[Yardy]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's an analogy, in very abbreviated form, for why I disagree with the quoted view. The distinction for background information, I'll make is this: the amusement park exists in the context of a larger environment; I'll use the metaphors of the 'little picture' for the park, the 'big picture' for the larger environment. It is the nature of the park that it suffers various consequences in it's normal operation that renders it unusable. Due to it's little picture nature it becomes usable as a result of the big picture potentials. Meaning can and does have different layers built on different contexts, an aspect of which is much like one finds in geometric fractals. In the analogy, the first meaning is the specific little picture experience of physical 'thrills and chills' on the favorite ride. The next meaning is derived from having to reevaluate previous choices based on circumstances beyond your control and leads to new thrill and chills. A new larger big picture meaning occurs when the favorite ride 'magically' appears in useable state. The usable state is achieved due to context of the relationship of the little picture to the big picture. Of course the rider's extant understanding is limited but for various reasons, some of them self-imposed, some of them not self-imposed. All cases in sum provide a packet of experiences inherently valuable meaning to the rider.

No, no, it's a decision to attribute meaning to a thing. It only has to mean what you want it to mean. The point raised by Freakaficial is that you should stop trying to associate things with "meaning" and instead just appreciate the existence of things, not focusing on the value, because everything has to be the way it is, or otherwise, it wouldn't be that way.

e.g., "why do people die?" They have to, they must. They can't not. It's impossible not to, because energy does transfer/recycle.

"Why does it rain on picnics?" It was going to rain. You planned the picnic.

"Why did my grandmother die?" Because she was old and sick.

You have to stop taking things so seriously, while managing to avoid attributing a hedonistic meaning to life either (do not say, "The point of life is to be happy!" or you haven't made any progress). There is no point to being alive, being alive is a privilege, because we're animate while the majority of matter is inert. We'll return to nothing eventually, why hurry it along? "Bad" things are discovered through a self-centered perspective that evaluates the world based on how everything relates to the self. This is not realistic. Existence is unchanging. There is no such thing as fate, or the magic of luck. Bad things aren't a person that's out to get you, and there is no will of the universe that favors or harbors against you, but this means that we are unbelievably small, and insignificant. When we die, there was no reason for it, other than we had to. There's no sense to make out of chaos. In fact, there's no such thing as chaos.

There is no such thing as a 'bad day', only a failed plan.

To attribute meaning to anything at all is illusory. Do not look for value - instead, appreciate all things as you would the aesthetics of art.

[MrFreakaficial]

Originally Posted by Yardy249 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, no, it's a decision to attribute meaning to a thing. It only has to mean what you want it to mean. The point raised by Freakaficial is that you should stop trying to associate things with "meaning" and instead just appreciate the existence of things, not focusing on the value, because everything has to be the way it is, or otherwise, it wouldn't be that way. e.g., "why do people die?" They have to, they must. They can't not. It's impossible not to, because energy does transfer/recycle. "Why does it rain on picnics?" It was going to rain. You planned the picnic. "Why did my grandmother die?" Because she was old and sick. You have to stop taking things so seriously, while managing to avoid attributing a hedonistic meaning to life either (do not say, "The point of life is to be happy!" or you haven't made any progress). There is no point to being alive, being alive is a privilege, because we're animate while the majority of matter is inert. We'll return to nothing eventually, why hurry it along? "Bad" things are discovered through a self-centered perspective that evaluates the world based on how everything relates to the self. This is not realistic. Life is what it is. There is no such thing as fate, or the magic of luck. Bad things aren't a person that's out to get you, and there is no will of the universe that favors or harbors against you. To attribute meaning to anything at all is illusory. Do not look for value - instead, appreciate all as you would the aesthetics of art.

Yes, my point exactly. The rest of what you said, as well. Especially the last sentence.

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Daimonos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think it is that easy. The philosophy/ideology/religion must be absolutely true in my eyes before I can become its follower. If I could just pick a line of thought and play along, I'd probably be entangled in the core of a deeply religious community, like christian mysticism or classic Satanism (Luciferianism). But I don't believe in a higher entity (that can influence or lives or our afterlives), I don't believe in objective morals and I don't believe there is a deeper meaning in life itself. That's why Absurdism is so appealing to me. I'm not an 'absurdist man' yet unfortunately, so I'm still searching for meaning.

