Post-nihilism

[Kepler]

The machine can massage and convolute ideas it is given until they look coherent. Thinking is not only what comes to your mind but also how you are able to explore and criticise it. Ideas are cheap, they rush through even the dullest of minds by the dozens. The chatbot you're using (Gemini I suppose, but they have very similar speech patterns, so it can be GPT or something else) also has truly atrocious stylistics that obfuscates the topic with this characteristic, badly falsified profundity.

This typically bad example quite obviously ignores the fact that fighting among stags is an evolved mechanism accelerating natural selection, so for the genes (which are the actual players) it's an optimal play.

That is why it's necessary to correct and check it. There was no wall of text, and stylistics. just a simple layout of the ideas to avoid that.

And you're missing the point that moving to a chiral model escapes the zerosum trap in Nietzsche's model and answers the question of success that it and entrenched nihilism cannot.

 

[Nembra]

That is why it's necessary to correct and check it. There was no wall of text, and stylistics. just a simple layout of the ideas to avoid that.

And you're missing the point that moving to a chiral model escapes the zerosum trap in Nietzsche's model and answers the question of success that it and entrenched nihilism cannot.

You have imposed the zero sum onto Nietzsche's philosophy that is not there naturally.

 

[Kepler]

You have imposed the zero sum onto Nietzsche's philosophy that is not there naturally.

In aim, but due to its modeling in practice it is zero sum.

 

[Nembra]

In aim, but due to its modeling in practice it is zero sum.

That's an interpretation of yours I fail to see justified.

 

[Kepler]

That's an interpretation of yours I fail to see justified.

And that is on you since you're unable to deconstruct the logic, with now only the hope that a hollow illusion of you being capable of making that assessment will hold.

 

[Nembra]

And that is on you since you're unable to deconstruct the logic with the hope that an illusion of you being capable of making that assessment will hold.

How could the lack of logical foundation to your claims a matter of my intellect you keep insulting?

 

[Kepler]

How could the lack of logical foundation to your claims a matter of my intellect you keep insulting?

you're not showing an understanding of a lack or not to the logical foundation in the asymmetric model to Nietzsche and success in evolutionary terms at all. Only making the claim while completely avoiding doing so. It's likely that you're thinking you are making a logical counterpoint is a result of cognitive dissonance facing your own limitations.

 

[Nembra]

you're not showing an understanding of a lack or not to the logical foundation in the asymmetric model to Nietzsche and success in evolutionary terms at all. Only making the accusation while completely avoiding doing so. Likely you're thinking you are making a logical counterpoint is a result of cognitive dissonance facing your own limitations.

Ah, so this is your actual style. Messy.
I'm not making an accusation. I'm making an observation that your argument is incomplete, which makes it unconvincing. You are basing your model on an assumption that I am neither accepting nor disputing as of yet, only noting that you have as of yet left it completely unsupported.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 4:36 PM

Yes and no. Let me see if I can unpack this a bit more.

So, as I currently view it:

Meaning = eudaimonia from behaving in a way that moves me towards my values.

Experience tells me my values and value (priority) stack seem largely unchosen and fairly stable in general day to day life [again, let's ignore for now what this nature is grounded in or who, if anyone, gave it to me].

To illustrate:

My top 3 values are [1] Health, [2] Autonomy/sovereignty, [3] Connection.

[Example 1] Can I sleep all day, getting no sunlight or exercise, eating pizza and chips and drinking Coke, talking to no one, and playing Grim Dawn till 5am for weeks on end? Yes, I can choose to do that. Will this give me pleasure? Yes, it may at the time in the euphoric, feel-good sense. However, after a while I tend to experience a deep dissatisfaction that I'm wasting my life and not doing anything significant (the opposite of eudaimonia, whatever that's called).

[Example 2] I go to the gym and run regularly, eat fairly bland (non sugary) food that's healthy for me but not super-tasty, socialise, go to sleep at 11pm every night and may not game for days or weeks. There may be days when I hate doing these things in the moment (i.e. the opposite of euphoria) because, for example, I'm tired and just want to veg out, etc. However, over time I develop a deep sense of satisfaction, that I'm living a significant, fulfilling life (eudaimonia).

I have no way to arbitrarily change these values. Experience/reality has taught me this many times. However, I can, for example, decide to do martial arts, dancing or Pilates instead of the gym, and if it still moves me towards health, that still works, i.e. I experience eudaimonia.

Conclusion: I have multiple ways to choose how to behave so I can move towards my values. I don't forge those values ex nihilo but I have choice in how I embody/enact them.

Is this in line with how Nietzsche and post-nihilists view meaning? I have no idea. I'll leave that to people in this thread who know more about these things than I do.

What will you do when the health betrays you? Who will you be then?

 

[Kepler]

Ah, so this is your actual style. Messy.
I'm not making an accusation. I'm making an observation that your argument is incomplete, which makes it unconvincing. You are basing your model on an assumption that I am neither accepting nor disputing as of yet, only noting that you have as of yet left it completely unsupported.

