Oya, fire on.

I am aware that you first entered this forum as a Christian. I am also aware that you denounced christianity and chose to become an atheist after the experiences you related here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-316436.0.html

Given that you now hawk an atheistic worldview, can you share with us the following -

1. What the purpose of LIFE is - if any

2. What the purpose of YOUR life is - if any

3. Whether your atheism also connotes strict materialism - to wit - do you believe that non-physical things exist.

Many thanks.

D.S.

I am not sure if Mazeje really knows what he is. I believe he is still on a journey - though he will be loathe to admit it. Yes he has renounced Christianity, but he seems to flit between Atheism, Deism, Pantheism and even Polytheism when it suits him. He has made statements that align with each of these beliefs at various times.

Whats he does know, and to no end, he has made us clear about, is that he does not believe in Christianity or the Christian God. I make these statements on my observations thus far.

Deep Sight:


Given that you now hawk an atheistic worldview, can you share with us the following -

  1. What the purpose of LIFE is - if any

The purpose of life IMO is to strive to fill each of the days we have to spend here on earth (hours, and minutes) with meaning. We should strive to fill them with learning and gaining wisdom, with compassion for the less fortunate, with love and tolerance for friends, strangers and family, with doing any job we want to do or are supposed to do very well, with fighting against evil and obscurantism, to protect our planet and all the other animals that we share it together with and YES, with enjoying sexxxx, TV, good food, arts, sports, parties, cars, modest luxury, and other fascinating stuffs that life has to offer. . .

One thing that if find absurd with the theistic argument is that life has to be everlasting for it to be meaningful . . .Why should life have to be everlasting to be meaningful? It smacks of monumental egotism. Surely there is something monstrously egocentric in thinking that my life is of such transcendent significance that I should be an exception to cosmic laws, that my ego should survive when, animals, planets, stars, and even galaxies are no more.

  2. What the purpose of YOUR life is - if any

I have already stated it above. . . .

3. Whether your atheism also connotes strict materialism - to wit - do you believe that non-physical things exist.

Sure non physical things exists. . .Your thoughts are non physical but they exists. . . .

Many thanks.

D.S.

Romeo4real:

I am not sure if Mazeje really knows what he is. I believe he is still on a journey - though he will be loathe to admit it. Yes he has renounced Christianity, but he seems to flit between Atheism, Deism, Pantheism and even Polytheism when it suits him. He has made statements that align with each of these beliefs at various times.

Whats he does know, and to no end, he has made us clear about, is that he does not believe in Christianity or the Christian God. I make these statements on my observations thus far.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in any God/Gods because all the Gods/Gods were created by men and their various superstitious beliefs. . . .

mazaje:

I am an atheist, I do not believe in any God/Gods because all the Gods/Gods were created by men and their various superstitious beliefs. . . .

And you don't even have to believe in the creator. It is not required. What is required is the staunch belief in yourself to make the difference. Just get on with the business of living and experiencing and evolving. That is all that is required of all of us.

mazaje:


One thing that if find absurd with the theistic argument is that life has to be everlasting for it to be meaningful . . .Why should life have to be everlasting to be meaningful? It smacks of monumental egotism. Surely there is something monstrously egocentric in thinking that my life is of such transcendent significance that I should be an exception to cosmic laws, that my ego should survive when, animals, planets, stars, and even galaxies are no more.

Although I agree wih the part about being meaningful, I find it no more absurd that I am everlasting than finite.
Purely because you see finite with your eyes now, does not mean that infinity does not exist. Also, I do believe that exceptions already exist to the cosmic laws that you base your statement on - Pi for example.

I am always reminded of this when someone states that this is all there is and that when we die there is nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

mazaje:

The purpose of life IMO is to strive to fill each of the days we have to spend here on earth (hours, and minutes) with meaning.

Can you please elucidate on what you mean by "meaning?"

We should strive to fill them with learning and gaining wisdom, with compassion for the less fortunate, with love and tolerance for friends, strangers and family

In a void of spirituality - namely - a universe and world without a supervening order or purpose - what is the point in doing any of these things?

