nihilism

[iambiguous]

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

No, I’m not an atheist. No, I’m not an existentialist. No, I’m not a humanist. No, I’m not an agnostic. Nihilism is a harsh position to relate to for many people. It’s not like finding similarities between a pastor and rabbi or understanding the doubt of an atheist or agnostic. Nihilism throws everything out the door and rejects the basic concept of morality.

On the other hand, moral nihilists of my ilk acknowledge right from the start that their own frame of mind is no less rooted existentially in dasein. And given the assumption [and that's all it can ever really be] that we inhabit a No God universe.

At least until the deontologists among us are able to establish that -- philosophically? scientifically? -- objective morality is attainable. And then, what, moral conflagration after moral conflagration will be obviated?

Some people handle that by labeling us as “confused.” They refuse to dignify our belief in moral absence by properly recognizing it — instead infantilizing our capability to understand nuanced philosophies and maturity to recognize our own beliefs.

You want confusion? How about the fact that in regard to morality alone there are many different, conflicting assessments:

1] utilitarianism
2] contractualism
3] deontology/kantian deontology
4] relativism [moral nihilism, situational ethics]
5] virtue ethics
6] consequentialism
7] divine commandments
8] bioethics
9] hedonism
10] social contract theory
11] normative ethics
12] rights theory
13] ethical egoism
14] metaethics
15] buddhist ethical theory

Or explore this: https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethic ... raditions/

So, given a particular moral/political firestorm that has rent the species now for millennia, which "school of thought" are you partial to? Or have you invented/discovered an entirely new moral philosophy?

[Belinda]

I don't see how these are all mutually exclusive, or concerning the same culture of belief, how one theory may not develop into another related theory.

[popeye1945]

I don't see how these are all mutually exclusive, or concerning the same culture of belief, how one theory may not develop into another related theory.

All are subjected to human biology and human consciousness. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Nothing in the world has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to biological consciousness.

[iambiguous]

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

My final rebuttal: Why are you threatened? How does my belief threaten your own spiritual autonomy? It is not as if I am frequenting your home regularly and asking to share the words of Friedrich Nietzsche. I do not set off across the globe in hopes of converting the religiously diverse into a homogenous network of global nihilism.

Actually, I have no hesitation in noting the potential for all manner of ghastly consequences given global nihilism. A world awash in sociopaths?

Unless, perhaps, my own "brand" of moral nihilism prevails. In other words, it is accepted that objective morality is beyond our reach so efforts are made to sustain a political system revolving instead around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

As long as most citizens get something instead of nothing at all, democracy and the rule of law may well be accepted as the "best of all possible worlds".

Acknowledging, however, that political economy isn't likely to go away anytime soon. Meaning that those who own the gold are still far more likely to rule.

On the other hand, the world today seems headed in just the opposite direction. Autocratically, as it were.

I respect the beliefs of my family (all of which are one variant of Christianity or another). I respect my friends that identify as Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, etc. I do not degrade their beliefs by claiming they just haven’t figured it out yet or they are just confused.

Me too. At least to the extent they steer clear of appending "or else" to their moral or political or religious agendas.

Also, I'm always willing to acknowledge that my own assessment of nihilism is no less rooted existentially in dasein. In fact, I am motivated as much by finding a way to transcend it myself. God or No God.

Nihilism may not be your cup of tea, and I am not asking for it to be. But in an age where religious tolerance and acceptance are widely paraded, don’t forget that it is a diversity of thought that should be respected, not just religion.

Let's run this by Donald Musk. Their "ideology" seems to revolve by and large around "show me the money!"

Or else.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah
comment by G. J. W.

I too am a nihilist and it is commendable to see that the author of this article is trying to create some clear distinctions when using the word nihilism. Congratulations must be given to him with regards to its publication. From a literary point, too many lazy written articles of present are using this word with no scope or clarity, all without any attempt made in the writing or research to define what they actually mean by the simple word nihilism.

Also, from a moral and political perspective, the part where, from time to time, nihilism will pop up in one or another news account. But here it almost always revolves more around means than ends.

