic, meaning inherent or objective but not precluding subjective conceptions and projections. OP is afflicted with depression, not nihilism. I'm certainly interested in a more in depth discussion of nihilism, though I'm not sure where you'd like to jump off exactly. I'm sympathetic to most of its forms, including existential, value, epistemological, and mereological. Any in particular that you'd like to debate? 1
point
Existential, perhaps? It seems to be based on misconceptions, because the meaning of life is a vague question, so much in fact that invoking religion to answer it seems kind of circular. I can't seem to find any concrete break-downs of the question that can not be answered to make for the 'life is meaningless'. (But then again, I'm an existentialist.) I'm a bit unclear about what you're saying. You mean existential as opposed to existential nihilism? And I'm not sure what you think is based on misconceptions, or why invoking religion might be circular (it just seems assertive to me...). If I understand your final point it's that there doesn't seem to be a defensible position from which to identify any (objective?) meaning to life; is that about right? 1
point
If I understand your final point it's that there doesn't seem to be a defensible position from which to identify any (objective?) meaning to life; is that about right? Quite the opposite. It's that there is no position from which we can conclude that life is meaningless, whether we interpret meaning as composition, [definition,] purpose, formation or something else. But, when we combine all into one, it becomes a vague question that can conclude into a 'life is meaningless' if we are to ignore what we are trying to mean and find from such a question. or why invoking religion might be circular It might not really seem like it, because both the ideas have been too connected for way too long. As we can notice, religion fits in the ambiguities of the question by simple answers, and keeps things as vague as possible such that only divine explanations can suffice as simple ones. So, it's more like the question is just about asking for divine explanations, which is circular on religion. Why assume that we would ignore the intended significance of the question? There is also no cause to suppose we must combine all the potential signified objects of the term 'meaning' at once, rather than identifying a more particular significance through context as we do regularly in the use of all language. Just because it is possible to be confused about what 'meaning' signifies that does not necessarily make the philosophical question of 'meaning' prohibitively vague. Notably, if it did then this would be equally true for those advancing a positive claim of meaningfulness too; at worst, then, the meaninglessness position is on equal footing. The difference with a claim of meaninglessness, though, is that it is a negative claim rendered reasonable by the absence of any proof for the positive claim it is responsive too. It is as reasonable to conclude that life is meaningless as it is to believe that there are no unicorns or framfuffles, until such time as someone proves any of that exists. The only recourse for the anti-meaninglessness camp, then, is a hardline agnostic position based upon the belief that language is prohibitively vague for discourse... which is thoroughly impractical as well as unsound. It is not circular for theology to prompt questions seeking theological answers. Nor is it immediately evident that religion properly originated the questions, rather than emerging in response to (unanswered) questions and desires. I'll also add that while mainstream theological narratives often provide simple answers this is not especially unique to them as compared to other narratives, and I don't think the fault for that lies squarely with theology either. People are not primarily reasonable, and the function of narratives is not generally to discover truths. 1
point
People are not primarily reasonable, and the function of narratives is not generally to discover truths. That was much more true when those narratives originated, thousands of years ago. Then, they probably couldn't understand that they have instinctively answered questions about a possible meaning of life by their imaginations, and it then went on to dominate over what the question might have to mean when humans began to ask such things (ie., single, seemingly simple answer for everything, eg. because of god). Nor is it immediately evident that religion properly originated the questions, rather than emerging in response to (unanswered) questions and desires. Imaginations can instinctively answer desires, as is evident by the types of deities created throughout the world around those (and different) times, and would also be if you might prefer to test it out by yourself. It can, therefore, answer on desires and later control what the questions are to be by its own answers. The only recourse for the anti-meaninglessness camp, then, is a hardline agnostic position based upon the belief that language is prohibitively vague for discourse... which is thoroughly impractical as well as unsound. There is another one that I used there, that if we define terms a bit more accurately (or break down the question in parts) such that the question is not too vague to be answered (which is not an impossible task, considering that we're already able to ask such a question), then it, at least theoretically, can be answered. Though language is not prohibitively vague in general, in this specific question it is. One can ask the question without having any idea what an answer to it is supposed to be