Is nihilism the only logical end of following the philosophical method?

Question

All of the evidence we see, everything we observe in the universe points to a universe that at its core has no evil and no good, no objective morality, just "blind pitiless indifference." It is a universe that has existed for aeons without humanity and will continue to do so long after our light has gone out of the universe. Furthermore, by the very nature of philosophical method's questioning of given knowledge, doesn't it naturally lead you to a realm of purely unknowable chaos?

Answer 1

It depends on how you define your problems and postulates.

Natural laws (physics, biochemistry, etc.) are outside of morality althogther, but they do exist. Take it further enough and it goes beyond what we currently know, and probably farther than we can ever know. So, yes, at the core there is a realm that is unknowable.

But can you imagine life without the quest? That would be a thoroughly hellish existential nihilsm for a true scientist or philosopher.

And in people, though, and all the messy questions of morality come crashing back in. There can be no nihilism as long as we're alive.

Answer 2

Without refuting the vast majority of your observations, especially at the larger scale of the universe...
"...Man[kind] will go down into the pit, and all his thoughts will perish" -- A J Balfour

...there is one area of data you may not have considered:
what people have done with their transient lives, based on partial, tentative and intellectually flawed world-views.
(Including producing the technology that lets you inspect the cosmos and communicate your assessment of the world, to the world!)

The world may not have intrinsic meaning, but it is certainly not unknowable chaos. The concept that the universe has one set of laws, is in some degree a unity, grew in part out of monotheistic religion (It is a consequence, not a proof of it).as in the inscription above the entrance to the Cavendish laboratory, Cambridge.

And then there is the most immediate observation, and question of purpose. "What am I to do with my life?"
"Nothing" is one answer, certainly. But is it certain that that is the only valid conclusion?
Even "Whatever pleases me" will attract a greater following.
If this is so at odds with the conclusions of the " logical end of following the philosophical method" is there not a remaining possibility that the philosophical method itself is flawed? (It's happened often enough in the past!)

Another strand: if we are (merely) programmed replicators for our genes, who have acquired self-awareness as a by-product of improving the odds of survival to reproduction, is there in that self awareness an opportunity to define meaning and purpose? Even just over a lifetime? (for that's all you have to worry about!)

This idea is developed in Keith Stanovich's book "The Robot's Rebellion: finding meaning in the age of Darwin."

You may be right, and that to see the universe clearly is to have one's mind and motivation destroyed (as Douglas Adams had it) in which case retreating to "smaller universes of our own devising" would be technically an invalid move and functionally a very sensible one.

But I think that some doubt remains. And I can operate with clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(Sorry, Douglas Adams again.)

Answer 3

You have no idea how correct you are. You are the first person I've run in to who realizes there is no salvation from existing. Absolute truth - "it's core has no good or evil", you are so right on the mark. The way of nature never acts yet nothing is left undone.

Those who speak and write - but do not know that words are not things - do not know.
Those who speak and write - but know that words are not things - know.
Those who know that words are not things can choose to speak and write or not.

Answer 4

No i don't think so. It's only a way to go to the truth after that there is a lot more to know.