Would it not be equally sensible to grab all that you can for yourself, brutally eliminate your competitors, live large and enjoy the best that feminine temptations have to offer?

After all, when you die. . . nothing awaits you - whether you were good or bad.

Also a strong argument can be made that brutality and survival of the fittest is healthy for society as it makes each individual stronger and thereby improves the strengh, resistance and longevity of the Group as a whole.

Given this, why is there a need to be moral or loving of your fellow man at all?

Sure non physical things exists. . .Your thoughts are non physical but they exists. . . .

What dimension do such things exist in?

Deep Sight:


What dimension do such things exist in?

In this one.

The number One is not physical is it?
And how about Red or Blue? They are not physical are they?

Yet we percieve them in this dimension.

Bastage:

In this one.

The number One is not physical is it?
And how about Red or Blue? They are not physical are they?

Yet we percieve them in this dimension.

That you perceive something whilst you are within the physical dimension does not mean that it has its existence within physical matter.

Otherwise you will have to show me what physical matter contains time, for example. Does time exist WITHIN physical things?

Doubtless it does not. It is a completely immaterial and non-contingent factor. Yet we perceive it in the physical. I thus disagree when you state that those elements are within this dimension - that is if you mean the strictly physical world of matter.

Thoughts are not physical things like you have noted, accordingly although we may generate and perceive them whilst in the physical, they are definitely ethereal and as such belong to an ethereal dimension which is different from gross matter such as a stone or a stapler.

Deep Sight:

Can you please elucidate on what you mean by "meaning?"

By meaning I mean a sense of purpose, belonging, happiness and direction.

In a void of spirituality - namely - a universe and world without a supervening order or purpose - what is the point in doing any of these things?

The purpose of doing what I stated above is that it provides life with meaning. . . .Do you love your family because some supernatural force told you to love them, or do you appreciate your environment because oneness of infinity told you to do so?. . . .I just don't understand what you are trying to say. . .What has spirituality got to do with loving your family, and others around you?. . . .I try to be good to people around me because doing good it self is good. . .People should try to do good because doing good is a good thing not because of some undefined spirituality that serves no purpose. . . .

Would it not be equally sensible to grab all that you can for yourself, brutally eliminate your competitors, live large and enjoy the best that feminine temptations have to offer?

No, It seems you have no concept of disinterested goodness, I don't really know how to answer you but let me try. . .I know it might sound too optimistic to expect people to be good without a carrot and stick. I know the usual bribery that religions have to offer. What can atheists say to the person like you who says keeps on saying things like "What's in it for me?" when admonished to be good? What can atheists offer to compare with the bribery of heaven and the terrorism of hell?. . . .An atheist can not offer all these imaginary promises because they are NOT necessary for a person to be good, Goodness or evil has NOTHING to do with spirituality or religion.

Why then should a person be good, Because being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled and self actualized life. By living virtuously we sustain those vital social relations friendship, family, community without which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Vice leads to misery. Man is a social and political animal who can sit back and self reflect on his action, Its good to do good and avoid evil because goodness sustains us all, and evil destroys us all. . . .

After all, when you die. . . nothing awaits you - whether you were good or bad.

The specter of eternal reward or punishment is of no use to me since there is no evidence to show for any of the bogus hypothesis. . . .Besides, all the efforts of fire and brimstone preachers have not succeeded in making heaven or hell real for most people. The fear of a miserable life in the here and now seems a better motivator for doing good or bad.

Also a strong argument can be made that brutality and survival of the fittest is healthy for society as it makes each individual stronger and thereby improves the strengh, resistance and longevity of the Group as a whole.

This is completely FALSE. . . . .

Given this, why is there a need to be moral or loving of your fellow man at all?

Because generosity ultimately promotes happiness. If I display love and generosity towards you there is that tendency that you will reciprocate that gesture towards me, If I display evil to you, there is also that tendency that you will do the same to me, that is the basic human way of interaction, And that is how human beings function, Our ability to self reflect our actions towards others helps us to evolve or morals and way of life and makes us to be more accommodating and tolerant. A society with love and good virtures, is better than a society of war and endless vices. . .I live in a completely atheist society and it is by FAR more moral than Nigeria which happens to be one of the most religious countries in the world. . .

