Speaking as someone who considers himself a nihilist- a lot of people seem to hear the first part of the core tenet- that the universe is fundamentally devoid of meaning or value- and think that the thought terminates there. It doesn't. The second half, the corollary, is the most important part.
The universe has no intrinsic meaning or value, but we can impose that upon it. We, humanity, are the instrument by which the universe cares. I find that deeply empowering, and inspiring.
I would argue that the act of assigning meaning implicitly affirms the value of meaning itself, contradicting the core premise. Furthermore this assertion that the universe has no intrinsic value presumes that we, as finite beings, are capable of fully comprehending the universe's nature to that end
I disagree with the notion that absolute comprehension of the universe's nature is necessary to make observations about it. There is an abundant lack of evidence to support the notion that there is some sort of inherent meaning or purpose to the universe- and, as far as we are aware, we are alone in
it. Or at least this bit of it. Ultimately, that means that the only beings here to look out for us- is us. We have a duty to love and care for one another, because without that, what are we, beyond chemical processes acting in accordance with physical laws?
In the words of Pratchett, we have to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
I have referenced absolute comprehension because you've made an absolute assertion that there is no meaning. Upon this foundation the mutual care you refer to is by no means a "duty" but only a preference
As far as Pratchett goes, change is not just about belief, it’s about creating the conditions for belief to manifest. Believing doesn’t inherently create progress, it’s the work done in pursuit of those beliefs that leads to change & embracing the potential for meaning within the truths of reality
In this we agree. Mere belief doesn't make things happen, but all progress starts with belief that the future can be better than the present, doesn't it? As to the former... I don't personally find a useful difference between 'there is no x' and 'as far as we can tell, there is no x'.
Not in casual conversation, anyway. I'll chalk it up to poor choice of words on my part.