In my last post I talked to my camera to attempt to express some of my thoughts. Well, I think I can take away a lesson from that experiment: speaking aloud can be more expedient and spontaneous than writing, but for me, it is probably better suited for a stream-of-consciousness type exploration on a topic rather than a well-articulated message... With writing it is possible to go back and change a couple words, re-order some sentences, correct some reasoning, etc. to make something clear. I can't really get that level of precision with spontaneous speaking... and I feel strongly that the topic of my last post warrants some precision, and I didn't do a very good job explaining my thoughts. Hence this follow-up.
This video, “Optimistic Nihilism”, comes across to me as a sales pitch. A sales pitch for a product they are selling: a prepackaged worldview, obstensibly based on reason and science and rationality. With such a basis, of course, you don't have to reflect too much on its validity... it's science! It has added convenience in that it doesn't burden you with any moral obligations. And its a trendy label to boot.. It gives you membership in a hip, easily identifiable in-group.
The sales pitch comes in two parts. The first part appeals to the intellect of a certain demographic. He talks about science stuff, like our place within vast galaxy clusters, big numbers we "can't possibly comprehend", life coming from non-life “for some reason.” There seems to be a deliberate, repeated air of dispassion around the mysteries - a “don't know, don't care” kind of attitude. (I'd guess the purpose is to appeal to the target demographic: maybe hip youngsters that think that awe & wonder are uncool?)
Now, in describing the scientific discoveries, the narrator inserts a message, implicitly stated as fact, that the entirety of everything is ultimately meaningless. He implies that it is a natural, factual conclusion drawn from the knowledge provided to us by science. (This is terribly incorrect as I will address later) That quietly stated “fact” is the basis for the problem that you are facing: existential dread. That problem needs a solution. And we have one: Optimistic Nihilism.
The second part of the pitch I see as “here's all the cool stuff you get if you subscribe to Optimistic Nihilism.” (Of course, we don't have to even mention that it's a hip, smart label you tan tell all your friends about... much cooler than “atheist” or “agnostic”, and certainly MUCH cooler than “christian” or “buddhist”.) Throughout this second part describing of the selling points for this product, it seems it more or less amounts to an attitude: “ultimate meaninglessness ain't all that bad if you look at it the right way”. From what I surmise, the “optimistic” portion of it boils down to this:
(a) Life is short so I may as well enjoy it.
(b) Bad stuff we did disappears with the heat death of the universe. So... we don't need to worry about that stuff so much.
(c) Ultimate meaninglessness liberates one to determine one's own meaning/purpose.
Re: (a) Life is short so I may as well enjoy it.
I can't say I really disagree with the general idea... we absolutely do need to appreciate the present moment, and be mindful of the limited time we have. (However, I won't get into my problem with how his calculation/visualization - based solely around an individual lifespan duration – neglects to ascribe any value to the greater life structures that we are a part of) BUT: I would suggest that the the attention focused on quantifying the entirety of your existence in terms of number of years of life is a way to deliberately convey urgency; urgency that you need this worldview they're selling. A sense of urgency is a useful tool for the salesperson.
Re: (b) Bad stuff we did ultimately disappears so we don't need to worry about it
This is frightens me, and one major reason I feel compelled to write all these paragraphs and make an ass out of myself on a youtube video. This thing is just supposed to be this innocent “optimistic” outlook on things, founded on science, and therefore perfectly rational. However, within this worldview, it is perfectly justifiable to say personal responsibility doesn't matter, and your impact on the lives around you doesn't matter. Murder is okay, because ultimately it doesn't matter. Rape doesn't matter – all parties are going to eventually die anyway. Same goes for torture, domestic abuse, pedophilia, genocide, slavery, etc. If none of this matters in the logical mind of an optimistic nihilist, then what of the emotional mind? Any remotely decent human being would have an emotional response tells us OF COURSE rape and murder and genocide and slavery are bad... they DO matter, but... well... my RATIONAL nihilism says really they don't ultimately... That is an uncomfortable contradiction to carry around in one's mind, and needs some heavy duty suppressing and/or rationalizing. Any kind of suppression and rationalization like that takes so much energy and causes so much misery, and can do wonders to one's mental health over time. Even worse when the “it all doesn't matter anyway” eventually boils down to raw, bitter cynicism. If one's life becomes miserable enough – maybe experiencing a deep tragedy or series of tragedies, or gaining deeper awareness of / connection to the crisis that all of humanity is in - someone with the "it all doesn't matter anyway" core belief could easily resort to taking cynical pleasure in global destruction. And the more people with that attitude on our planet the worse off we all are.
