The Nihilistic Argument

[Kalmbach]

Given your world-view, it is both objectively true that you want to live, and objectively true that you have no rational reason for doing so.

I have no rational reason for, or objective reality about, thinking there is any meaning to life; it doesn’t follow that a meaningless life should be forfeited just because it has no intrinsic value. What I’m saying is that a truth claim cannot be made about what to conclude from there being no intrinsic meaning, and so “rationality” (i.e., justifiable reasons for doing something) are off the table for discussion on the very same grounds that the terms of meaningless were conjured.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Maybe this will help: if everything is relative and subjective, there are no justifications in the objective sense (a claim you’ve mirrored). If there are no rationales, there is no debate about what or what is not **rational. **The positions held by atheists just are.

When all rational avenues are exhausted, it seems to be a common trend for an atheist to be anti-rational. Anti-rationality is the only way to escape from the truth and live comfortably with delusions.

I think therefore i am. If truth is subjective and relative you would be correct. But it is not. And it is irrelevant to this debate whether rationality is objective or not. If you go back to the OP, you will find that the context (which you have changed to suite you) of this debate assumes that the atheist is right about rational evidence, and that we should believe and act on rational grounds.

 

[Kalmbach]

Existential survival itself becomes the antithesis of reason, because your choice to live in existence is driven purely by emotional beliefs that have no objective basis in reality. This is to say that feelings which encourage us to believe that life is worth living do not reflect the objective truth about the meaninglessness and worthlessness of being alive. It is a delusion. Life has no value and so it is irrational to give it value. Therefore it becomes entirely rational to cease existing; not because its desirable, but because every act of life is an irrational act. Thus Death is the only escape from irrationality. If you choose to live instead, it is for irrational reasons.

I have to problematize the language here. I’ve stated elsewhere that you’ve pitted emotion and objective reality against each other. They’re not opposite sides of the spectrum; they’re two different things. The objective reality is about my wanting to live. There is no obligation for my wanting to live (my emotions) to reflect the objective reality of meaningless, because they reflect the objective reality of my desire and choice. To make choices based on emotions is not to confound ‘objective reality’/‘rationality,’ and can’t unless there is also a reason not to live. But since there is no objective reality about the need for my emotions to coorespond to meaningless, there is no discussion of what is or isn’t rational. It’s subterfuge.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I have no rational reason for, or objective reality about,

What are you saying here? You have no objective reality?

it doesn’t follow that a meaningless life should be forfeited just because it has no intrinsic value.

A conclusion which is driven by your emotions.

What I’m saying is that a truth claim cannot be made about what to conclude from there being no intrinsic meaning, and so “rationality”

Yes i can. I can conclude that to behave as if life had meaning is dishonest and irrational behavior.

(i.e., justifiable reasons for doing something) are off the table for discussion on the very same grounds that the terms of meaningless were conjured.

I don’t understand what you mean here.

 

[Kalmbach]

When all rational avenues are exhausted, it seems to be a common trend for an atheist to be anti-rational.

It’s not an anti-rational plea. Rationalism, I’m saying (i.e., making fact claims about objective reality) cannot apply to how we should act with the knowledge that life is meaningless. The very “should” principle, as we’ve seen, is called into question in atheism. Nothing necessary follows from that on the very grounds we’ve started with (i.e., with atheism). It can’t be said to be rational (i.e., reflecting objective reality) because it’s neither attempting to make a reflection of meaningless, or not make a reflection of meaninglessness. You’ve claimed elsewhere that “certain existential consequences follow.” With the very same perspective I’ve started with, I’m saying that it is necessarily the case that no consequences follow.

P.S. it’s becoming bothersome to reformat your text in the quotes. You can probably get away with writing everything in standard font. If you want to make emphases and accentuations, do so with your arguments.

 

[Kalmbach]

Yes i can. I can conclude that to behave as if life had meaning is dishonest and irrational behavior.

