I have written a book for my own amusement which takes a big picture naturalist approach to answering philosophical questions. On reflection the resulting philosophical conclusions are as obvious as they are unpalatable. I therefore suggest humanity in general to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty that I refer to as a the conspiracy against the human race referencing Tomas Ligotti.
The following excerpt talks about emergent relativism in the context of what I collectively call psychologically important concepts. These concepts include meaning, self, free will and consciousness. Emergent relativism is saying that these concepts emerge out of the complexity of the mechanisms humans are made from and exist relative to them.
Fundamental realism is the opposite of emergent relativism. It is the claim that, our psychologically important concepts exist as a unified and indivisible whole, independent of the mechanisms humans are made from.
It should be noted that this excerpt is missing the scientific narrative that is meant to underpin it. This is a problem as most people know extremely little about science, particularly how the body actually works. I suggest watching the following videos. This kind of stuff is more philosophically grounding as knowing the earth is just a speck in an infinite universe. The videos only covers a tiny amount of the science that people who want to claim philosophical insight should know.
Last time I posted people had extreme difficulties not conflating nihilism with existential nihilism. These are distinctly different. I am not a nihilist, I am an existential nihilist. If you argue nihilism isn’t true I am simply going to agree with you.
Emergent relativism in relation to existential nihilism
The term Nihilism was coined by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi who with great clarity of vision suggested that our drive to explain everything mechanisticly would lead to nihilism. I would suggest that emergent relativism demands a type of Nihilism called existential nihilism. Existential nihilism is “the philosophical view that life has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value, making human existence fundamentally absurd and without objective significance.” I would distance myself from epistemological nihilism which states that nothing can be known.
I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people who will vehemently disagree that existential nihilism is what you end up with when you take the scientific narrative seriously and follow it to its logical conclusion. Existential nihilism however must be true if, 1) emergent relativism is true, and 2) if emergent relativism logically means existential nihilism must be true.
I have done a lot of justifying of emergent relativism already but I would add the science in other science focused books is also incompatible with fundamental realism and in effect demands emergent relativism. With respect to point 2) if meaning, value and purpose is simply processing information physically encoded into our ever changing brain, neither objective or intrinsic meaning exists . If objective meaning does not exist, existential Nihilism must be true.
What is the conspiracy against the human race?
I don’t think it is that hard to get from science to emergent relativism. I think that when you actually look at science, it is obviously more compatible with emergent relativism than fundamental realism and this is before we start talking about neuroscience. Really, the implications of changing from fundamental realism to emergent relativist underpinnings of our psychologically important concepts also seem obvious. It seems obvious that it is going to change whether or not something we model as meaningful is intrinsically and objectively meaningful, vs being something our brains model as meaningful. I don’t think I am doing anything intellectually difficult to get from a good faith interpretation of the scientific narrative to existential nihilism. If this is the case why do you so seldom see the logical repercussions of science extrapolated out in this way, capped with this conclusion?
The reason why is most brutally and succinctly put by the title of James Longotti’s book “A conspiracy against the human race”. This conspiracy against the human race is perpetrated by the human race. The point of the conspiracy is to preserve the lie that we live in a world in which our lives and the suffering we endure has intrinsic meaning and the things we do have object significance. This conspiracy exists because the truth is painful and disorientating enough not to want to acknowledge it to yourself, let alone confront others with it. It is the turd in the punch bowl of life, which we are all forced to drink from to stay alive. People will make-believe it’s not there, block out the thought, distract themselves, lie to both themselves and each other, maybe even go to counseling. Nobody is going to thank you for pointing at it and talking about it. In the same way, if you go around preaching the idea that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, people are going to take it personally.
Atheistic mysticism
It is my contention that even atheists tend to sneak in as much mysticism into what they believe as it takes not to believe in existential nihilism. This tends only to occur when pushed. I again will use the high priest of atheism himself as the example of atheistic mysticism.
