JackBizzle:



False.

If you are an atheist, you are a cosmic nihilist.

Tell me, do you believe that there is any meaning on the universal level? Do you think we are significant in relation to the size of the universe?

Read the response of Jon Sochaux here:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-cosmic-nihilism

budaatum:


You miss your own point in failing to see your "cloning of a human being for organ spare parts" as a part of your very own human purpose of survival by making it sound like the clone cloned itself because it has the purpose of giving a fuq about you! Lol!

Forget nihilism!

I deduced certain things with no respect to the thoughts of whatever philosopher!

In other words, I can determine that life is baseless!

Life is an absurdity!

Life makes no sense!

But I just have to survive for no reason!

These things just happen!



Google can tell you so many things about the processes that are carried out by living things!


But these processes have no purpose!

I am aware of infinity or the reality of the limitlessness of that which exists!

So, I can determine that there are infinite things which just exist!

Whatever you say or do can't change the fact that you are just another group of indivisible ageless objects which determine the pattern called budaatum that appears to whatever observer on Nairaland by chance!

I have been exposed to budaatum by chance for no specific reason!

So, budaatum can come up with anything and I will fire back if necessary because my head is burning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

shadeyinka:

I think a way of looking at it purely from intellectual point of view is to ask the question:

Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?



Note:
Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

First, a system itself implies purpose since each part of the system must rely on other parts of the system for the system to function. But because I know you are a believer, I am reluctant to admit the existence of a beneficiary or a purposer because you would assume I mean God.

The fact is that there obviously is a system of all the things that had to line up for humans to exist. The food chain is a clear example of a system required for humans to live. If it stopped existing, so likely would life unless it evolves.

The Bible writers were aware of this fact hence Genesis 1, their understanding of the system. It's not literally true, as in, they made up the beneficiary purposer God Almighty, for instance, simply because, like all humans, they concluded from the little they knew and imagined such a being must exist, since, according to them, nothing can just become out of nothing. But who says so? Is "something out of nothing" not exactly what Genesis 1 describes? And if nothing can just become, how can one claim God just became?

You may note their error by the little they wrote about the universe they claim was "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Nothing about the other planets, then suddenly, "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", with absolutely nothing said about the immense universe we now witness.

The fact of the matter is no one really knows how or why the universe came into existence long before humans arrived to observe and record what they see despite whatever they may believe. And the wise keep on searching instead of (and my bad for this), claiming the Tree of Knowledge is a tree of death and that individuals who died 8 centuries after eating were killed by the fruit of knowledge they ate, which is clearly intellectual dishonesty and humpty dumpty logic.

I guess the short of it is No. I buda can not agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary! If that is true, God must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary who must also have a beneficiary. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum and you'd have turtles all the way down.

My recommendation would therefore be, keep knocking and asking and seeking till you get to the last turtle, as one very wise Messiah has taught us to do.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13184831_screenshot20210223212525_jpega364b69632fd94e76e9c587d18ba0ef1

IamPlato:
the point is that, we choose to create a purpose for ourselves

Yes we do create a purpose for ourselves, but only after we have accepted the purpose given to us by those who created us.

Let me know you know who those are please so I know you comprende.

IamPlato:
imagine you were the first man with the first woman and the question "why are you here" drops in your head, what will be your answer?

will you say you are here to survive? bro surviving is not a purpose, a purpose is meant to be significant or remarkable or a land mark.

This already happened, so its easy to answer, but first I think I will need to ask "where am I", and if the answer is "here", I'd have to ask "what is the here that I am at". Then I might ask "how did I get here", and " when did I get here" before I get to your question of "why the heck am I here".

And while I'm answering all those questions, I think I might have to give myself the purpose of "I better be here tomorrow", or I will not be finding any answers at all. Can you see from the above that my purpose can be, survive the day so that I can find out my purpose for being here? I assure you that if I do not fulfil my daily purpose I will never get to the point where I get to ask "why I am here", and my personal experience has shown me that my stomach will impose the fulfilment of its desires on me if I attempt to ignore it, and those who succeed in ignoring their stomach die due to their lack of purpose.

IamPlato:
if surviving is a purpose then the purpose is never achieved because no man survives, every one dies.

Sorry, but the purpose called survival is achieved incrementally day by day, and the day one stops fulfilling it one will surely die!

IamPlato:
take the first man and first woman for example, their purpose is to reproduce and explore and educate the children created from reproduction, that is what you call a purpose.

Yes it is, as inherited from that which they evolved from.

Human beings themselves are a fulfilment of the purpose of living forms that preceeded them, that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them ad infinitum and turtles and turtles, unless your view is that humans did not evolve of course.

