Philosophy Now Forum

Ethics explainer: Nihilism

An infamous example [of an anarchic character] is the Joker from the Batman franchise. Especially in renditions like The Dark Knight (2008) and Joker (2019), the Joker is portrayed as someone whose expectations of the world have failed him, whose tortuous existence has led him to believe that nothing matters, the world doesn’t care, and that in the face of that, we shouldn’t care about anything or anyone either. In his words, “everything burns” in the end, so he sees no problem in hastening that destruction and ultimately the destruction of himself.

On the other hand, to what extent then might Joker be seen as either a sociopath or a psychopath? Sociopaths center everything around their own narcissistic wants and needs. And psychopaths in particular are problematic here because how can they be held responsible for something that is largely "beyond their control"?

And because he is a cartoon character inhabiting a cartoon character world, how seriously can we take him?

"Now comes the part where I relieve you, the little people, of the burden of your useless lives.”

Any little people here?

The Joker epitomizes the populist understanding of nihilism and one of the primary ethical risks of this philosophical world view. For some people, viewing their lives as lacking inherent meaning or value causes a psychological spiral into apathy.

Great, that's just what the world needs, a "populist" understanding of nihilism.

On the other hand, I have never placed as much weight on the meaning of life as on all the things in life that can bring you enormous fulfillment and satisfaction from day to day. That's meaningful in and of itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:41 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:05 pm Why don’t you point to evil?

THIS is the person who thinks she's so smart?

I AM pointing to it. I'm pointing to what you said Harbal did. And you're now not even sure that was bad.

I have destroyed the distinction between good snd evil, but not that between good and bad.

Nietzsche

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:41 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:05 pm Why don’t you point to evil?

THIS is the person who thinks she's so smart?

I AM pointing to it. I'm pointing to what you said Harbal did. And you're now not even sure that was bad.

I have destroyed the distinction between good snd evil, but not that between good and bad.

Nietzsche

Yeah. Nietzsche tried to sneak his own moralizing in the back door, after claiming to have destroyed all possibility of moralizing.

You can judge the success of that strategy.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:50 am

Ethics explainer: Nihilism
An infamous example [of an anarchic character] is the Joker from the Batman franchise. Especially in renditions like The Dark Knight (2008) and Joker (2019), the Joker is portrayed as someone whose expectations of the world have failed him, whose tortuous existence has led him to believe that nothing matters, the world doesn’t care, and that in the face of that, we shouldn’t care about anything or anyone either. In his words, “everything burns” in the end, so he sees no problem in hastening that destruction and ultimately the destruction of himself.

On the other hand, to what extent then might Joker be seen as either a sociopath or a psychopath? Sociopaths center everything around their own narcissistic wants and needs.

On the other hand? How is what you are saying opposed to what you quoted?

And psychopaths in particular are problematic here because how can they be held responsible for something that is largely "beyond their control"?

Are you suggesting that psychopaths are less in control than other people? Are other people more autonomous? Is this in a deterministic universe?

Further, they are held responsible. I think you probably know the how of them being held responsible. They get arrested if they commit crimes. Some people hit them (and not someone else, for example), people blame them, fire them and so on.

And because he is a cartoon character inhabiting a cartoon character world, how seriously can we take him?

Well, in the article he is introduced as

We normally see this kind of nihilism embodied by anarchic characters in media.

and then

The Joker epitomises the populist understanding of nihilism and one of the primary ethical risks of this philosophical world view.

So, the author is suggesting that The Joker reflects a common belief about nihilism. Do you disagree?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:37 am Well, given subjectivism, there's no such thing as "wronged."

I have never understood why you try to claim that your morality is "objective" and therefore only what you think is wrong is wrong and what other people think is wrong isn't wrong if you disagree with them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:48 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:41 am
THIS is the person who thinks she's so smart?

I AM pointing to it. I'm pointing to what you said Harbal did. And you're now not even sure that was bad.

I have destroyed the distinction between good snd evil, but not that between good and bad.

Nietzsche

Yeah. Nietzsche tried to sneak his own moralizing in the back door, after claiming to have destroyed all possibility of moralizing.

You can judge the success of that strategy.

Nietzsche tried to re-evaluate values in his day in hopes of finding what he termed "life affirming" ones instead of "ascetic ideals." He thought that ascetic ideals deny a person the opportunity to live life with greater vitality. He thought that life affirming values, when contrasted to ascetic ideals enhance life and creativity.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:58 pm

Who fully understands anything, especially love? (Except IC, of course.)

I do, I understand how to love unconditionally. All because I know my true worth and value and heart. So far I have never been able to find a man to match equally, what I am able to give to them.

