What's your religion?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You don't have to adhere to it to discuss its merits. It just seemed that you were saying 'all knowledge is subjective, as it is based on individual perception'. In other words, you were seeming to imply that there is no verifiable truth, which is essentially solipsism.

Doesn't Solipsism argue that the self exists? Perhaps you are referring to (epistemological)Nihilism?

And if you're going to take that route, you can't really believe in anything because all of your knowledge is unverifiable.

From what I understand, Solipsism asserts that only the self can be justified. It does not necessarily deny "belief" in reality(though perhaps a subset belief of it does). It just states the conclusion that reality(except self) cannot be proven.

EDIT: I'm not sure how it proves the existence of itself. Cogito Ergo Sum perhaps, but isn't that insufficient?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You seem to be steering towards solipsism. True, everything is in some way based on perception. But unless you're willing to believe in absolutely nothing at all, it isn't a realistic position to take.

That isn't even solipsism. Solipsism is based on the idea of "agreeing that everything else is wrong when others present it", but it does not deny material existence - i.e experiments conducted and data collected BEFORE the conclusion was made.

He isn't even bothering to make a stand anyhow - simply blind whacking. His questions have a rather big scope and he doesn't even bother to do research - when is the last time you see him post a "from what I know...."?

Originally Posted by Cipher

I ask for your patience. If you seek to understand my questions, then I would like to you to relate it directly from my statements and not hastily form your own conclusions.

I seek for two things from you : provenance and point, precisely LAID out in the lingua franca.

You have nothing from your statements, only one-liners. So how the heck am I supposed to form an -informed- conclusion? Is it that difficult to elaborate in your own words?

First, is there really only one definition of objective?

So what is YOUR definition of "objective"?

Either you stick to the defined term as given by dictionaries based on the word "object" in singular, or you give your damn definition. Stop beating around the bush.

Second, is not this "general agreement" also derived from perception?

Please explain what you mean, IN YOUR OWN TERMS, of "perception". I am trying to squeeze something I can understand from you only to get halfwit replies.

I seek for patience and consideration in discussion. If this is not met, then I guess I will end it here.

Then get to the point. You might want to use the more direct "My point is....." in your sentence construction.

Before you do that, please try to explain the word "concise". That could very much mean either you are trolling or simply misunderstood the English language.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Doesn't Solipsism argue that the self exists? Perhaps you are referring to (epistemological)Nihilism?

Yes, I omitted that part because there is no philosophy that argues against the existence of self. I think, therefore I am, after all.

Originally Posted by Cipher

From what I understand, Solipsism asserts that only the self can be justified. It does not necessarily deny "belief" in reality(though perhaps a subset belief of it does). It just states the conclusion that reality(except self) cannot be proven.

If you are believing something without any verifiable knowledge, your position is essentially irrelevant.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That isn't even solipsism. Solipsism is based on the idea of "agreeing that everything else is wrong when others present it", but it does not deny material existence - i.e experiments conducted and data collected BEFORE the conclusion was made.

All solipsism says, to paraphrase an extremely complex subject (so forgive me if I am not wholly accurate) is that nothing but the self can be verified. Which seemed to be what he was saying (though it is hard to tell).

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Yes, I omitted that part because there is no philosophy that argues against the existence of self. I think, therefore I am, after all.

There is, I think. Nihilism basically denies "all knowledge".

If you are believing something without any verifiable knowledge, your position is essentially irrelevant.

Why would my position be irrelevant? Can't I believe I exist and yet assert that I don't actually "know"?

[ChainLegacy]

Nihilism deals more with the fact that there is no meaning to our lives, not that we can't verify them. And your position is irrelevant because in order for an idea to be adopted by a rational agent you need to present some objective evidence in your favor. If you believe nothing but self exists, then doing so should be impossible.

[Heiwatsuki]

well in reality our lives dont have a point other than living how we want aka living to our fullest. sorry for butting in lol. ill keep watching again

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Nihilism deals more with the fact that there is no meaning to our lives, not that we can't verify them. And your position is irrelevant because in order for an idea to be adopted by a rational agent you need to present some objective evidence in your favor. If you believe nothing but self exists, then doing so should be impossible.