But you don't show an understanding of how it's incomplete. Only making the claim it is.

 

[Nembra]

But you don't show an understanding of how it's incomplete. Only making the claim it is.

It is incomplete because information is absent. There is literally nothing to understand, and that's the problem I'm pointing out. As I've said: you have proposed an interpretation that Nietzche's philosophy somehow points to some system being a zero-sum game. How? What system?

 

[Kepler]

It is incomplete because information is absent. There is literally nothing to understand, and that's the problem I'm pointing out. As I've said: you have proposed an interpretation that Nietzche's philosophy somehow points to some system being a zero-sum game. How? What system?

It does answer the question of success that you posed, and the nature of Nietzsche as zerosum. The system is a chiral model of evolution addressing asymmetry. It's not a refutation of Nietzsche, it's a development of his thesis.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:12 PM

To post where this started

The defense mechanism that doesn't allow someone to commit themselves by answering questions but still want to participate in discussions above them to appear smarter than they are is not a path to success according to Nietzsche. The Scholarly Man.

An answer to your question can be found in a true development of Nietzsche's ideas in regards to natural evolution

Symmetrical Conflict vs. Chiral Adaptation
If we translate this into evolutionary behavior, we see a divide between Nietzsche's model and a current understanding physical reality:

Metric	Symmetrical / Nietzschean Evolution	Asymmetric / Chiral Evolution
The Game	Zero-Sum / Negative-Sum. Two stags fighting over the same patch of grass until one bleeds out.	Positive-Sum. One mutates a "chiral shift" in behavior or ecology, adapting to a new niche entirely.
The Goal	Dominating or resisting the immediate environment (Will to Power).	Escaping the trap of competition through creative, asymmetrical differentiation.
Outcome	Stagnation at a higher scale; energy is wasted on mutual destruction.	Complexity. The system grows because organisms find ways to generate more value than they consume (e.g., symbiosis).

 

[Frater M.M.]

What will you do when the health betrays you? Who will you be then?

These are excellent questions. To clarify before I answer them:

(Borrowing an ACT psychology metaphor) I currently view values like compass directions: just like you can't reach West, you can't reach "health" as such. And by "health", I don't really mean "being healthy" as some end state I have to achieve/maintain. I mean more the ongoing direction of respecting, maintaining and looking after my body/mind/spirit as best I can, whatever condition they're in. "Stewardship" is probably a better word for it.

So, if my arms fall off, I just have leg days in the gym or become a runner. If my legs fall off, I do chair Tai Chi. That is, I keep choosing the behaviour that embodies stewardship.

-------

So to answer your questions:

What will you do when the health betrays you?

Let's say I have terminal cancer. As long as I have options, I'll keep following respect and care for the body as much as I'm able: go to a hospital/hospice, make sure I get painkillers, eat if I can, keep the body clean/washed, etc.

Plus, I still have other values. Autonomy is now also pretty constrained but I can decide which hospital to be cared for in, who can visit me, treatment choice, etc. Connection is there if I interact with family, nurses, doctors, patients, etc.

But getting to the heart of your questions: assuming stewardship, autonomy and connection are my only known values and they become completely trashed, what then?

Let's say I'm lying in bed, can't move, in constant pain, looked after by robots. I'm so drugged I can't think straight. I'm out of options with no real choices for those three values. Having never been in this extreme situation, I'm guessing this experience may reveal previously unknown values. Perhaps I embrace Buddhism and discover that compassion or non-harm matters to me in a way I hadn't previously recognised, and meditation becomes one way of embodying that value. Maybe I'll have a deathbed conversion and discover I value obedience to God or enduring suffering because I believe God has a plan for it. Or perhaps I'll discover that dignity or agency over my own death matters strongly enough that I choose not to prolong the situation.

Who will you be then? I'll still be me whether I experience meaning or not.

Conclusion: as long as there are options, there's room for choice in how I embody my values. New or extreme circumstances may also reveal previously unknown values or cause the value stack to reorder, e.g. Autonomy > Stewardship. Otherwise, yes, if there are genuinely no options available and no new values have been discovered (I have my doubts this is possible while I am still conscious, but let's say this is so for the sake of argument), then by this model I will experience no meaning.

This is precisely the core realization that I think post-nihilism is trying to propose. It is not really even that extreme of a proposal, merely, that when you stop looking for meaning or trying to invent one yourself, one will naturally fall out of whatever it is on its own. Nietzsche is saying that this is the test of one's will, to resist whatever falls out and try to go even deeper, or to treat whatever emerges as a temporary solution, a useful tool, or just a recreational moment where you are just taking a break and letting your imagination run.

