# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Nihilism

## hyperborean

I personally hate Nihilism, but maybe some of the members of this forum are nihilists. 

Check out this interesting website for nihilists: counterorder.com/index.html

Read through some of the articles and post your opinions. I got almost a cult like impression from this website.

----------


## ennison

'I personally hate Nihilism'. Why?

----------


## hyperborean

Because they believe that everything in the universe is baseless. Just like the website says, they believe in:

Death to Government
Death to God
Death to Ideology
Death to Purpose
Death to Culture
Death to Ego 
Death to Money
Death to Love
Death to Philosophy
Death to Liberty
Death to Y
Death to Morality

The only thing I believe in on that list is death to ego and God (in part). The rest of it is just unreasonable. Lets see what happens when you put some of these "to death" in the real world. 

counterorder.com/deathto.html

----------


## loe

But sometimes it's necessary to destroy so that you can create something new.
So I don't think Nihilism must be negative.

Nietzsche is the "classical example" for a nihilist, but I don't think this is true. Because he doesn't only destroy, he also gave solutions or possibilities.
I have the luck to read Nietzsche in original language, therefore it's hardly possible to explain these thoughts in Nietzsche's words (I hope you apologize  :Wink:  ).

In my opinion nihilsm is a good possibility to wake up ones mind. If there is no god, no government, no ideology... everyone has to think about it, what is good, what is right - it's impossible to follow an authority. The individual person has to decide, what is true, what is right - and in my point of view this is very important.

Greetings

----------


## hyperborean

Nietzsche condemns nihilists, saying that they are the ruination of the world. Many people call him a nihilist because he said "God is dead". There are various interpretations of that quotation. I personally believe he meant that we have to carry on with our lives as if God doesn't exist. It's not really atheistic because one does not deny God's existence... we instead must forget about him because he has become "irrelevant to the bulk of humanity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilis..._and_Nietzsche

I haven't read "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard, and apparently it details "new nihilism". http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/cpace/theo...llard/lee.html

oh yea, and loe, it must be pretty cool reading Nietzsche's work in the original language. I sometimes wish I knew other languages so I wouldn't have to worry about the validity of different translations.

----------


## dramasnot6

the great thing about Nietzsche is that his philosophy does make us re-look at the world. I suppose he could be called a nihilist, but his philosophy contained elements of so many different values and ideologies. The best philosophy is when it can appeal to a large range of people, when we can intepret and expand it to the point of understanding ourselves better. The best question is the one with many other questions attached. That's why I love Nietzsche, his thoughts were so novel and strange and beautiful for being so. 

I would love to read Nietzsche as the original! Same with reading Dotstoevsky.

----------


## ennison

It's a it bit contradictory for nihilists to have a representative website isn't it? A bit like anarchists voting! I reckon that website is just one or two lonely embittered souls. Nihilism can take many forms not many necessarily destructive - most are simply depressing or pessimistic. Some great writers are nihilistic - even if they would not use that term of themselves. There are many people who would look at life at some point and say with the writer of Ecclesiastes, 'All is vanity' and that is a nihilistic position - even if only temporarily held

----------


## crisaor

Nihilism is best done by professionals.
- Iggy Pop

 :Wink:

----------


## sharpe123

If people were left to decide what was wrong and right for themselves the world would look a lot worse than how it looks now. Nihilism is a very bad idea.

----------


## Hyacinth42

Don't worry hyperborean, most nihilists commit suicide  :Wink:  If there is no point, then why keep on living?

I personally think it is a very depressing belief... I can't imagine believing that there is no purpose or point...

----------


## billyjack

> If people were left to decide what was wrong and right for themselves the world would look a lot worse than how it looks now. Nihilism is a very bad idea.


 nihilism is a good idea in as much as it saw through morals and ideals as relative, changing, not absolutes. in order for a culture or system of thought to question itself, it needs to be able to step outside the typical systems it works within. nihilism created this outlet for candor about sacred ideals. its a bad idea in that it equated this with life being meaningless. life of course has a meaning, a very simple one, as neo said, "the purpose of life is to live."

----------


## Bakiryu

> Because they believe that everything in the universe is baseless. Just like the website says, they believe in:
> 
> Death to Government
> Death to God
> Death to Ideology
> Death to Purpose
> Death to Culture
> Death to Ego 
> Death to Money
> ...


Why not just believe in DEATH?

Death to God: KINDA REASONABLE
Death to Purpose; LIFE HAS NO PURPOSE
Death to Ego; sure 
Death to Money: why not?
Death to Love: it's already dead
Death to Philosophy: never
Death to Liberty: free will is only an ilusion
Death to Morality: few moral persons exist

----------


## hbacharya

> I personally hate Nihilism, but maybe some of the members of this forum are nihilists. 
> 
> Check out this interesting website for nihilists: counterorder.com/index.html
> 
> Read through some of the articles and post your opinions. I got almost a cult like impression from this website.


nihislism is something not to be hated i beleive, and all as unltimatley all will be nihilatedandf thaat is what AI beleive, and confusion mest be wiped out once u realize

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Death to Philosophy: never


Why not? It is philosophy that brought about nihilism!!! :-)

Humans lived in a paradise Earth - earth with all its richness and bounty - and then ruined it all by saying "Who made all this" :-)




> Death to God: KINDA REASONABLE


Why? - "God" is one of the greatest ideas of humanity for all time :-)




> Death to Purpose; LIFE HAS NO PURPOSE


Life creates it's own Purpose.




> Death to Ego; sure


Yes - I am for all that. But I wonder if Ego is dead will we still have great literature?




> Death to Money: why not?


Yes. We can all live on a Kibutz.
But will it practicable with billions of people? I think not.




> Death to Love: it's already dead


Nay. It lives. It has finally separated itself from sex.




> Death to Liberty: free will is only an ilusion


What is Free Will?




> Death to Morality: few moral persons exist


[/quote]

And they will light the sky by their very existence.

----------


## THX-1138

> If people were left to decide what was wrong and right for themselves the world would look a lot worse than how it looks now. Nihilism is a very bad idea.


i agree

----------


## rsorad3

"It's a it bit contradictory for nihilists to have a representative website isn't it? A bit like anarchists voting!"

Absolutely, these people cannot live with themselves.

----------


## rsorad3

NIHILISM = antiphilosophy

as it is with most modern philosophies

----------


## Unbeliever

> Because they believe that everything in the universe is baseless. Just like the website says, they believe in:
> 
> Death to Government
> Death to God
> Death to Ideology
> Death to Purpose
> Death to Culture
> Death to Ego 
> Death to Money
> ...


Well, I consider myself a nihilist, but I don't believe in death to any of those things listed. I merely believe that they are all ultimately meaningless. In the here and now, though, they are nevertheless full of meaning. If minds ever cease to exist in the universe, the things on the list will once again become utterly meaningless, non-existent abstract concepts that don't exist at all independent of minds. If the universe reaches a "heat death", when there is nothing left but an expanding sea of radiation, then even the possibility of those things ever again having meaning will cease.

But to wish death on abstract concepts, if they're currently useful, would not be pragmatic.

----------


## jphb

Nihilism is simply not taking anything for granted. 

