can you describe these three philosophies to me? i don't know quite nothing about these.

I tried existentialism out, but really it is a highly inapplicable philosophy for life, it just doesn't work, but try it yourself. Things do objectively exist outside perception, although there still may be no creative meaning to life. Life may be destructive, I'll have to find that out by myself though. Nihilism is too hardcore for me though

You are being far too vague in your definitions.

There are MANY forms of each kind of philosophy you suggest; indeed, Hobbsian naturalism will bot be the same as those after him, and Nietzsche as both a nihlist and early existentialist will be profoundly different than Satre or Camus, however much he (by their own admission) influenced them.

Alright, so lets say Secular Humanistic Naturalist and then Atheistic Existentialism (about as specific I can be). I'll find some bigger deff's. and post them.

I was definitely an atheistic existentialist, and in some ways I still am, except I'm really more of an agnostic than an atheist

I get why you've contrasted existentialism and nihilism, but I'm not really sure what you mean by naturalism and how it is in direct competition with the other two. Can you be more specific?

I've always thought that nihilism and existentialism were similar in the sense that they both stem from the realization that the external universe holds no meaning and is utterly indifferent to humanity. Existentialists are usually pretty vehement in their distinction between the two, but it seemed to me that existentialism was just a sort of more optimistic and literary (they use fancy terms and metaphors) form of nihilism. Instead of saying, "Oh crap, there is no meaning", existentialists say, "But wait! We create meaning for ourselves!"

Nihilism seems the more logically rigorous to me in the sense that while existentialism posits that humans may create their own meaning, so what? That meaning is still completely subjective and beholden only to the individual insignificant speck that is that person.

If someone wants to correct me on this, feel free. I will say that Camus' Myth of Sisyphus is still my favourite piece of philosophical writing.

yeah, I have a friend who used to be a really big atheistic existentialist (first he was a Nihilist, but he literally went insane and had to go to a mental hospital for a while). I'm kind of in the same boat with you as far as Nihilism; I just can't take it. I really like the ideas, and think that they are most likely true, but I just can't live out of the ideas because they are so terrible. So I prefer to just think whatever I like and ignore it, even though I do think it is the truth. And that is what makes me an Existentialist. =P And I'm still trying to find a definition, maybe I'll write one up when I have a bit of time.

And I guess that I've always thought of Naturalism as a system of thought where they use evolution as a means to create systems of ethics and purpose for mankind, instead of taking on Nihilism's much more bleak view of reality.

"Oh crap, there is no meaning", existentialists say, "But wait! We create meaning for ourselves!" - all meaning in our lives is a human construction which we use to help make decision making easier (apparently without it some people go crazy)

This means the rules of the game are whatever we want them to be, which is kinda cool...

On the other hand i think the Universe is pretty cool too, especially when you get to the things it does beyond our everyday expierence... did you know interactions can destroy pieces of information? the uncertainty principle basically saying any interaction which determines information about the position of an object destroys information about it's velocity... (the stern-gerlach experiment is a cooler example if you ask me...)

have i digressed far enough?

I don't know what you mean by live out the ideas? What would it mean to live out the ideas of nihilism? Nihilism doesn't prescribe any way to live or not live your life. You can accept the conclusions of nihilism and then go to lunch and otherwise carry on what you're doing because it's all the same. There is a complete and utter indifference to how you live your life.

See, I can accept the nihilist idea that there is no objective meaning, but I think that some nihilists also say that there is no objective truth either. As far as I understand, nihilism works whether or not objective truth exists because objective truth need not be meaningful. So I personally believe that there is an objective reality, but I'm mindful of the fact that it offers no meaning at all.

In that sense, it is not really incompatible with either existentialism or naturalism as you've defined it. You can recognize that ultimately there is no meaning and that the universe offers no ethical prescription, but still live by an ethics that is determined by your own created meaning or the forces of evolution.