like, and that makes it essentially unanswerable, for it means nothing in particular. That's how the "atheists must be nihilists, or they're self-contradicting" claims can seem reasonable to those who can understand neither what nihilism is nor what they are thinking about for meaning. That was much more true when those narratives originated, thousands of years ago. Then, they probably couldn't understand [...] seemingly simple answer for everything, eg. because of god). This view treats ideological development as somehow being a unique property of the present that doesn't extend into the past (or at least not very far). But presuming such a drastically diminished capacity for cognition in persons who lived thousands of years ago is not only completely unfounded, but it doesn't really make much sense. What could possibly have produced such a significant change in human intelligence over such a short evolutionary period? Moreover, narratives would have to be so static for any singular narrative (or set of narratives) to have pervasively dominated discourse for thousands of years that we then cannot explain the change that has occurred. It also simply isn't the case that there are narratives that are thousands of years old; we might call them by the same name or observe basic commonalities over time but the nuance and contextual complexity of ideology contradicts such a theory of continuity. Imaginations can instinctively answer desires [...] answer on desires and later control what the questions are to be by its own answers. Yes, but this cognitive behavior is not limited to religion. So there is no clear reason to suppose religion (solely) originated the questions. Also, given that imagination is not constricted to theology all narratives must be similarly afflicted (as I suggested). Further, 'religion' is a rather vague homogenization; what would it really mean for 'religion' to control the questions and answers? There is another one that I used there, [...] at least theoretically, can be answered. If you acknowledge that language may not be prohibitively vague, then you have no basis for the original claim that meaninglessness cannot be proved. If you maintain that this can only occur in theory, then the rest of my analysis still applies and your recourse must be radical agnosticism. Though language is not prohibitively vague in general, in this specific question it is. One can ask the question without having any idea what an answer to it is supposed to be like, and that makes it essentially unanswerable, for it means nothing in particular. As I believe I already observed, just because the question can be asked vaguely that does not mean that it must be or that it cannot be subsequently clarified afterwards. It may lack the immediate clarity of some other questions, but that doesn't mean it is too prohibitively vague to answer. That's how the "atheists must be nihilists, or they're self-contradicting" claims can seem reasonable to those who can understand neither what nihilism is nor what they are thinking about for meaning. I'm a bit confused about what you yourself are arguing and where you are explaining why others might make certain arguments. Is all of your response intended to clarify the latter, or is there some of the former here as well? I don't see a clear relationship between not being able to answer whether there is meaning and not being able to answer whether there is a deity, so I still don't really understand the claim you're talking about I guess. I'll also disclose that I think atheists who aren't nihilists have a consistency issue with how they apply their premises, so I guess the claim seems reasonable to me from a different basis (and maybe that's why I'm not really getting what seems like a weaker argument to the same conclusion). 1
point
What could possibly have produced such a significant change in human intelligence over such a short evolutionary period? It's used in IQ trends. Civilisation and advancement have done that, and people of each generation think more abstractly than the one before them. People in that time were much more primitive than they are now, and therefore also much less smarter. Though using it for all those 'thousands of years' would be rather misleading (due to the dark ages and colonisation), it can still go without any further proof that ideological development is an inevitable part of human civilisation. but the nuance and contextual complexity of ideology contradicts such a theory of continuity. It doesn't contradict that, because our instincts are still pretty much the same, and it's easier to imagine things (or, more abstract thinking than usual) if you are expecting it all to be coming from a divine source (and if it isn't all composed by a single person). what would it really mean for 'religion' to control the questions and answers? I addressed it when I talked about simple and divine explanations. Yes, but this cognitive behavior is not limited to religion. So there is no clear reason to suppose religion (solely) originated the questions. No, of course not. Religion solely originating the questions would be absurd. It just affected the question. Also, given that imagination is not constricted to theology all narratives must be similarly afflicted (as I suggested). Well, they are about similarly unrefined compared to if they were written today, but it hasn't evolutionarily been long enough that they'd be similarly afflicted. All of them weren't similarly written, after all. then you have no basis for the original claim that meaninglessness cannot be proved. Original? No, it's too unlike my position to have made that claim. I'm merely