Is Libertarianism Nihilistic?

Quote from agent00f : This doesn't make a lot of sense given history of nihilism. Back in the day in Europe, people were almost exclusively religious. Nihilism as an rebellious force to this (ie God) must've been very novel and profound. IOW, it doesn't stand for what you seem to think it does.

Your perception of nihilism is subjective. The "history" you have recounted is merely a story you heard that you cannot prove to be true or false.

Quote from Xygonn : Your perception of nihilism is subjective. The "history" you have recounted is merely a story you heard that you cannot prove to be true or false.

Actually, rebellion against religion, faith and God seems to represent nihilism [wikipedia.org]quite well.

Quote : Nihilism ( /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical, or ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that contrary to popular belief, some commonly perceived aspects of reality do not exist[

Considering that one of the primary functions of religion is to give life meaning and establish morality, and is based on belief in God as a commonly perceived aspect of reality.

Quote from Xygonn : Your perception of nihilism is subjective. The "history" you have recounted is merely a story you heard that you cannot prove to be true or false.

I'm sure why anyone would doubt the religiosity of a place where it was literary heresy to doubt official canon much less His existence.

124nic8's description is absolutely correct, nihilism is the rejection of absolute moralities, and thus man was freed from God.

Knowledge is not knowledge. Reason is not reason. History is a just a story. You weren't there to see it an neither was I. How can history be any more real than God when all there is, is subjective observation of a subjective reality? Before you frame your answer, just recognize that in the "argument" which is just a rhetorical device to mean shadows on the wall flapping their lips, I reject reason, and have decided that facts are inscrutable.

Quote from Xygonn : Knowledge is not knowledge. Reason is not reason. History is a just a story. You weren't there to see it an neither was I. How can history be any more real than God when all there is, is subjective observation of a subjective reality?

Reality isn't subjective. The entire point here is that the subjective (eg. morality, etc) isn't the same thing as reality.

Quote : Before you frame your answer, just recognize that in the "argument" which is just a rhetorical device to mean shadows on the wall flapping their lips, I reject reason, and have decided that facts are inscrutable.

As long as you know what I mean and vice versa, what's the problem? You can of course choose to reject reason or reality, but the only consequence is that you won't know what I'm talking about.

Quote from agent00f : I'm sure why anyone would doubt the religiosity of a place where it was literary heresy to doubt official canon much less His existence. 124nic8's description is absolutely correct, nihilism is the rejection of absolute moralities, and thus man was freed from God.

Rejection of religion predates nihilism. There are bundles of ancient moral philosophers who attempted to argue the merits of virtues rationally (as opposed to religiously). Nihilism, while not compatible with religious perspectives, has never been the most obvious adversary of theology. Rather, historically, it would be far more accurate to say there have been simply two camps: religious and not religious.

Quote from agent00f : Reality isn't subjective. The entire point here is that the subjective (eg. morality, etc) isn't the same thing as reality.

What do you mean reality isn't subjective? I know a bunch of philosophers, writers, psychologists, and heck even physicists who would disagree.

Quote : As long as you know what I mean and vice versa, what's the problem? You can of course choose to reject reason or reality, but the only consequence is that you won't know what I'm talking about.

A public forum like this isn't two-way communication. While it only matters that you two understand each other for the internal debate, other people may be reading this thread and may be interested. It's important to be clear. And sometimes people just like to argue semantics.

Quote from Mixels : Rejection of religion predates nihilism. There are bundles of ancient moral philosophers who attempted to argue the merits of virtues rationally (as opposed to religiously). Nihilism, while not compatible with religious perspectives, has never been the most obvious adversary of theology. Rather, historically, it would be far more accurate to say there have been simply two camps: religious and not religious.

Just because something doesn't appear new doesn't mean it was ever discussed in the nuance that it could be. Kant's book on the matter is quite a bit thicker than a one-line statement.

Quote : What do you mean reality isn't subjective? I know a bunch of philosophers, writers, psychologists, and heck even physicists who would disagree.

Because I can show you (or anyone else) my apple, but cannot show you my happiness.

