Can Subjective Experience Truly Address the Other Minds Problem?

[octelcogopod]

That would be nihilsm.

In reply to this.. That isn't niihilism.. Though it's a very common misconception of what nihilism is, and very often misunderstood for fatalism - the idea that everything is already determined and without value so one might as well give up.

 

[JoeDawg]

In reply to this.. That isn't niihilism.. Though it's a very common misconception of what nihilism is, and very often misunderstood for fatalism - the idea that everything is already determined and without value so one might as well give up.

Since fatalism is about the nature of an action, and nihilism is about the meaning of an action, they are not mutually exclusive... but thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you... :PPPPP

 

[octelcogopod]

Since fatalism is about the nature of an action, and nihilism is about the meaning of an action, they are not mutually exclusive... but thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you... :PPPPP

Cmon Joe.. I would say it's vice versa.. I guess these things are a bit up for discussion, but nihilism in a nutshell is that all these value systems and systems we apply to the world are nor universal nor objective, like morals, religion and even politics.
The nihlist as opposed to the fatalist doesn't see this as an opportunity to give up and just suicide, but rather as an opportunity for personal and individual growth of value systems, with a more pragmatic direct approach to reality..

A nihilist would be able to adapt to many different societies and cultures, where other people may be offended or have issues.. A nihilist is more open to solving problems in a logical pragmatic way without all the value clout and moral issues.

 

[magpies]

Nihilists have value systems? When did that happen?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm a nihilist. I agree with Octelcogopod. All that nihilism really is (despite it's dreary reputation) is that you don't believe in an objective meaning of life. Just because the meaning of life is subjective doesn't devalue it any. Meaning is still important, it's just not universal.

And yes, we have value systems. We just acknowledge that our values are subjective; that's the only difference really.

 

[magpies]

Oh in that case I guess I am a nihilist also at least for today...

 

[Galteeth]

I'm a nihilist. I agree with Octelcogopod. All that nihilism really is (despite it's dreary reputation) is that you don't believe in an objective meaning of life. Just because the meaning of life is subjective doesn't devalue it any. Meaning is still important, it's just not universal.

And yes, we have value systems. We just acknowledge that our values are subjective; that's the only difference really.

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

 

[JoeDawg]

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

Correct.

Also note, nihilism was originally a perjorative term, so its definition comes from those who are not actually nihilists, and believed in objective or absolute truth. Subjective truth was a contradiction in terms, for them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Cmon Joe.. I would say it's vice versa.. I guess these things are a bit up for discussion, but nihilism in a nutshell is that all these value systems and systems we apply to the world are nor universal nor objective, like morals, religion and even politics.

Ok... let me break this down.

The part I responded to, was the last part of a paragraph:
(Post: 27)

If that were the case, we might as well close down philosophy forums and physics forums in general, because none of these discussion would be serving any purpose

So as to fatalism:

Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism

So really, from the fatalist perspective we don't have any 'choice' in whether to close down the forums. The forums are here because they are here. We couldn't choose to close them down. They might close in the future, but not as a result of action on our part, if they close, its because that is the fate of the forums to close. If its not the fate of the forums to close, nothing you try and do... will close them. That is fatalism.

The story of Oedipus is a good example of classical fatalism. He was doomed, no matter what he chose to do. Oedipus is not about cause and effect. Its about a complete lack of cause and effect. The ancients viewed the world as chaotic, and fate as the whim of the gods. There is no logic to fate.

The nihlist as opposed to the fatalist doesn't see this as an opportunity to give up and just suicide, but rather as an opportunity for personal and individual growth of value systems, with a more pragmatic direct approach to reality..

Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral

There are all sorts of ways of dealing with moral nihilism, but its basis is that nothing has any intrinsic moral value. What a person does about that is another question. Nihilism generally then, is the idea that nothing has any intrinsic value. That would be a hard position to maintain, unless we only place subjective value on things, all the time.

