On Nihilism

[Isambard]

Im in the extreme minority who holds the philosopical position of nihilism. I wish to hear your thoughts on it.

Here is a brief skinny on it http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...3Doff%26sa%3DN

Here is a philosophical critique on nihilism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5H91QHX7U

And addressing the above video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVCd5...eature=related

Im curious to hear your opinions :smile:

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Interesting. I shall give my opinion on the matter within a few days; I'm busy right now playing Zelda, but I will comment on this thread very soon.

[Trumble]

I'm busy right now playing Zelda, but I will comment on this thread very soon.

Classic! :D:D:D


There's not a lot you can say about nihilism, really, as it deals so much with the absence of things. Buddhism was (rather than is, at least in academic circles) accused of being nihilistic when in fact it is nothing of the sort, it is both optimistic and has a code of ethics just as fully developed as any of the theistic religions.

The first article needs correcting in regard of Eisai. He and Zen Buddhists in general were/are not nihilists. There has been an awful lot of cr*p written in the West about Zen, the worst offence (particularly in the case of Rinzai) being assuming that distinctive features represent the entirety. They do not, and life in a Zen monastery is pretty much like life in any other sort of Buddhist monastery.

[Isambard]

Classic! :D:D:D


There's not a lot you can say about nihilism, really, as it deals so much with the absence of things. Buddhism was (rather than is, at least in academic circles) accused of being nihilistic when in fact it is nothing of the sort, it is both optimistic and has a code of ethics just as fully developed as any of the theistic religions.

The first article needs correcting in regard of Eisai. He and Zen Buddhists in general were/are not nihilists. There has been an awful lot of cr*p written in the West about Zen, the worst offence (particularly in the case of Rinzai) being assuming that distinctive features represent the entirety. They do not, and life in a Zen monastery is pretty much like life in any other sort of Buddhist monastery.

I think what you mentioned has to do with a Nietzchean perspective of Buddhism.

He points out that everyone is essentially a nihilist in some regard. Especially when we shift belief systems, we destroy previously held notions of how the world works, notions of a certain moral system, values etc.

This is espcially true when we pursue knowledge as more knowledge will destroy more previously held notions because of their limitations.

Buddhism holds fewer universals than other religions IMHO, and there is greater emphasis on new knowledge and questioning of concepts other thought systems take for granted, ie. the self.

With that in mind, I'd say Buddhism is nihilistic, but not nihilism proper.:sunny:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Qingu]

Im in the extreme minority who holds the philosopical position of nihilism. I wish to hear your thoughts on it.

Here is a brief skinny on it http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...3Doff%26sa%3DN

Here is a philosophical critique on nihilism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5H91QHX7U

And addressing the above video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVCd5...eature=related

Im curious to hear your opinions :smile:

Well.... I'd say you do have beliefs, as you obviously believe in logic, your ability to communicate using English, that the chair you're sitting on will continue to remain solid.

It sounds like you're defining the word belief closer to ideal. Is this right? If it is, I'm curious to know why self-preservation is not an ideal, since you obviously hold to the importance of that, at minimum.

[Isambard]

Well.... I'd say you do have beliefs, as you obviously believe in logic, your ability to communicate using English, that the chair you're sitting on will continue to remain solid.

It sounds like you're defining the word belief closer to ideal. Is this right? If it is, I'm curious to know why self-preservation is not an ideal, since you obviously hold to the importance of that, at minimum.

Id say its the same as relieving one's self, it sorta happens unless you actively oppose it.

I like existing, but from an objective standpoint, my existence is not important.

[Qingu]

Id say its the same as relieving one's self, it sorta happens unless you actively oppose it.

I like existing, but from an objective standpoint, my existence is not important.

Hm. Good point.

Out of curiosity, do you smoke pot? :)

[Isambard]

Hm. Good point.

Out of curiosity, do you smoke pot? :)

Depends on whos asking:coolious:

[Pygoscelis]

I'm not completely sure what a nihilist is. But I think I may be one myself.

I do not believe in good and evil as objective forces or traits that exist in the universe independent of a mind to label them such.

What I think of as morality is really just empathy (seeing yourself in others, mirror neurons etc) combined with social programming and basic self interest (don't steal because you don't want to be stolen from etc).

I also don't see religious "morality" as morality at all. It just appears to me to be bare obedience to one with greater power (in this case taken to the ultimate extreme).

[Isambard]

I'm not completely sure what a nihilist is. But I think I may be one myself.

I do not believe in good and evil as objective forces or traits that exist in the universe independent of a mind to label them such.

What I think of as morality is really just empathy (seeing yourself in others, mirror neurons etc) combined with social programming and basic self interest (don't steal because you don't want to be stolen from etc).

I also don't see religious "morality" as morality at all. It just appears to me to be bare obedience to one with greater power (in this case taken to the ultimate extreme).

Do you believe there a way everyone should act in respects to morality?

[Pygoscelis]

Do you believe there a way everyone should act in respects to morality?

I'm not a sociopath if thats what you mean. I do hold that certain actions should be punished and discouraged to promote social harmony and even simply for my own self preservation.

[Isambard]

I'm not a sociopath if thats what you mean. I do hold that certain actions should be punished and discouraged to promote social harmony and even simply for my own self preservation.