Turgueniev created the first nihilist character, Bazarov, in Fathers and Sons, and he said a nihilist doesn't bow before any authority and has no faith in any principle. 

It doesn't mean absolute destruction or death to everything...

It just means that there are no absolut truths.

----------


## Unbeliever

Yeah, I very much like that definition of nihilism. But maybe nihilism is in the mind of the beholder, like many other terms. Misconceptions abound.

----------


## Endymion

> Well, I consider myself a nihilist, but I don't believe in death to any of those things listed. I merely believe that they are all ultimately meaningless. In the here and now, though, they are nevertheless full of meaning. If minds ever cease to exist in the universe, the things on the list will once again become utterly meaningless, non-existent abstract concepts that don't exist at all independent of minds. If the universe reaches a "heat death", when there is nothing left but an expanding sea of radiation, then even the possibility of those things ever again having meaning will cease.
> 
> But to wish death on abstract concepts, if they're currently useful, would not be pragmatic.


Precisely. Your explanation of nihilism is perfect, in my opinion.

If you think of it in different terms, such as, "How can I ever, truly, know what happened, in the world, before I was born?", you'll discover the basic principles of it.

The concept of the world getting together and creating the idea of WWII, in an attempt to conceal the fact they spent that time in one enormous, drunken party, and creating documentaries, books, poems, pictures, films, etc. to fool the next generation and "have a laugh" - although, highly unlikely - isn't completely beyond the realms of possibility. How can we know, for sure, what happened before we were born? We can only trust the words of our elders. There are no absolute truths.

This leads us to think about the fact that your world only begins from the moment you're born, and ends the day you die. What you do in your life - who you fall in love with, who you meet, etc. - won't make a difference to you, when you're dead (unless, of course, you believe in the afterlife). 

So, thinking on a much wider scale, will it really matter, ultimately, what people did with their lives and our planet, when the universe ends and/or our planet dies (which we're sure it will)?

That's not to say that I don't plan on having as much fun as possible, for the duration of my life; that'd be pointless. As 'Unbeliever' said, wishing death on the government, and the such like, would not be practical or useful, in any way. The governments provide us with stability (for the most part) and love provides the individual with a sense of happiness (although, usually followed by sadness), and I can't think of a better reason to live, other than to be happy and have fun. It's merely suggesting that, in the end, everything is/becomes meaningless.

Just my thoughts.

----------


## linz

Philosophy is gibberish to me. I read The Republic as a child, but it seems likely that it was Aristotle who started the trend of actually believing any of us had a clue to what the hell is going on. It is frightful to see these legions of Philosophers and their legion of theories which have gotten us absolutely nowhere. I swear, for every million thinkers, there is a million answers, just like shrinks. Marx is the only person that made sense; it is too bad he wasn't also a pessimist, or he would've known there wasn't a chance in hell mankind could redeem itself.

----------


## hyperborean

> Philosophy is gibberish to me. I read The Republic as a child, but it seems likely that it was Aristotle who started the trend of actually believing any of us had a clue to what the hell is going on. It is frightful to see these legions of Philosophers and their legion of theories which have gotten us absolutely nowhere. I swear, for every million thinkers, there is a million answers, just like shrinks. Marx is the only person that made sense; it is too bad he wasn't also a pessimist, or he would've known there wasn't a chance in hell mankind could redeem itself.


You are missing the point of philosophy and you are forgetting what it's done for mankind. 

You can't really win an argument against a nihilist either.

Rob from the "philosophy now" forums says this



> This ad infinitum argument means that the nihilist always wins the debate .... because he's the only one that starts with no "given" premise by which to judge one view versus another, so he can always take your argument apart by questionining what you have taken as axiomatic in your argument (eg that true is somehow, by some standard, more, er, "valid" (??) than untrue, which requires you, not him, to defend some starting-point or other for the debate. And there's no invulnerable starting-point, according to the nihilist. In fact, that prob answers the earlier question as to what a nihilist thinks. Logic bites its own tail and says that even logic is an arbitrary way of deciding between competing views. Shifting sands. No standpoint from which to argue one view more valid than another, not even logic. Nothing axiomatic, nothing more valid than anything else, nothing having more validity than anything else, no foothold to start from, not even Descartes',


I suggest reading Nietzsche's opinion of nihilism.

----------


## Pelican King

Philosophy has mainly served humanity as a creative outlet, a chance for innovative thought. Whenever we've seen human progress there's been philosophy flourishing, Ancient Greece had many schools of philosophy, the Renaissance had Descartes who conceived of 'modern philosophy' and the Enlightenment brought a wealth of political philosophy and anti-system philosophies like existentialism and nihilism. 
Nihilism itself is almost anti-philosophy, as has been described it states that nothing has ultimate meaning or purpose. If you consider philosophy to be of little use the likes of postmodernism and nihilism may perhaps be significant hindrances on the future of philosophy. Those two systems (or anti-systems, if you wish), especially the former, were the last big impacts upon philosophy. Even though many philosophers discard them completely contemporary philosophy does seem to be a bit shaken up since their arrival.

----------


## quasimodo1

Opinion: If we live "in a postnuclear world of kafkaesque alienation", then nihilism would be my philosophy of choice. Existentialism is upbeat next to it. Is the world that bleak or can a more life affirming philosophy be found? When you read "Notes from the Underground", you find a kind of nihilism yet I see humour there, in the background. I can't afford a nihilistic point of view; the depression of it would be too much.

----------


## Endymion

I always thought philosophy served its purpose by allowing people individual freedom to question what they've always presumed to be axiomatic.

I'd rather keep questioning, than conform to conventional ideas.

----------


## quasimodo1

Yes, yes and no. I'm just trying to eliminate a philosophical choice from earlier days which have become a workload instead of a holiday. Questioning can be replaced by re-evaluation. Semantics, right? quasimodo1

----------


## linz

*What happened to mankind? Did he digest God somehow, forgetting he shouldn't make idols, except of himself?*

----------


## Endymion

How would you re-evaluate the concepts which have no definitive answer, when, a lot of the time, it's all down to personal belief and opinions?

You said you can't afford a nihilistic point of view because the depressive nature of the idea would be too much for you, whereas, on the other hand, I don't really see my views on nihilism as depressing. It's hard to come to a solid conclusion, when people have different thoughts and ideas, and feel different things.

----------


## quasimodo1

To Endymion: Nihilism doesn't have to be depressing; perhaps it can be liberating. If you/one takes the point of view that "nothing matters" which is a distortion of nihilism in that it extrapolates; this philosophy doesn't say yes or no to any value system but it does say no to deistic belief system. You have said (quoted) something in latin;mine is rusty...is it Cicero? I accept the point entirely, nihilism can be positive. quasi

----------


## Unbeliever

> This leads us to think about the fact that your world only begins from the moment you're born, and ends the day you die. What you do in your life - who you fall in love with, who you meet, etc. - won't make a difference to you, when you're dead (unless, of course, you believe in the afterlife). 
> 
> So, thinking on a much wider scale, will it really matter, ultimately, what people did with their lives and our planet, when the universe ends and/or our planet dies (which we're sure it will)?