On the other hand, for those objectivists who are particularly fanatical about their own "kingdom of ends", it often comes down to "by any means necessary".

Right?

Without getting into detail, this article expresses what is obvious, that nihilism is surly one of the most defining words of our times and yet remains without a positive and genuine meaning for most people.

From my own frame of mind "here and now", the one main positive facet embedded in a No God nihilistic assessment of "I" -- "I" out in the world around us -- is that one's options increase dramatically. Why? Because to the extent one eschews a scripted Biblical or ideological or deontological account of the "human condition" almost anything can be rationalized. Though clearly "for better or for worse".

This is the biggest problem we face today when thinking about nihilism. For a ‘true’ nihilist it is not good enough to ask ‘what does nihilism mean’ because we can do this with any concept, i.e. what does ‘science’ mean? Or, what does ‘life’ mean?

But natural science itself along with one's day to day existence are bursting at seams with interactions that unfold objectively. They mean what they do. For everyone. Click, of course.

On the other hand, for epistemic nihilists...

"Epistemic nihilism, as it is termed, is committed to the claim that there are no epistemic facts. It is argued that this type of view yields a radical type of scepticism, according to which there is no reason to believe the view itself or anything else, for that matter." oxford academic

...even the laws of nature, empirical facts, personal experiences, etc., cannot ultimately be known objectively. Besides, grasping what they mean would require an objective understanding of existence itself. Although for some moral and political objectivists among us here, that's still just a trivial pursuit.

[popeye1945]

If you accept that the physical world is utterly meaningless in and of itself, and in the absence of a conscious subject. What did you mean by Nihilism?

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah
comment by G. J. W.

It also makes no sense to ask about nihilism in terms of cozy logic and language games, such as the statement ‘the meaningless of nihilism is a meaning’ so nihilism is somehow refuted.

I get this from time to time myself. If I note "here and now" that I believe human interactions are essentially meaningless, I'm accused by some of arguing that this in and of itself is essentially true. Only here I am no less drawn and quartered regarding the Big Questions as well.

This is a profound ignorance of logic and utter contempt for language but worse still a complete lack of intellectual rigor.

Would I go that far myself? No. Why? Because it seems clearly embedded in what appears to be a first person omniscient objectivist frame of mind. As though only his or her own understanding of nihilism counts. No way I would ever encompass nihilism in that manner myself.

It would be wise however, for anyone who wanted to use the word nihilism, to acknowledge the history of this concept and its various ‘meanings’.

Isn't that what I just said?

Or start here: https://wellbeingscounselling.ca/what-i ... 0of%20life.

Above all else, we'll need...a context?

The word nihil-ism etymological means, literally, the study of nothing.

Or, perhaps, in proposing any number of problematic assessments of...somethings? But, again, "somethings" in the either/or world seem considerably more substantive and substantial than moral and political dogmas.

But more importantly a real, as opposed to “fake”, form of nihilism would be one that is philosophical, be it even theosophical.

Of course, from my own frame of mind, it is often the philosophical assessments that stay up in the didactic clouds. And how real can they be unless [over and again] the theoretical assessments are intertwined existentially in actual social, political and economic interactions.

As for this...

Theosophy teaches that the Spiritual Soul and the Spirit do not reside within the human body alongside the other components but are connected to it through the human soul. wiki

...where's the beef?

Even if nihilism meant the study of nothing as such, we are still left with the bizarre question what is the nothing? Surly this is the most defining question posed by man: Why something exists rather than nothing?

Here, of course, we go way, way, way out onto the metaphysical branch. Although [perhaps] an even greater defining moment here would be encompassed in "why this something and not something else?" Though even here the presumption is that we have the capacity figure all this out autonomously.

The negativity of nihilism we see too often written about to today is one where the ignorance of philosophers, theologians, scientists, politicians, historians, artists i.e. the minds of men and of worldly events, lead to the greatest perils, evils and symptoms of decline of mankind and the World.

Here, on the other hand, I have no illusions about the potential for calamity should the nihilists prevail beyond the amoral "show me the money" mentality of those who own and operate the global economy. Imagine a world in which sociopathic behavior grew leaps and bounds. After all, not all No God nihilists will subscribe as I do to democracy and the rule of law.

