PDA

View Full Version : Nihilist Club



Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 17:16
I thought I should start a club with the ideals I am most attracted to and if people want they can join.

1. total rejection of social mores, especially of morality and religion

2. belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless

3. disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth

Nihilism - link (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm)


1. Origins

"Nihilism" comes from the Latin nihil, or nothing, which means not anything, that which does not exist. It appears in the verb "annihilate," meaning to bring to nothing, to destroy completely. Early in the nineteenth century, Friedrich Jacobi used the word to negatively characterize transcendental idealism. It only became popularized, however, after its appearance in Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons (1862) where he used "nihilism" to describe the crude scientism espoused by his character Bazarov who preaches a creed of total negation.

In Russia, nihilism became identified with a loosely organized revolutionary movement (C.1860-1917) that rejected the authority of the state, church, and family. In his early writing, anarchist leader Mikhael Bakunin (1814-1876) composed the notorious entreaty still identified with nihilism: "Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life--the passion for destruction is also a creative passion!" (Reaction in Germany, 1842). The movement advocated a social arrangement based on rationalism and materialism as the sole source of knowledge and individual freedom as the highest goal. By rejecting man's spiritual essence in favor of a solely materialistic one, nihilists denounced God and religious authority as antithetical to freedom. The movement eventually deteriorated into an ethos of subversion, destruction, and anarchy, and by the late 1870s, a nihilist was anyone associated with clandestine political groups advocating terrorism and assassination.

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Max Stirner's (1806-1856) attacks on systematic philosophy, his denial of absolutes, and his rejection of abstract concepts of any kind often places him among the first philosophical nihilists. For Stirner, achieving individual freedom is the only law; and the state, which necessarily imperils freedom, must be destroyed. Even beyond the oppression of the state, though, are the constraints imposed by others because their very existence is an obstacle compromising individual freedom. Thus Stirner argues that existence is an endless "war of each against all" (The Ego and its Own, trans. 1907).

Back to Table of Contents

2. Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).

The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity:
What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . . (Will to Power)
Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.

In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.

Back to Table of Contents

3. Existential Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles' observation that "the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life," for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesis. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarized the existential nihilist's perspective when, in this famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out his disgust for life:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It's a situation that's nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus (1913-1960) observed that Sisyphus' plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).

The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism.

Camus, like the other existentialists, was convinced that nihilism was the most vexing problem of the twentieth century. Although he argues passionately that individuals could endure its corrosive effects, his most famous works betray the extraordinary difficulty he faced building a convincing case. In The Stranger (1942), for example, Meursault has rejected the existential suppositions on which the uninitiated and weak rely. Just moments before his execution for a gratuitous murder, he discovers that life alone is reason enough for living, a raison d'être, however, that in context seems scarcely convincing. In Caligula (1944), the mad emperor tries to escape the human predicament by dehumanizing himself with acts of senseless violence, fails, and surreptitiously arranges his own assassination. The Plague (1947) shows the futility of doing one's best in an absurd world. And in his last novel, the short and sardonic, The Fall (1956), Camus posits that everyone has bloody hands because we are all responsible for making a sorry state worse by our inane action and inaction alike. In these works and other works by the existentialists, one is often left with the impression that living authentically with the meaninglessness of life is impossible.

Camus was fully aware of the pitfalls of defining existence without meaning, and in his philosophical essay The Rebel (1951) he faces the problem of nihilism head-on. In it, he describes at length how metaphysical collapse often ends in total negation and the victory of nihilism, characterized by profound hatred, pathological destruction, and incalculable violence and death.

Back to Table of Contents

4. Antifoundationalism and Nihilism

By the late 20th century, "nihilism" had assumed two different castes. In one form, "nihilist" is used to characterize the postmodern man, a dehumanized conformist, alienated, indifferent, and baffled, directing psychological energy into hedonistic narcissism or into a deep ressentiment that often explodes in violence. This perspective is derived from the existentialists' reflections on nihilism stripped of any hopeful expectations, leaving only the experience of sickness, decay, and disintegration.

