That’s your thing. The thing of others is that there was never any possibilty that you either could or would not choose these words to encompass it.
My thing is that I do not seem to have the capacity to resolve these enigmatic human interactions definitively.
The mystery is still mind as matter…matter as mind. And how to explain the two intertwined in whatever the nature of existence itself is.
The idea that somehow a “compatibility” exists here has never been something I have ever really been able to fully grasp.
If you invent or build a mechanical contraption to execute prisoners and it functions properly then all of the components in the contraption interact as so many dominos toppling over onto each other from beginning to end. The contraption itself is “mindless”.
Now, the individual who invented this contraption and the individual who constructed it are said to be “mindful”. They are argued to have autonomously chosen a sequence of behaviors that the contraption itself is completely oblivious to. But if the immutable laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility of their choosing any other sequence of behaviors, how are they really any different from the contraption itself? Other then in speculating that the mind is capable of believing that it “freely chose” to behave as it did. The illusion of autonomy.
How are we not just one more of nature’s contraptions?
It just seems reasonable to me that moral nihilists [narcissists, sociopaths, global capitalists etc.] would have more options available to them because they don’t have to calculate each behavior as either the right thing or the wrong thing to do.
They simply ask themselves, “is this what I want here and now”? And then, in acknowledging that others may well not share in or tolerate their answers, calculating the odds of getting caught and punished.
Superficially that seems to be true but is it true?
How superficial is it to those who own and operate the global economy? To those who have the political and economic power to sustain the following global demographics: globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats
How superficial is it to those who are thumped by the sociopaths and the narcissists day after day after day?
They interact with others only insofar as it sustains the interest of…
1] me
2] myself
3] I
A moral nihilist will reject options which are based on objective morality or inherent morality. For example, someone who believes that “man is inherently honorable”, can choose an action which relies on that belief. A moral nihilist would not choose it.
Moral nihilists are not unlike the rest of us. Their individual motivations and intentions are often extremely complex. Rooted partly in a calculated consideration of good and bad behaviors, and partly in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above.
And, as always, I’m less interested in what others claim to believe and more in what they can demonstrate to me as that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe.
Otherwise, claiming to believe something like “morality is inherently objective” is as far as they need go.
If one has “faith in God” then that opens up all sorts of possibilities, some of which are completely unsupported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Very risky actions or “unrewarding” actions become valid options.
Intuitively, I think the non-nihilist has more choices or he has a richer set of choices even it there are fewer in number.
Again, bring this down to earth. Suggest a context in which both the nihilist and the non-nihilist entertain possible behavioral choices. If the nihilist is not bound by one or another moral obligation embedded in one or another theistic/atheistic political agenda, how could she not but have more options available to her?
I may simply be misunderstanding you here.