Well among other things I'm trying to write, I'm in the process of writing a bible for a religion of sex; thereby, sex can bring meaning to your life.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Yardy249
	No, no, it's a decision to attribute meaning to a thing. It only has to mean what you want it to mean. The point raised by Freakaficial is that you should stop trying to associate things with "meaning" and instead just appreciate the existence of things, not focusing on the value, because everything has to be the way it is, or otherwise, it wouldn't be that way.

Hahahahaha,

What does 'just appreciate' mean if not 'attribut(ing) meaning to a thing ?

---------- Post added 05-14-2011 at 07:54 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well among other things I'm trying to write, I'm in the process of writing a bible for a religion of sex; thereby, sex can bring meaning to your life.

You think you can improve on the wheel, eh ? If that's the most productive thing you can think of, good luck.

Let's try a shortcut: What doesn't bring meaning to life ?

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's try a shortcut: What doesn't bring meaning to life ?

I believe I've already said something to that effect.

[Disillusioned]

The absurd represents the free will of humans and the idea that each of our actions have consequences on the world. It is acceptance of the plain fact that bad things do happen to good people as much as you might not like it and believe it is unfair. There could be a good person who has never done anything to hurt others and has only ever spent their life trying to make the world better. This person can be hit by a drunk driver and die. The absurdity of this is when the family members of that person try to understand why such a bad thing happened to a good person.

The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

The fact is, there is not any reason why it happened other than that person being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your morality cannot protect you from the irresponsible actions of others. We each have free will and the actions we take with this free will effect others whether they like it or not. Two sociopath gunmen can go and shoot up a school; the fact that you are a good person will not stop the bullet from hitting you.

This is the absurdity of the world. To accept the absurd is to accept that there are things that are out of your control and that there does not have to be a reason why something happened. It just happened because it did, the world is unfair. Learn to accept it, even though it may seem absurd that the world is so unfair.

I used to think it was a terrible thing that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'what if life were fair, and all of the terrible things that happen to us came because we really deserved them?' Now I take great comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
-J. Michael Straczynski

I define it as such:

The Absurd: The notion that anything can happen to anyone at anytime. The world does not judge 'good people' or 'bad things', what happens happens for no other reason than that. The absurd is the frustration someone faces when they realize the absurdity of reality.

Thus, the absurdity is not the world, rather it is our human minds trying to understand the world and place meaning on events that have none.

The privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man only.
- Thomas Hobbes

However, I don't consider this to be a philosophy in itself, rather one of the notions discussed in existentialism. Many existentialist philosophers have talked about this notion and it ties into other notions associated with free will in existentialism such as angst and despair.

---------- Post added 05-14-2011 at 06:56 PM ----------

Thus, I do not consider myself an 'absurdist', rather an existentialist. This is merely one notion in the existentialist school of thought, though I do accept the notion of absurdity.

[Yardy]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hahahahaha, What does 'just appreciate' mean if not 'attribut(ing) meaning to a thing ? ---------- Post added 05-14-2011 at 07:54 PM ---------- You think you can improve on the wheel, eh ? If that's the most productive thing you can think of, good luck. Let's try a shortcut: What doesn't bring meaning to life ?

Language and symbols have a different "meaning" than the "meaning" we're discussing. Translating language (symbols, art) is not the same as applying mystic overtones to everything or believing in ultimate purpose.

You're confusing them.

The 'meaning' being discussed by this thread, via TheFreeDictionary

N.
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry). adj.

And then, the interpretation of symbols, which you overlooked.

2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.

Adj.
1. Full of meaning; expressive.
2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anywho...I guess I'm sort of in between Absurdism and Atheistic Existentialism as laid out in To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Neat chart; I guess I'm a proponent of Atheistic Existentialism, according to that. But, to be honest, though I read it years ago, the following continues to be the best summary of my philosophical worldview (I'm the guy in the hat):


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(Alt text: Why can't you have normal existential angst like all the other boys?)


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[elsdfr]

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(Alt text: Why can't you have normal existential angst like all the other boys?) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are you mocking existentialism? We're confused enough.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by Yardy249 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Language and symbols have a different "meaning" than the "meaning" we're discussing. Translating language (symbols, art) is not the same as applying mystic overtones to everything or believing in ultimate purpose. You're confusing them. The 'meaning' being discussed by this thread, via TheFreeDictionary N. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance. 3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien). 4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry). adj. And then, the interpretation of symbols, which you overlooked. 2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose. Adj. 1. Full of meaning; expressive. 2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions.