(Sorry if Im misunderstanding) So you believe there are certain moral statements that are objective? If so, could you name a few that everyone would agree to?:D

[Pygoscelis]

For one, it is objectively moral and the right thing to do to give Pygoscelis some nachos.

[Woodrow]

Just my opinion and not based on any really scientific basis. I view nihilism as being a form of mental euthanasia. It probably is the ultimate stereotype of what many people believe an atheist to be.

I call it mental euthanasia as the pursuit of nihilism will render a person incapable of accepting or even pursuing any form of spiritual growth. The result is death of any spiritual connotations of life.

[Qingu]

Just my opinion and not based on any really scientific basis. I view nihilism as being a form of mental euthanasia. It probably is the ultimate stereotype of what many people believe an atheist to be.

I call it mental euthanasia as the pursuit of nihilism will render a person incapable of accepting or even pursuing any form of spiritual growth. The result is death of any spiritual connotations of life.

Can you define "spiritual"?

[Woodrow]

Can you define "spiritual"?

A quality that extends beyond the quantifiable. Quite simply it can not be defined in terms of proof or evidence. To an atheist it is unprovable and to a believer in a Deity, it requires no proof.

To a non-believer it would be considered to be the result of beneficial stimulation of the limbic system. To a Believer, it is a means of non verbal communication with a Supreme entity.

[Qingu]

A quality that extends beyond the quantifiable. Quite simply it can not be defined in terms of proof or evidence. To an atheist it is unprovable and to a believer in a Deity, it requires no proof.

So things like art and music, or even the taste of a well-cooked meal, are spiritual? I don't see the nihilists on this board claiming they have no interest in developing their appreciation of these things.

[Woodrow]

So things like art and music, or even the taste of a well-cooked meal, are spiritual? I don't see the nihilists on this board claiming they have no interest in developing their appreciation of these things.

True. I am also quite certain they would attribute it to a neurological phenomena. They would the quote the physical analytical psycho-physiological events that create the physical sensations of such pleasure. Which I believe are just the superficial material manifestations of what spiritual growth is. The fact of being nihilistic would not allow them to accept any purpose for such.

[Resigned]

A quality that extends beyond the quantifiable. Quite simply it can not be defined in terms of proof or evidence. To an atheist it is unprovable and to a believer in a Deity, it requires no proof.

What you’re describing is nothing more than “feelings”. That’s a pretty straight-forward concept. Feelings are both material and non-material such as pain and anger, respectively.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

A theoretical and similarly non-material (yet unproven), explanation for déjà vu is very simple and interesting. The brain is in two separate hemispheres with a cortex crossover between them. Sometimes, one hemisphere lags behind in perception, so in effect, the left side of the brain is experiencing something and your right hemisphere is slightly out of sync, and so when it catches up you get the distinct yet vague impression that you have “done this before” – and in a sense, you have, by a few milliseconds. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these types of things, and not submitting a case to support it.

To a non-believer it would be considered to be the result of beneficial stimulation of the limbic system. To a Believer, it is a means of non verbal communication with a Supreme entity.

The conclusion then must be that there are many supreme (no caps) entities as believers of most competing religions can make this claim.

Let’s suppose I have “feelings” that David Koresh is the one true god. He is as historically significant (and just as dead), as most other historical religious figures. And let’s face it, dead historical figures seem to be much higher on the worship strat than live ones. Because these are my feelings, no proof is required on my part that David Koresh is, in fact, the one true god. I'm just applying your own standards here. And, as many of us know, David's exit from this world was, as one might describe: in pain and suffering for his belief. That also seems to confirm my feelings that he is the one true god.

If the above paragraph sounds flaky, it was intended to.

Believing in something that is completely absent proof, and, that which is said to not ever require proof, seems to me to suggest someone who is completely resistant to reality.

[Keltoi]

Define reality? Is reality what you make of it or what I make of it? Is reality a distinct and material truth? Or is reality simply the truth as I see it?

[Isambard]

Just my opinion and not based on any really scientific basis. I view nihilism as being a form of mental euthanasia. It probably is the ultimate stereotype of what many people believe an atheist to be.

I call it mental euthanasia as the pursuit of nihilism will render a person incapable of accepting or even pursuing any form of spiritual growth. The result is death of any spiritual connotations of life.

You wouldnt be the first with such an opinion. And it isnt completly wrong...as long as what you are referring to is defined.

The irony of nihilism is that the act of trying to define it strengthens the position (or lack thereof).

The word nihilism simply means nothingness, and nothingness itself can mean alot of different things depending on what you are talking about or even you own subjective views on something.

Hegel also held your idea on nihilism that skepticism can only lead to suicide. My problem with this is that to commit suicide, you would have to violate certain instincts requiring strong emotion/ anti-values. In which case it ceases being nihilism and becomes a sort of weirdo ideology.

There is also Nietzche's take on it where he seperated it between passive nihilism and active nihilism. Passive nihilism is where you dont care about anything, nothing effects you and you are essentially dead.

Active nihilism is when you actively test and destroy mental constructs and perseptions in the hopes of finding an objective reality not bound and limited by the human mind.

I consider my nihilism a sort of default. I dont want to be a nihilist, but its the position I am left with because of my need to de-construct things and so far, I've yet to find something that is not based on an assumption.