Finally, Re:(c) Ultimate meaninglessness liberates one to determine one's own meaning/purpose
Of course, he didn't use these words “find meaning”, but basically that's what all that “play video games” and “build a galactic empire” and “bonus points” stuff was about. But the way I worded the summation exposes the contradiction: if you exercise your liberty granted by this worldview/philosophy they're selling and manage to find meaning or purpose in your life, can you really call yourself a nihilist anymore? You can tell me you believe in “nothing” but the fact that you have found a reason to live your life and experience joy implies that you have some deeper belief, at the very least some unconscious belief in your own existence.
You could say “no, the universe doesn't have any meaning; any meaning is merely an illusion created in our minds!” But our minds are apparently created from the matter of the universe, and are necessarily a part of this universe. Therefore any meaning created in our minds is necessarily a part of the universe we live in.
Matter in the universe → brain → mind → meaning.
Now, you have to possess a mind in order to hold this belief: “the universe has no meaning.” In order for you to hold that belief, the concept has to have meaning in that mind. But, as we surmised above, that mind is part of this universe – the universe that you're saying has no meaning.
One can't properly state that the universe has no meaning if the statement itself has meaning in the mind of the one stating it.
That takes us back to the fundamental assumptions in the video; ones that may have led to these contradictions. Recall the quietly-stated assumption in the first part of the video: because science has unraveled so many mysteries about the physical universe, our natural conclusion is ultimate meaninglessness. This is the narrative I heard: “We used to have misconceptions about how the physical world works, and when we did, we mistakenly held beliefs that there was some meaning to it all. But now, thanks to science, we know the universe is really big, everything started in a big bang, and it will ultimately end in a massive heat death. Therefore, no meaning.”
If there is one thing that I want to get across in this essay it is this: The statement that science has shown us that there is no meaning is completely and utterly false.
The reason the statement may be believable, I think, comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science is an amazing tool humans have come up with to measure and make predictions and explanations for the world around us. Our forebearers built and refined it over generations, and as a result we are privy to amazingly precise abstract models of the physical universe on small and large scales. We can trace the emergence of life from a big bang to matter and energy to planets to amino acids to DNA to single-celled organisms, up to plants and animals and ecosystems and brains. We have great insight into the machinery of how the world around us behaves. But when it comes to the “why”, the best we can do with science is follow an endless chain of cause and effect that never seems to answer the question at the deepest level. “Why” is something innately nonphysical, and outside the scope of physical sciences. The temptation is to dismiss the question as “meaningless” since there is this inherent endless chain that can't seem to be resolved by strict scientific method. However, such dismissal is a dire mistake, as really what we are seeing is a limitation of the scientific method in creating a full picture of the reality in which we live. Science is not the end-all be-all of our existence.
We humans have a tendency to overestimate our knowledge and confidence about something if we have a name or a label for it. Science allows us to observe patterns in the physical world, organize and classify those patterns and apply names and labels to them. But just because we have a name or a label for something doesn't mean we've grasped a full understanding of it. It does allow us to package up a potentially complex collection of ideas into bite-sized communication nuggets. However, it ALSO can tempt us to place items for which we have words into a kind of “now I know about that” mental bucket. “Gravity” - makes stuff fall, put it in the bucket. “DNA” - encodes life; pop it in the bucket. “Evolution” - where life came from; toss that sucker in... Since we can slap names and labels on so many physical phenomena, and it's fairly easy to teach and memorize vocabulary, we may be tempted to assert greater knowledge than we truly have. But considering that each of these concepts is worthy of its own encyclopedia, how much of humanity's collective knowledge can really be known by any single individual? What does it even mean when we say “WE know” something?
Interestingly, slapping labels on “I know about that” buckets works for groups of people too: “christians” go in the “yeah they're dumb because they believe in jesus” bucket. “vegans”, “SJWs” “feminists” go in the “they're self-righteous arrogant pricks” bucket. “millennials” go in the “lazy entitled shits” bucket. “trump supporters” go in the “racist deplorables” bucket, “liberals” and “leftys” in the “whackjob commie socialist, stay the fuck away from me” bucket.