IamPlato:
they can choose to stay without doing all these and stay without giving a meaning to their existence.

Impossible! You might succeed for a few days or weeks even, but you'd eventually starve to death unless you at least adopt filling your belly as your purpose or have a sugar daddy who requires nothing from you in return..

HellVictorinho:

In other words, I can determine that life is baseless!

Life is an absurdity!

Life makes no sense!

But I just have to survive for no reason!

I beg your pardon Hell, but you and I have determined that our life will not be purposeless and it will have reason.

We have given ourselves the purpose to go and defeat boko haram with lyrics and books one day, so stop being absurd please and let us continue with the current purpose of learning to ensure our books and lyrics will be the best and most effective.

budaatum:


I beg your pardon Hell, but you and I have determined that our life will not be purposeless and it will have reason.

We have given ourselves the purpose to go and defeat boko haram with lyrics and books one day, so stop being absurd please and let us continue with the current purpose of learning to ensure our books and lyrics will be the best and most effective.

Don't personalize these things.
When I say life,I am referring to the co-extistence of all living things on Earth.

LordReed:


Yes there is meaning because I give it meaning. I don't need a god or even other humans to tell me the meaning.

Thank you my Lord for telling him.

LordReed:


Read the response of Jon Sochaux here:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-cosmic-nihilism

From your Sochaux-

Cosmicism states that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.


Do you not agree with the above sentiment?


If your answer is 'yes', then you are a cosmic nihilist.

HellVictorinho:


Don't personalize these things.
When I say life,I am referring to the co-extistence of all living things on Earth.

To co-exist is a purpose, and is one you give to your very personal self.

budaatum:

Thank you my Lord for telling him.

Fvcking Jedi

budaatum:

This already happened, so its easy to answer, but first I think I will need to ask "where am I", and if the answer is "here", I'd have to ask "what is the here that I am at". Then I might ask "how did I get here", and " when did I get here" before I get to your question of "why the heck am I here".

And while I'm answering all those questions, I think I might have to give myself the purpose of "I better be here tomorrow", or I will not be finding any answers at all. Can you see from the above that my purpose can be, survive the day so that I can find out my purpose for being here? I assure you that if I do not fulfil my daily purpose I will never get to the point where I get to ask "why I am here", and my personal experience has shown me that my stomach will impose the fulfilment of its desires on me if I attempt to ignore it, and those who succeed in ignoring their stomach die due to their lack of purpose.


Sorry, but the purpose called survival is achieved incrementally day by day, and the day one stops fulfilling it one will surely die!


Yes it is, as inherited from that which they evolved from.

Human beings themselves are a fulfilment of the purpose of living forms that preceeded them, that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them ad infinitum and turtles and turtles, unless your view is that humans did not evolve of course.


Impossible! You might succeed for a few days or weeks even, but you'd eventually starve to death unless you at least adopt filling your belly as your purpose or have a sugar daddy who requires nothing from you in return..

Survival has no purpose.

budaatum:


To co-exist is a purpose, and is one you give to your very personal self.

Why the co-existence?

JackBizzle:

From your Sochaux-

Cosmicism states that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.


Do you not agree with the above sentiment?


If your answer is 'yes', then you are a cosmic nihilist.

I don't need to agree with anyone here
I don't need anyone to agree with me here.
Life has no purpose.

JackBizzle:

From your Sochaux-

Cosmicism states that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.


Do you not agree with the above sentiment?


If your answer is 'yes', then you are a cosmic nihilist.

Sochaux, in the same piece, said:

You escape Nihilism once you realize that it is a pseudo-philosophical position. It is pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually.

So, why would you even consider asking if it is believed unless you are the sort who believes pseudo-philosophy, which you wouldn't if you but understood?

LordReed:


Yes there is meaning because I give it meaning. I don't need a god or even other humans to tell me the meaning.

My point exactly-

JackBizzle:


I believe that I am a cosmic nihilist and I subscribe to the relatively new idea of "optimistic nihilism"

My solution to this paradox is to separate the meaninglessness on a universal level from the logic that exists in the reasoning of the individual human life. What I mean is that, life has no intrinsic meaning and we are a spec of dust in terms of the whole universe but that does not stop us from creating our own purpose.

To further explain this, I will use the quantum world to explain. In real life, when you put your finger on something, you are touching it and you can feel it. However, in the quantum world (when view things to a very microscopic level), you are not actually touching anything, there is a space between your finger and what you are touching. In the quantum world, everything thing you are doing becomes meaningless. Does the quantum world change the fact that you are touching something with your fingers? No!

