nihilism

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

Bullshit similarly rejects the value of truth, though for somewhat different reasons. Bullshit is essentially a claim that the speaker wishes their interlocutor to believe, though the speaker themselves has no regard for the claim’s truth value.

And how do the epistemic nihilists among us know that? Or, as with the God and religion folks, are they basically just taking their own existential leap of faith to something that "here and now" they happen to believe is true "in their head"?

Meanwhile, is it or is it not a fact that important distinctions need to be made between bullshit in the either/or world and bullshit pertaining to conflicting goods in the is/ought world?

For example, Donald Trump regularly claims that unflattering coverage such as reports regarding crowd size (Concha 2018; Dale 2019; Levine 2019; O’Neil 2019), his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic (Trump 2020c), and his reelection campaign (Trump 2020b) is ‘fake news".

So, you're an epistemic nihilist. How would/should you react to things like this -- politics? -- when ultimately you're convinced your very own claims knowledge are "either nonexistent or unattainable for human beings"?

As for where Trump fits into all of this, well, he bullshits us all the time, right? As someone once suggested: "how can you tell if Trump is bullshitting us, lying to us? He opens his mouth and says something."

And the thing is, I suspect Trump must know it is bullshit. And his fanatical MAGA "base" must at least suspect that they are being lied to...over and over again. But that's just how it all unfolds. Realpolitik, some call it. Cue Machiavelli others will suggest. The end -- bringing America back to the 1950s -- justifies any and all means. Or, perchance, is he really committed ideologically to his autocratic agenda?

As I have argued previously, Trump’s claims are bullshit precisely because of his aim in expressing them.

His aim was to get elected, and then reelected...by any means necessary.

Some cries of fake news are accurate, while others are not; Trump desires his audience to believe him not because they are true or false, but because they are unflattering. Unlike the lie, where truth matters, the truth value of the bullshitter’s claim is simply irrelevant.

On the other hand, out in the real world, who among us gets to say who the bullshitters are and what in fact is bullshit?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

As a third example, trolling differs from lying and bullshitting in that success depends not on the interlocutor believing the troll, but rather because the interlocutor is unsure what to believe because it is unclear what the troll believes.

Imagine trying to pin down what "for all practical purposes" trolling encompasses here? Especially given all the hardcore objectivists we have who basically construe a troll to be someone who refuses to come around to their own points of view. But, again, as with Stooge, different folks, different strokes.

Essentially, trolling is a behavior in which outlandish claims are made or actions are undertaken for the purpose of garnering a reaction.

Here? Let's name names!!

Often, though not universally, such activities are otherwise aimless resulting merely from a desire to disrupt.

Merely? Tell that to those here who have watched their own threads reduced to rubble by those who, perhaps, have no business being in a philosophy forum in the first place.

As noted later in this chapter, the generally aimless nature of most trolling provides vital cover for more nefarious instances of trolling that seek to disrupt in order to achieve a particular aim, like mainstreaming extremist views, retreating to familiar trollish responses that their actions are unserious and ought to be taken as such.

On the other hand, what does this have to do with epistemic nihilism? Other than perhaps that once you've convinced yourself "knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings", there's not that can't be rationalized, is there?

Not much that doesn't allow you to shrug off, right? Trolling perhaps being the least of it in this world.

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

A unified theory of epistemic nihilism

Then the part that interests me...taking these theoretical assumptions about epistemic nihilism and grappling with how on Earth they are applicable to our own chosen behaviors. Click of course.

There are important differences between lying, bullshitting, and trolling, such as whether their success depends on the interlocutor believing a false claim or whether the interlocutor must believe the speaker is representing genuinely held views.

On the other hand, if you are an advocate of epistemic nihilism aren't you always going to be stuck in having to acknowledge that what you think you know about any of this here and now is no less included in your assessment of what others can't know?

Further, significant literature exists discussing how to address each activity individually, ranging from innumerable discussions of dishonesty in various subfields of applied ethics to discussions of the psychological motivations behind bullshit acceptance—as well as how to counter such openness—to strategies for countering trollish behavior.

Okay, how then, for all practical purposes, can the above be reconciled with this:

"Epistemological nihilism is a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings." wiki

Then this part...

