Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm

i think nihilism could be the most accurate description of existence relative to the individual's experience of it.

the common idea is that, seeing death is inevitable, once you die, nothing that you will have done or accomplished in life will, in the end, mean anything. i think it's this fact that makes everyone nihilists, whether they believe it to be so or not, simply because of the truth of the statement.

the common response is that things matter to the individual subjectively, that is, to them whilst they're living. i don't consider this an accurate responce, however, because nihilism doesn't disallow the freedom of an individual creating their own notions of meaning or purpose (and these creations can sustain a human through their lives) -- just that anything dreamed up subjectively doesn't intrinsicly matter, at least to anyone else besides the individual in question. so the ability to enjoy life subjectively is not in disripute of nihilism's claims that nothing matters -- just that the subjective enjoyment of individuals itself means nothing either.

any thoughts on the subject and the relative validity thereof?

 

I like the initial thought that nothing can be "known", and understand that by default, this means nothing can be communicated, though I disagree with the second stipulation.

I think that "knowing" must be a more active experience than we are accustomed to admitting, because we "know" with many of our faculties: memory, our environment, our instincts, and last, our logic.

The idea that knowing is purely an intellectual act, I think, misses the mark and cuts of a large aprt of the human experience.

Though, there is the paradox of knowledge which states "the more we know, the moe we know that we DON'T know!"

Pretty soon, it would seem we'll know NOTHING, which agrees with the nihilists, but ironically, also the Taoists and Buddhists (who believe that the mind is an illusion).

 

i think nihilism could be the most accurate description of existence relative to the individual's experience of it.
I think to believe in nihilism goes against the tenents of nihilism, it would seem

the common idea is that, seeing death is inevitable, once you die, nothing that you will have done or accomplished in life will, in the end, mean anything. i think it's this fact that makes everyone nihilists, whether they believe it to be so or not, simply because of the truth of the statement.
No, it doesn't. Nihilism is a philosophy. I can't be a nihilist and not know it just because someone else thinks it's correct. If I DO believe in values, then I obviously am not a nihilist. Whether or not a nihilist thinks they are meaningful or not has nothing to do with it.

the common response is that things matter to the individual subjectively, that is, to them whilst they're living. i don't consider this an accurate responce, however, because nihilism doesn't disallow the freedom of an individual creating their own notions of meaning or purpose (and these creations can sustain a human through their lives) -- just that anything dreamed up subjectively doesn't intrinsicly matter, at least to anyone else besides the individual in question. so the ability to enjoy life subjectively is not in disripute of nihilism's claims that nothing matters -- just that the subjective enjoyment of individuals itself means nothing either.
A nihilist (a TRUE nihilist, where absolutely NOTHING matters) cannot make such a judgement, becasue it gives meaning to his own thoughts. His thoughts mean nothing, so why have them? A nihilist who thinks is a walking contradiction.


any thoughts on the subject and the relative validity thereof?
As it was said by a wise man, "I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos. "

 

Garth: ...though I disagree with the second stipulation.

which part are you referring to here?

Obi-Wan: I think to believe in nihilism goes against the tenents of nihilism, it would seem

i wouldn't consider it possible to "believe" in nihilism, for the reasons you pointed out.

but nihilsm does not require belief. at least not "belief" in the manner it is used to believe in, for example, god.

No, it doesn't. Nihilism is a philosophy. I can't be a nihilist and not know it just because someone else thinks it's correct. If I DO believe in values, then I obviously am not a nihilist. Whether or not a nihilist thinks they are meaningful or not has nothing to do with it.

of course i can't tell you what you think. I'm not talking subjectively here anyway. But whatever you DO believe, think, do, whatever... ultimately means nothing. The same goes for me, the same goes for everyone.

i's like people believing they're going to heaven. obviously they don't see themselves as deluded. this doesn't effect the fact that there is no proof for such a claim, and that all evidence leads to the fact that they are incorrect.

the same could be said in this case. people obviously think what they do "matters" or that they have some kind of meaning to this life, but that doesn't make it correct.

the truth is that life does not matter. it means something subjectively, to each individual, but each individual must evcentually die. the birth and death of any individual is not a sacred or special thing. it is merely the continuing nature of existence. the replicating DNA.