This is why there is so little that actually believe in Nihilism, I would say about 0.01% of the world actually does believe in Nihilism because of something that converted them into believing that all life has no purpose.

It would be very tough to be converted into Nihilism either way I dont know exactly how Nihilism was even thought to be created in the first place.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Hooves

This is why there is so little that actually believe in Nihilism, I would say about 0.01% of the world actually does believe in Nihilism because of something that converted them into believing that all life has no purpose.

In some ways, I'm a nihilist. I don't think there is any meaning to my life, beyond the meaning I arbitrarily assign to it. I don't really like nihilist culture or Nietzsche's other ideas, though. I still think life can be a great thing, even if there is no grand purpose, so it doesn't affect my outlook.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Nihilism deals more with the fact that there is no meaning to our lives, not that we can't verify them.

Epistemological nihilism
Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.[50]

-wiki.

Or do you disagree?

And your position is irrelevant because in order for an idea to be adopted by a rational agent you need to present some objective evidence in your favor.

This is where the area of confusion begins. Why do I need to present "objective evidence"? What qualifies as "objective evidence"?

If you believe nothing but self exists, then doing so should be impossible.

You don't necessarily "believe nothing but self existed", you only believe that only the "self can be proven".

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

In some ways, I'm a nihilist. I don't think there is any meaning to my life, beyond the meaning I arbitrarily assign to it. I don't really like nihilist culture or Nietzsche's other ideas, though. I still think life can be a great thing, even if there is no grand purpose, so it doesn't affect my outlook.

Well there are some cases that people believe in Nihilism in a small way, but not big enough to make them just give up on their life on Earth. Either way, I actually agree that people sorta believe in Nihilism unless they assign their lives a role to fulfill. But overall, anything else about Nihilism is sorta just going over-board..

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Hooves

But overall, anything else about Nihilism is sorta just going over-board..

Why? Why would it be "going over-board"?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Epistemological nihilism
Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.[50] -wiki.

Or do you disagree?

I don't disagree, but I'm speaking more from the works of Nietzsche than anything else. I don't really see how anyone can justify that form you've quoted, though, due to Descartes' observation that I pointed out earlier.

Originally Posted by Cipher

This is where the area of confusion begins. Why do I need to present "objective evidence"? What qualifies as "objective evidence"?

If you want a rational agent to believe what you're saying, you need some kind of objective facts behind your argument. Objective evidence is anything that can be definitively verified empirically.

Originally Posted by Cipher

You don't necessarily "believe nothing but self existed", you only believe that only the "self can be proven".

Yes, but any conclusion you make outside of the self existing, as a solipsist, is unverifiable and thus holds no weight in a discussion.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Haak

Maybe he believes something can be justifiable to believe in without being verifiable (or did he already say something contrary to that?).

Wouldn't that be selective biasedness?

Solipsims is a philosphy hardcore on "personal understanding" from the practictioner's point of view - if he is so he would be the one asking questions on my statements, not the other way round.

It is called "obscurantism" - he isn't letting us into what he's thinking and still wanted to ask questions based on his thoughts. If the words and explanations he made are bits and pieces of the big picture, he isn't passing enough information. Here is an example of me being a critical Nazi (I only show these in official debates for the prize money):

Not exactly. I "think" I'm trying to achieve "semantic hierarchal" understanding. One thing may not be exclusively unrelated to another. And the relationship of an idea to another may be in the form of it being it a "subset" of that idea. Actually, I'm not too sure of the overall substance but I do know one thing: I have questions.

Taking apart this entire paragraph, the murky parts are here :

1. "semantic hierachal" - in open and close inverted commas, it is a way of writing showing doubt in finding suitable words for the sentence. Breaking the words apart, according to dictionary.com,

Semantic : of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols

Hierarchal : ranking in authority (comes from the word hierarch, meaning a person having high position or considerable authority)

Putting them together, when combined with the sentence, he is meaning to "understand the ranking of words according to their meanings". The big question is - how would a word's meaning have ranking? From their commodity of use, or what? A word's meaning is supposed to be exclusive to the context it is being used on!