"It should not be confused with epistemological fallibilism, according to which all knowledge is uncertain."

Sort of like the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

It is not my goal to suggest that nothing can be learned by such focused attention [above]. Instead, I suggest that grouping nihilistic activities under a common umbrella also carries with it certain advantages.

Okay, how about we run this by a few philosophers here. What nihilistic activities would be right at the top of their list? And how would they be construed as advantageous to them for all practical purposes. After all, there are some here who actually insist that Christianity itself is a manifestation of nihilism. I mean, how ludicrous is that?

First, approaching the problem through a common lens allows us to note similarities between actions that abandon truth as useful or intrinsically good.

Our common lens or their common lens? Our truth or their truth? Then [again] the part where epistemic nihilists might note things like this but then, on the other hand, if epistemological nihilism encompasses "a form of philosophical septicism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings", what exaclty are they conveying to us about, well, anything at all it is possible to know?

That's why I make a distinction here between epistemic nihilism and moral nihilism. My own nihilism is embedded by and large in the is/ought world. In regard to the either/or world, however, I'm far more confident -- click -- that what I think I know here and now is in fact applicable to all of us.

Second, insofar as commonalities exist, we are better positioned to develop general strategies and apply extant strategies focused on one token of this type.

Okay, but who exactly is this applicable to? And how exactly would these commonalities be communicated in any particular family, neighborhood, community, state, naton, etc., such that conflicting goods themselves are subsumed in...what exactly?

Third, grouping actions under a common banner allows us to sidestep questions of taxonomy when such questions are not useful. We need not parse whether a difficult case is a lie, bullshit, trolling, or something else if little rides on such a distinction; we may simply note an instance of epistemic nihilism and respond accordingly.

Taxonomy is a practice and science concerned with classification or categorization. wiki

No, really, for any epistemic nihilists among us, please note how on Earth and for all practical purposes these classifications or categorizations are applicable given your own day-to-day interactions with others.

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

The threat of epistemic nihilism

Liberal democracy is premised on active, good faith participation from forthright members of the commun ty, which provides a more-or-less level playing field.

Epistemic nihilism aside, moderation, negotiation and compromise hardly unfold on a level playing field. The ruling class sees to that.

Epistemic nihilism rejects this premise by abusing the assumption that interlocutors are engaging in good faith. When successful, such actions advantage nihilistic behavior.

Not entirely sure what this is meant to convey. Instead, from my own frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in rejecting moral dogmas [God or No God], that affords me many more options.

In addition to providing a rhetorical advantage that is the direct result of bad faith engagement, nihilism has the further deleterious effect of encouraging conspiracists and other fringe actors willing to engage in actions well outside the scope of normal democratic participation.

Okay, but again, I'm not really sure what on Earth this has to do with epistemic nihilism. After all, how would their own assessment of all this not be what they themselves claim to know is true regarding the human condition?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

The dangers of nihilistic speech

In addition to providing a rhetorical advantage, nihilistic speech can encourage actions that are anathema to reasoned deliberation that is the ideal of democracy.

Here we can cue, among others, the sociopaths and the amoral global capitalists. And what is particularly ideal for a democracy is the assumption that there may well not be any objective moral or political truths. After all, if there were, the philosopher kings and queens would have long ago provided us with something in the neighborhood of a deontological agenda.

While the nihilist themselves might not be concerned with the truth, their interlocutors often are, thus creating the possibility of such individuals accepting genuinely dangerous claims.

On the other hand, does not the truth embraced by the epistemic nihilists basically revolve around the assumption that there are no such truths? Or none that we can have any conclusive knowledge regarding?

Which is why I would like to discuss this with anyone who subscribes to epistemic nihilism. In particular, an exploration into how they would describe their day-to-day interactions with others.

Ever and always for those of my ilk, it comes down to the "for all practical purposes" aspects of any philosophical assessment.

For example, public health efforts aimed at reducing the spread of Covid-19 have been implemented to varying degrees of success globally. One of the largest factors impacting success is the degree to which they are countered by what the World Health Organization has called an ‘infodemic’ of misinformation (Evanega et al. n.d.; United Nations Department of Global Communications 2020).

