My Formal Nihilism

[pugnaciousboxer2]

Have you ever read Peter Wessel Zapffe? You should check him out. He's a real nihilist.

[chutono123]

i ran out of room so i had to rewrite a few times until it fit. i guess reading it again its kind of an odd comment

[chutono123]

The higher echilons of the mathematic world finds those who argue that 2+2 is not and will not ALWAYS = 4. All in this life is disputable. However, to assume that because somthing is disputed it becomes meaningless or "non existent" is simply incorrect. For if all is disputable, and all that is disputable is without cause or purpose then thhey should not exist. All Does exist. the meaning if disputed or unkown does not mean it does not exist but rather points at ignorance in us to comprehend

[maksiiiskam2]

Sorry, I should have used the word "uncertain" instead of "disputable".

I don't remember talking about maths (and I'm not sure of what you mean, since you did not finish your sentence).

I never said anything was nonexistent for being meaningless.

I'm not sure we mean the same thing by "meaning".

Though I'm happy to know that you took time

to watch and comment, I'm not interested in debating.

Keep in mind that this video is months old and might not reflect my present opinions.

[thewildwilli]

(I am a nihilist) You claim that: "Nothing has ever been known to be undisputable." -Let me give you an example of someting, that I find undisputable:

If it is true, that what I define as true is true, and I define 2+2=4 as true, then it is true.

or If: d= true ^ (2+2=4)=d =>(then) (2+2=4)= true

How is that not undisputable? I await an answer.

[maksiiiskam2]

Again, I'm talking about meaning, but I admit I was not clear enough about it.

Regarding your example, if you define something as true, I don't think it makes it true. perhaps it makes it true, according to your (arbitrarily) labeling it so. I'd say, what's worth insisting on this? It's like saying that the International Prototype Kilogram does weight one kilogram: correct, but void of any information.

[thewildwilli]

ahh.. so you agree that it is correct. Doesn't matter that about the information yet.

We can make "if => then"-statements, that are correct.

We can thus make those statements both for if and if-not. Thereby building up rules and proofs and developing the undisputable mathematics.

When we take into account both the if and the if-not situation, we have the two possible outcomes. These outcomes, we can then build on, allowing us to reach information, that is undisputable.

[maksiiiskam2]

Wait, I do NOT accept your example: I was disputing it!

I think you confuse the notion of logical truth with the metaphysical concept of the correspondence theory of truth. What fact of reality does your example _correspond_ to?

[thewildwilli]

My examples have nothing to do with "reality"...

I am merely trying (poorly) to prove that (most)mathematics are self-evident and undisputable.

[maksiiiskam2]

Oh, this is different. think about these: What is the ground for mathematics? What is the historical reason we had to assume there had to be a ground? What is the difference between "1+1=2" and "one apple and another make two apples"? What is the difference between "1+1=2" and "all bachelors are unmarried"? What is true in a "mathematical truth"? What is self-evidence?

The answers to these questions made me re-consider maths, but I sure can't tell what you will conclude.

[thewildwilli]

What do you mean by: "We start..."?

[maksiiiskam2]

I'm refering to meaning, either we start with something self-evidently or arbitrarily meaningful or we don't.

[thewildwilli]

ahh... Then i disagree with: "If we start from nothing, then we get nothing"

The universe started without meaning or purpose, and then later humans would evolve and decide on different things, that have meaning.

Thus we can start from nothing and get something, because things change.

If you do not like my example, then at least recognise that you think up a situation where meaning comes from no meaning.

[maksiiiskam2]

I don't understand your example, how does thinking something is meaningful is meaningful? I think you presuppose these things humans do to be meaningful.

In any case, I do not mean to say "start" in a temporal sense, but in a reasoning.

[thewildwilli]

aah... Now i get it...

Your argumentation:

meaning doesn't exist => meaning does't exist

meaning does exist, it cannot => meaning does't exist

I totally agree...

I still think that mathematics is self-evident and undisputable, though...

[nik1011]

MY NAME IS NIKHIL TOOOOO OMG!!

