Nyarlothothep's opinion on everything

Gary L

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056494238

Although this amazing and i can only assume drunken thread was closed due to a lack of focus, I think it is well worth discussing so I want to attempt to summarize;

• The Universe, in an objective sense is without meaning and nature is a battleground.

• Humans have only just barely risen above the level of the other primates and begun to explore the potential offered by to us by evolution in the form of large brains capable of complicated abstract thought.

• Although science can give us a rich understanding of the workings of the universe and of the animal kingdom, we've bastardized this gift completely by taking it as a guide to how things should be as opposed to an explanation of how things are.

• This social darwinist survival of the fittest nonsense is not worthy of us, offering no real fulfillment and dooming us to endless cycles of ****ting all over each other. If we cant improve upon natures default set of relations then this is a damning indictment of consciousness and Nyarlothothep for one would not like to entertain the possibility.

• The logically obvious truth of nihilism is only baffling to us because in our misunderstanding of the cold heartless universe(thanks christianity), we've expected that the meaning is built in to the thing. The fact is its up to us to create meaning and value in our individual worlds and in true ubermenchian style rise above the pre-ordainded limits of our condition and forge order out of the chaos of the universe, setting our own destinies and mastering both ourselves and our environment.

• While we're at it lets try to be somewhat nice to each other.

Nyarlothothep, I salute you!

Nabber

Although science can give us a rich understanding of the workings of the universe and of the animal kingdom, we've bastardized this gift completely by taking it as a guide to how things should be as opposed to an explanation of how things are.

Gary can you ellaborate on what you see here?It's not making much sense to me.

nyarlothothep

wow, thanks I'm quite chuffed, I was very very drunk at the time and wanted to stir some sh1t up. But yeah that's a good summary of my points. Thanks!

Black Swan

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I was very very drunk at the time and wanted to stir some sh1t up.

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that this forum is for the serious discussion of Philosophy, and such comments are inappropriate.

nyarlothothep

Ok I was wasted but that was essentially in response to the lack of focus point, this was the reason. Secondly I should have clarified what I meant by stirring sh1t up. I know my views are controversial/provocative to some people, hence the use of the phrase sh1t stirring.

maughantourig

Science draws up a list of laws and relations which dictate the physical and chemical occurences in our universe.

taking it as a guide to how things should be as opposed to an explanation of how things are <-- ABSOLUTELYBACKWARDS

Gary L

maughantourig wrote: »

Science draws up a list of laws and relations which dictate the physical and chemical occurences in our universe.

taking it as a guide to how things should be as opposed to an explanation of how things are <-- ABSOLUTELYBACKWARDS

Well spotted that was actually the point. Caps is fun I know.

Biruni

Nabber wrote: »

Although science can give us a rich understanding of the workings of the universe and of the animal kingdom, we've bastardized this gift completely by taking it as a guide to how things should be as opposed to an explanation of how things are.

While only the original poster of the argument can really explain what is meant by this, I can give a reasonably charitable interpretation of this point.

It is fairly common for people to appeal to science in ethical debates. Science shows us that animals suffer, since they have a nervous system. To a utilitarian, this generally means that we should treat animals better. Science shows us that having a code of ethics is a good game theoretic survival strategy when compared with having none. To many, this suggests that we ought to adopt a code of ethics. A computer experiment has demonstrated that TIT for TAT was the most effective programme when competing with other programmes in multiple games of the prisoner's dilemma over time. To someone who believes in a reciprocal approach to ethics, this can often seem like a vindication of their beliefs. Then there is ethical pragmatism, which is fairly tied up with the belief that science can answer moral questions. Thinking of someone who is very blatant about his belief that this is possible, Sam Harris comes to mind.

Essentially, there is a lot of deriving ought from is which appeals to science at some point.

However, I believe the criticism was directed largely at the view that we should allow concepts like optimal survival strategies to determine our ethics, simply because it is line with the natural order of things. I get the impression that [Nyl is saying] nothing about ethics can be derived from scientific study of the world of is, but we have to construct meaning and achieve our full potential as a species in order to make this a worth living in. (EDIT: I initially misread the whole argument to a significant degree).

Is this a fair rendition of the argument?


Further EDIT: If you believe in an artificial approach to constructing morality, J.L. Mackie's Inventing Right and Wrong might be of interest.