There is no such thing as “better”
Nothing can be better than anything else.
Hypothetically: You have two bikes, one is brand new, shiny, works like a charm. The other is rusty and old, the tire is popped and the handlebars are falling off. One works, one doesn’t. But does that make one better than the other. Both are just being, they are both there.
This can be applied to anything. I especially like it applied to people and appearances. One persona has clear skin, tall and slender, athletic. The other is short and gross. One isn’t better than the other. They are both existing and they both do what they do.
Do you think this point of view is sustainable? Could one actually implement it into their life and view EVERYTHING as equal?
Why are living things better than non-living things? They’re not. Because there is no such thing as better.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I understand Nihilism, and I like the debate to be on the subject of life and death, personally, that is valuable to me because the analogy is easy to understand. Yes life and death just are, any meaning or value is what we have put there. Death is an unknown, we can theorise about it but nothing is certain until it is actually experienced. To an explorer, the curious mind, death is an attractive thing, just wanting to know, to discover. But in the sense that you will get there inevidably, even to the explorer it makes sense to live until it is forced upon you, for while living, one can explore things that potentially may not be explorable after death.
The ultimate Nihilism demands that even reason has no value so any rationalising that I have just stated about the explorer is irrelevant. To me, that is like a religious person saying “God exists because he just does” it is not a case of it being an unreasonable assumption by the religious person because they say “It’s a matter of faith”
I’ll sum this up really briefly for everyone: Comparison is relative. Human life is relative. The world he SENSE is relative…but the world as it is is absolute and objective.
You can debate that last part as much as you like, but you can’t prove it right or wrong because, as is the human condition, we don’t really have a choice but to see it through relative eyes. Every argument you can fathom is sourced in unreliable foundation, and therefore moot.
It is like saying you can HEAR the quality of digital sound, when your ears can only perceive analog. Your ears can only hear so well, to a point where having “digital sound quality” is somewhat wasted on you.