I think he is suggesting that with enough self-discipline, rather than through self-control, one can actually overcome the need to look for meaning and direct one's thoughts toward the accomplishment of whatever one has already committed to doing. Once one finds their intention and begins to carry it out, there is no further deliberation, no further consideration given to the meaning or purpose of the act. Whatever meaning or purpose we chose will suffice, given that no meaning and no purpose could ever actually represent whatever it is we think we are doing.

In that sense, any meaning, any purpose that we invent for ourselves, is a pure act of self expression and art when it comes from a place inside yourself and emerges from this process of trying to resist coming to a conclusion about the meaning or purpose of things. It is about the strength to keep walking the path and remain open minded as long as you can, not to make up your mind about things, and to tolerate the dissonance of being immersed into the unknown. We feel compelled to somehow turn it into the "known", just as I am doing right now even.

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with you or not?

I think we agree that meaning doesn’t need to be objectively imposed and may emerge rather than be consciously invented. Where I’m less sure we agree is that I don’t experience whatever meaning I choose as equally workable. My values seem to constrain what can actually feel meaningful to me. Have I understood you correctly or no?

 

[Nembra]

These are excellent questions. To clarify before I answer them:

(Borrowing an ACT psychology metaphor) I currently view values like compass directions: just like you can't reach West, you can't reach "health" as such. And by "health", I don't really mean "being healthy" as some end state I have to achieve/maintain. I mean more the ongoing direction of respecting, maintaining and looking after my body/mind/spirit as best I can, whatever condition they're in. "Stewardship" is probably a better word for it.

So, if my arms fall off, I just have leg days in the gym or become a runner. If my legs fall off, I do chair Tai Chi. That is, I keep choosing the behaviour that embodies stewardship.

-------

So to answer your questions:

What will you do when the health betrays you?

Let's say I have terminal cancer. As long as I have options, I'll keep following respect and care for the body as much as I'm able: go to a hospital/hospice, make sure I get painkillers, eat if I can, keep the body clean/washed, etc.

Plus, I still have other values. Autonomy is now also pretty constrained but I can decide which hospital to be cared for in, who can visit me, treatment choice, etc. Connection is there if I interact with family, nurses, doctors, patients, etc.

But getting to the heart of your questions: assuming stewardship, autonomy and connection are my only known values and they become completely trashed, what then?

Let's say I'm lying in bed, can't move, in constant pain, looked after by robots. I'm so drugged I can't think straight. I'm out of options with no real choices for those three values. Having never been in this extreme situation, I'm guessing this experience may reveal previously unknown values. Perhaps I embrace Buddhism and discover that compassion or non-harm matters to me in a way I hadn't previously recognised, and meditation becomes one way of embodying that value. Maybe I'll have a deathbed conversion and discover I value obedience to God or enduring suffering because I believe God has a plan for it. Or perhaps I'll discover that dignity or agency over my own death matters strongly enough that I choose not to prolong the situation.

Who will you be then? I'll still be me whether I experience meaning or not.

Conclusion: as long as there are options, there's room for choice in how I embody my values. New or extreme circumstances may also reveal previously unknown values or cause the value stack to reorder, e.g. Autonomy > Stewardship. Otherwise, yes, if there are genuinely no options available and no new values have been discovered (I have my doubts this is possible while I am still conscious, but let's say this is so for the sake of argument), then by this model I will experience no meaning.

You can't reach the west, but you can reach a coast or a desert. Let's say you have a child instead. Think how much sleep and sanity would you have to sacrifice to care for them. Is it enough for you to decide not to have a child? What about a physically demanding hobby that will degrade your joints? What about a glass of wine? Would you never do something you know to be unhealthy? Would you never take a step east for any reason?

 

[nunaphael]

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with you or not?

I think we agree that meaning doesn’t need to be objectively imposed and may emerge rather than be consciously invented. Where I’m less sure we agree is that I don’t experience whatever meaning I choose as equally workable. My values seem to constrain what can actually feel meaningful to me. Have I understood you correctly or no?

I believe we do have an understanding, yes.

You could say that we "disagree" but the way you have presented your experience makes it seem as if it is something personal and not necessarily a universal claim, i.e., you are saying that, your values provide a constraint on what can actually feel meaningful to you, but not necessarily extending the same constraint to everything in the universe. If that's true, then I would say, I don't think we really disagree at all, we're just different people. Like, we might both agree that limiting how much sugar you eat is a good thing, but if one of us is diabetic, it's a little different for that person.

I suppose I don't really know what my true values are, is the thing. I agree not every meaning is equally workable, and so if my mind generates a meaning or purpose for my experiences that just doesn't seem feasible, then I can't tolerate that and I will probably repress it or forget about it. But that's not necessarily ethical, it's just a matter of convenience or the limit of my own imagination. I don't really know what that limit is. I'm not sure who I might become, or what I might do, if I allowed everything to fall away. What would remain? I don't actually know. I've never gone that "deep" you might say. It seems extremely dangerous, but perhaps that's the point.