Nihilism

[Daemon6]

I don't think radical nihilism is a philosophy that should completely guide one's life. If it did, why would you even bother getting off the couch? Although it can be very healthy to go through a form of nihilism or relativism early on in life to become more open minded as a person.

I agree. As with many things moderation is necessary for it to be beneficial. fixed

Is gravity subjective?

Btw, I can float if I concentrate hard enough.

...
...
.......
............
:shock:

 

[mknorman]

I'm always a little dismayed by the responses to these kinds of questions in that they inevitably jump to some pretty absurd conclusions.

At the outset, it has to be acknowledged that Nihilism is merely a metaphysic, merely a statement about the kinds of things that are. We might perhaps be suspicious of anyone who jumps from any particular metaphysic (what is) to a particular morality (what ought). There's just no obvious way to get there. The Fact/Value gap stands, no matter what metaphysics one holds.

The next egregious error is a misunderstanding of the term 'subjectivism'. This refers not to the variation of interpretations, values, or tastes between individuals, but rather to the fact that interpretations, values, and tastes all entail a particular individual. Every interpretation comes from an interpreter, value from a valuer, and taste from a, err, taster. It may be the case that everybody dislikes salmon-flavored ice cream, but that would not mean that salmon-flavored ice cream is objectively bad-tasting. Each instance of dislike for it is tied to the hypothetical taster, and is therefore subjective, even if predictable with 100% certainty.

An appreciation of the above can form the basis for moral skepticism, a position which I currently hold: There are no objective moral facts. Everything which I adjudge 'good' or 'bad' I do with reference to myself.

Now, a word about the naive comments about the 'obvious' psychological consequences of Nihilism. It's the worst kind of stupid equivocation to go from 'I believe there is no ultimate purpose to my life' to 'My life is purposeless' and then to 'I despair at my pointless life, to the point of suicide'. All Nihilism says is that there is nothing in the universe which provides purpose. In that purpose is subjective--is always my purpose or your purpose or somebody else's purpose--it seems obvious that the Universe is not providing those purposes, but rather that the individual actors are. Even if that were not the case, the statement that 'True Nihilists immediately commit suicide' ignores the implicit biological nature of the entity that hypothetically here holds to Nihilism. In plain language, humans are not solely--or even mostly--motivated by their philosophies. 6-year-olds don't play with their friends because they have beliefs about the utility of the healthy psychological development afforded by a richly social childhood. They play with their friends out of instinct, because it is fun. In short, just because there is no 'ultimate' or 'philosophical' motivation for behavior does not mean that the behavior will not occur or will only be undertaken with morose bravery. (For those old enough, remember the absurdity of a young boy in a Woody Allen film refusing to do his homework after he learned that the Sun was going to one day swallow the Earth.)

These things seem so painfully obvious to me that I can hardly believe that some of the other commenters are even trying to get it right. Some other game must be afoot, something like, "Try to say the most absurd thing you can about a philosophical proposition." Perhaps it's a habitual puckish instinct cultivated by spending too much time puncturing pompous theists? Perhaps, worse still, it's the religious instinct to try to maintain and promulgate an idea precisely because it is absurdly false, sublimated to philosophical discourse?

Whatever it is, can we please try to knock it off?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Whatever it is, can we please try to knock it off?

Are you a Nihilist? If so, why do you care whether we "knock it off" or not? :lol:

Come on, post back... so I can knock you around some more. I promise it will be worth your why, and all sorts of philosophically!

 

[mknorman]

Are you a Nihilist? If so, why do you care whether we "knock it off" or not? :lol:

Come on, post back... so I can knock you around some more. I promise it will be worth your why, and all sorts of philosophically!

Good fun!

At the risk of coming across like some angsty goth kid, I do assent to metaphysical nihilism.

