Why nihilism?

As a positive philosophy Nihilism took positions within the framework of established philosophy. Nihilist materialism boiled down to the view that "only what is perceptible exists". Man, then, was "a complex chemical compound, governed strictly by the law of causality."

I really just don't believe that statement has any merit. What of a blind person, a deaf person, etc? They cannot percieve as others percieve, does that mean that sounds nor sights do not exist? And what of higher dimensions shown to exist by mathematics and physics (which cannot be percieved yet still understood)? What of microscopic molecules and atoms? For a long time we couldn't see nor understand those. Do they come into existence suddenly when we have the technology to see them? We cannot accurately percieve them but logic dictates that they are there? Are you to abandon logic, then? For I see no alternative to that. I cannot condone nor side with such a philosophy.
 
Still - how might Nihilism compare to Heidegger and Dasein? Would anyone suggest similarities in the notion that we create our own values(ala Nietzsche) and we are just Humans being-unto-death...a temporal, existential being - but without meaning beyond what we assign to things? How is Nihilism different from this?

Nihilism is certainly of "fundamental" importance to Heidegger. What is Metaphysics? displays this in a beautiful way (I recommended it in the "Reading" thread).

However, he breaks decisively from Nietzsche- even claiming that the latter is the consummation of nihilism through his inversion of Platonism. Rather, Heidegger seeks to overcome (which is not discarding or removing or anything of the sort) nihilism, to see it as the breach or gateway that it is. Through the Nihil things are first seen as they are- via the nothing, the brilliance of Being shines forth. This does not lead to our own positing of value as Nietzsche thought, which is impotent- a consummation, but the overcoming of our thinking of "value" itself.

The dichotomy of valuing and nihilism ignores the worldhood of Dasein. We are never the purely detached, rational animal, and so never merely "assign" meaning, nor do we lack all relation to it. Indeed the matter is of relations. Through our worldhood and orientation of care, we possess relationality that transcends mere "valuing". My dwelling, for example, is neither truly "valuable" nor "valueless" as, as dwelling, it is in relation to me in a way that is always a leap ahead of such analysis.
 
Nihilism is certainly of "fundamental" importance to Heidegger. What is Metaphysics? displays this in a beautiful way (I recommended it in the "Reading" thread).

However, he breaks decisively from Nietzsche- even claiming that the latter is the consummation of nihilism through his inversion of Platonism. Rather, Heidegger seeks to overcome (which is not discarding or removing or anything of the sort) nihilism, to see it as the breach or gateway that it is. Through the Nihil things are first seen as they are- via the nothing, the brilliance of Being shines forth. This does not lead to our own positing of value as Nietzsche thought, which is impotent- a consummation, but the overcoming of our thinking of "value" itself.

The dichotomy of valuing and nihilism ignores the worldhood of Dasein. We are never the purely detached, rational animal, and so never merely "assign" meaning, nor do we lack all relation to it. Indeed the matter is of relations. Through our worldhood and orientation of care, we possess relationality that transcends mere "valuing". My dwelling, for example, is neither truly "valuable" nor "valueless" as, as dwelling, it is in relation to me in a way that is always a leap ahead of such analysis.

Thank you for this analysis. I fear I am probably in a bit over my head, as I still haven't managed to fully grasp some of these finer points of Heidegger(I must still read the text you recommend). This is no doubt why I continue to struggle with some of this terminology - and the, er...'deeper' meaning of it. And there always is one - if I can find it! In time...
 
I really just don't believe that statement has any merit. What of a blind person, a deaf person, etc? They cannot percieve as others percieve, does that mean that sounds nor sights do not exist? And what of higher dimensions shown to exist by mathematics and physics (which cannot be percieved yet still understood)? What of microscopic molecules and atoms? For a long time we couldn't see nor understand those. Do they come into existence suddenly when we have the technology to see them? We cannot accurately percieve them but logic dictates that they are there? Are you to abandon logic, then? For I see no alternative to that. I cannot condone nor side with such a philosophy.

You make good points. The Russian nihilists were confused in their philosophy. The part I quoted is thinking along the same lines as modern nihilists, but we know that things can exist of which we are not aware. It is not so much the existence of things that we consider, but the value of them. Values only exist in the mind, but things exist externally (at least that is the assumption).

"Only that which is perceptible can be evaluated" would be correct, rather than "only what is perceptible exists".
 
You make good points. The Russian nihilists were confused in their philosophy. The part I quoted is thinking along the same lines as modern nihilists, but we know that things can exist of which we are not aware. It is not so much the existence of things that we consider, but the value of them. Values only exist in the mind, but things exist externally (at least that is the assumption).