What dimension do such things exist in?

I don't know. . . .

Deep Sight:

That you perceive something whilst you are within the physical dimension does not mean that it has its existence within physical matter.

I never claimed that it did.

But if you perceive something in this dimension it must have some sort of existence in this dimension.
Otherwise you wouldn't be able to perceive it would you?

That is a very brilliant argument, mazaje. I think it's easy to tear that post Deep Sight wrote apart. I do not see how anyone can predicate goodness on God/spirituality/ afterlife unless you are talking to someone who is churchbound and you do need something to get him to behave. Even then, it hardly works.

Bertrand Russel did not believe in the existence of God yet he was an epitome of goodness and the grace of God abounded in his life. Tai Solarin was another atheist who enjoyed the grace of God in abundance. And what is Humanism if human-based morality has no place?

^^^^ Errrr. . . You have misunderstood me o. . . I have persistently argued on this Forum that an Atheist, Buddhist, whoever - can stand right so long as his conscience is good o. . . and you are VERY WELL AWARE OF MY NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO ARGUE THAT. . . so please put my post in context - I will elucidate. . .

Deep Sight:

^^^^ Errrr. . . You have misunderstood me o. . . I have persistently argued on this Forum that an Atheist, Buddhist, whoever - can stand right so long as his conscience is good o. . . and you are VERY WELL AWARE OF MY NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO ARGUE THAT. . . so please put my post in context - I will elucidate. . .

I agree with you. I thought I should step in and hopefully help you see the need to re-contextualise.

MyJoe:



Bertrand Russel did not believe in the existence of God yet he was an epitome of goodness and the grace of God abounded in his life.

No. Although a great mind, he had his failings just like everyone else.

^^^ Never meant to imply he hadn't. You can write a whole book on failings of just about any "great" man.

You may wish to review some of the submissions made on this subject in the thread titled InesQor on the Salvation of the Non-Christian.

mazaje:

The purpose of life IMO is to strive to fill each of the days we have to spend here on earth (hours, and minutes) with meaning.

mazaje:

By meaning I mean a sense of purpose, belonging, happiness and direction.

Why do you consider it necessary for your life to have a purpose or meaning? To what end? After all, when you die, you decompose to the elements and whatever you do will not endure beyond at most a few generations. Not so.

mazaje:

By meaning I mean a sense of purpose, belonging, happiness and direction.

Right. Let’s start with the term “meaning” as you have defined it.

You talked about a sense of Purpose, and direction. I will address these two terms first.

Now I am going to lay down TWO premises: and if you disagree with the premises then do not bother with the further arguments – just state to me your reasons for disagreeing with the premises.

The first premise is this –

- If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

It is in line with this premise that I seek to challenge your view which suggests that it is possible to have “Purpose and Direction” in a life which will end in nothingness – that is  - a life that does not have a spiritual post-script or further continuation.

The premise above is a holistic premise that covers all of existence. . . this also extends to our individual existence. I explain further.

If ALL existence were to collapse suddenly, such that nothing exists, anymore, then what would have been the purpose of all that went before?

Incontrovertibly, all that went before has ended in nothingness, accordingly, the ultimate purpose of all that existed would be nothingness – thus that there was no such thing as purpose or direction.

Now this is where the second premise comes in. .

The Second Premise is this –

- If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objectives will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Now this simply means that we have to contextualize the first premise – when I talked about everything ending in nothingness.

On an individual personal scale, this is the direct equivalent of a human death in the event that there is no afterlife – everything has ended in nothingness for him[/b]

That simply and logically infers  -

1. That his whole life has meant nothingness

2. The objectives and purposes within his life which were all leading towards “nothing” are also empty and purposeless objectives which end in “nothingness.”

Summarily, a worldview which regards this earthlife as all that there is for the human individual equates with a worldview that regards life and being purposeless and directionless.

I hope you are able to see very carefully how I have elucidated the principles that support this.

But to make it simple – I might simply state it as such: If everything ends in nothingness (human death) then all the purposes in human life are also nothing.

