Philosophy Now Forum

The nihilist creed is fascinating to say the least. Philosophers say something and the person who comes from a very specific quarter of your city/town/village/room, perhaps your happy next-door-neighbor, will say something else. The problem then is how to talk to your priest about the elephant in the church!

What is Nihilism?
Curated by TheCollector

Nihilism Questioned Religion

Or, to put it another way, for some: nihilism begins with the death of God. However, for the moral nihilists, only in regard to the is/ought world.

To wit...

In the wake of the Enlightenment, and its subsequent discoveries of...reasoning, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued that Christianity no longer made sense. He argued that a totalizing system that explained all truths about the world was a fundamentally flawed system, because the world is so complex, nuanced, and unpredictable. In his much talked about essay Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power), 1901, Nietzsche wrote, “God is dead.” He was referring to the rise in scientific knowledge and the way it eroded the foundational system of Christian belief that had been a bedrock of European society.

God is dead. What then is the secular equivalent of Sin if not another "totalizing system" revolving around philosophy or ideology or one or another equivalent of God. Of course, the faithful still managed to include God in the "human condition" because, after all, what can science tell us about moral truths or the truly Big Questions. Also, what does science have in the way of immortality? As for the complex, nuanced and unpredictable interactions of mere mortals, all of that is simply subsumed in God's mysterious ways. He is the part that, in the end, seamlessly intertwines the parts into the whole.

It is worth noting that Nietzsche didn’t see this as a positive thing – on the contrary, he was extremely worried about the impact this would have on civilization. He even predicted that the loss of faith would lead to the greatest crisis in human history. In his essay Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, 1888, Nietzsche wrote, “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”

And, indeed, the rest is history. No God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600

Nihilism, as commonly understood is belief in nothing, thus there would be nothing to talk about.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 3:17 pmNo God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

You really see only these two options in an amoral universe?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:20 am Nihilism, as commonly understood is belief in nothing, thus there would be nothing to talk about.

I rather loved this. The thread itself is spitting in the face of the idea that anyone here is a nihilist.

If one sits on one's bed all day, head down, sighing and moaning and when asked one says 'I love life', it would be odd.

Behavior trumps verbal assertions.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 12:15 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 3:17 pmNo God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

You really see only these two options in an amoral universe?

The alternative is to recognize what the seeds of morality are, and what morality is relative to. There are examples of morality throughout nature where there are communities of given creatures, it might be considered a survival mechanism/behavior. Morality is relative to biology and the sense of self's wellbeing. In a community this sense of self is expanded to incorporate all like members of a given group, so where there is this identity with others compassion arises, and compassion gives rise to morality. So, it is something in the way of self-interest, an expanded sense of self and identity with others in community. The essence of all organisms are indeed of the same nature, differing only in structure and form. For much of humanity, this is a more difficult circumstance in which to identify with other creatures but it does occur. No identification with, no compassion thus no morality.

It is worth noting that Nietzsche didn’t see this as a positive thing – on the contrary, he was extremely worried about the impact [the death of God and nihilism] would have on civilization. He even predicted that the loss of faith would lead to the greatest crisis in human history. In his essay Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, 1888, Nietzsche wrote, “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”

iambiguous wrote:And, indeed, the rest is history. No God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 12:15 pm You really see only these two options in an amoral universe?

Okay, given a particular context of your own choosing, please note what you deem any additional options might be.

Or anyone else here as well.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 6:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:And, indeed, the rest is history. No God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 12:15 pm You really see only these two options in an amoral universe?

Okay, given a particular context of your own choosing, please note what you deem any additional options might be.

I don't see a particular context in your two options (dogma & might makes right). Why am I burdened then with offerin' a particular context?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:20 am Nihilism, as commonly understood is belief in nothing, thus there would be nothing to talk about.

Or as defined by particular philosophers?

On the other hand, if we are all just the embodiment of characters in a sim world or some demonic dream world or the inventor of a Matrix world, even what we do talk about is all or in part "beyond our control".