Yeah, I like the way it was put by Clarence Darrow:
"We are born and we die; and between these two most important events in our lives more or less time elapses which we have to waste somehow or other. In the end it does not seem to matter much whether we have done so in making money, or practicing law, or reading or playing, or in any other way, as long as we felt we were deriving a maximum of happiness out of our doings."

And a similar thought by Will Rogers:
"We are all here for a spell; get all the good laughs you can." 

I used to fret over the state of the world, and what it would be in the future, but now I've realized that I can only affect, if anything, the near future. Anything beyond that is not my responsibility, since I can have no effect on it. In a million years (or probably much less time) the very fact of my having ever existed will be completely forgotten, and I might as well have never been at all, for all the effect my life will have had on that furture world. And a million years is as an eye-blink in the long stretches of cosmological time. Only the here/now has any real meaning for me, and the farther I try to look ahead, the less meaning I can see related to my actions.

----------


## Unbeliever

> Philosophy is gibberish to me. I read The Republic as a child, but it seems likely that it was Aristotle who started the trend of actually believing any of us had a clue to what the hell is going on. It is frightful to see these legions of Philosophers and their legion of theories which have gotten us absolutely nowhere. I swear, for every million thinkers, there is a million answers, just like shrinks. Marx is the only person that made sense; it is too bad he wasn't also a pessimist, or he would've known there wasn't a chance in hell mankind could redeem itself.


Quite a bit of philosophy is meaningless to me, as well. I've had to wade through a lot of BS in order to glean what I considered nuggets worth considering seriously. But I won't say it hasn't been fun!

----------


## Unbeliever

> Questioning can be replaced by re-evaluation. Semantics, right?


I don't see the distinction between questioning and re-evaluating. Is there one?

----------


## Unbeliever

> You have said (quoted) something in latin;mine is rusty...is it Cicero?


"Any man can make a mistake; only a fool keeps making the same one."

Indeed, Cicero.

----------


## Unbeliever

> "It's a it bit contradictory for nihilists to have a representative website isn't it? A bit like anarchists voting!"
> 
> Absolutely, these people cannot live with themselves.


Ha! And solipsists can't live _without_ themselves!  :Wink:

----------


## Unbeliever

> Turgueniev created the first nihilist character, Bazarov, in Fathers and Sons, and he said a nihilist doesn't bow before any authority and has no faith in any principle.


In case anyone wants to read _Fathers and Sons_, here's a link:
http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/ist/fas.htm

----------


## jphb

> I can't afford a nihilistic point of view; the depression of it would be too much.


Actually, I find the nihilist point of view very liberating. I think that although it renders everything worthless, that doesn't mean, at least for me, that there is no beauty in this world to be admired. I think beauty is perhaps the only thing that keeps its value for a nihilist. 

In this sense, the nihilist can adopt an observer's point of view. Also because if everything is worthless then, in a cerrtain sense, everything is worth the same, and this is an impartial point of view that I think is a necessary starting point for an observer's activity.

Regards

----------


## hyperborean

Nihilists lack the will humanity needs to finally move forward. Theists lack the way of thinking it takes to move forward. If people would start putting faith in themselves (and out of imaginary entities [theists] or nothing [nihilists]), then maybe mankind will finally progress.

----------


## Endymion

People are, generally, selfish. When it comes down to it, most of us don't care about the future generations and what will happen to them; whether they'll progress, create new weapons or cure all sickness, because we'll, most likely, be dead.

----------


## hyperborean

> People are, generally, selfish. When it comes down to it, most of us don't care about the future.


And that's why we have philosophy. To counteract this selfishness and open up people's minds.

----------


## Pelican King

I'd also say that's why we have civilizations, cultures, religions and pretty much any symbol imaginable.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Nihilism is best done by professionals.
> - Iggy Pop



Hahah! :Biggrin:  Yay for Iggy!

----------


## Midas

This is just a suggestion

The problem with conceptual issues which have been ascribed the symbolic ending of 'ism' is that none, with which I am familiar are clearly defined. They are vague, sometimes because of well orchestrated intent, sometimes by media 'catch attention' or even journalistic ignorance, and this has led to connotations - meaning through usage, beyond the literal..

Therefore, to debate an 'ism' , it would be wise to first describe the meaning with which that particular thread is aligned. This would help to keep matters more focused and avoid confusion to both participant posters, and in general readers.

----------


## Endymion

There are different interpretations of what 'nihilism really is', though.

The website shown on the first page shows a more extreme side of nihilism, i.e. 'Death to Love, Death to Government', etc. 

However, I already stated my interpretation of it on the previous page.

----------


## NikolaiI

> It just means that there are no absolut truths.


If you say there are no absolute truths, aren't you saying there's only one? 

-There is one true statement, there's only one true statement, and all others are false, or less true? But then there'd be levels of truth. One truth above another, but really that truth wouldn't be saying much, just that it was truer than anything else. Because you first say that there's only one thing that's absolutely true, but then there's another degree of absolution.

If you get me.

Can't we say 2+2 is an absolute truth? Isn't that the definition? All 'concepts' don't apply to nature, so they say, but in math and things there is truth.

Well, I haven't read a whole lot about nihilism, just some of Nietzsche and probably others, and an excerpt from that Turgeniev piece; as I have it, nihilism is 'levelling.' That's fine and makes sense with nature, etc. Atrophy or whatever.

So I'm not sure what nihilism addresses, or what it means. Isn't it only a part of other philosophies, hell, even a thing of science? 

I guess there was no point to this post since I was only asking a question..

----------


## weepingforloman

> Nihilists lack the will humanity needs to finally move forward. Theists lack the way of thinking it takes to move forward. If people would start putting faith in themselves (and out of imaginary entities [theists] or nothing [nihilists]), then maybe mankind will finally progress.


First of all, you make the (incorrect) assumption that positive progress is made only by atheists. Secondly, what interest do you have in "advancing" if (as I know you are) you are an atheist? It seems to me that you would be more interested in your own self... I'm asking a question here, I'm not being facetious. Could you explain your reasons?

----------


## Pelican King

> Secondly, what interest do you have in "advancing" if (as I know you are) you are an atheist? It seems to me that you would be more interested in your own self... I'm asking a question here, I'm not being facetious. Could you explain your reasons?


I'm guessing your not familiar with economics. Having a progressive economy depends upon a population being self-interested. Having a population competitive to achieve their own ends makes everyone better off, this is the foundation to modern day living. Life today would be far less 'advanced' if this truth weren't in action.

----------


## weepingforloman

I'm not quite sure that's what hyperborean meant when he spoke of "progress..." I get the picture more of a moral/social advancement.

----------


## weepingforloman

> And that's why we have philosophy. To counteract this selfishness and open up people's minds.


Philosophy is more a statement about human nature than an antidote for it.

----------


## Pelican King

To try and summarise Nihilism, i believe it's generally understood to there being no _purposive truth_ truth to anything. So from the angle of meaning, everything is on the same level as having none.
Nihilism is also commonly applied only in an ethical sense. If something is nihilistic it can generally mean that nothing _should_ be done, because there is no purpose to anything.