The purpose of doing what I stated above is that it provides life with meaning. . . .Do you love your family because some supernatural force told you to love them, or do you appreciate your environment because oneness of infinity told you to do so?. . . .I just don't understand what you are trying to say. . .What has spirituality got to do with loving your family, and others around you?. . . .I try to be good to people around me because doing good it self is good. . .People should try to do good because doing good is a good thing not because of some undefined spirituality that serves no purpose. . . .

There we go again. What is “good?”

Why does “good” feel “good?”

The very description of self-inherent goodness that you have laid out presupposes that there is something good about goodness.

WHAT IS THAT THING?

No, It seems you have no concept of disinterested goodness,

Don’t worry, I do.

The question is this –

1. Do I do good because I expect a reward. Answer – NO.

2. Why do I do good? –Answer – Because it feels good and right.

3. What makes it feel good and right?

Question 3 is what I need you to answer.

I verily believe that it would be right to state that there is a “feeling”, a “common passion” and “pathos” which we share which is the fount of the good feeling – and such a “pathos” would amount to nothingness if we all die off. It would be absolutely purposeless. But before I go further, let me have your own answer to Q.3 above.

Why then should a person be good, Because being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled and self actualized life. By living virtuously we sustain those vital social relations friendship, family, community without which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Vice leads to misery.

IN A FINITE EXISTENCE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. . . .

Because if it all ends at death, a person who utilizes vice to obtain great wealth and enjoys himself in the Bahamas with much Jezebels around him, will have no misery at all. . . when he dies, all will amount to nothingness, and his actions will be nothingness.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

Philosophers and their thoughts are well beyond me,but have you asked yourselves (experts on this thread) the question WHY?

1: Does all life require a purpose to be truly worthwhile (an to whose benefit)
2: What is the purpose
3: When are we free from living a purposeful life (i hear even in the after-life, purpose clings on for all eternity)

Birds live and they die, people grow old and they die, yes it is important to live a life with productive purpose because every person is part of a larger eco-system and assuming a purposeless life does not benefit anyone and a negative purpose will simply degrade the quality of life for the larger society, but really, why is there a purpose outside of the benefit of feel-goodness and general success in life. (here and not after)

^^ Question:

The goal in Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana.

Nirvana is an absolute state of nothingness.

So would you say that a Buddhist's life is empty and purposeless and without meaning?

Haha. This debate is very sweet. Abeg make I ask quick kweshun . . .

@ deepsight. Does the possibility that "life is nothingness" make u uncomfortable? If so, why?

Deep Sight:



Because if it all ends at death, a person who utilizes vice to obtain great wealth and enjoys himself in the Bahamas with much Jezebels around him, will have no misery at all. . . when he dies, all will amount to nothingness, and his actions will be nothingness.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

"The Greek knew and felt the terror and horror of existence. That he might endure this terror at all, he had to interpose between himself and life the radiant dream-birth of the Olympians. . ." (The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche)

I like this thread.

Maybe I should drop my own thoughts here too.

I often ask myself the questions that D.S is asking mazaje and I really don't know. But I choose to do to others as I would want them to do to me, my sense of what is right and what is wrong comes from asking myself if I have taken from a person what I would not like taken from me. I would try not to cheat because I would be taking from my partner valuable time (quality as I like to call it) which if given the choice she might have chosen to spend with someone who would take her seriously. I would not go about murdering people, or doing that which will lead to people dying because I would be taking away from these people the rest of their lives (quantity as I like to call it).

Basically I think that we all do things to avoid pain and gain pleasure, its a basic human nature and the definition of what pain and what pleasure is varies from human to human, but you can always get a broad sense that sex is pleasure to almost everyone.


Just the way I see things, maybe not deep but it does suffice for me.
Cheers.

KAG:

"The Greek knew and felt the terror and horror of existence. That he might endure this terror at all, he had to interpose between himself and life the radiant dream-birth of the Olympians. . ." (The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche)

Nietzche was a nihilist and a lot of his philosophy is literally the delusion of a madman - he was certified insane aged 45. It's very hard to pick the good from the bad in his work. Adolf Hitler tried and look what happen there.