arguing that the question should be formed more accurately so that it be possible that it may not conclude into nihilism. It probably shouldn't, and may rather yield existentialism as the only logical answer (or perhaps even natural selection). I'm more of a logical positivist, after all, so I'd not say something like that. I'm a bit confused about what you yourself are arguing and where you are explaining why others might make certain arguments. Is all of your response intended to clarify the latter, or is there some of the former here as well? Well, why others make certain arguments is a part of what I'm arguing. I don't see a clear relationship between not being able to answer whether there is meaning and not being able to answer whether there is a deity, so I still don't really understand the claim you're talking about I guess. I see. When I talked about religion, I didn't mean 'the question whether a deity exists', but 'the belief that a deity exists'. Though it still isn't a complete definition (because there are also some atheistic religions), it's about the only one used in debates. 1
point
By the way, how many languages do you speak? I can not help noticing your fluency in English (even though Indian is based much more on British). Though I know a few languages, I don't like either of the major ones (English and Hindi) because they lack sufficient semantics and phonology to have been popular enough, and throughout their development were not fit for such purposes. I'd rather prefer that Sanskrit and Latin were the popular ones in their place. I'm only fluent in English. I studied Spanish for years and used to be conversational in it, be I've gotten very out of practice. A smattering of some other languages, but not enough that I'd claim I could speak them at all. I suppose I don't really know enough about languages to have a clear preference, but I certainly find English frustrating. Out of curiosity, what do you think makes Sanskrit and Latin preferable? 1
point
Primarily because of their morphology and semantics. The sounds in English are too arbitrary (even though we have them a bit more uniform in the Indian accent), and it lacks many of the sounds (the IPA could be based on the Sanskrit alphabet and would have required little in modifications). They're also free word order languages (using inflections and conjugations) and, being scholarly languages, are friendly to forming new words in most contexts (and contain many word roots for such purposes). Though Hindi has most of these qualities (it's free word order using role markers, uses most of the Sanskrit alphebet and is about equally friendly to new words as English), it's more like a degenerated tongue (or, as it was called, an aprabhasha) against Sanskrit. English isn't based on any single trees, so it's a lot more arbitrary and also doesn't compare quite so uniformly with the early Germanic or Romance languages. However, except for borrowing many words from foreign trees, it has always been similar to Hindi (also except for the points already mentioned). Even if their existential nihilism is caused by depression it's still nihilism. It's also very possible that the events alluded to above caused them to be existentially nihilistic which caused the depression. Often depression is caused by negative thought patterns which can be nihilistic in nature (which in turn is often caused by repeatedly getting negative results from ones actions). Lets discuss existential nihilism to begin in the separate debate I've made. https://www.createdebate. I myself speculate no relationship between nihilism and depression, and the causal connections you allege are without adequate substantiation (see below). There is nothing showing connection between nihilism and psychological distress; even the objective meaninglessness of life is improperly construed as distressing. If it is true that there is no objective meaning to life then that has always been the case; life cannot 'become' meaningless and all that is actually lost is the faith that it was meaningful. There is a common confusion over what is being lost, and from that confusion emerges the tendency to fault nihilism for what is actually a consequence of non-nihilistic faith. Dependent attachment to the belief that life has objective meaning creates distress when that belief waivers or is lost. But this is the fault of the belief ideology, not of nihilism. There is no immediately evident reason to suppose that even if depression were caused by existential nihilism that expressions borne out of depression would necessarily be nihilistic themselves. The question remains whether the preceding statements were nihilistic or depressed, then, and I have raised my objections to interpreting it as nihilism elsewhere. Namely, that intrinsic meaning does not extend to include subjective projections of meaning which seem precluded by the framing of OPs questions. Additionally, now, that the operative use of the term 'becomes' is at issue. You claim that the supposed origins (really, it's so vague you can hardly justify calling them 'events') and effect of OPs alleged existential nihilism are "very possible", without ever proving in the first that they are even existentially nihilistic. Moreover, your sole warrant seems to be that the negative thought patterns associated with depression are "nihilistic in nature", but that is exceedingly vague. What negative thought patterns? How are they nihilistic? I'll gladly engage you in the other debate you made (thanks for invite in), but it doesn't seem framed to immediately get at some of what we are already discussing here... I really do appreciate what you're