Philosophy World Today; Nihilism.

[InsaneApache]

What's the point?

[CountArach]

The only meaning is the meaning we give it.

[/existentialist]

[Csargo]

You can live freely? Without fear of burning in the eternal hellfires.

[Craterus]

There isn't a point. Life is meaningless. It'd be a lot simpler if we all just came to terms with that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There isn't a point. Life is meaningless. It'd be a lot simpler if we all just came to terms with that.

Even if that were true, why would we need to come to terms with it? Life would also be simpler if we were dead.

That is why I've become a Catholic. I like what the Pope has to say. I started out as a Nihilist.

I figured that I am naturally conservative and no matter how hard I try, I can't shake the basic tenents. I'm in the position that, if there is no point it doesn't matter if I believe in a point and if there is a point, hey - no harm no foul.

Go to church and wing it with Jesus.

[Adrian II]

Nihilism has a point. I mean it. It's Bazarov's point, a serious consideration that cannot be easily dismissed.
"The tiny bit of space I occupy is so minute in comparison with the rest of the universe, where I am not and which is not concerned with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so infinitesimal compared with eternity in which I have not been and shall not be... And yet here, in this atom which is myself, in this mathematical point, blood circulates, a brain operates and aspires to something too... What a monstrous business! What futility!"

Turgenev, Fathers And Sons

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nihilism has a point. I mean it. It's Bazarov's point, a serious consideration that cannot be easily dismissed.
"The tiny bit of space I occupy is so minute in comparison with the rest of the universe, where I am not and which is not concerned with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so infinitesimal compared with eternity in which I have not been and shall not be... And yet here, in this atom which is myself, in this mathematical point, blood circulates, a brain operates and aspires to something too... What a monstrous business! What futility!"

Turgenev, Fathers And Sons

That isn't a "point".

[Adrian II]

That isn't a "point".'Winging it with Jesus'- you call that a point? It just confirms what Turgenev has Bazarov say.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nihilism has a point. I mean it. It's Bazarov's point, a serious consideration that cannot be easily dismissed.
"The tiny bit of space I occupy is so minute in comparison with the rest of the universe, where I am not and which is not concerned with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so infinitesimal compared with eternity in which I have not been and shall not be... And yet here, in this atom which is myself, in this mathematical point, blood circulates, a brain operates and aspires to something too... What a monstrous business! What futility!"

Turgenev, Fathers And Sons

On the other hand:


The amount of space we occupy is so huge in comparison with quarks and atomic structures, where I am not and which is not concerned with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so gigantic when compared to a nanosecond...and yet despite how huge I am, my brain operates and aspires to something...let's go eat some ice cream!

Sasaki, Executive head of Dairy Queen's PR department

[LittleGrizzly]

Even if that were true, why would we need to come to terms with it? Life would also be simpler if we were dead.


To me it says your life starts out pointless, so make you own purpose.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Even if that were true, why would we need to come to terms with it? Life would also be simpler if we were dead.


To me it says your life starts out pointless, so make you own purpose.

Make or Find? That seems to be the difference. I believe that a purpose is ours to find - suggesting that it already exists and is waiting for us to take up the call.

[LittleGrizzly]

but going back to the OP would a created purpose be any less meaningful to the person pursuing it, maybe it is less meaningful but as that higher purpose probably never exsisted in the first place for that person there would be litte effect...

[Lemur]

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.

[drone]

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.
Gah! That was going to be my contribution to this thread. :laugh4:

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! **** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos. ~D

[Adrian II]

[..] let's go eat some ice cream!Boy, that's a fine mission statement there. :laugh:

Seriously, in the face of his practically-nothingness, all man's thoughts and actions appear monstrous assumptions. Like Descartes' 'cogito' is the point of departure for reflection, Bazarov's statement is the point of departure for ethics. Whatever values you (choose to) subscribe to, you do so on your own initiative. There is no external authority that imposes them. Of course you can recognise an authority as being above you, but in that case it is no authority in the proper sense; just as you chose it, you can choose to refuse it.