Dishonest to what? Meaninglessness? My wanting to live isn’t “dishonest to” the fact that life is meaningless anymore than it’s dishonest to grass being green. My wanting to live doesn’t stand in reference to the reality of meaninglessness. They are two non-excluding facts: one is about my desire; one is about the nature of the world. Meaningless doesn’t squash my desire to live (my reason for living), and you’re suggesting it should. You have to provide evidence for the case that intrinsic meaning and value are the only justifiable reasons for existing. Since reasons for wanting to exist are subjective matters, it can’t be taken into the realm of objectivity.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To make choices based on emotions is not to confound ‘objective reality’/‘rationality,’

You respond to your emotions with action because you believe they are telling you something meaningful and true.

If you really did not believe that there were saying something true about reality, you would not respond to them affirmatively because you know that it would be irrational and delusional to do so.

 

[Kalmbach]

You respond to your emotions with action because you believe they are telling you something meaningful and true.

They’re telling me I want to live; that is the truth piece; that is your fact claim. My feelings aren’t in contradiction to the meaninglessness of reality, because they aren’t in reference to that fact, contrary to your assumption.

If you really did not believe that there were saying something true about reality, you would not respond to them affirmatively because you know that it would be irrational and delusional to do so.

You’ve got this idea that my feelings have to speak to this one particular reality, but my desire to live doesn’t affirm or not affirm meaninglessness. it has no obligation to speak to the issue whatsoever. They’re different facts altogether. You still have to bridge this gap in your argument.

And really, the size 3 font thing isn’t necessary. It’s just annoying to format. Do you suppose, for the benefit of a long-lasting debate, with many exchanges, you would just use regular formatting?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Dishonest to what? Meaninglessness? My wanting to live isn’t “dishonest to”

That you want to live isn’t dishonest. You are just expressing what you want. But to behave as if life had meaning and value, when it does not, is dishonest and irrational behavior. To choose to act on information which one knows not to be true or reasonable is delusional behavior. If i feel guilty about killing somebody and that emotion drives me to confess the murder, i would hope that my experience of guilt was telling me something true about reality, that my actions are truly wrong and that i should confess such a crime. Thats why most people do the right thing, because they really think its truly good to do the right thing - that there is a right thing to do. If that isn’t true, then i am being deceived. I wouldn’t feel guilty about killing a plant, because there really is no rational reason to feel guilty about killing a plant. If human life has no value, then there is no rational reason for me to feel guilty, and to think that i should do is delusional. The same principle applies to other emotions which drive us to act.

it’s dishonest to grass being green.

If somebody knows that Grass is truly and objectively green then it is not dishonest to say that grass is green.

To treat things as they really are is honest and rational.

i wonder; as an atheist, do you treat things as they truly are?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

They’re telling me I want to live; that is the truth piece; that is your fact claim.

Your emotions are telling you that its good to survive. This is not something you subjectively made up independently of your emotions. Your emotions are driving you to that conclusion.

The thing is, your emotions are telling you something that is not objectively true.

 

[Kalmbach]

But to behave as if life had meaning and value

This is your leap though: to want to live is not to behave as if life had meaning; the fact stands alone without reference to anything else. You haven’t made the bridge and I’m wondering if you’re going to try.

It is only irrational to contradict the truth claim, but the fact of your desires don’t have objective truth to debate. And as I said, they don’t stand in reference to the facts. Why do you think that they do?

 

[Sair]

You respond to your emotions with action because you believe they are telling you something meaningful and true.

If you really did not believe that there were saying something true about reality, you would not respond to them affirmatively because you know that it would be irrational and delusional to do so.

You assume here that you have a choice in responding to your emotions - a choice not prompted by conflicting emotions or instincts. People don’t respond to emotions because we step aside and consider their rational implications - we respond to emotions because that is the way we feel at the time, in the circumstances. Rationalisation may happen later.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You assume here that you have a choice in responding to your emotions - a choice not prompted by conflicting emotions or instincts. People don’t respond to emotions because we step aside and consider their rational implications - we respond to emotions because that is the way we feel at the time, in the circumstances. Rationalisation may happen later.

