Nihilism

[Cunninglinguist]

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.

[JohnLocke]

I definitely agree, especially with your astute distinction between relativism and nihilism, which people seem to conflate quite often.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[rajeevrnair]

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?

[Judas130]

"death to ideology" is an uneducated thing to say

ideology exists in existence itself.

really? i have never met an ideological rabbit. have you? maybe there is a pebble that subscribes to Rousseau?

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.

[rajeevrnair]

really? i have never met an ideological rabbit. have you? maybe there is a pebble that subscribes to Rousseau?

What he means perhaps is that ideology is the reason for existence...that all of existence is someone's idea?

[Judas130]

that all of existence is someone's idea?

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.

Nihilism is a step in some direction to seeing outside of this human box, but it doesn't do a very good job.

[cacian]

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?

[Tor-Hershman]

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."

[cacian]

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."

what is the cause of death?
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.

[cacian]

I definitely agree, especially with your astute distinction between relativism and nihilism, which people seem to conflate quite often.

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.

[Ser Nevarc]

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?

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.

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).

[cafolini]

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.

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.

[Ser Nevarc]

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.

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?

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!

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.

Try a

[cafolini]

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?

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!




Try a

I proposed Descartes a fabricator of false values. I don't think you read well.
And with that chill, the case is closed.