
Optimistic Nihilism (2017) - adambyrtek
http://tinyclouds.org/optimistic_nihilism/
======
undoware
This is a fantastic sample of the sort of romantic philosophizing that
animates the technosphere.

It elides from some reasonable, nineteenth-century claims about atheism and
materialsm to full-on AI worship without a moment's hesitation or reflection.
It uses ecological and physiological fragility to justify the headlong embrace
of more durable, synthetic minds -- as though all that were valuable about the
human experience is intelligence. The value of embodied experience itself --
of being mortal, of having flesh, of eating food and sleeping and fucking and
laughing, is never mentioned; presumably it just sort of falls out of the main
thing. Gotta get those mind-MIPS up.

It wraps with the bromide that, because empathy is a form of intelligence, a
superintelligence would be super-empathetic. Because of all the sociopaths
drooling in the corner.

Sorry, I would like to return my kool-aid, is there a refund

~~~
undoware
Watching everyone downvote me without an argument is also hilarous. Thanks, I
can see I'm not welcome in this church, I'll see myself out

~~~
ahussain
Well, for what it's worth, I thought your point was valid and well made. I
think it represents a strong critique of the oft-stereotyped "Silicon Valley
tech culture" \- it's the same tendency that leads people to try and
"optimize" their social relationships, not realizing the optimization is the
wrong instinct to have when it comes to dealings with other people.

------
goodroot
Nihilism need not be an end-point. There are many positive and motivating
philosophies that are less bleak and more illuminating. The author's positions
on most of their anecdotes do not seem to convey a sense of optimism.

Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Shamanism; there are all sorts of neat
philosophies you can abide by that have deciphered the non-dualistic nature of
reality. In doing so, they provide you with tools to cope with this truth and
lead a full and joyful life of belief.

~~~
__jal
I dunno. I didn't invent a term for it, but my beliefs map relatively well to
the author's. And I've always considered myself a nihilist - it just seems (to
me) basically irrefutable.

There is exactly one escape. I'm having enough fun that I don't want to take
it, but that could change. That's nothing empty or baleful about that (again,
to me).

------
eli_gottlieb
>The consequence of this understanding? You are the rarest of rare matter in
the universe. You are much more precious than gold. You are the type of matter
that can walk and discuss and build.

That doesn't sound nihilistic to me at all.

>Some worry that an artificial consciousnesses could turn against humans. I am
not concerned about this. First of all, we are many years away from such
technology. The "AI" that I deal with in my research is so laughably far from
consciousness, it's like worrying about lawnmowers turning against us. But
this meme has gotten enough attention that I want to address it: supposing
that somehow we created an artificial consciousness that was able to
spontaneously improve itself and escape from our control: are we doomed?

Oh God, this is painful, please stop.

------
lemagedurage
If i were to abstract the entire universe to one formula with perfect
soundness it would not be some model of society or physics, but 0=0. This
formula is not debatable, it's perfect in its simplicity, and it has 0 real
world value.

I feel the same about nihilism. "If we abstract everything away then we end up
with nothing", and then claims are made based upon that ("so live for
yourself"), but that's not valid reasoning. You can't prove anything with an
empty premise.

The entirety of morality (doing things for yourself vs doing things for the
group) isn't restricted by accepting nihilism while people often (including
this article) make it out to be the answer of it.

~~~
thecrash
The author is negating some concepts but not others, which is inconsistent,
true.

But nihilism cannot be advanced as a universal philosophy, as it represents
pure negation, and universal negation is impossible.

In practice, nihilism is about the selective negation of concepts or bodies of
thought, not as an end in itself but to open up new possible lines of
reasoning.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>It's clear that in our modern era, with our extremely robust theories of
physics, backed by extremely precise observations of the universe, that the
religious explanations of existence are false.

I think that's up for debate still.

~~~
kreutz
What is the basis for debate? We have observable, testable, repeatable, data
backed hypotheses on one hand and stories on the other.

~~~
loupeabody
Monistic Idealism vs. Monistic Physicalism/Materialism

------
__s
I was trying to meditate on this topic a few months ago,
[https://serprex.github.io/w/My%20Thesis](https://serprex.github.io/w/My%20Thesis)

Didn't come together very coherently. It's coming from someone who's both
stoic & hedonist. Mostly trying to find explanation for causality of behavior

Written somewhat while gasping from the end of a noose, so not as optimistic
as this article, but the call to action ends up the same (where action is
deemed voluntary)

------
husainalshehhi
If nihilism is true, then it follows that our lives are very little to no
significance. And if that's the case, then we should do what pleases us rather
what is right, since we have one life to live.

In any case, I think Alvin Plantinga has something good to say about science
and religion in his book: science, religion, and naturalism, where the
conflict really lies.

~~~
uoaei
The point of nihilism is that there is no "should." There are no logical
conclusions from nihilism except all of them. If you feel a connection to
fellow sentient beings, act in accordance with that. If you see them as your
tools, then act so.

This frees up your moralistic framework to be solely realized by your own
ethics. It takes some time to clarify and arrive at them, sure, but it
necessitates an active engagement with the world and your influences upon it.

Or not. You could just use it as an excuse to live in hedonism or to off
yourself. But that choice is entirely yours and you take ownership of it
whether you want to or not.

------
danschumann
Check out Jordan Petersons biblical series: the psychological significance of
the bible stories.

The bible tells a deep story about the workings of the human mind. To discard
them because you don't believe them to be historically accurate is missing the
point. There is a reason people have kept those stories alive for thousands of
years, and why functional societies have them, and why dictatorships tend to
ban them. They teach thought!

