It is actually quite freeing - if there is no meaning, our actions are ultimately without real consequence outside of short term effects. In the grand scheme of time, nothing matters. So live your best life! That’s how I deal with it.
So you’re an Epicurean and not actually a nihilist. Welcome to 300 BC.
1 Like
Didn’t you study astrophysics? Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said something along these lines, which I personally regard as an admission of ignorance or misuse of language. While I certainly don’t support everything that goes on philosophy departments, they often contain very smart people who seek to understand important issues at a fairly deep level. Like, when many of the mathematical developments that lead up to modern science and computation were the direct work of people commonly referred to as “philosophers”, one needs to do more than simply hand wave away the subject. (Though, to be fair, Russia drafted first when it came to writers and last in philosophers, and Germany had a bad run from the 1850s-1950s).
Also, philosophy is needed as a bulwark against religion and other oppressions in all their forms. Philosophy is always there, at least in theory, to stand up and say, “Is that so? Justify yourself.” That can be worth a lot. Tyrants let many people be, including bakers and candlestick makers, but they sure as hell know to go after the philosophers. (Or co-opt them. Thanks, Heidegger.)
https://twitter.com/BrianLeiter/status/1301652889446776833?s=20
You might like this video. The channel is really good for philosophy and other topics.
4 Likes
Yea thats my exact world view summarized in 6 minutes.
It can lead to a paralyzation of sorts in the moment. An unwillingness to commit to one, obviously. But that indecisive struggle could ultimately - over a continuum of decisions - reward all the various vying ideas equally. And what does that mean?
I’m too dumb to understand what simp and smrk and others are talking about, and am reluctant to even contribute, but iirc Bertrand Russell wrote about the futility/despair in philosophizing, as I understand the word. Seems like it does require serious study, and there’s an intuition against it.
Also interesting, is how the best writers could possibly be the worst at philosophy. On its face, I do not get that.
1 Like
Perhaps he likes their stories, but doesn’t like their philosophy? One of the founders of nihilism is the Russian novelist Turgenev.
Just seems that those best equipped to use language, would not struggle unreasonably to describe experience or other ‘philosophical’ concepts.
I lean towards the idea that Judith Jarvis Thomson is on the wrong side of the famous violinist problem.
Pro-lifer?
You think women who get pregnant through rape are obligated to carry the baby to term?
Ok now I remember, you’re going to do the killing vs let die thing; but the question stands.
Writing good philosophy is like writing up a scientific finding or math proof: boring is better. Delete those synonyms and metaphors. Strong writers hate to be boring.
2 Likes
Sure, for popular philosophy, which is certainly important. But in the trenches, clarity and precision should always come before being accessible and inviting.
I don’t feel particularly bound by the labels of pro-life and pro-choice. I see a bigger picture of denying the libertarian notion of self-ownership and justifying the welfare state. I decline to say that any person should have full and unfettered rights to do with their body as they please in the same way that I deny them those rights with land that they own or money they keep in a bank account.
My wider view is to argue that it is morally permissible for society to impose duties and obligations on individuals and that both sides frame the debate improperly.
I think that people are wrong to answer that question first and work backwards to reach their preferred answer.
You think women who get pregnant through rape are obligated to obey the state’s dictates in what they can do with the pregnancy