An old eclectic who likes to foil young aggressive nihilists.
A nihilist who opens this debate.
A nihilist who has yet to reflect on nihilism.
Comments
The comments in this colour are written by a monist, and not part of the thread itself, but added later and at any point.
The discussion supposedly takes place in a pseudo-newsgroup called ps.nihilism
Within the thread – not in the comments on it – ps.nihilism will be referred to as a newsgroup, supposedly part of usenet.
Subject: Re: Nihilism and Eclecticism
The thread has a simple linear order
and the sequence of authors is as follows:
From Ps-Planinc
From Ps-Rex
From Ps-genein
From Ps-Rex
From Ps-genein
From Ps-genein
Ps-Planinc:
>I think I can sum this discussion up in very simple words:
>
>Nihilism is a dogmatic belief that there is no theory of everything.
>
>Eclecticism takes different forms, but in this context is simply
>someone claiming not to know whether or not
>there is a theory of everything.
more or less…but essentially true, no one can really say with certainty
that a theory of everything exists or does not exist.…
Essentially true? Note the paradoxical underlying dogmatism here. Note that the anticipation of a theory of everything is a saying with certainty only in a curious sense of the word ‘certainty’.
>
>All I can say is that dogmatic ideals are not particularly wise.
>I used to think of myself as a nihilist and then as an eclectic,
>and now I find myself not maintaining any particular label.
Labels are a convenience when discussing….your above statement identifies you
as an eclectic…you need not shout it to the world but never the less that is
what you are……eclecticism is the best approach in my opinion
since it allows one to keep an open attitude…
Classic liberal fallacy; indeed an indication of complacency about being open-minded is thereby an indication of a closed mind.
Ps-genein is right about labels such as ‘nihilism’ and ‘eclecticism’ being only a convenience, allowing one to paint in quick, broad strokes. Indeed, treating them as concrete (particular) positions held is perhaps an example of thinking in terms of "dogmatic ideals".
>
>I suppose whenever there is dogmatic belief there is a chance
>that one is trusting in something false.
At least openly declaring a belief draws attention to the risk being taken. Beliefs that are unacknowledged as such (as being believed) can be more dangerous as a consequence.
(Beliefs unacknowledged are, of course, not open to any examination – reasonable or not – by the believers concerned, and therefore dogmatically held according to Ps-Rex's definition of dogmatic belief offered later in the thread.)
can it be proven false?
>This is why I do not maintain any dogmatic beliefs,
>but rather live and think along highly adaptive lines.
This is a good example of a dogmatic belief unacknowledged as such.
Eclecticism….
g.
From Ps-Genein
Ps-Rex wrote:
>Ps-Planinc wrote:
>> Nihilism is a dogmatic belief that there is no theory of everything.
>
>No, nihilism is the determination that the notion of a theory of everything is
>unimportant and not worthy of further consideration.
Come now, Ps-Rex…… The "notion of a theory of everything unimportant"?
Is that why nihilists are so concerned to deny the existence of such a theory?…..
>Nihilists, as a general rule,
>do not concern themselves at all with issues about a theory of everything.
>They may get offended or irritable when
>some monists try to push this notion on them.
If you are speaking of the newsgroup nihilists, they indeed do concern
themselves….as can be seen most any day….
>
>> Eclecticism takes different forms, but in this context is simply
>> someone claiming not to know whether or not
>> there is a theory of everything.
>
>Most eclectics are nihilists in practice.
I am eclectic and find your observation a bit faulty…
What is the "practice" that you refer to?….
I do not appeal to a theory of everything for support or contribute to the exposition of one…
I do not try to sabotage the efforts of others to do so…
Would this be the practice you speak of?
If you try to dissuade people from anticipating the completion of a theory of everything, then indeed you are sabotaging the efforts of others to contribute to the exposition of a theory of everything. On the other hand, if you are explaining anything, then you are contributing to the explanation of everything ultimately, whether or not you recognise this.
>They simply don't care about the notion of a theory of everything.
again not so……or perhaps you may have chosen the wrong set of words…..
In my opinion a theory of everything cannot be known or be known not to exist…..simple….
but many do continue contemplating on whether one could exist and under what conditions…..
so far there appears to be little supporting any theory of everything (as now described)
but this does not make me a nihilist…..
I was a nihilist once upon a time, I am no longer since it is not a tenable belief….
nor is monism for that matter…but all philosophies collectively do offer a storehouse of
"poetic" thoughts on the subject, many that should not be discarded……
‘In my opinion …’ clearly flags the belief that follows as dogmatic, in this case the defining belief of eclecticism as understood within this context. The important point to note here is that all three "positions" (nihilism, eclecticism, monism) are abstractions, the defining belief in each case being abstracted from a wider context of beliefs which is being presupposed.
