On Nihilism

[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!

Well, honesty is the best policy!

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!

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.

 

[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/morenihilism.html#things_I_like

Something I Like: Guns

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


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

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.