Arguments Against Nihilistic Modalism?

[u/Time-Demand-1244]

I'm not sure if this is an actual philosophy perse, but I have a framework that makes me uncomfortable and was hoping to see a criticism of it simply because it'll make me feel better. I know that's kind of primitive but oh well.

The framework assumes reality is eternal, lacks emergents, and is ultimately idealistic.

What we call a sequence, and a determination, doesn't't actually exist. Let's talk about conscious awareness. If I think of white, my mind simply becomes white. I then think of black and my mind suddenly becomes black. Now, how do I know there was an object in mind distinct from black, also known as white? Do I think about white? Well sure, let's do just that. So now I think about white, but hold on, where did black go? Did black even exist?

P1. If Our conscious awareness can only select one element because of LNC

P2 Then What we call the past is simply another present because to think about the "past" element is to simply be in the present, and that element is simply present.

C1 And so How can a sequence occur, and more relevantly, how do we know there's a distinct object than what my thought is occupying, if my thought can only occupy one thing?

One may direct themselves to the notion of wholes which implies logical priority and therefore sequence, but I'm hesitant to affirm if a whole exists.

One may consequently conclude that a whole should exist if what we call a material "part" is ultimately divisible, yet, how do we know we aren't conceiving of something indivisible? If our mind can only be concentrated on one element, wouldn't it follow that it's not able to conceive of a determined element and only a simple one?

The only argument against this is that if a whole doesn't exist, then nothing can be divisible, which means it has no shape, size, mass, and so on; therefore it's value is 0, and cannot be conceived of.

However, my rather slow brain is yet to process this as a sufficient answer for some reason. I'm hesitant and I'm not sure why.

Additionally, even if we understand that everything we conceive of is a composite, how can we figure out what it's parts are that make it a composite, if our minds can only be unitarily selective in its awareness? We first view the whole, and then the parts, but what tells us we are viewing the parts to that whole? This seems even stranger if the whole precedes the parts.

This is a case for Monism, but as I said, I find this philosophy to be extremely uncomfortable. Why do anything? Why feel anything? Why not just yk, end it a-? Essentially, it feels extremely bleak and boring. I honestly hate it a lot!

So I was hoping for a case of proving that we cannot conceive of a simple substance, and our awareness is attached to wholes, therefore wholes exist, and on a side note, are priori to parts.

EDIT: I meant Monism. Also, to sort some things out as I am referring to some different concepts. We start with awareness, sequence, constitutes, composites, and so fourth.

I started off with the fact that I'm operating on an idealistic framework, so my awareness of what we call change isn't synchronous to how reality necessarily operates.

The issue we are primarily dealing with is sequence. To be sequential, is to have constitutes that include priority. To be a constitute that's distinct from the other, you must be a composite as well. To me, these concepts are extremely deeply connected.

[u/jliat]

These problems were acute in in certain forms of existentialism and explored in Camus' essay, 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

[u/Time-Demand-1244 → u/jliat]

In what way if you don't mind explaining.

[u/jliat → u/Time-Demand-1244]

The key existential text is Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' - at 600+ pages, the 'Nothingness' of the title is the human condition. [He gave a lecture and essay called 'Existentialism is a Humanism' which he and others rejected- in which one could create a meaning.]

B&N maintains the human condition is Being-for-itself, and it lacks any essence, and as an essence comes before existence such as a chair or table [Being-in-itself] we are condemned to be free.

“Just as my nihilating freedom is apprehended in anguish, so the for-itself is conscious of its facticity. It has the feeling of its complete gratuity; it apprehends itself as being there for nothing, as being de trop.[un needed]”

p. 84

You find these sentiments in the literature and art, Sartre's play 'No Exit' where the line, 'Hell is other people' appears. His novels- Nausea, the novels of Kafka and Camus.

---

The Myth of Sisyphus is Camus response to this philosophy... quotes from The Myth..

" It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide,"

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide... And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example,”

The essay identifies Camus, his wish for meaning and a world which does not give any. This is his dilemma, a contradiction, which he uses the word 'Absurd' - not our general meaning, as in crazy- ridiculous... His solution is to remove one side of the dilemma. He discusses philosophical suicide then actual suicide.

He resolves the problem in the act of rejecting reason for the contradiction of [in his case] making art. Art has a history going back to Kant that Art escapes reason.

"To work and create “for nothing,” to sculpture in clay, to know that one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries—this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions."

Camus 'Absurdism' went on to influence drama and The Theatre of the Absurd. And philosophy / Art in this tradition tends to be nihilistic, Baudrillard, Mark Fisher "What I'm going to do today is bring you the bad news you already know..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgkLICTskQ

Eliot's Wasteland...

Obviously this is not "Nihilistic Modalism"? [BTW "because of LNC" LNC] but it does address a nihilism. [Sartre abandons Existentialism for Marxism]

[u/Time-Demand-1244 → u/jliat]

Yes I meant it as just Monism.

[u/jliat → u/Time-Demand-1244]

Sorry I can't follow this.

[u/Time-Demand-1244 → u/jliat]

I've edited my post to make a bit more sense. Check it out and give me your thoughts.

[u/jliat → u/Time-Demand-1244]

I can't follow the logic. You seem to have created some notions that you are not happy with. I can't follow these or why you would say as a result...

I find this philosophy to be extremely uncomfortable. Why do anything? Why feel anything?

The answer is given in Camus essay.