One could be a fatalist and a nihilist. Nothing I do has any effect on the world so I see no value in anything. Fatalists could however, say value exists in the will of the gods, so a fatalist doesn't have to be a nihilist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

I liken this to an outsider or laymen view of nihilism, exactly as JoeDawg said: a perjorative.

In the modern day, it's hard to believe people who call themselves nihilist don't believe in subjective meaning. It would be kind of difficult to remove subjective meaning from your life. Wouldn't you then be a fatalist?

Then there's always Nietzsche:

a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate.

The Wiki also doesn't say anything about subjective meaninglessness either, though it does seem to agree with what I'm saying about the confused outsider's view:

The term nihilism is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realizing there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators as "nihilistic" at various times in various contexts.

So this is actually separate from nihilism. This is an emotional reaction to nihilism (probably generally suffered by the outsiders more than the nihilists themselves).

 

[Evolver]

Well I would believe that they too have conscious mind states because I believe that my being in pain is a mind state of my own, so therefore if my wincing and pain is a mind state, wouldn't it be logical for me to believe that another person who is wincing and in pain would share a similar mind state?

Believe being the operative word here. If you take a look at the plethora of human beliefs you will instantly realize the belief and truth aren't necessarily linked.

The only thing that can be known to exist on an empirical level are your very own thoughts (though that could even be debated.) Take for instance this bit of logic: Your brain is packed away tight inside your skull. No photons of light ever reach this brain (which is thought to be the origin of consciousness). Now, how then does the brain even know what light looks like? Well... it doesn't. It creates what it thinks it should look like. It's simply a way of interpreting information. The optic nerve interprets some information and translates it into an electrical signal... the brain then takes that electrical signal and further interprets it. We "see" a multi-processed representation of the original information.

Now, should we go down the rabbit hole even further... you could argue that the physical brain itself doesn't even exist, as it too is simply a perceived set of information. This is all getting a bit ahead of things here, but the real point is that nothing outside of your own conscious spectrum can be known to actually exist. And that is from a very logical perspective if you think about it. When we say someone else exists, and feels, and thinks just as we do, we are only assuming this. We actually have no verifiable proof other than we believe they do because our senses tell us so.

This idea in philosophy is known as Solipsism. It's well documented and very old in origin. There is also a project known as 'Blue Brain' where scientists have replicated the neurons of a neocortical column on an IBM supercomputer. They are attempting to study if the brain does, in fact, project it's own reality. These ideas are hard to grasp or even come to terms with initially, but then again so was the idea that the world wasn't flat.

 

[JoeDawg]

I liken this to an outsider or laymen view of nihilism, exactly as JoeDawg said: a perjorative.

In the modern day, it's hard to believe people who call themselves nihilist don't believe in subjective meaning. It would be kind of difficult to remove subjective meaning from your life. Wouldn't you then be a fatalist?

Then there's always Nietzsche:

Fatalism is not about meaning, its about whether your actions have consequence.
And, in case there is some confusion, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Fair enough on fatalism, I was referring to your "give up and suicide" quote.

The Nietzche quote is about nihilism.

 

[JoeDawg]

The Nietzche quote is about nihilism.

Fair enough, sometimes Nietzsche gets called a nihilist, when in fact he considered nihilism a result of christian hypocrisy, and something to be overcome.

 

[Pythagorean]

Fair enough, sometimes Nietzsche gets called a nihilist, when in fact he considered nihilism a result of christian hypocrisy, and something to be overcome.

But Nietzsche's thoughts on nihilism can't really be summed up in a sentence like that. He spoke positively of nihilism, as well. Particularly what he called "active" nihilism. (I.e. embracing nihilism and responding productively to it).

 

[JoeDawg]

But Nietzsche's thoughts on nihilism can't really be summed up in a sentence like that. He spoke positively of nihilism, as well. Particularly what he called "active" nihilism. (I.e. embracing nihilism and responding productively to it).