A nihilist (a TRUE nihilist, where absolutely NOTHING matters) cannot make such a judgement, becasue it gives meaning to his own thoughts. His thoughts mean nothing, so why have them? A nihilist who thinks is a walking contradiction.

i think this is an incorrect view of nihilism.

i agree, though, that my thoughts ultimately mean nothing. but nihilism is not merely a thought process.

also, a nihilist is not somehow immune to do or think anything, that is a strawman argument. a nihilist is, evidently, completely free to think. how could they choose to consider the statements made by nihilism without thinking about it in the first place?

we can never KNOW anything, true. but we can make reasonable guesses based on previous information.

Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas." - A. Einstein

here is some info to explain the argument a bit better, although i doubt too much activity will be forthcoming on this subject in this forum. anywho, for anyone who is interested:

Nihilism is primarily skepticism coupled with reduction, furthermore it is the realization that there is/are no:

1. teleology
2. wrong or right - just cause and effect
3. sacred principles, along with taboo, heresy and blasphemy.

... and that:
4. artificial morality and values are subjective, elastic, fungible and impermanent
5. that which is self-evident requires no belief, for it has an independent, objective existence and self-continuation.

While Nihilism rejects:
6. faith, and everything necessitated by it.

And Nihilism uses:
7. Occam's Razor
8. logic

While recognizing:
9. natural selection
10. sustainable idea-sets have minimized internal contradictions.

Furthermore even if it can be shown that one element has flaws this does not demonstrate that any or all of the remaining points are flawed as well.

5) Self-Evident. For example, one does not need faith in the objective principle or the word-symbol 'gravity' to know that if you jump off a cliff you will fall to the bottom, or that if you punch a wall it will hurt your fist. This concept segues into the idea of pain and sensations which although they can be distorted, they are still consistent and these neurological signals are the same throughout the animal kingdom. A needless fixation on the basic chemical and electrical properties (or beyond

 

I agree that any perceived objectivity is a mirage, the "second stipulation" to which I was referring (and with which I was disagreeing) was the part about communication being impossible.

I have thought a bit about it, and come to a more reasoned position. We must define what is meant by "communication". If it is defined as the passing of information from one person to another, I would say that this is certainly possible, as we have tacitly agreed to write in english and talk about philosophy by engaging the discussion, no? If you believed that communication was impossible, why would you have started this thread?

Okay, I do happen to have a very high tolerance for contradictions (as many are acutely aware!), so we'll let that part slide for now, as it is just semantic, right? Heh heh..

If you are saying that communion is impossible, I must heartedly disagree. Sharing of sensation, physical and otherwise, is a part of being human. We all do it or have a substitute for it. Otherwise our psyches are really messed up, because our personality development is driven by this, our faculty to commune with the world around us, which includes other people.

 

Gad, I wish there was a quote option here.

Obi-Wan: I think to believe in nihilism goes against the tenents of nihilism, it would seem

i wouldn't consider it possible to "believe" in nihilism, for the reasons you pointed out.

but nihilsm does not require belief. at least not "belief" in the manner it is used to believe in, for example, god.
Well, I just used the word belief. You could say 'agree' or 'follow' or whateverr you like. However, for someone who is 100% nihilist, that is one who thinks that everything is the human condition is meaningless, then he would not care to agree with nihilism. See what I'm getting at. You can't agree with something that says that everything is meaningless, because your agreement would be meaningless, hence, what's the point?

