News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

The n-word(nihilism)

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

Previous topic - Next topic

NothingSacred

I just got into a debate about nihilism with a semantical and rather annoying piss ant but I must admit it got me thinking about where I stand when it comes to nihilism. I've come to the conclusion that I'm a fence sitter. I mean yes as an atheist I do not believe in a god or a universe that cares.I do however have a concept of what is good or bad and I like to consider myself a humanist. Can those things be incompatible (nihilism and humanism) ? I mean as far as I can tell humans are motivated by pleasure and that which brings us pleasure we call good. Then I think to myself what about the child molester who finds pleasure in sex with children... who calls that good? In the long run child molesting would not be pleasurable because or the consequences of that action such as jail or being attacked by an angry victim. We know that the health and well being of the species is probably going to lead to health and well being for the individual so I see that as the basis for humanism... this is more of rant and or thinking out loud but im interested in where you all stand on nihilism and humanism.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

tymygy

Quote from: "Tank"The Catholic Church jumped on the Big Bang as if it were a choir boy! .

Cite134

Quote from: "NothingSacred"I just got into a debate about nihilism with a semantical and rather annoying piss ant but I must admit it got me thinking about where I stand when it comes to nihilism. I've come to the conclusion that I'm a fence sitter. I mean yes as an atheist I do not believe in a god or a universe that cares.I do however have a concept of what is good or bad and I like to consider myself a humanist. Can those things be incompatible (nihilism and humanism) ? I mean as far as I can tell humans are motivated by pleasure and that which brings us pleasure we call good. Then I think to myself what about the child molester who finds pleasure in sex with children... who calls that good? In the long run child molesting would not be pleasurable because or the consequences of that action such as jail or being attacked by an angry victim. We know that the health and well being of the species is probably going to lead to health and well being for the individual so I see that as the basis for humanism... this is more of rant and or thinking out loud but im interested in where you all stand on nihilism and humanism.


I think the word nihilist or nihilism means different things, and can be applied in different ways. For instance, I am fairily familiar with existential nihilism (no meaning for existence). However, there is aslo moral nihilsim, epistemological nihilism, political nihilsim etc. As far as compatibility goes with humanism, I do not think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. It depends on what specific definition of nihilism you're referring to.

 A person can acknowledge the fact that life is indeed meaningless and still be a humanist. On another note, I personally view the particular example of molestation as simply a behavior that occurs in nature (Just like the slaughter of animals for food. Is this "Good"?). That's just my opinion though.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

Sophus

Quote from: "NothingSacred"I just got into a debate about nihilism with a semantical and rather annoying piss ant but I must admit it got me thinking about where I stand when it comes to nihilism. I've come to the conclusion that I'm a fence sitter. I mean yes as an atheist I do not believe in a god or a universe that cares.I do however have a concept of what is good or bad and I like to consider myself a humanist. Can those things be incompatible (nihilism and humanism) ? I mean as far as I can tell humans are motivated by pleasure and that which brings us pleasure we call good. Then I think to myself what about the child molester who finds pleasure in sex with children... who calls that good? In the long run child molesting would not be pleasurable because or the consequences of that action such as jail or being attacked by an angry victim. We know that the health and well being of the species is probably going to lead to health and well being for the individual so I see that as the basis for humanism... this is more of rant and or thinking out loud but im interested in where you all stand on nihilism and humanism.
I consider myself a Nihilist and a Humanist.  :)

Even the father of Nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, said he didn't want to destroy morality. As another HAF member, AlP, once noted there's a difference between being an ethical nihilist and a "practicing" ethical nihilist, so to speak.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

NothingSacred

Quote from: "Sophus"
Quote from: "NothingSacred"I just got into a debate about nihilism with a semantical and rather annoying piss ant but I must admit it got me thinking about where I stand when it comes to nihilism. I've come to the conclusion that I'm a fence sitter. I mean yes as an atheist I do not believe in a god or a universe that cares.I do however have a concept of what is good or bad and I like to consider myself a humanist. Can those things be incompatible (nihilism and humanism) ? I mean as far as I can tell humans are motivated by pleasure and that which brings us pleasure we call good. Then I think to myself what about the child molester who finds pleasure in sex with children... who calls that good? In the long run child molesting would not be pleasurable because or the consequences of that action such as jail or being attacked by an angry victim. We know that the health and well being of the species is probably going to lead to health and well being for the individual so I see that as the basis for humanism... this is more of rant and or thinking out loud but im interested in where you all stand on nihilism and humanism.
I consider myself a Nihilist and a Humanist.  :)

Even the father of Nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, said he didn't want to destroy morality. As another HAF member, AlP, once noted there's a difference between being an ethical nihilist and a "practicing" ethical nihilist, so to speak.
I see your point. Even if in the bigger picture nothing we do matters or is ultimately right or wrong we still have to function on a day to day basis and ethics serve as a tool to do that the most effectively.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

penfold

Quote from: "Sophus"Even the father of Nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, said he didn't want to destroy morality. As another HAF member, AlP, once noted there's a difference between being an ethical nihilist and a "practicing" ethical nihilist, so to speak.

