nihilism

[iambiguous]

Are there any philosophers who seriously defend nihilism?
antonivs at reddit

What kind of nihilism are you asking about? Because for example, much of Western philosophy has been shaped by a response to an acceptance of existential nihilism. Quoting from that link:

In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life, Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning.

Pratt traces it back to the ancient Greeks.

No, really, when exactly does the beginning here...start? Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics? Or should we just fast forward to Nietzsche, the death of God and an at times truly grim 20th Century that ushered in an existentialism as we know it today.

As such, it could make more sense to ask whether there are any philosophers who seriously reject existential nihilism. Although of course the answer to that is yes, for example theistic philosophers.

Go ahead, reject existential nihilism. After all, I certainly wish I was able to think up a way to reject it myself.

So, given particular contexts, let's explore this.

Similarly, there are certainly philosophers who defend moral nihilism.

Me being one of them, of course. On the other hand, I recognize that all of the existential variables that were crucial in my becoming one might crumble and be replaced by another frame of mind altogether. As, again, this has happened over and again in the past.

Of course, you're probably asking about a broader definition of nihilism..."the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." I'd be tempted to try and defend that position, but since nothing can be known or communicated, it would be pointless.

Epistemic nihilism? In fact, sans sim worlds and dream worlds and solipsism and Matrix contraptions, I don't see how meaning in the either/or world cannot both be known and readily communicated objectively to others.

[iambiguous]

Are there any philosophers who seriously defend nihilism?
antonivs at reddit

After spending two years engrossed in nihilism, I’ve become particularly sensitive to our relationship to “meaning” as an opaque but all-consuming idea. The desire to live a meaningful life isn’t a bad thing. Foundational theories of community, ethics, logic and equality were born from humanity’s investigation of it. My issue is with how meaning has been commodified.

In our day-to-day interactions with others at home, at school, at work, meaning is everywhere. When others tell us about their day at school or in the workplace or with their family and friends, we're not interjecting time in again with "what does that mean?"

We can even ask "what does commodification mean?"

And for any number of capitalists among us, the more things can be turned into commodities, the more things they can profit from.

Most of us can read the following...

There’s a game I like to play: spot the meaningless meaning. It refers to the increasing desire for every brand, product or service to present itself as somehow meaningful. Sometimes it’s a podcast advertisement that talks about community, memory, nostalgia and values for two minutes before revealing it’s talking about mortgage insurance. Or a pharmacy brand mascara that positions itself as a radical weapon of self-expression. At first this obsession with meaning is little more than annoying. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll realise how noxious it can be.

...and provide us with their own assessment of what it means to turn something into a commodity. As long as they are familiar with capitalism.

Instead, the fierce squabbles revolve around those who insist that socialism is the better political economy. And who here doesn't know what that means? Especially in America where a couple of billionaires are about to commodify everything they can wrap their greedy little minds around.

So, what does that mean to you?

[iambiguous]

Nihilism can make you happier, even in the Covid era. No really, let me explain...
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian.

After spending two years engrossed in nihilism, I’ve become particularly sensitive to our relationship to “meaning” as an opaque but all-consuming idea.

Then those for whom the meaning of life is anything but opaque. But no less all-consuming in that they divide up the world between one of us [the heroes] and one of them [the villians]. And we know fiull well where that can take us. For some, it's human history in a nutshell.

The desire to live a meaningful life isn’t a bad thing. Foundational theories of community, ethics, logic and equality were born from humanity’s investigation of it. My issue is with how meaning has been commodified.

Again, one of those things that can easily come to mean very different things to very different people. But there are so many things able to be commodified in the world today, we might as individuals have an entirely unique collection of assumptions regarding how to sustain "communities, ethics, logic and equality" from the cradle to the grave.

Or even to define what they mean such that others are obligated to share that definition in turn. Or else.

There’s a game I like to play: spot the meaningless meaning. It refers to the increasing desire for every brand, product or service to present itself as somehow meaningful.