The phrase ‘tenable belief’ is usually used to mean not merely a belief that can be held, but it would be reasonable to hold. But is a belief that would be reasonable to hold necessarily rationally defensible, let alone provable? For instance, it is often reasonable to rely on one’s instincts, although, by their very nature, instincts do not themselves supply reasons. Clearly, along with other circumstances of life, what other beliefs are held can affect whether it is reasonable to hold a particular belief. Ps-genein seems to acknowledge this fact in his own life with regard to the tenability of nihilism, but he does not want to dwell too closely on the concrete details of this change, stressing rather that he now has the absolute viewpoint of what is or is not tenable.
>> I suppose whenever there is dogmatic belief there is a chance that one is
>> trusting in something false. This is why I do not maintain any
>> dogmatic beliefs, but rather live and think along highly adaptive lines.
>
>Dogmatic beliefs are beliefs that are not open to reasonable
>examination. However, upon reasonable examination, if you still
>find no reason to believe something then it is reasonable to
>not believe it. This mode of operation is actually in place in most
>everything you do.
What is being "open to reasonable examination"? When Neville Chamberlain made his famous statement on 3rd September 1939 ‘We are now at war with Germany’, was his statement open to reasonable examination? It was certainly reasonable to believe his statement was true, indeed it would have been unreasonable to believe it false, given his authority as Prime Minister of the U.K. at the time. The belief that the U.K. was then at war with Germany was open to reasonable examination with regard to the authority of Chamberlain in stating it, but not with regard to any abstraction of the belief from his statement of it.
I don’t see why two contradictory beliefs cannot both be reasonably believed, although by supposition they cannot reasonably be believed simultaneously by the same person. Indeed, using the notion of tenability above, two contradictory beliefs can both be tenable simultaneously for the same person. This indeed is the common situation where we know there are some mutually exclusive possibilities but not which is the case.
If one finds no reason not to believe then it could be considered reasonable
(to some) to believe…..that last curtain has not been rung, the last square
foot (universe) has yet to be explored and the definitive thought on this
subject has yet to be uttered……and that is why eclecticism is the only way.
‘Eclecticism is the only way’ declares the eclectic. So much for the open-mindedness of eclecticism.
From Ps-genein
Ps-Rex wrote:
>Ps-Genein wrote:
>> Ps-Rex wrote:
>>
>> >> nihilism is a dogmatic belief that there is no theory of everything.
>> >
>> >No. nihilism is the determination that the notion of a theory of everything is
>> >unimportant and not worthy of further consideration.
>>
>> come now Ps-Rex…… The "notion of a theory of everything unimportant"?
>>Is that why nihilists are so concerned to deny the existence of such a theory?…..
>
>Who's "they?" The debaters here? They are here to debate and
>disagree. These do not represent the millions who are quietly
>living their lives. For them, it is an irrelevant issue.
since we are here in this newsgroup ps.nihilism,
it is to those nihilists who post to ps.nihilism to which I referred….
I am well aware of the many nihilists who go on with
their lives and have no desire to argue about it…
I and my friends in years past did that very thing….
When one makes an observation it should reflect the "world" that he is in at the moment……
and at the moment you and I are in this newsgroup
where it is as I said it was……….
so given the amount of space many take
it appears to be a very relevant issue….
and thought it was made clear by:
as I wrote:
>> If you are speaking of the newsgroup nihilists, they indeed do concern
>> themselves….as can be seen most any day….
>
>These people are there to debate, just as you are. Do not
>confuse that with the millions of unnamed eclectics who simply
>get on with their lives.
as I explained above…….I don't confuse easily….and I am not as certain of
the "millions" figure as you are……
>> >Most eclectics are nihilists in practice.
>>
>> I am eclectic and find your observation a bit faulty…
>> what is the "practice" that you refer to?….
>> I do not appeal to a theory of everything for support or contribute to the exposition of one…
>> I do not try to sabotage the efforts of others to do so…
>> Would this be the practice you speak of?
>
>See the sentence below you seemed to have missed.
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>> They simply don't care about the notion of a theory of everything.
No, I did not miss it as I said this is our world, right here in
this newsgroup, not at the "tomb" of the unknown nihilist.
>> again not so……or perhaps you may have chosen the wrong set of words…..
>>In my opinion a theory of everything cannot be known or be known not to exist…..simple….
>>but many do continue contemplating on whether one could exist and under what conditions…..
>>so far there appears to be little supporting any theory of everything (as now described),
>>but this does not make me an nihilist…..
>>I was a nihilist once apon a time, but I am no longer, since it is not a tenable belief….
>>nor is monism for that matter…
>>But all philosophic systems and some religions collectively do offer a
>>storehouse of "poetic" thoughts on the subject, many that should not be discarded……
>
>They also offer a lot of baggage that holds humanity down.