saying; that depression and nihilism are separate things. As a psychology graduate I have to say that certain nihilistic thoughts (e.g. life is meaningless) do have a strong correlation with depression. I didn't assert it was causal (though it can be) if you re-read my above post. I also said these negative thought patterns associated with depression can be nihilistic in nature. I stand by my usage of the word nihilism in this context. One's life, after all, cannot be meaningless unless one is existentially nihilistic (that is not to say existential nihilists have no life meaning). If I say my life is without meaning it must lack both subjective and objective meaning. I really do appreciate what you're saying; that depression and nihilism are separate things. My point was never the depression and nihilism are distinct, as the converse was never your position. Rather, it is that they have no especially notable relation (causal or correlative). I didn't assert it was causal (though it can be) if you re-read my above post. I also said these negative thought patterns associated with depression can be nihilistic in nature. You observed that "often depression is caused by negative thought patterns which can be nihilistic in nature". This does establish a causal claim because if the thoughts which often cause depression are sometimes nihilistic thoughts then it follows that nihilistic thoughts sometimes cause depression. You've now also stated that nihilistic thought can be causal for depression, and though if it does not do so necessarily or uniquely this still constitutes a causal claim because it alleges that a causal potential exists. Even were you expressing an overtly correlative claim, the only plausible purpose in doing so is to insinuate fault by association through implied causality. The only correlates that really bear mentioning in any matter are those which we are presuming have some effect on the object at hand. Otherwise, we would not bring them up in the first place (or if we did it would convey nothing of substance or concern). The correlative claim is a causal claim in effect, but one which lacks the evidentiary basis to be advanced as such by name (and which, conveniently for you, is therefore held to a lower standard of warrant). As a psychology graduate I have to say that certain nihilistic thoughts (e.g. life is meaningless) do have a strong correlation with depression. Ultimately, I'm not overly concerned with whether the claim you're advancing is causal or correlative because I don't think either is sound. Your claim that nihilistic thoughts have a causal/correlative relation to depression rests upon the sole example that people who are depressed often think "life is meaningless". This presumes that the thought "life is meaningless" is necessarily a nihilistic thought, probably because that phrase is regularly used as a simplistic representation of nihilism. However, if the thought "life is meaningless" does not signify to the thinker a broader nihilistic narrative then it is a stretch to consider it a nihilistic thought as it is thought by the thinker. This is because when the thought "life is meaningless" is made within the nihilistic narrative there is no reason for it to relate to depression in any way, because it would also by accompanied by a thought like "my life does not need to have meaning". The problem with categorizing any particular thought as stereotypically of any philosophical position is that the position does not necessarily follow from that particular thought even if it partially comprises the broader position. What generally transpires from such fallacious reductions (and what is usually intended by them) is either the elevation or denigration of a position through association with something for which it bears no evident relation. In this case, nihilism comes to be regarded as something harmful to personal well-being that needs to be "dispelled". This is a subtle way in which positions that endorse the existence of meaning reassert the necessity of meaning and therefore their necessity, in vicious circularity. Nihilism becomes the fall guy, which obviates the need to look further and properly identify the unsustainable belief in and attachment to meaning which other philosophies perpetuate as the actual origin of distress. (Your credentials wouldn't be an argument even if they were verifiable.) One's life, after all, cannot be meaningless unless one is existentially nihilistic (that is not to say existential nihilists have no life meaning). One does not have to be an existential nihilist for their life to be meaningless. It is a simple matter of fact either that our lives have meaning or that they do not, and what we believe doesn't change that either way. If I say my life is without meaning it must lack both subjective and objective meaning. I do not know of a single (existential) nihilist who has ever even attempted to argue that there is no subjective meaning. If you know of any nihilist philosophers who have actually advanced the position that life lacks both subjective and objective meaning, then I'd love to hear about them. Otherwise, standing by your use of the word nihilism in this context to apply to something it has never been applied to is flagrantly unsound. That's the best you've got? This article is nothing more than an outsourced reiteration of your original argument, and with even less substantiation than you've given (which is little enough). Worse, the author doesn't even mention nihilism. Worse still, it's not responsive to any of my preceding analysis which directly repudiates the narrative you're both advancing. Until you give me a