camus on nihilism

[iambiguous]

Yes, "reality" is as it is percevived [and then concieved] by each individual dasein. But there are some parts of this alleged reality that can be confirmed as in fact true, and other parts that can only be subjective points of view.

Really? Can you cite specific examples of 'in-fact-truth'?

Some parts of reality can affirmed as more objectively 'true' (more in terms of quality), whereas other parts are more obviously subjective. We don't confirm 'truth' as much as we agree with it. Our only means of confirmation would be the same by which the 'truth' was posited, meaning we agree or disagree with the respective 'truth' and its justification altogether. "Confirmation" of a 'truth', in this respect, is essentially recognition that someone else's perception of a thing is somehow similar to your own.

It is "in fact" true that this technology does exist---and thus enabling us to have our exchange. And while a distinction can be made between confirming this to be the case and merely agreeing that it is, I am more inclined toward confirmation. Though as Hume speculated, high corrolation over time is not the same thing...necessarily...as causation.

[statiktech]

It is "in fact" true that this technology does exist---and thus enabling us to have our exchange. And while a distinction can be made between confirming this to be the case and merely agreeing that it is, I am more inclined toward confirmation. Though as Hume speculated, high corrolation over time is not the same thing...necessarily...as causation.

Confirmation doesn't implicate 'truth'. False judgments can be confirmed as true. However, so long as you and I agree that something is "true" or "exists", we may confirm that as 'fact' between us (but only between us).

I'd want to agree with your working definitions, or concepts, before I could confirm or deny your position. Though, even if I did agree with your concepts, that is not to assume your perspective is a suitable standard for the rest of humanity. "Confirmation" implies some standard for 'truth' -- that standard cannot be reasonably confirmed as it is nebulous, but it can be agreed upon. If there is no real, universal standard for 'truth', there is no universal measure to determine what is true "in fact."

[iambiguous]

Confirmation doesn't implicate 'truth'. False judgments can be confirmed as true. However, so long as you and I agree that something is "true" or "exists", we may confirm that as 'fact' between us (but only between us).

I just don't see the existence of this technology and this exchange as merely something between us. It's more than that to me. What precisely I cannot say of course but I still believe it [intuitively?] to be the case. Just as I see the relationship between me and my mother as more than just a "fact" we happen to agree on. There are just too many other people who share in this confirmation and too many ways in which, if someone else wanted to confirm it, he or she easily could.

I'd want to agree with your working definitions, or concepts, before I could confirm or deny your position. Though, even if I did agree with your concepts, that is not to assume your perspective is a suitable standard for the rest of humanity. "Confirmation" implies some standard for 'truth' -- that standard cannot be reasonably confirmed as it is nebulous, but it can be agreed upon. If there is no real, universal standard for 'truth', there is no universal measure to determine what is true "in fact."

Let's consider the the reality of abortion.

That abortions exist "in reality" and take place "in reality" can be be confirmed objectively in many, many ways. And thus abortion is in fact a true human experience.

Unless we want to argue solipsism or believe what we think we believe is merely part of some hidden matrix or a manifestation of a dream some cosmic entity is having.

Sooner or later though we have to dismiss things like this and acknowledge abortions do in fact occur. They exist across space [culture] and time [history] as universally understood experiences. Though there may be any number of minds that have no knolwedge whatsoever that this is true.

But, with respect to the morality of abortion, we are no where near a universal consensus regarding what is in fact true. This is the distinction I am making.

[statiktech]

Confirmation doesn't implicate 'truth'. False judgments can be confirmed as true. However, so long as you and I agree that something is "true" or "exists", we may confirm that as 'fact' between us (but only between us).

I just don't see the existence of this technology and this exchange as merely something between us. It's more than that to me. What precisely I cannot say of course but I still believe it [intuitively?] to be the case. Just as I see the relationship between me and my mother as more than just a "fact" we happen to agree on. There are just too many other people who share in this confirmation and too many ways in which, if someone else wanted to confirm it, he or she easily could.

I'd want to agree with your working definitions, or concepts, before I could confirm or deny your position. Though, even if I did agree with your concepts, that is not to assume your perspective is a suitable standard for the rest of humanity. "Confirmation" implies some standard for 'truth' -- that standard cannot be reasonably confirmed as it is nebulous, but it can be agreed upon. If there is no real, universal standard for 'truth', there is no universal measure to determine what is true "in fact."

Let's consider the the reality of abortion.

That abortions exist "in reality" and take place "in reality" can be be confirmed objectively in many, many ways. And thus abortion is in fact a true human experience.

Unless we want to argue solipsism or believe what we think we believe is merely part of some hidden matrix or a manifestation of a dream some cosmic entity is having.

Sooner or later though we have to dismiss things like this and acknowledge abortions do in fact occur. They exist across space [culture] and time [history] as universally understood experiences. Though there may be any number of minds that have no knolwedge whatsoever that this is true.

But, with respect to the morality of abortion, we are no where near a universal consensus regarding what is in fact true. This is the distinction I am making.

Awesome, exactly what I wanted to see.

Somethings can, or should be, assumed 'true', though they may well be false judgments. The reason for this is a simple matter of practicality. We live and strive by practical means. It may be true that anything/everything can be doubted and dismissed, sure -- but that doubt becomes less practical than acceptance of a possible false 'truth' if it works to our advantage.

