Quick question..err I mean <insert catchy title here>

[Ihateusernames]

Ihateusernames, the middle ground is direct experience. The two poles are accepting phantasmal absolutes as real or, alternatively, rejection of everything as phantasmal.

But the middle ground is direct experience.

So, say I kill someone and it's extremely fun.  Direct experience tells me killing is fun, and furthermore reason tells me there is no good or evil or absolutes.  Does that then make murder moral for me?

(sorry for anyone reading this and the other thread... and noticing the same question for Renegnicat over and over... and over, but I figure if I ask him enough he might eventually answer. )

[Renegnicat]

You need only recognize two things:

1. It's extremely fun for you.
2. It's extremely painful for them.

Now read the other thread. I hope that helps.

[AlP]

So, say I kill someone and it's extremely fun.  Direct experience tells me killing is fun, and furthermore reason tells me there is no good or evil or absolutes.  Does that then make murder moral for me?

I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral. For me, the degree to which I comply with my society and the degree to which I diverge from it is important. Rationalism can lead to a false dichotomy between god and nihilism. Nihilism is valid if you accept the premise that there are no humans. It is unsound though because there are humans and they have values and interpret meaning. That appears to be how brains work. Those values and meanings are every bit as real whether they are about god or football.

Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

[Ihateusernames]

I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral.

Apply this to the holocaust, and does it mean that it was moral for the Germans do to what they did? ... I find it hard to believe many people would actually answer this question yes.

For me, the degree to which I comply with my society and the degree to which I diverge from it is important. Rationalism can lead to a false dichotomy between god and nihilism. Nihilism is valid if you accept the premise that there are no humans. It is unsound though because there are humans and they have values and interpret meaning. That appears to be how brains work. Those values and meanings are every bit as real whether they are about god or football.

Ethical Nihilism doesn't require there to be "no humans", Just no objective meaning to human life. A person having an opinion (values and interpretation) doesn't speak at all to the question of objective morality (aka that god vs nihilism thing).

Anyway, I keep hearing this over and over, that there is a "false dichotomy between god and nihilism" and yet I can't seem to find anything that substantiates this claim.  How exactly is it a false dichotomy?  The entire point of this thread was to explore this "middle ground."

Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

By no means was I trying to make it sound that if you embrace nihilism you might as well go out and murder someone, however we must also admit that there are people in this world that take pleasure in murdering others.  if it is acceptable (as you are saying) to slightly deviate from social mores, what makes it unacceptable to greatly deviate from the norms (with things such as murder?)

Honestly, as far as I can tell you are just accepting ethical nihilism and choosing to live like there are absolute morals even though there aren't.  I don't really see your post as a middle ground between Nihilism and god, maybe a middle ground between Nihilism and despair, but not between god and Nihilism.

[Renegnicat]

Oh, fer crying out loud, if you really have no problem with nihilism than go ahead and kill yourself or your mom or your dog or whoever the hell you want allready. Jesus H. Tittyfuck Christ Monkeyballs, what a whiner...

[Ihateusernames]

Oh, fer crying out loud, if you really have no problem with nihilism than go ahead and kill yourself or your mom or your dog or whoever the hell you want [already[. Jesus H. Tittyfuck Christ Monkeyballs, what a whiner...

Hah... oh lordy lord, someone discussing philosophy in the philosophy forum that has a different opinion than you and has generally treated your disparaging comments with decorum (at least I feel I did!) HOW DARE HE, eh?...

PPS: You are rather silly in your statements.  I obviously have problem with Nihilism, if you couldn't tell I'm trying to figure a way OUT of nihilism, but I can't negating a theistic worldview.  After that post I realize just how little you are listening and how much you are blathering to hear your own voice.  Ugh, well like good ol' Thomas said "I have not failed [in discourse]. I've just found [strike:1k98kidg]10,000 ways[/strike:1k98kidg][one person] that won't [strike:1k98kidg]work[/strike:1k98kidg][think]. "

Ahhh I love butchering people's quotes for my own needs!  

[AlP]

I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral.

Apply this to the holocaust, and does it mean that it was moral for the Germans do to what they did? ... I find it hard to believe many people would actually answer this question yes.

Yes this is a very difficult issue if you can't fall back on an absolute system that tells you what you should and should not do. I imagine some of those who perpetrated the holocaust thought that what they were doing was at least right if not moral. And quite possibly some of them absolutely thought it was moral. And that's not the only example. Another example would be the the stoning of a woman accused of adultery on religious grounds. There's no end to the horrible things people have done on the basis of their morality.

Anyway, I keep hearing this over and over, that there is a "false dichotomy between god and nihilism" and yet I can't seem to find anything that substantiates this claim.  How exactly is it a false dichotomy?  The entire point of this thread was to explore this "middle ground."

I will try to explain what I mean in a different way. Nihilism is correct in the sense that there are no meanings or values. There aren't because this is a fallacy called reification error. They aren't real things. They're abstract concepts. What's actually going on is that people are interpreting things and judging things. That is easily observable and objective. People do both those things all the time. In my mind, the error is in turning those two behaviors into real things called meanings and values. The nihilist says these things don't exist. What they should say is that meanings and values are an example of reification error and that it is the actions of interpreting and judging that exist, or perhaps more accurately happen.

Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

By no means was I trying to make it sound that if you embrace nihilism you might as well go out and murder someone, however we must also admit that there are people in this world that take pleasure in murdering others.  if it is acceptable (as you are saying) to slightly deviate from social mores, what makes it unacceptable to greatly deviate from the norms (with things such as murder?)

It is unacceptable to me probably primarily due to the society I live in and my upbringing. There's also the fact that we have evolved in a way that at least gives us the possibility of behaving that way, if our society encourages it. I would also like to think that there is an element of personal choice in it. I like to deviate from social norms. To not do so would be passive nihilism. But there's a limit. You can't put a number on just how far I will deviate but there is a limit. It's not a limit derived from some absolute system of morality. It's just the way I've been programmed by my upbringing and my society.

Honestly, as far as I can tell you are just accepting ethical nihilism and choosing to live like there are absolute morals even though there aren't.  I don't really see your post as a middle ground between Nihilism and god, maybe a middle ground between Nihilism and despair, but not between god and Nihilism.

I'm existentialist.