Dowkins in the selfish gene said, “We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”. This is the general tone of the book. There are other statements where he highlights the role of cultural evolution, what he calls memes, in “programming” us as well. As you will understand having read this book, I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins on these points. What I however find shocking is that Dawkins made statements that very much seem to be fundamental realist in nature, at least with respect to things like free will and the self and appears to believe there to be a mystical force that allows us to “rebel against” what he spent thousands of words saying animal behavior was a product of. Dawkins says “We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and if necessary the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of nurturing pure disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature and is something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines but we have the power to turn against our creators, we alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators”. Presumably the “we” of which he speaks can’t have been programmed by genetic and cultural evolution, as it has the “power to defy” them. In addition to Dawkins genetic and mimetic programming Dawkins is referencing a third more fundamental decision maker that has the power to control the first two. Dawkins uses the word “we” when talking about this decision maker because he is generalizing to all people. I think it is clear he is claiming that, in contradiction to the science in his book we have a self, and that self is not solely the product of genetic and cultural evolution and it is that self that is really in control.
It would be so simple for me only to point out that theist beliefs aren’t compatible with science. Maybe this would be a more popular book if I just said negative things about theists. It would however be a less significant book. It is important to point out that even the truly great science communicator Ritchard Dawkins, according to the above quotes, seems to believe in the same mystical foundation of self and free will that theists underpin with their religion. This is an incredibly common position. I am only picking on Dawkins because of his prominence and strong association with atheism. I have met many atheists but they have almost all been fundamental realists and adherents of atheistic mysticism at least when pushed. It is breathtaking how Dawkins undercuts his own theories by hypothesizing the existence of something outside the science of his book that undercuts the scientific narrative he beautifully lays out. Again it is worth as you read this book, to keep an eye out for some basis in science for Dawkins to anchor his realist claims to.
To be fair to Dawkins he has also said things that seem to side with an emergent relativist notion of free will when prest. It is also fair to point out that the selfish gene has sold over a million copies and he has never retracted the highlighted quote or modified it in subsequent editions despite being challenged on it for the same reasons I am challenging him on it. In fact, his responce to criticism given in the 40th anniversary edition contains a fundamentally fallacious argument that could reasonably be interpreted as arguing for fundamental notions of free will.
Jetpack fuel
It is worth revisiting the previously mentioned Sean Carrol book, “the big picture”. Essentially Sean Carrol comes to the conclusion that emergent relativism is correct in that he concludes meaning emerges from the complexity of the brain. Carol, calls what I am calling emergent relativism, poetic naturalism, actually inserting a platitude into the name. This and all the other platitudes are the fuel he uses to power his promised conceptual jet pack. The general conclusion that Carrol comes to is that we can all rejoice because meaning is real. Not intrinsically or fundamentally real, as highlighted Carrol cogently claims meaning emerges out of the complexity of our brains. Carroll, at best, is claiming that meaning exists. This is facile as the argument has never been if meaning exists, virtually everybody agrees that what we use the word meaning to describe exists in some form. The question is, what is the nature of its existence? Carol doesn’t point out that the kind of relativistic subjective meaning he is claiming exists is incompatible with the kind of meaning most people believe exists and want to exist. The meaning Carrol claims exist is not intrinsically meaningful or objectively real and does not suggest the imperative to be real in the least. What Carol is claiming meaning is and what he is strongly suggesting meaning isn’t, requires existential nihilism to be true. Carol’s attitude seems to be, why package what you are saying as existential nihilism when you can package it as poetic naturalism.
Carol at no point highlights how his definition of meaning is antagonistic to the meaning being objectively rather than subjectively true. It is like someone telling people to rejoice because they have proven god exists when all they have in fact done is proven the concept of god emerges out of the complexity of the brain. I mean, yes, but also kind of misleading and why am I rejoicing?