I am free to enjoy things, if anything Id say im freer because I am stoic when it comes to things that worries other ppl so I can focus on my activities with a clearer mind:shade:

[Woodrow]

At least we are back on topic even if we don't agree with each other. True what you describe is Nietzche's concept of Nihilism. Probably the only explainable view.

I have nothing more to add, nor do I see any reason to.

[Resigned]

Define reality? Is reality what you make of it or what I make of it? Is reality a distinct and material truth? Or is reality simply the truth as I see it?

OK, here goes. At the most basic level, let’s assume for most of us, getting up in the morning , going to work, all the material things we do every day is our reality. I’ll admit that this could, conceivably, be flawed and we are all just brains in a jar, but for now, the reality I describe is true for most of us. It's possible that everything is an illusion, though definitely you have precedence for this in the theistic paradigms, and not at all in the materialist paradigms. But it is possible that all is an illusion.

Let’s continue along these lines, the fact is, those who are poor or sick or even those with a terminal disease do have to confront those realities. If it is their reality, then it is their reality. You can dismiss this all and claim that there is another reality, (one which cannot be accessed, understood or even contemplated in a any meaningful way and that that's your right of course, but it's equally applicable to your theistic beliefs then. If you cast doubt upon your ability to reason and perceive in a reality, then your perceptions of your religious doctrines and beliefs are just as liable to be suspect as anything else -- this you cannot escape from and your argument is in real jeopardy at this point). I would say your paradigm is by definition hopeless.

I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality", that there is a "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man such as Jim Jones who thinks himself the Messiah?

So here we have the Theist, admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless assigns attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.

[Keltoi]

OK, here goes. At the most basic level, let’s assume for most of us, getting up in the morning , going to work, all the material things we do every day is our reality. I’ll admit that this could, conceivably, be flawed and we are all just brains in a jar, but for now, the reality I describe is true for most of us. It's possible that everything is an illusion, though definitely you have precedence for this in the theistic paradigms, and not at all in the materialist paradigms. But it is possible that all is an illusion.

Let’s continue along these lines, the fact is, those who are poor or sick or even those with a terminal disease do have to confront those realities. If it is their reality, then it is their reality. You can dismiss this all and claim that there is another reality, (one which cannot be accessed, understood or even contemplated in a any meaningful way and that that's your right of course, but it's equally applicable to your theistic beliefs then. If you cast doubt upon your ability to reason and perceive in a reality, then your perceptions of your religious doctrines and beliefs are just as liable to be suspect as anything else -- this you cannot escape from and your argument is in real jeopardy at this point). I would say your paradigm is by definition hopeless.

I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality", that there is a "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man such as Jim Jones who thinks himself the Messiah?

So here we have the Theist, admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless assigns attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.

So to you, reality is what we experience? On the purely rational and logical level of course?

The question wasn't intended to create an argument for theist belief. By nature, the belief in a higher power doesn't rely on logic. It has much more to do with the nature of the soul and spirituality, which cannot be observed by scientific inquiry...at least not yet.

[Resigned]

So to you, reality is what we experience? On the purely rational and logical level of course?

Sure. I long ago copped to the inability of either theist or atheist to prove ultimately anything-- we cannot prove a **** thing ultimately. All philosophy and perspective must be penultimate-- we all have to accept on faith or trust that reality is what it is. You can call it "faith" all you want, but to the materialist such a word means a belief in something supernatural, and I don't see the necessity of adding a supernatural realm to a natural existence. It doesn't assist in explaining anything, and in fact it adds a mystery to what we already don't know. I believe the universe is knowable, but that can only be if it's wholly natural and not supernatural (we cannot know the mind of an infinite and infinitely supreme being). Finally, given the empirical occurrence of any number of thousands of religious beliefs that have come and gone, and the peculiar focus of religion on social behavior, it is far likelier that all god-models have grown out of a class defined process of social control, as opposed to being any real model of the existence of reality.

[QUOTE[The question wasn't intended to create an argument for theist belief. By nature, the belief in a higher power doesn't rely on logic. It has much more to do with the nature of the soul and spirituality, which cannot be observed by scientific inquiry...at least not yet.[/QUOTE]
I was hoping you didn’t think I was arguing. You actually presented some interesting thoughts I wanted to address.

As to the elements which operate the human system, biological elements provide the only testable and verifiable data we have. Do we need to eat, for example, is it a requirement for our bodies to function? Yes it does, a replenishing one. We need food and water to maintain that life. As you starve you become listless and lacking energy. Clearly, your soul-power theory needs food for it to function. It is not this positive energy field you might be championing because the moment you limit the physical machine, it seems this "soul" power diminishes as well. You are asserting the life force is a power from somewhere else so you will need to:

demonstrated this power (other than to say you feel it is there)
and
shown it to be perpetual energy (in fact, I haven’t seen examples of this).

Further, when I respire, air goes in and then comes out. It feels good to breathe because not breathing = dying. And yes, personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak. Of course I can feel the intangibles-- I have thoughts and feelings and so on. But for some reason when we shut down the brain, we no longer see such phenomena coming from the being whose brain has been shut down. Why is that?

[Qingu]

True. I am also quite certain they would attribute it to a neurological phenomena. They would the quote the physical analytical psycho-physiological events that create the physical sensations of such pleasure. Which I believe are just the superficial material manifestations of what spiritual growth is. The fact of being nihilistic would not allow them to accept any purpose for such.

