nihilism

[promethean75]

Well, a long, long time ago, in a forum far away, i once heard Rosa Lichtenstein say that high-ranking Thomist logicians are incredibly difficult to defeat... and I could almost hear the slightest trembling in her voice when she said it... like a gladiator between fights who must return to the arena to do battle with a monster she's never faced before.

After several days of ruthless logical combat, Rosa - having come from the direct line of The Fregean and receiving training at university from its masters - finally subdued the Thomist contenders and banished them from the thread. But it was something to see, Henry, not for my young, inexperienced eyes.

Since then, I've developed a kind of fear of Thomists, even though the ones i saw (the real Aquinian Assassins) posted many years ago and are now only the things of forum lore and legend.

[henry quirk]

I'm not a Thomist, and while I'm quite sensible I'm no logician. Rosa wouldn't even take note of me. Which, of course, is a-ok by me cuz she's nuthin' but a dirty commie (quite intelligent and educated, I'm sure, but monstrously insane and, mebbe, flat-out evil).

[Immanuel Can]

Nihilism.

Going over Simon’s lyrics (I remember at my Reform Jewish summer camp our councilor had us “study” this song — he was an old hippy — to extract its meaning) I do not think he gets to any disturbing feeling of nihilism per se.

I think you've missed the point of the new version. Like Nihilism, it's an unnecessarily dark reading of the lyrics of a song that is traditionally regarded as perhaps wistful, but certainly not despairing.

Nihilism is always reductional. It always reduces things to their worst elements, or to their most debased manifestations, and then holds that up as the rule for every case. It's literallly "nothing-ism," as in "nothing's pure, nothing's good, nothing's sincere, nothing's authentic, nothing's trustworthy..." and so on.

I know the Simon version, of course. I grew up with it. This new version, though, partakes of the spirit of Nihilism. Simon never did. This version imparts a sinister meaning that is beyond anything the original intended. But like all Nihilistic products, it sells itself as being more gritty, more caustic, and ultimately more "realistic" to the Nihilistic worldview than can ever be warranted by reality itself.

So I agree with the Simon version. But if you want an example of Nihilism, all you have to do is to see what Disturbed did with the Simon version.

[iambiguous]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism

Active nihilists instead see nihilism as a freeing condition, revealing a world where they are emboldened to create something new on top of the destruction of the old values and ways of thinking.

That's the part [for me] that revolves around the assumption that in a No God world, your options can increase dramatically. After all, once you stop asking yourself, "what would Muhamed [and all the rest of them] do?" you can rationalize practically anything.

Then [again] this part:

Nietzsche’s idea of the active nihilist is the Übermensch (“superman”), a person who overcomes the struggle of nihilism by working to create their own meaning in the face of meaninglessness. They see the absurdity of life as something to be embraced, giving them the ability to live in a way that enforces their own values and “levels the playing field” of past values.

From my frame of mind, here Nietzsche blinked. He deconstructs God into oblivion, but then what? Of course, the Supermen themselves must carry on. But, no, not because they simply have the might to, but becasue after God, they embody the highest possible values. And while salvation is out of reach, you can still go on and on and on playing the Ubermensch eternally.

Moral nihilism

Existential nihilism often gives way to moral nihilism, the idea that morality doesn’t exist, that no moral choices are preferable in comparison to others.

This can get tricky though. Many associate a No God existential morality with "authenticity". No, you can't be labeled a Sinner, perhaps, but you can be true to...to what exactly? Which, I suspect, is why some see Nietzsche in a far more favorable light than me. Better to be embody a "slave morality" than one that is "fractured and fragmented"?

Because, if our lives don’t have intrinsic meaning, if objective values don’t exist, then by what standard can we call actions right or wrong?

I know! Let's run that by these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Yours first?

[iambiguous]

The word 'actually' means that what you are about to say will contradict what I said, but what you wrote does not contradict it. It's another way to do the same thing.

Actually, I don't construe it that way at all.

OK. you could have opted to move things forward by saying how you do consture it.

Actually, I thought I did. But then [rightly or wrongly] when I come across this from the objectivists here, what they often mean [to me anyway] is that, as carefully and as clearly as they have articulated their own position, I still refuse to construe it as they do.

With you though, I'm still pretty much in the dark regarding how close to or far away from my own moral philosophy you are. Given a particular context of your own choosing.

Click, of course.

If I say punching your boss is a way to lose your job, responding 'actually, setting fire to the office will lead to you losing your job' is confused.

Well, I'm actually rather confused now as to what your point is. There are any number of reasons you might lose your job. Run this by the capitalists and the socialists, however, and expect two very different reactions.

That was precisely my point. There are a number of way to.......lose a job and there are a number of ways to wriggle out of responsibility. One is the way the article mentioned. Another is the way you mentioned.