Not that I care really. I'm in love only with myself. Others are just extensions of myself, is my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

Earth girls are not easy for an earth man.

There does not so far seem to be an earthly man capable of loving women unconditionally, I could be wrong though.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:35 am

… before the DASTARDLY Harbal became the topic of “conversation”.

Yeah I mean who does that?

Why dredge H out from his R.I.P past, it's like IC is obsessed with the man ...What I would like to know is what the heck did H have to do with the topic of conversation at the time, which was about ''evil'' being a human abstract concept, and not a real objective thing?

IC already mentioned that no one including himself wanted to know the details of that H & F saga back in the day...and yet IC didn't seem to care about raising the H bomb all over again for everyone including himself to know. It's like what the actual! ..He seriously has some weird mental issue going on inside his warped and crooked mind.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:37 am Well, given subjectivism, there's no such thing as "wronged."

I have never understood why you try to claim that your morality is "objective" and therefore only what you think is wrong is wrong and what other people think is wrong isn't wrong if you disagree with them.

It's because IC is absolutely terrified of being wrong. He'd rather twist and twist other peoples rights around so much so as to make them look like they are twisted so bent and crookedly out of their original shape, that they have almost become unrecognisable to him or anymore else for that matter....A self serving egocentric tactic he is an expert at pulling off, that is his main mission and agenda, to deflect rather than try to understand someone else's right view. Rather than listen, he chooses to push other peoples points of view further and further away from his sight...in case he ever has to admit defeat and that he's just been plain wrong about something. He can't ever be wrong, because he is a dictator, who is always dictating to others that they are wrong while he's never wrong. Yes, he's just too damn scared of facing his own failings head on, with true courage and dignity and honour.

IC fails to be a real man, he prefers to hide behind his beloved God's skirt of providence like the masquerading coward he is. He's terrified of exposing himself to be the pretentious one by hiding behind his God, in his egocentric love for his own pretentious truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 9:32 am IC already mentioned that no one including himself wanted to know the details of that H & F saga back in the day...and yet IC didn't seem to care about raising the H bomb all over again for everyone including himself to know. It's like what the actual! ..He seriously has some weird mental issue going on inside his warped and crooked mind.

Good, old IC said.....

However, Fairy subjected us all to page after page of hand-wringing detail about it, whether we wanted to know or not.

He seems to have read the whole thing, all the hand-wringing details as he sees them. He seems not to understand that most of us realize that he can stop at any point when reading something. And yes, he's bringing it back now and Harbal back now.

He either thinks he can't help himself, or knows quite well he could, but doesn't want us to know he chose to read every detail. How easy it is for some libertarian free willers to present themselves as having been forced into doing things that a kid could teach them how to avoid.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 9:21 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:58 pm

Who fully understands anything, especially love? (Except IC, of course.)

I do, I understand how to love unconditionally. All because I know my true worth and value and heart. So far I have never been able to find a man to match equally, what I am able to give to them.

Not that I care really. I'm in love only with myself. Others are just extensions of myself, is my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

Earth girls are not easy for an earth man.

There does not so far seem to be an earthly man capable of loving women unconditionally, I could be wrong though.

But sexual attraction is not love. Romantic love is not love. To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

I’m just now composing an “Open Letter To Harbal”. It’ll be up soon …

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 12:43 pm But sexual attraction is not love.

It can be both part of love and an expression of love.

Romantic love is not love.

How so?

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

What does 'glorify' in this context mean? And, then, once we have that, why is glorifying romantic love for another person silly and enslaving?

And I suppose, then, also, what is love, to you?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:37 am Well, given subjectivism, there's no such thing as "wronged."

I have never understood why you try to claim that your morality is "objective" and therefore only what you think is wrong is wrong and what other people think is wrong isn't wrong if you disagree with them.

Oh, Gary...that's easy. Let's just put it this way: "I have never understood why you try to claim that your earth isn't flat and therefore only what you think is wrong is wrong and what other people think is wrong isn't wrong if you disagree with them."

When something is "objective," it means it is the same for all people, at all times, under all circumstances -- just as the earth is still round, even if somebody were to insist it's not.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:38 am I have never understood why you try to claim that your morality is "objective" and therefore only what you think is wrong is wrong and what other people think is wrong isn't wrong if you disagree with them.

My answer to this question (a dilemma really) is that objective morality, the understanding of it, is arrived at through intellectual work. When that work is done, one clears the ground of competing (largely erroneous) viewpoints and what is left are, precisely, objective principles and stances. It is logos ultimately that gathers one’s assent and bolsters agreement.

The problem that IC presents (to the degree that I understand it) is in his inconsistency and in his various biases. Yet in principle his assertion (about moral objectivity) is actually sound.

He simply fails at his own declared project.