I see what you're saying.

I don't see how ascribing a material explanation to a phenomenon cheapens it or makes it less "spiritual" in the sense you're describing.

People used to look at lightning in the clouds at wonder, thinking that it was the weapons of the gods. Now we know exactly what causes lightning. But this doesn't mean thunderstorms are any less beautiful or awe-inspiring.

The same can be said for all the stars we see in the sky. People used to think they were points of light set in the dome of the sky by the gods, and that the wandering stars (planets) were the heavenly avatars of deities. Now we know exactly what the stars are and in many cases exactly the elements of which they're made out of. This doesn't make the night sky any less beautiful or awesome—if anything, I think it makes it even more amazing.

There's so much beauty and elegance in the world. Just because we understand the physical phenomena responsible for it doesn't make it any less beautiful. I think it makes it more beautiful.

[aamirsaab]

Classic! :D:D:D

Well, honesty is the best policy! :p

I'm done saving Hyrule for now and as promised I have returned to talk about this topic.

Firstly, how does apathy differ from Nihilism?

Secondly, Isambard, would you say that you are dictated more by your emotions or logic as a result of being Nihilistic? Has being nihilistic affected any of the two in relation to your thought process at all?

[Isambard]

Well, honesty is the best policy! :p

I'm done saving Hyrule for now and as promised I have returned to talk about this topic.

Jeez man, how come that darn Ganondorf wont stay dead?!

Firstly, how does apathy differ from Nihilism?

Its the same as atheists who have never heard of religion (young children, some utopian society) and philosophical atheists who after studying theist claims, have concluded there is no evidence for God/No God.

Being completely apathetic could make you a nihilist, (Passive nihilism for Neitzche) or you could be a philosophical nihilist after finding all universals to be false.

I am a philosophical nihilist.

Secondly, Isambard, would you say that you are dictated more by your emotions or logic as a result of being Nihilistic?

I'd say emotion takes precedent over logic. Logic is nothing more than a tool to see if something makes sense as opposed to a system of evalutation or guidence in itself.

Has being nihilistic affected any of the two in relation to your thought process at all?

Not sure what your last question means. (Taking a stab in the dark here) I am very skeptical of any positive claims and wont take them for face value. Despite being a nihilist, I am quite content. Not believing in universals doesnt impaire my ability to appretiate something for itself.:D

[Talha777]

Nihilism says there is no objective truth. This is the exact opposite of Islam, which says there is an objective truth, there is a single Reality. The Holy Quran says:

This is so, because Allah is the reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.
(Al Haj 22:6)

The Rububiyah (Lordship) of Allah is manifest, it is undeniable even by the vast majority of disbelievers. His Power and Design over the universe points to Him. So He is the Objective Reality/Truth, therefore nihilism is heresy of the worse kind.

[Isambard]

Nihilism says there is no objective truth. This is the exact opposite of Islam, which says there is an objective truth, there is a single Reality. The Holy Quran says:

This is so, because Allah is the reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.
(Al Haj 22:6)

The Rububiyah (Lordship) of Allah is manifest, it is undeniable even by the vast majority of disbelievers. His Power and Design over the universe points to Him. So He is the Objective Reality/Truth, therefore nihilism is heresy of the worse kind.

Do you have an arguement or are you just going to quote books without any sort of thought process backing up your claims?

[Talha777]

Do you have an arguement or are you just going to quote books without any sort of thought process backing up your claims?

Which argument is superior to the Holy Quran? What is the argument for nihilism by the way? There is no evidence for it being the truth, so dont berate me for not using independent rational arguments in this regard when you dont have any yourself. And like I said, the Holy Quran is the Word of Allah, what more do we need to establish what is true and what is false?

[Isambard]

Which argument is superior to the Holy Quran? What is the argument for nihilism by the way? There is no evidence for it being the truth, so dont berate me for not using independent rational arguments in this regard when you dont have any yourself. And like I said, the Holy Quran is the Word of Allah, what more do we need to establish what is true and what is false?

Umm...the links I gave for example...you havent bothered touching upon any of the points.

If you wont bother to review the material for discussion, then dont post. Simple as that.

[Talha777]

The so called "material" is some stupid website and two youtube videos. Maybe you can expand on the "material".

[Isambard]

The so called "material" is some stupid website and two youtube videos. Maybe you can expand on the "material".

You fail to understand the concepts, so you simply scoff at the arguements.

Considering you didnt know nihilism is a negative position and the fun of trying to prove negatives, Id say say this thread may be beyond your understanding of philosophy.

[Talha777]

You fail to understand the concepts, so you simply scoff at the arguements.

Yes, let me give you a sample of some of the arguments from the sources you provided:

http://www.nihilists.net/morenihilis...#things_I_like

Something I Like: Guns

http://www.nihilists.net/morenihilis...#things_I_like

Something I Like: Genitals

http://www.nihilists.net/morenihilism.html#the_world

I am alone. Death is nothing. Then we rot and fall apart. I like it this way.
I could be wrong about any of these things.

The person who wrote this "material" says he likes what he believes but admits he could be wrong about it. Yes, a very strong argument indeed.

[Isambard]

Yes, let me give you a sample of some of the arguments from the sources you provided:

http://www.nihilists.net/morenihilis...#things_I_like


http://www.nihilists.net/morenihilis...#things_I_like




The person who wrote this "material" says he likes what he believes but admits he could be wrong about it. Yes, a very strong argument indeed.

