Philosophy World Today; Nihilism.

[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.