Okay, then back to, among other things, this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

In other words, what can possibly be more fascinating [to philosophers especially] than, one way or the other, resolving, first and foremost, whether their posts here reflect their own autonomous free will. There's little chance that those like us will ever find it less fascinating, right? But -- click -- I predict that each and every one of us will go to the grave oblivious to what The Final Answer is. And because this can be so exasperating, sure, some will convince themselves that their own "analysis" here really is the one that comes closest.

On the other hand, if nihilism is just one more school of philosophical thought, to what extent then are those who call themselves nihilists able to bring those thoughts down to Earth? In other words, what particular objective truth? what particular moral truth? what particular value and purpose of life?

Well, generally, nihilists are saying all of them. I suppose they could make an exhaustive, specific list, though I'm not sure what the benefit would be, given the billions of entries.

On the other hand, the life we live from day to day either involves conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods in a wholly determined universe or we did somehow acquire the capacity to freely choose among conflicting options. Of course, that's when I suggest that the conflicts themselves are derived in turn from conflicting sets of assumptions about the human condition.

On the other hand.....?

The nihilists reject all moral positions.

So, calling oneself a moral nihilist is not a position?

Calling yourself a nihilist is typically understood as a position on morals, if anything, rather than a moral position itself.

Actually, you might be wrong about that. On the other hand, now that I think about it, I might actually be wrong too. The "position" crisis?

What is it you want a nihilist to bring down to earth?

Well, if you argue that sans God there can be no objective morality, well, how would you go about demonstrating that? I flat out admit I can't demonstrate what I believe

So, why call yourself a nihilist? You could just say you are unconvinced by the various objectivists and objectivism in general.

Again and again: I call myself what I do either because I was never able not to or, if I did have that option, my assessment "here and now" is rooted existentially in dasein going back to how the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.

Me, I think a nihilist can be someone who does not believe in any moral authority. They don't have to take the next step and say that there are not objective morals. But if you define it as asserting that you can demonstrate there are no objective morals and not objective moral authorities and you can't do this, I'm not sure why you consider yourself a nihilist.

On the other hand, this nihilist is likely never to argue that an objective moral authority does not exist. How on Earth could I possibly know that? Instead, I figure "what have I really got to lose by coming into places like this and hearing the moral objectivists out." Win/win, remember?

Sure, if the nihilist is claiming there are no objective morals, I understand the request to demonstrate this and with examples.

Then move on to other moral nihilists because that ain't me. I give my arguments as to why "here and now" I am not a moral objectivst. But that is no less "inside my head", right? But what I would give to actually believe that there is. Especially if it is also attached to immortality and salvation.

The abortion issue? They reject both the right to choose and the babies right to life as objective moral positions. At best they are preferences to a nihilist. What is it you want a nihilist to do here?

Do? Do what? The nihilist defends his or her own philosophy in any given exchange. Like those from all the other "schools of philosophy".

Actually I think most nihilists couldn't be bothered to argue their position. They mutter and go about surviving, perhaps some even enjoying themselves, at least sometimes. Is there a particular nihilist here who you want to bring their position down to earth? Are you referring to some post here?

How am I ever going to find a way up out of the fucking hole I'm in if I don't go looking for alternatives? And the attitude that some express in regard to nihilism is actually what millions upon millions of men and women around the globe already adhere to. At least on Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings.

[Fairy]

Nihilism in philosophy is pointing to the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

This belief that the world of life has meaning or is meaningless, is coherent only to an actual believer, and that ''One'' ultimately knows nothing.
How can ONE know anything, this 'one' would have no frame of reference on which to base an existence as known. Therefore, one could never know one was one, or, one is one, ONE could only BE ONE.

Knowledge is illusory. Where is knowledge? Where is belief? ... Words are sound heard as words, and sound converts to appearing as words, and abstract thoughts, which are not real, rather, they are auditory illusions of sound and light.

Where is the exact location of the noise formed as tinnitus? The location is neither external or internal, therefore, can be nothing more than and auditory illusion of light and sound. . . Where is light located? Where is sound located ?

While an illusion may appear to be real, fundamentally, an illusion is simply a mirage, a reflection of what is ultimately this light and sound show of illusory appearances, an unsolvable eternal mystery. Nothing can know this, this can only be this.

No words can touch this mystery, for even words are part of the same mystery the mystery is attempting to solve.

[Iwannaplato]

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

In other words, what can possibly be more fascinating [to philosophers especially] than, one way or the other, resolving, first and foremost, whether their posts here reflect their own autonomous free will.

Incredulity that anything could be more fascinating to philosophers. A very strong assertion without justification - I don't mean it can't be justified, but rather than you haven't justified it.

There's little chance that those like us will ever find it less fascinating, right?

Same as above.

But -- click -- I predict that each and every one of us will go to the grave oblivious to what The Final Answer is.