Peace

[RowanFortuneWood]

Another great video. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't your formal nihilism be self-refuting? I suppose if you reject truth you may also reject the notion of contradiction and therefore allow that your position be self-refuting, but why use analytic methods in the first place if you reject the value of those methods?

[maksiiiskam2]

"if you reject truth you may also reject the notion of contradiction and therefore allow that your position be self-refuting"

By rejecting Truth, I mean it as defined by the correspondance theory of truth. I hear this comment quite often, I planned making a video about it. As such, one can still make correct statements about non-objective matters, but the hope for a correspondance between your statement and the world is futile.

[maksiiiskam2]

The analytic method is the way I use to give credibility to the post-modern conclusions, that, sadly, are often dismissed only for their style. I think that a formal approach of postmodern themes is entirely possible, if only as a manner of illustration.

[RowanFortuneWood]

Sorry for asking a trite question ;) I'm still a philosophical novice and know particularly little about postmodernism so most of my questions will probably be rather common. I'll have to think on your answer while I eagerly await your video on the subject.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[sssswwwsssss]

So, again, it is not a case of R(a,b), but of instaniating two arbitrary particulars together, (just so you know where I'm coming from here I'm a moderare mereological essentialist about particulars). But the relation between the particulars holds of necessity. It's not a question of sticking the metaphysical claim into propositional form and assigning it a truth-value.

[maksiiiskam2]

what do "instaniating two arbitrary particulars together" and "the relation between the particulars holds of necessity" mean?

I must admit that I have a great difficulty to understand most of your phrasings and their fitting in the context of talking about arbitrariness.

[maksiiiskam2]

But I am still willing to continue this argument, I think we might only mean different things by "arbitrariness".

[sssswwwsssss]

Hi, I wrote my earlier remarks not having seen these later ones. So, I suppose, were on the same page with that. If you give me a definition, I'll try to be get clear about what I mean.

[sssswwwsssss]

Okay, since you asked. I suppose I'm wanting to say that even if one were always to begin with what is contingent, that's not nearly enough to preclude necessity of any kind whatever. Your nihilism depends on vindicating an inference from an originary state of affairs' being arbitrary, which leads, one might claim, to a peculiar form of tacit foundationalism. If I'm understanding you correctly, then it would mean your nihilism couldn't be the nihilism you suppose it is.

[maksiiiskam2]

When did I talk about contingency and necessity?

"Your nihilism depends on vindicating an inference from an originary state of affairs' being arbitrary"

In the video, I'm claiming that all meanings can be called personal by their being arbitrary. What inference and what state of affair are you refering to?

"your nihilism couldn't be the nihilism you suppose it is"

This is not my real nihilism, it is just a formal approach to it.

[sssswwwsssss]

Something's being arbitrary in the relevant sense can mean to say that it's contingent, or that it does _not_ hold in all possible worlds; something's being non-arbitrary can mean to say that it's necessary, or that it does hold in all possible worlds. So, I'm really only talking about 1.2.1 as a metaphysical claim: ' If we start from something arbitrary, it leads to something arbitrary.' I don't agree with this claim, that's all.

[maksiiiskam2]

I don't see the relation between the arbitrary/non-arbitrary and contingent/necessary duals, since arbitrariness relates to choices or inputs and contingency to consequences or outputs.

[maksiiiskam2]

Regardless, w.r.t. your not agreeing with my claim, for it not to be true, there would have to be at least one objectively true statement that could derive from an arbitrary claim. This would require that either the objective statement derive from any claim, in which case it is covered by the self-evident category, or from only this one, but in this case if you only know its being true from an arbitrary claim, how can you know it is true?

[maksiiiskam2]

What I claim is that the consequences of a premise are at least as arbitrary as the premise. How could arbitrariness disapear from inference?

[sssswwwsssss]

I'm not arguing against a classical logical formulation of the arbitrariness in question. My point, as I have said, is aimed at repudiating 1.2.1. in respect to your claiming that it holds of 'metaphysics epistemology and ethics'. It doesn't hold of metaphysics, not if your using possible world semantics, for instance.

[maksiiiskam2]

Possible worlds apply to necessary claims, but what is the link with arbitrariness? All claims that are said to be necessary are still arbitrary.

