The meaning of life versus nihilism

Greyfeather
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Human found himself in this world and began to ask questions and wonders about the reason for his existence, who created him? and why he was created?

Some believe in higher powers of existence and others in evolution..
For the first one meaning for him is easier, and that is to work for a greater good than the good of this existence but its not always available in all beliefs..
And the other involved in the automatic processes of existence and how they work and could be a believer in greater good sometimes..
So human created his theories and lived in his imaginations..
Some people live for their children, and others live for their jobs
And every human being has taken on some job, either mental or physical
So human became preoccupied with life and almost forgot to wonder about it because he inherited the meaning from parents or school and his society or subjective meaning due to self-awareness...

With the diversity of minds different sciences emerged, but also emerged a problem in the theory of knowledge including historical knowledge, rational, empirical, pragmatic, natural, skeptical, and so on
Where the human mind has concluded that this existence has a meaning in a specific field of knowledge and arts that serve the individual and the whole, or through personal experience that serves his small environment or the self that separates itself from the whole and uses its knowledge for sake of its interests.
From this point human is preoccupied with life and relationships
But the mind sometimes gets stuck in the maze of existence and finds that existence is absurd, has no meaning and cannot be known
From this, nihilism was created due to the inability of the mind to find meaning
But doesn’t the meaning of nihilism means that there is no meaning?
That the nihilist arrived at a meaning from the nonsense
Nihilism entered philosophy, but the question is what is meant by philosophy? Is it not the savior of the human mind?
What do we want from philosophizing?
What do we want from our existence?
Do we want God to answer us and give meaning?
Go shout as you wish and call upon God
He does not speak, does he?
Therefore, if he does not respond, he is not present?
But what is important to you now whether there is a creator or not?
You are now in the heart of existence, and nothing will free your mind except the way you view things
If you see that the world is meaningless, you will lose your mind simply because nihilism is a maze and even a maze has some direction if played right, and the mind has its job to organize things and arrive at something, not just spinning in the maze, but finding a way to free itself..
Consequently, no one guarantees his own salvation except through the way he sees things
What is the difference if a person lives a victim of existence or a victim of his mind?
Isn't it a person's responsibility to find his salvation? what kind of salvation do we want?
From God or ourselves? we only know ourselves and God is the result of thinking but we don't have God, we only have ourselves, so what do we wait from God after having our minds to find some solution to heal it? Maybe art? discovering our inner selves , some talent to express ourselves? Our relationships with others?
Alot of possibilities but its our choices to choose from existed choices..and if nihilism is a choice its not for me at least because its killing the mind, I have reached to this edge and came back again finding that I lost my mind which is the crown of human..
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: Its a bit ironic because I have made philosophical progress as an atheist or a nihilist and you have a strong philosophical understanding but nihilism is abhorrent? to you. It makes me question if there is actually a difference? Which might point to a tabula rasa mental truth? If we are unique then maybe it is character that truly defines us? Which is soul.
3 years ago Report
1
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: I do not believe in absolute right or absolute wrong also not calling for an absolute truth because I also suffered with that too, but I found that both cases are mental suicide somehow, and the solution for me is to understand that the individual does not exist in the world alone, but is a being with others so that the meaning concerns the interests of both of them, not a group that abolishes the individual and the individual abolishes the group, The individual is important in developing and changing the movement of meaning, but we must set ethical standards based on dialogue and an understanding of the requirements of different times, taking into account the historical memory that includes the voice of the other.
It is a matter of generation and understanding. I do not talk about history as something closed, but an interpretive movement of the world that makes a person a listener and a speaker,
If a person has a characteristic of hearing, this means that he is a being that receives from the world and others, as well as a speaker who gives his opinion to be listened by others, but separation creates a distortion in existence because the self can only exist with the other, is born from the other and lives with the other and learns from the other and teaches the other, we write to be listened by others and we read others, and we sing in order to be heard, and I think this connection is for the balance of the relationship between both of them, so in my opinion that is shaped by dialogue, which creates understanding unlike arguing which means blocking the other.
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: I agree with you that nihilism is an important stage, but I do not see the need to make it as final goal of judging existence that will not differentiate from the absolute rigid truth that nullifies the formation of understanding
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: I brought up the example of the maze, if existence is like a maze and it is nihilism, then there must be a way out of this maze, and that is by research for exist and not making the maze a goal but a way to achieve the goal, the goal is not inside the maze but out of it so nihilism is a level but not a goal for me.
