Report Blog Entry
No matter how many additional options there may seem to be, when approached from an objective and neutral perspective, it will become clear that, at the end of the day, we only have two choices: Nihilism or Theism.
If God exists, then an objective and universal morality can exist (based on the rules he sets). However, if God does not exist, this moral system collapses, and no solid moral framework or purpose of existence can take its place. The meaning and moral systems created by humans do not carry true objectivity. In fact, from a broader perspective, if God does not exist, it can be said that these individuals are simply deceiving themselves.
Existentialism, absurdism, and their variations are, at their core, softened forms of nihilism. Neither Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch nor Sartre’s notion of freedom can offer a rational solution to the inherent meaninglessness of existence.
“So what should we do then?”
You should keep living. Whether or not there is meaning doesn’t make this life any less valuable than it is. Being happy is, in itself, a sufficient reason to live. (Apologies to those who are less fortunate.)
You can create your own meaning. You can defend a morally constructed system of your own making. In short, you can assume the existence of normative ethics on a phenomenal level. But unfortunately, these meanings can never extend beyond your own subjective thinking.
Comments
Displaying 7 of 7 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
entity_unexplained
It's true, Searching for meaning may look like the life's purpose but I think having the right mind to be happy in these chaos and the process itself is the most enjoyable thing a human can have.
Most people doesn't see these kind of perspectives like some of us. For small is the cage, large do we perceive.
I could not agree more
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
soupferret
I think the whole god-or-nothing thing is funny, honestly- like standing in a hallway with two doors labeled “everything” and “void”, and realizing they probably open into the same room with the lights off.
I lean toward nihilism, not because I think nothing matters, but because nothing mattering feels like the ultimate permission slip. If no one’s keeping score, you can build your own game. Make your own rules. Decorate the abyss. It’s not hopeless; it’s weirdly liberating.
To me, theism and nihilism are both different ways of trying to hold hands with the infinite. One kneels, one laughs- but both are reaching for something that hums just out of reach. I like the laughter better. I like the idea that meaning isn’t waiting for me under some divine rock; I have to carve it into the dirt myself and call it holy.
It’s stimulating, sure- the whole dance of “is there meaning, or are we inventing the flavor?” but when you spin it around enough times, you end up right back in the same spot. Belief is just preference wearing philosophy as perfume. We all pick what keeps us breathing.
So yeah, I side with the void- not in worship, but in play. Nihilism just feels more honest to me, more realistic, like peeling back the wallpaper and finding the real wall underneath. It makes sense in a way that comforts me, even if it’s a little cold sometimes. But in the end, everyone just picks what keeps them breathing, whether that’s god, chaos, or something in between- and there’s no shame in that. Meaning’s a personal invention, and that’s what makes it beautiful.
I very much enjoyed your blog1!! I apologize if this makes little sense, I haven't slept in a while. (ㅅ´ ˘ `)
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. What you wrote leans more toward existentialism than nihilism at some points, but I understand what you mean, and it makes sense dw
I also agree with Sartre’s understanding of freedom. Even though it comes with great responsibility, it feels good to be free n being able to live like that :D
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
sheep
the idea of meaning within life is mechanistic, it's a reductionist notion attempting to explain a nonsensical universe, to accept a chaotic, ever-changing world is true meaning.
finding peace in the thought that there may never be an explanation, that we may never understand the natural world. the platonic view calls on us to understand the world at any cost, reduce it to algorithmically identifiable chunks of information, impose a system from above to generalise abstract information.
whitehead would call on the organisation from below, generalising upwards from success in particular domains, all the while understanding that there will not always come success. to believe most thoroughly in the self.
Although I find your comment interesting, I dont agree that accepting a chaotic world as it is constitutes true meaning. No matter how meaningful this may seem to you or to me, it lacks a solid foundation and cant transition from subjectivity to objectivity
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
i agree with you, a metaphysical outlook on the world is inherently subjective and can't be applied broadly. however, i struggle to see religion as an objective counterpart for similar reasons to belief in a metaphysical view.
by sheep; ; Report
When religions take reality as a given premise, this act is considered wrong. The reason is that the only view that can complete the sentence after “because” in “this is wrong, because…” is the reality of the religions themselves.
“This is wrong, because God says so.”
If we are to give examples from the Bible and the Quran:
“You shall not steal.”
Exodus 20:15 (Old Testament, one of the Ten Commandments).
“And do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly or send it [in bribery] to the rulers in order to consume a portion of people’s wealth sinfully while you know [it is wrong].”
Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:188.
This situation can, of course, be applied to all religions. The key point here is: “If God exists and the religion you believe in is true…”
As for the purpose of life, it can be understood as living in the way God wants you to: being a good person, worshipping, and earning a place in paradise.