It's very unlikely that an academic in philosophy is among that group above, and if you felt one was, you misunderstood what he said.

Quote : A public forum like this isn't two-way communication. While it only matters that you two understand each other for the internal debate, other people may be reading this thread and may be interested. It's important to be clear. And sometimes people just like to argue semantics.

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Quote from agent00f : Just because something doesn't appear new doesn't mean it was ever discussed in the nuance that it could be. Kant's book on the matter is quite a bit thicker than a one-line statement.

And? That's like saying that natural philosophy wasn't the beginning of science. That which is religious is religious. That which is not is, due in large part to the natures of most religious doctrines (in the West at least), opposed to religion.

Quote : Because I can show you (or anyone else) my apple, but cannot show you my happiness. It's very unlikely that an academic in philosophy is among that group above, and if you felt one was, you misunderstood what he said.

And were we to agree that the apple is an apple, what divine power or consequence is to dictate our correctness on the matter? And what does it mean, anyway, to call an apple an apple--or even to agree on all the tenets of what an apple is? These considerations seem silly to apply to something as base as a piece of fruit, but there are perfectly adequate reasons thinkers today still can't agree on some of the most important considerations the world has ever taken on: morality, God, indeed even the nature of the human mind and, resultingly, all that might be produced by it.

Quote : I have no idea what you're getting at.

That's unfortunate.

Quote from Mixels : And? That's like saying that natural philosophy wasn't the beginning of science. That which is religious is religious. That which is not is, due in large part to the natures of most religious doctrines (in the West at least), opposed to religion.

I really have no idea what you're getting at. Nobody claimed that nihilists were the first to be non-religious, only that they formed a formidable philosophical basis for doing so. For example, for all of Newton or Decartes' (el al) brilliance, they were quite religious.

Quote : And were we to agree that the apple is an apple, what divine power or consequence is to dictate our correctness on the matter? And what does it mean, anyway, to call an apple an apple--or even to agree on all the tenets of what an apple is? These considerations seem silly to apply to something as base as a piece of fruit, but there are perfectly adequate reasons thinkers today still can't agree on some of the most important considerations the world has ever taken on: morality, God, indeed even the nature of the human mind and, resultingly, all that might be produced by it.

No, I can physically show you my apple. It matters not whether you call it an "apple" or consider it a fruit or not. I literally have no mechanism for showing you my (any given) pride or whatnot except to hope that you too have some intuition of these concepts and they somehow correspond with mine.

Quote : That's unfortunate.

It's rather more unfortunate that you seem incapable of describing what you mean.

Quote from agent00f : Reality isn't subjective. The entire point here is that the subjective (eg. morality, etc) isn't the same thing as reality. As long as you know what I mean and vice versa, what's the problem? You can of course choose to reject reason or reality, but the only consequence is that you won't know what I'm talking about.

Ok, so let's see where this gets us. You agree there are things like feelings. From whence do feelings come? Does someone feel guilty about murder, or thievery naturally, or only because of man's interaction with society?

Quote from Xygonn : Ok, so let's see where this gets us. You agree there are things like feelings. From whence do feelings come?

Feelings simply exist. To be sure they're the result of biological, chemical, and ultimately physical effects, but the technical details are irrelevant to the fact that we distinctly and individual realize them (but others can't our own except by emphasizing).

Quote : Does someone feel guilty about murder, or thievery naturally, or only because of man's interaction with society?

Some of it is natural (physical pain) and some of it less so (guilt for not realizing a specific social obligation). Note that "feeling" is itself not well defined, and that the specifics of "guilt" aren't either. For example, that we can feel guilt seems likely natural, but the specific instantiation/origin of each case may not be.

Quote from agent00f : Feelings simply exist. To be sure they're the result of biological, chemical, and ultimately physical effects, but the technical details are irrelevant to the fact that we distinctly and individual realize them (but others can't our own except by emphasizing).

Then there is more then a semantic difference between feelings and unconscious thought, such as attraction, no? Yet they intermingle. Have you read Republic by Plato? I'm asking for two reasons. One, I don't want to have to retread the whole book if possible. Two, if you like philosophy, you are sorely missing out by skipping that book.

