INEVITABLE.
Nihilist: We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson.
The Dude: Excuse me?
*mission accomplished*
Printable View
INEVITABLE.
Nihilist: We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson.
The Dude: Excuse me?
*mission accomplished*
whats life if there is nothing to believe in ?
Whats life is there is faith?
The only thing that keeps us moving on is our belief... our believe that that something good is going to happen.. Our belive in Love, death , God , truth.... etc..
I don't think that nihilism is a way of living .. nor something to follow.. nor something that has any meaning !!!
caveat lector: i'm not doing these ideas justice here...
There is a modern nihilism much different than what this thread seems to be about which was influenced by Heidegger and was based on the 'ex nihilo' theory of existence and has received a great interpretation by Jean Luc Nancy in the fantastic albeit short book 'Creation of the world'. it is more to the point that as there is no Kantian foundation to existence, neither in nor prior, and that all perspectives are relatively valorized that nihilism in this sense is merely a relativist anthropological perspective, which is to say rather skeptical- in the philosophical, epoche/aporia sense of the word in which any view is as justified in its basis as any other. it also allows it to be a very creative principle as everything comes 'from nothing/ex nihilo'.
yeah maybe, but as i recall, the heidegger approach, at the end, dangles between an under-the-covers mysticism specially in later texts like " the end of phylosophy" and actually nihilism, which in his definition would actually be something of the sort "everything is nothing. and nothing is everything. all that is real is the void."
and stuff.
anyways, as usual, i killed a thread. so BUMP.
http://www.ctheory.net/will/index.html
http://www.rhizome.org/
http://www.lifeinthewires.net/
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=201
http://web.uvic.ca/~akroker/
its more than just girls with short hair and blue spectacles for ya.
I'm an immanentist thank you very much. :P
I had to study the nihilist perspective on the meaning of life once, if I remember correctly the premise goes as such:
Premise 1: In order to have meaning in life, there must be a transcendent meaning to life. (I reject this)
Premise 2: There is no transcendent meaning to life. (I accept this)
Conclusion: There is no meaning in life. (I reject this)
I remember I had to read through bits of Schopenhauer, Camus and Nagel's pieces on the meaning of life. Bits were somewhat depressing, not that there works weren't brilliant, especially Camus approach with the "Myth of Sisyphus" or Nagel's view that one should carry life with a grain of absurdity.
Though I'm not exactly sure if Camus or Nagel are nihilist but there piece's do reflect a feeling of meaningless in life.
I'm not a philosophy major and this is way beyond my element, so here's hoping I don't sound too ignorant trying to convey my feelings on nihilism. :)
I think that the existence of a nihilist website, and (especially) nihilist texts that took a lot of work and thought testify to what is in reality a more existentialist-type outlook, since the website and the texts are themselves projects of the sort that existentialists advocate for the sake of deriving a person meaning in life..
"Nihilists annul everything and as such they will annul themselves at the end"Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
A mercy killing though.
"death to ideology" is an uneducated thing to say :)
ideology exists in existence itself.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and I apologize if it has been, but I don't have the time peruse everything that has been written before me. I have seen it mentioned, however, that nihilism is a negating philosophy; that the nihilist must inevitably kill himself in his process of destruction. This is an excellent example of the non sequitur fallacy. A moral nihilist (the kind many here are discussing), above all else, denies the validity and the existence of universal ethical claims. These are all, to the nihilist, subjective, meaningless propositions. Thus, the universe is inherently valueless. From this, it does not follow in anyway that one should kill one's self; in fact, to do so would catapult the nihilist away from his philosophy, in that a moral judgment must be made predicated on the perceived value of death. Simply put, it is just as senseless to a nihilist that he remains alive then that he dies. No choice is better or worse than the other. Therefore, to claim that a nihilist is hypocritical if he refuses suicide is to impose upon him a type of value system which he denies. To him, naturally, all human beings are nihilistic, whether they realize it or not -- even if one adheres to a meaning-based ethical system, these systems are still necessarily false. Similarly, many nihilists are also scientific determinists, and they derive their nihilism from the idea that we are nothing but the composition of particles in time and space. In this sense, we do not have free will, we do not have a Self, we do not have a soul, etc. Everything is a grand process, a constant system of actions/reactions. Thus, proposing that the nihilist must commit suicide is essentially meaningless, as no action can truly be freely "committed," and no "self" can be killed. We simply exist, all things occur passively. The idea that a nihilist is necessarily predisposed to violent actions based on his philosophy is historically accurate, of course, but philosophically invalid.