As for Nietzsche and nihilism, he was no nihilist. He was very concerned that the world would reach a point where nothing could be regarded as having true purpose or meaning, which is why he set about writing a 'revaluation of all values'.

----------


## weepingforloman

He believed that no value remained a virtue for very long. He also developed the concept of the Ubermensch (anyone know how to type an umlaut?), which was then used (and distorted) by the Nazis.

----------


## Tor_Hershman

"...the rest is silence," as someone once wrote.

However, here's the whole (Well, 99% of) orb of
monoesters, hydrocarbons, hydroxy monoesters, diesters, hydroxy polyesters, free acids, triesters, acid polyesters, acid esters, free alcohols and 6% ?
summed as parody. 
Or is that, parodied some?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8pdL0snjUs

Stay on (Or don't) Groovin' Safari,
 :Eek2:  Tor Hershman  :Eek2:

----------


## Endymion

"If you say there are no absolute truths, aren't you saying there's only one?"


I'm not even going to get into that paradox; it's insolvable. 

However, just because I think there are no absolute truths, doesn't mean that I'm right or that I think/know I'm right. 

Let's think upon that for awhile...

----------


## weepingforloman

If you think a thought, you think you are right. Why would you think something you thought was wrong?

----------


## Endymion

I think religion is wrong and faith is misplaced; doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. But then, if I have that self-doubt about my ideas on religion and faith, I can't be completely certain of myself, can I?

Just because I think something's wrong, or right, doesn't mean I have to stop thinking altogether. If people never doubted their beliefs, we'd all still be going to church every Sunday because we'd be too scared of being accused of practising witchcraft.

Or maybe I just don't trust myself, any belief, ideal or person. Would that be the same as nihilism, in any sense of the word?

----------


## weepingforloman

It may be the mindset behind nihilism, but not necessarily a Platonic ideal of nihilism.

What's wrong with going to church?

----------


## Endymion

Nothing is wrong with going to church! It was just an example. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my opinions should be law. After all, they're only opinions.

There is something wrong with not being able to express your own opinions on the matter, though.

I, personally, don't really care about whether a God exists, or what His will may be. I think that, if there is a God, His will and general existence are far beyond our ability to comprehend. The only part of religion I despise is the extremist side. 

I see no point in arguing about religion, though. If somebody has faith in something like that, there's no way you'll be able to change their mind, nor would I want to, to be honest.

----------


## NikolaiI

> "If you say there are no absolute truths, aren't you saying there's only one?"
> 
> 
> I'm not even going to get into that paradox; it's insolvable. 
> 
> However, just because I think there are no absolute truths, doesn't mean that I'm right or that I think/know I'm right. 
> 
> Let's think upon that for awhile...


"All paradoxes are solvable." -Joseph Campbell

I don't believe it's a paradox. And thanks for reading it and replying. 

I believe it's a true idea though. It's kind of hard to explain. I guess it's that one statement is true and all others are false. The statement is not that ALL statements are false. That would be a parodox. But an adaptation of that is to say that all _other_ statements are false. Then you get the different levels of truth, because the others aren't _false_, per se, they can be true, just so long as they don't contradict the first statement, and so on. I haven't worked it all out yet, but that's the basic idea. And as far as absolute truth goes in any other instance, I agree with Pascal when he said, "There's no such thing as absolute truth. _Everything here is partly true and partly false_."

----------


## FrozenDuchess

the thing about nihilism is that it does not take very much to achieve...

 :Wink:

----------


## weepingforloman

> "All paradoxes are solvable." -Joseph Campbell
> 
> I don't believe it's a paradox. And thanks for reading it and replying. 
> 
> I believe it's a true idea though. It's kind of hard to explain. I guess it's that one statement is true and all others are false. The statement is not that ALL statements are false. That would be a parodox. But an adaptation of that is to say that all _other_ statements are false. Then you get the different levels of truth, because the others aren't _false_, per se, they can be true, just so long as they don't contradict the first statement, and so on. I haven't worked it all out yet, but that's the basic idea. And as far as absolute truth goes in any other instance, I agree with Pascal when he said, "There's no such thing as absolute truth. _Everything here is partly true and partly false_."


Pardon me if I'm being stupid, but isn't this one of the reasons people mock followers of one religion or other? I mean someone like me, who believes that Christ (or, for example, Allah, or Yahweh) is the only truth. We are attacked for "close-mindedness," but this is essentially the same thing. Only this statement is true... all others are wrong. Sorry if I'm just being thick-headed.

Grace and Peace.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Pardon me if I'm being stupid, but isn't this one of the reasons people mock followers of one religion or other? I mean someone like me, who believes that Christ (or, for example, Allah, or Yahweh) is the only truth. We are attacked for "close-mindedness," but this is essentially the same thing. Only this statement is true... all others are wrong. Sorry if I'm just being thick-headed.


It's sad if anyone attacks you, I hope you're never attacked. I think the main reason for disagreeing with Christians, however, is gut-feeling, analysis, exposure, learning, perspective, etc. If you look at Earth as a ball in space, with creatures on it, and see their religions, i.e., the most recently evolved creature has created language and religion, it doesn't hold a lot of stock. What is religion to an alien, an ant, or a lizard? Also, what raises Christianity above the others? Several others claim to be revelations of God, etc. 

You don't have to apologize at all, weeping.  :Smile:  You never did anything wrong. Anyway, I'd like to hear your ideas on this philisophical subject.  :Smile: 

Nikolai

----------


## blazeofglory

> 'I personally hate Nihilism'. Why?


Maybe you hate it because you want to be in a comfort zone. You hate because you can not think of having an independent existence of your own; you hate because you fear the unknown; you hate because in God you find all you desperations healed; You hate becuase you want an image, for you fear reality and you feel incomplete in yourself and you want externals for aide or for you to associate with. 

God is an invention of man, and it is invented with a purpose that it can protect him from imagined entities, and that he can move freely with Gods and angels guarding him all the time.

I am not a Nihilist in point of fact. I too have a kind of beleif in something that exists, in which form I can not imagine, let alone put the imagination or idea of it in words. 

Nihilism appeals to me for it says everything in the end comes to an end or to cesation. This is the law of nature. Even celestial bodies have tho face death or the cesation of their beingness.

This is what I beleive in. If you disagree please comment.




> Nietzsche condemns nihilists, saying that they are the ruination of the world. Many people call him a nihilist because he said "God is dead". There are various interpretations of that quotation. I personally believe he meant that we have to carry on with our lives as if God doesn't exist. It's not really atheistic because one does not deny God's existence... we instead must forget about him because he has become "irrelevant to the bulk of humanity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilis..._and_Nietzsche
> 
> I haven't read "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard, and apparently it details "new nihilism". http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/cpace/theo...llard/lee.html
> 
> oh yea, and loe, it must be pretty cool reading Nietzsche's work in the original language. I sometimes wish I knew other languages so I wouldn't have to worry about the validity of different translations.



Having read this ommentary I understand that Jean Baudrillard has read Adi Shankaracharya, a great Indain Philosopher born 1200 years ago, a great vedantist. He was really a seer. He said this world is a simulation of or someply an image of god. And all things that seem to exist are simply refelctions of the other reality man can not visualize.

