Is EVERYTHING meaningless?

[Nihilist]

I don’t believe it is a correct argument. Notation mine.
Re [1] above: Where do preferences come from? Internally. If they come from internally they are not objective but subjective. Therefore the initial premise fails and the rest cannot follow.

So, nothing can be ‘preferable’, or ‘to-be-prefered’, in the absence of a ‘prefering subject’, thus nullifying the idea of objective ‘value’ (if value is defined as ‘the state of being prefered/preferable’.)

How would you define something being ‘of value’? Is it necessarily subjective, insofar as it seems to require a ‘valuing subject’?

But doesn’t all this subjectivity simply show that, objectively, everything is valueless? Or does it show that it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘objective value’ at all?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But doesn’t all this subjectivity simply show that, objectively, everything is valueless? Or does it show that it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘objective value’ at all?

I don’t see how I could be a Catholic and not accept the existence of objectively good or evil values.

 

[Nihilist]

I don’t see how I could be a Catholic and not accept the existence of objectively good or evil values.

I don’t see the incompatibility.

X might be good or bad, from God’s point of view. Since God is God- all human beings need to act in accordance with His evaluation. God prefers certain actions to be done (like charity, attendance at Mass), and certain actions not to be done (such as theft or murder).

But God’s point of view is not an ‘absolutely objective’ point of view. It is the point of view of Someone who loves mankind, and has compassion for suffering.

Since Catholics believe in a personal God who loves and wills, it follows that God is also a ‘subject’ in a sense. So, God’s view is not neutral, indifferent, or ‘objective.’

So, moral good and evil are ‘quasi-objective’, in the sense that they apply to all human beings, in accordance with God’s will. But they are not ‘absolutely objective’ (i.e. it is licet for certain species of mammal, e.g. lions, to practise polygamy, or for certain fish to practise infanticide).

 

[Oreoracle]

Would that be a problem for you?

My point wasn’t that it would be problematic, but rather that it simply isn’t true. We don’t behave like computers. Even people who claim to be nihilists seem to engage in behaviors motivated by “passions” as often as anyone else. A purely rational, passion-free individual would be inactive save for perhaps behaviors that are instinctive.

You are demanding the impossible. Values are not material things that you can see and weigh and measure, that you can verify or falsify as you might a scientific experiment.

Fair enough, but shouldn’t they still be amenable to logic? Offer a method by which we could deductively demonstrate that something is morally right or wrong. I’ll give you what should be an easy one: Deductively prove that killing innocents is wrong. State your premises very clearly, as that will save time.

 

[Oreoracle]

Is that a correct argument? It seems virtually a tautology.

Yes, your argument seems correct. What you’ve shown is essentially that “objective value” is an absurd notion. Notice that it isn’t coincidental (that is, it’s not a contingency) that nothing exists which has objective value. It is a contingency that unicorns don’t exist, because it is logically possible that something resembling a unicorn could exist. But it follows by the definition of “objectivity” that nothing could be of objective value, just as it follows by the definition of “triangle” that there are no 4-sided triangles.

So, to sum things up, “objective value” is self-contradictory unless you choose an obscure definition of “value”.

 

[davidv]

So, nothing can be ‘preferable’, or ‘to-be-prefered’, in the absence of a ‘prefering subject’, thus nullifying the idea of objective ‘value’ (if value is defined as ‘the state of being prefered/preferable’.)

That is not was I said.
Merriam Webster: Objective:

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

Merriam Webster: Subjective:

philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

Preferences are from within, therefore are subjective. Still real but significantly different that objective reality.

How would you define something being ‘of value’? Is it necessarily subjective, insofar as it seems to require a ‘valuing subject’?

I don’t know if I could provide a definition. However I can provide an example of a value that does not depend on preference. A human life is valuable independent of anyone’s preference about the person.

But doesn’t all this subjectivity simply show that, objectively, everything is valueless?

Not in my mind.

Or does it show that it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘objective value’ at all?

Only if one is willing disregard some truth.

 

[Nihilist]

Preferences are from within, therefore are subjective. Still real but significantly different that objective reality.
I don’t know if I could provide a definition. However I can provide an example of a value that does not depend on preference. A human life is valuable independent of anyone’s preference about the person.

As a Christian, I believe a human life, even if not of value to the invididual themselves, or anyone else, is of value to God.

If something is of value, it must be of value to someone, even if that someone is God Alone. It can’t be ‘objectively of value’, since there logically needs to be someone (a subject) to whom it is of value.