And they will be. More or less. For some. Then back to the part where we are able to explain particular sets of circumstance to others and almost everyone will concur on the meaning of them. For example, Donald Trump is president of the United States again. What does that mean? As opposed to someone insisting that he is doing a superb job back in office. What does that mean?

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

First off, let’s make a distinction clear. Nihilism and atheism are two separate conclusions.

On the contrary, moral nihilists of my ilk entirely link them. Just as any number of moral objectivists and their own ilk around the globe link them in much the same way. In other words, that nihilists are duly advised to come around and become "one of us".

Or else.

Atheism denies the existence of any god(s) or goddess(es). Atheists are considered independent thinkers, counter-hegemonic, cosmopolitan chic.

Of course, concluding that your own life is entirely independent of God and religion doesn't prove that God and religion don't exist.

Of course, while it may be considered blasphemous in Bible Belt country, atheism today is more widely accepted than before. And to be an atheist doesn’t necessarily make one a bad person.

Maybe not but come Judgment Day? Some insist [rather adamantly] that good just doesn't cut it if you refuse to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

Note to the religionists here among us:

Just out of curiosity, does your God allow exceptions given His very own rendition of Judgment Day? If others did live exceptionally good lives but for whatever historical, cultural, or personal reason attributed it all to...the wrong God?

After all, they have other avenues to believe in like utilitarianism, existentialism or humanism.

So what? They are able to demonstrate that their own One True Path to enlightenment, immortality and salvation really is encompassed in one or another ultimate reality or they merely believe it "in their heads". This being as far as one needs to go in order to make it true.

Greg Epstein, author and Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, summarizes the beliefs of good atheists in a sentence from his book “Good Without God”: “There is no life after death, so offer kindness to all, not in the next life but now.”

Right, like that makes my own set of assumptions regarding "good without God" go away. In other words, who to be kind to given the extent to which they choose to be kind in turn.

Conflicting goods? Well, that's what One True Paths are for.

But where atheists depart from formal religion saying, “We don’t need a God to be good,” I [and other nihilists] reply with “Well who said good and bad are real, too?”

Back again to beyond good and evil. To the part where it seems that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted." Then the next thing you know the cracks and the crevices get bigger and bigger. And any number of moral philosophies can then collapse into so many fragments.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

Nihilism is the assertion that moral truths like good and evil, right and wrong, are as fictitious as the deities atheists denounce. It’s no longer a question of deciding what is good and bad without the guidance of a preacher, it is just deciding there is no good or bad to choose from.

Theoretically? Because for all all practical purposes there's simply no getting around the need for "rules of behavior" in any particular community. And moral nihilists are no more able to demonstrate No God than the religionists are able to demonstrate that a God, the God is their God.

That's why nothing ever really gets resolved. You merely have to believe that something or someone does in fact exist and that's what makes it true.

After this point, many misconceptions emerge on what being a nihilist means.

So, sure, add your own misconceptions to the list. Unless, of course, you actually are able to demonstrate that what you believe about all this really and truly is what all other rational men and women are obligated to believe.

Or else?

Again, I am not selling my beliefs to you, but I want to address these common misconceptions of what nihilism entails. Believers have altars and politicians have pulpits to air their defenses. I have a laptop.

Fortunately, that's all it takes, isn't it? If you get my drift.

The following are common stereotypes and assumptions people make about what nihilism does to a person. Nihilists are considered destructive, untrustworthy, suicidal or just plain confused. That simply is not the case.

Same thing though. If you are convinced nihilists are in fact all of those things then "in your head" that is what they are. And that's all they need to be in order for you to choose one set of behaviors rather than another. And it's the behaviors we choose that result in actual consequences.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

A nihilist believes there is no true value in words like good and bad. Morality is a conventional tool which humanity created for itself, by itself.

Of course, those like IC here are likely to capitalize it: Nihilism.

Why? Because that makes it a proper noun. In other words, while folks may have conflicting assessments of what nihilism means -- in particular "for all practical purposes" -- once you capitalize it you are basically encompassing a frame of mind that revolves around "my way or the highway."

For opponents of nihilism, it follows then that nihilists are morally absent and a danger to society. They imagine nihilists murdering and bombing and so on because nihilists wouldn’t know how to distinguish between good and bad actions.