Therefore Jean Baudrillard must have immensely drawn upon the idea of Adi Shankaracharya. In fact Vedic litereature, I do not say Hindu literature becaus I beleive in seculiarim, i svery rich in philosophy. I do not claim that it is clean of or pure of all dogmas. No there are myths. But Vedic literature so ancient yet there is lot of logicality and evidence in them.

If you read his literature, that is Shankaraycharya you will be amazed to see therein reserivoirs of such ideas.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Maybe you hate it because you want to be in a comfort zone. You hate because you can not think of having an independent existence of your own; you hate because you fear the unknown; you hate because in God you find all you desperations healed; You hate becuase you want an image, for you fear reality and you feel incomplete in yourself and you want externals for aide or for you to associate with. 
> 
> God is an invention of man, and it is invented with a purpose that it can protect him from imagined entities, and that he can move freely with Gods and angels guarding him all the time.
> 
> I am not a Nihilist in point of fact. I too have a kind of beleif in something that exists, in which form I can not imagine, let alone put the imagination or idea of it in words. 
> 
> Nihilism appeals to me for it says everything in the end comes to an end or to cesation. This is the law of nature. Even celestial bodies have tho face death or the cesation of their beingness.
> 
> This is what I beleive in. If you disagree please comment.


A. Your claim that God is an invention is unsubstantiated and unprovable. Furthermore, it's liable to cause this thread to be closed.

B. I think nihilism is itself an instance of seeking comfort. When nothing matters, why does it matter what you do? You can do whatever you want, free of guilt, free of worry that you should be doing something else. Ultimately, to me at least, nihilism is a wishful philosophy.

----------


## NickAdams

> A. Your claim that God is an invention is unsubstantiated and unprovable.


Can't that also be said about his existence?

----------


## blazeofglory

> If people were left to decide what was wrong and right for themselves the world would look a lot worse than how it looks now. Nihilism is a very bad idea.


There is little sense in your argument that Nihilism is a bad idea. Nihilism is never a bad idea. It is in fact if not in whole, in part similar to modern deconstructionist theory. It is against social taboos and mores and against authority. In fact it is a way of thinking that nothing needs to be taken for granted and every idea prior to accepting must be weighed in thss scales of reasoning and wielded in frames of reasoning and logicaliity.

Therefore please think and give reasons why mihilism is a bad idea

----------


## rabid reader

> There is little sense in your argument that Nihilism is a bad idea. Nihilism is never a bad idea. It is in fact if not in whole, in part similar to modern deconstructionist theory. It is against social taboos and mores and against authority. In fact it is a way of thinking that nothing needs to be taken for granted and every idea prior to accepting must be weighed in thss scales of reasoning and wielded in frames of reasoning and logicaliity.
> 
> Therefore please think and give reasons why mihilism is a bad idea


I always like Nietzsche's argument against the "Nihilists" and that is they are hopeless in the death of god. The feel the absences of god, and his hold on morals and give up hope for something better. Nietzsche's belief in the Ubermenchen was in fact a wad of spit in the eye of the Atheist movement of his time. He said the Ubermenchen was a project that humanity had to embark on that would last beyond the lives of the humans who begin the project. Whereas the Nihilist thought of nothing beyond their own existence.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Can't that also be said about his existence?


Yes, it can.

----------


## Son of Belial

> Your claim that God is an invention is unsubstantiated and unprovable...





> Can't that also be said about his existence?





> Yes, it can.


It's torturous logic to say that since an assertion can't be disproved it therefore must be true. Test this: I assert that there are one-eyed purple people eaters living on Cygnus X-1. Since you can't prove that it isn't true, it therefore must be true. That's not how reason and logic works. If an assertion is made, it is the duty of the asserter to present testable evidence to support the assertion, or society is allowed, even duty bound, to call that assertion false, or in this case "an invention".

I believe that one reason such fallacies are allowed to persist in our world is because enough people have internalized the myth to give it the appearance of reality where no real evidence exists. Clearly such "evidence" is inadequate when you consider an example such as belief in a flat earth. Appeal to the people is a formal fallacy exactly because history has proven that virtually everyone can be wrong about some matters.

----------


## Reason

Why would anyone think Nihilism is depressing? Im not a depressed person. The reason someone would find it depressing is if they still havn't come to terms with reality and still hold on to fantasy for a glimmer of hope. thats depressing. A life blinded by that which truly doesnt matter, a life lost in what isnt needed, a life in which acceptance of ones faint still isnt comprehensible. Thats depressing. " You must realize that one day you will die. Until then you are worthless ". You see, Nihilism, despite what the mainstream view on it is, has nothing to do with giving up, on the contrary it has to do with the exact opposite. You realize at some point that nothing really matters. thats step 1. Step 2. You begin to envision. You contemplate why do anything? why live? step 3. You realize that despite your life has no real significance you wont go kurt cobain on yourself. step 4. Now you contemplate on giving yourself purpose in this life, despite knowing their is none. step 5. You are now more free than anyone on the face of this earth. You bow before no one. You fear no one or anything. You think for yourself, you question everything. Now you can truly live life to the fullest. Your dream or dreams or whatever you stand for or once stood for, become a reality. thats Nihilism in my opinion.

----------


## jgweed

How the camel became the lion, and then how the lion became the little child.

----------


## Page Sniffer

Didn't I see "Team Nihilist" running around loose in post-apocalyptic Mad Max?

----------


## jgweed

It was Nietzsche who first diagnosed the crises in European thought, and perhaps by his own writings, contributed to this overthrow of traditional values, including the value of truth itself (for which reason Heidegger called him the "last philosopher").
While this crises could be the healthiest imaginable for the creative spirit of man, he knew also that nihilism, the opposite, was also a possible result. He wrote, "Man would rather will nothingness that have nothing to will." 
Nietzsche was concerned that once the values hitherto were seen as hollow and all-too-human---that values were a matter of genealogy, prejudice, and fear---that valuation _itself_ would become questioned and despised in a general and pervasive nihilism.
To Nietzsche's credit, he undertook the boldest experiments in creating new values. The "Superman," Eternal Return of the Same, the morality of aesthetics and spiritual health were some of these.

----------


## AsILay

how dose one expect to make the desision between right and wrong withought a bases of right and wrong. if we were to destroy culture religion philosphy ext, then how would you know what was right and what wasnt. arnt we, as people, told from the second we can crawl, what not to do. though we see something is wrong through our eyes, if we were to look through anothers would it look as bad? i personaly belieave that there is no right nor wrong but different ideals and beliefs. i think that if one was to remove all beliefs ideals love hate religion and so on than we in turn would remove what makes us human. i breefly looked at the sight suggested and, sorry if im wrong, but it seems the ideal is to stop lisening to what your told but to think for youself and think in an independent mind, but if we all through away our own beleifs would we all not have conformed to the same belief and became the thing in which Nihilism was trying to avoid, an exsistance of cloned beings? Wouldn't this be a loss of independence and theretrough our humanity?