Or if we are all wholly determined by the laws of matter to talk about only that which we are never able not to talk about?

Or if there is a God in the picture somehow?

But, in accepting all that we do not know about where and how and why the "human condition" fits into a complete understanding of existence itself, most of us are able to make a distinction between sharing a belief about things that seem objectively true for all of us in the either/or world and endlessly squabbling about what to believe is true in the is/ought world, right?

The part I root existentially in dasein and others root in different things.

So, in regard to nihilism, I suggest that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances and explore all of the things that, as philosophers, we believe.

And then the part where we attempt to demonstrate empirically, materially, phenomenologically, etc., why others who wish to be deemed rational, are obligated to believe the same.

henry quirk aka Mr. Wiggle wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 6:37 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 6:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:And, indeed, the rest is history. No God and there are really only two alternatives:

1] invent the secular equivalent of Him: Objectivism, socialism, Communism, fascism, anarchism. And, historically, on and on. Make that the source of all Commandments for mere mortals. Then make life a living hell on Earth for those who refused to toe the line. Then, well, "die like a man".
2] embrace the amoral commandments of the "show me the money", "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" global capitalists. Or the "me, myself and I" mentality of the sociopaths.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 12:15 pm You really see only these two options in an amoral universe?

Okay, given a particular context of your own choosing, please note what you deem any additional options might be.

I don't see a particular context in your two options (dogma & might makes right). Why am I burdened then with offerin' a particular context?

Okay, John believes that no government has the right to tell him he can't buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons. It's his natural born right to do what he has come to believe is true in following the dictates of Reason. And he might predicate this on Libertarianism or Anarchism or on some other philosophical/deontological assessment of human rights. And in any context.

Jane is a sociopath. She believes that in a No God world right and wrong revolves around whatever she herself deems to be in her own best interests. Whatever gratifies her, fulfils her, separates her from the flocks of sheep that most others are. And in any context.

Now, your "best of all possible worlds" options in your contexts.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 7:00 pmOkay, John believes that no government has the right to tell him he can't buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons. It's his natural born right to do what he has come to believe is true in following the dictates of Reason. And he might predicate this on Libertarianism or Anarchism or on some other philosophical/deontological assessment of human rights. And in any context.

You took mine...and butchered it.

John, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Tell me why this is wrong-headed.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:19 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 7:00 pmOkay, John believes that no government has the right to tell him he can't buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons. It's his natural born right to do what he has come to believe is true in following the dictates of Reason. And he might predicate this on Libertarianism or Anarchism or on some other philosophical/deontological assessment of human rights. And in any context.

You took mine...and butchered it.

John, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Come on henry, doesn't this revolve around the assumption that if John decides "intuitively" it is his "natural, inalienable" right to "buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons" that need be as far as it goes? And that if other citizens decide "intuitively" to pass laws that prohibit the buying and selling of grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons that need be as far as it goes for them too? As though the only thing that matters in the community is what John is able to justify.

Then back to John being able to act out his intuitions because he has all the power [might makes right] or because he is able to convince the entire community that he is right [right makes might] or he agrees to negotiate and compromise with those who don't agree with him [democracy and the rule of law].

Then the part where "somehow" "in your head" you connect all of this intuition stuff back to the Deist God. A sheer leap of faith, right?



I mean, imagine if instead of handguns and rifles and shotgun, these guys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

...used grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons to accomplish their righteous intentions.

Try to imagine the reaction of citizens to an argument like yours.

You are basically reducing human morality down to what any particular individual comes to believe "intuitively" encompasses a "natural, inalienable" right.

I'm sure that Hitler justified the Holocaust..."intuitively" and otherwise...as his own natural, inalienable right.

Then the part that you must reject above all else: that your own value judgments here may well be rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein given the particular life you lived and may well be construed by you to be wrong given new information and knowledge down the road.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 6:49 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:19 pmJohn, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Tell me why this is wrong-headed.