The difference you state has commonality which allows them to be place for 'bigger'
understanding in one Box. From the perspective of inside that box you have meaning of language and symbols (within this box is another box with 'nouns and adjectives :-))AND 'mystic overtones to everything of believing in ultimate purpose. [A coder would view this verboseness simply as an organization of '
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
'.]

Now consider the 'bigger' perspective (in other words, broader classification system) - the perspective of looking at the Box from the outside.

Under such circumstances the Box is now seen as the 'Meaning Box' (lay aside for now there are more boxes inside of boxes inside the Meaning Box). There are likely, various other boxes in this layer, and likely other layers. As a result, this layer is labelled as the Information layer.

Such a classification method is more consistent with *an* observed experience of Reality, in which Consciousness is fundamental and all else (such as Philosophy and Ethics>Absurdism/Existentialism/Nihilism>>Meaning>>>Language, Symbols, 'mystic ...purpose'>>>>nouns, adjectives etc.) derived to provide the Virtual Reality.

[Yardy]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The difference you state has commonality which allows them to be place for 'bigger' understanding in one Box. From the perspective of inside that box you have meaning of language and symbols. Now consider the 'bigger' perspective (in other words, broader classification system) - the perspective of looking at the Box from the outside. (within this box is another box with 'nouns and adjectives :-)) Under such circumstances the Box is now seen as the 'Meaning Box' (lay aside for now there are more boxes inside of boxes inside the Meaning Box). There are likely various other boxes in this layer, and likely other layers. As a result, this layer is labelled as the Information layer. Such a classification method is more consistent with *an* observed experience of Reality, in which Consciousness is fundamental and all else is (such as Philosophy and Ethics>Absurdism/Existentialism/Nihilism>>Meaning>>>Language, Symbols, 'mystic ...purpose'>>>>nouns, adjectives etc.) derived to provide the Virtual Reality.

You kind of just rephrased what we've been trying to say, except you still seem to have the two different words confused. "Meaning" and 'meaning'. Language is a collection of definitions that are used in as close to a mutually-understood sort of way as possible. The word "meaning" has a different meaning than it does whenever we talk about "The meaning of life".

Forgetting that, then yes, meaning, philosophy, law, rules and guidelines, sadness, happiness and tragedy are all "virtual". They're made up by the viewer, at the time that they're being viewed. What Freakaficial is saying (what I'm saying, what Daimanos' links are saying, and what Rudy's comic is saying) is that we personally want to spend less time focusing/dwelling on these virtual/artificial particulars, and experience the fascination of existence, because it's cool to be able to think and move around and chase squirrels and eat soup and be sick and be well and all that other stuff. There's no purpose to it. There doesn't have to be. It's just cool.

That, and your 'outside of the box' place isn't well-defined. It isn't a location with directions or a description, and there's no evidence provided to say that you're qualified to take me there, wherever 'there' is. I just have to give you the credit of believing when we've arrived. But I'm being nitpicky. I still think you and I are in the 'same place' at this particular moment.

	AND 'mystic overtones to everything or believing in ultimate purpose. [A coder would view this verboseness...

My effort to type my thoughts in a way that anyone reading them could understand.

	...simply as an organization of ' To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. '.]

See
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Yardy249
	You kind of just rephrased what we've been trying to say, except you still seem to have the two different words confused.

I rephrased for the purpose of re-organizing what's been said but have not changed anything else. My comments are based on a different model than you are implicitly using thus you interpret my comments as 'confused'.

	There's no purpose to it. There doesn't have to be. It's just cool.

The purpose is spiritual growth. Thus you et al, and I are not in the same place.

That's all I have to say on the matter, in this thread :-)

[Yardy]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I rephrased for the purpose of re-organizing what's been said but have not changed anything else. My comments are based on a different model than you are implicitly using thus you interpret my comments as 'confused'. The purpose is spiritual growth. Thus you et al, and I are not in the same place. That's all I have to say on the matter, in this thread :-)

Not to reply, since you're done, but for the benefit of anyone else reading: I don't think it *is* about spiritual growth. That kind of growth might be included sometimes, but that's still a purpose. I insist that there is no purpose other than doing what I want, when I want to do it. If I grow spiritually, that's great, and it might be a motive, but not the point. There isn't one. I can grow spiritually while doing anything. It's totally up to me, what I want to percieve in that respect.