What the quantum world analogy explains is that the meaninglessness of a particular thing does not change the reality of another. We are but a speck of dust in the cosmos. That does not stop us from existing and functioning in the very speck of dust that we call our planet.

HellVictorinho:

Why the co-existence?

You are the one who said, "When I say life, I am referring to the co-existence of all living things on Earth", so why ask me "why" when it is you who should explain what you mean by it?

budaatum:


Sochaux, in the same piece, said:

You escape Nihilism once you realize that it is a pseudo-philosophical position. It is pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually.

So, why would you even consider asking if it is believed unless you are the sort who believes pseudo-philosophy, which you wouldn't if you but understood?

See dodging. Simple question, you didn't answer.

If Sochaux believes that Nihilism is pseudo-philosophy, I wonder why Neitzche is more popular than Sochaux among philosophers.

HellVictorinho:


Survival has no purpose.

Survival is purpose in its own right.

JackBizzle:


See dodging. Simple question, you didn't answer.

If Sochaux believes that Nihilism is pseudo-philosophy, I wonder why Neitzche is more popular than Sochaux among philosophers.

Your question was meaningless! The person you quoted already called it "pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually". So unless you are asking if one is stupid, I really do not see your point in asking.

As for your "Nietzsche is more popular than Sochaux", would you say one must believe in God because God is more popular than the alternatives too?

budaatum:


You are the one who said, "When I say life, I am referring to the co-existence of all living things on Earth", so why ask me "why" when it is you who should explain what you mean by it?

You shouldn't have called the co-existence a purpose.
The co-existence is an accidental manifestation of consciousness or awareness by several structures simultaneously and it involves the performance of several activities.
But there's no reason why these things happen.
They just happen.

budaatum:


Survival is purpose in its own right.

Survival is the same thing as existence.
If you have been able to survive since 2019,then it means you have been existing since 2019.
You are not the only one that has been alive since then.
There's no reason for the co-existence.

HellVictorinho:


You shouldn't have called the co-existence a purpose.
The co-existence is an accidental manifestation of consciousness or awareness by several structures simultaneously and it involves the performance of several activities.
But there's no reason why these things happen.
They just happen.

But it is a purpose. You can very well exist as an individual, but those who chose to coexist have consciously chosen coexistence as one of their purposes.

This is very obvious by the mere fact that it, in your words, involves a "consciousness or awareness" (implying it is not accidental!), and the "performance of several activities" which do not "just happen" because you must voluntarily choose to make them happen!

Basically, your supper does not go to the shop to buy the food and cook it for you so it can accidentally manifest as food in your mouth, Hell!

budaatum:


Yes we do create a purpose for ourselves, but only after we have accepted the purpose given to us by those who created us.

Let me know you know who those are please so I know you comprende.

Man has free will, he has the right to choose to or not to do.


From what I see, surviving is a generic term for everything man does, from exploring to reproduction and educating.

But surviving is a choice, he can choose not to because he has that ability.



Who created us? God? Science? Evolution? Big Bang? Who?

HellVictorinho:

Survival is the same thing as existence.
If you have been able to survive since 2019,then it means you have been existing since 2019.
You are not the only one that has been alive since then.
There's no reason for the co-existence.

It is you who brought coexistence here, not me, so I do not know why you are arguing with yourself.

Indeed you do not need to coexist. There are people who live on islands all by themself with no one near them to exist with. My simple point is that to exist, as in, to continue in a state of survival, is a purpose that you must do something in order to achieve. If you do nothing, unless others do something on your behalf, you will fail to achieve your purpose of existence.

Even on an island all by yourself, the fish will not jump out of the ocean and into your pot that sits on your fire that ignited itself and into your belly to feed you. You must, I believe, get off your ass or starve.

IamPlato:
Man has free will, he has the right to choose to or not to do.

Agreed.

IamPlato:
From what I see, surviving is a generic term for everything man does, from exploring to reproduction and educating.

And war, and lying, and deceiving, especially when we are being ignorant.

IamPlato:
But surviving is a choice, he can choose not to because he has that ability.

Yes, survival is a choice. One does have the ability to commit suicide and terminate ones survival or continued existence.

IamPlato:
Who created us? God? Science? Evolution? Big Bang? Who?

Now, this one is way above my paygrade since you are asking me a question about what might have happened billions of years ago. Perhaps you will be content with my answer to a different question that is within my paygrade instead, like:

"Who created buda"?

Answer: buda's mummy and daddy.

budaatum:

Agreed.


And war, and lying, and deceiving, especially when we are being ignorant.


Yes, survival is a choice. One does have the ability to commit suicide and terminate ones survival or continued existence.