In his study of meaninglessness, Donald Crosby writes that the source of modern nihilism paradoxically stems from a commitment to honest intellectual openness. "Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair" (The Specter of the Absurd, 1988). When sincere inquiry is extended to moral convictions and social consensus, it can prove deadly, Crosby continues, promoting forces that ultimately destroy civilizations. Michael Novak's recently revised The Experience of Nothingness (1968, 1998) tells a similar story. Both studies are responses to the existentialists' gloomy findings from earlier in the century. And both optimistically discuss ways out of the abyss by focusing of the positive implications nothingness reveals, such as liberty, freedom, and creative possibilities. Novak, for example, describes how since WWII we have been working to "climb out of nihilism" on the way to building a new civilization.

In contrast to the efforts to overcome nihilism noted above is the uniquely postmodern response associated with the current antifoundationalists. The philosophical, ethical, and intellectual crisis of nihilism that has tormented modern philosophers for over a century has given way to mild annoyance or, more interestingly, an upbeat acceptance of meaninglessness.

French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard characterizes postmodernism as an "incredulity toward metanarratives," those all-embracing foundations that we have relied on to make sense of the world. This extreme skepticism has undermined intellectual and moral hierarchies and made "truth" claims, transcendental or transcultural, problematic. Postmodern antifoundationalists, paradoxically grounded in relativism, dismiss knowledge as relational and "truth" as transitory, genuine only until something more palatable replaces it (reminiscent of William James' notion of "cash value"). The critic Jacques Derrida, for example, asserts that one can never be sure that what one knows corresponds with what is. Since human beings participate in only an infinitesimal part of the whole, they are unable to grasp anything with certainty, and absolutes are merely "fictional forms."

American antifoundationalist Richard Rorty makes a similar point: "Nothing grounds our practices, nothing legitimizes them, nothing shows them to be in touch with the way things are" ("From Logic to Language to Play," 1986). This epistemological cul-de-sac, Rorty concludes, leads inevitably to nihilism. "Faced with the nonhuman, the nonlinguistic, we no longer have the ability to overcome contingency and pain by appropriation and transformation, but only the ability to recognize contingency and pain" (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 1989). In contrast to Nietzsche's fears and the angst of the existentialists, nihilism becomes for the antifoundationalists just another aspect of our contemporary milieu, one best endured with sang-froid.

In The Banalization of Nihilism (1992) Karen Carr discusses the antifoundationalist response to nihilism. Although it still inflames a paralyzing relativism and subverts critical tools, "cheerful nihilism" carries the day, she notes, distinguished by an easy-going acceptance of meaninglessness. Such a development, Carr concludes, is alarming. If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence. Worse still, the banalization of nihilism creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies. It's a conclusion that dovetails nicely with Nietzsche's, who pointed out that all interpretations of the world are simply manifestations of will-to-power.

Back to Table of Contents

5. Conclusion

It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety, anger, and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. If we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind:
I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength. It is possible. . . . (Complete Works Vol. 13)

So anyone want to join?

Ronin
07-28-2005, 17:20
isn´t this just the apathy club with a new name?


anyway...i´m down.....wanna sit around and watch fight club? ~D

IliaDN
07-28-2005, 17:21
IMHO nihilism is for the weak ones, because it do not make the person to struggle, it just rejection of many social morals giving nothing back.

Al Khalifah
07-28-2005, 17:24
I'd rather join the narcissistic club.

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 17:33
isn´t this just the apathy club with a new name?


anyway...i´m down.....wanna sit around and watch fight club? ~D
No this is nothing like the amapthy club. The members of nihilist club will be passionate about disproving everything that has some meaning and *care* about the world, but put into a nihilistic perspective.

PS. Fight Club is not necessarily nihilistic. It reminded me more of the stoic philosophy of ancient Greece. It was pretty original because it had fighting though.

PSS. Yes let's sit and watch Fight Club. It's one of my favorite movies ever.
*BP pops his special edition DVD in and enjoys Fight Club*

Redleg
07-28-2005, 17:35
I thought I should start a club with the ideals I am most attracted to and if people want they can join.

1. total rejection of social mores, especially of morality and religion

LOL - you actually benefit from social mores - even when you as an individual decide to reject them.




2. belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless

There is a solution for you - Euthanisa. (SP)



3. disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth


Truth is always objective - because its being viewed by human beings who all have thier own individual thought process. However don't let the truth get in the way of your inablity to cope with the rest of society.

LOL

JAG
07-28-2005, 17:37
A lot of existentialism in Fight Club as well.

However I have heard by numerous people the book was far better than the movie.