[Lightman]

Originally Posted by Chuckles To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The meaning of life, or the core value of man is to live life as man qua man. How a man does that is to be productive, live on his own two feet, and to be firm in his values beyond the core. The how and why are up to each individual to decide. unless I am mistaken (and it has been awhile since I studied existentialism) existentialism didn't define what reality was or is. many trains of thought within the existentialist philosophy, including the matrix theory and ones like it, posit that life is subjective or perhaps not which it appears to be. is this not true, and if it is, is it not "anything goes"? I am actual not 100% on whether this is correct or not. Both suggest or put forth that human life is very subjective (nihilism to the point of undefinability and obscurity) and that at their core they share the same constructs in philosophy. I am not saying that they are the same, but from my perspective, they share the same root, so they are twins in ideology and form.

You are incorrect; existentialism does not state that there is no objective reality (though some existentialists could deny it), merely that there is no objective meaning to reality (I'm referring to 20th century existentialism).

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by Yardy249 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You kind of just rephrased what we've been trying to say, except you still seem to have the two different words confused. "Meaning" and 'meaning'. Language is a collection of definitions that are used in as close to a mutually-understood sort of way as possible. The word "meaning" has a different meaning than it does whenever we talk about "The meaning of life".

You are correct that there are two different definitions of the word 'meaning' and it depends on the context. For the sake of not committing the fallacy of equivocation which RBM seems to have been committing, I would say that "meaning" as it pertains to this discussion about finding personal meaning can be replaced with words like value and purpose.

Though I still don't fully understand what the difference between absurdism and existentialism is. Absurdity is a notion found in both existentialism and nihilism. The difference between the two being:

"Hence, existentialists believe that one can create value and meaning, whilst nihilists will deny this." From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


What then is the position of absurdists? Both schools of thought (existentialism and nihilism) believe that there is no inherent meaning in the world since existence precedes essence. Thus one believes that we can create our own meaning and the other believes that we can never give life any value or meaning.

On the page on Absurdism it says that it has its origins with the Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, but he is known as the 'father of existentialism'; Absurdity was merely one of the notions he presented which falls into the existentialist school of thought.

Can someone explain in there own words then what Absurdism as a distinct philosophy is?

---------- Post added 05-15-2011 at 04:03 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Chuckles To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am of none of these schools, but instead an objectivist. Nihilist have oversimplified the problem that is life, they claim that nothing is knowable and slam their hands around their ears and drone endlessly to try and keep out the riff-raff. Nihilism is absurd to the extreme in that the very thought process negates itself. Nothing is knowable, therefore, nothing that nothing is knowable is unknowable, therefore nihilism is unknowable. It's a pathetic end-all argument (and throughly aggravating). Existentialism... is the same as Nihilism at it's core. it states that reality is subjective because the human mind is subjective, therefore anything goes in terms of reality. It's another end-all. Absurdism, I must say that i've never heard of it before... but it seems too focused on an end-all meaning of life, claims it's unknowable, and that this search creates the human condition (please tell me if that's totally off base). it's interesting... to say the least. As an objectivist, I instead state that reality exists (against nihilists and existentialists), that perception proves that it exists(but does not circumvent existence, if i can't see a chair, doesn't mean it isn't there), as does the man perceiving it. and that man does have universal values, that of living as a man does, and thinking and living for himself first, but that these values are a choice. you choose against the values that are of man and you are a shadow of that which is man. as human beings, we have objective goals and values (to live as man qua man) but as sentient beings without instincts, we can choose to ignore them.

You have a misinformed understanding of what nihilism and existentialism are. You seem to be taking them to be metaphysical claims about the existence of reality. You are talking about realism vs idealism and whether or not what we perceive in reality actually exists, this is a question of whether we can trust our senses.

That is not what existentialism and nihilism are about. Existentialism is "generally focused on the condition of human existence, and an individual's emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts, or the meaning or purpose of life." From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


They are two different philosophical schools of thought and do not address one another. I, like you am an objectivist (or realist) as I hold that I can trust my perception and take that objects outside of me actually exist. Idealist's like Charles Barkley believe that things outside our mind only exists in light of us perceiving them and so when we close our eyes they cease to exist. His only way to escape the absurdity of such a claim is to say that God is all seeing so everything remains in constant existence in light of God perceiving of everything at all times. This just means that the whole notion of his theory relies on God existing and not only that but in particular the Triple O God of western religions. It is an absurd theory and I take it that 99.9 percent of the people on the planet are realists as opposed to idealists since they just take that objects can exist on their own.

