The Most Dangerous Person On Earth

[Maxmars]

I openly admit that I register a lot of satisfaction when someone 'connects' with a question I might pose, or a comment I make.  I hated being away from it... because I find value in talking to people.

While I can walk in the desert, I prefer the oasis....
no shame in coming to "feel" that I need it...

Just beware the feeling that it 'belongs' to you... and you 'deserve' it...
from there comes the taint of ownership.

Many times it's not the desire of a thing that manifests the sin...
it is what we do in service of that desire...
in some cases it can be met with joy...
in others, a noxious warning should sound... 
Each of us is a pilot... we choose what to ignore, what to rationalize, etc.

"Take me to the pilot"  John/Chapman said... very deep... for pop music.

(I was tempted to post the lyrics or a video...
but I don't think that's actually necessary. )

[Ignorant]

[Video: https://youtu.be/Sp-NH_QYSgY?si=v0VuBk1OCnCIgyA6]

I really like this video, especially because it focuses on two great philosophers, even if they help spread "miss the point entirely" nihilism.

I like that it really gets into why it helps to be antisocial to lead the social. Slave and master morality. 

Are you a zombie seeking social validation through likes and like minds or more ignoring that noise for your ear buds? 

... apart from the obvious codependent elephant in the forum.

Any other thoughts?

Hmm. I really dislike this video. First of all it might as well have been a text post. Everything else is bloat generated by AI. Notice how the script clearly has chapters but there's not even an indication of a new chapter starting in the video (example). That's how low-effort this is. The creator just wrote a script and fed it to AI.

At least the script wasn't written by AI. We can tell by how opinionated and self-serving it is. And I suppose I'll be the one to say it: It's not that deep. It betrays a shallow understanding of human psychology and philosophy, conflating nihilism with stoicism with just plain old introversion, and is clearly just meant to farm clicks by making people like us feel better about ourselves. I appreciate that the irony in that wasn't lost to people here, at least.

I found reading some of the posts in this thread far more interesting than watching the video. Something I noticed is that people here seem mostly to reject nihilism. Why? It seems to me not at all far out to say that life has no inherent purpose, that there is no objective morality. Far more problematic to me is to claim the opposite. So I'd be willing to explore that point if others are.

Another point that was brought up a few times and I would be willing to argue, not because I have a strong opinion on the matter either way but because I would find it interesting to explore, is that being well-adjusted in today's society is not a sign of good mental health. Maybe the key is in how we define "well-adjusted". When I think of a well-adjusted person, I think of someone who is adaptable and can be content in a variety of circumstances. This to me is certainly a sign of good mental health. Of course, if by "well-adjusted" we mean "social-media addicted" which is the sort of person the video in the OP is juxtaposing with the enlightened introverted nihilistic stoic (or whatever), then I agree that they are not mentally healthy. But to me they are also not well-adjusted. Quite the contrary.

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

I found reading some of the posts in this thread far more interesting than watching the video. Something I noticed is that people here seem mostly to reject nihilism. Why? It seems to me not at all far out to say that life has no inherent purpose, that there is no objective morality. Far more problematic to me is to claim the opposite. So I'd be willing to explore that point if others are.

[...]

For what its worth, as someone that has gone through 2 years of 'deconstructionist nihilism' and stuff, I'd say the problem doesn't lie in the 'belief' of nihilism, rather it is its utility. Most of the time, its not helpful, and just makes one fall into the 'lazy buddha' archetype.

However, it has meaningful values, as far as I'm concerned. It helps as a starting point to change one's point of view, opinion or even the 'taken for granted' reality.

As for "inherent purpose", my take for the moment would be that 'reality' (both physical and non-physical) is simply Existence making excuses/reasons to exist. Making sense of nonsense by illusions, or veil.

[Ignorant]

For what its worth, as someone that has gone through 2 years of 'deconstructionist nihilism' and stuff, I'd say the problem doesn't lie in the 'belief' of nihilism, rather it is its utility. Most of the time, its not helpful, and just makes one fall into the 'lazy buddha' archetype.

I think I tend to agree that nihilism doesn't have much utility as a personal belief system, but it does have some. For one, it can serve as a shield against exploitative cults who, by feeding a person lies about how they can make their life useful ("in the name of the one true God, give me money!"), try to manipulate them into a life of servitude. And I suppose one can argue that sometimes everyone wins in that scenario, but I can think of some anecdotes where that wasn't the case, at least.