What renders Lemur's funny dialogue essentially moot is that people who 'wing it' with an authoritarian notion of values are far more dangerous to mankind that those who question all ethics. Ever heard of nihilist crimes, nihilist dictatorships or worse, nihilist musicals? QED.

Sure, there are skewed interpretations of nihilism used to label non-nihilist people and actions. Such as the term 'nihilist violence', meaning violence for violence's sake. But that's a rudimentary value system, not nihilism.

[Ronin]

Gah! That was going to be my contribution to this thread. :laugh4:

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! **** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos. ~D

damn you guys beat me to it! :laugh4:

anyways....the meaning o life is to drop "marmots" into tubs with guys in them

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/15/nihilists.jpg

We believe in nothing Lebowski!!!
YA! Give us the money Lebowski!! :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Boy, that's a fine mission statement there. :laugh:

Seriously, in the face of his practically-nothingness, all man's thoughts and actions appear monstrous assumptions. Like Descartes' 'cogito' is the point of departure for reflection, Bazarov's statement is the point of departure for ethics. Whatever values you (choose to) subscribe to, you do so on your own initiative. There is no external authority that imposes them. Of course you can recognise an authority as being above you, but in that case it is no authority in the proper sense; just as you chose it, you can choose to refuse it.

What renders Lemur's funny dialogue essentially moot is that people who 'wing it' with an authoritarian notion of values are far more dangerous to mankind that those who question all ethics. Ever heard of nihilist crimes, nihilist dictatorships or worse, nihilist musicals? QED.

Sure, there are skewed interpretations of nihilism used to label non-nihilist people and actions. Such as the term 'nihilist violence', meaning violence for violence's sake. But that's a rudimentary value system, not nihilism.

I guess a lot of our values are instilled from an early age by our society and peers. We learn behavior by observing it. Some people follow the "I am blue collar/white collar so these are my values" form of winging it, and nihilism's point is that we shouldn't take these values as objective truths? I agree with that but I'm not a fan of the idea that since the universe is so large our actions are insignificant, we're only relatively small. As far as I'm concerned the rest of the universe is just pretty pictures.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Boy, that's a fine mission statement there. :laugh:

Seriously, in the face of his practically-nothingness, all man's thoughts and actions appear monstrous assumptions. Like Descartes' 'cogito' is the point of departure for reflection, Bazarov's statement is the point of departure for ethics. Whatever values you (choose to) subscribe to, you do so on your own initiative. There is no external authority that imposes them. Of course you can recognise an authority as being above you, but in that case it is no authority in the proper sense; just as you chose it, you can choose to refuse it.

What renders Lemur's funny dialogue essentially moot is that people who 'wing it' with an authoritarian notion of values are far more dangerous to mankind that those who question all ethics. Ever heard of nihilist crimes, nihilist dictatorships or worse, nihilist musicals? QED.

Sure, there are skewed interpretations of nihilism used to label non-nihilist people and actions. Such as the term 'nihilist violence', meaning violence for violence's sake. But that's a rudimentary value system, not nihilism.

I've never met a true nihilist. You mean to tell me that if you question the ethic that prohibits slavery that the world will be better off? How about the one that prohibits murder or war for aggrandisement?

Yea, mankind is a lot better of with those people in power.
What a load.

[Craterus]

It's impractical to be a true nihilist. If nothing matters, why look both ways before you cross the road?

However, there are several ethical irrealist positions that would argue that, without ethics, society wouldn't turn into a moral anarchy.

[Viking]

I've never met a true nihilist. You mean to tell me that if you question the ethic that prohibits slavery that the world will be better off? How about the one that prohibits murder or war for aggrandisement?

Yea, mankind is a lot better of with those people in power.
What a load.


To question is not the same as rejecting. Perhaps the ethics that rejects slavery was simply found to be sound?