That's the part where one of two things happen:

1] it all becomes hopelessly entangled in conflicting moral and political prejudices
2] in order to sustain your own comfort and consolation, you defend your own dogma all the way to the grave

In the United States, preliminary analysis has found that the largest driver of misinformation has been Donald Trump himself. 37.9% of all misinformation captured by the study were directly associated with Trump, and a ‘substantial proportion—possibly even the majority—of the [discussion surrounding] “miracle cures”’ may have been driven by Trump as well, since he frequently touted supposed cures like hydroxychloroquine and injecting bleach. Such misinformation is not a theoretical exercise; it impacts individuals’ view of the pandemic itself and the trustworthiness of genuine sources of medical knowledge. Partisan differences regarding the seriousness of the pandemic and the efficacy of preventative measures exist and can reasonably be explained, at least in part, by the fact that a major American political party is led by an epistemic nihilist.

There are lots of things I'd call Trump, but epistemic nihilist isn't one of them. Unless, again, I am missing the point the author is attempting to convey above. Somehow, I can't imagine Donald Trump, clearly an amoral global capitalist, arguing that "knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings." Instead, he is particularly arrogant regarding his own "my way or else" mentality. Though, sure, with those of his ilk, it's often difficult to make these distinctions with any actual clarity.

[iambiguous]

Paradox of nihilism
wikipedia

The two basic paradoxes are reflective of the philosophies of nihilism that created them; metaphysical nihilism and existential nihilism. Both paradoxes originate from the same conceptual difficulty of whether, as Paul Hegarty writes in his study of noise music, "the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning".

Then the part where some here are likely to insist that in defending moral nihilism I am in turn arguing that those who do not defend it are wrong. Also, the part where I am here hoping to bump into someone able to convince me that "for all practical purposes" my assessment of moral nihilism is entirely unreasonable.

Metaphysical nihilism

Metaphysical nihilism is based around skepticism that concrete objects, and the self which perceives them, actually exist as concrete objects rather than as abstract objects. It is not a far stretch, in the framework of this theory, to assume that these objects do not exist at all.

Really, how preposterous is that? This, in my view, is clearly in the general vicinity of sim worlds and dream worlds and solipsism. Not out of the question, perhaps, but close to it. What man or woman can go about the business of living from day to day socially, politically and economically and believe something like that?

The paradox arises from the logical assertion that if no concrete or abstract objects exist, even the self, then that very concept itself would be untrue because it itself exists.

Language games, some will call this. And exposing yet again what some construe to be the limitations of language...of logic...in describing particular aspects of human interactions. And you know that critical distinction that I make. Here and now, of course.

And how is metaphysical nihilism different from epistemological nihilism?

"Metaphysics is an area of philosophy concerned with what there is in the universe (ontology) and the nature of what exists. Epistemology is a related area interested in knowledge and how we know things about the universe. khan academy

Given a particular context, of course.

[attofishpi]

--bla bla bla--

[iambiguous]

Paradox of nihilism
wikipedia

Existential nihilism

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no inherent meaning whatsoever, and that humanity, both in an individual sense and in a collective sense, has no purpose. That is to say: while objects have the capacity for purpose or meaning, there is no universal truth that guides this individual purpose.

On the other hand, while no less a theory than that proposed by the metaphysical nihilists, existential nihilists [of my own ilk] note that human interactions [historically, culturally and pertaining to personal experiences rooted intersubjectively in dasein], are bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting assessments regarding what any number of things are said to mean or what their purpose is proposed to be.

The difficultly here comes in simply noting all of the at times hopelessly conflicting assessments of what human interactions are said to mean [ontologically] and what their proported purpose is [teleologically]. In other words, the part where the theorists up and down the moral and political and spiritual spectrum all insist that "for all practical prposes" their own assessment really, really is the One True Path.

And the part where I am more than willing to acknowledge there may well be an essential meaning, an essential morality, an essential metaphysics...God or No God.

In fact, any numberr of us here insist there is. And their own True Path is often anchored to one or another rendition of "or else".

Thus, without a universal purpose, all meaning that objects could have does not exist, and the idea of any purpose or meaning attributed to something is untrue.