"Here and now" I can't think up an argument that effectively challenges [let alone rebuts] this assumption. Thus, if there is no God and ethicists and deontologists can be found all up and down the moral and political spectrum "down here"...?

So, sure, given this assumption, there are going to be those who may well become sociopaths...those who are extremely dangerous to others. They have thought themselves into believing that morality [in a No God world] revolves solely around "what's in it for me?" And God [if there is one] help those who get in their way. Unless, of course, for whatever "mysterious" reason, He never really helps the victims at all.

Out of the blue, I just thought of characters from a movie that I would myself describe as moral nihilists:
https://youtu.be/hJyQ8TvwvEI?si=71NjOfA48k7DwsUR

And is there a philosopher among us who could effectively challenge them...effectively challenge moral nihilism?

My rebuttal: Why are nihilists categorized as inherently destructive? Yes, we don’t believe in moral truths, but is demonizing nihilists truly founded?

Over and again, however: we'll need particular contexts.

Then the part where, existentially, moral nihilism revolves far more around dasein than any technical, analytic, academic philosophy.

And the part where nihilism is used describe the means employed by the objectivists more so than the ends.

Again, however, if "I" do say so myself.

This assumption that nihilists are destructive seems to branch from the argument that people need religion or some equivalent to be a “good” person. If that is the case, explain the Crusades or ISIS to me. Explain how the most ruthless of kings and destructive of dictators can preach divine appointment or moral justification if it’s really the nihilists society should be worried about.

Really, how hard can that be: "In the absence of God, all things are permitted." They merely have to be rationalized given certain assumptions about the human condition. And these assumptions suffuse any number of One True Paths.

It's just that those on particular paths [God or No God] do append "or else" to their moral and political dogmas.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

In short, having some moral belief is not sufficient on its own for one to be a productive, altruistic member of society. Ultimately, whether nihilist or otherwise, violent people will be violent.

What's that supposed to mean...that violent people come into the world genetically predisposed to be violent? And, of course, to the extent that is the case, what does it mean to hold them morally responsible? Blame them for things that are basically just manifestations of biological imperatives?

The concern is that humanity needs a big book or normative philosophy to prevent unnecessary violence, but that hasn’t stopped killers and tyrants before.

Come on, all the big books of normative philosophy in the world won't matter if biologically/genetically violence is but an intrinsic component of how nature brings you into the world.

And of course all the killers and tyrants who rationalize what they do by insisting that their own particular "kingdom of ends" justifies any and all means.

Which is why in regard to those like Satyr here, I would be curious to explore not what he believes about race and gender and homosexuality and Jews, but what, if he were able to acquire political power in a particular community, he would attempt to actually do to enforce his own rabid political prejudices. How sympathetic or critical would he be in regard to, say, the policies the Nazis pursued? And, of course, who isn't curious regarding just how far Elon Trump will go.

Or, how about the part where out of the blue someone who was never violent becomes violent because of a brain tumor or some other medical affliction? All of the hundreds of conditions such that you only have so much control over what you do.

Just as the pendulum can swing from destructive to altruistic, nihilists can be either or somewhere in between. I choose to be altruistic — not because I believe karma or moral goodness expects it, but because I choose to be altruistic for no other reason than to be giving. Nihilists aren’t all killers, just like how preachers aren’t all saints.

Given that nihilists are no less embodied existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way, what they come to believe about meaning and morality is no less as profoundly problematic as the beliefs of the idealists.