It's impractical to be a true nihilist. If nothing matters, why look both ways before you cross the road?

If nothing matters, then what does it matter that nothing matters? It's a loop, so it's irrelevant. A nihilist is merely someone who states that there are/is

a) no objecitve morals
b) no objective truth
c) no objective meaning of life

so if he wants to live in a world where everything goes along smoothly, he'll need some morals. If he does not, then he'll not need and he will be the one suffering.

[Adrian II]

I've never met a true nihilist. You mean to tell me that if you question the ethic that prohibits slavery that the world will be better off? I mean to tell you that a nihilist doesn't believe the world should be better off in the first place. Or worse off, for that matter. It's irrelevant in his view.

Take it from there and you will be able to 'deconstruct' all your other assumptions in the same way. You will reach a point where you realise that observing any particular value is entirely an act of will - your will. No one asked you to, no one forced you into it, no preconceived order in the world around you suggested it. It's an act ex nihilo, coming out of nothing. And you are responsible for its consequences during the short span of time in which your act matters. In the end, it doesn't matter at all. It is an act ad nihilum, an act going nowhere, bound to end in nothingness because man's presence is so inconsequential in the colossal frame of time and space. The universe doesn't care, it will crush you anyway. If you want to temporarily and inconsequentially defy it, it's entirely your business. Think Sisyphus. Camus made sense of that myth in a beautiful booklet, called The Myth of Sisyphus, which is an ode to human willpower and courage in the face of nothingness.

Since it has this sobering effect on man's assumptions, nihilism has been the diet of choice of western philosophy since Nietzsche.
If you continue to lose weight you will eventually die.
Not good.
But it pays to observe weight-loss until you reach a healthy weight, without redundant pretenses about ourselves and the universe.
Excellent.

Are we there yet, so we can laugh off Bazarov? I don't think so. :inquisitive:

P.S. Have you ever thought about what your last words on earth would be, supposing you had the chance to utter them with your dying breath? I have. They would probably be: "What nonsense." It would be the last and only act of defiance left to me.

[InsaneApache]

In that case, mine would be, "What's the point?"

[Kralizec]

I've never met a true nihilist. You mean to tell me that if you question the ethic that prohibits slavery that the world will be better off? How about the one that prohibits murder or war for aggrandisement?

What did the bible ever do to stop slavery? The idea that an absolute code of ethics is going to stop people from enslaving eachother or committing any sort of atrocity is a bit silly, to be honest.

...

I'm an atheist, so I believe that life is a cosmic accident. There's no Maker who cares about what we do, and "Natural Law" is a fallacy. Sometimes you're just better off by going ahead without wondering "why".

[Don Corleone]

So I'm intrigued by the discussion thus far.

Adrian is proposing that at the end of the day, Nihilism means that all subjective value and meaning attached to life is imparted on it by direct choice to impart such value.

Viking has equated Nihilism with Moral Relativism and stated that Nihilism simply means a rejection of absolute standards.

And Fenrig states that the life unconsidered and uncomtemplated is 'better off'.

Personally, I think Nihilism is yet another incarnation of the Emperor's Clothes. Three people whom I respect and normally find quite interesting all offer posts devoid of meaning on a philosophy they claim to espouse, at least in part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moral Relativism, which is no longer so chic, as it's not avant garde enough any longer, is the absence of absolute moral standards or values? Nihilism is technically the absence of any meaning whatsoever? At some point, doesn't it become an oxymoron in thought? In order to classify oneself a Nihilist, doesn't one need to apply more thought to the question then Nihilism itself allows?

Yes, calling yourself a Nihilist is very trendy these days. But at the end of the day, isn't it just one more self-created 'Get Out of Jail Free' card? Forget about metaphysical ethical standards for a second (and I am capable of doing just that). Isn't there a Humanist ethic to which we all must espouse? Surely, a devout Christian, when provided with irrefutable evidence denying God's existence wouldn't be absolved for cavorting on a self-obsessive crime spree? Nor do avowed atheists actually practice the 'freedom' they claim to seek.