As for the club, not only do I not believe in them but I am not a nihilist, so it kinda disqualifies me.

Lazul
07-28-2005, 17:38
The only time I feel nihilistic is when I wake up in the morning after ive been drinking 10 to 14 beers and/or vodka the other day.
When i wake up in such a state I kinda feel nothing has meaning to it I should just sleep untill the world changes to something that might, and probably wont be something better.

"waking up is my only spark of life"... I usually tell my friends when im hung over.

enough about my hangover.

When im in a natural state and intoxicated... I see nihilism as kinda boring and nihilists as dull people in need of cheering up! ~:cheers:

added: Narcissism and being Cynical... thats just plain fun tho! ~;)

PanzerJaeger
07-28-2005, 17:38
Good luck with your club BP. ~:cheers:

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 17:51
There is a solution for you - Euthanisa. (SP)
That's not awfuly Christian of you. If you think people like me should die then maybe you should consider joining us instead, because you certainly aren't moral as you preach.
BONG!!!! ~D ~D ~D






PS. Thanks Panzer, want to join, I saved a warm seat for you. ~:cheers:

Kaiser of Arabia
07-28-2005, 18:07
Can I spam your thread?

Redleg
07-28-2005, 18:14
That's not awfuly Christian of you. If you think people like me should die then maybe you should consider joining us instead, because you certainly aren't moral as you preach.
BONG!!!! ~D ~D ~D


Considering I don't preach - I would have to say your a very confused individual.

Never said I lived up to all the Christian morals either. Again confusion on your part.

_Martyr_
07-28-2005, 18:24
The only time I feel nihilistic is when I wake up in the morning after ive been drinking 10 to 14 beers and/or vodka the other day.
When i wake up in such a state I kinda feel nothing has meaning to it I should just sleep untill the world changes to something that might, and probably wont be something better.

"waking up is my only spark of life"... I usually tell my friends when im hung over.

enough about my hangover.

When im in a natural state and intoxicated... I see nihilism as kinda boring and nihilists as dull people in need of cheering up! ~:cheers:

added: Narcissism and being Cynical... thats just plain fun tho! ~;)


Too true! Just about the only time i've ever been a nihilist is during an extremely bad hangover. Existentialism is more my thing, but then again, thats my biggest problem with Philosophy, the constant labeling and categorisation. Me = a mixture of just about every Philosophy out there, depending on what time of the day you catch me on, and more importantly what day of the week it is! ~;)

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 18:26
You are making me seriously dread putting those statements up there. I was only regurgitating them from the dictionary, they are simply guide statements. If you really want to know what Nihilism is read the article from the website. YES THE WHOLE THING LAZYs!!!

The world is a very complicated place, and Nihilism reflects that complexity within itself.

Redleg
07-28-2005, 18:28
You are making me seriously dread putting those statements up there. I was only regurgitating them from the dictionary, they are simply guide statements. If you really want to know what Nihilism is read the article from the website. YES THE WHOLE THING LAZYs!!!

The world is a very complicated place, and Nihilism reflects that complexity within itself.

LOL - then your not a nihilist. Because if you were you would not care.

_Martyr_
07-28-2005, 18:30
Lmao! ~d

Don Corleone
07-28-2005, 18:44
I've always wondered what actually makes Nihilists tick. If your whole life's philosophy is dedicated to meaninglessness, and a single minded devotion to the idea that life and everything about it sucks, why would you even bother getting out of bed in the morning? Even if Nihilists are right, and I don't think they are, surely the lie is better than the truth?

By the way, yes, I have my bouts of Saturday morning Nihilism too, but I don't think that counts, as everything about life really does suck when that guy with the icepick crawls into my skull and starts hacking his way out.... :help:

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 18:49
LOL - then your not a nihilist. Because if you were you would not care.
Great. So you know nihilism then? I doubt you know the first thing about it. If no one that was a nihilist ever cared about anything then no one would have written about it. Seriously have you read Nietzsche? If he doesn't care I don't know who does.

Seriously I'm tired of your annoying responces that go nowhere.

*puts Redleg in ignore list*

So now the people in the Club are:
Regulars:
Byzantine Prince
Ronin
Irregulars:
Lazul(only in the mornings)
JAG(only existentialist nihilist)

Redleg
07-28-2005, 19:02
Great. So you know nihilism then? I doubt you know the first thing about it. If no one that was a nihilist ever cared about anything then no one would have written about it. Seriously have you read Nietzsche? If he doesn't care I don't know who does.