Now, this one is way above my paygrade since you are asking me a question about what might have happened billions of years ago. Perhaps you will be content with my answer to a different question that is within my paygrade instead, like:

"Who created buda"?

Answer: buda's mummy and daddy.

that's a diplomatic answer...

I don't buy that, many have said that...

What do you believe? How do you personally think man was created or bby who

IamPlato:
that's a diplomatic answer...

I don't buy that, many have said that...

What do you believe? How do you personally think man was created or bby who

I am not a believer, Plato. I do not create crap inside my head and claim it is knowledge despite it being utter ignorance. To believe is to claim the little one thinks one knows is all there is to know. Once one believes, one stops learning. You may read Shade and I tackling it here.

I mean, just look at the question you asked. You imply a creator, then you ask who. Who's to say humans were created? How do you know they did not arrive on earth from the planet zoghidecton or somewhere closer like Mars?

I am an evolutionist however. I understand that humans evolved from humanoids that preceeded them as did they and so on to a single cell. But evolution starts after life occured and does not specifically state how life actually began, so the best you'd get from me is, buda does not have a clue how life began billions and billions of years ago.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13152958_notable02547_jpeg2a552f1e40eee3947fd578e6e174c42e

JackBizzle:

From your Sochaux-

Cosmicism states that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.


Do you not agree with the above sentiment?


If your answer is 'yes', then you are a cosmic nihilist.

This is not from Jon's response. Read Jon's response in the linked page then we can discuss.

EDITED

LordReed:


This is not from Jon's response. Read Jon's response in the linked page then we can discuss.

EDITED

Here's a link so he does not miss it.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-overcome-existential-nihilism/answer/Jon-Sochaux

budaatum:


First, a system itself implies purpose since each part of the system must rely on other parts of the system for the system to function. But because I know you are a believer, I am reluctant to admit the existence of a beneficiary or a purposer because you would assume I mean God.

The fact is that there obviously is a system of all the things that had to line up for humans to exist. The food chain is a clear example of a system required for humans to live. If it stopped existing, so likely would life unless it evolves.

Could it be that wise humans are too proud to admit that they are finite and limited in their capacity to know all things. For as you rightly said: "a system itself implies a purpose"

Unfortunately, these two propositions

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?
2. Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

can only lead to one conclusion: an ultimate beneficiary of the overall system. For it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect!

For me, logically, an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE must somehow exist. Beyond this, I believe the Intellectual capacity of humans even though great cannot attain.

Note: just as we have proved that speeds exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

budaatum:

The Bible writers were aware of this fact hence Genesis 1, their understanding of the system. It's not literally true, as in, they made up the beneficiary purposer God Almighty, for instance, simply because, like all humans, they concluded from the little they knew and imagined such a being must exist, since, according to them, nothing can just become out of nothing. But who says so? Is "something out of nothing" not exactly what Genesis 1 describes? And if nothing can just become, how can one claim God just became?

You may note their error by the little they wrote about the universe they claim was "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Nothing about the other planets, then suddenly, "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", with absolutely nothing said about the immense universe we now witness.

Christians believe that the narration of Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 are two distantly separated events. First was a creation and the second was a restoration (for nowhere will you see the creation of water for instance in Gen1:2).

budaatum:

The fact of the matter is no one really knows how or why the universe came into existence long before humans arrived to observe and record what they see despite whatever they may believe. And the wise keep on searching instead of (and my bad for this), claiming the Tree of Knowledge is a tree of death and that individuals who died 8 centuries after eating were killed by the fruit of knowledge they ate, which is clearly intellectual dishonesty and humpty dumpty logic.

Let's not reopen this

budaatum:

I guess the short of it is No. I buda can not agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary! If that is true, God must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary who must also have a beneficiary. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum and you'd have turtles all the way down.

I guess that we know the answer and it's just purely a matter of nomenclature to call the Primary Beneficiary a name such as "God", "the Creator", "the Source", "the Primordial", etc.

Do you think an infinite regression of Cause and Effect is logically possible ( with respect to existence)?

budaatum:

My recommendation would therefore be, keep knocking and asking and seeking till you get to the last turtle, as one very wise Messiah has taught us to do.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13184831_screenshot20210223212525_jpega364b69632fd94e76e9c587d18ba0ef1

Just as we have logically and intellectually defined the term INFINITY, why not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE"!

It would be an impossibility to find the number called infinite however long we search and wait.

If we can logically and intellectually wrap our heads around this, the next intellegent proper question should be:

If the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE exist, would (It/He) be a THING or a BEING?

budaatum:


Here's a link so he does not miss it.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-overcome-existential-nihilism/answer/Jon-Sochaux

Thanks my dear buda.