I see you havent bothered to read my very first post. I said the first link was the skinny on it, basically what it was. The debate for and agaisnt nihilism are on the youtube links.

Are you going to bother to discuss the material or are you just going to engage in ad hominems and strawman arguements?

And from your last comment, you still seem unable to grasp what a negative philosophical claim is.

[Muezzin]

I read the first link, I think I get the gist, but nihilism is still beyond my grasp, unless I misunderstand it. If nothing has any value or meaning... how can one 'like' anything? If nothing has any meaning or value, wouldn't one simply be floating in a sea of apathetic passivity? The meaning and value of things or people drive our actions. And if one 'likes' something, one must ascribe it (sentimental) value by default.

Am I missing something here? Have I completely misunderstood what nihilism is all about? Is the phrase 'apathetic passivity' grammatically correct?

EDIT: I read in your previous posts about 'active nihilism' which is the active deconstructing of meaningless constructs in the pursuit of some objective reality. But isn't that simply objectivity, scepticism and 'thinking outside the box'? And isn't 'active nihilism' essentially a pursuit of meaning? How can one pursue something one believes does not exist?

How can one believe something does not exist if one believes 'belief' itself is a false concept?

Please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

[Isambard]

I read the first link, I think I get the gist, but nihilism is still beyond my grasp, unless I misunderstand it. If nothing has any value or meaning... how can one 'like' anything? If nothing has any meaning or value, wouldn't one simply be floating in a sea of apathetic passivity? The meaning and value of things or people drive our actions. And if one 'likes' something, one must ascribe it (sentimental) value by default.

Am I missing something here? Have I completely misunderstood what nihilism is all about? Is the phrase 'apathetic passivity' grammatically correct?

EDIT: I read in your previous posts about 'active nihilism' which is the active deconstructing of meaningless constructs in the pursuit of some objective reality. But isn't that simply objectivity, scepticism and 'thinking outside the box'? And isn't 'active nihilism' essentially a pursuit of meaning? How can one pursue something one believes does not exist?

How can one believe something does not exist if one believes 'belief' itself is a false concept?

Please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

You have the passive nihilism down-pat. It is essentially a grand sense of apathy.

Active nihilism doesnt necessarily have to be for some purpose. I personally do it because of boredom and curiosity. I simply enjoy exploring new topics and breaking it down to see how it works.

The only thing that you are missing thou is that nihilism says there is no objective meaning or value to things or the universe. That the concept is entirely man-made.

This means there is no universal sense of religion, god, good, evil etc. Everyone will disagree because all of those warm concepts are entirely relative.

You can ascribe personal meanings to things or ppl, but you relaize its only in your mind and not in anyone elses.

Hope that hlps :)

[aamirsaab]

Not sure what your last question means. (Taking a stab in the dark here) I am very skeptical of any positive claims and wont take them for face value. Despite being a nihilist, I am quite content. Not believing in universals doesnt impaire my ability to appretiate something for itself.:D

Well, basically that question meant to say: does being nihilistic make you use logic or emotion to explain your actions - i.e. are you more likely to use emotion (or logic) as an explanation to your actions than if you were not nihilistic.

That being said, your answer was very interesting. In fact, I think I'm beginning to see more parallels with mine and your style of thinking (though there are most likely a lot of differences), espcecially after reading your reply to muezzin's post.

What I am now interested in is that you say that you are content with your life yet admit in essence that your existence is meaningless. I would like to know how this is possible and what stops you, yourself, from becoming depressed etc.

[Muezzin]

You have the passive nihilism down-pat. It is essentially a grand sense of apathy.

Okay.

Active nihilism doesnt necessarily have to be for some purpose. I personally do it because of boredom and curiosity. I simply enjoy exploring new topics and breaking it down to see how it works.

Ah. I always thought that sort of analysis was objectivity combined with curiosity and maybe a little scepticism.

The only thing that you are missing thou is that nihilism says there is no objective meaning or value to things or the universe. That the concept is entirely man-made.

But you wrote that Nietzche said active nihilism is breaking through mental constructs to get to the underlying objective reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, him, or both.

This means there is no universal sense of religion, god, good, evil etc. Everyone will disagree because all of those warm concepts are entirely relative.

So, while concepts such as good and evil might not have any ontological reality (they don't exist in and of themselves), they exist in the sense that many people agree on what constitutes good and evil behaviour?

Like, for instance, the concept of time. It doesn't exist in and of itself, but it is a construct that everyone agrees upon and has use for. If I'm psycho-babbling, I do apologise.

You can ascribe personal meanings to things or ppl, but you relaize its only in your mind and not in anyone elses.

Don't most people already do that? Someone might think chicken soup is the greatest thing in the universe, but that same someone, nihilist or not, probably knows that not everyone agrees with his opinion.

Hope that hlps :)

It does somewhat. I think I've just been calling it 'scepticism' instead of 'active nihilism'. I've always thought of nihilism in its passive form, which is why I wasn't too fond of it. A bunch of misery guts sitting around, whining about how everything sucks and nothing has meaning, and yet doing nothing to change anything? Sucks to be those guys.