No, it doesn't. Nihilism is a philosophy. I can't be a nihilist and not know it just because someone else thinks it's correct. If I DO believe in values, then I obviously am not a nihilist. Whether or not a nihilist thinks they are meaningful or not has nothing to do with it.

of course i can't tell you what you think. I'm not talking subjectively here anyway. But whatever you DO believe, think, do, whatever... ultimately means nothing. The same goes for me, the same goes for everyone.
You didn't say that though, you said that everyone is a nihilist at heart. What you meant to say is that the universe is nihilistic at heart.

i's like people believing they're going to heaven. obviously they don't see themselves as deluded. this doesn't effect the fact that there is no proof for such a claim, and that all evidence leads to the fact that they are incorrect.
Again, that's not what you said.

the same could be said in this case. people obviously think what they do "matters" or that they have some kind of meaning to this life, but that doesn't make it correct.
Above.

the truth is that life does not matter. it means something subjectively, to each individual, but each individual must evcentually die. the birth and death of any individual is not a sacred or special thing. it is merely the continuing nature of existence. the replicating DNA.
Then why does a nihilist care to be a nihilist?

A nihilist (a TRUE nihilist, where absolutely NOTHING matters) cannot make such a judgement, becasue it gives meaning to his own thoughts. His thoughts mean nothing, so why have them? A nihilist who thinks is a walking contradiction.

i think this is an incorrect view of nihilism.

i agree, though, that my thoughts ultimately mean nothing. but nihilism is not merely a thought process.

also, a nihilist is not somehow immune to do or think anything, that is a strawman argument. a nihilist is, evidently, completely free to think. how could they choose to consider the statements made by nihilism without thinking about it in the first place?
That's the thing. You CAN'T be a nihilist if you think you are a nihilist, because that gives meaning to you. Saying "I am a nihilist" gives yourself meaning.

I'll put it this way: A nihilist would not care enough to even think up the concept of nihilism.


5) Self-Evident. For example, one does not need faith in the objective principle or the word-symbol 'gravity' to know that if you jump off a cliff you will fall to the bottom, or that if you punch a wall it will hurt your fist. This concept segues into the idea of pain and sensations which although they can be distorted, they are still consistent and these neurological signals are the same throughout the animal kingdom. A needless fixation on the basic chemical and electrical properties (or beyond) does not invalidate the fundamental purpose they serve for the biological organism.

Actually, no. You have absolutely no way of knowing that what you are perceiving as gravity even exists. You have no way of knowing that reality even exists, since it's all just impulses in your brain. You've got faith that you exist in the world you see, like it or not.

 

Garth: I agree that any perceived objectivity is a mirage, the "second stipulation" to which I was referring (and with which I was disagreeing) was the part about communication being impossible.

I have thought a bit about it, and come to a more reasoned position. We must define what is meant by "communication". If it is defined as the passing of information from one person to another, I would say that this is certainly possible, as we have tacitly agreed to write in english and talk about philosophy by engaging the discussion, no? If you believed that communication was impossible, why would you have started this thread?

Okay, I do happen to have a very high tolerance for contradictions (as many are acutely aware!), so we'll let that part slide for now, as it is just semantic, right? Heh heh..

i look at it like... yes, "communication" is achieved through talking and discussing and writing -- but essentially what value, even, is that, ultimately? maybe it would be better described, "communication is meaningless".

again, it's all objective related.

If you are saying that communion is impossible, I must heartedly disagree. Sharing of sensation, physical and otherwise, is a part of being human. We all do it or have a substitute for it.

sure. but so to for chimps or other animals.

i keep thinking to bring it back to the repeated: "but it still doesn't *matter*", which may be an incorrect, or limited approach to take with nihilism. i'm certainly not any scholar on the subject.

Otherwise our psyches are really messed up, because our personality development is driven by this, our faculty to commune with the world around us, which includes other people.

how do you classify people who seek solitude instead of communion?

Obi-Wan: Gad, I wish there was a quote option here.

indeed.

However, for someone who is 100% nihilist, that is one who thinks that everything is the human condition is meaningless, then he would not care to agree with nihilism. See what I'm getting at. You can't agree with something that says that everything is meaningless, because your agreement would be meaningless, hence, what's the point?

an agreement to the statement that everything is meaningless does infer, then, that even the users agreement is itself meaningless. this is true. but it's no different to a mother's child. in a nihilistic world, the life of that child is meaningless, but that doesn't stop the mother from loving it. likewise, while the agreement to nihilism is itself meaningless, it doesn't then discredit the statement itself, because it still satisfies what it states.

