Post Philosophies or Religious ideas that are true, but shouldn't be implemented.

[Passacaglia]

I don't see life as having any inherent value. That would be really bad if that was adhered and followed by society as a whole.

I came here to say exactly this. I think history has proven that life has no inherent value -- for example, the Holocaust caused no disturbance in the Force, resulted in no righteous wrath from Above. Millions of people were murdered, and the world didn't even know until the Allies won. Then most of us looked with horror at the camps, and we Americans thought "...And we put Hitler on the cover of Time magazine!"

Which is exactly the kind of event that demonstrates why the 'Life is Precious' sentiment/philosophy is so important, even if it is demonstrated nonsense.

Life does not have an objective meaning, but it is up to us to create our own meaning, and it is important, I believe, that we do so.

Thank you, Vulcan, for saying what I was going to. Existentialism and nihilism are 'Life has no inherent meaning, so go find your own!' philosophies, not 'Life is meaningless, might as well off yourself' propositions.

 

[Evee]

Postmodernism.

 

[Obsidius]

The only potential value of nihilism is as a stepping stone to something better. There are a lot of people who assume that nihilism represents some kind of ideal end state. Nihilism is something to be fought against, not something to strive for. Nihilism can be useful if it eventually causes us to come to the realization that we must create our own meaning in life, but people who want to stay there are illogical, IMO. Life does not have an objective meaning, but it is up to us to create our own meaning, and it is important, I believe, that we do so.



I disagree. I know what it's like to feel that your life is purposeless, and I doubt I'm alone. It's not a place people should strive to stay in, though. The disillusionment, though, may be useful as an inn to spend the night on the way to greener pastures. Maybe only by abandoning everything can something new be built.

It could be important if someone were to utilise it as such, but for the most part a nihilist's attitude would simply remove that possibility. Nihilism is more than just a statement of no inherit meaning, many philosophies include that tenant. Different types of Nihilism can entail denial of all knowledge or morality, not just inherently but subjectively. But yes, Nihilism does have good use in that aspect, you're right, perhaps every philosophy has some form of utility, but we're more talking about their holistic use I guess.

How do you disagree? You just agreed... Though the clean slate idea is definitely a good thing, I identified as an existentialist nihilist for some time, I know how it felt, but it was terrible unproductive I can reassure you, at best it's a transitional phase, and hence shouldn't be holistically implemented in one's life or society.

 

[Passacaglia]

Postmodernism.

Hard to tell if you're serious or joking in some way. Heidegger appears in the wikipedia entry for postmodernism.

How do you disagree? You just agreed... Though the clean slate idea is definitely a good thing, I identified as an existentialist nihilist for some time, I know how it felt, but it was terrible unproductive I can reassure you, at best it's a transitional phase, and hence shouldn't be holistically implemented in one's life or society.

This might be one of those things that works differently for different types. I've never introduced myself as an existentialist, for example, but when a professor explained the concept to me for the first time I was like "Oh yeah, that's me!" Sans the angst that the big existentialist philosophers apparently felt. Ten years later, and I just graduated with a second college degree.

I was depressed to one degree or other for quite a few years, but there were more mundane reasons for that than "My life has no meaaaning!"

 

[Obsidius]

Hard to tell if you're serious or joking in some way. Heidegger appears in the wikipedia entry for postmodernism.


This might be one of those things that works differently for different types. I've never introduced myself as an existentialist, for example, but when a professor explained the concept to me for the first time I was like "Oh yeah, that's me!" Sans the angst that the big existentialist philosophers apparently felt. Ten years later, and I just graduated with a second college degree.

I was depressed to one degree or other for quite a few years, but there were more mundane reasons for that than "My life has no meaaaning!"

Well, I think the meaning is inferred is all, but the nihilistic attitude is full of angst, and I rarely feel that so I can't relate, but that's an interesting anecdote

 

[Evee]

Hard to tell if you're serious or joking in some way. Heidegger appears in the wikipedia entry for postmodernism.

What you said about existentialism.. How life is meaningless, so we give it meaning, making it not meaningless after all.. That is part of postmodernist thought.

No absolute truth exists. All narratives are false.

Humans are not thinking yet.

 

[Frosty]

That everything we do is both good and bad. You cannot control all absolute outcomes of your actions so why even try? Horrible philosophy to live by.

Nihilism and existentialism soak into me sometimes more than I would care for, though I would rather spill some milk than go thirsty.

 

[Beorn]

You folks realize how non-nonsensical this thread is, right?

 

[Evee]

You folks realize how non-nonsensical this thread is, right?

Only the parts that involve language.

 

[KitchenFly]

Post Philosophies or Religious ideas that are true, but shouldn't be implemen...

Seven Covey's Seven Health Habits for highly effective people.

The model is insightful but the suggested like religious practice is craziness for the average mind.