----------


## NikolaiI

> how dose one expect to make the desision between right and wrong withought a bases of right and wrong. if we were to destroy culture religion philosphy ext, then how would you know what was right and what wasnt. arnt we, as people, told from the second we can crawl, what not to do. though we see something is wrong through our eyes, if we were to look through anothers would it look as bad? i personaly belieave that there is no right nor wrong but different ideals and beliefs. i think that if one was to remove all beliefs ideals love hate religion and so on than we in turn would remove what makes us human. i breefly looked at the sight suggested and, sorry if im wrong, but it seems the ideal is to stop lisening to what your told but to think for youself and think in an independent mind, but if we all through away our own beleifs would we all not have conformed to the same belief and became the thing in which Nihilism was trying to avoid, an exsistance of cloned beings? Wouldn't this be a loss of independence and theretrough our humanity?


Yes I think it would I agree with you.

----------


## djy78usa

DISCLAIMER: THE BELOW POST DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, SUPPORT THE TENENTS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM, its just my favorite quote from one of my favorite films :Smile:  :




> "Nihilists? F*** me, Dude! I mean, say what you will about the tenents of National Socialism, Dude, at least its an ethos.
> 
> -Walter Sobchek, _The Big Lebowski_

----------


## blazeofglory

Nihilists annul everything and as such they will annul themselves at the end

----------


## nathin

I have a philopohy myself, a sort of mixture between nihilism and existentialism. it goes as follows: There is no point in life. So have as much fun doing what you can while you are alive. Religion aside, we have no idea what will occure when we die, so have as much fun as you can while your still 'live and kickin'.

----------


## Heteronym

Dada was a very nihilistic movement and yet I think it only benifitted the world. It challenged many social and cultural assumptions, it upset the ruling class' taste, it liberated art and literature from rigidity, it terrorised the world with bad taste, absurdist humor and frivolity. And today we're better for it. I couldn't imagine myself living in the world before Dada.

Even so, I think nihilism is only useful in small doses. I think at the end of the end, humans need stability, culture, family, friends, and some guiding rules to achieve full happiness.

----------


## weltanschauung

nihilism is all about having short bangs and wearing blue spectacles.
nihilists everywhere!


" ah. must be exhausting.."

----------


## JakWil

To above: thank you. I clicked this thread hoping to find a Lebowski reference, and you saved me some time by being the first thing I saw.

----------


## weltanschauung

INEVITABLE. 

Nihilist: We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson. 
The Dude: Excuse me? 

*mission accomplished*

----------


## hoope

whats life if there is nothing to believe in ?
Whats life is there is faith? 

The only thing that keeps us moving on is our belief... our believe that that something good is going to happen.. Our belive in Love, death , God , truth.... etc.. 

I don't think that nihilism is a way of living .. nor something to follow.. nor something that has any meaning !!!

----------


## arrytus

caveat lector: i'm not doing these ideas justice here...
There is a modern nihilism much different than what this thread seems to be about which was influenced by Heidegger and was based on the 'ex nihilo' theory of existence and has received a great interpretation by Jean Luc Nancy in the fantastic albeit short book 'Creation of the world'. it is more to the point that as there is no Kantian foundation to existence, neither in nor prior, and that all perspectives are relatively valorized that nihilism in this sense is merely a relativist anthropological perspective, which is to say rather skeptical- in the philosophical, epoche/aporia sense of the word in which any view is as justified in its basis as any other. it also allows it to be a very creative principle as everything comes 'from nothing/ex nihilo'.

----------


## weltanschauung

yeah maybe, but as i recall, the heidegger approach, at the end, dangles between an under-the-covers mysticism specially in later texts like " the end of phylosophy" and actually nihilism, which in his definition would actually be something of the sort "everything is nothing. and nothing is everything. all that is real is the void." 
and stuff.

----------


## weltanschauung

anyways, as usual, i killed a thread. so BUMP.

http://www.ctheory.net/will/index.html
http://www.rhizome.org/
http://www.lifeinthewires.net/
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=201
http://web.uvic.ca/~akroker/

its more than just girls with short hair and blue spectacles for ya.

----------


## Derwind

I'm an immanentist thank you very much. :P

I had to study the nihilist perspective on the meaning of life once, if I remember correctly the premise goes as such:

Premise 1: In order to have meaning in life, there must be a transcendent meaning to life. (I reject this)

Premise 2: There is no transcendent meaning to life. (I accept this)

Conclusion: There is no meaning in life. (I reject this)

I remember I had to read through bits of Schopenhauer, Camus and Nagel's pieces on the meaning of life. Bits were somewhat depressing, not that there works weren't brilliant, especially Camus approach with the "Myth of Sisyphus" or Nagel's view that one should carry life with a grain of absurdity.

Though I'm not exactly sure if Camus or Nagel are nihilist but there piece's do reflect a feeling of meaningless in life.

I'm not a philosophy major and this is way beyond my element, so here's hoping I don't sound too ignorant trying to convey my feelings on nihilism.  :Smile:

----------


## HitlerProf

I think that the existence of a nihilist website, and (especially) nihilist texts that took a lot of work and thought testify to what is in reality a more existentialist-type outlook, since the website and the texts are themselves projects of the sort that existentialists advocate for the sake of deriving a person meaning in life..

----------


## prendrelemick

> anyways, as usual, i killed a thread. so BUMP.
> 
> http://www.ctheory.net/will/index.html
> http://www.rhizome.org/
> http://www.lifeinthewires.net/
> http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=201
> http://web.uvic.ca/~akroker/
> 
> its more than just girls with short hair and blue spectacles for ya.


"Nihilists annul everything and as such they will annul themselves at the end" 

A mercy killing though.

----------


## the facade

"death to ideology" is an uneducated thing to say  :Smile: 

ideology exists in existence itself.