You didn't say that though, you said that everyone is a nihilist at heart. What you meant to say is that the universe is nihilistic at heart.

you're right.

life itself is meaningless. this thus infers that everyones lives within it are also meaningless. whether any individual chooses to accept this or to refute it is up to that individual -- and, ultimately, whether they agree or disagree -- that too, doesn't matter.

Again, that's not what you said.
Above.

like i said, i don't mean to state that i know everything about nihilism as a topic. i can only go on, primarily, from my own thoughts -- and it's these that i'm bringing across.

Then why does a nihilist care to be a nihilist?

because of the freedom attached to the acknowledgment that nothing matters? something along these lines.

That's the thing. You CAN'T be a nihilist if you think you are a nihilist, because that gives meaning to you. Saying "I am a nihilist" gives yourself meaning.

again, it gives you meaning in the same way the mother's love, in the previous example, of her child is meaningfull.

however we're basing these sensations on purely human constraints. looking at the BIG picture, whether any individual calls themselves a nihilist or a christian or a buddhist or a santaist, ultimately does not matter.

I'll put it this way: A nihilist would not care enough to even t

 

epic: i look at it like... yes, "communication" is achieved through talking and discussing and writing -- but essentially what value, even, is that, ultimately? maybe it would be better described, "communication is meaningless".

again, it's all objective related.

Very good point. So is nihilism, then an obviously futile attempt to accept the impossibility of our understanding of what we percieve to be the humanly unattainable universal objectivity?



I said: If you are saying that communion is impossible, I must heartedly disagree. Sharing of sensation, physical and otherwise, is a part of being human. We all do it or have a substitute for it.

You, epic, said: sure. but so to for chimps or other animals.

Great, bring them in, too, and all the other fauna, and the flora while you're at it. You think I'm just joking but I am serious! The distinctions we make between our human selves and the other animals in nature is a construct of our minds. We are a part of the inevitability of everything. And everything, for us, is made of sensation! The constructs of the human mind, e.g. memories, logic and other systems, that is all the meaningless stuff. The other, communion, is something that will happen in nature, with or without humans. Very good point , thanks for catching my anthropocentrism...good catch!

i keep thinking to bring it back to the repeated: "but it still doesn't *matter*", which may be an incorrect, or limited approach to take with nihilism. i'm certainly not any scholar on the subject.

It seems to be a good measuring stick for what is and is not a human construct.


how do you classify people who seek solitude instead of communion?

I would argue that solitude can be communion with things other than people. "Nature", for instance, people seek. What could be termed as "absolute solitude" might only be achieved in an isolation chamber, like in Altered States or in deep meditation, but then you come face to face with another force, with many faces and names.

Very insightful questions and attitude towards this subect, epic and Obi-Wan_and_only.

 

Garth: So is nihilism, then an obviously futile attempt to accept the impossibility of our understanding of what we percieve to be the humanly unattainable universal objectivity?

are you saying that some people believe that there is some univeral/objective meaning that is unattainable by human perceptions, and that nihilism is saying that there isn't?

Great, bring them in, too, and all the other fauna, and the flora while you're at it. You think I'm just joking but I am serious! The distinctions we make between our human selves and the other animals in nature is a construct of our minds. We are a part of the inevitability of everything. And everything, for us, is made of sensation!

i agree with all this.

The constructs of the human mind, e.g. memories, logic and other systems, that is all the meaningless stuff. The other, communion, is something that will happen in nature, with or without humans. Very good point , thanks for catching my anthropocentrism...good catch!

yeah... so communion is not meaningful either, given that it can exist without the need of humans who have come up with this term, "meaning".

I would argue that solitude can be communion with things other than people. "Nature", for instance, people seek.

fair enough. or ideas, thought, etc.

brings up visions of solitary men and women philosophising or creating art and whatnot.

you could also say that the word "communion" could be replaced by any number of alternatives -- it's more the idea of interconnectedness that's important. or do you disagree?

 

Come on, Epic...admit it. you only posted this topic because "nihilism" is a cool word.

 

it is a pretty cool word, actually. ;-)

 

i think it's this fact that makes everyone nihilists

Not everyone is a nhililist.

