As a nihilist some issues about 'authority' will and do come up as an argument against the reality of nihilism. One such issue is the argument against a nihilist even being able to generate 'meaning' due to the fact that a nihilist sees no 'intrinsic meaning' in life. I in no way believe that 'personal meaning' is not a thing that we can create and utilize, rather that cosmically all things are meaningless and worthless. This is actually wonderful because we are thereby not bound to some 'intrinsic' meaning that dictates our valuation of both our own personal lives as well as the lives of others. A good example is the idea of say someone's family heirloom, it has no meaning to those without a connection to the heirloom itself, but perhaps great meaning to those who value it. As an object in and of itself it has no valuation at all, it can neither value itself nor contain any intrinsic value of its own; we bring to value. The very concept of life also has a similar valuation, the difference is that we are not inanimate objects, and so we value ourselves and others despite the obvious cosmic insignificance that we present. This in no way is to be depressing, rather it should be relaxing, it means that in the end all is for nothing, and while this may cause some great anxiety, it is in truth a perfectly acceptable truth. It should calm most anyone, as it shows what the world was like before we were born and what it will inevitably be like after our extinction. It in no way takes away the beauty of life, the struggle that life faces in the void of emptiness; the inevitable return to said emptiness. It may at first seem horrid, terrible, or depressing, but as with all things sad and difficult, acceptance allows us to move on from our grief that we are not ultimately significant to the universe and even to life itself.
However, even after accepting such a thing a nihilist will come across the argument of "How shall we live?" and before one can answer the follow up will be "How can you have any significant say on the matter, given the fact that anything you prescribe is basically an emotive opinion?" In this regard their is no concrete answer to provide, realistically a nihilist may use the descriptive powers of science to make arguments, they may outline a preferred system that they champion as a 'better system of life' but they would have as much 'authority' in both a moral and subjective sense as anyone else. This however proves the point that the nihilist's arguments are no more valid or invalid than anyone else, on the contrary I would argue that they are slightly more honest; being as their positions are argued from the place that nothing but humans are the definers, movers, shakers, designers, and enforcers of society and its values. A theological positions, for example, would perhaps argue that God is the prime mover of all things moral and valuable; this has, as history has shown, proven nothing about their claims as true. Quite literally though they and their multiple splinter groups have shown that their humanity proves that they cannot agree and are perpetually diverging from one another in arguing about "who is right" from a concrete theological prospective; throwing out the idea of the 'concrete' bit allows us to see our systems as they are, human made constructions who serve us, not the other way around. This says nothing of the seemingly suicidal and destructive nature of some religious systems. I often find that the desire to 'bring on the end times' is much more disturbing than realizing the cosmic worthlessness of ourselves. The reality that we are the ones who create and shape our temporal meaning and worth in the here and now.
In other words, a nihilist cannot make a 'concrete value/moral claim' and recognizes as such. This in no way means that a nihilist cannot live by moral principles and even attempt to enforce or convince others of such morals or valuations; as personal meaning and personal moral judgment are things unique to the conscious mind and thereby generated as reaction to the world around us; willingly or unwillingly. The fact that we value and create morality is more of a reflection on the reality that the creation of valuation and morality has allowed us to generate greater survival mechanisms rather than the intrinsic existence of either morality or value. Value and morality are in fact creations from our emotional reaction of the world around us and the effects it has upon us and those things around us that we interact with, they are generated by us so as to attempt to create a system by which predictability can be established. A 'moral and ethical' society, aka a place where people generally know the ins and outs of human interaction, is a society more conducive to predictability and therefore easier to navigate and secure one's own survival. Thus morals are adaptations of the species
to continue its existence, this would be one of the general scientific descriptions of the 'purpose' of morality; this in no way means that a valuation of morality has taken place. The fact that a species would view an adaptation that secures its own survival as 'good' is entirely coincidental to the description; just as describing sex's biological function does not in any way commutate its 'value' as an experience in pleasure, that's just coincidental that sex as an activity has evolved to include pleasure, which itself happens to be seen as 'good' by the species.
I do understand that there will be some people who will view the lack of authoritative morality and valuation as a problem. The issue I see with this however seems to me that such a thing has never existed in the first place and that we have been behaving in this nihilistic framework the entire time and just have not recognized it as such. Let us take the example of Christianity, some people in the community argue to care for the poor, some argue that none shall eat if the don't work, which of these has more authority than the other, which is more moral? The answer is that on both sides they see themselves as moral and authoritative, I rest my case, they are participating in individual and group valuation and morality; neither is more authoritative nor more 'correct' they are humans arguing over human arguments. Either could make a case, such a case could or could not be persuasive to their fellow humans sentiments, but in the end they are both emoting their desires based purely on nothing but themselves. Neither is 'right' and neither is 'wrong' this is not an attempt to play the both sides are the same, rather that neither of them have some special authority over the other. They can argue which system would work more fluidly to establish a more predictable society and make life for the species less unpleasant perhaps, but that is about the only descriptor beyond the emotional that they have, and they will both use the emotional as the bulwark of their argument; with or without the scientific descriptors to back it up. This can be applied to anything, religion, politics, economics, anything that is not a physically concrete thing, anything in idea space can fall under this line of argumentation.
Now I understand that even some people who may indeed view themselves as receptive to nihilism at this point may shake their heads and say, "Now that's where you lose me. I cannot accept this reasoning. Not because it may indeed seem to be correct, but because it would grant that morality and valuation do not exist and thereby this makes my arguments against what I would deem immoral behavior to be that much the harder to argue against." Now, while I concede that this may indeed be true, I again would argue that nothing really has changed. We as humans will still be arguing the same points, but we will be arguing them more honestly now. In many arguments within our society, what we are arguing is about our preferences, and what those preferences are, are preferences of predictability. We are fighting about how we want the gears of society to turn, which cogs do we wish placed where, for what purpose and to what end. What we are arguing is how we will construct our civilization, and this is very important, it is very personal to each and every one of us; for one glaring reason. We are the only ones coming to save us. We build and tear down, we despair and inspire, we grow and we change; this is the magic that is our lives. A purposeless existence is like a blank canvas to an artist, full of possibilities and more beautiful that we can imagine; not because of the blankness on the slate, rather for the color pallet of the artist, and we are the artists. And I, as a writer, pen the moments of my story with intent and creativity; with limited understanding and blurred comprehension. Yet my words, as are all of our words, stained upon the parchment, are bound to time; the pages drying, paper cracking, and the wind sweeping up and away to dust, forever to be forgotten, forever to be lost. Each book has a story, and each story is lost; this does not diminish its beauty, while it lasts.
The Feedback Test
Placed into position of understanding that one can see beyond time to a slight extent. One is given the view of options that one could live one's life. The first choice is a life a short term pleasure, though this is the highest level of pleasure one could attain, for the whole of one's physical life; though nothing of any lasting impact will be left behind after death and you will be completely unknown. The second is a life of struggle and difficulty, yet some of it will remain for other persons to glean from an admire; these things will also be perceived as having done 'great things' for society, however, they will be forgotten ten years after your death and no one will remember you or what you did. The third and final possibility will be to live a life of sorrow and suffering unparalleled and die in misery, but you will be viewed as a hero and lauded as one of the greatest people to have ever lived; though after one-hundred years you will be utterly expunged from mental history and the minds of all people. Which would you choose, given the reality that in all three scenarios you and your actions will be forgotten utterly?
No comments:
Post a Comment