I think with both Dawkins and Carol there is a general understanding that what they are saying is psychologically challenging. I think they both want to make the scientific claims they are making more psychologically palatable. If Carrol had been intellectually honest with his readers he would have been handing them a conceptual hand grenade with the pin pulled out instead of a “conceptual jetpack”. It’s hard to blame Carrol for having a preference for handing out conceptual jetpacks rather than conceptual hand grenades. He seems like a nice man. It is all totally understandable. It does however get in the way of understanding the philosophical implications of science.
Avoiding the question
In fairness Dawkins and Carrol are outliers. Most scientists will say things that have obvious implications with respect to our psychologically important concepts but will never make reference to this fact. Steven Pinker who wrote the excellent book, “how the mind works” talks in a later edition about how a reader of his book likened reading his book to “drinking gasoline”. The book deals with, among other things, evolutionary psychology that mechanistically explains why we have many of the thoughts we do. The reason reading this book is “like drinking gasoline” is because of how challenging what it is saying is to our psychologically important concepts. This is despite Pinker, at no point highlighting or even acknowledging the psychological import of what he is saying in the body of his book.
I have respect for Pinker’s position, he lets people draw their own conclusions. There is no reason Pinker is obliged to light the gasoline that reading his book has been likened to drinking by spelling out its philosophical implications. This is the stance of the vast majority of scientists and makes them part of the conspiracy to ignore the obvious consequences of what they are saying. If you were not aware by now, the point of my book is to light the gasoline and let the flames consume what is not true.
Examples of the conspiracy in action?
This is what I touched on when highlighting Maloles Kelis question concerning fundamental meaning. This question highlights the desire of Kelis to believe meaning is fundamental despite the idea of meaning something to the universe, as he frames it, being scientifically incoherent. The reason nobody pointed out that what he is saying is scientifically incoherent isn’t because it’s not obvious, it is because everyone in the room is part of the conspiracy in one way or another. Maybe they are true believers, maybe at the other end of the spectrum they understand the answer to the question is a flat no, but they feel uncomfortable announcing this to the room. Either way nobody saying anything highlights the reality of this conspiracy.
The embrace of emergent relativism and rejection of fundamental realism is a slippery slope that ends in existential nihilism. Dawkins and Carrol, either subconsciously or consciously know this and seek to arrest the decent before they get to the bottom. Dawkins reader, who suffered bouts of depression as a result of reading the selfish gene simply slid to the bottom of the slippery slope Dawkins’ luminous writing had so well lubricated. Dawkins’ reply to this lady was so oddly convoluted because he was dissembling his way to the fundamentally inadequate statement, “do any of us really tie our life’s hope to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway?”.
It is not just scientists that do this. Nietzsche, after deconstructing God and the framework of fundamental meaning that flowed from religion offers us meaningless platitudes personified by the ubermentch. As Thomas Lingoti said, “Nietzsche is a pessimist who takes a wrong turn at the last fork on the road”. Nietzsche was always constitutionally incapable of arriving at existential nihilism.
It is interesting to speculate how deliberate and well thought through different people’s engagement with this conspiracy against the human race is. Are they just trying to deceive other people or are they also deceiving themselves? It wouldn’t for example help Dawkins make his case against religion if he painted the alternative to religion as existential nihilism, which as far as I am concerned it is.
The same question can be asked of the religious who are engaging in the same conspiracy. I am personally perfectly happy to sit in a pue at church. I don’t have any desire to start challenging the congregation on the correctness of their beliefs. I hate the idea that me writing this book would negatively affect the faith of the people I love. I certainly don’t go around telling people that they should be existential nihilists. I am, with the notable exception of this book, as big a part of the conspiracy against the human race as most.
One of the things that sets the philosophy of Tommos Lingotti apart is that he pulls no punches and offers no illusions with respect to the reality that life is devoid of all meaning except that which we construct for ourselves. As unpalatable as you may find it, this is the truth that science is screaming at us.