substantive counter-argument, my point stands and I've got nothing more to respond to. ROFLMAO. You didn't even do that. Linking to the article doesn't prove you're the guy who wrote it, and your credentials still wouldn't constitute an actual argument even if it did. The difference between my claim that you made no substantive counter-argument and yours about me is that I actually explained why that is the case and you didn't (and can't). Anyways, it's abundantly obvious at this point that you can't defend your position. So I'm out. OK, I don't feel that you have debunked either of my points. "If I say my life is without meaning it must lack both subjective and objective meaning." "As a psychology graduate I have to say that certain nihilistic thoughts (e.g. life is meaningless) do have a strong correlation with depression." You haven't refuted the first point. Further, I have never seen anyone assert that all existential nihilists' lives must have subjective meaning to be regarded as such. I've clearly supported the second point with the link I gave (my credentials weren't an argument, they were why I know the correlation). Therefore there was nothing more for me to say unless I were to repeat myself again. OK, I don't feel that you have debunked either of my points. OK, everything that follows is literally what I've already written in response to those points (which aren't your only or even primary points, but nice attempt to shift your ground again). If you don't think what follows is responsive then you need to actually explain why, or else it stands. "If I say my life is without meaning it must lack both subjective and objective meaning." & You haven't refuted the first point. Intrinsic, meaning inherent or objective but not precluding subjective conceptions and projections. OP is afflicted with depression, not nihilism. I do not know of a single (existential) nihilist who has ever even attempted to argue that there is no subjective meaning. If you know of any nihilist philosophers who have actually advanced the position that life lacks both subjective and objective meaning, then I'd love to hear about them. Otherwise, standing by your use of the word nihilism in this context to apply to something it has never been applied to is flagrantly unsound. "As a psychology graduate I have to say that certain nihilistic thoughts (e.g. life is meaningless) do have a strong correlation with depression." Even were you expressing an overtly correlative claim, the only plausible purpose in doing so is to insinuate fault by association through implied causality. The only correlates that really bear mentioning in any matter are those which we are presuming have some effect on the object at hand. Otherwise, we would not bring them up in the first place (or if we did it would convey nothing of substance or concern). The correlative claim is a causal claim in effect, but one which lacks the evidentiary basis to be advanced as such by name (and which, conveniently for you, is therefore held to a lower standard of warrant). There is nothing showing connection between nihilism and psychological distress; even the objective meaninglessness of life is improperly construed as distressing. If it is true that there is no objective meaning to life then that has always been the case; life cannot 'become' meaningless and all that is actually lost is the faith that it was meaningful. There is a common confusion over what is being lost, and from that confusion emerges the tendency to fault nihilism for what is actually a consequence of non-nihilistic faith. Dependent attachment to the belief that life has objective meaning creates distress when that belief waivers or is lost. But this is the fault of the belief ideology, not of nihilism. Ultimately, I'm not overly concerned with whether the claim you're advancing is causal or correlative because I don't think either is sound. Your claim that nihilistic thoughts have a causal/correlative relation to depression rests upon the sole example that people who are depressed often think "life is meaningless". This presumes that the thought "life is meaningless" is necessarily a nihilistic thought, probably because that phrase is regularly used as a simplistic representation of nihilism. However, if the thought "life is meaningless" does not signify to the thinker a broader nihilistic narrative then it is a stretch to consider it a nihilistic thought as it is thought by the thinker. This is because when the thought "life is meaningless" is made within the nihilistic narrative there is no reason for it to relate to depression in any way, because it would also by accompanied by a thought like "my life does not need to have meaning". The problem with categorizing any particular thought as stereotypically of any philosophical position is that the position does not necessarily follow from that particular thought even if it partially comprises the broader position. What generally transpires from such fallacious reductions (and what is usually intended by them) is either the elevation or denigration of a position through association with something for which it bears no evident relation. In this case, nihilism comes to be regarded as something harmful to personal well-being that needs to be "dispelled". This is a subtle way in which positions that endorse the existence of meaning reassert the necessity of meaning and therefore their necessity, in vicious circularity. Nihilism becomes the fall guy, which obviates the need to look further and properly identify the unsustainable belief in and attachment to meaning which other philosophies perpetuate as the actual origin of distress. I've