Call it what you will, there is goodness in all of us, and I do not think all the eye-shutting, ear clapsing and chanting "Lalalalala I cannnot hear you there are no good and evil lalalala" can ever alter our perception of that. Who here would really rape a 4 year old for pleasure, or steal the last $1000 off a starving elderly widow and claim the act has no meaning? Who among us would not be aghast with horror when faced with not the idea of such acts, but the reality of them? To our daughters or our grandmothers? Still no meaning?

And as with all proofs, a simple counterpoint proven true is all that is necessary. I'm not offering my argument as proof positive in the Divine. But I do offer it as a rejection of Nihilism, the rejection of all meaning.

[Craterus]

Call it what you will, there is goodness in all of us, and I do not think all the eye-shutting, ear clapsing and chanting "Lalalalala I cannnot hear you there are no good and evil lalalala" can ever alter any of our perception of that. Who here would really rape a 4 year old for pleasure, or steal the last $1000 off a starving elderly widow and claim the act has no meaning? Who among us would not be aghast with horror when faced with not the idea of such acts, but the reality of them? To our daughters or our grandmothers? Still no meaning?

Sounds like you'd identify with Moore's Intuitionism. That is, we simply know - intuit - what is good. We can tell if we are doing the right or the wrong thing and that seems to be the point you are making.

The fact that most, if not all, of us would not commit those acts does not necessarily mean that we intuit the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the acts, it just means that we've been socially conditioned to find them objectionable.

There's a lot that can be said for moral relativism because there are some cultures where cannibalism is acceptable. The idea of moral absolutes is much more problematic to defend.

[Don Corleone]

Sounds like you'd identify with Moore's Intuitionism. That is, we simply know - intuit - what is good. We can tell if we are doing the right or the wrong thing and that seems to be the point you are making.

The fact that most, if not all, of us would not commit those acts does not necessarily mean that we intuit the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the acts, it just means that we've been socially conditioned to find them objectionable.

There's a lot that can be said for moral relativism because there are some cultures where cannibalism is acceptable. The idea of moral absolutes is much more problematic to defend.

Luckily, I'm not engaged in debating the question of Moral Relativism today, as you correctly pointed out, it's a much more formidable task. I'm countering Nihilism, in fact countering the idea that anyone could ever indeed truly be a Nihilist. I'm certain that even said cannibals listed above had a moral compass of one sort or another. Different from mine? Without a doubt. But even so, it exists, which helps me gain ground against the idea that no meaning, no morality exists whatsoever. Remember, Nihilism isn't Moral Relativism. Moral Relativism rejects the idea of moral absolutes. Nihilism rejects the idea of morality, or meaning for that matter, whatsoever.

[Kralizec]

You've guessed correctly that I'm not a sociopathic pleasure seaker. I can't speak for Adrian or Viking, though.

Why do I order a beer, or why do I watch a particular TV show? What is the purpose behind such shallow pleasures? Pondering such questions is like explaining things to a six year old who keeps asking "but why is that" after every answer you give him or her. The chain of "why" has to stop a point. Outside the scope of science axioms are more or less arbitrary but still needed.

There's the question of why, in any society, you should refrain from doing disgusting acts if you benefit from it (and you think you can get away with it). My answer is that I couldn't live with myself if I had raped or killed someone in cold blood. I suppose that they're part instinctive, part conditioned restraints. I could question these inhibitions but that wouldn't make them less real. Besides, to keep on asking about the purpose of all it isn't going to yield any useful answers.

As for society, I pretty much agree with John Rawls' vision of justice. Suppose that you're going to create a new society with [X] persons. These people have no idea how things will unfold from the inception, what their status or position will be. Acting rationally they'll chose to devise a society that garantues a minimum of protection and liberty for all, out of calculated self-interest. This, then, is a fair society.

[Viking]

So I'm intrigued by the discussion thus far.

