if all of reality is a self created illusion (I think therefore I am) then there would be no rules and I would have total power over my life. As it is, I am bound by laws and always surprised by something. I believe therefore, that there is something outside of myself that can controls things and something brought these illusions into my existence. I will call it God. So, nihilism is not a complete philosophy without a creator of this illusion (we) call reality. Therefore, if this creator exists then maybe he has the power to create others like me with their own perceptions of things. The problem with science is that it assumes everything it detects is real. Under nihilist pholosophy science cant prove anything is not an illusion because nothing can be varified to exist because the means of experimentation could be an illusion. What I'm trying to say basically is that Nihilism is not complete (or consistant) without a creator. What do you think?
2007-07-17 10:39:57 · 7 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Ah... but here's the rub. How do you KNOW that you're not in control of the illusion that is the universe? Perhaps your lack of control is an illusion too?
What if YOU are the god that put the illusion there? Could you perhaps limit yourself from being able to control or know about it temporarily? Then you still don't need anyone else for your world-veiw to be consistant.
Or perhaps you USED to know everything about your illusion but forgot. Perhaps you used to control everything but weakened. You experience forgetting and weakening rather regularly if you're anything like me! So these wouldn't be new things either... just new manifestations of them.
There are ways of thinking about this kind of thing to make it work. It's still a philosophy that leads nowhere. But it's not inherently inconsistent.
2007-07-17 10:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nihilism is the only philosophical position that does not have to explain where its "substance" came from. It has no substance. If god exists, where did god come from? If the universe is a "zero sum" state, it could have evolved from nothing by mechanisms unknown. As long as no scientific evidence contradicts the zero sum, I can accept that as the simplest explanation of the world.
I cannot accept god without an explanation of where god came from, how it sustains itself, and how the introduction of the concept of god simplifies our picture of the world. Introducing the concept of an inexplicable god complicates our picture of the world by creating problems of the origin of evil and free will, and the many contradictions between experience and expectation.
The Cartesian "cogito ergo sum" is compatible with "zero sum" nihilism. Consciousness has no more reality or substance than any other temporal entity. The nihilistic conjecture takes precedence by Ockham, as Descartes had to eventually invoke God to explain his own consciousness or suffer an infinite regress of "causes." If Descartes had elected the nihilistic conjecture as the simplest explanation of the world, like nihilists, he would (gladly) have never escaped his doubting and would have had no need of complicated hypotheses like god and the immortal soul.
Finally, the laws of physics are derivable from the laws of probability. No god was needed to create them or the matter of the universe. In fact, the simplest derivation of the most fundamental physical laws, the laws of conservation, comes straight from nihilistic theory. Any complete conservation law must sum to zero if nihilism is true. A quantity that is zero cannot change and is therefore conserved.
2007-07-17 23:57:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'd love to answer this question, but I'd need to write a whole book to give account for it. What you are saying is very basic and if you want to learn more you will need to grow out of this conception of science and philosophy. Do not get me wrong, for I know your doubts are genuine, but there is more to it than you would've expected. Sorry if I am a little bit too cryptic, but I am a little bit tired this time of the day. A tip of advice I'd give you is read Lucretius or my commentary on Epicurianism and Christendom which you will find at the end of my blog. Just click on my icon and look it up: it might turn out beneficial to you.
2007-07-17 20:26:09 · answer #3 · answered by george 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're confusing nihilism with solipsism. Nihilism denies that there are any inherent or given values in life, moral or otherwise. It doesn't deny the validity of an objective world outside of individual consciousness.
2007-07-17 17:43:01 · answer #4 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean solipsism instead of nihilism? Or perhaps you intend to equate the two? In your own strange way you are articulating portions of the reasoning George Berkeley. I would recomend reading about his ideas as a means of clarifying your position. After that, consider Wittegenstein's insights concerning solipsism.
2007-07-17 18:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're right. If there's an illusion, someone/thing/power must have created it.
2007-07-17 17:49:00 · answer #6 · answered by Me in Canada eh 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, you're right. Sun God is responsible, although Sun God didn't create you, or me.
2007-07-17 17:44:42 · answer #7 · answered by Jack P 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