----------


## JohnLocke

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and I apologize if it has been, but I don't have the time peruse everything that has been written before me. I have seen it mentioned, however, that nihilism is a negating philosophy; that the nihilist must inevitably kill himself in his process of destruction. This is an excellent example of the non sequitur fallacy. A moral nihilist (the kind many here are discussing), above all else, denies the validity and the existence of universal ethical claims. These are all, to the nihilist, subjective, meaningless propositions. Thus, the universe is inherently valueless. From this, it does not follow in anyway that one should kill one's self; in fact, to do so would catapult the nihilist away from his philosophy, in that a moral judgment must be made predicated on the perceived value of death. Simply put, it is just as senseless to a nihilist that he remains alive then that he dies. No choice is better or worse than the other. Therefore, to claim that a nihilist is hypocritical if he refuses suicide is to impose upon him a type of value system which he denies. To him, naturally, all human beings are nihilistic, whether they realize it or not -- even if one adheres to a meaning-based ethical system, these systems are still necessarily false. Similarly, many nihilists are also scientific determinists, and they derive their nihilism from the idea that we are nothing but the composition of particles in time and space. In this sense, we do not have free will, we do not have a Self, we do not have a soul, etc. Everything is a grand process, a constant system of actions/reactions. Thus, proposing that the nihilist must commit suicide is essentially meaningless, as no action can truly be freely "committed," and no "self" can be killed. We simply exist, all things occur passively. The idea that a nihilist is necessarily predisposed to violent actions based on his philosophy is historically accurate, of course, but philosophically invalid.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and I apologize if it has been, but I don't have the time peruse everything that has been written before me. I have seen it mentioned, however, that nihilism is a negating philosophy; that the nihilist must inevitably kill himself in his process of destruction. This is an excellent example of the non sequitur fallacy. A moral nihilist (the kind many here are discussing), above all else, denies the validity and the existence of universal ethical claims. These are all, to the nihilist, subjective, meaningless propositions. Thus, the universe is inherently valueless. From this, it does not follow in anyway that one should kill one's self; in fact, to do so would catapult the nihilist away from his philosophy, in that a moral judgment must be made predicated on the perceived value of death. Simply put, it is just as senseless to a nihilist that he remains alive then that he dies. No choice is better or worse than the other. Therefore, to claim that a nihilist is hypocritical if he refuses suicide is to impose upon him a type of value system which he denies. To him, naturally, all human beings are nihilistic, whether they realize it or not -- even if one adheres to a meaning-based ethical system, these systems are still necessarily false. Similarly, many nihilists are also scientific determinists, and they derive their nihilism from the idea that we are nothing but the composition of particles in time and space. In this sense, we do not have free will, we do not have a Self, we do not have a soul, etc. Everything is a grand process, a constant system of actions/reactions. Thus, proposing that the nihilist must commit suicide is essentially meaningless, as no action can truly be freely "committed," and no "self" can be killed. We simply exist, all things occur passively. The idea that a nihilist is necessarily predisposed to violent actions based on his philosophy is historically accurate, of course, but philosophically invalid.


Nihilism as self-defeating was stated at least in post #76. But it's not necessarily true. A [moral] nihilist can simply state that positive ethical claims are impossible. If the nihilist only makes negative claims (assuming that negative claims cannot be rewritten as positive claims, which seems to be the case), he's not going to contradict himself. If anything, I think the non sequitur comes from the relativist (normative or otherwise) who states that all claims are conditional, which just so happens to be an unconditional claim.

----------


## JohnLocke

I definitely agree, especially with your astute distinction between relativism and nihilism, which people seem to conflate quite often.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I was a nihilist once. It was when I was quite depressed. I got better, and I'm not a nihilist anymore. I hope to never be again.

----------


## rajeevrnair

Death to ego

Death to ideology

Death to morality

to satisfy all of the above there definitely is a corollary

Death to the 'brain' and 'all forms of thought'

but to conceive the above the brain must very well be alive..if one must make such observations...one ought to have a fully functional brain that observes all aspects of life and then denies itself.

When the brain is dead well one may be able to achieve all of the above but without the brain one cannot ensure its continuity...the brain may awaken again at a later point of time...simply because physiologically we have a large brain..and then it may no longer believe in nihilism...so clearly it is pointless to believe in a philosophy that has no assured life of its own  :Smile: 

and not to say it risks itself but it risks the life of people who follow it merely because it contradicts all aspects of a mans social and economic life and things that keep it intact..there is a good degree of acceptance of all of the points even among animals...why should man with a more evolved brain be an exception?

----------


## Judas130

> "death to ideology" is an uneducated thing to say 
> 
> ideology exists in existence itself.


really? i have never met an ideological rabbit. have you? maybe there is a pebble that subscribes to Rousseau?

Ideology exists as the surplus baggage of conforming groups using their normative/prescriptive values, which are in themselves the conclusions of irrational biases and faith, to justify their Identity. It is a destructive force. As all mental ills, beyond schizophrenia, and all social uproars, all personal doubts are the result of a conflict between Identity and Society, it seems fitting that Ideology is the function that moulds both to a supposed order so that it may justify itself _and_ the social constructs it attaches itself to.

----------


## rajeevrnair

> really? i have never met an ideological rabbit. have you? maybe there is a pebble that subscribes to Rousseau?


What he means perhaps is that ideology is the reason for existence...that all of existence is someone's idea? :Idea:

----------


## Judas130

> that all of existence is someone's idea?


If you mean the concepts raised by extreme solipsists? E.g. 'I exist and the rest is my imagination'. These are philosophical nutshells, cul de sac arguments such as 'my green could be your blue' which get us nowhere. Or if you mean to say, a being - a deity - behind existence? Can we not see the hubris of this anthropological view of nature? To the think the cosmos contains 'out there', shrouded in mystery, the very moral codes, normative ethics, metaphysical ideals such as 'Love' and 'Justice' that we try to 'interpret' is only to map ourselves on to reality irrationally. Logical Positivism, for all its flaws, showed us that to say 'This thing is wrong inherently' is to say nothing of the fact, nothing of the object: what we are saying is 'here is a fact. This is what I think of it' - we add nothing to the reality around us when we attach our ideology. We forever talk of ourselves. We do not need to see the tree that falls in order for it to fall. Beautiful objects are not in themselves 'beautiful', but beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder. etc. 

Nihilism is a step in _some_ direction to seeing outside of this human box, but it doesn't do a very good job.

----------


## cacian

Nihilist or not the world is still is.
To try an remove what is already established is like trying to remove oneself but by taking it out on others.
Objectively it is easy mentally it is an impossiblity.

Nihilism is nothing but denial and how long can someone live in denial before one cracks under the pressure?

----------


## Tor-Hershman

Wishing death to inanimate objects is a HIGHLY emotional misnomer,
destruction to those objects/organizations is possible.
Only living matter can truly die;
hence, we have the question -
*"What is the cause of all Death?"*
with the answer
"_Life_."

----------


## cacian

> Wishing death to inanimate objects is a HIGHLY emotional misnomer,
> destruction to those objects/organizations is possible.
> Only living matter can truly die;
> hence, we have the question -
> *"What is the cause of all Death?"*
> with the answer
> "_Life_."


what is the cause of death?
I would not say life because life gives you birth so that you are born and that is the only thing life does.
It cannot then do death because then it would cancel itself.
Things/concept do one thing and onthing only at one given time doing two things is not a possibility. It would be like saying the sun gives us light and dark. Sun only gives sunshine/warmth/ligt whatever.
The cause of death is time. A cycle of time has reached its toll.

----------


## cacian

> I definitely agree, especially with your astute distinction between relativism and nihilism, which people seem to conflate quite often.


I am no so sure I think nihilism is a bit of self conflating act where by one bury one's head in the sand.

----------


## Ser Nevarc

> Nihilist or not the world is still is.
> To try an remove what is already established is like trying to remove oneself but by taking it out on others.
> Objectively it is easy mentally it is an impossiblity.
> 
> Nihilism is nothing but denial and how long can someone live in denial before one cracks under the pressure?


Nihilism is most certainly not "nothing but denial." It is the assertion that something unproveable doesn't exist. Read Descarte's _Meditations_ for a much better explanation but: We cannot in any way prove that our existences are anything more than dreams. 

You seem to think of the nihilist as being a person who is simply in fearful denial. Rather I think of a nihilist as one who doubts (very extremely).

----------


## cafolini

> Nihilism is most certainly not "nothing but denial." It is the assertion that something unproveable doesn't exist. Read Descarte's _Meditations_ for a much better explanation but: We cannot in any way prove that our existences are anything more than dreams. 
> 
> You seem to think of the nihilist as being a person who is simply in fearful denial. Rather I think of a nihilist as one who doubts (very extremely).


