NationStates Jolt Archive


My philosophy

Stripe-lovers
01-01-2005, 19:47
So, to commemorate post no 500 I thought I'd post my philosophy. This will be going up on my blog later on, so it's somewhat personalised. It's also very long, so warning for anyone who doesn't want to be bored to sleep. Finally, it's a very rough first draft so feel free to rip it to shreads...

The Happy Nihilist

I guess my philosophy could best be categorised as nihilistic subjectivism, or subjectivistic nihilism, depending on how you want to approach it. I hate to use terms like this, since it makes me sound horribly pretentious, but it really is very useful to do so for the purposes of clarification. For those who have no idea, or only vague ideas, what either of these terms mean here's a couple of useful links:

nihilism: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
subjectivism: http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/subjectivism.html

The fact that these two philosophies appear contradictory is not a problem, in my opinion. Indeed, as far as I can see it it merely serves to illustrate the fact that both, as classically defined, miss the point.

Subjectivism misses the point because it attempts to assert as an objective truth the fact that all truths are subjective. This is manifestly self-contradictory. It also tries to justify itself in objective terms, by referring to hallucinations, say, or to facts of physics or biology. Again, this is contradictory.

Nihilism, on the other hand, is contradictory because it asserts that because nothing can be known one should claim to know nothing. In other words, the knowledge that nothing can be known trumps all other forms of knowledge. Yet, if nothing can be known then one cannot even know that nothing can be known. Thus there is no reason to reject any other claims of knowledge.

So, what of nihilistic subjectivism, then? I accept subjectivism from the point of view of metaphysics rather than epistemology. That is, I see subjectivism as stemming from the integral nature of our interaction with the universe rather than any particular facet of knowledge acquisition. As for nihilism, my view is in some ways more nihilistic than standard nihilism. One of my favourite lines is "anyone who calls themselves a nihilist isn't". Equally, though, in some ways it is less nihilistic. Well, that was clear as mud. Here's a more thorough explanation:

We are, by nature, subjective beings. The limitations of our faculties, both mental and physical, make it so. Basically, given our finite resources and time span we are unable to fully grasp anything larger than ourselves in terms of time or space. By this I do not mean we cannot extrapolate; of course a prominent historian can gain a good level of understanding of events that span 1000s of times the length of their own life. However, it remains true that they cannot ever hope to fully understand them since to do so would require being able to comprehend all elements involved at all times. In order to understand, say, the Russian revolution in its entirety it would be a minimal requirement to know completely the psyches of all the prominent protagonists. To truly understand these one would need to understand all the causal factors involved in shaping these psyches. Then one would need to understand all the causal interplay that shaped all the smaller events unfolding in and around the main events. Ultimately, then, the factors involved quickly reach a level of complexity vastly beyond the comprehension of any one human being. Indeed they quite quickly reach infinite, or near-infinite, proportions.

That is not to say one cannot gain a good, functional understanding of the Russian revolution through dedicating a significant amount of one's life to researching it. It would be absurd to make such a claim. It is merely that what one gains is nowhere near objective truth. All we can hope to gain is a firm hold on the narrow boundaries we arbitrarily define. Simply put, we carve the world into manageable chunks that are realistically comprehensible to us. This makes it possible to gain some level of understanding of them. To completely understand, that is to perceive the objective truth, such partitions of reality, however, would require a complete knowledge of all other aspects of reality and their relationship to the partitions we define. And this is impossible for any finite being.

All this remains true without even considering the fact that even the most minute element of an event such as the Russian Revolution is grasped in just the same, arbitrary way as the event itself, even to those involved at the time. Let's take something as simple as the blank round that was fired from the Aurora to mark the start of the October Revolution. Such a seemingly simple object is, in fact, made up of a immense, constantly changing mass of particles. It would take more than a lifetime to map out the life of even one of these particles. And we do not, and may not ever, even fully understand the nature of these particles. Even to understand a single cannon shot in its entirety, then, is beyond the faculties of any human being. We are forced to ignore a vast number of elements in order to even begin to comprehend a few. Furthermore, whilst we see the blank as a single entity in reality it is a compound of many complex causal interactions both within and without. Once we define the constituent atoms as individual entities, for the purposes of gaining some level of understanding of their nature, the shot in effect ceases to exist. The same is true if we define the planet it is one as a single, complete entity.