Come on henry, doesn't this revolve around the assumption that if John decides "intuitively" it is his "natural, inalienable" right to "buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons" that need be as far as it goes?

You describe whimsey. I describe responsibility. The two aren't remotely synonymous.

And that if other citizens decide "intuitively" to pass laws that prohibit the buying and selling of grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons that need be as far as it goes for them too? As though the only thing that matters in the community is what John is able to justify.

Folks are resourceful, always comin' up with good reasons to violate life, liberty, and property.

Then back to John being able to act out his intuitions because he has all the power [might makes right] or because he is able to convince the entire community that he is right [right makes might] or he agrees to negotiate and compromise with those who don't agree with him [democracy and the rule of law].

Of course we won't talk about John just leavin' folks be and folks leavin' him be as a viable option. Nope, it's always who gets to dominate who with you people.

Then the part where "somehow" "in your head" you connect all of this intuition stuff back to the Deist God. A sheer leap of faith, right?

Nope. I connect all this -- as a matter of thinkin' -- forward to God (the summary of which I posted as that conversation with Harbal, the conversation you snipped out and didn't substantively comment on).

I mean, imagine if instead of handguns and rifles and shotgun, these guys...used grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons to accomplish their righteous intentions.

Better yet: imagine if these weapon-free zones the murderers gravitate to were instead premises patrolled by armed security or armed personnel on site zones.

Try to imagine the reaction of citizens to an argument like yours.

I don't have to imagine it. The anti-gunners are quite clear on their agenda and what they think of people like me.

You are basically reducing human morality down to what any particular individual comes to believe "intuitively" encompasses a "natural, inalienable" right.

Really? You need to re-read what I posted. Here it is again...

John, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Tell me why this is wrong-headed.
(note the bold, underlined, challenge: you haven't taken it up)

I'm sure that Hitler justified the Holocaust..."intuitively" and otherwise...as his own natural, inalienable right.

Even a casual review of the history shows otherwise. He, like so many, like yourself, drummed up good reasons to violate life, liberty, and property.

Then the part that you must reject above all else: that your own value judgments here may well be rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein given the particular life you lived and may well be construed by you to be wrong given new information and knowledge down the road.

I do, of course, reject it. Your lil an individual is just the product of his experiences, dasein, is hogwash. And, as I say, new knowledge and experience can change one's thinkin'. As usual, though, you dismiss this (presumably becuz of the priviso).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:42 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 6:49 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:19 pmJohn, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Tell me why this is wrong-headed.

Come on henry, doesn't this revolve around the assumption that if John decides "intuitively" it is his "natural, inalienable" right to "buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons" that need be as far as it goes?

You describe whimsey. I describe responsibility. The two aren't remotely synonymous.

Please. When someone in a community says that it is irresponsible to argue it is a "'natural, inalienable' right to 'buy or sell grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons'", they are just being whimsical? But when they say that it is one's natural, inalienable right, they are being responsible? That's how the objectivist mentality always unfolds. You can't seem to recognize, in my opinion, just how run-of-the-mill an objectivist you are here, henry. I'll keep plugging away though.

And that if other citizens decide "intuitively" to pass laws that prohibit the buying and selling of grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons that need be as far as it goes for them too? As though the only thing that matters in the community is what John is able to justify.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:42 pmFolks are resourceful, always comin' up with good reasons to violate life, liberty, and property.

Again, the same thing. When citizens in a community come up with what they construe to be "good reasons" to prohibit the sale of these weapons, their reasons are "whimsical". Only the "good reasons" of those who think exactly like you do are "responsible". Only their reasons reflect a "resourceful" frame of mind. And, of course, the same with all of the rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices pertaining to "life, liberty and property". The liberals are entirely whimsical and irresponsible, the libertarians entirely responsible and resourceful.

Then all these guys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...weighing in with their own "my way or the highway" distinction between whimsical and responsible.