Though this is a discussion for another thread. The point is that the objectivist view of philisophical realism is not opposed to existentialism or nihilism but rather to idealism. I am an objectivist like you but I am also an existentialist, as they are philosophies that focus on different questions and issues.

[edit] In truth, I'm not really concerned with metaphysical claims about reality. They seem pointless to me. Though existentialism does serve an important role as it addresses one's purpose and meaning in life and I mean what could be more important than that?

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned
	You are correct that there are two different definitions of the word 'meaning' and it depends on the context.

If you note my notation ...

	(such as Philosophy and Ethics>Absurdism/Existentialism/Nihilism>>Meaning>>>Language, Symbols, 'mystic ...purpose'>>>>nouns, adjectives etc.

... there is nothing to disagree with the 'two different definitions'.

	For the sake of not committing the fallacy of equivocation which RBM seems to have been committing,

Seems ? In light of my notational reiteration, do you still hold that view ?

[Moniker9]

I always thought of absurdism as a way of dealing with nihilism. You can't be an absurdist without also being a nihilist the way you can't be a Californian without also being an American. I don't think of nihilism as a belief so much as a fact, or as close to a fact as any philosophical principle is capable of being. Of course, it's a fact that most people are unwilling to accept. Not that I blame them, being a nihilist is very unpleasant. It seems you have to be a Frenchman in order to make it work.

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by Moniker9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think of nihilism as a belief so much as a fact

Well that's presumptuous. It's not a fact, it's a theory. One which seems intuitively correct to some and not to others. I believe that though there is no intrinsic purpose for humans we can create our own purpose and give our own lives value and meaning. That does not make me a nihilist.

Though I do agree with you that absurdism seems to be necessarily tied to existentialism or nihilism. It is merely one notion among many which is shared by both philosophies. Since many people on the poll describe themselves as absurdists I asked if someone could explain how it constitutes a distinct philosophical theory (since the original philosopher who wrote about the notion of absurdity, Soren Kierkegaard, was himself an existentialist). So far no one has been able to give me an answer.

[Moniker9]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well that's presumptuous.

Yeah. But correct.

	One which seems intuitively correct to some and not to others.

It doesn't matter if people 'feel' like it's correct, it either is or is not correct. It's the only theory about the meaning of life that has any backing in reality whatsoever. But of course, it's a philosophical principle, and therefore arguing about whether or not it can be proven is a little absurd.

	I believe that though there is no intrinsic purpose for humans we can create our own purpose and give our own lives value and meaning. That does not make me a nihilist.

Subjective meaning, not objective meaning. Nihilism states that there is no objective meaning to life, if you agree with that, then I'm sorry, you are indeed a nihilist.

	I asked if someone could explain how it constitutes a distinct philosophical theory (since the original philosopher who wrote about the notion of absurdity, Soren Kierkegaard, was himself an existentialist). So far no one has been able to give me an answer.

I don't think they are distinct. Not as I understand them anyway.

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by Moniker9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Subjective meaning, not objective meaning. Nihilism states that there is no objective meaning to life, if you agree with that, then I'm sorry, you are indeed a nihilist.

Wrong. Both existentialism and nihilism reject the idea that their is objective meaning in the world. Existentialism is founded on the idea that existence precedes essence, meaning that there is no objective purpose, rather we create our own purpose and define ourselves through our actions. Unlike some religions that hold that essence precedes existence; God created man in his image and thus had a purpose for us before bringing us into existence. This is something existentialists will deny because they hold that since we have free will we are therefore responsible for everything we do. Jesus nor God can take away your culpability for the actions you choose to make with your free will.

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
- Sartre

From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

Difference between existentialism and nihilism

"Though nihilism and existentialism are distinct philosophies, they are often confused with one another. A primary cause of confusion is that Friedrich Nietzsche is an important philosopher in both fields, but also the existentialist insistence on the absurd and the inherent meaninglessness of the world. Existentialist philosophers often stress the importance of Angst as signifying the absolute lack of any objective ground for action, a move that is often reduced to a moral or an existential nihilism. A pervasive theme in the works of existentialist philosophy, however, is to persist through encounters with the absurd, as seen in Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus ("One must imagine Sisyphus happy"), and it is only very rarely that existentialist philosophers dismiss morality or one's self-created meaning... Hence, existentialists believe that one can create value and meaning, whilst nihilists will deny this."

