In so far as truth is concerned, I take a nihilistic stance. That is to say that I don't think we would have any way of knowing that what appears to be true is indeed truth, or if there's even any reason to trust that surface level sense of appearance of truth in the first place. I've come to a similar conclusion about ethics and morality. I think none are qualified to be ethicists, to uncover some generally tenable morality, or to identify/dispense truth. Those who claim this ability are either dishonest with themselves, deluded, or do so simply to gain some advantage. It's a rather strong position, not in the sense that it's defensible, but in the sense that I make forceful assertions.
The most defensible position I've encountered in all my days is that of solipsism. I myself wonder if I've strayed to far from the honesty of admitted unknowing as I stray from the solipsist's platform and accept physicalist frameworks.
Then again I do even sometimes reject the self and mind as illusory in my heights of nihilism. I'm well convinced of physicalism, though my epistemological nihilism holds me back from full surety, as in all things. I might even go so far as to remove the 'ex' from "ex nihilo" as I soar over the mountaintops through nihilist skies.
It seems to me one of the most honest utterances one might make is "I don't know.", and even then the 'I' might be a lie or wanton misappraisal.
I'm also utterly comfortable with the paradox of the lack of truth being the only truth, which thereupon is lacking truth, and so true, etc. etc...
I get some real Gödel's incompleteness vibes from it.
Very interesting my friend :-) Thanks for the honest response. I'm glad you're aware of nihilism's core flaw, which is that to claim that "there is no truth" is a claim about truth itself. At least I believe that's what you're aiming at by saying that it's not defensible and that you only make a "strong assertion" with that statement.
However, all of that is exactly what I mean when I say nihilism just isn't useful, not at all in fact; we wouldn't have survived as a species were we all converted to solipsism. That in itself is a strong claim to make, I know. Or, I think I know. Even though I fully agree that "I don't know" may be the most honest claim about any perceived truth, we can only survive and stay sane by living in a world where we do know. Or: use the tools we have to approach truth, which has to be a shared truth, as much as possible.
That's just my two cents though, and mine alone ;-) I fully respect your perspective here and appreciate your response 1000%. Thanks so much :-)
In so far as truth is concerned, I take a nihilistic stance. That is to say that I don't think we would have any way of knowing that what appears to be true is indeed truth, or if there's even any reason to trust that surface level sense of appearance of truth in the first place. I've come to a similar conclusion about ethics and morality. I think none are qualified to be ethicists, to uncover some generally tenable morality, or to identify/dispense truth. Those who claim this ability are either dishonest with themselves, deluded, or do so simply to gain some advantage. It's a rather strong position, not in the sense that it's defensible, but in the sense that I make forceful assertions.
The most defensible position I've encountered in all my days is that of solipsism. I myself wonder if I've strayed to far from the honesty of admitted unknowing as I stray from the solipsist's platform and accept physicalist frameworks.
Then again I do even sometimes reject the self and mind as illusory in my heights of nihilism. I'm well convinced of physicalism, though my epistemological nihilism holds me back from full surety, as in all things. I might even go so far as to remove the 'ex' from "ex nihilo" as I soar over the mountaintops through nihilist skies.
It seems to me one of the most honest utterances one might make is "I don't know.", and even then the 'I' might be a lie or wanton misappraisal.
I'm also utterly comfortable with the paradox of the lack of truth being the only truth, which thereupon is lacking truth, and so true, etc. etc...
I get some real Gödel's incompleteness vibes from it.
Very interesting my friend :-) Thanks for the honest response. I'm glad you're aware of nihilism's core flaw, which is that to claim that "there is no truth" is a claim about truth itself. At least I believe that's what you're aiming at by saying that it's not defensible and that you only make a "strong assertion" with that statement.
However, all of that is exactly what I mean when I say nihilism just isn't useful, not at all in fact; we wouldn't have survived as a species were we all converted to solipsism. That in itself is a strong claim to make, I know. Or, I think I know. Even though I fully agree that "I don't know" may be the most honest claim about any perceived truth, we can only survive and stay sane by living in a world where we do know. Or: use the tools we have to approach truth, which has to be a shared truth, as much as possible.
That's just my two cents though, and mine alone ;-) I fully respect your perspective here and appreciate your response 1000%. Thanks so much :-)