That you have emotions is not a choice; but how you respond to them and deal with them is a matter of intellect; this is to say, we can respond to our emotions intelligently and ask whether its rational to act on that emotion; we can ask whether that emotion corresponds rationally with objective reality, since that is the standard of truth. If we claim to be rational beings, we should stick to that standard of truth. That some people are blindly driven by their emotions is really besides the point. The point is, if an atheist happens to be of the attitude that one should only believe and do that which is known or understood rationally or evidentially, as a matter of principle, this idea not only excludes God, but it also excludes all of the most important things which make us human; more than just animals, more than just a meaningless arrangement of atoms.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is your leap though: to want to live

You want to live for a “reason”. Your experiences have given you what you believe to be a good reason. The questions is, does that reason correspond rationally with the true objective state of reality? If not, then it follows that you have no rational reason to exist or survive; and life therefore becomes the antithesis of reason. If you are a rational being that believes and does things for rational reasons, then you must agree that to exist is irrational, and that there is only one way to escape that irrationality (suicide).

But if you are willing to take it on faith that emotions and life itself rationally reflect objective reality, then you can live so long as you accept that which is required to be true in order for life to be rational. In other words, the idea that life is a rational act can only be true if it is consistently rooted in certain metaphysical axioms.

The first axiom: You would have to accept that life is objectively significant, morally valuable, and intrinsically meaningful, and that therefore it is objectively better to exist than not exist. Epistemologically speaking, the rational justification for this type of faith works in the same way as the rational justification for the belief that the universe exists objectively outside of our minds-eye. We experience emotions that appear to reflect objective reality just like our experience of the universe appears to reflect objective reality. This is to say that some emotions appear to have objective references to things or behavior existing outside of our minds, like when we feel “guilt” as a result of our negative behavior towards other persons. We accept the objectivity of the universe in order to function rationally with it. So to must we accept that our desire to survive and to be treated with dignity and respect really does reflect the objective value of human life; because if we don’t, we must forfeit existence despite how we feel to contrary. If we begin with the first axiom, humanities attempt to survive becomes reasonable because survival reflects the true objective nature and value of life and existence in general.

There other axioms that would also have to follow as true; but i want to see what you and Sair have to say to this.

 

[levinas12]

Sure, empiricism/logic/the scientific method are superior devices to human emotion if the goal is to adequately describe reality.

In philosophy, there has always been a classical opposition of intellect to emotions. Intellect = truth. Emotions = error. This “stoicism” continued down through Kant and into the 20th century (Carnap).

But there have been other philosophical perspectives on emotion. Heidegger talks about how “mood” discloses how it is with the world. For example, real threats are revealed through “fright” or “dread”.

So moods, feelings, even pleasure/pain, disclose truth. These “activities” do not primordially uncover what’s happening inside us but rather what’s going on out in the world.

For example, on another thread dealing with the connection of love and sex, I have argued that sexual pleasure is fundamentally “cognitive” , it discloses the “person” of the other … as such, it is not primarily reflective of a “state of our own body” but the “space” within which the truth of another person is disclosed. Adam “knew” Eve. Of course, sexual pleasure can be diverted away from disclosure.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In philosophy, there has always been a classical opposition of intellect to emotions. Intellect = truth. Emotions = error. This “stoicism” continued down through Kant and into the 20th century (Carnap).

But there have been other philosophical perspectives on emotion. Heidegger talks about how “mood” discloses how it is with the world. For example, real threats are revealed through “fright” or “dread”.

So moods, feelings, even pleasure/pain, disclose truth. These “activities” do not primordially uncover what’s happening inside us but rather what’s going on out in the world.

There’s plenty of further information to support your position (I was reviewing some of it less than an hour ago). Similarly with these forums (and within this thread) it seems as though “rational” = correct and “irrational” = incorrect/flawed. It also seems as though rational and irrational thought are purely antithetical to each other. While these are opposite attributes on concept within the real word there is supporting evidence that successful rational decisions tend to require some about of irrational thinking. Without the irrational and emotional component ) which has occurred to people with damage to the emotional “center” of the brain) the decision making abilities are severely limited. Despite possessing full knowledge that was held before the loss of emotion such people can deliberate on things for hours and never make a decision. I won’t derail this thread with the supporting information and real world examples, but plan to start another thread on it later.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Dammmmme! I mashed you guys up on this thread. I claim my self the winner of this discussion.