Hell no I dont know nihilism - only giving you the jabs that amuse me concerning this particlur thread. It seems you like to take jabs at ideological viewpoints but don't like them direct at what you believe in.

Man I can have so much fun with this one.

And yes I have read Nietzsche - and I thought he was a fool and off his ever loving rocker. But wait history shows that I was right about him after all.


On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life. Upon witnessing a horse being whipped by a coachman at the Piazza Carlo Alberto, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and collapsed, never to return to full sanity.




Seriously I'm tired of your annoying responces that go nowhere.

Well it would require you to think beyond your own little existance and belief system.

A.Saturnus
07-28-2005, 20:51
3. disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth

This is self-contradictory. If there´s no objective truth than the claim that there´s no objective truth cannot be objectively true. If it is true, it must be false, if it is false ,it is false, thus it is false.

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 20:55
Sat as I previously stated I simply regurgitated those points from the dictionary. I don't even think they apply to ALL nihilism. I wish someone would edit them out, because god knows I don't have the warn level to do so.

_Martyr_
07-28-2005, 20:58
I got to this bit in the article and had to laugh.

anarchist leader

And I agree A.Saturnus, not only that but much of the article seems self defeatest along similar lines. In short, how can you believe truthfully that there are no truths without an inherant contradiction?

Care to explain BP?

ICantSpellDawg
07-28-2005, 21:07
I got to this bit in the article and had to laugh.


And I agree A.Saturnus, not only that but much of the article seems self defeatest along similar lines. In short, how can you believe truthfully that there are no truths without an inherant contradiction?

Care to explain BP?

They get carried away in trying to make a standard beyond "believing in nothing" when it comes to identifying a nihilist.

I think that logical interpretations of life point to very little (I only say "very little" because "absolutly no" is a sweeping, foolish statement) objective truth, but I do not BELIEVE that there is no objective truth.

It just seems most likely that there isn't.
I HOPE that there is.

I FAVOR certain ideas, but I BELIEVE in nothing.

I am not a Nihilist because I do not BELIEVE in nothing.

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 21:12
I disagree, let me explain. The idealism of Nihilism was created by very complicated forms of writing. Just by reading Sartre and Nietzsche you can see that it's very difficult to comprehend what they are saying. The reason for this is that the ideas presented are very advanced and if not put into words properly come off as being defeatist and contradicotry. I think the article is flawed in the way it presents the ideas itself, but I give it enough credit as far as the facts are concerned.

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them. I don't think it's right to dismis them that easily martyr.

_Martyr_
07-28-2005, 21:15
There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth

...wait a minute!!!??? ~:confused: ~D

ICantSpellDawg
07-28-2005, 21:16
I disagree, let me explain. The idealism of Nihilism was created by very complicated forms of writing. Just by reading Sartre and Nietzsche you can see that it's very difficult to comprehend what they are saying. The reason for this is that the ideas presented are very advanced and if not put into words properly come off as being defeatist and contradicotry. I think the article is flawed in the way it presents the ideas itself, but I give it enough credit as far as the facts are concerned.

There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them. I don't think it's right to dismis them that easily martyr.


i do not think that Sartre is a nihilist. Neitsche is, id guess, but i am not sure that anyone really buys it. Logically it is a solid enough concept but practically it is weak.

PanzerJaeger
07-28-2005, 21:20
I think its pretty clear. It seems to suggest that we humans put too much stock in our own inventions such as heaven, hell, truth, morality, the soul, ect - and that beyond society or humanity these things dont really exist and human life is nothing special on its own.

Let me know if this is wrong BP.

I can actually see some logic in my interpretation of it. Nothing in the universe, thus discovered, cares about morality and such, or has the ability to.

The belief in supernatural things like the soul can be argued to be a purely human invention.. that goes way beyond my little mind though. ~;)

_Martyr_
07-28-2005, 21:23
The problem with that is that, that in itself is a human perception. A human viewpoint of an extra-human idea.

Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 21:29
Good thinking Panzer. You are on the right track to enlightenment.