And now there is an eighth habit (inform another and get them on the path)

Seven Covey must distract him self with proactive plots to prevent his narrative from being affected by the cause and effect from the average end normality.

Steven Covey I'm thinking of as a So/Sp Severn or an Sp/So Eight with Severn.

 

[EcK]

Yeah that's stark Nihilism, basically life has no inherit meaning or value.

Life can have no inherent value or meaning. Sure. But as social cultural animals we are free to atribute meaning to our lives.
I don't think it's right to assume people start off as "special" andeanongful additions to the universe. That sounds like something which would create spoilled little kids. As many people actually seem to be in a way. ( lack of thoughtful action due to the assumption they are right and dserving leading to ethical / mental stagnation)

 

[Obsidius]

Life can have no inherent value or meaning. Sure. But as social animals we are free to atribute meaning to our lives.
I don't think it's right to assume people start off as "special" andeanongful additions to the universe. That sounds like something which would create spoilled little kids. As many people actually seem to be in a way. ( lack of thoughtful action due to the assumption they are right and dserving leading to ethical / mental stagnation)

Okay, I already clarified that I don't subscribe to Nihilism. However, you're right, we're just parts of the Universe, though we do seem to be 'special' in the way we observe it, and think about it.

 

[EcK]

Okay, I already clarified that I don't subscribe to Nihilism. However, you're right, we're just parts of the Universe, though we do seem to be 'special' in the way we observe it, and think about it.

Yeah but as far as we know it's all in the eyesof the beholder. For example you might say a lotery winner is special:kucky. Then when you look at the statistics you know someone was likely to win. Its not about the individual winner its about the whole system. Calling something special is a mental tool we can use and do use but it doesnt necessarily mean much in the "grand scheme of things".

For example for all we know there's an infinite number od univeres carrying intelligent life. We can look at it statistically, we can look at it culturally. We can look at what we know now etc. But our point of view/ the meaning we attribute is relative. In fact I doubt an absolute idea has any "place" in the universe/multiverse. We just seem to be enamoured with our own perspective and tend to equate our experience and beliefs with reality. Which is akin to saying that me liking vanilla ice cream has some cosmic meaning.

Meaning is a shared "illusion", like one could say language is. And we convince ourselves that if different people seek the same thing and large groups agree it must have significance outside of ourselves. But we forget that we re all more or less clones of each other gentically and its not surprising we d be suject to similar bias.
I guess a testament to the small scope of what we call "meaning" is that despite how similar we are we attribute different meanings to the same things.

A crazy person tries to attribute patterns to events we see as unrelated. We call that guy crazy simply because his bias are different or stronger than ours in some areas. Another species could see our supernatural beliefs, our fear/dislike of the dark or of spiders and oh so many other things as enough reasons to deem us all insane.

A god like being could think us "silly" for stating two events could be unrelated qs everything in the universe is connected akd our blindness to it is unrelated with "truth".

 

[uumlau]

If an idea is "true", would that not imply that it has already been "implemented"? If not by humans, but by already existing a priori?

 

[Beorn]

You folks realize how non-nonsensical this thread is, right?

If an idea is "true", would that not imply that it has already been "implemented"? If not by humans, but by already existing a priori?

^This

 

[Poki]

If an idea is "true", would that not imply that it has already been "implemented"? If not by humans, but by already existing a priori?

A rose is still a rose even if by any other name.

 

[EcK]

If an idea is "true", would that not imply that it has already been "implemented"? If not by humans, but by already existing a priori?

Well that's the way I use "truth" as a tool. But I don't take the term too seriously due to the myriad ways in which bias emerge. If something works it doesn't mean it always does or that it does for the reasons we think. The issue people tend to apply too small a scope and then magically make that truth mean more than the data/tool it is

 

[Rambling]

Postmodernism.

Everything is relative and everyone can pick and choose what they think is true...without affecting anyone else. That's a widely held viewpoint as far as I can see, so many people live by it, and yet I don't see how it can possibly hold true as a truth which works across the collective mass of society, so to speak.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

no one knows if life has inherent meaning or not. That is essentially unknowable.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

A rose is still a rose even if by any other name.

whether an idea is true or not, the fact that it has been thought means that it exists as an idea even before the first time it was thought of since ideas exist even if no one has them.

We knows this because our experience indicates, as well as objective evidence, that ideas do not come singularly but in clusters since all scientific advances have been forwarded by multiple people contemporaneously. There is not a single idea that one man ever had that at least one or two other contemporaries have also had...and since this is true, and a fact...it must be that ideas are not bound by space and time as we are.

Finally, we also know this to be true if we broaden our definition of existence to include all those things outside of time space, and if this is the case then in that super-space all ideas would be present on the tail of time, so to speak, for lack of better word...

In other words, plato was half right, and half wrong, not totally wrong....based on the objective facts of our history....