~~~
Stanleyc23
I get your point but also want to point out that dictators ban religions
because it usually tells people there is something more powerful than the
dictator.

~~~
danschumann
Did you know the same regions of the brain light up for self when people think
of God? Maybe the dictator doesn't want anyone to think THEY'RE more important
than the dictator, like in our society, where every individual is sovereign
with rights, every individual is like a king.

~~~
Stanleyc23
does it work that way for non-monotheisticly based ideas of religion/God like
the paganism or Buddhist varieties?

~~~
danschumann
Not sure. I think it wouldn't, because it needs all domains. Like, I know
myself can delve into any arena of life, whereas those gods are typically
refered to as one domain. Perhaps something to do with a functional hierarchy,
you'd think of yourself.

------
Buddyzv
This is just sad...

------
bobthechef
Whoever this 15 year old is, it looks like he's wandered into the neckbeard
section of Youtube.

------
ahussain
With a title like this I was expecting a little more from this piece.

The best responses I've heard to nihilism are from Ernst Becker's Denial of
Death [1] which argues that the best way to overcome nihilism is to stop
thinking so hard. Another way to phrase this is that you need to move away
from the abstract and towards the concrete. As you focus on a more specific
set of experiences, the bigger existential questions seem to fade.

The second is from Jordan Peterson, who argues that nihilism is too easy of a
solution. If you find yourself drifting too much into pessimistic nihilism,
then you should ask yourself whether this worldview also "conveniently"
relieves you of certain responsibilities.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death)

~~~
knuththetruth
Let’s please not conflate someone like Becker with the Disney Movie Conspiracy
Theory Alt-Right philosopher king.

~~~
scythe
I don't watch or study Jordan Peterson, but I'm flabbergasted by how
inflammatory he manages to be. I read a critical article about Peterson in a
major publication which excoriated his -- apparently awful -- misunderstanding
of Derrida and Foucault (whom he apparently faults for modern leftism) but
barely even described his theories, whatever they are. I came away fully
convinced that Peterson does not understand Derrida, and better aware of the
intellectual dispute between postmodernism and Marxism, but unsure of how
important this is to refuting Peterson's broader cultural criticisms, and also
unsure of what those were.

I guess my point is, if you disagree with someone's thinking, try to be clear
about why, and don't assume everyone else is familiar with them.

~~~
ahussain
I guess one of the problems with Peterson (and also with people like Zizek) is
that he manages to say some completely indefensible things (i.e. he seems to
tie so many of the world's problems to "liberal professors in the
universities"), while also managing to say some very poignant and insightful
things that do genuinely improve one's thinking. I think the second part is
the reason why he has built up such a large following.

~~~
toren
Exactly. One doesn't have to agree with every single thing he says to find
something of value in his ideas. Similarly, it's idiotic to discard his entire
set of ideas because you have found some disagreements.

~~~
throwawayjava
No, I think that's exactly the opposite of the right take-away re: how to
think critically about the output of "scholar-celebrity" types. With both him
and Zizek, it's idiotic to take their less well-based ideas at face value
(ESPECIALLY if you find yourself knee-jerk agreeing with those ideas) just
because they manage to say smart and well-informed things from time to time.
Zizek knows lots about Lacan and also says lots of stupid random shit for the
book sales. Peterson knows a lot about Nietzsche and also says lots of stupid
random shit for the book sales. Same game, different customer.

(The signal-noise ratio on scholar-celebrities is so out of whack that simply
ignoring them isn't a terrible heuristic, unless you're more interested in
communication theory and marketing strategies than the subjects they're
purportedly discussing.)

------
stcredzero
Nihilists are often guilty of something which many teenagers are guilty of,
which I call _epistemological narcissism._ Basically, they think they know it
all, pretty much.

The cure for this is to take the extrapolation strategy which PG uses in "What
You Can't Say." (
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) )
However, you should instead apply it to "what you can't predict." Would any of
our ancestors of 400 or 1000 years ago been able to predict the world of
today? In many regards, they would not even have had the conceptual framework
to ask the right questions in the first place!

If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't
matter in the grand scheme of things? How do you know if you can even properly
conceptualize "consequence" or what "matters" for your future self? When I was
growing up, books were something to be treasured. Now I'm quite aware that
it's only the knowledge in those books which really matters, and the
particular form they take is only a medium with certain properties. Even our
concepts of identity and mind are changing, and they are bound to change much
further. Given all that, how do you know if you aren't already a part of
something of universal consequence?

To fully understand:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_\(TV_series\))

~~~
Avshalom
In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from
entropic heat death, so yeah...

That said Nihilism isn't necessarily pessimistic. The French Existentialist
were basically weak nihilism and Camus was almost celebratory of the lack of
meaning of life. "Nothing Means Anything" can be taken as "fuck it burn it all
down" OR it can be taken as "there are no unforgivable sins, there is no
eternal reward for martyrdom, so why not maximize our fleeting existence for
'happiness'?"

~~~
samirillian
But you just did that exact same thing!

a) Do we know for sure that's what happens to the universe?

and

b) It doesn't matter anyway. "Everybody dies" is only a fact. What does the
fact of heat death have to do with the question of meaning? The implication
that "nothing means anything" is just as metaphysical an assumption as
"everything means something."

~~~
Avshalom
a) math, even if not entropic heat death, a basic grasp of history show that
99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off.

b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie
that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't
imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it
is.

~~~
stcredzero
_a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless
after some cut off_

Why shouldn't we be grateful to the totality of our ancestors for getting us
this far? Who is to say that we could change even a butterfly wing's flutter
of the distant past and still have everything turn out as now?

 _b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie
that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't
imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it
is._

You know nothing, Jon Snow!

~~~
Avshalom
why shouldn't we resent the totality of our ancestors?

~~~
stcredzero
Because it's a dismal way to live.