Nihilism as self-defeating was stated at least in post #76. But it's not necessarily true. A [moral] nihilist can simply state that positive ethical claims are impossible. If the nihilist only makes negative claims (assuming that negative claims cannot be rewritten as positive claims, which seems to be the case), he's not going to contradict himself. If anything, I think the non sequitur comes from the relativist (normative or otherwise) who states that all claims are conditional, which just so happens to be an unconditional claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLocke
I definitely agree, especially with your astute distinction between relativism and nihilism, which people seem to conflate quite often.
I was a nihilist once. It was when I was quite depressed. I got better, and I'm not a nihilist anymore. I hope to never be again.
Death to ego
Death to ideology
Death to morality
to satisfy all of the above there definitely is a corollary
Death to the 'brain' and 'all forms of thought'
but to conceive the above the brain must very well be alive..if one must make such observations...one ought to have a fully functional brain that observes all aspects of life and then denies itself.
When the brain is dead well one may be able to achieve all of the above but without the brain one cannot ensure its continuity...the brain may awaken again at a later point of time...simply because physiologically we have a large brain..and then it may no longer believe in nihilism...so clearly it is pointless to believe in a philosophy that has no assured life of its own :)
and not to say it risks itself but it risks the life of people who follow it merely because it contradicts all aspects of a mans social and economic life and things that keep it intact..there is a good degree of acceptance of all of the points even among animals...why should man with a more evolved brain be an exception?
really? i have never met an ideological rabbit. have you? maybe there is a pebble that subscribes to Rousseau?Quote:
Originally Posted by the facade
Ideology exists as the surplus baggage of conforming groups using their normative/prescriptive values, which are in themselves the conclusions of irrational biases and faith, to justify their Identity. It is a destructive force. As all mental ills, beyond schizophrenia, and all social uproars, all personal doubts are the result of a conflict between Identity and Society, it seems fitting that Ideology is the function that moulds both to a supposed order so that it may justify itself and the social constructs it attaches itself to.
What he means perhaps is that ideology is the reason for existence...that all of existence is someone's idea?:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas130
If you mean the concepts raised by extreme solipsists? E.g. 'I exist and the rest is my imagination'. These are philosophical nutshells, cul de sac arguments such as 'my green could be your blue' which get us nowhere. Or if you mean to say, a being - a deity - behind existence? Can we not see the hubris of this anthropological view of nature? To the think the cosmos contains 'out there', shrouded in mystery, the very moral codes, normative ethics, metaphysical ideals such as 'Love' and 'Justice' that we try to 'interpret' is only to map ourselves on to reality irrationally. Logical Positivism, for all its flaws, showed us that to say 'This thing is wrong inherently' is to say nothing of the fact, nothing of the object: what we are saying is 'here is a fact. This is what I think of it' - we add nothing to the reality around us when we attach our ideology. We forever talk of ourselves. We do not need to see the tree that falls in order for it to fall. Beautiful objects are not in themselves 'beautiful', but beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeevrnair
Nihilism is a step in some direction to seeing outside of this human box, but it doesn't do a very good job.
Nihilist or not the world is still is.
To try an remove what is already established is like trying to remove oneself but by taking it out on others.
Objectively it is easy mentally it is an impossiblity.
Nihilism is nothing but denial and how long can someone live in denial before one cracks under the pressure?
Wishing death to inanimate objects is a HIGHLY emotional misnomer,
destruction to those objects/organizations is possible.
Only living matter can truly die;
hence, we have the question -
"What is the cause of all Death?"
with the answer
"Life."
http://www.amiright.com/photoshops/i...1293975425.jpg
what is the cause of death?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor-Hershman
I would not say life because life gives you birth so that you are born and that is the only thing life does.
It cannot then do death because then it would cancel itself.
Things/concept do one thing and onthing only at one given time doing two things is not a possibility. It would be like saying the sun gives us light and dark. Sun only gives sunshine/warmth/ligt whatever.
The cause of death is time. A cycle of time has reached its toll.
I am no so sure I think nihilism is a bit of self conflating act where by one bury one's head in the sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLocke
Nihilism is most certainly not "nothing but denial." It is the assertion that something unproveable doesn't exist. Read Descarte's Meditations for a much better explanation but: We cannot in any way prove that our existences are anything more than dreams.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
You seem to think of the nihilist as being a person who is simply in fearful denial. Rather I think of a nihilist as one who doubts (very extremely).