Nihilism is the result of a faithless and sometimes generally immoral existence (as is the case with the stated personages above: preoccupied artists, social critics, and so-called philosophers).

 

Not everyone is a nhililist.

i clarified this point earlier, meaning that life itself, or the universe itself, is essentially nihilistic.

i should have said that everyone's lives are essentially nihilistic, however not many will see them, or wish to see them as such.

and i wouldn't say the nihilist is immoral, as nihilism transcends concepts such as morality. amoral would be a better description.

 

epic: "i clarified this point earlier, meaning that life itself, or the universe itself, is essentially nihilistic."

Before I get back to you, epic, on your points above, I just thought of something about your statement I quote here.

Can you imagine a scenario in which the universe gave a damn? A universe that is necessarily NOT a nihilist? What would it be like, to live in THAT universe? What would be so different? Anything, everything, or nothing?

I believe that to state the the universe IS nihilistic in nature or mind*, means that you have to be able to tell the difference between a nihilistic universe and a NON-nihilistic one.

MIND* >> This really brings up some interesting questions! :

1) Does one need a mind to be a nihilist?

2) Does this suggest that there is necessarily an implicit universal consciousness (i.e.gOD!), even if it is an "uncaring" one, when it is stated that the universe is nihilistic?

 

Can you imagine a scenario in which the universe gave a damn? A universe that is necessarily NOT a nihilist? What would it be like, to live in THAT universe? What would be so different? Anything, everything, or nothing?

if the universe had a mind, and cared, i would say that things would be different to what they are now.

I believe that to state the the universe IS nihilistic in nature or mind*, means that you have to be able to tell the difference between a nihilistic universe and a NON-nihilistic one.

i'm not so sure. i can't reasonably compare our universe with any other types of universe.

1) Does one need a mind to be a nihilist?

yes

2) Does this suggest that there is necessarily an implicit universal consciousness (i.e.gOD!), even if it is an "uncaring" one, when it is stated that the universe is nihilistic?

no, because i don't think the universe has a mind.

so i can't say that the universe is a nihilist, but i don't think it stops me from saying that the universe, or life is nihilistic.

one problem is the nihilism paradox, in that claiming something as a truth is impossible if it itself denies all truth.

i'm trying to find an opening though: perhaps -- the truth is that there is no truth. so nihilism is true itself in that it states there is no truth. or something.

or, you could say that it doesn't matter anyway whether nihilism is right or wrong. i think that's the ticket.

 

one problem is the nihilism paradox, in that claiming something as a truth is impossible if it itself denies all truth.

well i dont know if it would be a problem or not. irc nihilism is an exestintialist philsopht and iirc one of the tenets of existential though is paradoxical truth. well i know for sure that it was a tenet in kierkaguard philo, but not 100% on neitchiz, but my first instict says that it was...

 

I said:

So is nihilism, then an obviously futile attempt to accept the impossibility of our understanding of what we percieve to be the humanly unattainable universal objectivity?

And epic asked:

Are you saying that some people believe that there is some univeral/objective meaning that is unattainable by human perceptions, and that nihilism is saying that there isn't?

No. I?m not saying this at all. I?m asking if nihilism, in your reckoning, is a form of coping with, that is, accepting the ?fact? that humans will never be able to attain this level of objectivity, because of their/our human-ness. It follows, then, that to attribute meaning to anything is futile (because it can be argued that nothing has an intrinsic meaning?meaning is only endowed upon things through human reckoning).

epic:

yeah... so communion is not meaningful either, given that it can exist without the need of humans who have come up with this term, "meaning".?

What about the proposition that even if anything in the universe DID have a meaning, humans would be hard pressed to apprehend it, because of our limited faculties?i.e. trapped in the linearity of logic and syllogism.

Or is it because of this linearity in which we humans are placed that we MUST attribute meaning to EVERYTHING? Must we? Maybe nihilism provides an open window of opportunity through which to jump out of this mess, eh?

brings up visions of solitary men and women philosophising or creating art and whatnot. ?