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: I still think atheists have heart and that life progresses in age. The right wing uses nihilism to its advantage but that is political strategy. On a human level we all posses a soul and even though a nihilist will be cold in his portrayal of life he still possesses human nature and soul. Politics has come to this point. In this sense I am an existentialist and don't see a way around the element of war that has brought us to where we are. Even civil war. In my understanding worshiping god won't alter that we need education and benevolence to combat the human situation. But that is my unique view and everyone has differing views. Thinking of it it seems the element of work is the most important one. Which we mentioned. And my view is faith is entwined in work and that is godly. Also I realise true religious principles are in lack in the world today and that understanding could bring more peace. But that is objective.
3 years ago Report
1
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Yes, both of them must cooperate, whether a believer or otherwise, at least common ground for understanding minds. Fanaticism for religion created war, and so did nihilism created war. But we must ask what nihilism has brought to human today? He has become indifferent to anything, although he is sharing others in existence. How can a person separate from existence and his relationship with others? Meaninglessness brings misery and loss of mind. This is the result of making a person lose important values ​​with himself and the other.
In this, we will see that the number in prisons will increase and diseases will increase due to careless human being. The engineer will work more to build more prisons, larger spaces, and more hospitals due to lack of care for the self and body discipline, where drugs and alot of psychological and physical diseases plus no care for the children.. and so on of things that create misrable society..
3 years ago Report
1
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Platonic thought is important I think
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: i think the highest form is god or something that would be god. not goodness?
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: How does a person know his God and not knowing himself, as a person is exposed to misunderstand himself, so how does he understand his God?
Isn't the better relationship between him and his God is his own self, so if he is caused by the action of God or external force,so it's more close to get to know his existence which is the relationship between him and God.
We believe in God as a creator
So what is the benefit of knowing the creator alone when we do not understand his creation.
And if God equals goodness so
We must ask what is the thought that benefits us after experiencing useless thought that doesn't bring us goodness as whole?
If God is like justice, then justice is the supreme good
and if the thought is unfair, then I think that we must work to amend this through understanding.
How can a doctor be just and a judge be just, and everyone in his field is just, isn't the supreme good? Where the doctor cares about the health of the patient’s body and that must be more than his self-interest, and so others to serve the whole ,so how can the philosopher be fair? And how is the best way to create it? I think more about the movement of interpretation of law , religion and spiritual sciences in general according to the measurements of the past and our circumstances today what do you think?
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: objective thought is pure and the concepts of justice and goodness are the purest in accord with life. is it an irony that one can access these concepts at ones bidding throughout the entire course of history? at whatever stage in history you lived? if god is dead as Nietzsche proclaimed that would have a bearing on this. philosophy is the path to death as we know from Phaedo. if objective truth is destroying man through the resultant nihilism why do we allow it to rule? isn't god dead? if so truth is dead and we are living in an existential age which essentially casts a shadow on life.
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: the meaning of life is nihilism.
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Well let's say that the meaning of life is nihilistic, if existence is knowledge, can we know without something that is not exist? Existence is something common to all, and it is phenomenan
although the minds work with same properties, but they differently create different meanings
But what is the need to build common meaning? Is it not to be able to share understanding? If we do not speak understandable language, can we continue to speak?
God has died and human took responsibility. This is a good thing, but when thinking became a partial thing only and separating others as whole , distortion occurred, we lost the ability to communicate well, therefore there must be a common ground of values ​​for understanding and dealing somewhat
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: In phaedo death was a kind of confrontation and not an encouragement for suicide, as Socrates met death with grace, not afraid because he was oppressed, and therefore death will be easier than being the oppressor, after purification of the soul, the issue of justice makes man responsible for himself and others.
The oppressed hopes for justice after death, this is not proven, but the oppressor remains unhappy in Socrates' opinion
Nothingness is nothingness and this being is something in common we share. Perhaps the participant should improve communication with the other to produce an understanding of what is useful for a particular era and certain circumstances since the individual is not living alone in existence, the other in his memory and his roots...
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: if there is a beginning then there is an end. art has a beginning and an end and when it is finished all you do is look at it. it doesn't do anything. do we stay put in life or do we complete? the nature of life is to burn out. we go. do we take what we have with us, no. we go. they say faith is salvation but it is salvation as long as it is salvation. in Phaedo Plato argued his soul would receive all knowledge upon death. and he would be free of his bodily desires. released! how do we know this is so upon death or death is nothingness? one thing is for sure we come and we go. if life is complete how could death be more?