Nihilism is the denial of false values, not nothing but denial. And Descartes faked doubt and was not an extreme doubter. He proposed that we should break knowledge down to very specifics, until we could not go farther and build from there with certainty for posterity. The man was insane and thought that he could arrive a the very specifics that would constitute undoubtful science. He used his fame as the inventor of analytic geometry to pretend the authority to do that. Descartes a doubter? Yes, but to the point where he stupidly thought that he had undoubtful specifics. Actually he became comical with the specifics he proposed.

----------


## Ser Nevarc

> Nihilism is the denial of false values, not nothing but denial. And Descartes faked doubt and was not an extreme doubter. He proposed that we should break knowledge down to very specifics, until we could not go farther and build from there with certainty for posterity.


I'm not sure upon what authority you can call Descartes a "fake doubter." Remind us when and how you found this out; I'm sure others would like to hear. Anyway, Descartes' methodology of doubt was mighty extreme in his time, wouldn't you say? 

At any rate, I wasn't calling Descartes a nihilist: he was in no way a nihilist. I used his famous usage of doubt to evaluate reality in minimalist fashion so that I could attempt to show the plain logic behind a person's disbelief. Perhaps I should have clarified in my post. I repeat: don't call Descartes a nihilist!




> The man was insane and thought that he could arrive a the very specifics that would constitute undoubtful science. He used his fame as the inventor of analytic geometry to pretend the authority to do that. Descartes a doubter? Yes, but to the point where he stupidly thought that he had undoubtful specifics.



Try a  :Chillpill:

----------


## cafolini

> I'm not sure upon what authority you can call Descartes a "fake doubter." Remind us when and how you found this out; I'm sure others would like to hear. Anyway, Descartes' methodology of doubt was mighty extreme in his time, wouldn't you say? 
> 
> At any rate, I wasn't calling Descartes a nihilist: he was in no way a nihilist. I used his famous usage of doubt to evaluate reality in minimalist fashion so that I could attempt to show the plain logic behind a person's disbelief. Perhaps I should have clarified in my post. I repeat: don't call Descartes a nihilist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try a


I proposed Descartes a fabricator of false values. I don't think you read well.
And with that chill, the case is closed.  :Smash:

----------


## Ser Nevarc

> I proposed Descartes a fabricator of false values.


What false values?

----------


## cacian

> Nihilism is most certainly not "nothing but denial." It is the *assertion that something unproveable doesn't exist*.


Assertion is to be 100% certain that something isn't.
Doubting is not being able to put a finger on something. It is neither here or there.
Something that one cannot prove exists does not mean it is unprovable.
On the contrary. It proves that one has failed to understand it.
The failure is on the person on who does not attain its understanding and not the other way around.
Objectively the issue is with the person themselves. 
Doubting Thomas comes to mind.
Jesus existed but whether he came back to life or not is not the issue. It does not really matter in the schemes of things.
The important thing is that it highlighted a fact that Thomas did not believe it.
That is the whole point. Not whether Jesus did or didn't but because Thomas doubted.
That is the only assertion there is.
The rest is irrelevant. I am not going to run after the wind just because I think I can.




> Read Descarte's _Meditations_ for a much better explanation but: We cannot in any way prove that our existences are anything more than dreams.


Look up definition of dream.
To dream to be asleep and nothing more to it.
Humans are awake and then they sleep. We know that because of the sun rising and setting. That is enough for me. Night time for sleeping. This is a fact.
Being awake contradicts the very definition of dreaming which requires someone to be asleep firts. REM and all that.
One cannot be beating around the bush. Once a definition has been established around one fact I cannot then turn around and then try and reinvent it. It looks very silly.




> You seem to think of the nihilist as being a person who is simply in fearful denial. Rather I think of a nihilist as one who doubts (very extremely).


Yes I do think that.
The problems with people is that they push themsleves out of their own equatiuon and project their own intolerances or weaknesses in this case denial of something.
Doubting is an internal thinking process that suggests the person cannot make head or tail of their own existence and their own surrounding environment.
The lack of understanding reinforces negativity and so instead of accepting their failure they project it onto something else to make themsleves feel better.
Hence nihilism. Its root cause is selfdoubting hence denial of of onself towards something.

The other thing about nihilism is that it does not end there.
Even if we say one has asserted that something does not exist they will still state the unbelievable and not believe they have asserted it.
It is a catch22.
They would ne be call nihilist if they suddenly stoped from doubting.

----------


## Ser Nevarc

Hi cacian,





> Look up definition of dream.
> To dream to be asleep and nothing more to it.
> Humans are awake and then they sleep. We know that because of the sun rising and setting. That is enough for me. Night time for sleeping. This is a fact.
> Being awake contradicts the very definition of dreaming which requires someone to be asleep firts. REM and all that.
> One cannot be beating around the bush. Once a definition has been established around one fact I cannot then turn around and then try and reinvent it. It looks very silly.


But man, dreaming is so much more than sleeping. Dreams are important correspondences with our actual lives. They decieve our senses with often terrifying authenticity, build connections our conscious minds never could, reveal (as Freud believed) our truest desires. We can learn a lot from our dreams. Your sleeptime brain, cacian, is just as much your brain as your awake brain. You shouldn't disregard it as nonsense. 

The sun does not rise and set for the purpose that we know when to rise and when to sleep. Why would you think that? We perceive the sun to rise and set because we happen to exist on a rotating sphere. We evolved to take advantage of the daytime we have. And you cannot say that "nighttime is for sleeping, that is fact." Beings can wake and sleep whenever the hell they want to (or rather, however they are genetically programmed to). Ever seen bats? 




> Assertion is to be 100% certain that something isn't.
> Doubting is not being able to put a finger on something. It is neither here or there.
> Something that one cannot prove exists does not mean it is unprovable.
> On the contrary. It proves that one has failed to understand it.
> The failure is on the person on who does not attain its understanding and not the other way around.
> Objectively the issue is with the person themselves.
> Doubting Thomas comes to mind.
> Jesus existed but whether he came back to life or not is not the issue. It does not really matter in the schemes of things.
> The important thing is that it highlighted a fact that Thomas did not believe it.
> ...




The reason I mention Descartes is that he proposed that dreaming gives us a reason to doubt reality. Because of dreams, we know that our senses deceive us. Accordingly, we can doubt just about anything our senses tell us. 

The nihilist doubts, but this doubt should not be seen as a fault, as you see it. Doubt is not the inability to understand, nor is it caused by fear. It is a skepticism, and often demonstrates a real maturity. Why jump into believing something if you don't see enough evidence?

It is not very becoming of you to say that a nihilistic person is trying to deflect their own self-doubts onto everything else. It's just a different perspective, and is clearly one which you do not share, and therefore do not understand. Try not to make those generalizations, especially if they are a) unfounded and b) are demeaning. 

Look forward to discussing!

----------


## Oedipus

> If people were left to decide what was wrong and right for themselves the world would look a lot worse than how it looks now. Nihilism is a very bad idea.


Appeal to consequences, fallacious.

----------