I actually find it infinitely more interesting to contemplate "why I would care" from the standpoint of nihilism than from a metaphysics that says (absurdly) that values are transcendent and universal. It's the difference between saying, "I exhort you to do better because it accords with some received eternal truth" and "I exhort you to do better because I am an evolved social creature, honed by billions of years of evolution to take pleasure in cultivating a social circle that is stimulating and life-affirming (rather than repetitive, pedantic, and stultifying), and that I further take pleasure in knowing that *I* am the sufficient reason for the values that I hold, and that it is *my* interests that animate *my* values, and that I am healthy and competent enough to know when I recognize another who is good in the ways that I am good."

When properly applied to moral belief, nihilism yields answers (and questions!) that are far more stimulating than those yielded by moral objectivism. The moral objectivist can only say, "I behave this way because the universe says this behavior is good." How much more vital and fascinating is it to say, "I behave this way because...," and then detail the intricate interaction between one's own psychology, biology, and philosopy!?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Good fun!

I'm ridiculously glad you think so! Let's mix it up and throw down!

At the risk of coming across like some angsty goth kid, I do assent to metaphysical nihilism.

I'll try not to beat you up for being goth! Well... mostly!

I actually find it infinitely more interesting to contemplate "why I would care" from the standpoint of nihilism than from a metaphysics that says (absurdly) that values are transcendent and universal. It's the difference between saying, "I exhort you to do better because it accords with some received eternal truth" and "I exhort you to do better because I am an evolved social creature, honed by billions of years of evolution to take pleasure in cultivating a social circle that is stimulating and life-affirming (rather than repetitive, pedantic, and stultifying), and that I further take pleasure in knowing that *I* am the sufficient reason for the values that I hold, and that it is *my* interests that animate *my* values, and that I am healthy and competent enough to know when I recognize another who is good in the ways that I am good."

Fair enough... you aren't using your ability to choose values in order to justify a lack of values.

When properly applied to moral belief, nihilism yields answers (and questions!) that are far more stimulating than those yielded by moral objectivism. The moral objectivist can only say, "I behave this way because the universe says this behavior is good." How much more vital and fascinating is it to say, "I behave this way because...," and then detail the intricate interaction between one's own psychology, biology, and philosopy!?

That's not nihilism, as I understand it. It is nihilism as a springboard to a more enlightened philosophy, but it does not stop at nihilism. You seem to be a humanist.

I get nihilism as a starting point. I realize that some people need to reject all beliefs in order to shed the beliefs they grew up with. I accept that nihilism is a way to do that. I just reject the idea that nihilism is a valid ending place. You should reject everything maybe, in order to build on a level plane. You should not look on nothing and consider it enough to live your life by.

 

[mknorman]

I get nihilism as a starting point. I realize that some people need to reject all beliefs in order to shed the beliefs they grew up with. I accept that nihilism is a way to do that. I just reject the idea that nihilism is a valid ending place. You should reject everything maybe, in order to build on a level plane. You should not look on nothing and consider it enough to live your life by.

Well, I should start by saying that, after consulting the Oracle at Wikipedia, that my terminology has been a bit off. Apparently, I'm a moral and existential nihilist: I reject the notion that values have independent existence, and therefore that the value of life (existence) can exist outside of a valuer. (My talk of metaphysical nihilism earlier was a misuse of terms.) I think, therefore, that it's just a dumb equivocation to consequently say, "Life has no value," when what is the case is, "Nothing has value outside of a valuer. Life is a thing. Life has no value outside of a valuer." (The equivocation is between the valuer-free version of 'value' and the conception of 'value' as situated in a valuer. "It's real to me, dammit!," quoth the Internet.)

I don't think that anyone's procedural moral epistemology ('reject everything, in order to build...') has any bearing on whether or not morals exist. I guess I would just alter your statement to say that "some people feel the need to reject...."

