dealing with it wrote:What are your thoughts on nihilism?
Oof, that's a doozie of a question. I think nihilism is something humans are drawn to as they become more aware of that which they don't control and how it impacts their life in uncontrollable ways. I consider nihilism to be a succumbing to the part of existence which is powerless, and the surrendering of personal power in regards to conscious impact.
This is not to say the nihilistic individual is unable to achieve impact, but it's passive in nature from my observances unless the opportunity presents itself which is adverse the known reality of "I am powerless". It is in these moments the nihilist individual, I firmly believe, synthesizes into an optimist - even if only circumstantially.
To fully commit any one human to full nihilism would be to deny them the free will of the ability to change their mind. I don't think nihilism can ever damper that.
dealing with it wrote:Is objective morality real?
Morality is a form of judgement, a set of principals. Any individual can assume morality - even animals assume morality with traditions usually surrounding life and suffering. Whales assist a newly birthed member of their pod find their first breath of air, while dolphin pods kill for sport.
Objective morality is very real - the more parts to the whole, the more that morality gets muddied with the input of the parts. If objective morality has to be enforced, meaning it isn't consensus, is it truly objective, and is it truly moral? The moment where one assumes a moral principle to be objective, is the same moment where it must also be acknowledged and further assumed by all witnessing and impacted parties. Killing is wrong, most agree, but then many will bring up the circumstance of- and depending on your conditioning or crossover moralities (from other belief structures) you may think differently than your neighbor in regards to where killing is right.
I don't think truly objective morality can be achieved until we can ensure all have the same conditioning (within a spectrum) in regards to experiencing morality, which would be assuming pure globalism - which, given the nature of humans, I don't think is objectively moral as it would require either many to be forced to participate, or the absolute exclusion of many; the latter which I'd assume to be more morally sound than the former.
dealing with it wrote:Do humans have a purpose?
It depends on the context and time relation.
I have a purpose at my job, and I have a purpose with my words here. Each task I execute has a purpose, and may contribute to the execution of a greater purpose. Who is to choose which task executed as the defining moment of my existence? This would require belief in an entity that validates.
This leads into the morality of a validation party, and the ethics of self validation based on morality.
If morality is truly objective, self validation can flourish and purpose constantly acknowledged and realized.
If self validation is based on personal morality vs subscription to an objective morality, purpose can still be acknowledged and realized, but is at risk of being invalidated by a differing moral structure of any level of objectivity.
"You create your own reality" L Ron Hubbard said. I believe the definition of purpose is manifested on a personal level within each human, contingent upon which moral structure they subscribe to and how much need for external validation is present in such a structure.
dealing with it wrote:Is absolute knowledge a fever dream?
Absolute knowledge is a conundrum. To acknowledge knowledge as something with an absolute would be to acknowledge the finite limits of our Universe. I don't think we, as humans, have the capacity to collect and store all of the knowledge in this iteration of the universe - especially considering how much of it has been legitimately lost to time & the neglect of humans.
It's a fever dream until we can achieve a form of time travel that doesn't muck everything up. If we can walk through time as mere observers, the world washing around us, even then we may never capture the infinity of knowledge present in the past: we won't be able to pick their minds. There is a never-ending well of the knowing-stuff within each of us and we won't have a ladle.
Going forward, so long as we stick all the knowledge and all the knowing somewhere immutable, and fully accessible by every human, as well as with the structure to provide such knowledge (hey, Google- can you go back to being this?), "absolute knowledge" would only be a fever dream for those unwilling to put in the work to either memorize the everything (bad idea) or continue contributing any and all things to the greater compendium of knowledge...
..And who knows when that process will ever end? What happens if we reach the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and we meet a whole new species? Then what? We missed something. Well, maybe we won't miss it the next iteration of man in this strange reality.