2. "One thing may not be exclusively unrelated to another" - This line is written in a moment of doubt AND attempting professionalism. Main words are "exclusively unrelated", breaking them up :

Exclusive : limited to the object or objects designated

unrelated : not connected; associated

In the single sentence, both words are synonymous - it is a double use of adjectives describing that the things / events are not connected to each other - probably meant to emphasise that two things are mutually exclusive. A bad attempt at being "politically correct".

3. "And the relationship of an idea to another may be in the form of it being it a "subset" of that idea." - Two different points to be made in that statement : "relationship of an idea to another" and "in the form of it being it a 'subset' of that idea". Since the more detailed point is given, wouldn't it simply mean "An idea is part of another"?

The rest is trying to make pertinence to the initial argument presented posted back. From that single statement, there is no attempt to refer to any proof, not even a sweeping statement. It is totally unknown what is he driving at.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To quote TinyRedLeaf, "clarity of writing follows clarity of thought". He doesn't even have a concrete idea of where his starting point is, or where his ending point is at in asking questions, or even about his own philosophy of thought at all.

Cipher, just go stand in one corner and think about the entire idea you are trying to present, write a bloody essay, then we all can have something to discuss.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Why? Why would it be "going over-board"?

The many different forms of Nihilism are just a little over-board for me. Especially Existential nihilism, Epistemological nihilism, Mereological nihilism, and especially Metaphysical nihilism.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I don't disagree, but I'm speaking more from the works of Nietzsche than anything else. I don't really see how anyone can justify that form you've quoted, though, due to Descartes' observation that I pointed out earlier.

How do you prove with "Cogito Ergo Sum"? How does "I think, therefore I am" prove your own existence?

If you want a rational agent to believe what you're saying, you need some kind of objective facts behind your argument. Objective evidence is anything that can be definitively verified empirically.

There we have it. Why empirically? How do you prove Empiricism?

Yes, but any conclusion you make outside of the self existing, as a solipsist, is unverifiable and thus holds no weight in a discussion.

Why would it hold no weight? Can you not believe in the "Law of Gravity"? Can you not believe you exist? Can you not believe in reality? Can you not believe in the pleasure of discussion? Though, via Solipsism these beliefs are unproven. Do you think it makes it irrational to believe that you know only the self exists and yet believe in the outside?

But what about pain, does it prove "the outside" or does it act as a conditioning to lead the mind to the belief in the knowledge of reality?

[Luna91]

Originally Posted by Hooves

The many different forms of Nihilism are just a little over-board for me. Especially Existential nihilism, Epistemological nihilism, Mereological nihilism, and especially Metaphysical nihilism.

My dad used to be a nihilist. He said it was the only 'philosophy'/stand point he could come to whilst being consistent in his belief that there was no overall meaning in life due to having evolved out of nothing and then going back to nothing. Yeah kinda a low point for him

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

How do you prove with "Cogito Ergo Sum"? How does "I think, therefore I am" prove your own existence?

I shouldn't need to explain that to you. The simple act of creating thoughts, and pondering this idea, means I exist.

Originally Posted by Cipher

There we have it. Why empirically? How do you prove Empiricism?

"Proving" empiricism is irrelevant. The term 'empirically' was used to describe evidence gathered through a combination of observation and experimentation. To anyone other than a solipsist, these are the defining factors of the natural world, and what can be known.

Originally Posted by Cipher

Why would it hold no weight? Can you not believe in the "Law of Gravity"? Can you not believe you exist? Can you not believe in reality? Can you not believe in the pleasure of discussion? Though, via Solipsism these beliefs are unproven. Do you think it makes it irrational to believe that you know only the self exists and yet believe in the outside?

But what about pain, does it prove "the outside" or does it act as a conditioning to lead the mind to the belief in the knowledge of reality?