In effect, then, we are left with a world that is just as arbitrary and personal as if it were all in our mind. Every object we have a conceptual grasp of has only the reality we grant it; if we break it down into its parts, or perceive it only as a non-distinct part of a larger whole it ceases to have an independent reality. This is true of even the greatest, and smallest, things we can carve out of an infinite space. The net result is that even if we are beings existing in an independent world our conceptualisation of it has just as much reality as if it were all a fantasy.

This is where the nihilism comes in, or rather doesn't. Given all this we must accept that knowledge is impossible for what we call knowledge is, in fact, merely a product of our own intellectual failings. No matter what level of abstraction we hope to attain it all fails in the face of our inadequacies to the task. We may cling on to logical or mathematical truths, and so knowledge, but these are more coping mechanisms than a mystical bond to the true nature of the world. Perhaps the world does behave according to the rules of logic and mathematics. Or perhaps it does not. The fact remains that as long as the coping mechanisms remain entrenched in our mind, as they must lest we collapse into complete incomprehension, then our perception of them as "truths" would persist in either scenario.

Yet it is precisely these failings which must force us to abandon nihilism as it is classically conceived. For given our inability to truly comprehend what is external to us, or even fully perceive that it is external to us, we cannot make any definitive objective claims about it. And that includes the claim that we cannot know it. It may, indeed, be the case that we are aware of a vast number of metaphysical truths upon which we can base knowledge. Whether or not these truths are true will always remain a mystery, however.

So, let's assume you've read through all of this without coming to the conclusion "he's out of his fricking mind." What does this all mean in practice? As far as philosophy is concerned, absolutely nothing. Philosophical discourse can continue in exactly the same manner as it has done before. Those who accept my way of thinking should assess the claims of other philosophers on the basis of whether or not they conform to the arbitrary belief system they have thus far developed, rather than appealing to any objective standards. Such a position is in fact almost impossible, of course; our very nature means we can never truly abandon our belief in the "truth" of whatever it is we hold at any one time, at least, that is until some other "truth" comes along which seems more plausible. This should be no cause for concern, however, indeed, those who agree with me should happily embrace our human failings, As for those who do not accept my arguments, they can continue as they were; it is just as feasible that they are coincidentally citing metaphysical truths as it is that they are completely deluded.

The only changes that should come about from this philosophy are, though I hate to use the term, spiritual ones. That is, those who accept this philosophy, and are also able to come to terms with, in a positive way, the futility of finding objective truth, should find their blood pressure lowering greatly; once any and all objective assertions become equally valid then one has no more need to fly into a rage at the thousands of stupid things stated every second on this fine planet. Equally one need not fall into the depressive torpor of the stereotypical nihilist. One only need to give up the notion that the quest for truth can be successful, not the quest itself. The quest can be maintained either in the hope that one may stumble coincidentally on the truth, even if we cannot actually be aware that this has occurred; or that one may view the quest as an attempt to find an arbitrary worldview that offers one the most comfort and the closest approximation to understanding; or simply as an entertaining form of mental exercise. And we can continue to hold our moral, aesthetic, religious and other beliefs and even to try to persuade others of their validity: since rejecting them gets one no closer to objective truth, why bother?

Allowing the maintenance of the status quo is, in my opinion, what makes this a truly radical philosophy; to build a philosophy which does not make any claims on the nature of philosophy, rather than claiming that everyone should do and be exactly as you do and are, is almost unheard of in the annals of the great thinkers. Plus, it can be highly amusing to reply to someone who is absolutely certain of their position with the line "it is entirely possible you are correct. I accept that I cannot possibly determine either way. Therefore, I accept that you are entirely free to maintain this position." and watch them try to figure out exactly why they hate you for saying this.
Gnostikos
01-01-2005, 21:37
Is subjectivism a subset of existentialism? Because some of what they talked about in subjectivism sounds a whole lot like what I believe...
Slacker Clowns
01-01-2005, 23:14
So, to commemorate post no 500 I thought I'd post my philosophy. This will be going up on my blog later on, so it's somewhat personalised. It's also very long, so warning for anyone who doesn't want to be bored to sleep. Finally, it's a very rough first draft so feel free to rip it to shreads...