[popeye1945]

The mind believes in the welfare of the body, its interfaces with the chaotic world of energies, both beneficial and harmful to its continued existence. The organism, whether human or otherwise, believes in its own experiences and values them according to itself, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Nihilism should be appreciated as a misnomer, what it should mean is, in the absence of a conscious subject, the entire world is meaningless, for again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, consciousness bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. The world has meaning only to biological consciousness. Let Nihilism stand for the nonsense it is. We believe what the body tells us, and what it tells us is not the truth, it tells us of its experiences, its reactions to what is beneficial and what is harmful, what is bad and what is good for its organism. This is the stuff of apparent reality, not what is out there, but what is out there and how it alters, affects the biology of the subject consciousness. Apparent reality is a biological readout, read biological interpretations of what is experienced, if the nature of its biology were different, it would have different experiences, thus a different apparent reality. So, all we have is each other and a world and the expanse of the cosmos, and that is enough.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

The Untrustworthy Nihilist

Apparently, you can’t trust a nihilist either, at least that is what I’ve heard. The stereotype of the deceitful nihilist seems to be concluded after considering if nihilists don’t believe in good/bad then they have no ethical obligation to keep promises or duties. In other words, nihilists are liars that will not honor any commitments made with them. My rebuttal: Liars lie, but not all nihilists are liars.

Again, here we will need a particular context. What exactly is it, given this set of circumstance, that any particular nihilist is said to be lying about?

On the other hand, no doubt about it, nihilists embedded in the assumption we live in a Godless universe can embrace one or another rendition of sociopathic behavior. Or entirely narcissistic behavior. Or just assume that morality revolves largely around the Dow Jones "show me the money" mentality.

Then the part where any number of moral objectivists insist that unless you share their own truth, you're a liar. Or a moron. And certainly "one of them".

Here's how it works by and large...

Similar to the destructive nihilist double standard, this assumption implies moral believers don’t lie because their morality obligates them to tell the truth.

More to the point [mine] are those who insist that because their own moral or political or spiritual convictions reflect the one and the only true path to enlightenment and beyond, all others are obligated to share it. In other words, it's less a question of having multiple standards, and more the assumption that their own standard trumps all the others.

We all know that’s not true, so again, belief in morality isn’t enough for someone to be completely trustworthy. Some Methodists lie about email scandals and some Evangelical Christians institute scam colleges.

Which is why "situational ethics" prevails for many. I just take it further out into the speculative realm, by suggesting that, in the absence of God, mere mortals are left with creating what some construe to be the best of all possible worlds.

And for particular moral nihilists, this revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise...democracy and the rule of law.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

The Suicidal Nihilist

This is the idea that morality gives people a purpose in life, and that without it we are empty shells with the bleakest of outlooks. After all, if there is no true meaning to life or moral goodness, then what is there to live for?

You know what's coming...

1] great food
2] sublime music
3] fascinating and fulfilling career
4] good friends
5] sexual gratrification
6] etcetera

In other words, none of the above [and plenty more] actually require an essential meaning or an objective morality.

Thus...

My rebuttal: Is life not enough of a reason to live? I understand that life on Earth is no piece of cake. For some people, the world is a cruel, unjust, despicable place. But does it follow then that life is not a sufficient enough reason to live?

This is basically the distinction I make here. Just being a moral nihilist does not make one more prone to suicide. At least not necessarily. On the contrary, for any number of moral nihilists, almost any and all behaviors can be justified. Thus their options can increase dramatically.

Instead, it is often sets of circumstances -- social, political, economic -- which can precipitate the most "cruel, unjust, despicable" reactions to the life we live.

Do we need some grand deity or moral tally score at the end of our lives to put meaning into living on Earth?

For some, no way. For others, however, no grand deity or ideological or deontological assessment seems within reach. Then those who connect the dots "in their heads" between this and the truly scary sociopaths. Then the part where those who do insist we need an essential meaning and purpose in life also insist that others had better share it.

Here's how some [like the author] encompass it...

I am comfortable with not having an afterlife or cosmic scoreboard tracking my good deeds. I don’t feel the need to have my experiences on Earth be validated later on. I still appreciate life and people. I still find art beautiful, rainy days wonderful and cartoons magical. I look up to J. K. Rowling and Nathaniel Hawthorne as great writers, and my family and friends are dear to me. All these statements do not conflict with my belief in nothingness. I understand some may need a moral mission in life, but nihilists are not all suicidal for not having one.

Distractions I call them. And if you can accumulate enough of them, they really do distract you from all/most/some of life's trials and tribulations.

On the other hand, just how close are you to your own demise? That's makes all the difference in the world. It's easy enough to shrug off death [and oblivion] when you are relatively young, in good health, and death seems way out there somewhere in the distance.