Then the part where you avoid noting how your own value judgments are not rooted existentially in the life you lived and instead connect the dots to God. God created us such that we can grasp the responsible answers. Or simply be whimsical and wrong.

Then back to John being able to act out his intuitions because he has all the power [might makes right] or because he is able to convince the entire community that he is right [right makes might] or he agrees to negotiate and compromise with those who don't agree with him [democracy and the rule of law].

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:42 pm Of course we won't talk about John just leavin' folks be and folks leavin' him be as a viable option. Nope, it's always who gets to dominate who with you people.

Unbelievable. Folks here can argue back and forth regarding which argument is more reasonable. But out in the real world what always counts is who has or does not have the actual political power to prescribe or proscribe behaviors. And then the power to enforce the law. And here the "buying and selling of grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons" necessarily comes down to one or another combination of might makes right [autocracy/plutocracy], right makes might [objectivism/idealism] or moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law].

Somebody is always going to predominate, right? Only if the liberals dominate those like you they are doing so whimsically, irresponsibly and anything but resourcefully.

Then the part where "somehow" "in your head" you connect all of this intuition stuff back to the Deist God. A sheer leap of faith, right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:42 pm Nope. I connect all this -- as a matter of thinkin' -- forward to God (the summary of which I posted as that conversation with Harbal, the conversation you snipped out and didn't substantively comment on).

Okay, allow me to snip it back in here:

henry quirk wrote: I said God created man as a free will with natural rights and man has the capacity to recognize and respect those natural rights. Surely, you see the difference, yeah? Our understanding of natural rights is intuitive. We don't reason natural rights out.

Well, there you go. When confronted with this...

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

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

...you bring it back to a God that, once again, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of. Though not unlike all of these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

And [of course] "natural rights" in regard to abortion and guns and property and the like are what you say they are.

Why do you say it? Well, God provided you with the capacity to grasp things intuitively. You "just know" viscerally, deep down in your gut that what you believe about these things is true. And if those like Harbel, myself and others believe intuitively in something else, then...then what, henry?

henry quirk wrote: As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc.

No, henry, in my view, that is simply preposterous. Even those like gib and magsj and maia who posit their own rendition of this deep down inside intrinsic/spiritual/emotional Self will no doubt differ from you regarding any number of issues. And certainly Deists themselves are all over the board morally and politically.

There are literally millions upon millions of men and women around the globe who intertwine "I" profoundly in one or another "we". Many far more willing to identity with the family or the community than with the so-called "rugged individual" mentality.

And that's before we get to the amoral global capitalists and narcissistic sociopaths who see others only as a means to their own selfish ends.

I mean, imagine if instead of handguns and rifles and shotgun, these guys...used grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons to accomplish their righteous intentions.

henry quirk wrote: Better yet: imagine if these weapon-free zones the murderers gravitate to were instead premises patrolled by armed security or armed personnel on site zones.

What's that got to do with what I'm asking you to imagine? If murderers used them in or out of the weapons free zone. And if the security folks were similarly armed.

Right now there is yet another mass shooting unfolding here in America. At an "outlet mall" in Allen, Texas. At least nine dead. The shooter was taken down by an Allen police officer there on an entirely different call. Okay, what if both the shooter and the cop used bazookas and grenades instead?

You are basically reducing human morality down to what any particular individual comes to believe "intuitively" encompasses a "natural, inalienable" right.

henry quirk wrote: Really? You need to re-read what I posted. Here it is again...

John, like any other, every other, person has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. When someone, anyone, takes it upon themselves to unjustly monkey around with, or unjustly deprive, John of his life, liberty, or property, John can defend himself.

Note to others:

What am I missing? How am I misconstruing henry's point here? My point is that John's rendition of his own "natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property" will come into conflict in almost every community with those who insist it is their own natural, inalienable right to live somewhere where "grenades or bazookas or artillery pieces or RPGs or IEDs or chemical and biological weapons" are prohibited in regard to private citizens.