In some cases, yes, but it is up to the individual to make that judgement.
There are many intelligent monists…..
Have you read any of the great philosophic works?
>> if one finds no reason not to believe then it could be considered
>> reasonable (to some) to believe…..
>>That last curtain has not been rung, the last square foot (universe)
>>has yet to be explored and the definitive thought on this
>>subject has yet to be uttered……
>>and that is why eclecticism is the only way.
>
>Which way for you is your decision.
yes….and yours, I can only present the logic of it…..
> But I don't have to wait for the police
>to arrest the con man before I decide he's selling snake oil.
But there is no con man and no one is selling you anything that I am aware of….
Again, this is a meta-philosophy newsgroup and any comparison is or
should be on that level….
Meta-philosophy should not be confused with Philosophy…
Meta-philosophy limits itself to an *evaluation* of philosophic beliefs….
no bias or particular philosophic commitment need apply
although I must admit at times it is interesting to inquire why some
people are committed to some particular philosophy and some are not……
and why some take it so personally….
but in the good ole world of Meta-philosophy one may drop that bit of
baggage and move on……
feel free to counter a statement without fear of invectives…..
the world of milk and honey…or should be.
g.
>
>Rex
>
From Ps-genein
Ps-Rex wrote:
>>and at the moment you and I are in this newsgroup
>> where it is as I said it was……….
>> so given the amount of space many take
>> it appears to be a very relevant issue….
>
>Hold on a dang moment. You cannot have it both ways. I replied
>to your statement above which I copy immediately below for review:
>> >> >> nihilism is a dogmatic belief that there is no theory of everything.
>
>Now that to me is a general statement. Nowhere in that
>statement do I see the comments that "the nihilists in this
>newsgroup hold the dogmatic belief that there is no theory of everything."
I.e. Ps-Rex does not see the qualification ‘in this newsgroup’.
>I don't know the nihilists in this newsgroup,
>nor what they believe in particular.
>That is a generalized statement applying to nihilists in general,
>and that, brother, was exactly what I was replying to.
>So your argument immediately falls through the basement!
Oddly, that is not my impression…I have had discussions on this before with
others where I pointed out that nihilists in my private life did not hold the
view that many hold here and I believe I said as much to you…..but someone
and rightly pointed out that when we discuss, we are discussing in
ps-nihilism….I could not fault this reply and so agree….and so I no
longer refer to my personal life and to nihilist friends as any example unless someone
specifically indicates that he is referring to all nihilists and of course
that would be absurd since there is no way we can know all of any group….
but here in this group I am more than familiar with the opinions of many….
"going down"?
>
>You were attempting to paint nihilism with a broad brush and
>ignore the behavior of nihilists in general.
Show me where I was doing any "painting"? in fact I was very explicit as to whom
I was referring to…..
>Activist nihilism involves arguing against Philosophy
>and arguing against the existence of philosophic theories,
>and that is exactly what the debaters in
>ps.nihilism are doing (since this thread started out as a
>notorious cross-post). The activist nihilists
>do not represent the beliefs and actions of all nihilists.
I am more than aware of that and have told you so but you appear not to
listen…
>I state again, clearly and unequivocally, that nihilism in
>general practice is NOT "a dogmatic belief that there is
>no theory of everything." There is nothing "dogmatic" about it.
sigh…………
>There are simply people going about their lives
>finding no reason to accept a philosophic system
>that involves any kind of hypothetical theories
>or metaphysical entities of any kind, and further,
>finding such philosophic systems to be irrelevant to their lives.
are you awake? are you reading what is in front of you? did you really read my
last post?
>
>I know that those who support Philosophy for one reason or
>another want to paint nihilists as "dogmatic (non)monists"
>so that they can paint them with the same brush as "dogmatic
>monists."
Yes, there are such people…and they would be right unless they include
non-newsgroup nihilism and then they would be mostly wrong…….
for the most part nihilists on newsgroups are a pathetic lot…
they are as dogmatic as monists on newsgroups…..
I consider newsgroup nihilists/monists to be blood brothers…….
If Ps-genein thinks that Ps-Rex is pathetic, why does he spend so much time with him?
>This is pure disinformation intended to weaken the nihilistic position.
>It is tricksterism. It is a sham, and it is an obvious sham.
>The only ones fooled by it are those who try to promote it.
ok Ps-rex….you can calm down now……..the crowd has dispersed…
>
>> >See the sentence below you seemed to have missed.
>> > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>> >> They simply don't care about the notion of a theory of everything.
>>
>> no, I did not miss it as I wrote this is our world, right here in
>> ps.nihilism not at the "tomb" of the unknown nihilist.