And while I do think nihilism can help us, to an extent, take control of our own lives, I would have to acknowledge that for most people this is too much responsibility. For most, it feels good to relinquish some of this control and have purpose assigned externally. 

Ultimately, I believe things not because they are useful but because I think they are true. I can't choose to believe that we have a friend upstairs, if the only reasons to believe it are that it might make me feel better or make me more useful to society. Luckily for me, my belief that a human being is just as much a collection of atoms as a rock is, that our consciousness is "simply" an emergent property of a complex neural network, hasn't made me feel any worse. Your mileage may vary.

[IgnorantGod]

I take your point, and while I don't think the lazy buddha is necessarily unhappy, I do think nihilism has questionable utility as a personal belief system, though it has some. [...]

Well, in regards to the 'lazy buddha', the problem in my opinion is not whether it makes one sleep better at night or not, rather it is that a population of 'lazy buddha' probably wouldnt last long. I'd say it is not viable. Even the sage that reached the top of the mountain knows he'll have to go down to chop his wood for the winter.

[Ignorant]

Hmm. Would a population of lazy buddhas not last long, or would it not innovate as quickly? Maybe it would actually last longer because it's in no hurry to accelerate technology towards whatever ultimately destroys us (it might be AI). Was agriculture a mistake?

Also, is a population of nihilists necessarily a population of lazy buddhas? Would this theoretical society of nihilists really be that different from our current society? I think when you let people assign purpose to their own lives, which nihilists do, you get a lot of different people setting different goals for themselves. People find satisfaction in different things. Some find satisfaction in helping others and will lead charitable lives, others find satisfaction in power over others and will end up leaders. You will have scientists, artists, people with big families, etcetera. And don't forget that even lazy buddhas have to survive. They will have to, even if they don't want to, work for shelter and to feed themselves. I know I do, begrudgingly.

[IgnorantGod]

Hmm. Would a population of lazy buddhas not last long, or would it not innovate as quickly? Maybe it would actually last longer because it's in no hurry to accelerate technology towards whatever ultimately destroys us (it might be AI). Was agriculture a mistake?

Also, is a population of nihilists necessarily a population of lazy buddhas? Would this theoretical society of nihilists really be that different from our current society? I think when you let people assign purpose to their own lives, which nihilists do, you get a lot of different people setting different goals for themselves. People find satisfaction in different things. Some find satisfaction in helping others and will lead charitable lives, others find satisfaction in power over others and will end up leaders. You will have scientists, artists, people with big families, etcetera. And don't forget that even lazy buddhas have to survive. They will have to, even if they don't want to, work for shelter and to feed themselves.

No, I don't think a nihilist is necessarily a 'lazy buddha'. It simply that nihilism is a gateway to 'lazy buddha'. I think developing further on what I call a 'lazy buddha' is a propos.

What I'm referring to by 'lazy buddha' is a person that, as a nihilist, has give up on 'life' after its meeting with Godel's incompleteness theorem. One that isn't helpful neither for the self nor society/species. Do you expect someone that gave up on mostly, or everything, to innovate? That might happen, it's not like I take that state as harmful by itself, but the nature of it is inherently unsettling, which would mean that such population build on the 'lazy buddha' archetype has far higher chance to collapse than innovating.

As far as I know, lot of people need at the very least a certain level of certainty to avoid getting lost in mental knots, and anxiety. There's a need for structures, both physical and psychological. Periods of uncertainty (liminality) were always followed, or initiated with rituals, and going through it as a play. The playfulness keeps the unsettling nature of uncertainty in check, and prevent insanity, fear and violence to spread amongst the people.

And then, well, destruction... I've made a comment in another thread on this. My take is that the homo sapien is doomed, whether there is a techno-singularity or not. Whether AI destroys us or not. At the end of the day, if the species survives long enough to face the problem of the dying star, then it'll have to go and colonize space, at which point the species is bound to drastic changes which will ultimately results in a new species.