Numbers are another abstract concept. You can show me five of something but you cannot show me five. You can't show anger, but you can show me an angry person. More interestingly, and perhaps more demonstrative, I can tell you about imaginary numbers, then I can demonstrate their usefulness in electrical engineering. I cannot show you an imaginary number or an imaginary amount of things. That doesn't mean they don't exist (which is of course confusing rhetorically). Likewise, I can show you ethics, and the usefulness of it, but if you refuse to understand, that doesn't mean ethics don't exist. There may even be several sets of ethics. Perhaps one is simply a transform of another.

You say empathy is what prevents undesirable actions. I think what prevents undesirable actions is to only engage in actions where the parties involves are voluntary. That way, everyone desires the action. (Earlier you used good and bad as rhetorical labels for desirable and undesirable). This may be derivative of empathy. That I only want to engage in desirable actions, and would only want others to engage in the desirable actions with me.

Quote : Some of it is natural (physical pain) and some of it less so (guilt for not realizing a specific social obligation). Note that "feeling" is itself not well defined, and that the specifics of "guilt" aren't either. For example, that we can feel guilt seems likely natural, but the specific instantiation/origin of each case may not be.

This is exactly correct. To use Plato's terms (more or less), I will try to go a step further. Feelings are the natural tools we use to arrive at opinions. If I eat an apple every day, and say "You should eat apples because they taste good" this is an opinion, which others may or may not share. If I eat an apple every day and find that my health improves and I say "You should eat an apple every day because it improves your health" that is a basic (though perhaps slightly flawed) fact that others can test and observe. It's this sort of intuition which is the natural tool we use to gain knowledge.

If we accept that there is knowledge of reality as well as real and useful knowledge about metaphysical concepts, the only disagreement we have is whether "ethical" is "good" like we might say an apple tastes good, or "good" like we might say an apple is "good" for your health. I would say the best and most useful ethics are "good" for both the individual, and for society. I do not believe proper ethics require the sacrifice of either for the good of the other.

Quote from Xygonn : Then there is more then a semantic difference between feelings and unconscious thought, such as attraction, no?

Depends entirely on what you mean by each. If you can make an empirical distinction (detailed definitions & measurements, etc) sure, but a rhetorical difference is only matter of definitions (ie. what is meant).

Quote : Yet they intermingle.

They might, sure. The role of philosophy in modern times has shifted to understanding what's meant rather than arguing semantics.

Quote : Have you read Republic by Plato? I'm asking for two reasons. One, I don't want to have to retread the whole book if possible. Two, if you like philosophy, you are sorely missing out by skipping that book.

No, mostly because I'm not a big fan of history of philosophy (which is what's taught in intro classes, a bit different than most subjects), but I understand some of his arguments from references in later work. People who actually work in the field are generally pretty familiar with him.

Quote : Numbers are another abstract concept. You can show me five of something but you cannot show me five. You can't show anger, but you can show me an angry person. More interestingly, and perhaps more demonstrative, I can tell you about imaginary numbers, then I can demonstrate their usefulness in electrical engineering. I cannot show you an imaginary number or an imaginary amount of things. That doesn't mean they don't exist (which is of course confusing rhetorically). Likewise, I can show you ethics, and the usefulness of it, but if you refuse to understand, that doesn't mean ethics don't exist. There may even be several sets of ethics. Perhaps one is simply a transform of another.

The argument isn't that the two of us can't understand each other, but rather that the metaphysical isn't the same thing as reality. The example of emotions is only to demonstrate that emotions can't be shown like real things, not that all metaphysical concepts are like emotions.

With that in mind be careful what you're showing. For the angry person, you've shown me a person who you identified as angry. This only illustrates that a person is "angry" if they behave this way. You've not shown how anger is like to you (or to him) except to the extent that I can now empathize because I know how I feel when I display the same symptoms. This is not the same thing as knowing about the apple you're showing.