If I too am a nihilist, it is not because of this former, negative type, but because of a stronger, more positive and affirming type.

Sure, that is certainly one way to imagine it. Here, though, so much more will revolve around the actual circumstances of one's life.

[iambiguous]

What is nihilism?
master class

What Is Nihilism?

Nihilism is a continental philosophy (a philosophical ideal that originated in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) that posits that everything is meaningless.

Nihilism is not something I am ever likely to construe as an ideal. Quite the opposite. Instead, my own understanding of it is far more likely to actually deconstruct moral and political idealism.

And it still seems patently absurd, in my view, to deem human interactions in the either/or world as essentially meaningless. That would make sense to me only given a wholly determined universe, or an existence derived from a simulation or something analogous to the Matrix.

Tenets of Nihilism

Although there is more than one form of nihilism, all of them discuss the human condition and its existence. Here are a few underlying principles of nihilism:

Existence is useless. A nihilist believes there is no purpose to having values or beliefs because everything in existence is unfounded.
There is no truth. Everything is unfounded and useless, including the truth, so there are no reasons to uphold moral principles for your own sake or the sake of anyone else.

Everything is meaningless. Active nihilism says that since there is nothing and nothing we do matters, all things are therefore meaningless, including the meaning of life.

Back again [at least for me] to distinguishing between truths and meaning and utility pertaining to the either/or world and the part where in interacting in this world -- at home, at school, on the job, etc., -- we come into conflicts over any number of things revolving instead around value judgments.

While there are multiple positions and variations on nihilism, they all work around this premise of pervasive pointlessness and no purpose to life. The word “nihilism” comes from the Latin word “nihil,” which means “the absence of anything” or “nothing.” The current version of the term nihilism comes from the German word “nihilismus,” which dates back to the eighteenth century.

Then the part where each of us will react to this in different ways. Very, very different ways, at times. So, given that, how would we go about situating a definition and a meaning for nihilism such that the "failures to communicate" regarding it were...kept to a minimum?

[iambiguous]

What is nihilism?
master class

What Is Nihilism?

Nihilism is a continental philosophy (a philosophical ideal that originated in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) that posits that everything is meaningless.

Nihilism is not something I am ever likely to construe as an ideal. Quite the opposite. Instead, my own understanding of it is far more likely to actually deconstruct moral and political idealism.

And it still seems patently absurd, in my view, to deem human interactions in the either/or world as essentially meaningless. That would make sense to me only given a wholly determined universe, or an existence derived from a simulation or something analogous to the Matrix.

Tenets of Nihilism

Although there is more than one form of nihilism, all of them discuss the human condition and its existence. Here are a few underlying principles of nihilism:

Existence is useless. A nihilist believes there is no purpose to having values or beliefs because everything in existence is unfounded.
There is no truth. Everything is unfounded and useless, including the truth, so there are no reasons to uphold moral principles for your own sake or the sake of anyone else.

Everything is meaningless. Active nihilism says that since there is nothing and nothing we do matters, all things are therefore meaningless, including the meaning of life.

Back again [at least for me] to distinguishing between truths and meaning and utility pertaining to the either/or world and the part where in interacting in this world -- at home, at school, on the job, etc., -- we come into conflicts over any number of things revolving instead around value judgments.

While there are multiple positions and variations on nihilism, they all work around this premise of pervasive pointlessness and no purpose to life. The word “nihilism” comes from the Latin word “nihil,” which means “the absence of anything” or “nothing.” The current version of the term nihilism comes from the German word “nihilismus,” which dates back to the eighteenth century.

Then the part where each of us will react to this in different ways. Very, very different ways, at times. So, given that, how would we go about situating a definition and a meaning for nihilism such that the "failures to communicate" regarding it were...kept to a minimum?

[iambiguous]

What is nihilism?
master class

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put forth many concepts related to nihilism during his lifetime. His work includes the books Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Joyful Wisdom or The Gay Science in English), which contains philosophical poems and essays; and Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power), comprised of notes he wrote before his death. In the former title, Nietzsche discussed the death of God and famously included the statement, “God is dead.”