I think this concept – the concept of reducing people to labels - is also playing an implicit role in what is going on with this video, and is partly why I'm so disturbed by it.
I cannot understate the importance of the “one of us” bucket: the “in” group. These are the folks you agree with on most stuff. You respect their opinion above all, and acceptance in that group is important on some level. We've all got this kind of bucket... it's only natural. But a big problem arises with it when you've invested too much of your identity with a group/tribe/label that you cannot be permitted to have an independent thought if it doesn't jibe with the group consensus. Depending on the nature of the community, your individuality may melt away into the group. The group quite probably has a leader or leaders that members look to for guidance on how to think or feel about a particular issue. Organized religion has been a traditional way this structure occurs, but online communities have opened up new possibilities for tribalistic “groupthink”.
Any number of political/religious/apolitical/areligious binding agents are subject to this, but specifically relevant to the discussion are some communities that are based around science, reason, skepticism. Some labels that come to mind “new atheism”, “scientism”. Some high-profile “leaders” that come to mind: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Neil Degrasse Tyson, even Bill Maher to an extent. One thing common to all of these people is that, if you're part of their in-group, you don't dare accept any sort of “spirituality” or “faith” or “god”. Those are practically dirty words in those circles, and even entertaining the concept that they should have some role in your life may make you an outcast. (In fact, if someone even mentions god, you should promptly say something about “fairy tales”.) The problem is that it is an undeniable fact that the concepts behind those words are a very real component of the reality we experience. “Spirituality” is basically a word to describe greater purpose that serves to give life fulfillment, to keep you going. “Faith” is a word for those beliefs that you hold as true, even if you can't prove them true. “God” may be some kind of organizing principle or creative force underlying our undeniably mysterious existence. Certainly I'm providing simplistic descriptions, but the point is that different religions and traditions have different ways incorporating and grappling with these fundamental concepts. As individuals we have to grapple with them, whatever words we choose to use to describe them. However, with “new atheism” or nihilism (optimistic or otherwise) or reductive materialism, they are outright rejected as meaningless, and worthless. The need for meaning and spirituality are a sign of intellectual weakness. But “we” are strong and intellectual, without need for such ridiculous notions. Theists on the other hand are weak, intellectually inferior. Us vs. them.
The us vs. them mechanism, the “in-group” vs. “out-group”, I believe, will ultimately be the downfall of our species if we continue at our current rate. Technology won't save us, a political leader won't save us, extraterrestrials won't save us (probably not anyway)... the only thing that will save us is an increased self-awareness in our collective consciousness. We need to wake up. And the only way an increased awareness can come about collectively is if the individual minds gain a greater awareness of the whole. But in-group/out-group fighting is detrimental to the development of this awareness, as is a “fuck it all anyway” nihilistic attitude spreading throughout the individual minds.
So, in conclusion, I obviously encourage the reader to reject identifying as an “Optimistic Nihilist”. Please think about your core beliefs deeply, and don't rush to label yourself. Please reflect on and question all labels that we place on ourselves and each other, with a special awareness of those you consider part of your identity, and of those that make you despise someone. These labels serve to divide us. And our species is in crisis right now. Between unprecedented environmental destruction and mass exploitation driven by a corporate oligarchy, and a psychopathic US empire drunk on power attacking and exploiting poor countries and injecting the globe with trillions of dollars of weapons and explosives, we cannot afford to fight with one another about stupid petty labels, nor can we afford to ignore and dismiss our shared crisis as "meaningless because science". Vast forces are at work destroying our planet and our brethren, and at this point a healthy collective consciousness is all that can save us.
Here are a couple of videos that are at least peripherally related and super interesting:
“The Weaponization of Science” (13 min) Great discussion from James Corbett about “scientism” in the context of its utility within political power (a different angle than how it came up in my discussion, but extremely releveant when he talks about science “proper” being “smeared out” to be this other thing that it really isn't...)
“How Modern Reality Is Being Manufactured” (~15 min) Fascinating discussion about how collective consciousness is being deliberately manipulated.