As far as nihilism not being a 'valid ending place,' I have to confess to not knowing what you mean. It's certainly an ending place in the search for transcendent values or for an intrinsic and transcendent meaning to life, unless one wants to search for emergent transcendent values. (But I think that search is futile as well.) Frankly, one of the most liberating things about moral and existential nihilism is the absolution of all sins. The Universe indifferently forgives all of your deeds. You can be a surf bum until you retire, or dedicate your life to the improvement or comfort of mankind. It makes no difference to the void. However you are made is only a matter for yourself.

Finally, the point I really want to emphasize again is the extreme good cheer that can be derived from moral subjectivism (the root of my nihilism) when one encounters another agent with a compatible value structure. It's one thing to run into another Anabaptist and think, "He believes as I do because we both assent to Anabaptist doctrine," but quite another, more splendid, thing to run into another moral agent and realize that your similarity and mutual beneficence comes from two independent yet compatible evaluations of the world around you, common biology and psychology, & etc.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As far as nihilism not being a 'valid ending place,' I have to confess to not knowing what you mean.

I think that this is the crux of the discussion, and the only point worth hashing out. Nihilism is an ending point for so-called "transcendent values and morality" and the like. Once you accept the idea that absolute religious or societal values are meaningless, that constitutes an endpoint for those sort of values.

However, that's not the ending place, because you and I both have a sense of a better and more meaningful structure upon which to base our values and morality. The rejection of the old rules is not an end to our consideration of the issues, but a fresh beginning. From that beginning, we craft our views based on evidence and experience and even the joy we get from meeting other "moral agents" who are not tied to a false "morality."

 

[mknorman]

I think that this is the crux of the discussion, and the only point worth hashing out. Nihilism is an ending point for so-called "transcendent values and morality" and the like. Once you accept the idea that absolute religious or societal values are meaningless, that constitutes an endpoint for those sort of values.

However, that's not the ending place, because you and I both have a sense of a better and more meaningful structure upon which to base our values and morality. The rejection of the old rules is not an end to our consideration of the issues, but a fresh beginning. From that beginning, we craft our views based on evidence and experience and even the joy we get from meeting other "moral agents" who are not tied to a false "morality."

Fair comment. I just look at the kinds of things (called 'values') one searches for before one discovers nihilism and the kinds of things (also called 'values') one searches for afterward, and can't bring myself to say that it's just 'a new beginning'. This is mere semantics, I admit, but it seems like the 'new beginning' is a beginning of a thing of a completely different kind than what ended. It's as if one gives up drug use in favor of philanthropy, and says that he's just continuing with drugs of a kind that don't involve euphoria, chemicals, and dependency, but rather involve tax-deductible charitable contributions to worthy organizations.

The difference between valuer-free values that have some unspecified binding power and enable people to smugly look down upon one another and tssk-tssk each other seems of sufficiently different kind from the valuer-situated values we're after that, as a matter of mere terminology, I feel warranted in calling it an 'ending place'.

This is sort of an echoing of Nietzsche's ideas about the Superman in relation to humanity. He said that humanity is to the Superman in the same way that chimpanzees are to humanity. We might sneer at apes and laugh at their antics, but we know that we're about something completely different from what they're about. They could be regarded as a travesty of humanity. Ditto the Superman's regard of mankind.

Now that I'm in full ramble, I'll add one last thing about this distinction. Old 'values' were about the disinterested following of moral rules that had an ostensible outside existence. These new values we're talking about are animated by each of us individually, and our 'obedience' to them is driven by enlightened self-interest. Every time we carry out an action prescribed by our new values, we are doing a self-interested life-affirming thing. Even the zeal with which we would naturally perform these actions differs from the perfunctory indifference with which we might undertake actions motivated by the old values.

But again, this is a mere terminological distinction, however useful I think it is.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think that if you view your perspective and mine as being separated by nothing more than semantics, then there is no reason to argue.

 

[ladiesman391]

Thinking about it, Nihilism = death. I think a complete and honest Nihilistic view is not plausible. Dawkins talks a lot about an internal moral code that exists regardless of one's beliefs, even that of Nihilism. To be completely Nihilistic would be unreasonable and we're in the League of Reason here.