Nietzsche's relationship with nihilism is complex, I agree. But I don't think he would have said to 'embrace' nihilism. Nihilism for Nietzsche was more 'a stage', or what results from the 'death of god'. Its the unavoidable result. Its a place, one had to pass through, after one breaks the chains of christian morality. It wasn't the goal.

From: On a Geneology of Morals

"This man of the future, who will release us from that earlier ideal just as much as from what had to grow from it, from the great loathing, from the will to nothingness, from nihilism—that stroke of noon and of the great decision which makes the will free once again, who gives back to the Earth its purpose and to the human being his hope, this anti-Christ and anti-nihilist, this conqueror of God and of nothingness—at some point he must come . . ."

 

[Pythagorean]

Nietzsche's relationship with nihilism is complex, I agree. But I don't think he would have said to 'embrace' nihilism. Nihilism for Nietzsche was more 'a stage', or what results from the 'death of god'. Its the unavoidable result. Its a place, one had to pass through, after one breaks the chains of christian morality. It wasn't the goal.

From: On a Geneology of Morals

No, he didn't instruct his readers to embrace it. He showed admiration for a type of nihilist (or type of nihilism, I suppose) that embraces the "destruction" of empty value systems.

 

[magpies]

Give some more nietzsche quotes please I think it will make this thread better :)

 

[Galteeth]

Give some more nietzsche quotes please I think it will make this thread better :)

"In the eyes of all true women science is hostile to the sense of shame. They feel as if one wished to peep under their skin with it—or worse still! under their dress and finery."

 

[delivered1]

Hey guys,
So for my philosophy class we have a writing that is related to the quote --
"The only accounts of the mind that have any chance of solving the other minds problem don't take the subjective, 'first person' nature of the mind seriously, and the accounts that do take it seriously can't solve the other minds problem"
I have to argue for or against this argument with examples. At the moment I am having a bit of trouble actually explaining this concept. I understand the idea that it logical to think that for example, if i hit my thumb with a hammer, I wince in pain, if someone else hits there thumb with a hammer they also wince in pain, so it is logical to believe that they too are conscious (have mental states etc...)
I feel like I know what this is saying but I just don't understand completely what it means by take the first person nature of the mind seriously. Can anyone shed a little light on this?

* My answer is if there are a group of doomed people gathered, that represent "Accounts of the mind". They must not all feel doomed and destined to die. Someone in the group must not see things the way the group sees it, representing: "does not see in the "first person"."Not in first person" has to think about the situation in a different light than "Accounts of the mind". If everyone was in "Accounts " they are all seeing the same ending.

 

[Pythagorean]

Nietzsche quotes:

The most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief, every
considering-something-true, is necessarily false cause there simply is no true
world Thus. a perspectival appearance whose origin lies in us (in so far as we
continually need a narrower, abbreviated, simplified world).

That it is the measure of strength to what extent we can admit to ourselves,
without perishing, the merely apparent character, the necessity of lies.
To this extent, nihilism, as the denial of a truthful world, of being, might be a
divine way of thinking.

Nihilism. It is ambiguous:
A. Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit: as active nihilism.
B. Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as passive
nihilism.

Nihilism as a normal condition.
It can be a sign of strength: the spirit may have grown so strong that previous
goals ("convictions," articles of faith) have become incommensurate (for a faith
generally expresses the constraint of conditions of existence, submission to the
authority of circumstances under which one flourishes, grows, gains power). Or
a sign of the lack of strength to posit for oneself, productively, a goal, a why, a
faith.
It reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction-as
active nihilism.
Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form,
Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness. The strength of the spirit
may be worn out, exhausted, so that previous goals and values have become
incommensurate and no longer are believed; so that the synthesis of values
and goals (on which every strong culture rests) dissolves and the individual
values war against each other: disintegration-and whatever refreshes, heals,
calms, numbs emerges into the foreground in various disguises, religious or
moral, or political, or aesthetic, etc.

from The Will to Power