All henry does over and over and over and over again is basically to insist that his take on life, liberty and property is responsible and resourceful while anyone here who does not share his own point of view is, at best, just being whimsical.

henry quirk wrote: Tell me why this is wrong-headed.[/i]
(note the bold, underlined, challenge: you haven't taken it up)

I'm not arguing that it is inherently or necessarily wrong-headed. I'm noting only that others in the community will disagree with you in having acquired existentially their own sets of political prejudices rooted in dasein.

I'm sure that Hitler justified the Holocaust..."intuitively" and otherwise...as his own natural, inalienable right.

henry quirk wrote: Even a casual review of the history shows otherwise. He, like so many, like yourself, drummed up good reasons to violate life, liberty, and property.

He believed that in order to sustain his own understanding of what "responsibly" and "resourcefully" constituted life, liberty and property for the Aryan race in Germany, it was imperative to murder every Jew he could get his hands on. Just as others believe that in order to sustain their own understanding of what "responsibly" and "resourcefully" constituted life, liberty and property for the citizens of their community it was necessary to prohibit the buying and selling of "grenades and bazookas and artillery pieces and RPGs and IEDs and chemical and biological weapons."

To which you would then insist, "no, that's just being whimsical".

Then the part that you must reject above all else: that your own value judgments here may well be rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein given the particular life you lived and may well be construed by you to be wrong given new information and knowledge down the road.

henry quirk wrote: I do, of course, reject it. Your lil an individual is just the product of his experiences, dasein, is hogwash.

Back again to the huge gap between how you describe me here and how I describe myself:

No, it means that given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn. But then those who follow their own "dictates of Reason and Nature" ...

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

...convince themselves that only their own path is the One True Path.

In fact, in my view, that's what the God world folks and the deontological philosophers do...swap out the "rooted existentially in dasein" man for the man said to be "one of us". The good guys, the smart guys.

henry quirk wrote: And, as I say, new knowledge and experience can change one's thinkin'. As usual, though, you dismiss this (presumably becuz of the priviso).

Huh? You say [as I do] that you could read new information and knowledge or hear new information and knowledge or view new information and knowledge...and change your mind about abortion or guns or transgenders or life or liberty or property.

You change your thinking about them and that prompts you to change your behavior.

So, what's this bit about me "dismiss[ing] this (presumably becuz of the priviso)" supposed to mean?

What is Nihilism?
Curated by TheCollector

Nihilists Believed Nothing Matters

If there was no God, no heaven and hell, and no real authority, Nihilism argued that nothing had any meaning, and there was no higher purpose or calling in life.

A higher purpose. A higher calling. What on Earth does that mean? Well, for many it means God and religion. Ultimately everything that we do is judged by God. So that way we can think ourselves into believing that we wouldn't do what we do except that in choosing not to do it we risk the wrath of God. The Good Book becomes the higher meaning, the higher calling.

Religion in particular precisely because it does encompass both sides of the grave. Sure, there are secular One True Paths left and right. And down here while on them you can anchor yourself to that meaning and calling. But, come on, what's the handful of decades encompassing the cradle to the grave next to all of eternity?

So don't expect the Gods to go away anytime soon.

It’s a pretty depressing attitude, defined by pessimism and skepticism. And at times this attitude has led to wanton acts of violence and extremism.

It's certainly the key component sustaining any number of sociopaths among us.

Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard was deeply religious, and he argued that we could still believe in the “paradoxical infinite”, or blind faith, even if Nihilism threatened to destroy it. Meanwhile, Nietzsche believed we should accept the fear and uncertainty of the unknown, in order to pass through it and find a new higher calling.

Tell me this isn't rooted existentially in dasein. Different lives, different experiences, different relationships, different information and knowledge all derived from particular worlds. Just as it all comes together for you and I in regard to nihilism. Some [most] of us cling to one or another God or No God objectivist font, some [far fewer] begin to fracture and fragment.

And then, one way or the other, one by one, nihilist or not, we all tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Unless of course that's wrong.