 

[Nihilist]

Yes, your argument seems correct. What you’ve shown is essentially that “objective value” is an absurd notion. Notice that it isn’t coincidental (that is, it’s not a contingency) that nothing exists which has objective value. It is a contingency that unicorns don’t exist, because it is logically possible that something resembling a unicorn could exist. But it follows by the definition of “objectivity” that nothing could be of objective value, just as it follows by the definition of “triangle” that there are no 4-sided triangles.

So, to sum things up, “objective value” is self-contradictory unless you choose an obscure definition of “value”.

Thanks for a good summing up.

 

[crenfro]

Hello.

Sorry, can’t resist.

Is “meaning” meaningless? If it is, what’s the point in discussion.

Love is what gives things meaning, as I understand things.

 

[KindredSoul]

What gives me a sense of meaning, on THIS side of eternity, besides just “waiting for the next life” is knowing that, in the mind of God, all is an eternal “Now.” God, we must recall, from eternity and to eternity, is aware of every single moment from the dawn of time to the end. He holds every single event, to the smallest particle’s movement, intimately in His mind, and it never passes from it. Indeed, we human beings may be able to have the same perspective, once we enter into Heaven and are able to share–to some extent–in the mind and knowledge of God. In fact, simply living in eternity, outside of Time, as we shall in the next life, entails having a perspective where all of history does not become nonexistent, but rather becomes “frozen” in eternity.

What this means is that, while it seems to us that anything we work for will pass 100 years from now, in Eternity nothing will pass. Now, that may seem terrible when we think of evil and suffering in the world, but from the perspective of eternity I believe that somehow it will all fit together like a beautiful tapestry or mosaic. The dark and seemingly ugly parts will all fit together with the good and wonderful, so that the whole and complete tapestry or mosaic is a thing of glory. A thing that would NOT look as it did if any given event, in all of history–even down to the life and death of the smallest microbe, or the journey of a single subatomic particle–had been different.

So, on the contrary, eternity means that everything that happens has real meaning, real merit, for all eternity. Time will pass away, in the sense that we will no longer be trapped or limited by it, but I believe that the history of Creation will continue to exist in eternity as that breathtaking tapestry. Not one accomplishment, from the most inspiring romance to the most spectacular of arts, from a single hug to the most elaborate of celebrations, will ever “cease to be.” Not one moment will cease to exist. Rather, in eternity, they will be even more vibrant than they were, for in Time each moment seems to pass away. In eternity, each moment will be readily visible–all at the same time–as part of the mosaic known as “History”, and it will be like the most glorious piece of art we have ever seen.

This is why I believe everything will still matter, will still have value, even in eternity.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[tonyrey]

Well, it’s an objective fact that the Gospel requires charity. It is probably/possibly true that there is a God who will judge us, and determine where we spend eternity.

 

[Nihilist]

Being objective means being realistic

, not excluding ourselves from the picture.

OK, I agree with all you are saying. Clearly, defining the word ‘objective’ is difficult.

My initial take was that was ‘a view from nowhere’- a view without a subject.

Yet, in common usage, things are described as being ‘objective’ if they apply to all human beings, etc.

In common usage, I agree, it makes sense to call God’s point of view objective, although, technically, even that is situated in a subject (although an omnipresent and omniscient one).

Clearly, the idea of a ‘view from nowhere’ is absurd. So, I retract the philosophical substance of my arguments, and concede that I was using ‘objective’ in a non-customary sense.

Nevertheless, I still have a feeling of universal futility, but I suppose that nothing more than something like indigestion or fatigue…

 

[Nihilist]

What gives me a sense of meaning, on THIS side of eternity, besides just “waiting for the next life” is knowing that, in the mind of God, all is an eternal “Now.” God, we must recall, from eternity and to eternity, is aware of every single moment from the dawn of time to the end. He holds every single event, to the smallest particle’s movement, intimately in His mind, and it never passes from it. Indeed, we human beings may be able to have the same perspective, once we enter into Heaven and are able to share–to some extent–in the mind and knowledge of God. In fact, simply living in eternity, outside of Time, as we shall in the next life, entails having a perspective where all of history does not become nonexistent, but rather becomes “frozen” in eternity.

What this means is that, while it seems to us that anything we work for will pass 100 years from now, in Eternity nothing will pass. Now, that may seem terrible when we think of evil and suffering in the world, but from the perspective of eternity I believe that somehow it will all fit together like a beautiful tapestry or mosaic. The dark and seemingly ugly parts will all fit together with the good and wonderful, so that the whole and complete tapestry or mosaic is a thing of glory. A thing that would NOT look as it did if any given event, in all of history–even down to the life and death of the smallest microbe, or the journey of a single subatomic particle–had been different.

So, on the contrary, eternity means that everything that happens has real meaning, real merit, for all eternity. Time will pass away, in the sense that we will no longer be trapped or limited by it, but I believe that the history of Creation will continue to exist in eternity as that breathtaking tapestry. Not one accomplishment, from the most inspiring romance to the most spectacular of arts, from a single hug to the most elaborate of celebrations, will ever “cease to be.” Not one moment will cease to exist. Rather, in eternity, they will be even more vibrant than they were, for in Time each moment seems to pass away. In eternity, each moment will be readily visible–all at the same time–as part of the mosaic known as “History”, and it will be like the most glorious piece of art we have ever seen.

This is why I believe everything will still matter, will still have value, even in eternity.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

That’s an amazing insight. It reminds me of something Nietsche said, that we should live our lives in such a way that we would be prepared to re-live them an infinite number of times.

Steeping outside of time, I suppose, everything is eternal. Many thanks.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s an amazing insight. It reminds me of something Nietsche said, that we should live our lives in such a way that we would be prepared to re-live them an infinite number of times.

Steeping outside of time, I suppose, everything is eternal. Many thanks.

And much welcome.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, moral good and evil are ‘quasi-objective’, in the sense that they apply to all human beings, in accordance with God’s will. But they are not ‘absolutely objective’ (i.e. it is licet for certain species of mammal, e.g. lions, to practise polygamy, or for certain fish to practise infanticide).

The distinction you make between objective and quasi-objective doesn’t work for me.

Either a moral principle is objective or it is not.

For example, it is objectively a moral evil to kill the innocent. There is no “quasi” about it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Fair enough, but shouldn’t they still be amenable to logic? Offer a method by which we could deductively demonstrate that something is morally right or wrong. I’ll give you what should be an easy one: Deductively prove that killing innocents is wrong. State your premises very clearly, as that will save time.

In virtually all of logic there are what we call axioms that cannot be proven. This is also true in mathematics, such as the axioms of Euclid. As a child Bertrand Russell threatened to stop studying Euclid if his tutor, his older brother, was going to insist that the axioms could not be proven. When his brother said “O.K. we stop right now,” Bertrand relented because he was so infatuated with learning things that could be proven deductively.

The statement “Killing innocents is wrong” is hardly provable. We take it as axiomatic.

In Catholic theology it would be called an element of the natural law which God has given us … an innate sense requiring no proof that some things are intrinsically bad and we are not to do them.

However, if you insist, I will construct a syllogism that may or may not be worthwhile, remembering first of all that “Killing innocents is wrong” is self-evident innate morality and requires no proof.

Killing without just cause is wrong.
Killing innocents is killing without just cause.
Killing innocents is wrong.

 

[Oreoracle]

In virtually all of logic there are what we call axioms that cannot be proven.

…]

The statement “Killing innocents is wrong” is hardly provable. We take it as axiomatic.

I agree entirely. As Hume said, you cannot derive an ought from an is. What you’ve shown is that we only derive oughts from other oughts, and the first ought is always taken for granted based on the subject’s preferences. Example: You prefer for yourself and others not to be killed, so you take it as axiomatic that that should be the case.

 

[Oreoracle]

Honestly, I’m surprised you conceded that point. You may be the first Catholic I’ve witnessed do so on these forums. Let’s take deductive systems in math to appreciate how important this is:

Someone who hears about elliptic geometry for the first time may feel uncomfortable due to their Euclidean bias, and may naively suspect that there is a larger, “absolute” perspective from which to view math that would allow us to decide which system is true. The reality is that we can’t speak of the truth of, say, theorems of elliptic geometry in an absolute sense. We can only say they are true from the perspective of the axiomatic systems from which they arise. So debating which type of geometry is true is folly.

The typical Christian view is that morality is objective; that is, we can derive all morals from objective, non-moral things. But as you’ve confessed, we actually have to assume at least one moral without extracting it from the objective world to get any sort of moral code off the ground. So when a Christian insists that other moralities are “incorrect” they are committing the same error as the geometry student who believes Euclidean geometry is right and elliptic geometry is wrong. You can only talk about what is correct or incorrect within a particular axiomatic system.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The typical Christian view is that morality is objective; that is, we can derive all morals from objective, non-moral things. But as you’ve confessed, we actually have to assume at least one moral without extracting it from the objective world to get any sort of moral code off the ground.

Yes, and I’d say the most axiomatic of moral imperatives is “Love one another.”

From that axiom grows another one: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Such axioms, because so basic, are virtually impossible to prove deductively. Or if proven deductively, one has to ask why bother, since they are so self-evident.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, and I’d say the most axiomatic of moral imperatives is “Love one another.”

From that axiom grows another one: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Such axioms, because so basic, are virtually impossible to prove deductively. Or if proven deductively, one has to ask why bother, since they are so self-evident.

It was the special genius of Jesus to have built an ethical system with an indestructible foundation.