Active nihilism seems much more constructive. I don't agree with it entirely (there appears to be a tendency to perhaps label just about everything a construct), but it's certainly a practical mindset. I suppose active nihilists are good at getting to the heart of the matter - very direct.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Active nihilism is when you actively test and destroy mental constructs and perseptions in the hopes of finding an objective reality not bound and limited by the human mind.

I think everyone should have a part of their mind devoted to this task. It's how new ideas in science or philosophy are tested and weighed for value.

I suppose I am a nihilist at heart, but I tend to ignore this for most of the time because life can't be lived without believing (on however provisional a basis) things which can't be proven. I believe the following:

I exist
the sun will rise tomorrow
killing people is evil

but none of them can be proved. I believe these things out of habit; in the case of the last, out of deep, primal habit that is one of the most important reasons for our survival as a species. These things are useful for us to believe, but that doesn't make them objectively and demonstrably true.

I consider my nihilism a sort of default. I dont want to be a nihilist, but its the position I am left with because of my need to de-construct things and so far, I've yet to find something that is not based on an assumption.

Everything is perhaps based on assumptions because of our tendency to want to explain things with incomplete evidence. All of our ratiocinations about the universe are bound to be conditioned by the physical makeup of our brains and sense-organs, as well as other factors. I think that once we've accepted this, that implies that our knowledge of the universe will always be limited. And that's where the can of worms starts...

Mathematicians prefer to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because none of mathematics would make sense without it, but it's a statement that cannot be proven. I believe Russell and Whitehead spent a significant portion of their Principia Mathematica attempting to do just that, but without success. However, it's convenient to believe it in the same way as it's convenient to believe that the ground won't give way when we're walking on a pavement, or that eating fruit will help you live longer. These beliefs are useful to us because they form part of our mental constructs that help us to understand the place we find ourselves in...

...because we don't really know why we're here. The meaning and purpose of our existence is unclear; different people will give different explanations and have different judging criteria. This, it seems to me, shouldn't at all be a cause for despair or anarchy. We give our lives meaning ourselves. Just about every human activity (including religion) is part of an attempt to understand what our lives mean, to examine different aspects of our experience and perhaps learn from them. It's up to us to give our lives value and to make them worthwhile.

The sceptical attitude has a long (and distinguished?) career in the history of philosophy, and has been pretty much constant, without often breaking into the mainstream. For music fans, a comparison with heavy metal's position in popular music could be relevant here, believe it or not, but that's another story. From Diogenes the Cynic and Hume to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, there's always been the character that asks just a few too many questions for comfort. I think it could have been the Existentialist movement that really put nihilism on the map, though. The works of Camus, Sartre and (in his way) Beckett broke scepticism in the face of an apparently absurd universe into the mainstream of continental philosophy and culture, where it has maintained its place in contemporary discourse to this day.

Peace

[snakelegs]

i think this is probably over my head.
it strikes me that if there were an objective reality, we would be unable to know it - it would lie outside of our tools of perception because we are limited. so in a way, it is irrelevant.
goes back to the observer is not separate from the observed.....:muddlehea

[Isambard]

What I am now interested in is that you say that you are content with your life yet admit in essence that your existence is meaningless. I would like to know how this is possible and what stops you, yourself, from becoming depressed etc.

I could explain this, but Im in the mood for making an amusing metaphor :D

Lets say I plan on going to the US for a month. Im very excited to go for different reasons such as visiting sights, friends, American eateries etc. But the main reason Im excited is because I believe once I enter into America, Ill be praised as a king by all the Americans and be given a golden scpeter and throne and all that jazz.

There is nothing indicating that Ill be praised as a monarch, its just the idea makes me happy.

Of course, once I go into the US and ppl ignore me, Ill be bummed so much so that I may even recent the trip there.

Believing youll be greeted as a monarch whereever you go is the same as believing you are somehow special in an objective sense. Nothing indicates I should be loved by all, if anything, all evidence seems to point at me being a random sequence of "accidents". Thats fine though.

Once one accepts that, then you are free to enjoy things for what they are as opposed to what things "should be" in your mind.:sunny:

[Isambard]

But you wrote that Nietzche said active nihilism is breaking through mental constructs to get to the underlying objective reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, him, or both.

You are correct, Nietzche says that, I dont. As Snakelegs said, there might be an objective reality, but the human being is far too limited for it to be of any real relevance.

So, while concepts such as good and evil might not have any ontological reality (they don't exist in and of themselves), they exist in the sense that many people agree on what constitutes good and evil behaviour?

They exists as fuzzy concepts. Everyone may agree that stealing is wrong. But the definition of stealing varies so widely that any sort of practical universal application is useless. (I have a mini-essay expanded on this if you are interested)

Don't most people already do that? Someone might think chicken soup is the greatest thing in the universe, but that same someone, nihilist or not, probably knows that not everyone agrees with his opinion.

Youd think so, but in reality alot of secular ethics involve claiming to be universals which is bizarre in my view. Ppl like Dawkinsm Hitchens and other very vocal anti-theists say that nihilism is 'evil' because of the claim of relative morality. This is why I believe the good majority of them are full of BS.


