[mpax]

> The idea that "life is meaningless" means that society cannot rely on you, because you'll do whatever strikes your fancy, whatever the consequences.

How does "life is meaningless" imply "life is useless"? Also, why would nihilism entail radical individualism? The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning, quite the opposite of what you're implying.

[xdavidliu]

> The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning.

I'm not that familiar with nihilism, but I'm rather surprised that "humans have to give it meaning" is part of the core. That's somewhat non-obvious to me; intuitively I would have expected nihilists to believe that meaning cannot exist.

Can you point me toward some sources that say nihilists actually believe that humans are capable of creating meaning?

[coldtea]

>Can you point me toward some sources that say nihilists actually believe that humans are capable of creating meaning?

That's a big part of existentialism (Sartre, Camus, etc), in which life has no inherent meaning, and it's rather empty existence, and it's up to the person to make any meaning for themselves.

[ajslater]

Existentialism's conclusion is often nihilism: Life has no meaning. Absurdism is an extension to that: Yes, but you may create your own.

[andreilys]

"This - is now my way: where is yours?' Thus I answered those who asked me 'the way'. For the way - does not exist!"

- Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[yters]

i question that too

what marks humans out from the rest of the meaningless universe that suddenly blesses them as meaning bearers? almost seems to imply some sort of religious idea that humans are not a part of the ubiverse

[coldtea]

You don't need to create a concrete meaning, something that is "objectively" meaning, etc.

Just a good-enough-for-you meaning.

>almost seems to imply some sort of religious idea that humans are not a part of the ubiverse

Well, they're not like other parts, in that they have meta-cognition, and a lot of it.

Planets and black holes and ants don't wonder about meaning.

[andreilys]

We've been seeking answers to big questions like where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going, for a very long time.

Now whether that those answers are accurate is a different question. But I think it's clear that humans crave meaning, and are happy to relegate meaning-making to third party institutions such as organized religion or the media.

[MacsHeadroom]

Another way to understand it is that the universe is truly "objectless" because "objects" are merely concepts in the mind of the "subject."

Non-human subjective experiencers also imagine meaningful objects in their own minds. There's nothing special about humans other than their ability to communicate with other humans.

[rdiddly]

It might be more neutral to characterize it as "there's no objectively observable meaning, and whatever meaning exists was constructed by humans."

[nvader]

If there were no meaning outside of humans, then every human would be free to construct their own meaning. This then leads to radical individualism, since no frame of meaning would be truer than any other.

[Shorel]

Just to be a contrarian, try telling that to the countless species we are driving to extinction today.

(Supposing they can understand us.)

For them, we are radical individualists with no regards for nothing but ourselves.

[orestarod]

That's what we do. How would letting others construct a meaning for us be better? The reason societies exist is because we lean to a human-centric meaning, not radical individualism necessarily, because we are hard wired to do so. But having a meaning imposed on you is not good, I think. Also, the reason we do good to society is because it satisfies us INDIVIDUALLY, not because we think it is efficient - there was no thinking involved in us being social beings, but evolution.

[sysalphUS]

That sounds more like absurdism.