"Only that which is perceptible can be evaluated" would be correct, rather than "only what is perceptible exists".

Ah, I see. That makes a tad more sense. I don't agree with the concept of "nothing contains any intrinsic value, only what we subjectively assign to it," but I can see where you're coming from better now.
 
Ah, I see. That makes a tad more sense. I don't agree with the concept of "nothing contains any intrinsic value, only what we subjectively assign to it," but I can see where you're coming from better now.

where do you personally think intrinsic value would come from? can it be known which things have it, how much they have? and if not, what use could such a concept have---my saying I have 4 more intrinsic value points than you do, what would be the consequence if you could prove I was right or wrong, or if you couldn't?
 
where do you personally think intrinsic value would come from? can it be known which things have it, how much they have? and if not, what use could such a concept have---my saying I have 4 more intrinsic value points than you do, what would be the consequence if you could prove I was right or wrong, or if you couldn't?

Well, a lot of it has to do with an inherited viewpoint from the God I believe in. I believe my God to be omniscient, and logical (not that an omnipotent God is subject to logic, but rather logic is because He is), and thus if he assigns value to something, then that value holds true regardless of what any individual human may believe.

There are many things which I think go beyond individual selective subjective assignment. What of a mother's love for her child? Sure, there are some mothers who do not love nor want to care for their children, but often these have some sort of disorder, at least initially almost all mothers want to care for their young. So I guess you could say that some of the values which I believe are intrinsic are natural, coming from our biochemical and metaphysical makeup. Another is friendship. Of course it takes two people with commonalities and traits (sometimes intrinsic, sometimes learned or discovered) to form a friendship, but that friendship is almost an entity of its own. Everyone has friends of some sort, no matter how they're obtained (love, bribery, intimidation, common interest, attraction, etc). Then there comes the maddening sickness of love. When you are attracted to or love someone, it's simply not a matter of logical logistics. It just happens, and it's often beyond your active individual control. No matter what value you WANT to assign to it, it happens just exactly as it will, and you can but be its slave or be miserable trying to fight it. It has very little to do with individually assigning value to something, the value is simply assigned without your consent. You can not want to fall in love with someone but it may happen all the same. And because of it, both the person you love and the feelings you have for them contain intrinsic value, of a nature or level completely independent of your individual capacity for reason or choice, often times. The same goes for much of our compulsory social and interactive traits and behaviors. It's what C.S. Lewis referred to as "Natural Law." In every culture, there are ubiquitous traits, social mechanisms, concepts, and ideas that cannot be explained away by "social evolution" or "cognitive developmental programming." For instance people (regardless of whether or not they themselves are) always look for fairness in their interactions. If someone is cheated (be it a humble, honest baker or a mafia boss who does a fair share of his own double-crossing), they will always be upset.

Those are just a few examples. But there are many many more. Now of course one can debate the source of this "Natural Law" and these other compulsory and intrinsic traits and values, but one cannot deny their existence and their reluctance to conform to this paradigm of "individually assigned value in the face of a lack of intrinsic value."

I'm more inclined to agree with the idea that many things do have inherent value (which is related to our inherited and intrinsic properties and behaviors, be they from a Creator or from some mentally and emotionally affective mutation) which under normal circumstances we would be inclined to accept, but if we actively desire to do so, we can choose not to acknowledge or honor that value (such as a merchant who gives away an expensive item free of charge) most of the time.
 
Well, a lot of it has to do with an inherited viewpoint from the God I believe in. I believe my God to be omniscient, and logical (not that an omnipotent God is subject to logic, but rather logic is because He is), and thus if he assigns value to something, then that value holds true regardless of what any individual human may believe.

I say some thing is intrinsically valuable, God says this thing is not intrinsically valuable, what's the difference? We don't know one way or the other. We can't find out one way or the other. If an emperor had changed the bible to say 'only white people are intrinsically valuable' we wouldn't know one way or the other.


What of a mother's love for her child?

you could say that some of the values which I believe are intrinsic are natural, coming from our biochemical and metaphysical makeup.

so that a tree values carbon-dioxide means carbon-dioxide is intrinsically valuable since chemically it's natural for the tree to 'value' it (find it useful for sustaining its life)? It seems like every thing values some other thing 'naturally' (worms might value your corpse, is your corpse thus 'intrinsically valuable' and if so, what does that change in our lives since everything then is intrinsically valuable).


Now of course one can debate the source of this "Natural Law" and these other compulsory and intrinsic traits and values, but one cannot deny their existence and their reluctance to conform to this paradigm of "individually assigned value in the face of a lack of intrinsic value."