Which, by and large, reflects my own existential assessment of moral nihilism. In other words, it revolves around the existence of God. No God, no moral commandments. And, with no Divine morality, we're stuck with all of the [at times] profoundly conflicting political, ideological, deontological assumptions and assessments.

I merely note all of the [at times] conflicting religious denominations in turn.

Also, I suggest that with God gone, Nietzsche invented the Übermensch in order to have the next best thing to moral commandments: the very best and the very brightest. And, if you're not sure what that means, just ask them.

Academics who study the philosopher’s works feel he equated the concept of nihilism with meaninglessness and believed he felt it would eventually cause an existential threat to human society. Twentieth century German philosopher Martin Heidegger gave Nietzschean philosophy further attention through his research—he interpreted Nietzsche’s work and gave lectures about nihilism.

Of course, Heidegger's main Übermensch back then seemed to be Adolph Hitler.

Also, in my view, my own assessment of conflicting goods reflects a far greater existential threat. Why? Because there is no equivalent of the Übermensch and in regard to conflicting moral and political goods it seems perfectly reasonable to be "fractured and fragmented".

[Pistolero]

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.

Mary's either/or simplicity can only imagine "evil Nazis" fighting "benevolent Americans," in her Geopolitical map.
Good vs. evil
Which is ironic given that she pretends to be amoral....

Fighting against "objectivists" to bring about HER ideal world. then accusing them of doing just that.
Her ideal world is disturbingly similar to a Marxist utopia. But she will not say so.

She cannot envision any solution other than the "final solution."
Either extermination or America's melting pot...miscegenation. There is no other alternative. Her will can only perceive two option, explaining her stance on free-will.
This is the extent of understanding diversity.

Yet, there are many models where cultural and ethnic diversity is preserved within a single federation: Russia, India, China...
But Mary's either/or, fragmentation is really a self-induced confusion, unable to think beyond good vs. evil binaries....it's her amoral advantage.

The evil ones are always objectivists, or Nazis, or Putin followers.
Anything that challenges her access to abortions, or LGBTJEWQRT+ rights, because she cannot think of one negative impact.
Not ONE. In her mind all these ethical laws were invented, out of nothing and nowhere - you know like existence - to impose upon her and her ilk, totalitarian rules... and then believes existence itself is totalitarian, not even allowing room to exercise her free-will....pathetically limited, as it may be.
Why would she even want access to abortion clinics and contraceptives if she cannot choose to use them?
Do Objectivists prevent the cosmos from determining her use of abortion clinics?
Does the cosmos work through the objectivists and the Nazis....
Is she bitching about her fate, by blaming its earthly representatives?
If so, how will they choose to listen to her pleas, if it hasn't been determined?

[iambiguous]

Just for the record...

I'm assuming that Pisstolera is Satyr. And for years over at ILP, I made a complete fool of him. You know, if I do say so myself. On the other hand, few do a better job of making a fool of him than he does himself.

I don't waste my time responding to him anymore.

In fact, as with AJ here, what I am most interested in exploring with him is the part where he notes what would actually happen to blacks and feminists and Jews and homosexuals and liberals, etc, if he were in a position of power.

AJ doesn't seem intent on imposing a "final solution" here. He's more about separating "us" from "them". Whereas others of course will take this all the way to the extermination camps.

[Fairy]

nihilism refers to the ego which is a mistaken identification with the thought 'I' exist.

That's identification with ego.

The ego is terrified of:

Emptiness
Uncertainty
Vulnerability
Smallness
Being ''just another person''


So it hooks itself to:

A grand idea
A spiritual narrative
A political crusade
A philosophical system
A sense of being more conscious or special than others
Because that hook becomes its anchor in the void.


For the ego, its allotted time on earth is nihilistic.

[Pistolero]

Nihilism is the adoption of nothingness as the only certainty.
A product of disillusionment and existential fatigue.

[popeye1945]

Nihilism is the adoption of nothingness as the only certainty.
A product of disillusionment and existential fatigue.

What to you is the source of all meaning, and is not the only certainty of change. I have never met a Nihilist. I think it's a unicorn.