So, self preservation preserves meaningless things and this action is meaningful.
Obviously one would have to see their self and their life as having meaning or the fight or flight instinct would be meaningless.
I, at times, can look at myself as a nihilist, but for me it’s more a case of detaching from or whittling down certain things which I come to see as having no more meaning in my life anymore where once I found them to be meaningful; as an example, like when we throw away certain clothes which we haven’t worn in awhile and know we just don’t need, among other things which hold no more meaning. Human beings are just this way. Things lose meaning and other things may come to be meaningful. It’s a question of discernment.
Giving up certain things create more space in our lives and in our own minds.
You seem to take nihilism beyond the outer edges of our galaxy.
At second glance, not being able to know if you meant this just as you seem to have stated it above, I guess I can say that for some people, preserving meaningless things, things which for most reasonable people might be considered meaningless, could be construed as a form of self-preservation if the thing they are preserving, the thing which they feel hardput to do away with, is a meaningless thin[s] which they so self-identify with, which has no basis in reality. For instance, what hoarders do. But that might be the opposite end of the spectrum.
So you might have a point whether or not you were aware of it.
I tend to agree with you Arcturus, in that if a thing is being preserved then that thing must be meaningful to the individual (even to hoarders).
No, One Liner. You are always putting words into my mouth I never said.
I did NOT say that self-preservation preserved meaningless things. I merely said that self-preservation was meaningful. And I meant that it was meaningful for for each living being, because otherwise each living being would not defend the own life … and so on. This does NOT automatically mean that life is meaningful, that evolution is meaningful, that there is meaningfulness, that the universe is meaningful. It means that self-preservation is meaningful.
Arminus, to put it simply, self preservation preserves self just like self propulsion propels self (they don’t by default have an attribute of “meaningful”).
No, One Liner, you are wrong again.
If somebody (a strong “I” for example) threatens you with a gun, what are you going to do then? Wait. Let me guess: You are going to do nothing.
Self preservation occurs when the the self acts on its own, without outside help, to protect itself and it is a collection of various behaviours and biological responses that does not have the attribute of “meaningful”.
Self-preservation occurs with the first living being.
Weak and strong molecular bonds also occurs with the first living being (along with countless other phenomena that collectively sustain life).
That does not contradict the self-preservation. On the contrary: It emphasizes it.
So, a valid conclusion to draw is that strong and weak molecular bonds must be meaningful as they preserve life.
NOBODY said that (except you).
I said: “it emphasizes it” (source: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=171462&p=2622255#p2622238), and that does NOT mean that it (itself!) preserves it.
Again: Try to read correctly, One Liner.
So you are inferring that the words used in this context (“emphasising” and “meaningful”) are not deceptive rationalizations.
Where did I say that?
Arminus, look at the topic of this discussion.
Again: Where did I say that?
As I said Arminus, rationalization (positive or negative) is deceptive and it has been demonstrated to be so.
Yes, you said that, and you were wrong.
Rationalizing has another meaning too, and that is very different from your “interpretation” of it.
I think your reactions have provided at least some evidence that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive.
It is just the other way around. Think, for example, of your reactions. 