The Greeks were no different from their predecessors. Singling them out as the inventors of nihilism (which was what Greek Tragedy basically was) to give self-affirmation shows how little Nietzche was aware of the subject. Since the dawn of time, man has been looking for meaning.
Interestingly, Nietzche also stated that the decline of Christianity fuelled nihilism. That seems to stand at odds with the original quote - the dream of Olympus fuelled Tragedy and therefore nihilism. My opinion is that nihilism is more fuelled or extinguished by culture rather than religion.

Nietzche's philosophy on Eternal Recurrence has always been of great interest to me though. It's also an interesting theory to throw into this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence

Bastage:

Nietzche was a nihilist

No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist.

and a lot of his philosophy is literally the delusion of a madman - he was certified insane aged 45. It's very hard to pick the good from the bad in his work. Adolf Hitler tried and look what happen there.

Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse), but that ad hominem of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings.

Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader.

The Greeks were no different from their predecessors. Singling them out as the inventors of nihilism (which was what Greek Tragedy basically was) to give self-affirmation shows how little Nietzche was aware of the subject.

Oh, but the Greeks were different from their predecessors; but, that wasn't the point being made here. The point was: humans have a tendency to devise gods (the Olympians) and assigned motives to them to bear the vicissitudes of life.

Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of Tragedy

Since the dawn of time, man has been looking for meaning.

Yes.

Interestingly, Nietzche also stated that the decline of Christianity fuelled nihilism. That seems to stand at odds with the original quote - the dream of Olympus fuelled Tragedy and therefore nihilism. My opinion is that nihilism is more fuelled or extinguished by culture rather than spirituality.

You've read the earlier quote all wrong.

Nietzche's philosophy on Eternal Recurrence has always been of great interest to me though. It's also an interesting theory to throw into this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence

Yes, I agree.

KAG:

No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist.

I believe that's open to interpretation. A lot of people will argue both corners. Some will vehemently deny it and some will say that he was. Me, I'd say that he was but that he was also an existentialist - I believe that the big problem with Nietzsche is that he tended to float about. One moment, nihilist, next existentialist, next post-modernist. There can be no doubt that he is well known for nihilism though. 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H2

Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse), but that ad hominem of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings.

"A mental breakdown"? The guy went totally insane.
As to dismissing the validity of his writings - another problem with Nietzsche is that he dismissed a lot of them himself. He'd theorise but then destroy the concept a little later down the line. Yes, a lot of philosophers rehypothesize their work, but Nietzche teneded to do this quite often. It is therefore hard to take anything as valid when he himself had a habit of disowning his own theory. I have to admit that I find him infuriating - because of this, reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, I kept wondering if his heart was really in the work and wether or not he would repudiate it halfway through. To tell the truth, not only that but I found it incredibly hard to follow - I picked it up thinking it was going to be along the lines of Plato's Republic. How wrong I was. . Like some of the critics, I believe at that time, his writing was deliberately ambiguous - pointing yet again at how hard it is to nail him down.
I do find him to be totally erratic and that's why I can't give him a whole lot of credence.

Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader.

Right, but the Ubermensch/Untermensch theory did help to fuel the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, atrocity in Russia and the Holocaust. True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused so but it does go to show how it can be misread.

Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of Tragedy

How so not about Nihilism? Nihilism was the counter-weight to the Olympian dream, was it not? Was not the "terror" in the quote a reference to nihilism?

You've read the earlier quote all wrong.

If I have I'll put my hand up to that. But then as I'm no fan of Nietzsche, cut me some slack.

aletheia:

Why do you consider it necessary for your life to have a purpose or meaning?

I consider it necessary because it makes life worth living. . . .

To what end? After all, when you die, you decompose to the elements and whatever you do will not endure beyond at most a few generations. Not so.