Is this not communion with the self (as artist)? I can definitely say that when I have been ?inspired? to create new works (music and written, mostly) that it was always after the fact that I attributed any meaning to the work. This meaning attribution process puts the work in context with my feelings and life and the world of which I am a small part, while it requires that I DO exist in the linear syllogistic if/then world of point A to point B, where meaning is only the shadow of the more obective, universal truths.

you could also say that the word "communion" could be replaced by any number of alternatives -- it's more the idea of interconnectedness that's important. or do you disagree?

If you are opposed to the use of the word, I understand. I see that we mean much the same thing. I use the word communion for the fact that it is a close word to communication, but implies a deeper, more complete interaction, than ust with the intellect, i.e. with information.

epic:

if the universe had a mind, and cared, i would say that things would be different to what they are now.

How so? It's easy to say it would be different, but let's try to be specific.


I said: I believe that to state the the universe IS nihilistic in nature or mind*, means that you have to be able to tell the difference between a nihilistic universe and a NON-nihilistic one.

epic:

if i'm not so sure. i can't reasonably compare our universe with any other types of universe.

I asked: Does one need a mind to be a nihilist?

epic:

yes

But a universe does not need a mind to be nihilistic...I see your point. To say that something is nihilistic is to attribute a meaning to its nature, no?...there you go with the paradox. Are you not attributing a meaning to it by calling it nihilistic?

epic:

one problem is the nihilism paradox, in that claiming something as a truth is impossible if it itself denies all truth.

i'm trying to find an opening though: perhaps -- the truth is that there is no truth. so nihilism is true itself in that it states there is no truth. or something.

or, you could say that it doesn't matter anyway whether nihilism is right or wrong. i think that's the ticket.

I think there is a bit of slippage between meaning an

 

Garth: I?m asking if nihilism, in your reckoning, is a form of coping with, that is, accepting the ?fact? that humans will never be able to attain this level of objectivity, because of their/our human-ness. It follows, then, that to attribute meaning to anything is futile (because it can be argued that nothing has an intrinsic meaning?meaning is only endowed upon things through human reckoning).

sorry, i made that last post at like 3am.

but yeah, i agree. if the universe has a "purpose" or a "meaning", then it's something we can't understand, and, thus, whether it existed or not wouldn't matter.

but i don't think there is a purpose to the universe anyway, whether it's beyond human comprehension or not.

What about the proposition that even if anything in the universe DID have a meaning, humans would be hard pressed to apprehend it, because of our limited faculties?i.e. trapped in the linearity of logic and syllogism.

i agree.

Or is it because of this linearity in which we humans are placed that we MUST attribute meaning to EVERYTHING? Must we? Maybe nihilism provides an open window of opportunity through which to jump out of this mess, eh?

i agree.

Is this not communion with the self (as artist)? I can definitely say that when I have been ?inspired? to create new works (music and written, mostly) that it was always after the fact that I attributed any meaning to the work. This meaning attribution process puts the work in context with my feelings and life and the world of which I am a small part, while it requires that I DO exist in the linear syllogistic if/then world of point A to point B, where meaning is only the shadow of the more obective, universal truths.

but are there even any objective, universal truths? i'll get to that in a sec.

If you are opposed to the use of the word, I understand. I see that we mean much the same thing. I use the word communion for the fact that it is a close word to communication, but implies a deeper, more complete interaction, than ust with the intellect, i.e. with information.

i don't mind the word, but yeah, i think we are meaning the same thing.

re: universe with a mind: How so? It's easy to say it would be different, but let's try to be specific.

well, i think evolution would work differently for one thing. evolution as a system works beautifully, but evolution for the individual is far from that. if you look at nature, animals killing other animals to survive, all according to the food chain. it's like life is just feeding on itself over and over.

But a universe does not need a mind to be nihilistic...I see your point. To say that something is nihilistic is to attribute a meaning to its nature, no?...there you go with the paradox. Are you not attributing a meaning to it by calling it nihilistic?

yeah, but it's just subjective meaning again.