Martyr, you are what in the field is known as a skeptic's skeptic. You are skeptic about skeptics because you are insecure in your mind and logic. To you I only have one quote as advice: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares backs at you" - Nietzsche

PS. Sartre is not necessarily a Nihilist, but he has contributed a lot to it. Being and Nothingness is a must for any nihilists.

lars573
07-29-2005, 00:04
I'll join, I constantly find myself agreing with Nietzsche (cept his anti-semetism and racisim).

Byzantine Prince
07-29-2005, 00:09
Nietzsche was no Anti-Semite. There is a line that says that he wanted all antisemites shot.

lars573
07-29-2005, 00:20
You obviously haven't read the right passages. The bits that I have read, which to be sure were meant to disprove him and Nilhilism as a whole. Show him to be as much an anti-semite as Hitler or Himler (maybe even worse).

Byzantine Prince
07-29-2005, 00:28
No, Lars, that's not right!

I know the passages you are talking about. They are in the end of 'The Will to Power', but Nietzsche didn't write those. They were added later by his sister(or cousin) who published the book after he died. He was not anti-semitic at all. All his writing about how *any* humans can achieve greatness if they appiled themselves.

Lemurnia will back me up on this. He's the one that brought it to my attention to begin with.

Devastatin Dave
07-29-2005, 00:39
Conformity of the non conformist, isn't it adorable.... ~:)
I'm going to join the club against clubs that promote all clubs.

Big King Sanctaphrax
07-29-2005, 00:52
There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth

Maybe you could try and use pictures? Or sock puppets?

Devastatin Dave
07-29-2005, 01:07
Maybe you could try and use pictures? Or sock puppets?

Smoke signals are also a nifty way to communicate. Body language is also a good one. ~D But I do like the sock puppet idea. ~D

sharrukin
07-29-2005, 01:18
There also comes a point where words can no longer desribe the truth, and one can only but comprehend himself through guidelines. Some things are taught, others require more personal thought behind them.

I have always liked Nietzsche along with Thomas Hobbes as philosophers who generally avoided the utopian nonsense of too many of the others. However people have a deep need to believe. They believe in the replacement religions of Liberalism, Communism, Conservatism (the best one), or some other -ism. They believe in the old religions or new cults, but they believe!

People are not rational beings. They are a mix of rational and irrational and a philosophy that doesn't take both these things into account cannot have much validity. This is the reason that I believe religions have as much to tell us as ideologies or philosophies.

You may be referring to the irrational part of human nature here? Or do you mean something else?

JAG
07-29-2005, 01:51
No, Lars, that's not right!

I know the passages you are talking about. They are in the end of 'The Will to Power', but Nietzsche didn't write those. They were added later by his sister(or cousin) who published the book after he died. He was not anti-semitic at all. All his writing about how *any* humans can achieve greatness if they appiled themselves.

Lemurnia will back me up on this. He's the one that brought it to my attention to begin with.

What BP stated here is completely correct, to my knowledge anyway. It is a shame he is tarred with the whole Nazi thing, because in reality he did not have anything to do with them and was not anti-semitic.

As for Sartre being Nihilistic, he was accused almost constantly by many people of this, but he always defended himself against it and to great effect. I understand how he could be perceived to lead to nihilistic ways, but he most definitely was not one and his philosophy was not either. However that does not stop his philosophy in places being similar.

Byzantine Prince
07-29-2005, 02:57
JAG have you ever seen the existential comedy movie 'I Heart Huckabees'?

link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/)

It's freaken hillarious, if you like philosophy. It's also funny how it portrays Nihilism and Existentialism as mortal enemies and then in the end it ends up they work together. HAHA! ~:)

lars573
07-29-2005, 03:45
No, Lars, that's not right!

I know the passages you are talking about. They are in the end of 'The Will to Power', but Nietzsche didn't write those. They were added later by his sister(or cousin) who published the book after he died. He was not anti-semitic at all. All his writing about how *any* humans can achieve greatness if they appiled themselves.

Lemurnia will back me up on this. He's the one that brought it to my attention to begin with.

It could have been him. Nietzche was a ward of his sister for the last years of his life. He was quite mad at the end hence why he was her ward. Now like I said the passages were chosen to discredit Nietzche's theories.

Also I found where the passages I read all came from and they are from "The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals". Every last anti-semetic verse and rant on racial superiority are from that book. Some examples,



"...Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference...."