Personally then, I'm a naturalist. I don't think naturalists use evolution as a means to create systems of ethics, but we rather recognize that evolution *is* the means by which ethics has arisen. Without it, we would have give no consideration at all to morality. Our internal moral sense exists for practical evolutionary purposes as it lubricates the interaction between humans, such that, as social animals we reap the mutual benefit of co-operation.

@chrispminis +over 9,000!

Naturalism sounds very interesting, from what Chrisp says. I had personally never heard of it before.

Stukus, to be honest, I've never heard the term used in this way before either. I've heard naturalism used to describe the materialist philosophy whereby that which is considered supernatural is either nonexistent or is actually natural. I was confused because I didn't see how that concept would be comparable to existentialism and nihilism.

I now wonder whether naturalism is actually the term to describe my understanding of human morality or if its a term that has just been co-opted by jman. =D

I only have time for one quick comment on this one, but here it is, distilled down to the bare essentials:
Existentialism = I am my own god so I get to decide the truth.
Nihilism = I am my own god but it does not really matter.

As you may be able to tell, I am not a big fan of either. I am not sure that Naturalism as a philosophy is really useful for anything but it appears to me to just be a form of Materialism which, eventually, devolves into either Existentialism or Nihilism (depending on how you prefer to take it) because Materialism has not inherent system of meaning.

@nola, being my own God seems to deny the existance of an objective universe (while science assumes otherwise) Surely the distinction between meaning and truth is important?

haha, well maybe I have my definitions all screwed up. The basic question though that I have come up with when thinking through Nihilism is *why* should a person live by an ethical code or really do anything, for that matter. Why should we even live, if the world is entirely meaningless? Maybe this is just something personal to myself and isn't a general trait people have, but it seems to me that to live in a world where absolutely nothing is of value and that it is all pointless makes me feel as if life itself were pointless. And Chrisp you are definitely right that they are much more compatible than I had set them up to be (stupid mistake on my part). Now I'm starting to make a mess though and I'm tired so I will stop posting until I get some sleep.

"it seems to me that to live in a world where absolutely nothing is of value and that it is all pointless makes me feel as if life itself were pointless." - what an individual values is personal, if you happen to value life then it has value for you, subjectively.

Does it matter that there is no objective greater value to life? Maybe it matters to you because you place value on that idea...

nola, that's not at all how it is. I find it funny that you'd put it like that because there is such a thing as theistic existentialism whose adherents clearly do not believe they are their own God. Not everything is framed with regards to God or his non-existence. =P

jman, no worries. Nihilism doesn't offer any answers to those questions, but you need not be disheartened. It's a common symptom and you can tell that it colours a lot of existentialist writing when they talk about their angst, ennui, and nausea. It may be that there is no ultimate reason to live, but that does not mean suicide is the logical course of action because there is no ultimate reason to die or take your own life either. There is only indifference.

Of course, the very fact that you and existentialist writers feel some revulsion to this idea is because you have your own internal values irregardless of whether the universe offers some objective set of values. The next logical step is to realize then that since the external world cannot oppress you with some objective set of values, you are free. Not only are you free, but you are responsible for your own values and actions. This is the classic existentialist train of thought.

I've moved through both nihilism and existentialism... and come to the thought that needing to have an outside meaning for life (beyond the life itself) is an unnecessary burden. No one asks what purpose does music have (at least normally one does not ask that)... one simply enjoys it. Who cares whether we are "insignificant"... insignificant compared to what? Compared to the size of the universe... yeah... but so. Even an entire galaxy is "insignificant" by such measures. And on the other hand, we are downright immense and incredibly significant compared to say the bacteria in our guts... or the atoms that make those bacteria. So what. Such measures would only be to try and judge some sort of outside "objective" measure of worth... when really our lives are rather subjective most of the time... and by running off to find rulers to measure our selves we are kind of missing the point, aren't we? (just pictured running off to find a ruler and a stop watch in the middle of love making) Our experiences cannot be reduced to numbers and some sort of absolute measure (without completely obliterating their meaning)... so why should our worth?