Again, though, all of this is moot if you still believe your own moral and political assessment encompasses both an ontological meaning and a teleological purpose. And merely believing it need be all that it takes to make it true. And while we may still live in a world where the objectivists among us fail to actually demonstrate their own dogmas, it's not like the metaphysical or existential nihilists among us are any more sucessful in demonstrating that they don't exist.

If this is taken as a given, then existential nihilism holds that humans are compelled to make up meaning for themselves and others in the absence of a universal, unilateral meaning in order to spare themselves from the negativity surrounding the inevitability of death.

The good news though is that as long as one need but take a "leap of faith" or conjure up a "wager" to "anchor" the Real Me to immortality and salvation, millions upon millions will continue to do so.

Existential nihilism explores both the nature of this invention and the effectiveness of creating meaning for oneself and others, as well as whether the latter is even possible. It has received the most attention out of all forms of nihilism in both literary and popular media.

In other words, any number of existentialists are able to make distinctions between, say, God and No God, between living "authentically" or "inauthentically", between some measure of hope for moral Commandments and little or no measure whatsoever.

Ethical nihilism

According to Jonna Bornemark, "the paradox of nihilism is the choice to continue one's own life while at the same time stating that it is not worth more than any other life". Richard Ian Wright sees relativism as the root of the paradox.

And that is because, in my view, for any number of mere mortals in a No God world, essential meaning and morality and metaphysics are simple not necessary to sustain an enormously fulfilling life...if only all the way to the grave.

[iambiguous]

What Nihilism Is Not
Nolen Gertz

Nihilism, not unlike time (according to Augustine) or porn (according to the U.S. Supreme Court), is one of those concepts that we are all pretty sure we know the meaning of unless someone asks us to define it.

Or, of far greater interest to me, the extent to which someone will take their definition of nihilism and provide us with examples of how they intertwine it in their interactions with others. Especially interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Nihil means “nothing.” -ism means “ideology.” Yet when we try to combine these terms, the combination seems to immediately refute itself, as the idea that nihilism is the “ideology of nothing” appears to be nonsensical.

Then the part where over and again nihilism is anchored to means rather than to ends. In fact there are any number of people who will call those like Hitler nihilists because the means they employ are often nothing less than barbaric.

Or this from the NYT:

"From the beginning of Al Qaeda, there were reformers and there were nihilists. The dynamic between them was irreconcilable and self-destructive, but events were moving so quickly that it was almost impossible to tell the philosophers from the sociopaths. They were glued together by the charismatic personality of Osama bin Laden, which contained both strands, idealism and nihilism, in a potent mix.”

Again, how does this not pertain far more to means rather than to ends? As the author notes, "[t]hey did not see themselves as terrorists but as revolutionaries who, like all such men throughout history, had been pushed into action by the simple human need for justice."

But for me it revolves by and large around a "for all practical purposes" fractured and fragmented moral and political philosophy. And the belief "here and now" that this pertains to ends first and foremost.

To say that this means that someone “believes in nothing” is not really much more helpful, as believing in something suggests there is something to be believed in, but if that something is nothing, then there is not something to be believed in, in which case believing in nothing is again a self-refuting idea.

Language games let's call them.

Then the part where words can be a precise fit in describing the either/or world around us. Either something is this or it is that. And virtually everyone concurs. But then the parts that get considerably more problematic...like calling someone a terrorist rather than a revolutionary.

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Avoiding responsibility is a major human sport, matched by the ability to concoct rationalizations. As a mid-20th century figure, Camus inherited the responsibility question as part of a wider framework: religion or nihilism, choose one. His take: they’re both bad. Each makes it easy to avoid responsibility.

Right, like there's hardly any difference at all between them here.

With many religions, however, being responsible -- keeping the faith -- sustains objective morality all the way to the grave. And having made it that far, you are then rewarded further [for all of eternity] with immortality and salvation.

With nihilism, on the other hand...?

And while some nihilists do become amoral sociopaths or political autocrats, others embrace one or another rendition of moderation, negotiation and compromise.

The dilemma seems odd today. Religion should encourage responsibility. Nihilism, well, the very label has faded. It used to signal that life is objectively meaningless, and that all meaning is subjective. Although the word has faded, the perspective lives on in phrases like “it’s up to the individual,” “whatever floats your boat,” “don’t make value judgments.”