The Latin malus ["bad"] (beside which I place melas [Greek for "black"]) might designate the common man as dark, especially black-haired ("hic niger est"), as the pre-Aryan settler of the Italian soil, notably distiguished from the new blond conqueror race by his color. At any rate, the Gaelic presented me with an exactly analogous case: fin, as in the name Fingal, the characteristic term for nobility, eventually the good, noble, pure, originally the fair-haired as opposed to the dark, black-haired native population. The Celts, by the way, were definitely a fair-haired race; and it is a mistake to try to relate the area of dark-haired people found on ethnographic maps of Germany to Celtic bloodlines, as Virchow does. These are the last vestiges of the pre-Aryan population of Germany. (The subject races are seen to prevail once more, throughout almost all of Europe; in color, shortness of skull, perhaps also in intellectual and social instincts. Who knows whether modern democracy, the even more fashionable anarchism, and especially that preference for the commune, the most primitive of all social forms, which is now shared by all European socialists -- whether all these do not represent a throwback, and whether, even physiologically, the Aryan race of conquerors is not doomed?) [p.164]

And we are the first to admit that anyone who knew these "good" ones [nobility] only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude, and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality, pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank -- convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble races there lurks the beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the Sandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword "barbarian." .....their utter indifference to safety and comfort, their terrible pleasure in destruction, their taste for cruelty -- all these traits are embodied by their victims in the image of the "barbarian," and "evil enemy," the Goth or the Vandal. The profound and icy suspicion which the German arouses as soon as he assumes power (we see it happening again today [i.e. 1887]) harks back to the persistent horror with which Europe for many centuries witnessed the raging of the blond Teutonic beast (although all racial connection between the old Teutonic tribes and ourselves has been lost). [pp.174-175]
Here is the whole essay http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm. It's from a larger page on philosophy threw the ages. Nietzche got his own page, as did other like Socrates, Plato, Machiavelli, and René Descartes. All divided into time frames like Hellenic, medieval, and modern. Here, http://www.friesian.com/history.htm

EDIT, so BP can I be in the club or not?

Taohn
07-29-2005, 07:01
On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life. Upon witnessing a horse being whipped by a coachman at the Piazza Carlo Alberto, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and collapsed, never to return to full sanity.

Maybe he saw a profound injustice in whipping the horse?

Byzantine Prince
07-29-2005, 07:03
I don't know what to tell you Lars. As of now I've never heard any "legitimate" proof that he was anti-semitic. Even if he was that is irrelevent. Frankly I don't care about the whole whole issue enough.


https://img308.imageshack.us/img308/6971/nietzsch8gf.jpg

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche continued the revolt against reason initiated by the romantic movement, but he scornfully repudiated Schopenhauer’s negative, resigned attitude. Instead, Nietzsche affirmed the value of vitality, strength, and the supremacy of an existence that is purely egoistic. He also scorned the Christian and democratic ideas of the equal worth of human beings, maintaining that it is up to a few aristocrats to refuse to subordinate themselves to a state or cause, and thereby achieve self-realization and greatness. For Nietzsche the power to be strong was the greatest value in life. Although Nietzsche valued geniuses over dictators, his beliefs helped bolster the ideas of the National Socialists (Nazis) who gained control of Germany in the 1930s (see National Socialism).

That is pretty close to my own belief. I espeacially love this part:
~"the value of vitality, strength, and the supremacy of an existence that is purely egoistic"~

Redleg
07-29-2005, 07:07
Maybe he saw a profound injustice in whipping the horse?

Could be - or it could be that he had one of the conditions mentioned in the article and that is what caused his mental breakdown and path to insanity. Or it was a combination of several things. To include a gentic trait passed down from his father.

Who really knows - mental illness during his time period was not really addressed very well at all.

But I think it had an impact on his writings and philisophy.

lars573
07-29-2005, 15:14
I don't know what to tell you Lars. As of now I've never heard any "legitimate" proof that he was anti-semitic. Even if he was that is irrelevent. Frankly I don't care about the whole whole issue enough.


https://img308.imageshack.us/img308/6971/nietzsch8gf.jpg


That is pretty close to my own belief. I espeacially love this part:
~"the value of vitality, strength, and the supremacy of an existence that is purely egoistic"~

Well like I said I agree with most of what Nietzsche says, except the anit-semite parts.