clearly supported the second point with the link I gave (my credentials weren't an argument, they were why I know the correlation). Therefore there was nothing more for me to say unless I were to repeat myself again. This article is nothing more than an outsourced reiteration of your original argument, and with even less substantiation than you've given (which is little enough). Worse, the author doesn't even mention nihilism. I've never "shifted my ground". The only arguments that I've put forth is that I used the word nihilism correctly and that some existentially nihilistic thoughts have an association (sometimes causal) with depression. If someones believes their life lacks objective meaning they are an existential nihilist. Nothing you've said has refuted this. I showed clearly that it is not just me who asserts that thinking one's life lacks both subjective and objective meaning is associated with depression. Never did I make a claim it is always causal, though it can be (as evidenced by the link above). In fact, I even mentioned that the depression itself can be the source of such thoughts. You can believe that I tried to wind this debate down to a close because you have made some salient point that I cannot refute. Rather, I did so because I didn't see anything that threatened my position and I was bored of this debate. Take for example; "I do not know of a single (existential) nihilist who has ever even attempted to argue that there is no subjective meaning." I do not know of a single (existential) nihilist that has ever even attempted to argue that those who lack subjective meaning aren't nihilists. Except you of course. Which is then contradicted by: "when the thought "life is meaningless" is made within the nihilistic narrative there is no reason for it to relate to depression in any way, because it would also by accompanied by a thought like "my life does not need to have meaning"" So an existential nihilists life can both have and lack subjective meaning, depending on the point you want to make. In addition, I don't know how you came up with a definition of existential nihilism that necessitates thoughts like "my life does not need to have meaning". Please define existential nihilism in a way that is consistent with what you have said here. It would end up, instead of something like "the assertion that life has no objective meaning", as "the assertion that life has no objective meaning but this thought must also be accompanied by...". The unpopular reply is that, apart from counselling by professional psychiatrists/psychologists no practical answer to your predicament can be provided by unqualified people, no matter how well meaning they may be. You, and only you know what your mental state is and therefore the solution to your turmoil must come from yourself. You must find the strength from within yourself to deal with whatever demons are making your life seem like a meaningless misery. Any advise I would offer you would be to stop feeling sorry for yourself, count your blessings and consider those who are much worse off than you. When you realize the futility of life, of all affairs, and are unable to rely on people, where do you go? I go to the Creator of the universe for help, and guidance because He wants us to communicate to Him. Along the way, I have encountered that He has sent people in my life that I can trust. Life is never meaningless. It's filled with purpose. 2
points
The best advice I've heard is to concern yourself with helping others. Take your focus off of what troubles you, and assist others with their troubles. Lose yourself in the service of others as the cliche goes. Of course if things are really so bad that this isn't an option...excons advice "get a dog" seems pretty good. If you can't love and be loved you're fucked. Nice of you to drop in BTW :) What do you seek when life becomes meaningless? Life cannot 'become meaningless'; it either had meaning from the offset or it didn't. People suffer not because there is no meaning, but because they form attachment to the belief that there is and must be such a meaning. If you cannot believe in meaning then do not stay attached to the belief that it is necessary; you will not suffer for its absence then. When you realize the futility of life, of all affairs, and are unable to rely on people, where do you go? If life an all affairs are futile and people cannot be relied upon, then this has always been the case and you are just realizing it now. Suffering occurs not because this is the way things are but because you have formed attachment to them being differently. You have developed a fixed perspective that relies on premises you no longer believe in. Rebuild from new premises. There are things we could always do, but how does one deal with the vacuum created because of lack of trust? What is the rational solution to deal with this? The solution need not be rational, but if one is inclined to reason then identify the premises you no longer believe in and remove them from the equation. Add the premises you do believe in now, and follow the set to its natural conclusion. That will be your answer, but as for a uniform or universal answer there is none. 1
point
no matter how your life may seem meaningless to you that does not mean you have nothing to do.Who told you that your life is meaningless?Maybe you heard people talking all the hell about you,just do not give a damn to their idiotic talk,focus on your life.Sit down alone and think about what you you love doing,maybe it is writing poem just write all the hell going through your mind,all those poems may be the best .There is no way your life can be so meaningless |