I guess it's rather futile arguing with a person who, in the same discussion thread,
I wonder why he wants people to "come up with proof", when he thinks "proof itself is not provable" .. which sounds dangerously close to nonsense
And finally, the Disclaimer,
but the problem with the statement is that : the concept of 'mattering' itself doesn't exist at the level of analysis he's talking about
To speak sense ... infact, to mean anything .. meaning must follow existence .. and existence of any entity is a belief, corroborated by other beliefs .. which work in tandem (through causative logic).
And what I prove subsequently is that either case of "nothing matters" is fallacious.
The retort based on "proof itself is not provable" is best left to popular imagination.
Nihilism did seem more of an "excuse" rather than a philosophy and I tended to oppose it and ignore it, but had to resist. I hope my feelings are a bit clearer now.
From claiming he doesn't exist to providing quotes to giving a disclaimer at the bottom of his posts, he succeeded in thoroughly confusing me on what he believes.
I definitely wouldn't want to get into an argument with him !!
I even don't know whether he has projected the true picture of the philosophy called 'Nihilism'.
Instinct and usefulness seem reasonable.
Federico Biancuzzi talks to Eric Raymond about license issues. "Q:Why did you say we don't need the GPL anymore? A:It's 2005, not 1985. We've learned a lot in the last 20 years. The fears that originally led to the reciprocity stuff in GPL are nowadays, at least in my opinion, baseless. People who do what the GPL tries to prevent (e.g., closed source forks of open source projects) wind up injuring only themselves. They trap themselves unto competing with a small in-house development group against the much larger one in the parent open source project, and failing."
We don´t need ESR anymore. Look at the "huge success" in marketing and development momentum the BSDs are. Heh. No offense to the BSD crowd, but they are only "in the map" IMHO because of the great deal of GPLd software that was available some time ago... including, and mainly GCC, which is the toolchain to make *every* one of them. Pfff. Nothing to see here.
ESR and his "Open Source" thing was needed at a certain point to un-scare all the enterprises, but nowadays, any sane PHB will just go after IBM :-)
I agree with you. I'm also a user, and to me the GPL means the the software I use won't just die like proprietary software when the company bites the dust, it will be maintained in some form or other.
BSD is nice, but mostly benefits the *software companies* that leech all the good code while giving back nothing. GPL makes sure the software evolves and that is surely a benefit to all the *users*.
As for ESR, my guess is that he is now seeing the subject from the company's point of view, not from the developers/users point of view, so yes, we lost him.
Not every project has huge numbers of developers behind it. The projects I'm involved in have at most six developers, of which three at most continue to contribute. Nevertheless, we have a substantial user base. But we couldn't compete against even a small shop with dedicated developers. The GPL protects our hard work.
But surviving closed source competition isn't even the point. The GPL is for the citizenry at large, not just a few developers. It gives everyone rights and freedoms that they would otherwise not have. The software does not need the GPL, we do.
It's not the software that's free; it's you.
- billyskank on Groklaw
I am a bit worried that he maybe right bcos his philosophy (or whatever he calls it) ,if true ,can lead one down a defeatist path.
Like XXX has said, the attitude can mock an honest effort towards anything.
But I can't disregard it just because it doesn't seem convenient...
If nothing has to matter, it has to matter to somebody.
This statement is wholly redundant & null & void.
Even if you proverbially squeeze it, you won't get anything out
Case B: Nothing matters (to somebody)
do yourself a favour: suicide.
who's speaking ?
I am not in favour of beating ourselves up with a lot of philosophy and making every little action seem very important.
Just do what you want to do and get on with it'is what I like. Be it, being a revolutionary or a politician or changing the world or working in a 9 to 5 job or having lots of children.
It suspiciously sounds like either laziness or a shirking of responsibilities or arrogance.
It still is a fact that if I had been put on an island as soon as I was born (highly unlikely of course) I would still fend for myself and eat and survive. So then something does matter right?
Looking back, I think the times I resorted to nihilism was in times of despair as a sort of defense mechanism.
And I now feel that the theists are sort of nihilists too in a warped sense. If nothing matters to nihilists then 'only god and his higher plans' matter to theists.
All I know is I hate it when 'nihilist sophistication' mocks an honest effort towards anything.
And when it makes hope look so naive.
this analysis throws out the set of all philosophies which opine the irrelevancy of everything.
This amounts to re-interpreting the Cartesian 'I think therefore I am' as 'I think I am = I believe I am = I'
To sum it all up, a lot matters a lot more than you think.
You say life is meaningless and yet you have alot of things to do!!. I wonder what it is that you do! I must also ask why do _anything_ ! Not to say that I find that life is full of meaning, but I'm trying to understand your philosophy.