 

[psychonaut]

I'm always a little dismayed by the responses to these kinds of questions in that they inevitably jump to some pretty absurd conclusions.

At the outset, it has to be acknowledged that Nihilism is merely a metaphysic, merely a statement about the kinds of things that are. We might perhaps be suspicious of anyone who jumps from any particular metaphysic (what is) to a particular morality (what ought). There's just no obvious way to get there. The Fact/Value gap stands, no matter what metaphysics one holds.

The next egregious error is a misunderstanding of the term 'subjectivism'. This refers not to the variation of interpretations, values, or tastes between individuals, but rather to the fact that interpretations, values, and tastes all entail a particular individual. Every interpretation comes from an interpreter, value from a valuer, and taste from a, err, taster. It may be the case that everybody dislikes salmon-flavored ice cream, but that would not mean that salmon-flavored ice cream is objectively bad-tasting. Each instance of dislike for it is tied to the hypothetical taster, and is therefore subjective, even if predictable with 100% certainty.

An appreciation of the above can form the basis for moral skepticism, a position which I currently hold: There are no objective moral facts. Everything which I adjudge 'good' or 'bad' I do with reference to myself.

Now, a word about the naive comments about the 'obvious' psychological consequences of Nihilism. It's the worst kind of stupid equivocation to go from 'I believe there is no ultimate purpose to my life' to 'My life is purposeless' and then to 'I despair at my pointless life, to the point of suicide'. All Nihilism says is that there is nothing in the universe which provides purpose. In that purpose is subjective--is always my purpose or your purpose or somebody else's purpose--it seems obvious that the Universe is not providing those purposes, but rather that the individual actors are. Even if that were not the case, the statement that 'True Nihilists immediately commit suicide' ignores the implicit biological nature of the entity that hypothetically here holds to Nihilism. In plain language, humans are not solely--or even mostly--motivated by their philosophies. 6-year-olds don't play with their friends because they have beliefs about the utility of the healthy psychological development afforded by a richly social childhood. They play with their friends out of instinct, because it is fun. In short, just because there is no 'ultimate' or 'philosophical' motivation for behavior does not mean that the behavior will not occur or will only be undertaken with morose bravery. (For those old enough, remember the absurdity of a young boy in a Woody Allen film refusing to do his homework after he learned that the Sun was going to one day swallow the Earth.)

These things seem so painfully obvious to me that I can hardly believe that some of the other commenters are even trying to get it right. Some other game must be afoot, something like, "Try to say the most absurd thing you can about a philosophical proposition." Perhaps it's a habitual puckish instinct cultivated by spending too much time puncturing pompous theists? Perhaps, worse still, it's the religious instinct to try to maintain and promulgate an idea precisely because it is absurdly false, sublimated to philosophical discourse?

Whatever it is, can we please try to knock it off?

Wow. You certainly have a way of talking down to the proles about how stupid they are for not recognising the "painfully obvious". All the while flaunting your vocabulary and projecting an air of elitism and condescension. I suspect this is well practiced defense mechanism to bolster your ego from feelings of inadequacy. It's puerile and unbecoming, and detracts from constructive discourse. Congratulations on being another insecure asshole on the internet.

Ok. Breathe.

On topic.

I think there is merit to the statement that "nihilism = death". There is more to it, though. I said in my initial post that a true nihilist (with an iron will) would simply cease all actions and eventually die. Thinking about it more, I realised that nihilism doesn't positively endorse any action. Choosing to do nothing until you die is in itself a course of action, and it is in conflict with basic human drives.

It makes more sense that a nihilist would continue their life as they normally might have, fulfilling their subjective goals and desires. This does indeed free them to embrace subjective meaning. This seems to be the position mknorman is taking. But then, what makes them a nihilist?

