News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

The n-word(nihilism)

Started by NothingSacred, October 29, 2010, 02:52:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlP

Quote from: "Sophus"I consider myself a Nihilist and a Humanist.  :)

AlP
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "AlP"Nihilism is, I think generally, a denial of value. I think the idea of nihilism can broadly be broken down into four ways of denying value across two dimensions, the two dimensions being orderly-versus-unorderly and systematic-versus-unsystematic. If one combines the extreme examples of these two pairs, one comes up with four combinations.

Too interesting for me to ignore! :)

First, I'll say that I'm a subjectivist, which I define as one who denies the existence of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct on the objective plane, but upholds their existence on the subjective plane, and affirms their full weight and substance on that plane, whence all four have their origin, their motive force, their natural habitat, and their ongoing evolution.

QuoteExamples of the orderly / systematic combination might be positivism or religious fundamentalism. These can be nihilistic in the sense that one denies one's own sense of value in favor of the order of a universal system, science or deities' authority respectively in this case.

When you say, "one's own sense of value," I interpret that as meaning, "one's sense of one's own value"; I.e., I think youre saying this individual devalues self, and thus is self-nihilistic.  I think you're onto something, although I think most individuals in this category actually view themselves as having value to their God, but a contingent value, a value dependent on believing and/or doing as their God demands, and therein lies the insidious, despicable nature of this mode of thought.  If someone actually believed in a God of unconditional love for all creatures, despite the obvious absurdity of believing that, given the ubiquity of suffering, such a one would sidestep the problem of contingent self-value.  Unfortunately, if the ubiquity of suffering is ever permitted to penetrate such a one's skull and burrow all the way in, self-value immediately loses its footing, slips, and hurtles screaming into the abyss.  Better by far to be a subjectivist, and claim self-value by one's own fiat.

I think the epitome of the orderly/systematic nihilist is the staunch materialist, who, denying the existence of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct on the objective plane, unfortunately stops there, unwilling for whatever reason to assert the existence or affirm the weight and substance of these things on the subjective plane, and thus denying these things any existence or weight or substance at all.  I find this position odd, to put it mildly, since the existence and relevance of the subjective plane are far easier to prove to oneself than the existence or relevance of the objective plane, as with regard to the subjective, one need only slap oneself in the face.        

QuoteThe orderly / unsystematic combination might be, for example, multiculturalism or postmodernism. In the extreme, these can be nihilistic in the sense that one replaces one's own sense of value with the values of others.

Now here, when you say, "one's own sense of value," I interpret it as meaning, "one's own value system," such that, if all value systems are equally valid, then anyone else's is as valid as one's own.  Someone who stopped right there would sidestep nihilism.  In fact, someone who stopped right there would be, or at least should be, a subjectivist.  All value systems are equally valid if they all get their validity from the subjective plane, said premise being precisely what a subjectivist claims.  Unfortunately, some don't stop there, but go on to claim that if value systems are strictly subjective, then for that reason they lack validity, since objectivity is necessary for validity.  Hence they accept the existence, but not the weight or substance, of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct on the subjective plane.  I find this position odd, since just as objective realities must be judged objectively, so subjective realities must be judged subjectively.  Attempting to judge the subjective objectively is to pursue objective subjectivity, an oxymoron.

QuoteThe unorderly / systematic combination is a place where an atheist might find themselves stuck, perhaps especially if they have come from a religious background. The desire for a unified understanding of reality (or an infallible system) remains and yet, as the facades that once seemed real fall and value cannot be rationally justified, one can be compelled to abandon value in order to meet the high standards of a rational system.

This would be the person who has let loose any grip on supernaturalism but hasn't yet grabbed hold of the opposite principle, empiricism.  Such a one would have rejected supernaturalism by virtue of that premise's internal inconsistencies as presented by its various and sundry champions.  Science in all its glory awaits this individual, and once found and grabbed hold of, will provide all the order one could ever wish for.  At that point, unfortunately, this individual might fall prey to staunch materialism, denying the subjective as a source (indeed the only source) of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct.
 
QuoteMy exit was to understand that value is a verb and I need not make the reification error of those who think it is a noun. Or in other words, value does not exist; it happens.

How did that resolve your difficulties?

QuoteIf one thinks of these as three corners of a square, I think Nietzsche sat, often mockingly, in the fourth corner - unorderly / unsystematic. If he was a nihilist then he was a nihilist who despised nihilism. He especially despised the ideals of systematic order and championed the idea that value and responsibility for one's deeds are one's own, however harrowing and difficult that might seem.

If he championed the idea you say he did, then he was a subjectivist.  But if so, then he wasn't a nihilist, for subjectivism isn't nihilism.  More interesting would be if Nietzsche in fact championed serious nihilism of the unorderly/unsystematic variety.  He would accordingly have had to reject the subjective validity of system and the objective validity of order.  He may in fact have done the first but he didn't do the second.  His concept of the will to power was precisely his way of imposing order on the objective.

Setting Nietzsche aside, your raising of the unorderly/unsystematic as a topic of discussion on this thread is one of the main reasons I decided to reply.  You're onto something here.  I define order as that which, in nature, yields information to the psyche, and I define information as the psyche's response to order, making the two an Ouroboros eating its tail.  Under my definitions, then, if order is an illusion, then so is information.  Here for the first time we would have a serious threat to the validity of the subjective.  Serious nihilism can withstand logical assault if and only if it can demonstrate the absence of order on the objective plane, such that, order is merely apparent, merely a subjective phenomenon, having no corrolary on the objective plane.  This would render the subjective hallucinatory.  Fortunately for us, no such demonstration will ever be convincingly made, however often some may try, for demonstrating anything requires subjectivity's participation, and (sane) subjectivity will never comply with any demonstration of absolute chaos - or at least it never has, in the thousands of years that humans have been studying nature.  Even Nietzsche found his will to power, and Darwin, his natural selection.  An individual who genuinely perceives the objective plane as lacking any order at all would in fact be certifiably insane.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

AlP

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
QuoteMy exit was to understand that value is a verb and I need not make the reification error of those who think it is a noun. Or in other words, value does not exist; it happens.

How did that resolve your difficulties?
I need to ponder. Maybe I will respond fully over the weekend. But to answer this specific question, I came to value my own responsibility. By responsibility I do not mean the perverse inversion that is "what I ought to do". Rather I think of responsibility as "what I have done" and "what I will do". I identify my life with those actions that I am responsible for. With something of my own to value, I escaped radical nihilism or as I once called it, "practicing" nihilism.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "AlP"I need to ponder. Maybe I will respond fully over the weekend. But to answer this specific question, I came to value my own responsibility. By responsibility I do not mean the perverse inversion that is "what I ought to do". Rather I think of responsibility as "what I have done" and "what I will do". I identify my life with those actions that I am responsible for. With something of my own to value, I escaped radical nihilism or as I once called it, "practicing" nihilism.

I agree that the individual is entirely responsible for any meaning the individual will ever perceive in any experience or any action.

I want to draw attention to the fact that in my response to you above, I was using the word subjectivity to denote two separate concepts, depending on context - a fact that irritates me, as it betrays a lack of clarity in my mental framework.  In a more recent post on another thread, I separated the two concepts into two separate terms, psyche and subjectivity, and defined them.  Here's a link to that post: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6167&p=90589#p90589

When and if you re-read my response to you above, I hope you'll be able to discern when I meant psyche and when I meant subjectivity as those terms are now defined in my more recent post.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.