In other words, the "somethingness" that is your own day to day existence is able to trump the bleak assessments that some ascribe to the human condition in a No God world.

[promethean75]

"You know what's coming..."

Boy do we.

[puto]

'Begging, the question' fallacy is all that the tread has turned into q → r1 → r2 → r3 and r3; in support of r2 carrying the justification; you are merely assuming distinctions. Giving, no confidence in justification. Nihilism: The rejection of truth, religion, and morality, according to the traditions found in Fathers and Sons a novel by Ivan Turgenev.
Nihilism the term nihil in Latin the word must mean ‘a man who … who accepts nothing?’ Fathers And Sons by Ivan Sergyevitch Turgenev in his novel. Translated by Constance Garnett. An acquaintance of Dostoevsky. Turgenev volumes are characteristic in social and political questions; ‘preaches no doctrine in his novels’. ‘Like a child who does not know why he suffers’, Criticism and Interpretations by Emile Mewchior, Vicomte De Vogue’.

[iambiguous]

'Begging, the question' fallacy is all that the tread has turned into q → r1 → r2 → r3 and r3; in support of r2 carrying the justification; you are merely assuming distinctions.

Okay, note any particular moral and political issues that have deeply divided the human species for centuries now and we can explore what we construe to be the limitations of philosophy. And science.

I say moral and political issues because I am not an epistemic nihilist. All sorts of things pertaining to human interactions in the either/or world certainly seem applicable to all of us. Click, of course. And assuming we do not inhabit a sim world or a dream world or one or another Matrix "reality".

Giving, no confidence in justification.

Not sure what you mean here. I certainly don't believe that how I construe nihilism reflects the most rational assessment. Why? Because pertaining to meaning and morality in our lives, I don't exclude myself from the assumption that my own value judgments are any less rooted existentially in dasein.

Nihilism: The rejection of truth, religion, and morality, according to the traditions found in Fathers and Sons a novel by Ivan Turgenev.

I don't reject truth, religion and morality. I merely note what "here and now" I deem to be an important distinction...one between the laws of nature which seem to be applicable to everyone and offtimes hopelessly conflicting moral obligations championed by any number of these folks:

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

On the the hand, I'm the first to admit that I have no way in which to actually demonstrate this. And given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I recognize that I may well change my mind about it.

This part:

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

[puto]

Wikipedia is not an academic resource.

[iambiguous]

Wikipedia is not an academic resource.

Okay, scrap everything you deem was derived from Wikipedia above. Respond substantively to the actual points I raised above:

'Begging, the question' fallacy is all that the tread has turned into q → r1 → r2 → r3 and r3; in support of r2 carrying the justification; you are merely assuming distinctions.

Okay, note any particular moral and political issues that have deeply divided the human species for centuries now and we can explore what we construe to be the limitations of philosophy. And science.

I say moral and political issues because I am not an epistemic nihilist. All sorts of things pertaining to human interactions in the either/or world certainly seem applicable to all of us. Click, of course. And assuming we do not inhabit a sim world or a dream world or one or another Matrix "reality".

Giving, no confidence in justification.

Not sure what you mean here. I certainly don't believe that how I construe nihilism reflects the most rational assessment. Why? Because pertaining to meaning and morality in our lives, I don't exclude myself from the assumption that my own value judgments are any less rooted existentially in dasein.

Nihilism: The rejection of truth, religion, and morality, according to the traditions found in Fathers and Sons a novel by Ivan Turgenev.

I don't reject truth, religion and morality. I merely note what "here and now" I deem to be an important distinction...one between the laws of nature which seem to be applicable to everyone and ofttimes hopelessly conflicting moral obligations championed by any number of these folks:

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

On the other hand, I'm the first to admit that I have no way in which to actually demonstrate this. And given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I recognize that I may well change my mind about it.

This part:

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Or, perhaps, what is most crucial to you is that my own assessment above is not...academically sound? No one should be fool enough to think as I do pertaining to meaning and morality, because I am simply not a "serious philosopher"?