In Part II, "Delmer's Will to Power", we learn whether our hero Delmer will succumb to the dilemma of the absence of an absolute source of morality and fall into nihilism or if he can self actualize to construct a new meaning and advance to become the first true Übermensch, before it's time for his nap.

And then a modern Socrates stands up from his seat and asks him why he's doing that.

Oh wait, we live in a perpetual shroud of nihilism, nevermind.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

This is so ridiculous I can't even really take the comparison seriously. Not discovering the Americas earlier in the history of Earth was mostly due to our own ignorance. We though the world was flat, and assumed nothing else existed. The vikings are alleged to have made it to the Americas much earlier than Columbus, even.
On the other hand, physics is holding us back in space. Sure, if we learn how to bend spacetime or use wormholes we may have a shot at getting off earth, but it's silly as hell to think it will actually happen within the next 1000 years or so. By that time, we'll probably all be extinct already.
Terra-forming is out of the question, it would be impossible in anything but science fiction, and the only reasonable planet we could even do it to is Mars, which we can hardly get a probe to that worked successfully. Will we make progress? Yeah, definitely. But to think we'll leave this planet is absurd. The only hope for humanity is progress in renewable energy, population control(limiting births, not promoting genocide)and learning to accept other people for their culture and religion. The faster we figure that out, the better off we'll be.
Also, that west wing clip was flat out dumb. Sending men to Mars would do nothing for us but inflate our Space-peen. There is literally nothing to gain from sending humans there rather than robots. It is riskier both cost and liability-wise. The only thing remotely useful would be setting up a base, which would require huge funds, and a ridiculous amount of new research. Plus, they really wouldn't be able to do much once it was set up. We already know the atmosphere, composition, and features of Mars. What would a man do?


First, the issue of whether or not the earth was flat was pretty much settled by Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE. Columbus had so much trouble drumming up funds precisely because anyone who knew anything about cartography (i.e., the Portugese) knew that he was either lying or suicidally deluded. We don't know why Columbus thought what he thought, and we probably never will. Perhaps he believed but could not prove that there HAD to be something between the Western coast of Ireland and the eastern coast of Japan. As for why no one else tried it, you're right. Others had. Don't forget that there is strong evidence of others visiting the Americas prior to the Vikings. Given how many Polynesians must have given their lives to map out the ocean currents that led to the fragments of rock jutting out of the ocean, it was apparently something intrinsic to the species, but no longer as strong a yearning.

And I never precluded the use of robots to get us where we're going, at least initially. I do think that there is tremendous hubris in the fields of science when it comes to what we know and what is left for us to discover. It does seem like there's a lot of space out there, and the distance which once seemed so insignificant to the early sci fi writers now seems insurmountable. I take Pascal's Wager (or at least the fallacious logic that drives it) and say that the actions we must take to get us out there would benefit the human race as a whole far more than it would hurt. To give up would be to surrender to a nihilism quite endemic in the species. Consider for a moment the construction of the cathedrals. Would such populist public work projects even be possible in this day and age? Would the average Joe be willing to start a project, knowing that he would not be able to live to see its completion? If we don't get off this rock, I blame that attitude far more than I blame the laws of physics.

To get back to the present topic, it's possible that the railgun technology being developed could serve as a kind of propulsion, but it seems as if they've worked out the mechanics of the propulsion, and only need to get the scale down pat. They know how to send something really fast, but they want to weaponize it, to better kill at a distance, an attitude that has never won us many friends. As a result, I'd pull money out of this program.

Finally, I cannot really respond to your dismissal of a manned trip to Mars, because it's clear that you don't see what I and so many others see. Maybe it's a simple matter of me being that Polynesian sitting on the shore of Rapa Nui, wondering what other islands were out there. You, on the other hand, would rather we invent some better way to catch fish, or to figure out what to tell people so they don't chop all the freaking trees down and doom us all to a nasty population crash. Your instinct and my instinct don't run contrary to each other, as long as I'm willing to plant a few trees on my way out to sea. What you learn and what you do help me to do what I want, and what I might learn would benefit you and what you do.

I'm sure I didn't have to spell this out, but the lack of a sidewalk contrasting with the sports car (a 'Diablo') is clearly a comment on nihilism and religiosity, while the breasts and surgical glove (in yellow, commonly used by nurses) should be interpreted as references to birth, motherhood, and of course the life-giving sun.

'Yankee Doodle' is just a red herring. A delightful red herring.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.
I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.
You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.


I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.

Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.

The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.

I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.

I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.

You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>

Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.
How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.
A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?


It is impossible to look at Hitchens' life and accuse him of believing "all propositions equally valid". The singularly most defining aspect of his very public life was his vehemence in debating the merits and superiority of numerous propositions over others. Whether one agreed with his conclusions or not, you could hardly accuse him of not taking a stand, nor being willing to put his own stands to the test, personally.

He embarrassed Charleton Heston during the first Gulf war by famously asking him to name a country neighbouring the state he was so eager to attack, Heston couldn't name one. It was one of the most championed victories of the anti-war movement, and Hitchens was bearing the standard. He then promptly went to Iraq and lived among it's Kurdish people, who thoroughly persuaded him he had been wrong, and he came back as one of the strongest supporters for Saddam's removal.