So, the person who thinks it's possible we can't know if we are free to arrive at decisions and this undermines our being correct and who feels that his beliefs are extremely affected by dasein, makes a prediction. One wonders why he has the confidence in his own reasoning or intuition here.

And because this can be so exasperating, sure, some will convince themselves that their own "analysis" here really is the one that comes closest.

And here he mind reads others, despite his beliefs, partly recounted above.

On the other hand, if nihilism is just one more school of philosophical thought, to what extent then are those who call themselves nihilists able to bring those thoughts down to Earth? In other words, what particular objective truth? what particular moral truth? what particular value and purpose of life?

Well, generally, nihilists are saying all of them. I suppose they could make an exhaustive, specific list, though I'm not sure what the benefit would be, given the billions of entries.

On the other hand, the life we live from day to day either involves conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods in a wholly determined universe or we did somehow acquire the capacity to freely choose among conflicting options. Of course, that's when I suggest that the conflicts themselves are derived in turn from conflicting sets of assumptions about the human condition.

On the other hand.....?

The nihilists reject all moral positions.

So, calling oneself a moral nihilist is not a position?

Calling yourself a nihilist is typically understood as a position on morals, if anything, rather than a moral position itself.

Actually, you might be wrong about that. On the other hand, now that I think about it, I might actually be wrong too. The "position" crisis?

Yes, and seemingly there is nothing one can do in these situations. If I say you live in Maine, but you live in Baltimore, we have a position crisis, and there's no need to examine assumptions or present evidence. It's good to just name problems when other people say things and make assertions and predictions when we feel like it.

Keeps everything at the assertion level, no need to take any responsibility for what we say.

Again and again: I call myself what I do either because I was never able not to or, if I did have that option, my assessment "here and now" is rooted existentially in dasein going back to how the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.

Me, I think a nihilist can be someone who does not believe in any moral authority. They don't have to take the next step and say that there are not objective morals. But if you define it as asserting that you can demonstrate there are no objective morals and not objective moral authorities and you can't do this, I'm not sure why you consider yourself a nihilist.

On the other hand, this nihilist is likely never to argue that an objective moral authority does not exist.

That possibility is included in my definition of a nihilist. It wasn't really in yours.

How on Earth could I possibly know that? Instead, I figure "what have I really got to lose by coming into places like this and hearing the moral objectivists out." Win/win, remember?

I didn't say anything about you not coming here in this context.

Sure, if the nihilist is claiming there are no objective morals, I understand the request to demonstrate this and with examples.

Then move on to other moral nihilists because that ain't me.

But that's how you defined nihilists. Reread our exchange. You said they needed to come down to earth to show that there are no objective morals. I questioned this and expressed my definition of nihilist, that allow for people like you to be nhilists.

On the other hand, if nihilism is just one more school of philosophical thought, to what extent then are those who call themselves nihilists able to bring those thoughts down to Earth? In other words, what particular objective truth? what particular moral truth? what particular value and purpose of life?

So, what do you need to bring down to earth, Iambiguous?

[Atla]

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

In other words, what can possibly be more fascinating [to philosophers especially] than, one way or the other, resolving, first and foremost, whether their posts here reflect their own autonomous free will.

Incredulity that anything could be more fascinating to philosophers. A very strong assertion without justification - I don't mean it can't be justified, but rather than you haven't justified it.

People who aren't overly obsessed with themselves, may find some other topics more fascinating.

[Iwannaplato]

In other words, what can possibly be more fascinating [to philosophers especially] than, one way or the other, resolving, first and foremost, whether their posts here reflect their own autonomous free will.

Incredulity that anything could be more fascinating to philosophers. A very strong assertion without justification - I don't mean it can't be justified, but rather than you haven't justified it.

People who aren't overly obsessed with themselves, may find some other topics more fascinating.

I'm not saying he's wrong (or now agreeing). I am just pointing out that he makes assertions all over the place, to the degree on occasion of being incredulous that anything else could be the case. But, then if other people respond to his questions with supported arguments, he will respond that for all they know they had no volition in arriving at that position.

Yes, we can respond with 'but maybe we're in a simulation' or 'maybe we're brains in a vat' or 'perhaps you were compelled to think that argument made sense' to everything anyone says. But then to go on and present one's own views in mere assertions and be incredulous that other views might be correct is hypocritical to a serious degree.

Of course, he'll respond 'but I'm the first to say that I might be wrong....' etc, but that's actually missing the point, given his incredulity, given that he actually asks for people to come with explanations, given his own sense that X is vastly more probably than Y and so on.

Apart for the strangely destructive social aspect.

Assertion, assertion assertion....
Other person makes assertion....
Well, determinism might have compelled you to say that.

As if any teenager whose done a little philosophical thinking doesn't already know that, sure, there are asterisks next to our knowledge. But hey, if we're going to have a discussion, we can have those in the back of our minds and actually try to justify our assertions. Like have a dialogue and expect of ourselves what we expect of others.