The Happy Nihilist

I guess my philosophy could best be categorised as nihilistic subjectivism, or subjectivistic nihilism, depending on how you want to approach it. I hate to use terms like this, since it makes me sound horribly pretentious, but it really is very useful to do so for the purposes of clarification. For those who have no idea, or only vague ideas, what either of these terms mean here's a couple of useful links:

nihilism: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
subjectivism: http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/subjectivism.html

The fact that these two philosophies appear contradictory is not a problem, in my opinion. Indeed, as far as I can see it it merely serves to illustrate the fact that both, as classically defined, miss the point.

Subjectivism misses the point because it attempts to assert as an objective truth the fact that all truths are subjective. This is manifestly self-contradictory. It also tries to justify itself in objective terms, by referring to hallucinations, say, or to facts of physics or biology. Again, this is contradictory.

Nihilism, on the other hand, is contradictory because it asserts that because nothing can be known one should claim to know nothing. In other words, the knowledge that nothing can be known trumps all other forms of knowledge. Yet, if nothing can be known then one cannot even know that nothing can be known. Thus there is no reason to reject any other claims of knowledge.

So, what of nihilistic subjectivism, then? I accept subjectivism from the point of view of metaphysics rather than epistemology. That is, I see subjectivism as stemming from the integral nature of our interaction with the universe rather than any particular facet of knowledge acquisition. As for nihilism, my view is in some ways more nihilistic than standard nihilism. One of my favourite lines is "anyone who calls themselves a nihilist isn't". Equally, though, in some ways it is less nihilistic. Well, that was clear as mud. Here's a more thorough explanation:

We are, by nature, subjective beings. The limitations of our faculties, both mental and physical, make it so. Basically, given our finite resources and time span we are unable to fully grasp anything larger than ourselves in terms of time or space. By this I do not mean we cannot extrapolate; of course a prominent historian can gain a good level of understanding of events that span 1000s of times the length of their own life. However, it remains true that they cannot ever hope to fully understand them since to do so would require being able to comprehend all elements involved at all times. In order to understand, say, the Russian revolution in its entirety it would be a minimal requirement to know completely the psyches of all the prominent protagonists. To truly understand these one would need to understand all the causal factors involved in shaping these psyches. Then one would need to understand all the causal interplay that shaped all the smaller events unfolding in and around the main events. Ultimately, then, the factors involved quickly reach a level of complexity vastly beyond the comprehension of any one human being. Indeed they quite quickly reach infinite, or near-infinite, proportions.

That is not to say one cannot gain a good, functional understanding of the Russian revolution through dedicating a significant amount of one's life to researching it. It would be absurd to make such a claim. It is merely that what one gains is nowhere near objective truth. All we can hope to gain is a firm hold on the narrow boundaries we arbitrarily define. Simply put, we carve the world into manageable chunks that are realistically comprehensible to us. This makes it possible to gain some level of understanding of them. To completely understand, that is to perceive the objective truth, such partitions of reality, however, would require a complete knowledge of all other aspects of reality and their relationship to the partitions we define. And this is impossible for any finite being.

All this remains true without even considering the fact that even the most minute element of an event such as the Russian Revolution is grasped in just the same, arbitrary way as the event itself, even to those involved at the time. Let's take something as simple as the blank round that was fired from the Aurora to mark the start of the October Revolution. Such a seemingly simple object is, in fact, made up of a immense, constantly changing mass of particles. It would take more than a lifetime to map out the life of even one of these particles. And we do not, and may not ever, even fully understand the nature of these particles. Even to understand a single cannon shot in its entirety, then, is beyond the faculties of any human being. We are forced to ignore a vast number of elements in order to even begin to comprehend a few. Furthermore, whilst we see the blank as a single entity in reality it is a compound of many complex causal interactions both within and without. Once we define the constituent atoms as individual entities, for the purposes of gaining some level of understanding of their nature, the shot in effect ceases to exist. The same is true if we define the planet it is one as a single, complete entity.

In effect, then, we are left with a world that is just as arbitrary and personal as if it were all in our mind. Every object we have a conceptual grasp of has only the reality we grant it; if we break it down into its parts, or perceive it only as a non-distinct part of a larger whole it ceases to have an independent reality. This is true of even the greatest, and smallest, things we can carve out of an infinite space. The net result is that even if we are beings existing in an independent world our conceptualisation of it has just as much reality as if it were all a fantasy.