The Ted Bundy criticism brought against COMMON-SENSE MORALITY can shake this system. Because if someone like Ted Bundy genuinely desires evil in a common-sense way, it indicates that common-sense morality either doesn’t function properly or cannot be accepted as universal morality.
However, when it comes to religion, saying “But I dont believe” doesn’t undermine divine command theory in the same way, because the issue here is not about who believes or not, but rather about establishing a moral ground that can be understood through reason.
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
religion starts with the same confidence as science, the belief that reality can be known and ordered. to say “this is wrong because god says so” is not reasoning, it is claiming reality bends to a will. the moment you make that claim, you have already defined what reality is, and everything that follows restates that definition.
divine command theory says morality comes from god’s nature, but this does not escape the circle, it just moves it. if good is whatever god is, then good no longer has independent meaning, it becomes a word that points only back to the claim itself.
both the rationalist and the believer want a ground beneath the shifting world. but the world offers none. morality, in a way, like meaning, can be nothing more than consciousness reaching for order in a chaotic world.
you did bring up some good points though, i don't necessarily agree with the bundy objection as his perception doesn't show that morality is subjective, it just shows that morality can be impaired, in the way that colour-blindness doesn't refute the objectivity of colours. and it's not like there hasn't been moral atrocity under religion.
thanks for the thorough reply though i appreciate the debate, you are very well read and write very clearly.
by sheep; ; Report
The point being debated and sought to be proven is not merely the ability to exist independently, but rather to possess meaning. If the concept of God is necessary for the word "good" to hold meaning, which I personally believe to be the case then so be it.
Indeed, the same criticism can be applied in various forms. For instance: good is now solely tied to evolutionary order, good is merely dependent on common sense, good is only linked to the pleasure one derives... and so on.
Yet, at the end of the day, the only thing capable of giving substance to what good depends on is religion. For if God exists and religion is true, then what is written in sacred texts becomes universal morality and objective reality. However, no other perspective aside from moral nihilism can offer such a definitive conclusion.
The example of Ted Bundy might not entirely collapse a moral system. But if we consider a foundation based on common sense, where good is understood through intuition, then this moral system fails to prove its basis to those lacking such intuition (because they do not possess it).
Moreover, you can condemn the actions of Ted Bundy or any serial killer by saying, "God commanded otherwise, this is a sin." Whether he believed in God or not does not change the outcome; in this case, the reality of God is sufficient to deem his actions transcendently evil. Yet, no other system can fulfill this role to such an extent.
Due to the inadequacy of these other systems, someone who does not believe in God is inevitably forced into moral nihilism (even if they dress it up as "creating their own meaning" and lean toward existentialism).
Thank you as well for your responses. If you want, we can continue this discussion in more detail and at greater length through direct messages.
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
s0nd3r
I agree with Theism. The true concept doesn’t exist without the creator. I remember going through moral doubt and almost started believing in moral nihilism to support my temporary belief that morality is subjective, but stopped because at the end of the day I’m still catholic xD but I deeply enjoy studying about different beliefs. Have you seen subjectivism, anyway? It’s the idea that proposes all purpose is formed from personal experiences. Whilst idealism says that reality is subjective, because the way we see the world is different for everyone; so we make our own purpose.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the two. They’re both similar
I'm glad you liked my writing. In my blog titled “Dostoevsky, Evil, and Universal Morality” I try to explore this topic in a more comprehensive way from a moral perspective. If you havent checked it out yet, I think you might find it interesting.
I think subjectivism can provide a strong response in certain situations but it can also fall short at times. However in fields like science, such subjective approaches can pose a kind of obstacle to progress.
Idealism feels a bit too mystical for me. I find Wittgenstein’s notion of presuppositions more appealing.
What do you think?
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
Asche The Augustinian
You didn't make a critique of the Theist position, you left it up to possibility which is not at all an argument.
Thanks for the feedback, but unfortunately my goal here wasnt to critique Theism but rather to highlight that the existence of God is a necessary premise that determines whether objective morality and meaning are possible. What you are looking for would require a separate discussion.
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
cherrydietcoke
studying philosophy only made me realize that there is no such concept for anything we do we simply carry what we learn and see around us even the circumstance in our life shapes the perspective of how we view life and all the 'moral' 'immoral' terms.
every philosopher had their own opinion on morality and we all just adapted what we were taught but then a criminal attempting crime - ofcourse he doesn't care about if it's morally right or wrong they just do whatever they want it clearly says that no matter of all the teachings and the entire moral perspectives humans would do what they want and it would never be considered "bad" or "good" in their perspectives
I completely agree with what you said. I actually talked about this exact topic on my blog called Dostoevsky, Evil, and Universal Morality. You can check it out if you’d like, i think it might interest you considering your view
by throughthehosiery; ; Report
rr124
I dont think about life. I just watch tv and listen to my government. They always know the best for me anyways, right?
based
by throughthehosiery; ; Report