Active nihilism seems much more constructive. I don't agree with it entirely (there appears to be a tendency to perhaps label just about everything a construct), but it's certainly a practical mindset. I suppose active nihilists are good at getting to the heart of the matter - very direct.

ty :D

[AntiKarateKid]

Resurrecting this thread, I believe that if I weren't Muslim I would be nihilistic agnostic. The universe doesn't make sense without a god, religion isn't believable without firm ground like Islam, and morality isn't anything I care about without religion.

[جوري]

This was a self-feeding thread by atheists for atheists, whereby they came to congratulate each other on having consistent views with one another, even the one who wasn't quite sure what nihilist actually means, was all too eager to jump on the bandwagon so long as it held an opposing view to its (theistic) antonyms.


I wonder if he, the thread starter even bothered looking up the word in the dictionary before starting the thread?

nihilism

One entry found.


Main Entry: ni·hil·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\ Function: noun Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing — more at nil Date: circa 1817 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths2 a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility bcapitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
— ni·hil·ist

\-list\ noun or adjective
— ni·hil·is·tic

\ˌnī-(h)ə-ˈlis-tik, ˌnē-\ adjective




1-A revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake
2-The delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal
3-Complete denial of all established authority and institutions.

The thing is you can only define a Nihilist by understanding its opposite. A philosophy that can't exist on its own independent of that which defines it, i.e faith, optimism, purpose and actually existence itself, isn't worthy of being mentioned. How can a dream exist if we don't have a perception and understanding of reality?

Bro. Woodrow's post was actually very wise, if anyone with sense bothered a read..
If they wish to subscribe to such a doctrine, alot of things about their own existence will fail to make sense, or they will have an inability to define and account for simply given the definition of the term.. It is after all just subjective...

Out of all the religions out there, I find atheism to be the most farcical and intolerant.. Everyone starts from zero, but they start at -5 and unable to get themselves to a baseline where they can at least meet others on a level without resorting to some asinine platitudes on spaghetti monsters and teacup constellations.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Out of all the religions out there, I find atheism to be the most farcical and intolerant.. Everyone starts from zero, but they start at -5 and unable to get themselves to a baseline where they can at least meet others on a level without resorting to some asinine platitudes on spaghetti monsters and teacup constellations.

Do you understand those arguments?

Peace

[Muezzin]

Resurrecting this thread, I believe that if I weren't Muslim I would be nihilistic agnostic.

As John Goodman said in The Big Lebowski: 'Nihilists! I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.'

Of course, he was psychotic in that movie.

[جوري]

Greetings,


Do you understand those arguments?

Peace

clearly not as well as you do!

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

As John Goodman said in The Big Lebowski: 'Nihilists! I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.'

Of course, he was psychotic in that movie.

Sorry I lost you on that one. :-[

[Muezzin]

Sorry I lost you on that one. :-[

You're probably not the only one. Never mind. Ignore my insane ramblings.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

clearly not as well as you do!

Well, thanks for clearing that one up.

Sorry I lost you on that one.

It's from The Big Lebowski, one of the funniest movies ever made.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Well, thanks for clearing that one up.

Nothing gave me greater pleasure than the one feel good moment you'd yourself today..

all the best

[Amadeus85]

I think that for atheists its very hard to understand the value and meaning of civilization. As they dont believe in afterlife, they dont care what happens with their country after their dead. Thats contrary to christians, muslims and jews who think about what happens with their country, after theyr death. Im afraid that the atheist point of view is very typical for nowadays european politicians.

[abdullah_001]

To Czgibson:

I exist
the sun will rise tomorrow
killing people is evil

How can any of these NOT be proven (Except the second one, I'd say)? Sorry, but I really do not understand...

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To Czgibson:

I exist
the sun will rise tomorrow
killing people is evil

How can any of these NOT be proven (Except the second one, I'd say)? Sorry, but I really do not understand...

You are welcome to try and give a convincing and irrefutable proof of any of them if you think you can do it, by my prediction is that you will not be able to.

We live in a very uncertain world, and much of what we think we know rests on shaky foundations. When examined, most truth-claims can be found to rely on assumptions, suppositions and other unverified assertions.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

CZ, I find it interesting that you cited "not killing people" as just a primal habit and in a utilitarian view. Survival of the species? What about people who argue that killing off all deformed babies and children will help our species becomes stronger?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

CZ, I find it interesting that you cited "not killing people" as just a primal habit and in a utilitarian view. Survival of the species? What about people who argue that killing off all deformed babies and children will help our species becomes stronger?

I would ask those people how and why they thought such action would result in the species becoming stronger.

I would also probably say less respectful things to them, too, but that's not worth going into here. imsad

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,



I would ask those people how and why they thought such action would result in the species becoming stronger.

I would also probably say less respectful things to them, too, but that's not worth going into here. imsad

Peace

Playing Devils advocate here (I'd smack the person in question upside the head)


It works the same way as not killing people. You don't want to destroy your own species right? Why burden the limited resources of the earth with disabled people who are incapable of contributing to the species in any meaningful way? In fact, killing them prevents their defective genes from being passed on and disabling a new generation.

This is of course only for a person who EVEN CARES about his species. He could very well be a selfish person out for his own survival. How could he know that his contributions will even make a difference in his species? When he could be greedy, and "giving" when it is favorable for him, and live comfortably ENSURING his own survival and happiness?



I know these are alot of questions, but bear with me!

[abdullah_001]

Greetings,


You are welcome to try and give a convincing and irrefutable proof of any of them if you think you can do it, by my prediction is that you will not be able to.