I think by definition, the mere acknowledgement of a lack of higher/objective meaning comprises the nihilistic view. But there is another aspect to consider, and it is awareness of meaninglessness. One nihilist, let's call him Bill, might be of the temperament to dive into subjective meanings, quickly forgetting their source and manufacturer. Theoretically BIll accepts that his life has no higher purpose, but he is only dimly aware (if at all) of how his personal meanings were fabricated. He might think about nihilism and how it applies to him personally once every year or so, when he's feeling particularly philosophical. He simply lives in the moment and enjoys life. You might say he is a casual or part-time nihilist, in terms of his awareness of meaninglessness.

Not making any value judgements about Bill, but let's contrast to our other Nihilist, Anna.

Anna is depressed and considering suicide. She feels a constant existential dread because of the meaninglessness of her life and of the world around her. She is aware that everyone has their own personal meanings, and her own body is a constant reminder of the hard-coded subjective meanings of emotion, pleasure and suffering. But these things only serve to remind her of how fabricated it all is. She feels strongly detached from both society and herself, and that confers a certain objectivity, and also a strong intuition for noticing the causes of what she and others find meaningful. This constant awareness makes it all but impossible to embrace subjective goals, desires or even simple pleasures or aesthetic preference. Anna is certainly a full-time Nihilst.

So I think these examples illustrate how Nihilism says nothing about how one should live their life. But one's temperament, and their level of awareness of meaninglessness and the absurdity of life can have a big impact on their ability to embrace subjective meanings.

 

[mknorman]

You don't like us educated types because you think that we think you're stupid. We don't like you uneducated types because you're stupid. El. Oh. El.

Wow. You certainly have a way of talking down to the proles about how stupid they are for not recognising the "painfully obvious". All the while flaunting your vocabulary and projecting an air of elitism and condescension.

I think you may have mischaracterized the 'painfully obvious' remark.

You definitely did not realize that you were being paid the compliment of being held to a higher standard, that the presumption was implicit that you were able to engage in elevated discourse. For your information, I used terms that I thought were necessary to convey the subtle shades of meaning that I was after. I thought you could handle it.

I suspect this is well practiced defense mechanism to bolster your ego from feelings of inadequacy. It's puerile and unbecoming, and detracts from constructive discourse. Congratulations on being another insecure asshole on the internet.

Here, you resorted to name-calling and not just ascription of malicious intent, but of dysfunctional motivation.

What's puerile is offering a stunted pop psychobabble diagnosis of another forum participant based on a misreading of one post. What's puerile is aping the 'just another asshole on the internet' meme. We get it. You've been on forums.

The only proper thing to do with your remark about 'detract[ing] from constructive discourse' is to underscore it.

Some thicker skin might be in order, as would the realization that not everybody who uses big words is trying to make you feel bad about yourself.

Well practiced defense mechanism, indeed.

 

[psychonaut]

In fact, I had not assumed your post was aimed at me, but at others in the thread who were genuinely trying to explore the topic. Your post was pissing on their ideas from your high horse of intellectual elitism. If you can't read what you wrote and get that, there's probably no point in me arguing the case further. I responded because your attitude irked me, although inevitably it has brought us off topic.

Anyhow, if you wish to respond to the on-topic part of what I wrote, I would welcome your thoughts.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

All the while flaunting your vocabulary and projecting an air of elitism and condescension. I suspect this is well practiced defense mechanism to bolster your ego from feelings of inadequacy. It's puerile and unbecoming, and detracts from constructive discourse. Congratulations on being another insecure asshole on the internet.

Warned. Labelling someone else an asshole is steeped in delicious, steak-flavoured irony.

 

[contraaa]

Nihilists are just existentialists that don't take any initiative.

 

[Witalian]

Nihilists are just existentialists that don't take any initiative.

No, nihilists are existentialists who are honest in the face of reality. I did not read all of the comments because most of them are on the same position, and they are not putting valid points, but just complaining how bad it is to be a nihilist. This is basicly the old "there is no good without god" argument stripped of the 'G' word.