I think there is a bit of slippage between meaning and truth?this can be fixed using the difference between communion and communication as an analogy: Meaning, like communication, requires a conscious perspective, while truth, like communion, needs no outside preceptor or consciousness, because it just IS.

i agree with what you say about meaning, but i'm not sure about the truth side -- in that for something to be "true" it has to be experienced as such by the individual, thus bringing it back to subjectivity.

so anyway, in the end we're left with there being no objective meaning except the meaning which an individual creates for their own life/benefit. (which i think is what most atheists would agree with).

the step forward to nihilism from atheism is, as far as i can tell, admitting that even ones own subjective meaning doesn't count for anything in the end.

i'd be interested in hearing from atheists if they regard their personally attributed "meaning" as actually... meaning anything, beyond the individual. (which, if true, would also be a paradox)

if it doesn't, then i don't see how more atheists wouldn't consider

 

This entire discussion sounds like The Matrix.

"What do I need to do?"

"You KNOW what you need to do."

"Where do I need to go?"

"You KNOW where you need to go."

"Who do I need to stop?"

"You KNOW who you need to stop."

"So how come we're having this discussion if the ENTIRE ****ING PLOT can be inferred by subtext?"

"Uhhhh..."

"You know what? Screw this whole One thing. I'm going to open a taco stand."

 

no because the matrix sucks.

 

although i disagree with the statement that the matrix sucks, i would counter you statement with this. Philosophy has existed thousands of years before the matrix films were written, and just because someone is discussing philo doesnt mean that it has anything to do with the matrix. Besides i dont think their was that much nihilism in the matrix...

 

i agree.

upping this for Garth.

 

epic:

if the universe has a "purpose" or a "meaning", then it's something we can't understand, and, thus, whether it existed or not wouldn't matter.

If we can't understand it, does that necessarily mean that it is not understandable period? I don't think we are qualified to answer that, therefore, we also could not say whether it "means" anything, in an objective sense, or not. Humanity is most likely not the most intellectually/spiritually/sensually advanced species in the universe (and I would argue on the Earth, either).


epic:

but i don't think there is a purpose to the universe anyway, whether it's beyond human comprehension or not.

Is this a statement based on intuition? Just curious.


epic:

but are there even any objective, universal truths? i'll get to that in a sec.

re: universe with a mind: Garth How so? It's easy to say it would be different, but let's try to be specific.

epic:

well, i think evolution would work differently for one thing. evolution as a system works beautifully, but evolution for the individual is far from that. if you look at nature, animals killing other animals to survive, all according to the food chain. it's like life is just feeding on itself over and over.

Garth: But a universe does not need a mind to be nihilistic...I see your point. To say that something is nihilistic is to attribute a meaning to its nature, no?...there you go with the paradox. Are you not attributing a meaning to it by calling it nihilistic?

epic:

yeah, but it's just subjective meaning again.

Right you are!


epic:

i agree with what you say about meaning, but i'm not sure about the truth side -- in that for something to be "true" it has to be experienced as such by the individual, thus bringing it back to subjectivity.

so anyway, in the end we're left with there being no objective meaning except the meaning which an individual creates for their own life/benefit. (which i think is what most atheists would agree with).

I am beginning to see what you mean by an individual's experience of truth. Let me open a can of worms by asking: Is not truth something that can be agreed upon? I know misconceptions can be shared as well, but humor me!

epic:

the step forward to nihilism from atheism is, as far as i can tell, admitting that even ones own subjective meaning doesn't count for anything in the end.

I see where you are drawing the connection, however I think it is a one way street: a nihilistic attitude necessarily leads one to atheism, but atheism will not necessarily lead to nihilism.


epic:

i'd be interested in hearing from atheists if they regard their personally attributed "meaning" as actually... meaning anything, beyond the individual. (which, if true, would also be a paradox)

I'd be interested, too, but I can't offer much, as I am pretty much a theist...a theist who believes in an agnostic god!


epic:

i don't think this should be seen as a negative thing, though.

Value judgement = attribution of meaning? Even subjectively, coming from you, this statement is somewhat surprising. My father is an optimistic existentialist (self-professed! I did not label him this...), fyi.