[sssswwwsssss]

Possible worlds can apply to necessary claims, and to contingent ones also. Maybe I'm applying the notion of 'arbitrariness' differently. Could you provide a definition?

[maksiiiskam2]

I'd says that is arbitrary what is chosen as true, real, good (hence my talking about epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics), or anything without any justification for it. More due to impulse, randomness, or something irrational than to reason.

Wiktionary says as a usage note that "something is arbitrary if its value is not determined by anything but choice."

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

In this context, I was not using it as it is used in mathematics like in "for an arbitrary value", meaning "for any values, indifferently". I'm starting to think this is what you understood.

[sssswwwsssss]

Oh right, I wasn't using it in that way, though, ironical as it is, I was beginning to impute that usage to you. Let me say how I was taking it, and you can say if that's just plain wrong: arbitrariness is something like the condition under which certain domains of knowledge fall, such as truth and meaning, because these domains of knowledge, on your view, have no objective foundation or justification; they are neither reducible to some essential property nor absolute.

[maksiiiskam2]

How does this definition imply that non-arbitrary conclusions can be drawn from arbitrary premises/beliefs/foundations?

To me this definition gives an inherent reality to arbitrariness in the domains in question.

[sssswwwsssss]

It doesn't imply that. It's what I was taking you as saying. Basically, we are talking about the same kind of thing though. Only this notion of arbitrariness seems a little vague. 'True, real, good' - that's a lot of heavy-weight things to be all at once. But is that which is truth, that which is real, and so on. Are you an existentialist or something? i.e. one has the freedom to choose, but in the choosing one is bound to choosing the arbitrary - and hence your nihilism?

[maksiiiskam2]

Yes, this defines me within a totally acceptable precision I think. I indeed went from existentialism to nihilism.

I will make other videos about nihilism in the future, I will explain more closely what I am, this and the other videos are only a way to satisfy the analytic and formal part of myself: I think Analytic and Post-modern philosophies can reconcile.

[sssswwwsssss]

I think so too. It's about appropriate entitlement with respect to metaphysics (that's what continental thought's needing), and about acquiring the appropriate explanatory power for providing an account of what is non-propositional (besides a neuroscience one, that is). I'll look out for those videos.

[sssswwwsssss]

Sure. That's what I'm saying. 'A' can be said to be an arbitrary notion of an arbitrary presentation of a so-called particular. But the relation that this could go on to instantiate, the relation between one particular and another, while not a universal, is non-arbitrary. It can only come into being in virtue of one's positing two arbitrary notions together.

[maksiiiskam2]

I'm not sure what you mean by relation.

[sssswwwsssss]

Suppose you look at some patch of multifarious colour in the foreground of your visual field, which you're taking to be some foliage, though you have yet to draw back and see the whole shrub. Suppose now you place that patch as amongst its background, but not _within_ its background. so to speak. The patch, though an arbitrary blob of colour stands in relation to that background in a non-arbitrary way.

[sssswwwsssss]

Either the relation is a universal, and it holds between the blob and the background in a definite, re-instantiating manner - such a thesis I'd agree is quite questionable; or else, the relation is in some sense a necessary (non-arbitary) one, but only in respect of the arbitariness of the respective phenomena being posited i.e. it is not a case of R(a,b), but of instaniating two undefinible entities together, and thereby it is itself quite unique and undefinable.

[maksiiiskam2]

where are you going with that?

[sssswwwsssss]

Would you say that a relation between, say two particulars is arbitrary? The particulars may be arbitrary, but the fact that we could instantiate relations between any kind of particular whatever may tell us something . I'm starting to doubt whether relations are mere properties of things. Suppose particular a loses property F, then it's no longer a, at least on my view. and if that's so, the relation of a to b holds necessarily.

[maksiiiskam2]

"Suppose particular a loses property F, then it's no longer a, at least on my view"

I'd say that all definition are arbitrary from the start and that calling A "A" is arbitrary. In the world there are no definitions, we build them arbitrarily (or instinctively, but instinct works arbitrarily).