It seems like if the statement is literal, then it’s self-disproving, since the person cares enough to say that, and the person who they were saying that to cared enough to say whatever they said or did prior. Also the likelihood of no one (as in, no human I guess?) caring about what they had to say seems very low, and chances are a large number of other people probably would care, too.
If the statement isn’t literal but more rhetorical, then I’m not sure what it means, but I suspect it basically just means “I don’t care” (as in the person who says “No one cares” doesn’t care themself and wants to express this in a way that seeks to hold more weight by asserting that all other people feel the same sentiment as them, even though arguably they demonstrably care somewhat if they went out of their way to say that, I guess depending on effort required, or perhaps didn’t care originally but then developed some degree of care as a result of the annoyance they felt at being exposed to something)… or maybe it just means “I don’t like what you said/did” or “I’m annoyed by you”… alternatively it could mean “I think you’re stupid/worthless”, “I disagree with you” or “I don’t want you to speak/speak about this again”, or similar.
Anyhow, what is the most appropriate way to respond to this? It seems like an emotionally charged statement that warrants, perhaps being completely ignored, or maybe a measured response seeking to find some understanding or common ground, though a witty retort could be appropriate if respectful (I don’t believe 2 wrongs make a right, unless the first wrong somewhat necessitates the second, if that makes sense). That said, I’m open to hearing any kind of replies that might be given, regardless of how cordial/civil (or not) they are.
tldr but usually the meta language of ‘no one cares’ is ‘shut up(because no one cares)’
But it really the case that no one cares? I suspect that some people might.
I promise you no one cares either way
Nah, it’s not a literal statement. It’s a rude way to say “I don’t want to talk about this”. It can be due to a genuine lack of interest, or if you’re trying to have an emotional conversation, it’s a malicious way to downplay your experience.
It’s a big old world and there’s always at least one person who will care about something.
But does no one really care? I think at least someone might.
https://fs.blog/epistemology-know-know-know/
If you can prove or disprove that you’ve solved a field of philosophy.
“Only from our direct experience can we claim any knowledge about the world.”
My direct experiences tell me that there are a lot of diverse humans, and even other sentient beings/non-human animals who could potentially care about something. For example, if I wear a blue shirt and want to tell everyone about it, I might find (or perhaps never know for certain, but have reason to believe based on perceived observances of behavior/expression) that a cow given the name Samantha is the only one who actually appreciates it. Or maybe no one does, it’s possible, but it seems like we can infer that’s unlikely given how varied the individuals on the planet are, and even other relevant information about them, such as the observation that blue is a popular favorite color. But even though we can reason the likelihood of that based on certain presuppositions (such as reality being real, rather than a simulation, but even then you could argue it still exists on some level if not physically, & solipsism being doubtful due to the verisimilitude of life, but even granting it trivially, establishing some truth of reality & in particular the existence of other minds than my own as a basis for reasoning), it’s still not entirely certain, and yet neither is the claim that no one cares. It seems like “someone (other than myself) cares” and “no one (other than myself) cares” are both technically unprovable claims, but if we agree on reality being real & other functional minds existing and establish common ground there, we should be able to grant some degree of credence via the observations we experience in this “reality” to the notion or theory that there is a stronger likelihood of at least some other mind being one who would or may care (even if they don’t currently, possibly due to lack of awareness of the thing to care about), than to the idea that no one would care, no?
alright that’s not direct experience, there’s derived conclusions in there.
Interesting. Could you possibly elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms
“It seems like”, “I guess”, “alternately it could be” is another way of prepositioning A therefore B.
B is unknown and derived. A is known.
What is A in this case (that which is definitively known)? The fact one has a subjective experience of some kind of perceived reality and in this reality we see other people that tell us they’re real and say they have separate minds to us? And then is B the proposition “reality is real to a degree insofar as other minds that appear to exist do indeed exist and are sentient and hold opinions”? Because I agree A doesn’t necessarily entail B in that case, it is something that I’m assuming for sake of argument as a basis for further reasoning.
But if we presuppose both A and B are true (let’s call them AB), then it seems like the information and observed, even anecdotal/firsthand experience we can obtain from reality (and especially if we trust secondhand sources, but even if not) appears to (uncertainly) create the grounds for a case to be made that, using reasoning and empirical observations (a combination of a priori and a posteriori), we can deduce that if a large number of people care about a wide variety of diverse interests (which seems to be deducible by AB + an average experience of life where you meet a significant number of people who aren’t lying to you (=C)), then there is a high likelihood of at least one of them caring about a given subject or phenomenon?
So this is assuming some things, such as A (apparently known, so maybe not assumed), in addition to B & C, but if ABC, then is it really an invalid form of reasoning to conclude or speculate that D (someone cares) is likely? Is any form of argument which isn’t entirely certain unequivocally invalid? Because then you can’t really consider anything valid (aside from A, or things which are known beyond a shadow of doubt, even if you acknowledge their uncertainty), right? This is why certain elements of Descartes’ philosophy seem absurd to me… in addition to the intuitively contradictory idea that “All that we can know is I think therefore I am, but also God exists and is an evil demon that has created a false reality(?)”…
Buddy we’re not here to give you a college education. Figure this out yourself.
but do they care if you think at least someone might care? (no)
And no one cares about that either