I don't deny their existence, I deny their existence is 'intrinsic value.' before humans existed there was an intrinsic value to the family bond which aids mammal survival? Before trees carbon-dioxide was intrinsically valuable? This just rapes the concept to absurdity as we can affirm that everything is intrinsically valuable, and never say that some things have more intrinsic value than others, so it is as good as not talking about it in the first place.



so, again, how can we know which things have intrinsic value?
how can we know how much they have, and how're we supposed to change our actions accordingly?
 
Intrinsic value = perpetuation of life, so only those things that do have value.

Nihilism however is a removal of search for intrinsic value, because only humans can assess value so it's entirely viewer-dependant

and my second question?

a virus will perpetuate its life, but what does that mean? it has intrinsic value? what does that mean? we should help them live? let them live? value them ourselves? police the animal kingdom? we might as well say a virus is intrinsically divine, it really has no meaning or consequence.
 
On Margate sands I can connect nothing with nothing.

I was wondering where I had heard this, and why it sounded familiar.

T.S. Eliot The Waste Land

I. The Burial of the Dead

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s,
My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

Frisch weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu.
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?

‘You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
‘They called me the hyacinth girl.’
—Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither
Living nor dead, and I knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the silence.
Od’ und leer das Meer.

Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante,
Had a bad cold, nevertheless
Is known to be the wisest woman in Europe,
With a wicked pack of cards. Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor,
(Those are pearls that were his eyes. Look!)
Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks,
The lady of situations.
Here is the man with three staves, and here the Wheel,
And here is the one-eyed merchant, and this card,
Which is blank, is something he carries on his back,
Which I am forbidden to see. I do not find
The Hanged Man. Fear death by water.
I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring.
Thank you. If you see dear Mrs. Equitone,
Tell her I bring the horoscope myself:
One must be so careful these days.

Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.
Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.
There I saw one I knew, and stopped him, crying ‘Stetson!
‘You who were with me in the ships at Mylae!
‘That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
‘Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
‘Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
‘Oh keep the Dog far hence, that’s friend to men,
‘Or with his nails he’ll dig it up again!
‘You! hypocrite lecteur!-mon semblable,-mon frère!’


II. A Game of Chess


The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne,
Glowed on the marble, where the glass
Held up by standards wrought with fruited vines
From which a golden Cupidon peeped out
(Another hid his eyes behind his wing)
Doubled the flames of sevenbranched candelabra
Reflecting light upon the table as
The glitter of her jewels rose to meet it,
From satin cases poured in rich profusion;
In vials of ivory and coloured glass
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid-troubled, confused
And drowned the sense in odours; stirred by the air
That freshened from the window, these ascended
In fattening the prolonged candle-flames,
Flung their smoke into the laquearia,
Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling.
Huge sea-wood fed with copper
Burned green and orange, framed by the coloured stone,
In which sad light a carvèd dolphin swam.
Above the antique mantel was displayed
As though a window gave upon the sylvan scene
The change of Philomel, by the barbarous king
So rudely forced; yet there the nightingale
Filled all the desert with inviolable voice
And still she cried, and still the world pursues,
‘Jug Jug’ to dirty ears.
And other withered stumps of time
Were told upon the walls; staring forms
Leaned out, leaning, hushing the room enclosed.
Footsteps shuffled on the stair.
Under the firelight, under the brush, her hair
Spread out in fiery points
Glowed into words, then would be savagely still.

‘My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
‘Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.
‘What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
‘I never know what you are thinking. Think.’

I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.

‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing.
‘Do
‘You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
‘Nothing?’
I remember
Those are pearls that were his eyes.
’Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’
But
O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag-
It’s so elegant
So intelligent
‘What shall I do now? What shall I do?’
‘I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
‘With my hair down, so. What shall we do to-morrow?
‘What shall we ever do?’
The hot water at ten.
And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door.

When Lil’s husband got demobbed, I said-
I didn’t mince my words, I said to her myself,
HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
Now Albert’s coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He’ll want to know what you done with that money he gave you
To get yourself some teeth. He did, I was there.
You have them all out, Lil, and get a nice set,
He said, I swear, I can’t bear to look at you.
And no more can’t I, I said, and think of poor Albert,
He’s been in the army four years, he wants a good time,
And if you don’t give it him, there’s others will, I said.
Oh is there, she said. Something o’ that, I said.
Then I’ll know who to thank, she said, and give me a straight HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
If you don’t like it you can get on with it, I said.
Others can pick and choose if you can’t.
But if Albert makes off, it won’t be for lack of telling.
You ought to be ashamed, I said, to look so antique.
(And her only thirty-one.)
I can’t help it, she said, pulling a long face,
It’s them pills I took, to bring it off, she said.
(She’s had five already, and nearly died of young George.)
The chemist said it would be alright, but I’ve never been the You are a proper fool, I said.
Well, if Albert won’t leave you alone, there it is, I said,
What you get married for if you don’t want children?
HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
Well, that Sunday Albert was home, they had a hot gammon,
And they asked me in to dinner, to get the beauty of it hot-
HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME
Goonight Bill. Goonight Lou. Goonight May. Goonight.
Ta ta. Goonight. Goonight.
Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night, good
night.