There is an inside joke in my family where if someone says "I love you" the recipient of that phrase often returns with "I love you far more than you love me"... or a similarly silly response. We can't measure love... so the joke is, since our love feels infinite, then all other loves must be less than that. But really, ultimately, we are recognizing that in some important way our love *is* infinite... infinite, that is, within our own heart and head. And what else matters in my experience of the world than what is in my own heart and head?

I am closer to existentialism because I have my own meaning... but I try to not get abstract about it... I try to avoid thoughts like: "I live for X" or "The meaning of this for me is Y" - because abstracting it distances myself from the experience. My life, as much as possible, simply is. I seek out things that make me feel fulfilled and useful to myself and others - but I don't try to think too long about it... it is more of a feeling in my heart that I search for. ...not unlike writing music or poetry... if you get too much inside your head about it it comes out stilted and not at all enjoyable. The thought of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where Robin William's character is graphing the "value" of a poem (according to the formulation of the writer of the forward in the book of poetry) comes to mind. Complete bullcrap.

"No one asks what purpose does music have (at least normally one does not ask that)... one simply enjoys it."

Crap, I ask myself this all the time. Well, not so much the purpose of music, but more why music is so pleasurable. It's a really interesting question to ponder. =)

Also, when I say insignificant in the realm of existentialism, I'm not just talking about size. I mean literally, we're objectively without significance. Of course from our subjective point of view we're very significant, but any bundle of matter that thinks of itself as significant is more likely to carry on it's existence as a specific arrangement of matter and apparently also propogate this property by rearranging other matter to form bundles of matter that also share this delusion.

If you see me sitting on a chair, how do you really distinguish the matter which comprises me from the matter that comprises the chair? At the atomic level are they really distinguishable? Or do we merely categorize and create artificial separations based on macrolevel patterns and tendencies because they are useful in the sense that they make us more likely to carry on existing and reproducing?

If the same laws of physics and chemistry govern interactions between all particles from the molecules of air bouncing around us to the neatly packed solid atoms that comprise the ground and repel us with their electromagnetic force to the binding of myosin causing a structural change to shorten a sarcomere such that our muscles constrict and allow movement, is there a real distinction between what comprises "you" and what comprises your "environment", or is this completely artificial? Could we not be more accurately described as simply something the universe is quite mechanically "doing" and not as some separate being?

"we're objectively without significance. " - i disagree, objectively the purpose of life is to minimise their own entrophy at the expense of the local enviroment - intelligence would never have evolved if it hadn't been useful for this task. You could consider the greater war between Intelligence and Entropy as the objective purpose of the universe (and we're going to lose!)

but it is the taking part that counts :)

@Chrispminis
"Crap, I ask myself this all the time. Well, not so much the purpose of music, but more why music is so pleasurable. It's a really interesting question to ponder. =)"
As in, why have humans evolved to enjoy certain combinations of sound waves played together?
Or, what is it about music that makes me enjoy it- why do some notes sound good together while others don't?

"...is there a real distinction between what comprises "you" and what comprises your "environment", or is this completely artificial? Could we not be more accurately described as simply something the universe is quite mechanically "doing" and not as some separate being?"

@Chrispminis, I see your point. I believe there are valid distinctions to be made between myself and my environment, but, ultimately, yes, I am not separate from my environment... my matter and energy is made of the very same stuff that makes my chair, the tree outside, or you. This can lead one to conclude that one is as "mechanical" as the universe... or it could lead one to believe that the universe is as "alive" as me and you (though not, of course, necessarily self-aware or currently as organized as you and I). This touches back on the idea of free will... which I don't have an answer for. ...I appear to have free will... and I might as well assume that I do. As far as objective significance... it seems that one could equally decide that all things are objectively significant... but, it seems, it is beyond our abilities to discern either potential truth. I am subjectively significant... and isn't that enough? (which, I guess, isn't far from the existentialist view, actually... I just think they get there through mental gymnastics that I don't bother with normally... but then, that is the nature of philosophers)

Self-organized criticality - a dynamical systems which has a critical point as an attractor.

describing some complexity which arises in natural systems - 'the complexity observed emerged in a robust manner that did not depend on finely-tuned details of the system' - you could go further to say that the universe is alive and that you are the self-aware part of it.