Kanamori
07-31-2005, 04:38
So, does this mean you're Christian now BP? ~;)

Byzantine Prince
08-09-2005, 18:35
Kanamori, I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyways I decided to freshen up this club seeing as we have a Christian Club. Let's make the most out of this great opportunity.


I updated the member list.

So now the people in the Club are:

Regulars:
Byzantine Prince
PanzerJager
TuffStuffMcGruff
Lars573
Ronin
Irregulars:
Lazul(only in the mornings)
JAG(only existentialist nihilist)

lars573
08-09-2005, 23:49
Yay, I be in the club, I feel so special right now. ~;)

Papewaio
08-10-2005, 00:48
I thought I should start a club with the ideals I am most attracted to and if people want they can join.

1. total rejection of social mores, especially of morality and religion

2. belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless

3. disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth



How long would this type of non-society last?

1. Social Mores... aren't they the lubricant of society that allows us to get along in populations far denser then otherwise possible? Don't they allow us to create a society that goes beyond the family and tribal unit?

2. Surely this self defeats the movement as its belief system is also worth nothing. The idea that life is pointless I encounter far more with the two extremes of the downtrodden and the indolent. I'm not sure what value are human values unless they were listed.

3. Disbelief in objective truth means what? Does it mean disbelief in facts and phenomena? Does it mean that the act of observation effects the outcome? Does it mean truth is dependent on frame of reference (a no brainer)?

Byzantine Prince
09-05-2005, 19:18
I noticed a few new members who seem not to be christian. Anyone else want to be in my club?

Let's discuss how things go circularly and how the meaning of the world lies in it's meaninglessness. ~:cheers:

Aenlic
09-05-2005, 20:08
Truth is always objective - because its being viewed by human beings who all have thier own individual thought process. However don't let the truth get in the way of your inablity to cope with the rest of society.LOL

You mean subjective, I suppose. It never hurts to use the correct term when arguing terminology. ~D

Aenlic
09-05-2005, 20:16
While I respect the work of people like Mikhail Bakunin and Max Stirner on the subject, I think you might have been a little too precise in your surgical removal of all the rest of their works, BP. The nihilists may use their works as a source of influence; but Stirner and Bakunin were anarchists, not necessarily nihilists. And anarchism, even the very specific form called individualist anarchism or sometimes egoist anarchism of Stirner is very different from nihilism. Claiming that Bakunin and Stirner were nihilists is rather like making a case for Jesus being a socialist. The case can be made; but it requires very narrow interpretations and definitions and a somewhat one-dimensional viewpoint. ~D

Reverend Joe
09-05-2005, 20:33
I am sort of a nihlistic socilaist- I believe in socialism wholeheartedly, but I am also convinced that it will never work, nor will any other governmental system. Is that close enough?

Adrian II
09-05-2005, 20:35
I believe in socialism wholeheartedly, but I am also convinced that it will never work, nor will any other governmental system. Is that close enough?Don't quit your day job. :balloon2:

Soulforged
09-06-2005, 05:03
While I respect the work of people like Mikhail Bakunin and Max Stirner on the subject, I think you might have been a little too precise in your surgical removal of all the rest of their works, BP. The nihilists may use their works as a source of influence; but Stirner and Bakunin were anarchists, not necessarily nihilists. And anarchism, even the very specific form called individualist anarchism or sometimes egoist anarchism of Stirner is very different from nihilism. Claiming that Bakunin and Stirner were nihilists is rather like making a case for Jesus being a socialist. The case can be made; but it requires very narrow interpretations and definitions and a somewhat one-dimensional viewpoint. ~D

Yes you're right i think that the poster is mistaking nihillism with atheism. The true nihillist don't even believe in existence, if he doesn't exist then he cannot be passionate about anything, he can kill himself because all is pointless, if all is pointless why create a club? I think that the antireligion fever has gone far beyond of what that great sage said one time: "happiness is the just middle" (Aristotle).

Byzantine Prince
09-10-2005, 20:15
Nihilists don't kill themselves. If they did they wouldn't exist, because they would kill themselves as soon as they could legitimately call themselves nihilists.

The true nihilist is just the same as every other person, making the best out of what he knows is a hopeless situation. :book:

Byzantine Prince
10-01-2005, 00:18
Any new nihilists?

Soulforged
10-01-2005, 00:53
Any new nihilists?
It appears that you're really alone.~D