III. The Fire Sermon


The river’s tent is broken: the last fingers of leaf
Clutch and sink into the wet bank. The wind
Crosses the brown land, unheard. The nymphs are departed.
Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song.
The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed.
And their friends, the loitering heirs of city directors;
Departed, have left no addresses.
By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept...
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song,
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
But at my back in a cold blast I hear
The rattle of the bones, and chuckle spread from ear to ear.

A rat crept softly through the vegetation
Dragging its slimy belly on the bank
While I was fishing in the dull canal
On a winter evening round behind the gashouse
Musing upon the king my brother’s wreck
And on the king my father’s death before him.
White bodies naked on the low damp ground
And bones cast in a little low dry garret,
Rattled by the rat’s foot only, year to year.
But at my back from time to time I hear
The sound of horns and motors, which shall bring
Sweeney to Mrs. Porter in the spring.
O the moon shone bright on Mrs. Porter
And on her daughter
They wash their feet in soda water
Et, O ces voix d’enfants, chantant dans la coupole!

Twit twit twit
Jug jug jug jug jug jug
So rudely forc’d.
Tereu

Unreal City
Under the brown fog of a winter noon
Mr. Eugenides, the Smyrna merchant
Unshaven, with a pocket full of currants
C.i.f. London: documents at sight,
Asked me in demotic French
To luncheon at the Cannon Street Hotel
Followed by a weekend at the Metropole.

At the violet hour, when the eyes and back
Turn upward from the desk, when the human engine waits
Like a taxi throbbing waiting,
I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives,
Old man with wrinkled female breasts, can see
At the violet hour, the evening hour that strives
Homeward, and brings the sailor home from sea,
The typist home at teatime, clears her breakfast, lights
Her stove, and lays out food in tins.
Out of the window perilously spread
Her drying combinations touched by the sun’s last rays,
On the divan are piled (at night her bed)
Stockings, slippers, camisoles, and stays.
I Tiresias, old man with wrinkled dugs
Perceived the scene, and foretold the rest-
I too awaited the expected guest.
He, the young man carbuncular, arrives,
A small house agent’s clerk, with one bold stare,
One of the low on whom assurance sits
As a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire.
The time is now propitious, as he guesses,
The meal is ended, she is bored and tired,
Endeavours to engage her in caresses
Which still are unreproved, if undesired.
Flushed and decided, he assaults at once;
Exploring hands encounter no defence;
His vanity requires no response,
And makes a welcome of indifference.
(And I Tiresias have foresuffered all
Enacted on this same divan or bed;
I who have sat by Thebes below the wall
And walked among the lowest of the dead.)
Bestows on final patronising kiss,
And gropes his way, finding the stairs unlit...

She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
‘Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.’
When lovely woman stoops to folly and
Paces about her room again, alone,
She smoothes her hair with automatic hand,
And puts a record on the gramophone.

‘This music crept by me upon the waters’
And along the Strand, up Queen Victoria Street.
O City city, I can sometimes hear
Beside a public bar in Lower Thames Street,
The pleasant whining of a mandoline
And a clatter and a chatter from within
Where fishmen lounge at noon: where the walls
Of Magnus Martyr hold
Inexplicable splendour of Ionian white and gold.

The river sweats
Oil and tar
The barges drift
With the turning tide
Red sails
Wide
To leeward, swing on the heavy spar.
The barges wash
Drifting logs
Down Greenwich reach
Past the Isle of Dogs.
Weialala leia
Wallala leialala

Elizabeth and Leicester
Beating oars
The stern was formed
A gilded shell
Red and gold
The brisk swell
Rippled both shores
Southwest wind
Carried down stream
The peal of bells
White towers
Weialala leia
Wallala leialala

‘Trams and dusty trees.
Highbury bore me. Richmond and Kew
Undid me. By Richmond I raised my knees
Supine on the floor of a narrow canoe.’
’My feet are at Moorgate, and my heart
Under my feet. After the event
He wept. He promised "a new start".
I made no comment. What should I resent?’
‘On Margate Sands.
I can connect
Nothing with nothing.
The broken fingernails of dirty hands.
My people humble people who expect
Nothing.’
la la

To Carthage then I came

Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest

burning


IV. Death By Water


Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep seas swell
And the profit and loss.
A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.