Hitchens' single biggest life goal was the deconstruction of religion hoping to in essence rid the world of it's evils. Despite this goal, he deliberately took his own children to be taught about religions by their respective leaders and representatives, to avoid poisoning their opinions with his own bias. Still wanting them to be able to make a personal, honest and well informed decision of their own.

The man is an example to us all, no matter how much we may disagree with his conclusions his loss will be a loss to us all. Very few are left in the public sphere with his breadth of knowledge and willingness to vehemently promote and defend what they believe to be true and right.

The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objective...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?

@IAmTheBlurr My name is gwiz665 with a g, not a q. Only assholes and dickheads so far has called me qwiz, and while we can disagree I don't count you among them.

Morally inferior? I don't accept that notion - morality has no tiers, view points are all equal unless evaluated from another viewpoint. You evaluate morality from a moral realism viewpoint, such that there are moral truths and that the examples you show are moral truths - I do not believe they are. I happen to hold the view that "slavery, child abuse, rape, or torture" are all despicable, but that does not make them immoral in any other way then the fact that I think they are immoral. Morality does not encompass others, only yourself.

Indeed, I believe in a descriptive sense of morality - normative morality is a crackpot theory, just as Moral Realism.

You can construct scenarios where they are justifiable, by making it a choice between that and something worse. Joker's ultimatum in the Dark Knight is an example - that undermines the idea that murder is never justified.

I would add though that from my point of view, there are certainly viewpoints that are better than others, but this is defined from my point of view - I am not saying that we should resort to nihilism because all viewpoints should be valued equally. I think morality evolves like biological beings do, in a direction - the direction is dictated by surroundings and different influences, but to say that there is an "absolute right way" is like saying that there is an "absolutely perfect animal" and that's just stupid - sure, land animals in general do not need gills, but that does not mean that it is "right" to not have gills for a land animal. It just has some definite advantages. A certain morality can also have advantages and disadvantages and those are always evaluated - murder has very little advantage and a huge disadvantage to most people, but some people have different values, like gang members getting advantages for killing enemies, or soldiers who value their duty more than their enemy's life.

The artistic side of me appreciates this. You couldn't call it pessimistic, exactly. It's horribly dark, and the creator uses an ad nauseum argument to wonderful effect. We are indeed so sick of the repetition of this extremely dark message that the end is all the more poignant. We are happy to take his side. Overall, a very effective piece.

However, one can appreciate art even if it is a lie. Even if it is amoral (or even immoral). I'm appalled by the implications of such a definite, inflexible doctrine, delivered in such a self-assured way. I think that the concept of death as an end to the self is a lie. That is why I'm disturbed by the extreme nihilism in this video; The type of nihilism that often leads to moral relativism. If our concept of self is purely biological, we do not make decisions. Skipping a few logical and philosophical points, the path of this video leads to the conclusion that we have no agency. That our thoughts are an illusion. That we are biological robots, and that all of our actions have been determined since the beginning of time. Determinism, in other words. And I hate determinism. I refuse to believe that my human experience is a sham. That I am not me, that my life is an illusion, and that I do not determine my destiny. Ick. Maybe I'm deluding myself. I don't care. I agree with the video: There is nothing wrong with that. I choose to be happy and to find something in life beyond the meaning it is given by death. I think that I win no matter what happens.

But if you agree with this video and you're a determinist, why would you blame me for taking this position? It isn't as if I had any choice in the matter.

In other words, I'm going to go with Jean-Luc Picard on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLU6wgTvL8

To me nihilism is like looking at a pile of bricks and despairing that it isn't a house. The assertion is correct, but the wrong action is inferred. Our existence in the present moment is absolute fact, including the qualities of that existence; we do have goals, which may be pursued without concern that they are invalidated by our nature. Intelligence is the ability to defy nature.

The universe doesn't have any inherent meaning, we give it meaning just as we effectively bring it into being through our perception.

The human race is God.

can you change the title of this video to "Sam Harris single handedly destroys nihilism"?

"slacker nihilism" is now being added to my vocab-a-larly. i do enjoy south park but your description of their views, which easily apply to such outfits as vice mag (although much less so to vice tv for some reason), is glorious. i appreciate their cynicism and skepticism but their utter lack of humanity and empathy is disturbing and, more importantly, annoying.

Not a moral issue? Whether someone lives, dies or suffers when we have the ability to help them isn't a moral issue, or at least its the on the same level as a luxury item like a beach house? Isn't Rush a devout Christian? Where does this nihilism fit in? Or does he, like so many seem to be, belong to the church of Our Lady of the Rich White People?

A beach house is a luxury item, it is separate from those things that are needed for basic human survival. In fact a beach house is on the complete opposite end of the 'basic human needs spectrum' than health care. Health, the very definition of the word describes its importance to the well being of a human being, in fact the well being of a human being IS a definition of health.

I can't understand how anyone with two neurons to rub together can listen to this talking tit face, he'll say anything to refute someone's elses claim, it doesn't matter if its true, if it's contradictory to everything he's said in the past, if it's callous or even if it's words strung together to make a cogent sentence.

'What do you think of health care?'
'NAZI BANANA CATS!'