Why would it hold weight? You do not ascribe to the existence of empirical evidence, so why does your opinion mean anything other than conjecture?

Originally Posted by Luna91

My dad used to be a nihilist. He said it was the only 'philosophy'/stand point he could come to whilst being consistent in his belief that there was no overall meaning in life due to having evolved out of nothing and then going back to nothing. Yeah kinda a low point for him

Why is it a low point? My belief is that life has no purpose, but I love my life.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Luna91

My dad used to be a nihilist. He said it was the only 'philosophy'/stand point he could come to whilst being consistent in his belief that there was no overall meaning in life due to having evolved out of nothing and then going back to nothing. Yeah kinda a low point for him

To take a quote from The Big Lebowski: "We are nihilists! We believe in NOTHING!" Heh.

Strictly speaking, nihilism does not have to be negative or resigned. Like many popular misconceptions about philosophy, this probably comes from most people preferring to just adopt a stance that justifies the attitude they already have, rather than one that has withstood their critical investigation. Nihilism just happens to be readily adaptable to very negative views on life.

Conversely, however, there are optimistic nihilists. These people subscribe to the view that life's lack of predetermined meaning is actually a boon, in that it allows one to create that meaning in the ways they choose to live.

EDIT: ChainLegacy would stand at least partially under the 'Optimistic Nihilist' banner, apparently.

[Cipher]

@SaintessHeart First of all, I praise your efforts.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

1. "semantic hierachal" - in open and close inverted commas, it is a way of writing showing doubt in finding suitable words for the sentence. Breaking the words apart, according to dictionary.com,

To the bold part: Yes.

Semantic : of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols

Hierarchal : ranking in authority (comes from the word hierarch, meaning a person having high position or considerable authority)

Putting them together, when combined with the sentence, he is meaning to "understand the ranking of words according to their meanings". The big question is - how would a word's meaning have ranking? From their commodity of use, or what? A word's meaning is supposed to be exclusive to the context it is being used on!

Notice the word "Subset" later on. Think in terms of the "sets of numbers".

2. "One thing may not be exclusively unrelated to another" - This line is written in a moment of doubt AND attempting professionalism.

You're very good in assumptions.

Main words are "exclusively unrelated", breaking them up :

Exclusive : limited to the object or objects designated

unrelated : not connected; associated

In the single sentence, both words are synonymous - it is a double use of adjectives describing that the things / events are not connected to each other - probably meant to emphasise that two things are mutually exclusive. A bad attempt at being "politically correct".

Yes, I am glad you have interpreted this one correctly.

The rest is trying to make pertinence to the initial argument presented posted back. From that single statement, there is no attempt to refer to any proof, not even a sweeping statement. It is totally unknown what is he driving at.

I have questions?

To quote TinyRedLeaf, "clarity of writing follows clarity of thought". He doesn't even have a concrete idea of where his starting point is, or where his ending point is at in asking questions, or even about his own philosophy of thought at all.

Cipher, just go stand in one corner and think about the entire idea you are trying to present, write a bloody essay, then we all can have something to discuss.

Well, I guess this is where we diverge and conflict. Philosophical discussion(or discussions in general) to me is a matter of free flowing inquiry. It is not about having a "concrete idea", it is about the invention and interaction of idea. It is a communal effort of obtaining the most accurate "truth". Perhaps I am inefficient in communication but still, I know what I want, the process of thought.

[monster]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

'Confident' is actually a better word - they put their lot in with this group, and have 'faith' they are right, even if they are incapable of proving it true. Since they can't prove it, they can't objectively claim it to be 'true,' but they still have 'faith' that it is. That's the definition I've learned, probably screwed up by my wording a bit but hopefully you get the gist of it.

Confident enough to say their religion is real?

If you don't know, I'm guessing you might be. In my experience, fundamentalist Christians often simply refer to themselves as "Christian" rather than their specific denomination or manner of interpreting the Bible (contextual versus literal).

Well yeah, I do feel that "Christian" is a good enough name/description. Whether or not that makes me a fundamentalist, meh.