V. What the Thunder Said


After the torchlight red on sweaty faces
After the frosty silence in the gardens
After the agony in stony places
The shouting and the crying
Prison and place and reverberation
Of thunder of spring over distant mountains
He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience

Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road
The road winding above among the mountains
Which are mountains of rock without water
If there were water we should stop and drink
Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think
Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand
If there were only water amongst the rock
Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit
Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit
There is not even silence in the mountains
But dry sterile thunder without rain
There is not even solitude in the mountains
But red sullen faces sneer and snarl
From doors of mudcracked houses
If there were water
And no rock
If there were rock
And also water
And water
A spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the hermit-thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop drop drop
But there is no water

Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man or a woman
—But who is that on the other side of you?

What is that sound high in the air
Murmur of maternal lamentation
Who are those hooded hordes swarming
Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth
Ringed by the flat horizon only
What is the city over the mountains
Cracks and reforms and bursts in the violet air
Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal

A woman drew her long black hair out tight
And fiddled whisper music on those strings
And bats with baby faces in the violet light
Whistled, and beat their wings
And crawled head downward down a blackened wall
And upside down in air were towers
Tolling reminiscent bells, that kept the hours
And voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells.

In this decayed hole among the mountains
In the faint moonlight, the grass is singing
Over the tumbled graves, about the chapel
There is the empty chapel, only the wind’s home.
It has no windows, and the door swings,
Dry bones can harm no one.
Only a cock stood on the rooftree
Co co rico co co rico
In a flash of lightning. Then a damp gust
Bringing rain

Ganga was sunken, and the limp leaves
Waited for rain, while the black clouds
Gathered far distant, over Himavant.
The jungle crouched, humped in silence.
Then spoke the thunder
D A
Datta: what have we given?
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment’s surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed
Which is not to be found in our obituaries
Or in memories draped by the beneficent spider
Or under seals broken by the lean solicitor
In our empty rooms
D A
Dayadhvam: I have heard the key
Turn in the door once and turn once only
We think of the key, each in his prison
Thinking of the key, each confirms a prison
Only at nightfall, aetherial rumours
Revive for a moment a broken Coriolanus
D A
Damyata: The boat responded
Gaily, to the hand expert with sail and oar
The sea was calm, your heart would have responded
Gaily, when invited, beating obedient
To controlling hands

I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order?

London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down

Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina
Quando fiam ceu chelidon-O swallow swallow
Le Prince d’Aquitaine à la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe.
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.

Shantih shantih shantih
 
I say some thing is intrinsically valuable, God says this thing is not intrinsically valuable, what's the difference? We don't know one way or the other. We can't find out one way or the other. If an emperor had changed the bible to say 'only white people are intrinsically valuable' we wouldn't know one way or the other.

Quite simply because of axiom. Logic is, in itself an axiom (if it is not then it's pointless to debate anything, as debate depends on logic, thus all is then relativist nonsense and we might as well be spinning on our heads). When there is axiom, subjectivity becomes secondary, and if you're going to continue to debate me, you'll have to rely on axiom (logic), and thereby step out of the realm of subjectivity which your philosophy depends on and therefore invalidate your argument, as you have now taken my side in believing in the axiomatic.

The difference between what an omniscient entity like God is supposedly says, and what you say, is the attribute of omniscience. A being that knows all therefore knows whether or not something has intrinsic value, aside from the idea that such things are his creation (so then that's the second-fold argument from omnipotence). Where you define value subjectively, God, should such an entity exist, being inherently logical by nature (the God I believe in is, anyway, if you want some reasoning as to why I believe God is logical, I can point some stuff out for you to read) defines value through axiom. So an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent (of the system of causality, which is neccesarily so should God exist, but we don't need to get into that right now) defining "value" through axiom is quite a different matter than a human being (namely you) defining value through subjective leanings based on limited perceptions and knowledge.

so that a tree values carbon-dioxide means carbon-dioxide is intrinsically valuable since chemically it's natural for the tree to 'value' it (find it useful for sustaining its life)? It seems like every thing values some other thing 'naturally' (worms might value your corpse, is your corpse thus 'intrinsically valuable' and if so, what does that change in our lives since everything then is intrinsically valuable).

Sorry, the tree analogy is a fallacy. A mother's love for her child has nothing to do with a tree's relationship to carbon dioxide.

