Today's post courtesy of DDC, or Daily Dinosaur comics

Or more specifically, this one.

It's the last panel that has my insipid and very unmotivated neurons to start firing. It makes an interesting point about nihilism as defined as complete meaningless.

"If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence."

If we were to accept this statement, isn't there a inherent flaw within it? By postulating that all perspectives are equally non-binding, what binds us to use intellectual or moral "arrogance" (the use of the word arrogance here is slightly unusual, with the suspected motives of a) rhetoric, and b) in order to self-sustain the statement by moving to a subjective term when demolishing objectivity.) to determine precedent?

BUT then, what do we use to establish it? Granted, this argument does need to be expanded to define what intellectual and moral arrogance is i.e. is intellectual arrogance searching for truth a la Nietzsche, or intellect in a more subjectified form? What kind of moral arrogance are we talking here?

Anyway, that aside, how exactly are we supposed to approach this issue? If we could believe that the taking of certain perspectives, however subjective, were admissible under the first principle, does that not open the trapdoor to more or less all subjective perspectives, not really solving our problems?

Of course, we could always resort to the genuinely (and thoroughly hated/reviled) tricky method of resorting to happiness as a perspective. Again, this seems to have approxmiately the same problems as the previous approach. In fact, it may be even more riddled with problems, as it may have to be modified in order to co-exist with the other two systems.

Annoying questions posed by life. I need to do a lenghty aside on my ramblings soon. Night