We live in a very uncertain world, and much of what we think we know rests on shaky foundations. When examined, most truth-claims can be found to rely on assumptions, suppositions and other unverified assertions.

Peace

I exist - Just slap yourself and find out if it hurt or not

The sun will rise tomorrow - We can't say that because we don't know what will happen in the future

Murder is evil - the concept and the idea of morality is to prevent harm. Why is it immoral to steal? because it harms others. likewise why is it evil to murder? it harms others hence it is evil.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Playing Devils advocate here (I'd smack the person in question upside the head)

That's one response. It's a horrible argument you're making, and I can't quite see why you're making it. I know you're unlikely to be a serious supporter of eugenic fascism, so I'm keen to find out what your point is.

It works the same way as not killing people. You don't want to destroy your own species right? Why burden the limited resources of the earth with disabled people who are incapable of contributing to the species in any meaningful way? In fact, killing them prevents their defective genes from being passed on and disabling a new generation.

That's just such a narrow view of human potential. Why don't we go and kill Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? Because (for starters) it would be needlessly cruel and would deprive us of his talents.

This is of course only for a person who EVEN CARES about his species. He could very well be a selfish person out for his own survival. How could he know that his contributions will even make a difference in his species? When he could be greedy, and "giving" when it is favorable for him, and live comfortably ENSURING his own survival and happiness?

OK - selfish people do exist. Where are you going with this?

I exist - Just slap yourself and find out if it hurt or not

Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?

The sun will rise tomorrow - We can't say that because we don't know what will happen in the future

I agree.

Murder is evil - the concept and the idea of morality is to prevent harm. Why is it immoral to steal? because it harms others. likewise why is it evil to murder? it harms others hence it is evil.

One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


That's one response. It's a horrible argument you're making, and I can't quite see why you're making it. I know you're unlikely to be a serious supporter of eugenic fascism, so I'm keen to find out what your point is.




That's just such a narrow view of human potential. Why don't we go and kill Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? Because (for starters) it would be needlessly cruel and would deprive us of his talents.



OK - selfish people do exist. Where are you going with this?



Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?



I agree.



One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

Sorry I didn't mean disabled, I mean like severely mentally retarded people who are incapable at all of contributing.

I said at the top that I was playing devils advocate. I'm pointing out that your reason of not killing people because it would harm your own species is an weak reason. Which is why I understand what you mean when you called your view on it "a habit" since it is utterly dependent on your culture for you.

I find your reasons to be narrow and extremely easy to corrupt.

[abdullah_001]

Greetings,

Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?



I agree.



One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

It might be a simple arguement but feel free to prove it wrong.

Are you saying that it is possible you are a brain in a vat? How do you explain your limbs? How do you explain your sight? or any sensations for that matter? It isn't "prefectly possible" like you say, infact, it doesn't make any sense at all.


"One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept."

I don't think you read my post. Even if we agree that evil is a human invented concept then we must first define what evil is. I have already told you the concept of good and evil is snyonymous to what benifits and whats harms humankind in general, so by this standard we know that murdering people would be evil because it causes harm to other people.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry I didn't mean disabled, I mean like severely mentally retarded people who are incapable at all of contributing.

I think I understand what you mean now. It's a big ethical issue, with (as ever) no easy answers. I think most people would feel some sort of natural revulsion at killing mentally defective people to eliminate their drain on resources. However, this is the kind of decision that doctors are forced to make every day all over the world.

I said at the top that I was playing devils advocate.

Oh, I know. Like I said, it's clear you're not a eugenic fascist.

I'm pointing out that your reason of not killing people because it would harm your own species is an weak reason. Which is why I understand what you mean when you called your view on it "a habit" since it is utterly dependent on your culture for you.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly earlier on. I'm not really talking about my personal morality, I'm trying to think about how and why morality developed in our species. It's my belief that thousands of years of human morality being used as a survival tactic in all cultures of the world is something that sets a very real framework on our behaviour, to the point where the taboo on killing has become such a powerful part of our collective memory that it is almost (but who can say to what degree?) innate.

I find your reasons to be narrow and extremely easy to corrupt.

I don't think I'm perfect, but what sort of thing do you think you could do to corrupt me?

It might be a simple arguement but feel free to prove it wrong.

The brain in a vat example is intended to make you think again. It is a famous thought experiment, and I would encourage you to read the link once more.

Are you saying that it is possible you are a brain in a vat?

On balance, yes. It's doesn't seem very likely, I freely admit, but can we rule it out for certain? I don't think so.

How do you explain your limbs? How do you explain your sight? or any sensations for that matter?

Any number of ways. Since it's a thought experiment, I can invent any plausible reason at this point.

It isn't "prefectly possible" like you say, infact, it doesn't make any sense at all.

It seems absurd, but is it impossible?

"One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept."

I don't think you read my post. Even if we agree that evil is a human invented concept then we must first define what evil is. I have already told you the concept of good and evil is snyonymous to what benifits and whats harms humankind in general, so by this standard we know that murdering people would be evil because it causes harm to other people.

Perhaps I didn't read your post properly, and I do think you have a point here. By defining evil it is possible to construct a valid argument according to that definition. What I really meant was that it is not possible for us to prove that this amounts to a true statement about the world. Valid arguments may or may not be true.

Peace