This is where the nihilism comes in, or rather doesn't. Given all this we must accept that knowledge is impossible for what we call knowledge is, in fact, merely a product of our own intellectual failings. No matter what level of abstraction we hope to attain it all fails in the face of our inadequacies to the task. We may cling on to logical or mathematical truths, and so knowledge, but these are more coping mechanisms than a mystical bond to the true nature of the world. Perhaps the world does behave according to the rules of logic and mathematics. Or perhaps it does not. The fact remains that as long as the coping mechanisms remain entrenched in our mind, as they must lest we collapse into complete incomprehension, then our perception of them as "truths" would persist in either scenario.

Yet it is precisely these failings which must force us to abandon nihilism as it is classically conceived. For given our inability to truly comprehend what is external to us, or even fully perceive that it is external to us, we cannot make any definitive objective claims about it. And that includes the claim that we cannot know it. It may, indeed, be the case that we are aware of a vast number of metaphysical truths upon which we can base knowledge. Whether or not these truths are true will always remain a mystery, however.

So, let's assume you've read through all of this without coming to the conclusion "he's out of his fricking mind." What does this all mean in practice? As far as philosophy is concerned, absolutely nothing. Philosophical discourse can continue in exactly the same manner as it has done before. Those who accept my way of thinking should assess the claims of other philosophers on the basis of whether or not they conform to the arbitrary belief system they have thus far developed, rather than appealing to any objective standards. Such a position is in fact almost impossible, of course; our very nature means we can never truly abandon our belief in the "truth" of whatever it is we hold at any one time, at least, that is until some other "truth" comes along which seems more plausible. This should be no cause for concern, however, indeed, those who agree with me should happily embrace our human failings, As for those who do not accept my arguments, they can continue as they were; it is just as feasible that they are coincidentally citing metaphysical truths as it is that they are completely deluded.

The only changes that should come about from this philosophy are, though I hate to use the term, spiritual ones. That is, those who accept this philosophy, and are also able to come to terms with, in a positive way, the futility of finding objective truth, should find their blood pressure lowering greatly; once any and all objective assertions become equally valid then one has no more need to fly into a rage at the thousands of stupid things stated every second on this fine planet. Equally one need not fall into the depressive torpor of the stereotypical nihilist. One only need to give up the notion that the quest for truth can be successful, not the quest itself. The quest can be maintained either in the hope that one may stumble coincidentally on the truth, even if we cannot actually be aware that this has occurred; or that one may view the quest as an attempt to find an arbitrary worldview that offers one the most comfort and the closest approximation to understanding; or simply as an entertaining form of mental exercise. And we can continue to hold our moral, aesthetic, religious and other beliefs and even to try to persuade others of their validity: since rejecting them gets one no closer to objective truth, why bother?

Allowing the maintenance of the status quo is, in my opinion, what makes this a truly radical philosophy; to build a philosophy which does not make any claims on the nature of philosophy, rather than claiming that everyone should do and be exactly as you do and are, is almost unheard of in the annals of the great thinkers. Plus, it can be highly amusing to reply to someone who is absolutely certain of their position with the line "it is entirely possible you are correct. I accept that I cannot possibly determine either way. Therefore, I accept that you are entirely free to maintain this position." and watch them try to figure out exactly why they hate you for saying this.

I guess brevity isn't a tenet of Happy Nihilism. :)
Stripe-lovers
02-01-2005, 07:42
I guess brevity isn't a tenet of Happy Nihilism. :)

Well, you see, it was initially a tenet but then due to the gradual evolution of the philosophy towards a more non-centrist approach the incorporation of a number of subsidiary elements became widespread, thus increasing by an order of magnitude the number of clauses required to maintain....


(continue until everyone is in a coma)
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 07:51
Well, you see, it was initially a tenet but then due to the gradual evolution of the philosophy towards a more non-centrist approach the incorporation of a number of subsidiary elements became widespread, thus increasing by an order of magnitude the number of clauses required to maintain....


(continue until everyone is in a coma)
I'm sorry, but even I can't find myself to read it. However, it seems like it's quite well thought out, so well done on that.
Nihilistic Beginners
02-01-2005, 08:30
Why don't you just call yourself a Zen Buddhist?
Stripe-lovers
03-01-2005, 07:00
Why don't you just call yourself a Zen Buddhist?

What do you find similar between my philosophy and Zen Buddhism? I'm a little confused here.