I am alive and because of that i will like my live to have meaning. . .What has death got to do with my life, death is or comes around only when I am not, so why worry about something that comes around only when I am not?. . . .As long as i am alive, there is more reason for me to make sure that my life has meaning to me. . . .What meaning does eternal life add to the life you are leaving now? Why should some one be good only because he is afraid of some eternal punishment?. . . .Who then is better off, a person that does good because good is good enough or a person that does good only because he is afraid?. . . . .

Bastage:

No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist.

I believe that's open to interpretation. A lot of people will argue both corners. Some will vehemently deny it and some will say that he was. Me, I'd say that he was but that he was also an existentialist - I believe that the big problem with Nietzsche is that he tended to float about. One moment, nihilist, next existentialist, next post-modernist. There can be no doubt that he is well known for nihilism though. 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H2

Sure, all things are open to interpretation, but that Nietzsche opposed nihilism in his works should indicate something of where he stood.

When you say he tended to float about, what exactly do you mean specifically? What I mean is, when was Nietzsche a nihilist? Surely you aren't referring to extracts from The Will to Power which was published by Nietzsche's sister and not him.

In any case, yes, there's no doubt he's known for nihilism because he addressed the subject several times.

Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse),

"A mental breakdown"? The guy went totally insane.

Okay.

but that ad hominem  of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings.

As to dismissing the validity of his writings - another problem with Nietzsche is that he dismissed a lot of them himself. He'd theorise but then destroy the concept a little later down the line. Yes, a lot of philosophers rehypothesize their work, but Nietzche teneded to do this quite often. It is therefore hard to take anything as valid when he himself had a habit of disowning his own theory. I have to admit that I find him infuriating - because of this, reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, I kept wondering if his heart was really in the work and wether or not he would repudiate it halfway through. To tell the truth, not only that but I found it incredibly hard to follow - I picked it up thinking it was going to be along the lines of Plato's Republic. How wrong I was. . Like some of the critics, I believe at that time, his writing was deliberately ambiguous - pointing yet again at how hard it is to nail him down.
I do find him to be totally erratic and that's why I can't give him a whole lot of credence.

So we are agreed that an ad hominem shouldn't be one's major reason for dismissing a person's work? While I haven't read Thus yet, I am not aware of anywhere Nietzsche falsifies himself or destroys a previous argument he had made in the same text. You're right in stating that Nietzsche had a tendency to "rehypothesize", but one shouldn't forget or imply that the core tenets of his philosophy remained intact.

Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader.

Right, but the Ubermensch/Untermensch theory did help to fuel the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, atrocity in Russia and the Holocaust. True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused so but it does go to show how it can be misread.

Like you stated: "True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused. . ." That's the point. That he gave Goethe as a prime example of the Ubermensch should have been a big indicator to anyone of what he meant. He is not to be blamed for gross misreadings of his work.

Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of Tragedy

How so not about Nihilism? Nihilism was the counter-weight to the Olympian dream, was it not? Was not the "terror" in the quote a reference to nihilism?

In that Greek tragedy helped to emphasise the value of the Olympians. It gave meaning to the life of the average Greek and more, as noted by Aristotle, tended to provide catharsis.

No, Greek tragedy wasn't counter to the Olympian dream - it was composed from a mixture of that dream and intoxication.

No that's not what the terror in the quote referred

If I have I'll put my hand up to that. But then as I'm no fan of Nietzsche, cut me some slack.

Okay.

KAG! Where u been at? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I opened this thread for you a while back but you never showed up . . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-357796.0.html

Deep Sight:

Right. Let’s start with the term “meaning” as you have defined it.

You talked about a sense of Purpose, and direction. I will address these two terms first.

Now I am going to lay down TWO premises: and if you disagree with the premises then do not bother with the further arguments – just state to me your reasons for disagreeing with the premises.

The first premise is this –

- If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

So? of course everything that exists will surely cease to exists. . .I don't see anything wrong there. . .What do you mean by empty nothingness?. . . What is empty nothingness. . . .You are just begging the question with all these "arguments" of yours. . . .

It is in line with this premise that I seek to challenge your view which suggests that it is possible to have “Purpose and Direction” in a life which will end in nothingness – that is  - a life that does not have a spiritual post-script or further continuation.