Adrian is proposing that at the end of the day, Nihilism means that all subjective value and meaning attached to life is imparted on it by direct choice to impart such value.

Viking has equated Nihilism with Moral Relativism and stated that Nihilism simply means a rejection of absolute standards.

And Fenrig states that the life unconsidered and uncomtemplated is 'better off'.

Personally, I think Nihilism is yet another incarnation of the Emperor's Clothes. Three people whom I respect and normally find quite interesting all offer posts devoid of meaning on a philosophy they claim to espouse, at least in part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moral Relativism, which is no longer so chic, as it's not avant garde enough any longer, is the absence of absolute moral standards or values? Nihilism is technically the absence of any meaning whatsoever? At some point, doesn't it become an oxymoron in thought? In order to classify oneself a Nihilist, doesn't one need to apply more thought to the question then Nihilism itself allows?

Yes, calling yourself a Nihilist is very trendy these days. But at the end of the day, isn't it just one more self-created 'Get Out of Jail Free' card? Forget about metaphysical ethical standards for a second (and I am capable of doing just that). Isn't there a Humanist ethic to which we all must espouse? Surely, a devout Christian, when provided with irrefutable evidence denying God's existence wouldn't be absolved for cavorting on a self-obsessive crime spree? Nor do avowed atheists actually practice the 'freedom' they claim to seek.

Call it what you will, there is goodness in all of us, and I do not think all the eye-shutting, ear clapsing and chanting "Lalalalala I cannnot hear you there are no good and evil lalalala" can ever alter our perception of that. Who here would really rape a 4 year old for pleasure, or steal the last $1000 off a starving elderly widow and claim the act has no meaning? Who among us would not be aghast with horror when faced with not the idea of such acts, but the reality of them? To our daughters or our grandmothers? Still no meaning?

And as with all proofs, a simple counterpoint proven true is all that is necessary. I'm not offering my argument as proof positive in the Divine. But I do offer it as a rejection of Nihilism, the rejection of all meaning.

Nihilism...nihilist...

I see all your points as valid, however, if one view nihilism as a moral view; a belief, then, isn't a nihilist someone who simply believe in nihilism? And if nihilism is the belief that there are no god given/objective morals, meaning or truth; isn't then a nihilist someone who believe in this?

But, we don't agree on the definition of nihilism; and that is of course a greater problem for the debate..

As for it being a ''Get Out of Jail Free' card', then you must be using another definition than the 'rejection of all meaning', as someone must see his own meaning to use this free card. No, I don't think nihilism makes any sense at the ultimate level, because if one rejects logic, one has rejected the reference frame one is using; such that the it becomes absurd and irrelevant (life is meaningless? meaningless compared to what?).

[naut]

You guys really have put more thought into this than I have, (age no doubt, although age wouldn't be a factor to a nihilist, would it?). The Myth of Sysiphus is an excellent text, if I may quote:

"[...] he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death."

I much prefer Absurdism to Nihilism.


Have you ever thought about what your last words on earth would be, supposing you had the chance to utter them with your dying breath?
I'd definitely borrow/steal the words of Sophocles' Oedipus: "I conclude that all is well".

[GoreBag]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moral Relativism, which is no longer so chic, as it's not avant garde enough any longer, is the absence of absolute moral standards or values? Nihilism is technically the absence of any meaning whatsoever? At some point, doesn't it become an oxymoron in thought? In order to classify oneself a Nihilist, doesn't one need to apply more thought to the question then Nihilism itself allows?

It takes one a while to figure this out, yeah, and then, at least in my experience, one doesn't think about it anymore. How does that bit go, again? "By wholeheartedly accepting one's existence, one achieves complete freedom from it," or something to that effect.

As it concerns the 'why aren't they all baby-rapists and granny-muggers?' aspect of the your post, there's not much to say. I won't speak for anyone else who claims to espouse Nihilism, but I'm honestly just not into four-year olds that much. I'm undecided about the thousand bucks.