In this context, "truth" is not a reflection of objective reality. It is an extension of usefulness and practicality in our subjective relationships with 'reality.' I could be laying in a hospital bed, in a coma, dreaming this exchange of ours; but I think it in my best interest to assume it is truly taking place objectively. In my opinion, this is one of the more bitter realizations a thinker must face at some point. Something may not be universally or absolutely "true", but it is considered "true" insofar as it works and is communicable (and thus agreeable/disagreeable).

I don't believe in any conventional truth regarding 'God', for instance, but I believe in the 'truth' of religious practicality -- keeping the masses moral.

I'm not sure if my response here is what you expected or wanted, but I think your last retort is almost spot on. We have reason to believe we are being deceived in many ways, but we must move beyond mere skepticism in order to properly address a seemingly objective issue. Well done.

[iambiguous]

Somethings can, or should be, assumed 'true', though they may well be false judgments. The reason for this is a simple matter of practicality. We live and strive by practical means. It may be true that anything/everything can be doubted and dismissed, sure -- but that doubt becomes less practical than acceptance of a possible false 'truth' if it works to our advantage.

In this context, "truth" is not a reflection of objective reality. It is an extension of usefulness and practicality in our subjective relationships with 'reality.' I could be laying in a hospital bed, in a coma, dreaming this exchange of ours; but I think it in my best interest to assume it is truly taking place objectively. In my opinion, this is one of the more bitter realizations a thinker must face at some point. Something may not be universally or absolutely "true", but it is considered "true" insofar as it works and is communicable (and thus agreeable/disagreeable).

I don't believe in any conventional truth regarding 'God', for instance, but I believe in the 'truth' of religious practicality -- keeping the masses moral.

I'm not sure if my response here is what you expected or wanted, but I think your last retort is almost spot on. We have reason to believe we are being deceived in many ways, but we must move beyond mere skepticism in order to properly address a seemingly objective issue. Well done.

Yes, this is more or less the manner in which I understand these relationships. Not everything overlaps of course but that is to be expected given the enormous complexities involved in grasping things like this.

[Fixed Cross]

"We are in contradiction and there are no solutions. In fact there are no problems."

[iambiguous]

"We are in contradiction and there are no solutions. In fact there are no problems."

Unless of course we not in contradiction and there are solutions. That may well be the problem itself. Let's focus in on a particular context and examine this more...substantively?

[Fixed Cross]

I should have translated the whole bit. There was a context, it was about pretty bodies annihilating something at the beach.
The contradiction he indicated was that of visual pleasure against physical pleasure, for example.
Thence, no solution and no problem.

[iambiguous]

I should have translated the whole bit. There was a context, it was about pretty bodies annihilating something at the beach.
The contradiction he indicated was that of visual pleasure against physical pleasure, for example.
Thence, no solution and no problem.

Thanks for clearing it up.

[Fixed Cross]

You know he is.... You had to be there.

[iambiguous]

You know he is.... You had to be there.

I dare you to put this in context.

[Fixed Cross]

You're inquiring after the context of the context of the lost substance and I pick up the book once again in the hope of elucidation and receive a page, whereupon is printed a schematic of a being suspended between lucidity and absurdity, and united with itself in health and free play. But let me give it another bell.

"Philosophy is worthy of he who is worthy of philosophy. Philosophy is more true as man is more great."

[iambiguous]

You're inquiring after the context of the context of the lost substance and I pick up the book once again in the hope of elucidation and receive a page, whereupon is printed a schematic of a being suspended between lucidity and absurdity, and united with itself in health and free play. But let me give it another bell.

"Philosophy is worthy of he who is worthy of philosophy. Philosophy is more true as man is more great."

Few of us here are as good at this as you. Noting things that sound as though they are important points but not attached to anything that we can deem relevant to the lives that we actually live. The part I call a "context".

[Fixed Cross]

I thought we were sharing a joke.

Jesus guy, you were expecting me to take you seriously?

[Fixed Cross]

You have never in your internet life taken another human seriously.
And you will never be taken seriously in turn.

That doesn't mean some don't extend a gesture of kindness your way now and then, such as translating a nice bit of Camus.

Thats the context you are looking at.

[Fixed Cross]

That was a bit abusive. But I had invested some emotion in the idea that you were actually playing along in a poetic process.
When you had reduced it back to your crude & vacuous nihilism I was very contemptuous.

[iambiguous]

I thought we were sharing a joke.

Jesus guy, you were expecting me to take you seriously?

In the philosophy forum and in a "Camus on nihilism" thread?

Gee, what was I thinking?!

[iambiguous]

You have never in your internet life taken another human seriously.
And you will never be taken seriously in turn.

Let me guess: you demonstrate this merely by believing it is true.

How about this:

Given the argument I make in the OP [and all jokes aside] let's explore nihilism as it relates to a context revolving around that which is of most interest to me: conflicting goods. Here, in particular, on being either optimistic or pessimistic given in turn an existential intertwining of professing a philosophy of life embedded in a particular set of circumstances.

This way you can explain in more detail why I am not taken seriously. And, indeed, why no rational human being [all jokes aside] ought to take me seriously.

[iambiguous]

That was a bit abusive. But I had invested some emotion in the idea that you were actually playing along in a poetic process.
When you had reduced it back to your crude & vacuous nihilism I was very contemptuous.

Note to others:

Goad him into bringing this retort out into the world that we live and interact in. Challenge him to note a particular context relevant to the argument I make in the OP. Make him expound more substantively on why the components of my own philosophy are "crude & vacuous".

And, by all means, all jokes [and flippant ripostes] aside.

and/or and/or and/or