[Bootless]

I found reading some of the posts in this thread far more interesting than watching the video. Something I noticed is that people here seem mostly to reject nihilism. Why? It seems to me not at all far out to say that life has no inherent purpose, that there is no objective morality. Far more problematic to me is to claim the opposite. So I'd be willing to explore that point if others are.

I looked up nihilism in the Wikipedia, and discovered that most definitions mentioned didn't quite apply to me, although I have my own understanding of what I mean by it. I fear that I must use personal anecdotes and such to provide meaningful examples. I apologize.

The reality of death:

The first time that a person died right in front of me was a profound trauma to me. In a real sense, I reacted as if the whole universe had ended, just ceased, winked out. That would be like placing myself in that person's position at that moment in a solipsist universe.

The trauma intensified as I went out into the hallway to report the death. I saw people going about their mundane chores as if the universe still existed. Like they hadn't even noticed. Shock!!

Life After Death:

A person dies. That death does not result in the immediate causal death of others. They still live. That is the only life after death that I assume to be real. By others, I include of course, all plants and animals too; the ones still alive that is.

Annihilation and Nihilism:

As far as my conscious self goes, my death will be my annihilation. That aim and goal of some Eastern religions. The sought after. But I will have achieved it for free; not through meditation, or yoga or veganism, following a guru, or even reading the Philosophers. For free. It can be said "Annihilation is the birthright of mortals. That is what mortality means by definition."

Implications of my Nihilism:

Seeing as I will die, probably in less than 15 years, what in the world will I do in the meantime? Ah! That is the question.

Further Notes:

I haven't read Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. I should do that.

[Maxmars]

Just because I tend to be anal about these things...

Wikipedia, LLMs ("AI,") and all 'virtual' repositories of human knowledge
have been unprotected from abuse... and likely remain so.
I will not say "don't trust them," but I will say "Remember it's a well that has been poisoned before."

We argue often about the fundamental difference between science and 'consensus' science...
the cutting edge consensus science can be found in the virtual archives...

It was placed there with zealotry and prejudice.
(Ugh! What am I saying?)

[sahgwa]

I looked up nihilism in the Wikipedia, and discovered that most definitions mentioned didn't quite apply to me, although I have my own understanding of what I mean by it. I fear that I must use personal anecdotes and such to provide meaningful examples. I apologize.

The reality of death:

The first time that a person died right in front of me was a profound trauma to me. In a real sense, I reacted as if the whole universe had ended, just ceased, winked out. That would be like placing myself in that person's position at that moment in a solipsist universe.

The trauma intensified as I went out into the hallway to report the death. I saw people going about their mundane chores as if the universe still existed. Like they hadn't even noticed. Shock!!

Life After Death:

A person dies. That death does not result in the immediate causal death of others. They still live. That is the only life after death that I assume to be real. By others, I include of course, all plants and animals too; the ones still alive that is.

Annihilation and Nihilism:

As far as my conscious self goes, my death will be my annihilation. That aim and goal of some Eastern religions. The sought after. But I will have achieved it for free; not through meditation, or yoga or veganism, following a guru, or even reading the Philosophers. For free. It can be said "Annihilation is the birthright of mortals. That is what mortality means by definition."

Implications of my Nihilism:

Seeing as I will die, probably in less than 15 years, what in the world will I do in the meantime? Ah! That is the question.

Further Notes:

I haven't read Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. I should do that.

I agree with a lot of your logical , rational comparitivism (sic) , as all life is perception and all life is ultimately subjective, whether or not some material instrument measures it with a number or not.

I have to disagree on your definition of the 'goal of Eastern religion' as annihilation in the sense you are meaning it. 
You are talking about annihilation on all levels from spiritual to physical.
However in pickareligion Hinduism, the 'goal' is not annihilation but liberation.  Moksha .  Freedom from attachment and thus freedom from suffering. 
While alive, in most traditions.

This attainment while living can bestow a secondary benefit:
Moksha has been defined not merely as absence of suffering and release from bondage to saṃsāra. Various schools of Hinduism also explain the concept as presence of the state of paripurna-brahmanubhava (the experience of oneness with Brahman, the One Supreme Self), a state of knowledge, peace and bliss.

I would liken this yoga or oneness to the concept of Gnosis. 
Or the Dao.
The indescribable knowledge, only transferred through a 'physical' experience of 'knowing' .