What I was saying is that the many of the "values" intrinsic to things in our world, come from inborn factors (biochemical or metaphysical), which are generally beyond our simple subjective plights. Granted through much active, intentional thought, we can override these natural propensities for value, but it takes effort on our part, and does not change the fact that the things do have natural, intrinsic value, we just choose to not acknowledge that value.

I don't deny their existence, I deny their existence is 'intrinsic value.' before humans existed there was an intrinsic value to the family bond which aids mammal survival? Before trees carbon-dioxide was intrinsically valuable? This just rapes the concept to absurdity as we can affirm that everything is intrinsically valuable, and never say that some things have more intrinsic value than others, so it is as good as not talking about it in the first place.

Many species of mammal did not depend on a family bond for survival. For instance, tigers only get together to mate typically. There is no reason that we should love and acknowledge an infant as far as survival goes. It's a helpless organic mass that only consumes our resources and inconveniences our lives. From a survival standpoint we'd be better off just eating it or throwing it away. Yet we do not, because of the bond that is inherent to all mothers (who are not mentally compromised). At the onset of human consciousness or free will, there's no reason for this beyond the concept of intrinsic value. And you neglected to touch on the other examples I presented. Love is the greatest enemy of your philosophy.

so, again, how can we know which things have intrinsic value?
how can we know how much they have, and how're we supposed to change our actions accordingly?

Umm, if we value them and did not actively choose to assign value to them (or if we value them despite our wish to not value them), pretty simple. Value doesn't need to be a quantifiable amount to exist, it could very simply be a binary decision in some cases. Sure you may value your girlfriend more than your dog, but "how much more" is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not value either of them. The burden of proof was not on me to demonstrate a classification or a quantification, but only instances.
 
Sorry, the tree analogy is a fallacy. A mother's love for her child has nothing to do with a tree's relationship to carbon dioxide.

What I was saying is that the many of the "values" intrinsic to things in our world, come from inborn factors (biochemical or metaphysical), which are generally beyond our simple subjective plights. Granted through much active, intentional thought, we can override these natural propensities for value, but it takes effort on our part, and does not change the fact that the things do have natural, intrinsic value, we just choose to not acknowledge that value.

sorry, but your concept of intrinsic value is a fallacy.

An ant values its dung as a man values a brick for his house, perhaps an ant could override these natural propensities for value, but it takes effort on its part lol. that doesn't mean ant dung is intrinsically valuable, that means ant dung is subjectively valuable to ants. Sure we have a natural value for whatever the hell, as a tree has a natural value for the carbon-dioxide, but the thing is not valuable it is merely valued to the subjective agent.

if I was born with some sort of genetic mutation which made me naturally like pain, would pain suddenly be revealed to have intrinsic value simply because I value it as you value pleasure? My nature and your nature say nothing of any actual value of things any more than the ant's or the tree's, they merely say what we value, not what is valuable in itself, just as a dogs cognition of grey shade #43 say nothing of the actual color of the thing the dog is perceiving, the color value he ascribes to it is something of his nature not its.
 
Value doesn't need to be a quantifiable amount to exist, it could very simply be a binary decision in some cases. Sure you may value your girlfriend more than your dog, but "how much more" is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not value either of them. The burden of proof was not on me to demonstrate a classification or a quantification, but only instances.

Granted. but again you're ignoring the important question which shows whether the concept of intrinsic value is nonsense or not.

If there is any meaning to the term, what does it change to say something have intrinsic value? You could say everything is infused with the evil blood of Satan, but if that doesn't mean anything then it's not even worth finding out if you're right or wrong. So if there is intrinsic value in some things or others or all things, how should we act regarding these things of intrinsic value or of no intrinsic value, what's the appropriate way to change our behavior in light of the new fact of intrinsic value?
 
you neglected to touch on the other examples I presented. Love is the greatest enemy of your philosophy.

I read it, but it didn't make much sense or seem relevant. But I've said elsewhere in other discussions where people slip in the word love that I've never seen love, I don't know what they're talking about unless they're being specific. Your examples I don't remember seeing any intrinsic value in, in fact that we only know love reflectively, when we suddenly realize we've grown to feel a certain way about someone over a lot of time and experience, suggests its nothing to do with intrinsic value, any other person could have replicated the same experience (being cute, laughing at your jokes, fulfilling whatever needs you have, being of a character you admire, etc. etc.) with you and instead you'd be loving them, so the one you love has nothing to do with what you value which some person may come to actualize. If you call it love when someone is a form which actualizes many things you value then sweet as, but that you love them says nothing about their actual value any more than a pedophile loving children says something about the intrinsic sexual value of a child simply because within the pedophile is the value of sex with children.
 
sorry, but your concept of intrinsic value is a fallacy.