>
>No, our world is the world in general, not ps.nihilism or
>ps.philosophy.monism. You may be lost to that fact, but
>I am not.
there is no way I can possibly know your private world nor can you know
mine…..this is our arena…..this is where we gather the opinions of others
on this and other newsgroups……we could of course qualify all things said
for example always say "newsgroup nihilist" newsgroup monist, newsgroup
eclectic…….for the most part those who join newsgroups appear to be more
willing to act more boldly in their opinion and readiness to respond more
wildly than they would for a face to face debate…..I debated in college and at times things
could get a bit heated but not for long but the entire debate had a certain
quality to it rarely found on newsgroups…..but there are a few here that try
for decorum…at last count I believe there were three…….it's all a matter
of a willingness to listen and keeping assumptions down to a tolerable
level….
>> >> again not so……or perhaps you may have chosen the wrong set of words…..
>> >>in my opinion a theory of everything cannot be known or be known not to exist…..
>> >>simple….but many do
>
>Wrong. Specific theories of everything can be reasonably known to not exist!
and which would these be?
>It is done with the same kind of examination and evidence that
>are used everyday to make important decisions in our lives.
>Whether some distant theory of everything may exist is irrelevant and
>unimportant. No reasonable person would waste their time
>trying to prove or disprove the existence of some nebulous and
>obscure theory of everything.
and so anyone who you consider reasonable would not believe any theory of everything?
>That cannot be proven, and it is not even worth proving.
"worth" is relative..
> But what is fundamental and RELEVANT to our
>lives CAN be reasonably shown to be true or false to exacting
>standards; high enough standards that reasonable people will
>heed them.
Ahh, those reasonable people again…
perhaps I can lean on you a bit here and
ask you to show me to your exacting standards as to what is false and what is true…..
And can you argue that those exacting standards can be applied reliably and account for every possibility?
>
>Those who cannot decide can call themselves eclectics,
I am afraid your exacting standards have back fired here……the above is not a
true statement… there is no real decision to be made….
Can you defend that with argument? In fact Ps-Rex has rightly pointed out earlier that Ps-genein has indeed made a decision on this.
> but if they give more than 15 seconds of thought to theories of everything,
>then they are wasting their time, or have little of importance to do with their time.
…the "thought" in actuality is not directed at any theory of everything for any length of time,
since a theory of everything cannot be known (yes I guess that is a kind of decision) what would
an eclectic focus on?…the focus is on science and mind and contemplation of
the world that surrounds us….every so often the question pops up, is a theory of everything
possible? no answer and so back to contemplation and observation……
In my opinion a reasonable activity….
So long as you continue to let the question pop up, and do not dogmatically block off all attempts to answer it.
Note that a theory of everything can be known, but only in a curious way, by anticipation, anticipating the completion of its infinite exposition. But this way of knowing is not considered by Ps-genein.
> it is more an examination of what is….
But what is changes even as we examine it. We bring goals to the very activity of examining.
well you may have redeemed yourself with this……to a small extent anyway
>The important question is:
>Is the theory (are the theories) relevant to their life? If it isn't,
>get on with life.
and what is life but an exploration, a journey and so what does "get on with
life" mean? our working 9 - 5 life? surely not that?….barbecuing hot dogs on
the grill? to some it's #philosophy and the notion of a theory of everything does have a habit of popping up now
and again….but eclecticists do not dwell on a theory of everything….but I do detest prejudices by
those under the cover of #philosophy….No, Ps-Rex, I am not referring to you….
I write this because I am aware of how easily you assume….
>If it is, then why? They should examine their own
>needs and try to determine what this need is and how is it colouring
>the way they see the world.
These are your rules that most do not follow……Many simply unconsciously absorb philosophic views
from their surrounding culture (often just implicit in their language) and see through it out of habit …….
Theories are generally needed in troubled times on individual, disciplinary and global levels ….
> If they need "a theory of everything" to exist, then
>make it part of their philosophic system for that purpose. Understand that
>they need this "comfort zone" or "support system" and that it is no
>more harmful than believing in lucky numbers or anything else that
>gives them comfort.
I assume you are speaking of all philosophies? There are people who need not go
into examining what it is they need…
It is thrust on them by circumstances and so many turn to philosophy…
Do you wish to deny these people?….
>But they should always be aware that they
>choose this belief out of their own need, not because of some
>underlying necessity to "try to remain impartial in an unsure world!"
One can never simply choose to believe.
One can only choose to believe in the sense that one can choose to go to sleep–there is a choosing to prepare oneself for it, but other factors (tiredness, lack of anxiety, etc.) also play a part.
Too many assumptions can spoil a post Ps-Rex……do consider that.
Too much smugness can deaden the mind Ps-genein……do consider that.
g.