Thanks for upping the thread, epic. I thought it had gotten lost in matrixland. That would be ba-aa-aaa-ad news, sayeth this sheep in sheep's clothing.

 

Garth: If we can't understand it, does that necessarily mean that it is not understandable period? I don't think we are qualified to answer that, therefore, we also could not say whether it "means" anything, in an objective sense, or not. Humanity is most likely not the most intellectually/spiritually/sensually advanced species in the universe (and I would argue on the Earth, either).

heh.

i agree with you about not being able to say that anything "means" anything objectively.

i said: but i don't think there is a purpose to the universe anyway, whether it's beyond human comprehension or not.

Garth: Is this a statement based on intuition? Just curious.

i wouldn't say intuition. seems more logical to me than that. i don't consider the universe able to "come up with" a purpose or meaning, anyway. to say there COULD be purpose to the universe is to say there COULD be a god or "higher power", which i reject.

I am beginning to see what you mean by an individual's experience of truth. Let me open a can of worms by asking: Is not truth something that can be agreed upon? I know misconceptions can be shared as well, but humor me!

it's all relative, though. what is true for me and you could be anything but to someone else. who decides what is "true" and what is not "true"? i could sit on a chair and state that it is solid and you could agree, but how solid is it, if it's made up of atoms with more empty space than anything else?

perhaps that isn't the best example.

i think you could agree that all truth is relative, though? which is close enough to the point i'm making: that a "truth" isn't something set in stone. truths are always changing, in transitory.

I see where you are drawing the connection, however I think it is a one way street: a nihilistic attitude necessarily leads one to atheism, but atheism will not necessarily lead to nihilism.

i would say a nihilist is ALREADY an atheist. i can't see how a theist nihilist could be logically sustained. atheism doesn't always lead to nihilism, but i don't see, beyond each individual's choice not to, why it shouldn't. to deny god is to deny a lawmaker, a governing body who decides right from wrong. if there is no right or wrong, no black or white, if all truth is relative, then how can one proclaim universal morals, or virtues? or rights and wrongs?

I'd be interested, too, but I can't offer much, as I am pretty much a theist...a theist who believes in an agnostic god!

do explain!

Value judgement = attribution of meaning? Even subjectively, coming from you, this statement is somewhat surprising. My father is an optimistic existentialist (self-professed! I did not label him this...), fyi.

possible. honestly, i'm still working out the whole pessimistic/optimistic outlook on things. i can see how nihilism can appear pessimistic, and i guess it is, but i can also see the necessariness (sp?) of it in achieving true freedom. (i brought this point up in the "purpose of life" thread)

Thanks for upping the thread, epic. I thought it had gotten lost in matrixland. That would be ba-aa-aaa-ad news, sayeth this sheep in sheep's clothing.

indeed! although it's been my turn to not reply. i rescued this from page 2. in the senate!

 

upping for Garth. adding an explanation found at another site for the sake of it:

christianity or eternal recurrence? ... nietzsche characterized christianity as "platonism for the masses" & thus the prevailing, organizing 'force' within western civilization that had culminated (in his day) in an ideal of bourgeois modernity (re: kant's enlightenment & locke's liberalism) that no longer believed in it's highest values (e.g. "god" & "absolute truth") ... thus, for nietzsche the choice for the future was either to accept the status quo (e.g. pro forma christianity) which is nihilism (re: a "self-refuting relativism" that is distinguished only by it's universalizing mediocrity) or to strive against & overcome nihilism somehow ... nietzsche's proposed attempt at self-overcoming was his "doctrine of the eternal recurrence of the same" ...

philosophyforums.com

from this, i accept (embrace) the nihilism Nietzsche talks about, but in doing so, to me it makes ANY "personal philosophy" -- even if, like Nietzsche's self overcoming or overman, it is only meant for oneself -- arbitrary, valueless, and merely something to give the individual -- at least the illusion -- of going somewhere, achieving something, until it is all inevitably negated by death.

the awareness of this perhaps makes the need for contradiction necessary. suicide, at least in this form, would be the avenue for those who can't live with this contradiction any longer?