An ant values its dung as a man values a brick for his house, perhaps an ant could override these natural propensities for value, but it takes effort on its part lol. that doesn't mean ant dung is intrinsically valuable, that means ant dung is subjectively valuable to ants. Sure we have a natural value for whatever the hell, as a tree has a natural value for the carbon-dioxide, but the thing is not valuable it is merely valued to the subjective agent.

if I was born with some sort of genetic mutation which made me naturally like pain, would pain suddenly be revealed to have intrinsic value simply because I value it as you value pleasure? My nature and your nature say nothing of any actual value of things any more than the ant's or the tree's, they merely say what we value, not what is valuable in itself, just as a dogs cognition of grey shade #43 say nothing of the actual color of the thing the dog is perceiving, the color value he ascribes to it is something of his nature not its.

Umm, actually my argument is not fallacious. It could be wrong or incorrect, but it is not a misuse of logic (fallacy). The tree example you gave was indeed a fallacy, particularly the fallacy of the Appeal to Logic, in which two unlike things are paired synonymously. A tree's relationship to carbon dioxide is very very different than a mother's love for her child. In one, the tree requires carbon dioxide to live. In another, the mother does not need a child to live, it doesn't aid her in survival, and in fact encumbers her, yet she loves and cares for it anyway. That is why your argument was fallacious. It's not an insult, it's logistics, no need to get snappy.

Ants, lacking the level of consciousness that humans possess cannot actively assign value as you or I can, thus this is yet another fallacious argument. An ant values dung on an instinctual basis, not a rational one. The ant does not subjectively assign value to its dung, it simply uses its dung because that's what it is instinctually compelled to do. It does not go against its own instinct. That's what I'm getting at with our ability to actively override our instincts through active, intentional thought. A dog will be a dog no matter how you dress him up. You can train him not to chase the rabbit under penalty or reward, but he really wants to chase the rabbit anyway. A human, on the other hand, can override instinctual desires in instances, but there are some that a human cannot help but feel or do or have. Some things intrinsic and inherent to us cause us to place value on things without active thought, and I believe these things (which are generally abstract, intangible concepts that have no material basis) are the things which are metaphysically intrinsically valuable (love, friendship, etc etc).

Humans, because of our cognitive ability, can percieve concepts that are irrelevant to physical, material reality, and it is these things for which your subjective philosophy leaves no room. These things are also instinctual, but are not tangible. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are metaphysical. And if there is metaphysical value that is instinctual (meaning it happens without our consent or active implication), because it possesses no material or physical form, then its value must be intrinsic to its nature, as it is impossible to actively assign subjective value to that which is instinctual AND intangible (it's a matter of logistics).

If there is any meaning to the term, what does it change to say something have intrinsic value? You could say everything is infused with the evil blood of Satan, but if that doesn't mean anything then it's not even worth finding out if you're right or wrong. So if there is intrinsic value in some things or others or all things, how should we act regarding these things of intrinsic value or of no intrinsic value, what's the appropriate way to change our behavior in light of the new fact of intrinsic value?

Quite simply these things, if they do indeed exist, as I believe they do, should be observed, listened to, and considered, as I believe they are inherent and intrinsic for a particular reason. As I said, we, unlike all the animals, can forgo our instincts and act in spite of them of our own accord (without exterior stimuli, which is what it takes to force any other animal to forgo their instincts) because we are more cognitively aware and can percieve abstractly. For instance with the concept of "Natural Law," something I believe is intrinsic and valuable. If we listened to Natural Law instead of the other aspects of our human nature (lusts, malice, contempt, etc), people would be much better off and we'd all get along better. It's because of our ability to act in spite of this intrinsic property that much of the unfortunate events in our world occur.

What I'm saying is because I believe in an objective world view, I believe that subjectivity will not yield the most beneficial existence for our kind. All of our debating and such is irrelevant if you embrace subjectivity, because logic is not subjective, it is objective, and by embracing subjectivity, you become the enemy of logic. Without objectivity, there can be no good, no bad, all is moot and pointless, and we simply descend into selfishness, as all other traits and virtues considered valuable lose meaning. In the face of subjectivity, what is mercy? Weakness. What is love? A waste of time. What is honor? Delusion. What is compassion? Carelessness. And outside of the concept of intrinsic value, there is absolutely no reason to possess or exhibit any of these traits unless they help us get where we want to go, and in which case they aren't genuine, as they simply become a means to an end, and aren't really what they're being posited as. Intrinsic value is what completes the picture of objectivity, and it doesn't even interfere with free will, because we, being creatures that possess free will, can press the override button in most cases and act in spite of these intrinsic properties. It just seems far more rational as far as I can reckon.