In the example of numbers, it's simply easier for me to understand what you mean, but they still aren't real as you already agree. For example, I can assert that 4-2=2, but four apples minus 2 oranges makes no sense, and therefore the mathematical statement only has real meaning when it's mapped to real things. Meanwhile in the real world, taking two apples from 4 apples always makes 2 apples left regardless of the mathematical tools used.

Similarly, you can show me what you mean by ethics and I can perhaps understand, but it doesn't provide any real manifestation to them other than I have understood what's being said. You can similarly provide a basic framework for arithmetic, and it might make sense due to self-consistency and other criteria, but that doesn't change how many apples are left when I take 2 away from 4 of them. Witness for example the invention of new math in order to understand the physical world (eg. Lorentzian transform), but not the other way around.

Quote : You say empathy is what prevents undesirable actions.

It doesn't necessarily prevent, but it certainly helps prevent.

Quote : I think what prevents undesirable actions is to only engage in actions where the parties involves are voluntary. That way, everyone desires the action. (Earlier you used good and bad as rhetorical labels for desirable and undesirable). This may be derivative of empathy. That I only want to engage in desirable actions, and would only want others to engage in the desirable actions with me.

Unfortunately the real world doesn't act according to definitions, not even "obvious" mathematical ones. The entire point of science is through refutation of this idea that nature follows any given set of rules.

Quote : This is exactly correct. To use Plato's terms (more or less), I will try to go a step further. Feelings are the natural tools we use to arrive at opinions. If I eat an apple every day, and say "You should eat apples because they taste good" this is an opinion, which others may or may not share. If I eat an apple every day and find that my health improves and I say "You should eat an apple every day because it improves your health" that is a basic (though perhaps slightly flawed) fact that others can test and observe. It's this sort of intuition which is the natural tool we use to gain knowledge.

That last quote is two different claims. One is that consuming apples at some interval is beneficial to the human body (a real thing given clear empirical definitions), the other is that anyone should consume them. Obvious those who don't like apples might not even if true. To make it more clear, "you should drive water or you die". Obvious death from dehydration still happens even if the empirical claim is true..

Quote : If we accept that there is knowledge of reality as well as real and useful knowledge about metaphysical concepts, the only disagreement we have is whether "ethical" is "good" like we might say an apple tastes good, or "good" like we might say an apple is "good" for your health.

The problem is that our knowledge of each is different because the two aren't the same. Just because the word is spelled the same in both instances doesn't mean they necessarily refer to the exact same thing. For example, you already seem to acknowledge that "good" for each are entirely different.

It should be pretty obvious that ethical is in the former realm because I can understand and agree with you that a certain ethic appears good (to me), but to say that it's empirically good (no easy definition given its contradictory nature) is an entirely different type of thing.

Quote : I would say the best and most useful ethics are "good" for both the individual, and for society. I do not believe proper ethics require the sacrifice of either for the good of the other.

That's trivially wrong because dilemmas where the two confront each other are common. For example, clean air vs polluters.

Quote from agent00f : That's trivially wrong because dilemmas where the two confront each other are common. For example, clean air vs polluters.

\

When I have more time I might get deeper into the rest of the post.

It's only a dilemma if you haven't properly defined property rights, which I have previously stated belong to the people for common property. Pollution is a form of aggression to everyone that breaths the air unwillingly. So people get together and decide how much pollution they are willing to suffer (because they ostensibly want the beneficial products that are also produced along with the pollution). I've already stated that the most difficult portion of the process is determining the best way to govern and represent the will of the common owners of property.

Let's say one guy is unwilling to have ANY pollution in the air. On the other hand, everyone else is willing to have some small level. If this is what you mean by "we must make sacrifices of the individual to society" then my only problem is I haven't well defined society. When making decisions of common property, there is no reason that an individual as partial owner would get a veto (though maybe society somehow reaches agreement that individuals should get a veto). This is much different from what I meant which is that society has no right to force an individual to actively engage in some action against his will. A single individual has no right to force society to accept his actions against their collective will. This is (figuring out the will of a collective), of course, a difficult process to work out.