David Hume said something similar about scepticism, to the effect that, while we may doubt almost anything, we must abandon those doubts in order to function in the world.

Actually I don't think Nietzsche was a nihilist, though he was undoubtedly a huge influence on subsequent intellectual nihilism. It has always seemed to me that he was not seeking to merely knock down prevailing truths and values, but simultaneously establish his own. He talks of a "transvaluation of all values" not destruction of values. Similarly with truth, he wanted to get away from the idea of truth as universal and find a way to empower truth as indivdual; hence to role of the ubermench and/or noblemen as creators of thier own truth. Thus Nietzsche is, I think, far closer to existentialism than nihilism.

My own view is that nihilism is a pretty weak intellectual position. Our whole neurological set-up is bent towards meaning. What else do we signify by an 'idea' than that which has meaning? I don't think the view that there is no external meaning is what we call 'nihilism' â€" such a position is just old-fashioned scepticism. Nihilism also denies internal meaning. Trying to sustain that position is a bit like trying to get water to flow uphill, whether we like it or not, we are doomed to meaning; it's just how we're wired.

Cite134

Quote from: "penfold"My own view is that nihilism is a pretty weak intellectual position. Our whole neurological set-up is bent towards meaning. What else do we signify by an 'idea' than that which has meaning? I don't think the view that there is no external meaning is what we call 'nihilism' â€" such a position is just old-fashioned scepticism. Nihilism also denies internal meaning. Trying to sustain that position is a bit like trying to get water to flow uphill, whether we like it or not, we are doomed to meaning; it's just how we're wired.

I don't think it's necessarily a "weak" position to take. Existence is meaningful only as far as a human is concerned. That is the whole point of it.
The realization of how it is ulitimately meaningless is where the existential nihilism comes in.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

Inevitable Droid

Meaning is subjective by its very nature.  Only subjects perceive meaning.  Subjects must exist in order for meaning to exist.  If all subjectivity vanished from the universe, all meaning would simultaneously vanish.

Nothing in the above negates or denigrates meaning.  It merely clarifies what meaning is.  The implication, of course, is that any concept of "objective meaning" is oxymoronic.  We might as well try to talk about "objective subjectivity."  I would be a dumb ox if I attempted such.

Subjectivity is our glory and our burden.  We cannot escape it short of death or brain damage.  Without it we cannot posit ends.  Without it there is no such thing as a conscience.  Without it there is no meaning.  But with it!  Ah, with it.  With it we have the power to posit ends, the power to have a conscience, the power to perceive and pursue meaning.  Subjectivity shines in the universe like a beacon of hope.  Indeed, without it no hope is available, for hope wouldn't exist - but with it!  Ah, with it, hope emerges as a new and mighty component of reality, strong enough to redirect the course of events so radically that at its command the very nature of the possible is made to mutate.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

Cite134

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Meaning is subjective by its very nature.  Only subjects perceive meaning.  Subjects must exist in order for meaning to exist.  If all subjectivity vanished from the universe, all meaning would simultaneously vanish.

Nothing in the above negates or denigrates meaning.  It merely clarifies what meaning is.  The implication, of course, is that any concept of "objective meaning" is oxymoronic.  We might as well try to talk about "objective subjectivity."  I would be a dumb ox if I attempted such.

Subjectivity is our glory and our burden.  We cannot escape it short of death or brain damage.  Without it we cannot posit ends.  Without it there is no such thing as a conscience.  Without it there is no meaning.  But with it!  Ah, with it.  With it we have the power to posit ends, the power to have a conscience, the power to perceive and pursue meaning.  Subjectivity shines in the universe like a beacon of hope.  Indeed, without it no hope is available, for hope wouldn't exist - but with it!  Ah, with it, hope emerges as a new and mighty component of reality, strong enough to redirect the course of events so radically that at its command the very nature of the possible is made to mutate.


Subjectivity perhaps can shine....but no one is there to see the shine except us...lol.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

penfold

Quote from: "Cite134"I don't think it's necessarily a "weak" position to take. Existence is meaningful only as far as a human is concerned. That is the whole point of it.
The realization of how it is ulitimately meaningless is where the existential nihilism comes in.

Well I don't agree that is nihilism. That there are no universal norms is really just a generally sceptical position. For example it is possible to be a materialist (which is very far from nihilism) and agree that there is no objective external meaning.

Nihilism argues that all meaning is illusiory. So the nihilist would deny even antropocentric norms as well as external ones. It is this that strikes me as 'weak' in philosophical terms; it seems to deny our common day to day experiences...

Cite134

Quote from: "penfold"
Quote from: "Cite134"I don't think it's necessarily a "weak" position to take. Existence is meaningful only as far as a human is concerned. That is the whole point of it.
The realization of how it is ulitimately meaningless is where the existential nihilism comes in.

Well I don't agree that is nihilism. That there are no universal norms is really just a generally sceptical position. For example it is possible to be a materialist (which is very far from nihilism) and agree that there is no objective external meaning.

Nihilism argues that all meaning is illusiory. So the nihilist would deny even antropocentric norms as well as external ones. It is this that strikes me as 'weak' in philosophical terms; it seems to deny our common day to day experiences...

I see your point, but I guess I will have to agree to disagree. Just because it's here doesn't make it 'meaningful' imo.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

Sophus

Quote from: "penfold"
Quote from: "Sophus"Even the father of Nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, said he didn't want to destroy morality. As another HAF member, AlP, once noted there's a difference between being an ethical nihilist and a "practicing" ethical nihilist, so to speak.

David Hume said something similar about scepticism, to the effect that, while we may doubt almost anything, we must abandon those doubts in order to function in the world.

Actually I don't think Nietzsche was a nihilist, though he was undoubtedly a huge influence on subsequent intellectual nihilism. It has always seemed to me that he was not seeking to merely knock down prevailing truths and values, but simultaneously establish his own. He talks of a "transvaluation of all values" not destruction of values. Similarly with truth, he wanted to get away from the idea of truth as universal and find a way to empower truth as indivdual; hence to role of the ubermench and/or noblemen as creators of thier own truth. Thus Nietzsche is, I think, far closer to existentialism than nihilism.

Nietzsche was both an Existentialist and a Nihilist, and a Nihilist in more than one way.

QuoteMy own view is that nihilism is a pretty weak intellectual position. Our whole neurological set-up is bent towards meaning. What else do we signify by an 'idea' than that which has meaning? I don't think the view that there is no external meaning is what we call 'nihilism' â€" such a position is just old-fashioned scepticism. Nihilism also denies internal meaning. Trying to sustain that position is a bit like trying to get water to flow uphill, whether we like it or not, we are doomed to meaning; it's just how we're wired.

Nietzsche thought that we're bent toward meaning to overcome Nihilism. Nihilism does not deny internal meaning, but that meaning can be real (ie. objective).
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

penfold

Quote from: "Sophus"Nietzsche thought that we're bent toward meaning to overcome Nihilism. Nihilism does not deny internal meaning, but that meaning can be real (ie. objective).

Well this is where I think intellectual nihilism runs into serious difficulty. If the nihilist position is to be accepted then we cannot make the subjective/objective distinction. That distinction, like all supposed 'real world' divisions must be denied.

For the nihilist there cannot be a real difference between the subjective and the objective. So not only must the nihilist deny that “murder is wrong” (classically subjective) has real meaning, but also “I think that murder is wrong” (classically objective). To try and rescue the latter, one must point to a real difference between it and the former. The nihilist has no such mechanism, as any proposed distinction cannot itself be 'real'.

Thus, it seems to me, there are two options, first is that of the nihilist, in which all meaning ceases to be real including the subject/object distinction. Else adapt to allow for internal meaning; however to do that must entail some objective truths (such as the subject/object or personal/real distinctions), and so is not properly nihilism. [Thus why I would not characterise Nietzsche as a nihilist.]

peace

Sophus

Quote from: "penfold"
Quote from: "Sophus"Nietzsche thought that we're bent toward meaning to overcome Nihilism. Nihilism does not deny internal meaning, but that meaning can be real (ie. objective).

Well this is where I think intellectual nihilism runs into serious difficulty. If the nihilist position is to be accepted then we cannot make the subjective/objective distinction. That distinction, like all supposed 'real world' divisions must be denied.

For the nihilist there cannot be a real difference between the subjective and the objective. So not only must the nihilist deny that “murder is wrong” (classically subjective) has real meaning, but also “I think that murder is wrong” (classically objective). To try and rescue the latter, one must point to a real difference between it and the former. The nihilist has no such mechanism, as any proposed distinction cannot itself be 'real'.

Thus, it seems to me, there are two options, first is that of the nihilist, in which all meaning ceases to be real including the subject/object distinction. Else adapt to allow for internal meaning; however to do that must entail some objective truths (such as the subject/object or personal/real distinctions), and so is not properly nihilism. [Thus why I would not characterise Nietzsche as a nihilist.]

peace
There are different forms and branches of Nihilism. I think you're mixing them all up into a sort of weird strawman. My Nihilism is simply a very strong form of skepticism.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

hunterman317

Theists believe in a system of morals because without it, they couldn't believe in God. Order represents the only "proof" of God's existence, nothing else even points to a creator. Morals are good, because although I no longer choose to believe in God (like you I refuse to believe) I still believe in the golden rule. Although I will admit I think that if there were a God, he wouldn't want to give us any proof that he existed, because to him we would be morally insignificant. Therefore, I suppose I am not a true nihilist. Just a fence-sitting atheist.
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence~
Bertrand Russell

The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion~
John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

Pray. Maybe the aliens will hear you~