Anyone who considers himself naturalist is practicaly a nihilist in denial, and declareing oneself as nihilist is just a matter of intelectual honesty. I do not claim any moral high ground and I declare myself as nihilist.

Nihilism is nothing other then the recognition of the fact thet there is no cosmic values, or purpouces. Everithing is just a result of natural proceses. Rejecting however that there is values asigned by people, is rejecting reality. This an attribute that YOU put to nihilism, that no nihilist will accept(atlest not a smart one).

 

[contraaa]

No, nihilists are existentialists who are honest in the face of reality. I did not read all of the comments because most of them are on the same position, and they are not putting valid points, but just complaining how bad it is to be a nihilist. This is basicly the old "there is no good without god" argument stripped of the 'G' word.

Anyone who considers himself naturalist is practicaly a nihilist in denial, and declareing oneself as nihilist is just a matter of intelectual honesty. I do not claim any moral high ground and I declare myself as nihilist.

Nihilism is nothing other then the recognition of the fact thet there is no cosmic values, or purpouces. Everithing is just a result of natural proceses. Rejecting however that there is values asigned by people, is rejecting reality. This an attribute that YOU put to nihilism, that no nihilist will accept(atlest not a smart one).

Atheistic existentialists deny all eternal truth and inherent meaning in the universe, but believe it is necessary that we create meaning ourselves. Nihilists deny any meaning or value, in a way existentialists do as well, as there wasn't any before we created it. Upon realizing the absurdity of the world, existentialists believe they must revolt, nihilists say "Screw it."

 

[Witalian]

Atheistic existentialists deny all eternal truth and inherent meaning in the universe, but believe it is necessary that we create meaning ourselves. Nihilists deny any meaning or value, in a way existentialists do as well, as there wasn't any before we created it. Upon realizing the absurdity of the world, existentialists believe they must revolt, nihilists say "Screw it."

Nihilists may say screw it or they may not. They may search for some beuty and purpous in hteir live or they may not. Life may not have purpus, but death does not have purpous as well, and life can atleast be enjoyed. Sports, music, alcohol, drugs and entertainment in general do not have any meaningfull purpous, yet we can all enjoy them, can we?
Saying that a nihilist can not enjoy life is like saing that an atheist can not be good. It is a non sequitur. It thrives on the assumption that some groupe of people have a monopol over some basic human trait.

 

[contraaa]

Nihilists may say screw it or they may not. They may search for some beuty and purpous in hteir live or they may not. Life may not have purpus, but death does not have purpous as well, and life can atleast be enjoyed. Sports, music, alcohol, drugs and entertainment in general do not have any meaningfull purpous, yet we can all enjoy them, can we?
Saying that a nihilist can not enjoy life is like saing that an atheist can not be good. It is a non sequitur. It thrives on the assumption that some groupe of people have a monopol over some basic human trait.

If a nihilist searches for meaning, they are contradicting their own philosophy, as it states there is no such thing as meaning, rather it be intrinsic or created.

 

[Witalian]

If a nihilist searches for meaning, they are contradicting their own philosophy, as it states there is no such thing as meaning, rather it be intrinsic or created.

Read carfuly:

Nihilism is nothing other then the recognition of the fact thet there is no cosmic values, or purpouces. Everithing is just a result of natural proceses. Rejecting however that there is values asigned by people, is rejecting reality.

Wich part of this you find hard to undurstand?

When I said "They may search for some beuty and purpous" I used the term "search" in the sense of intelectual pursuit, not like searching something in the real univerce. You may search for purpous in your own prefferences, or even in religious texts. The difference between you and the theists will be that you will recognise that these values come from people, not gods. In nihilism there is no "thau shalt" and no "thau shalt not". You can have all the values you want and you don't even have to rationalise them. If someone asks you, why is that particular thing right, your answer is : It isn't. I've just choosen this with or without reason. And that's a honest answer. Rationalisations are disshonest.