The difference is that nihilists deny that individuals can even create subjective meaning in their lives. This is absurd. I have reasons to live, even if they are self created one's. What is often the case is that those claiming to be nihilists don't actually understand what nihilism entails and when they do they will often find that they are in fact existentialists because nihilism is absurd. Just like how many who claim to be atheists are in fact agnostic. Get your definitions straight before claiming that your theory is "fact".

[RBM]

Good post; accurate use of terms in the context of accurate definitions.

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned
	Unlike some religions that hold that essence precedes existence; God created man in his image and thus had a purpose for us before bringing us into existence.

This is a good quote of a 'fork in the road' to underscore for emphasis.

The fork is:
physicality>essence
OR
essence>physicality

Orthodox science posits the first.

Religion AND (at least some) Consciousness Research Science posits the second. This results in major cognitive dissonance in the 21st century Western mind, as they are aligned with the orthodox scientific view.

[Disillusioned]

RBM, if there's anything that I'm closest to an expert on it's existentialism. It is my favorite philosophical school of thought and I have studied the works of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre (the 3 most prominent philosophers of this field) in depth.

But though I may hold that our purpose and meaning in life is subjective, I do not extend that subjectivity to the notion of morality. Like Kierkegaard I hold that morality is universal and applies to everyone at all times. Our actions are merely good or bad in relation to morality, we do not create morality ourselves.

But I think it is important to reflect on different schools of thought and make sure your theories fit together. All of mine do, and each seems intuitive to me on it's own so this merely strengthens my affirmation of them. I am an existentialist but I am also agnostic and a deontologist (kantian deontology) with respect to ethics. My view can be summed up with this very concise and true statement.

"God either exists or does not. But a man who does what is right is a good man regardless."

With respect to our purpose, upon reflection I came to what was for me a revelation:

"We are bound by the expectations we hold of ourselves. This is the only destiny we cannot escape."

I have other personal quotes on matters concerning free will, agnosticism and altruism but these are the two I feel are most pertinent to the current discussion.

[LaoTzu]

This entire conversation is note for note, a recreation of a religious debate.

Switch the word "God" for "Meaning"...

It's very amusing
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Atheists found a way to have faith too.



(Me: Absurdist. It's all masturbation. Necessary though. Life would be quite boring otherwise.)

[RBM]

Yes, it is obvious you have worked diligently of building your toe (theory of everything) model to ensure self-consistency. As a result, you are closer than others who toss around metaphors made of words as if they were speaking of the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The advantage of such a positional view is that the boundary is a bright line between your view, as you circumscribe it and whatever else can be found beyond that view.

A quick comment on one of your quotes, destiny CAN expand just as the universe is expanding cause the Larger Consciousness System expands as it evolves. Of course, this statement undermines the definition of 'destiny. I find fault with the concept as it is inherently a view of self-imposed absolutism. At the level of personal reality creation, the only absolute aspect is it's founded on statistical probability, as quantum physics underscores, which is effectively no absolutism at all and no 'destiny' in the strict sense of the word.

[Moniker9]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But though I may hold that our purpose and meaning in life is subjective, I do not extend that subjectivity to the notion of morality. Like Kierkegaard I hold that morality is universal and applies to everyone at all times. Our actions are merely good or bad in relation to morality, we do not create morality ourselves.

If we do not create morality, where does it come from? Morality is universal? Are you saying that morality exists in a way similar to a physical law, that it is separate from mankind? If so, why is it that morality changes from culture to culture. I think this notion may be the result of the philosopher rejecting the world nihilism shows and then rationalizing their rejection. I see no reason to believe that morality exists as anything but an evolutionary defense mechanism, those philosophers likely did not have the evolutionary perspective to show them that, so I think the things they said should be reexamined with that in mind.

	"God either exists or does not. But a man who does what is right is a good man regardless."

Is this not perhaps some kind of copout to allow you to live life without facing the soul-crushing pointlessness of existence. I'm going through a similair problem now, it's as close to a philosophical comedy as I've ever heard of.

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This entire conversation is note for note, a recreation of a religious debate. Switch the word "God" for "Meaning"...

I agree.