I read it, but it didn't make much sense or seem relevant. But I've said elsewhere in other discussions where people slip in the word love that I've never seen love, I don't know what they're talking about unless they're being specific. Your examples I don't remember seeing any intrinsic value in, in fact that we only know love reflectively, when we suddenly realize we've grown to feel a certain way about someone over a lot of time and experience, suggests its nothing to do with intrinsic value, any other person could have replicated the same experience (being cute, laughing at your jokes, fulfilling whatever needs you have, being of a character you admire, etc. etc.) with you and instead you'd be loving them, so the one you love has nothing to do with what you value which some person may come to actualize. If you call it love when someone is a form which actualizes many things you value then sweet as, but that you love them says nothing about their actual value any more than a pedophile loving children says something about the intrinsic sexual value of a child simply because within the pedophile is the value of sex with children.

I vehemently disagree. In my experience it's not simply a matter of them exhibiting certain traits, there's something far deeper than that going on. I have met women that look wonderful, and have great personalities, and are fun to be around, but I'm not attracted to them. Then there are others which maybe don't have all of those qualities, but I find them more attractive. The only reason I can percieve is a metaphysical value intrinsic to that person in relation to my own intrinsic value, like how two opposite polar objects will fly towards one another. If that be the case, then objectivity is preserved, as well as intrinsic value. And once again, the pedophile argument is a fallacy from what I can tell, as I do not percieve that "attraction" as comparable to true love. From what I can reason, lust and love are two very different things. One stems from intrinsic worth, the value inherent to Moral Law, and the other from the flawed aspect of our human nature (the part of humanity that makes us non-perfect).
 
Nihilism is a clearing of the mind from passive values. TO believe in something is to accept a passive value, instead of creating the values you need. Values are reactions to the inherent, but creative reactions. This philosophy is for geniuses only. The rest of us need www.advaita-vedanta.org
 
A tree's relationship to carbon dioxide is very very different than a mother's love for her child. In one, the tree requires carbon dioxide to live. In another, the mother does not need a child to live, it doesn't aid her in survival, and in fact encumbers her, yet she loves and cares for it anyway. That is why your argument was fallacious. It's not an insult, it's logistics, no need to get snappy.

lol. If you want to talk about logic you should avoid the straw man fallacy and address what I analogized instead of responding to the dissimilars which aren't in question.

If two things were the same in all respects there would be no analogy, an analogy compares a similar relationship.

What you just did was akin to my saying 'An electrical circuit is like a water current', and your responding 'no, that's very different, for one thing, electricity isn't wet, water is' which is blatently to miss the whole fuckin point.
 
Ants, lacking the level of consciousness that humans possess cannot actively assign value as you or I can, thus this is yet another fallacious argument.
An ant values dung on an instinctual basis, not a rational one. The ant does not subjectively assign value to its dung, it simply uses its dung because that's what it is instinctually compelled to do.

because an ant can't assign or overcome value, it is intrinsic and inherent to it. Just as the mother loves the child instinctually, not rationally, and doesn't assign value to it. either they both have some instinctual value which affirms the thing naturally valued has intrinsic value or not.

Sure, ants can't invent extrinsic values, but I wasn't talking about that at all, so again you've missed the point and avoided the argument at hand entirely
 
Humans, because of our cognitive ability, can percieve concepts that are irrelevant to physical, material reality.

is intrinsic value a concept or a percept? make up your mind. if it's immaterial it can't be perceived but still we can conceptualize it, but how are we going to find it? I can conceive of all humans being linked to three other animals, one land, one sea, one air, and these three make up part of the soul of the human being... but what does my impossible to perceive concept mean? it's a meaningless concept.


The only conclusion I can come to is that they are metaphysical. And if there is metaphysical value that is instinctual (meaning it happens without our consent or active implication), because it possesses no material or physical form, then its value must be intrinsic to its nature.

so when we can acknowledge the tree valued carbon-dioxide without its consent or active implication, then carbon-dioxide must have some metaphysical intrinsic value. so how should humans change their behavior now aware of this new intrinsically valuable element? It's nonsensical.


Quite simply these things, if they do indeed exist, as I believe they do, should be observed, listened to, and considered, as I believe they are inherent and intrinsic for a particular reason.

you've already said they can't be observed because they're metaphysical. But ignoring that problem, the rapist should observe and listen to his intrinsic values which he didn't choose, as you believe they are inherent and intrinsic for a particular reason?