No where in that post did I assert myself as being superior...where did you get that from?
For example, from the "my, my". It's obvious you can read intention from style.
I clearly said I am human just as everyone else, and what's more, I'm doing what everyone does and looking for meaning in meaning itself.
I stated that in my response, but pointing out that you do separate yourself from others. Now it becomes clearer: religious people are an example. Though, if you want to be consistent, no view can be seen as better than the other, since reason is an illusion (read below, you state that). Or are you, perhaps, implying that there may be an objective truth out there that we may be able to grasp, even if but a glimpse of it? If you think you're closer to it than religious people are, then maybe that's why you'd separate yourself?
And no, I don't claim to "discover" anything. The security that ppl find in religion and god is thought of by many people.
You are shifting the security to religion, but in your opening post you just stated that there was no meaning, period. Are you attacking all forms of knowledge or religion in particular?
but in the metaphysical sense, there is no need for reason nor meaning.
Only in the metaphysical, then? And why is there no need? If you say the universe came to be by a cause, can't we infer the nature of it? For example, that the cause most be eternal in order to avoid infinite regress?
Exactly. so what's your point? None of this makes sense, but it does. A paradox, if you will.
The point is that you paint yourself into a corner, which is common to nihilists in general. You produce an argument for the lack of utility in reasoning, which is merely an assertion by the way, and therefore any effort in a discussion is vain and pointless.
And there's no paradox, it's clear that you want to argue against reason by using reason. But you can't throw the cake away and then eat it. Unless you want a dirty cake, of course.
to answer the first question: because it is philosophy!
Is that it? So philosophy exists for us to pretend that we are getting somewhere, when in fact we are not (because there's no such thing as reasoning), and thus it's such an empty exercise in rhetoric? And it justifies itself in that? Wow.
secondly, you're not understanding my point. I'm trying to get through to the mass that things we have created such as religion are all weaknesses. THAT is what we should free ourselves from.
You never stated why religions are all weaknesses. In order to "get through to the mass", as you so humbly state (it's in these moments that you separate yourself from the others), your message should at least be based on something. It is not.
Not necessarily reason itself. Reason is an illusion, yes (just as existence itself, but that's another topic perhaps), but we can't live any other way. We are rational beings. It is when we come up with the man-made concepts in this world, such as the concept of god, that makes us weak. That is one of our downfalls as man.
This is where you blur your entire argument. Let's see then.
1) We should free ourselves from illusions;
2) Reason is an illusion;
3) But we CAN'T get rid of reason because we are "rational" beings;
4) Since reason is an illusion, we come up with concepts such as God;
5) Concepts such as God makes us weak.
Really, what was that? What a mess! What does being "rational" mean to you? I feel that if I enter an argument with you and manage to prove that God exists, you'll still disregard any logical reasoning I offer to back the conclusion up simply because, well, everything is an illusion. In fact, the only thing that doesn't seem to be an illusion for you is that religion makes people weak, but ironically you haven't provided any, well, REASONING for that yet!
I'd be willing to bet, though, that when you want to travel from one place to another, instead of just walking there, you might be inclined to take a plane. Well, guess what went into the process of building that plane? Reason. Yes, it's an illusion and all, but somehow I've never seen a relativist show any deep skepticism for applied engineering. Guess human rationality CAN work sometimes, but in the fields you want to remain untouched, such as your
a priori assumptions of lack of meaning in the universe, you'll apply instead your rhetorical skills to obfuscate as much as you can.
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but one of the downfalls of man, in my opinion, is to purposely refuse to apply reason when, in doing so, there will be a risk of reaching a conclusion one doesn't want to accept. That appears to be your case: you're pretty confident in asserting religions make people weak, even though you don't even believe in the utility of reason (men use it because it's in our nature, but it's an illusion) and thus would have no grounds to stand on to argue for or against anything.
And this is why Neitzsche eventually killed himself.
I certainly respect Nietzsche for his honesty. Honest atheists like him are hard to see. The vast majority of atheists everywhere cling to the illusion of virtue in good deeds, while he at least rejected everything that didn't fit his worldview. That being everything concerning morality as well, which you'll argue, if you're as consistent as he was, that are nothing more than a system of illusions as well.
I was going to include suicide as an option when I was writing as well, but I tried not to sound too fatalist. Even though you are correct, suicide does follow as an option and I'm glad you possess the clarity to acknowledge that.
you have the premise right. but in the conclusion, you seem to be confusing "reason" for "meaning."
I assume that, by "meaning" you mean "purpose". That's no problem, as I am sure you believe the universe was a result of no purpose. Concerning the existence of things, reason and meaning do seem to have a very similar, well, meaning. Unless that's not what you mean and you would like to differentiate, that is.
If you want to argue for the meninglessness of the universe, though, you should present
a positive case for your worldview, and not merely assert it.
YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE ABSURD. here is where reason reaches its dead end. It is defeated by the absurd.
I'm sorry, but maybe you didn't understand me. As I've written above, I wanted to state that if you believe the universe is absurd, you should present a positive case for that conclusion. Why is it absurd? Or rather, why are you sure it is meaningless?
And by the way, isn't reason an illusion? Can an illusion be defeated by the absurd?
I ENCOURAGE a philosophy thread! It is a breath of fresh air.
It was bollocks. It just seemed like overthinking for the sake of overthinking.
![-[chop]-](/data/avatars/l/58/58705.jpg?1354360086){kind=avatar}