The universe expierencing itself - "The Minbari believe that the universe is sentient and that life is the universe's way of trying to understand itself."

@orathaic, and I could buy that, too. (I'm agnostic on the concept). After all, since we're made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, then why not?

"i disagree, objectively the purpose of life is to minimise their own entrophy at the expense of the local enviroment - intelligence would never have evolved if it hadn't been useful for this task. You could consider the greater war between Intelligence and Entropy as the objective purpose of the universe (and we're going to lose!)"

That's not really a purpose though. That's just a result of a tendency. It's enthalpy vs. entropy. At a simple level some molecules are more stable than others and as a result there is a tendency for you to find more of these stable molecules in appropriate circumstances than less stable molecules. At a more complex level, configurations of molecules that take energy from their environment to maintain their own configuration will result in the same tendency. If such bundles of matter were also imbued with a sense of self significance and an intelligence that allowed it to adapt to more varied environments, same tendency. We're not so much fighting entropy as we are bribing it to keep it from taking us.

An understanding of the universe is not at all required to survive and reproduce successfully. In fact, it might even be detrimental. I have no idea what conclusions about the nature of universe could be reached by more intelligent beings, but it's conceivable that some of these conclusions might not logically lead to a greater desire to survive and reproduce. In that sense, there's conceivably such a thing as "too" intelligent, at least in certain areas of intelligence. In fact, the most intelligent people I know seem much less concerned with reproduction and are much more indifferent to death than the average person. I can't be sure that I can extrapolate from there, but it's at least conceivable that intelligence is not universally constructive for the function of survival and reproduction.

The point is that there is no objective significance, meaning, or purpose. All of it is merely a human construction. You can say, "So what? Why do we need objective significance?" and I would agree with your sentiment. That doesn't change the fact that most of the significance we ascribe to ourselves, to others, and to our environment is an illusion that exists so that we're more capable of surviving and reproducing. We wouldn't be around if that wasn't the case.

"@Chrispminis, I see your point. I believe there are valid distinctions to be made between myself and my environment, but, ultimately, yes, I am not separate from my environment... my matter and energy is made of the very same stuff that makes my chair, the tree outside, or you. This can lead one to conclude that one is as "mechanical" as the universe... or it could lead one to believe that the universe is as "alive" as me and you (though not, of course, necessarily self-aware or currently as organized as you and I). This touches back on the idea of free will... which I don't have an answer for. ...I appear to have free will... and I might as well assume that I do. As far as objective significance... it seems that one could equally decide that all things are objectively significant... but, it seems, it is beyond our abilities to discern either potential truth. I am subjectively significant... and isn't that enough? (which, I guess, isn't far from the existentialist view, actually... I just think they get there through mental gymnastics that I don't bother with normally... but then, that is the nature of philosophers)"

The validity of distinction is purely the domain of human ascribed significance. You can't equally say nothing is objectively significant and everything is objectively significant. I thought we had agreed that the external universe offers no such significance. Besides, if everything is objectively significant than what is the significance of significance? If everything is significant, then isn't nothing significant?

Of course subjective significance is enough... enough for us to be satisfied and carry on living. Otherwise we wouldn't still be around, right? It's all the meaning we've got anyways. Anybody who wasn't satisfied by mere subjective significance would either delude themselves into believing there is objective significance or they would likely be indifferent to death which is not a trait likely to be passed on to successive generations. We all come from a long line of successful reproductions, each one of our ancestors were able to put aside such philosophical quandaries and get their freak on. Is it any surprise then that we find subjective meaning to be "enough"?

To your side note on free will, you have free will in the sense that it is mostly the bundle of matter that comprises you that is involved with the decision making, so that it can be said that you made the choice. However, the choice is still the marco result of mechanistic micro-interactions. There's no part of you that is somehow above this interaction and can make the choice from some metalevel vantage point, but it is still you that makes the choice.