[Atla]

Incredulity that anything could be more fascinating to philosophers. A very strong assertion without justification - I don't mean it can't be justified, but rather than you haven't justified it.

People who aren't overly obsessed with themselves, may find some other topics more fascinating.

I'm not saying he's wrong (or now agreeing). I am just pointing out that he makes assertions all over the place, to the degree on occasion of being incredulous that anything else could be the case. But, then if other people respond to his questions with supported arguments, he will respond that for all they know they had no volition in arriving at that position.

Yes, we can respond with 'but maybe we're in a simulation' or 'maybe we're brains in a vat' or 'perhaps you were compelled to think that argument made sense' to everything anyone says. But then to go on and present one's own views in mere assertions and be incredulous that other views might be correct is hypocritical to a serious degree.

Of course, he'll respond 'but I'm the first to say that I might be wrong....' etc, but that's actually missing the point, given his incredulity, given that he actually asks for people to come with explanations, given his own sense that X is vastly more probably than Y and so on.

Apart for the strangely destructive social aspect.

Assertion, assertion assertion....
Other person makes assertion....
Well, determinism might have compelled you to say that.

As if any teenager whose done a little philosophical thinking doesn't already know that, sure, there are asterisks next to our knowledge. But hey, if we're going to have a discussion, we can have those in the back of our minds and actually try to justify our assertions. Like have a dialogue and expect of ourselves what we expect of others.

Because he's overly obsessed with himself. His perspective above all else.

[Atla]

When we have an autistic who is also a self-centered ass, a question is how much of that self-centeredness is a result of an inability to put himself in others's shoes, and how much of it is a result of simply being an ass.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

No pressure, Promethean, however I would really appreciate it if you’d link to your acoustic version (performed on a harp) of Bridge Over Troubled Water. I was deeply moved when I first heard it but it seems to have been scrubbed from the Internet (?)

[Alexis Jacobi]

…and how much of it is a result of simply being an ass.

Being an ass — see here — is an under-appreciated art.

[Janoah]

Regarding Psalm 2 , modern Zionism is the inspiration of a certain sect of bad men.

However, categorically. What bad did you see in Zionism?

[Gary Childress]

Regarding Psalm 2 , modern Zionism is the inspiration of a certain sect of bad men.

However, categorically. What bad did you see in Zionism?

Not sure how "bad" it is but it's controversial. Below is the definition of Zionism that I got from ChatGPT. Right now, with all the propaganda and disinformation floating around in the world, ChatGPT seems like a pretty fair and decent resource.

You said:
Is Zionism bad or immoral?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Whether Zionism is "bad" or "immoral" is a complex and deeply subjective question that depends heavily on perspective, historical understanding, and individual values. Here are some major perspectives to consider:

1. Supportive View of Zionism
Jewish Self-Determination and Safety: Supporters argue that Zionism is a necessary and moral response to centuries of antisemitism, persecution, and statelessness. It provided a homeland where Jews could seek safety and self-determination, especially in light of the Holocaust, which underscored the risks faced by Jews without a state of their own.
Cultural and Religious Revival: Zionism also led to the revival of Jewish culture, language (Hebrew), and community. Many see this cultural renaissance as positive, allowing Jewish identity to flourish in a way that felt difficult or impossible in the diaspora.

2. Criticism of Zionism and its Impacts
Impact on Palestinian Communities: Critics argue that the establishment of Israel under the banner of Zionism displaced Palestinian communities, leading to ongoing conflict, loss of land, and suffering. Some view Zionism as inherently tied to colonialism or even oppression, particularly due to actions that have led to land confiscation, displacement, and restrictions on Palestinians.
Contemporary Israeli Policies: Others critique Zionism for allegedly justifying policies seen as exclusionary or oppressive toward non-Jewish populations in Israel and the occupied territories. Some argue that Zionism, especially in certain forms, can foster nationalism that excludes or marginalizes other groups.

3. Neutral and Nuanced Perspectives
Differentiating Between Forms of Zionism: Some believe that Zionism itself isn’t inherently immoral, but that specific implementations or extremist versions may be. They argue that while Zionism as a Jewish liberation movement is legitimate, issues arise in how certain political policies are enacted, particularly when those policies come at the expense of Palestinian rights.
Room for Coexistence: Some also argue for a form of Zionism that supports coexistence, emphasizing the potential for peace and mutual respect. For instance, some Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians support a two-state or federated solution, hoping to balance Jewish self-determination with Palestinian rights and sovereignty.

In Summary
Views on Zionism’s morality depend largely on individual values, perspectives on self-determination, interpretations of historical injustices, and attitudes toward conflict resolution. For some, Zionism represents a fundamental human right to self-determination, while for others, it has come to symbolize inequality and dispossession.