My life has purpose and direction even though I do not subscribe to any elusive or bogus spirituality that serves no purpose. . .I said that I live in a completely atheist country and the people  who live here lead lives that have a great sense of purpose and direction, I learn how to value life of human and animals much more as I came here NOT in Nigeria a country which happens to be one of the most religious and spiritual places on earth. . . . .Go to lagos and you will see for your self that human and animal life is of NO value to the people that live there. . .Come to Helsinki and see how the atheist people value life and how they have given it purpose and turned it to something that is worth living. . . . .Life will cease to exists, but as long as it is here, you have to give it meaning and make it worth living. . . .If you don't understand this explanation then, I have no other explanation to give to you. . . .

If ALL existence were to collapse suddenly, such that nothing exists, anymore, then what would have been the purpose of all that went before?

Nothing. . .Over 90 percent of all species that have ever lived are now no more, Nature is wasteful, things come and go, that is how nature is. . . .Death is inevitable. . . .

Incontrovertibly, all that went before has ended in nothingness, accordingly, the ultimate purpose of all that existed would be nothingness – thus that there was no such thing as purpose or direction.

This is a bogus premise and nothing but question begging. . . . .As long as you are alive you have to make sure that your live has some kind of meaning so that life it self will be worth living. . . .How does the eternal or spiritual hypothesis add meaning to any person's life? The here and now is very important, as such you have to make sure that it has meaning and is worth living. . . .

Don’t worry, I do.

The question is this –

1.   Do I do good because I expect a reward. Answer – NO.

2.   Why do I do good? –Answer – Because it feels good and right.

3.   What makes it feel good and right?

There is a sense of accomplishment that comes with doing good that wants people to do good and makes it feel right, the ability to self reflect also makes doing good to feel right, Society also makes doing good to feel right. . . .

IN A FINITE EXISTENCE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. . . .

Because if it all ends at death, a person who utilizes vice to obtain great wealth and enjoys himself in the Bahamas with much Jezebels around him, will have no misery at all. . . when he dies, all will amount to nothingness, and his actions will be nothingness.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

You are not getting at anything, You are just begging the question, There are laws in place set out by humans to make sure that people do good and aviod evil. . . If you utilize vices and do gain wealth, you might be caught and sent to prison, the fear of that alone will make any reaonable person not to want to steal, I will organized societies like the one I live where the laws are strickly adhered to, you there not steal, and the fear of been miserable when caught is enough for people not to want to steal. . . .

Human's set their laws so that justice is served in the here and now. . .Eternal justice is of no use to the human society since most laws involving humans are set according to the here and now. . . .A person that steals and goes of to the bahamas to enjoy will suffer if he gets caught. . . .If he gets away with it then, it all ends in nothingness. . . .After all nature itself is NOT fair. . .A simple look at the animal kingdom and the human society will tell you that nature is NOT fair at all. . . . The fear or life after death does not add to anything, it does not make people better at all, in fact in some cases it makes people worse off. . . .Why care about the here and now, when you believe that there is an imaginary better place for you?. . . .every body has just one life to live and making sure that it has meaning and is worth living is what is paramount to most people, not some imaginary after life hypothesis that is only enforced out of fear to gain  control and to want people to do according to what others have imagined or hypothesized. . . .

@mazare,

na wa for you, so you don't have creed at all.

Bastage:

^^ Question:

The goal in Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana.

Nirvana is an absolute state of nothingness.

So would you say that a Buddhist's life is empty and purposeless and without meaning?

Nirvana is NOT a state of Nothingness.

Nirvana (Sanskrit: निर्वाण; Pali: निब्बान; Prakrit: णिव्वाण) is the state of being free from suffering (or dukkha) in sramanic thought. In Pāli, "Nibbāna" means "blowing out" — that is, blowing out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.[1] The word refers to central concepts in both Buddhism and Jainism.

The Buddha described Nirvāṇa as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas). It is also the "end of the world"; there is no identity left, and no boundaries for the mind. The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated. In Nirvāṇa the root causes of craving and aversion have been extinguished, so that one is no longer subject to human suffering (Pali: dukkha) or further rebirth in Samsara.