In fact, I have never gone this far out on the philosophical limb myself. Instead, I come back to that crucial distinction between meaning in the either/or world and meaning in the is/ought world. It's a fact -- culturally -- that every human community that has ever existed was burdened with the task of creating "rules of behavior".

After that, well, the rest is history.

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Camus wrote The Plague in a way that it would challenge the last pronouncement. Readers are led to make value judgments, to praise Rieux and the volunteers who combat the plague.

Yes, and as the recent covid pandemic reminded us, even in regard to deadly diseases value judgments tend to be aligned with one or another One True Path. Meaning one or another set of political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein. For some then covid was little more than those ghastly Big Brother liberals trying to take over, well, everything, right?

Here is where “it’s up to the individual” comes into play. It’s an expression with two separate meanings. The phrase, rightly, (a) emphasizes the personal dimension in choice. In a challenging situation, it’s up to the individual to select among options.

Click, of course.

So far so good. However, the fan of full-blown nihilism adds a second dimension. “It’s up to the individual” becomes (b) “whatever choice the individual makes is the right one.”

In other words, in a world thought by some to be "beyond good and evil", there are no essential moral truths. But then all those who insist quite the opposite, that they themselves reflect the very embodiment of objective morality.

To grasp the contrast, think of nutrition. It’s up to the individual (a) to decide which foodstuffs to ingest. It’s not up to the individual (b) whether those choices are healthy or not.

That's not the contrast I would make. After all, there are clearly foods that can be shown to be healthier than others. Instead, a better contrast would revolve around those who insist that eating meat is not only unhealthy but is as well immoral.

Camus challenged nihilism because of ‘b’. When ‘a’ and ‘b’ are run together, evaluations like “Dr Rieux’s actions are honorable” don’t mean much. “It’s up to the individual” translates into “That’s just your opinion.”

Again, however, the contrast here between the either/or world and the is/ought world. For example, it is a fact that Donald Trump was sworn into office today as president of the United States. On the other hand, is it a fact that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Why not, then, go with religion? For Camus, as for Nietzsche before him, religion just offers a disguised version of nihilism. The world is ‘fallen’, meaningless in itself. All values derive from divine commands.

Here we go again: God and religion as manifestations of nihilism?

Which, from my own frame of mind, only makes sense if the focus is on means rather than ends. 9/11 perhaps being the classic example of this. Fly jet planes into buildings deliberately killing yourself and hundreds and hundreds of others.

Nihilists!

When, of course, as some note, religion was invented in order to sustain One True Paths all the way to grave. And then some, right? As in immortaluty and salvation for all of eternity in Paradise.

Then the part where those who are indoctrinated to believe such things can be indoctrinated in turn to blow themselves and others to pieces in the name of God.

Go ahead, ask these fanatics if they are nihilists.

Such an emphasis on God’s will bothered Camus

On the other hand, Camus was also bothered in turn by those existentialists able to reconcile "existence is prior to essesnse" with Marxism. While at the same time given particularly brutal policies, Marxists themselves are said by some to be nihilists.

The Plague has a priest called Father Paneloux who delivers two sermons with standard themes: (1) “it’s a punishment for sins;” (2) “God works in mysterious ways.”

And all the faithful need do is to believe it. And if you're wondering how this can possibly include the lives of innocent children, you can then marvel all the more at just how mysterious God's ways truly must be.

As far as the doctor is concerned, such sermons carry dangerous messages: find scapegoats, welcome ignorance, accept God’s will, don’t roll up your sleeves and help.

On the other hand, if the doctor is being honest with himself, he''ll admit that No God carries with it the assumption there is no objective morality and no immortality and salvation. Or, for some of us, a fractured and fragmented morality and then oblivion.

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Rieux realizes that despite bad theory, most religious individuals, in practice, go to a physician when ill. In this regard, Rieux has gotten surprising support. A real priest, the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, agreed.