Nihilism is the denial of false values, not nothing but denial. And Descartes faked doubt and was not an extreme doubter. He proposed that we should break knowledge down to very specifics, until we could not go farther and build from there with certainty for posterity. The man was insane and thought that he could arrive a the very specifics that would constitute undoubtful science. He used his fame as the inventor of analytic geometry to pretend the authority to do that. Descartes a doubter? Yes, but to the point where he stupidly thought that he had undoubtful specifics. Actually he became comical with the specifics he proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
I'm not sure upon what authority you can call Descartes a "fake doubter." Remind us when and how you found this out; I'm sure others would like to hear. Anyway, Descartes' methodology of doubt was mighty extreme in his time, wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
At any rate, I wasn't calling Descartes a nihilist: he was in no way a nihilist. I used his famous usage of doubt to evaluate reality in minimalist fashion so that I could attempt to show the plain logic behind a person's disbelief. Perhaps I should have clarified in my post. I repeat: don't call Descartes a nihilist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Try a :chillpill:
I proposed Descartes a fabricator of false values. I don't think you read well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
And with that chill, the case is closed. :smash:
What false values?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Assertion is to be 100% certain that something isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
Doubting is not being able to put a finger on something. It is neither here or there.
Something that one cannot prove exists does not mean it is unprovable.
On the contrary. It proves that one has failed to understand it.
The failure is on the person on who does not attain its understanding and not the other way around.
Objectively the issue is with the person themselves.
Doubting Thomas comes to mind.
Jesus existed but whether he came back to life or not is not the issue. It does not really matter in the schemes of things.
The important thing is that it highlighted a fact that Thomas did not believe it.
That is the whole point. Not whether Jesus did or didn't but because Thomas doubted.
That is the only assertion there is.
The rest is irrelevant. I am not going to run after the wind just because I think I can.
Look up definition of dream.Quote:
Read Descarte's Meditations for a much better explanation but: We cannot in any way prove that our existences are anything more than dreams.
To dream to be asleep and nothing more to it.
Humans are awake and then they sleep. We know that because of the sun rising and setting. That is enough for me. Night time for sleeping. This is a fact.
Being awake contradicts the very definition of dreaming which requires someone to be asleep firts. REM and all that.
One cannot be beating around the bush. Once a definition has been established around one fact I cannot then turn around and then try and reinvent it. It looks very silly.
Yes I do think that.Quote:
You seem to think of the nihilist as being a person who is simply in fearful denial. Rather I think of a nihilist as one who doubts (very extremely).
The problems with people is that they push themsleves out of their own equatiuon and project their own intolerances or weaknesses in this case denial of something.
Doubting is an internal thinking process that suggests the person cannot make head or tail of their own existence and their own surrounding environment.
The lack of understanding reinforces negativity and so instead of accepting their failure they project it onto something else to make themsleves feel better.
Hence nihilism. Its root cause is selfdoubting hence denial of of onself towards something.
The other thing about nihilism is that it does not end there.
Even if we say one has asserted that something does not exist they will still state the unbelievable and not believe they have asserted it.
It is a catch22.
They would ne be call nihilist if they suddenly stoped from doubting.
Hi cacian,
But man, dreaming is so much more than sleeping. Dreams are important correspondences with our actual lives. They decieve our senses with often terrifying authenticity, build connections our conscious minds never could, reveal (as Freud believed) our truest desires. We can learn a lot from our dreams. Your sleeptime brain, cacian, is just as much your brain as your awake brain. You shouldn't disregard it as nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
The sun does not rise and set for the purpose that we know when to rise and when to sleep. Why would you think that? We perceive the sun to rise and set because we happen to exist on a rotating sphere. We evolved to take advantage of the daytime we have. And you cannot say that "nighttime is for sleeping, that is fact." Beings can wake and sleep whenever the hell they want to (or rather, however they are genetically programmed to). Ever seen bats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
The reason I mention Descartes is that he proposed that dreaming gives us a reason to doubt reality. Because of dreams, we know that our senses deceive us. Accordingly, we can doubt just about anything our senses tell us.
The nihilist doubts, but this doubt should not be seen as a fault, as you see it. Doubt is not the inability to understand, nor is it caused by fear. It is a skepticism, and often demonstrates a real maturity. Why jump into believing something if you don't see enough evidence?
It is not very becoming of you to say that a nihilistic person is trying to deflect their own self-doubts onto everything else. It's just a different perspective, and is clearly one which you do not share, and therefore do not understand. Try not to make those generalizations, especially if they are a) unfounded and b) are demeaning.
Look forward to discussing!
Appeal to consequences, fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpe123