Happy Atheist Forum

General => Ethics => Topic started by: NothingSacred on October 29, 2010, 02:52:27 PM

Title: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: NothingSacred on October 29, 2010, 02:52:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: tymygy on October 29, 2010, 06:04:07 PM
[youtube:1ckhd72h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8Ewa2iBPY[/youtube:1ckhd72h]
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Cite134 on October 29, 2010, 07:38:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Sophus on October 30, 2010, 04:23:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: NothingSacred on October 31, 2010, 06:39:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: penfold on November 03, 2010, 11:03:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Cite134 on November 03, 2010, 09:55:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Inevitable Droid on November 04, 2010, 09:29:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Cite134 on November 04, 2010, 09:32:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: penfold on November 05, 2010, 02:39:07 PM
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...
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Cite134 on November 05, 2010, 03:39:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Sophus on November 06, 2010, 08:43:12 PM
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).
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: penfold on November 08, 2010, 12:32:07 PM
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
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Sophus on November 08, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Forms_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.
Title:
Post by: hunterman317 on November 09, 2010, 04:51:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: AlP on November 09, 2010, 07:51:42 AM
Quote from: "Sophus"I consider myself a Nihilist and a Humanist.  :)

AlP
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Inevitable Droid on November 09, 2010, 11:04:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: AlP on November 11, 2010, 05:58:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: The n-word(nihilism)
Post by: Inevitable Droid on November 11, 2010, 01:24:49 PM
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.