On the other hand, if you genuinely do believe that a God, the God, your God does exist, why is it out of the question to implore the flock not to go to doctors or to hospitals when they are ill? Instead, either through a leap of faith, "because the Bible says so" or because William Lane Craig convinced you the evidence is there, you fall back on the assumption that because God works in mysterious ways, sickness and diseases are just part and parcel of His Divine plan. If your son or daughter is gravely ill you accept that as God's will. You grieve his or her loss on this side of the grave, but you also truly do believe that you will be reunited once again in Heaven. And then for all of eternity.

It really comes down to what you are willing to believe [and do] on this side of the grave in order to please God and assure yourself that immortality and salvation are all the rewards you'll ever need.

Merton thought Camus was right to judge Father Paneloux’s sermons as “revolting.” It was appalling that the cleric would encourage his flock to “submit to a will we do not understand and even to adore and love what appears horrible.”

Yes, that is, no doubt, one way to encompass it. On the other hand, religious faiths around the globe require of the flocks any number of behaviors that others will find especially revolting. But so what? The only thing that matters within any number of congregations is what God may or may not find revolting.

Camus’s mistake, according to Merton, was believing that such an attitude is “essential to Christianity.” Idol worship is everywhere and even priests can worship false gods.

In other words, the True Christian Syndrome. Still embedded in the fact any number of men and women worshipping and adoring a completely different God will insist it is the Christian flocks who worship the false God.

Merton provides a sort of mirror image of the ‘a’ and ‘b’ distinction as regards nihilism. What’s right is (a) acceptance of a divinity. What’s wrong is (b) the typical way that divinity is understood.

Or what's wrong revolves around not understanding the Divitinty as Merton did?

Camus had little patience for irresolvable ideological subtleties. His focus was on “What should I do?” His answer: become ‘true healers’. Become like doctors. Where there is illness, bring healing. Where there is suffering, bring relief. Churchgoers praying are not bringing relief.

On the other hand, "what should I do?" in order to pass muster on Judgment Day? Then the part regarding any number of moral conflagrations whereby one set of political policies brings suffering to some and relief to others.

Nihilists, denying any deep meaning to the words ‘better’, and ‘worse’, are not sufficiently motivated. “What should I do?” Join the healers, do your part.

Right, like the assessment of healers among conservatives and the assessment of healers among liberals doesn't expose the limitations of that approach.

[iambiguous]

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

Writing a book about nihilism in 2020 was a strange experience. Whenever anyone asked about the project they’d offer the same feedback: “It’s a great time to be nihilist!” I get the sentiment. In the face of rolling health, financial and climate crises, the population is rich with existential dread. But, as I have rebutted many times, nihilism isn’t relevant because it mirrors our fears and apathies; it’s relevant for its ability to soothe our exhausted 21st century brains.

I'm trying to imagine all of the conflicting resctions to this from the objectivists among us.

Also, it may be a great time for some to be nihilists but I suspect that applies only to those who by and large live satisfying, fulfilling lives in which they have access to any number of options. That's just how it basically works for most of us, in my view. There's our philosophy of life and there's the set of circumstances we find ourselves in. Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don't.

Then the part where any number of men and women are able to fall back on one or another One True Path to keep them afloat during troubling times. God or No God. And, of course, this is all just another manifestation of dasein from my own frame of mind.

Historically, nihilism hasn’t had the sunniest reputation. At its simplest, it’s a declaration that life is meaningless. That the systems we subscribe to, to give us a sense of purpose (religion, politics etc), are constructs.

Biological constructs, historical constructs, cultural constructs, social, political and economic constructs. Then those who are able to convince themselves that their own constructs are derived from God or one or another political ideology or from one or another school of philosophy or from nature itself. In other words, God, politics, philosophy and nature as they [and only they] understand it.

Notions of morality, decency and goodness are not inherent to the fabric of existence, but concepts we allow to dictate our collective reality. Sure, stating that everything you love, value or seek comfort in is meaningless can feel like a bitter declaration. But it doesn’t have to be.

And what has human history to date taught us about notions of morality, decency and goodness other than one or another rendition of "you are either 'one of us' in sharing a particular dogma or 'one of them' who don't."

Then, in regard to value judgments, that crucial distinction between existential meaning and essential meaning. And the part where we are able to demonstrate that what something means to us it should also mean to all rational men and women.