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Socrates had faith, and made a meaning out of death. Nature says that 1 + 1 = 2 means that death is inevitable. As for the spiritual sciences are not strict, otherwise the interpretation would stop. But when some schools of thought such as historical and some religious ones tried to make those sciences resemble the natural sciences, they became naive and out of their goals. A person can embody another experience of another person, esoteric experience, but the natural one the search for mechanisms, how they work, the mechanism is still unable to resolve the matter of man, so faith is required to overcome the intellectual crisis, that's why Plato was merging between reality and myths to train the mind on metaphysics because the human mind is originally a metaphysical result and thus Going back to that would make sense.
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: would it be right to say the end goal of the metaphysical is concretisation?
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: For example a straight line, how do we form a straight line? There is a starting point that reaches the end point, and if life is the period of time between the starting point and the ending point, then it is possible that the end point start another beginning because the end and the start are similar for there is no specific shape, but the determination is between both.
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: Plato for me though I could have discounted other wisdoms is the beginning of objective or philosophical thought. So from there it is a tipping. Is it so that it indicates there is only one way to thought? Metaphysics would therefore be limited in nature. I realise this is a sweeping assertion. But fundamentals like the subjective and objective are timeless philosophical principles. I haven't read much of Aristotle but I think this is toward his thinking. Which I think is a progression toward nihilism however minimal?
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: Problems of religion are because they relied on Aristotle form on the issue of truth in terms of empirical truth which became objective after that. For example, Islam today, according to my experience, is Aristotelian Islam, because it relies on absolute principles that were defined without dialogue to create better interpretation but they won't consider that empirical because they consider it from God and the God is absolute,
unlike Plato, who did not define the truth in the sensory world.
I think that the interpretation movement will continue to search for the truth if it adopted Plato, because he kept searching for a meaning of justice and goodness through dialogue and did not define the truth in the tangible world despite of his trial,while the Aristotelian form is rigid and immobile if we take the experience as objective, so we see the problems of religious fanaticism for possession of truth. If the interpretation relies on the Socratic side, there will be no problems to define the truth because we can find similarities by dialogue but not the final form of truth, although the morals of Plato and Aristotle are similar but the principal of Aristotle of truth is limited..The philosopher hans gadamer in his book truth and method explained the philosophical interpretive experience which will rely on socratic dialogue..Nietzsche instead of solving the issue he inverted concepts and created a fanatic world in the morals of masters and the morals of slaves, but I do not blame the thinker as much as I blame those who have the minds to know what is better for them.
Good must be shared, not the property of the individual or the group because the individual can't exist without the other so there must cooperation for the reach of Truth and so no one will posses it. Therefore, despite the importance of Nietzsche in placing responsibility on the individual, he did distortions in the individual's relationship with others.
(Edited by Greyfeather)
3 years ago Report
1
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: Socrates conversations occurred between men the searching nature of them could be attributed to their masculine natures. Defining truth in that condition could collapse the dialogue? Socrates had a selfless nature that pierced the hearts of his followers perhaps a magician in some sense? For me Nietzsche is quite evangelical I knew philosophy through reading him. Nietzsche couldn't stand truth perhaps because of the attachment to self it brings. It sounds to me like truth is relative and to possess it is to become attached? Then we turn to Freud and primitivism. Myth seems to run parallel to objective thinking? The answer to truth?
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: When you read with an open mind, this is different, I do not see a difference between Socrates and Plato because everything we know about Socrates is mostly through Plato, and in the dialogue of the Republic he called for equality between man and woman..
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: I don't think psychological truth will solve the problem
3 years ago Report
0
Greyfeather
Greyfeather: The objective truth is the common ground of understanding through the generation of facts, not the individual's possession of the truth or vice versa
3 years ago Report
0
DIAMONDfire
DIAMONDfire: I think there are two strands of thinking (though thinking doesn't quite do it justice) myth and philosophy. Myth is religion or leading to it and a concession that man doesn't know the answer. How it was arrived at I do not know. But it could be of a divine origin. Philosophy is mans attempt to answer the question of his being. Which as I see it is fundamentally limited and I guess flawed.
3 years ago Report
0
Page: 12