"It's a it bit contradictory for nihilists to have a representative website isn't it? A bit like anarchists voting!"
Absolutely, these people cannot live with themselves.
"It's a it bit contradictory for nihilists to have a representative website isn't it? A bit like anarchists voting!"
Absolutely, these people cannot live with themselves.
NIHILISM = antiphilosophy
as it is with most modern philosophies
Well, I consider myself a nihilist, but I don't believe in death to any of those things listed. I merely believe that they are all ultimately meaningless. In the here and now, though, they are nevertheless full of meaning. If minds ever cease to exist in the universe, the things on the list will once again become utterly meaningless, non-existent abstract concepts that don't exist at all independent of minds. If the universe reaches a "heat death", when there is nothing left but an expanding sea of radiation, then even the possibility of those things ever again having meaning will cease.Originally Posted by hyperborean
But to wish death on abstract concepts, if they're currently useful, would not be pragmatic.
"Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences."
Steve Allen
Nihilism is simply not taking anything for granted.
Turgueniev created the first nihilist character, Bazarov, in Fathers and Sons, and he said a nihilist doesn't bow before any authority and has no faith in any principle.
It doesn't mean absolute destruction or death to everything...
It just means that there are no absolut truths.
Yeah, I very much like that definition of nihilism. But maybe nihilism is in the mind of the beholder, like many other terms. Misconceptions abound.
"Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences."
Steve Allen
Precisely. Your explanation of nihilism is perfect, in my opinion.
If you think of it in different terms, such as, "How can I ever, truly, know what happened, in the world, before I was born?", you'll discover the basic principles of it.
The concept of the world getting together and creating the idea of WWII, in an attempt to conceal the fact they spent that time in one enormous, drunken party, and creating documentaries, books, poems, pictures, films, etc. to fool the next generation and "have a laugh" - although, highly unlikely - isn't completely beyond the realms of possibility. How can we know, for sure, what happened before we were born? We can only trust the words of our elders. There are no absolute truths.
This leads us to think about the fact that your world only begins from the moment you're born, and ends the day you die. What you do in your life - who you fall in love with, who you meet, etc. - won't make a difference to you, when you're dead (unless, of course, you believe in the afterlife).
So, thinking on a much wider scale, will it really matter, ultimately, what people did with their lives and our planet, when the universe ends and/or our planet dies (which we're sure it will)?
That's not to say that I don't plan on having as much fun as possible, for the duration of my life; that'd be pointless. As 'Unbeliever' said, wishing death on the government, and the such like, would not be practical or useful, in any way. The governments provide us with stability (for the most part) and love provides the individual with a sense of happiness (although, usually followed by sadness), and I can't think of a better reason to live, other than to be happy and have fun. It's merely suggesting that, in the end, everything is/becomes meaningless.
Just my thoughts.
Philosophy is gibberish to me. I read The Republic as a child, but it seems likely that it was Aristotle who started the trend of actually believing any of us had a clue to what the hell is going on. It is frightful to see these legions of Philosophers and their legion of theories which have gotten us absolutely nowhere. I swear, for every million thinkers, there is a million answers, just like shrinks. Marx is the only person that made sense; it is too bad he wasn't also a pessimist, or he would've known there wasn't a chance in hell mankind could redeem itself.
"Why describe the hole, I mean it is a hole; So why describe it?" - Anonymous
You are missing the point of philosophy and you are forgetting what it's done for mankind.
You can't really win an argument against a nihilist either.
Rob from the "philosophy now" forums says this
I suggest reading Nietzsche's opinion of nihilism.This ad infinitum argument means that the nihilist always wins the debate .... because he's the only one that starts with no "given" premise by which to judge one view versus another, so he can always take your argument apart by questionining what you have taken as axiomatic in your argument (eg that true is somehow, by some standard, more, er, "valid" (??) than untrue, which requires you, not him, to defend some starting-point or other for the debate. And there's no invulnerable starting-point, according to the nihilist. In fact, that prob answers the earlier question as to what a nihilist thinks. Logic bites its own tail and says that even logic is an arbitrary way of deciding between competing views. Shifting sands. No standpoint from which to argue one view more valid than another, not even logic. Nothing axiomatic, nothing more valid than anything else, nothing having more validity than anything else, no foothold to start from, not even Descartes',
Philosophy has mainly served humanity as a creative outlet, a chance for innovative thought. Whenever we've seen human progress there's been philosophy flourishing, Ancient Greece had many schools of philosophy, the Renaissance had Descartes who conceived of 'modern philosophy' and the Enlightenment brought a wealth of political philosophy and anti-system philosophies like existentialism and nihilism.
Nihilism itself is almost anti-philosophy, as has been described it states that nothing has ultimate meaning or purpose. If you consider philosophy to be of little use the likes of postmodernism and nihilism may perhaps be significant hindrances on the future of philosophy. Those two systems (or anti-systems, if you wish), especially the former, were the last big impacts upon philosophy. Even though many philosophers discard them completely contemporary philosophy does seem to be a bit shaken up since their arrival.
Opinion: If we live "in a postnuclear world of kafkaesque alienation", then nihilism would be my philosophy of choice. Existentialism is upbeat next to it. Is the world that bleak or can a more life affirming philosophy be found? When you read "Notes from the Underground", you find a kind of nihilism yet I see humour there, in the background. I can't afford a nihilistic point of view; the depression of it would be too much.
I always thought philosophy served its purpose by allowing people individual freedom to question what they've always presumed to be axiomatic.
I'd rather keep questioning, than conform to conventional ideas.
Yes, yes and no. I'm just trying to eliminate a philosophical choice from earlier days which have become a workload instead of a holiday. Questioning can be replaced by re-evaluation. Semantics, right? quasimodo1
What happened to mankind? Did he digest God somehow, forgetting he shouldn't make idols, except of himself?
"Why describe the hole, I mean it is a hole; So why describe it?" - Anonymous
How would you re-evaluate the concepts which have no definitive answer, when, a lot of the time, it's all down to personal belief and opinions?
You said you can't afford a nihilistic point of view because the depressive nature of the idea would be too much for you, whereas, on the other hand, I don't really see my views on nihilism as depressing. It's hard to come to a solid conclusion, when people have different thoughts and ideas, and feel different things.
Last edited by Endymion; 06-09-2007 at 10:42 AM.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
To Endymion: Nihilism doesn't have to be depressing; perhaps it can be liberating. If you/one takes the point of view that "nothing matters" which is a distortion of nihilism in that it extrapolates; this philosophy doesn't say yes or no to any value system but it does say no to deistic belief system. You have said (quoted) something in latin;mine is rusty...is it Cicero? I accept the point entirely, nihilism can be positive. quasi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote