Nihilism

[Hegesias]

Has anyone read a book called The Denial of Death? Wikipedia summarises it better than I could:

The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism. Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving our symbolic halves. By embarking on what Becker refers to as an "immortality project" (or causa sui), in which a people create or become part of something which they feel will last forever; people feel they have "become" heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to their physical body that will one day die. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, significance in the grand scheme of things.

From this premise, mental illness is most insightfully extrapolated as a bogging down in one's hero system(s). When someone is experiencing depression, their causa sui (or heroism project) is failing, and they are being consistently reminded of their mortality and insignificance as a result. Schizophrenia is a step further than depression in which one's causa sui is falling apart, making it impossible to engender sufficient defense mechanisms against their mortality; henceforth, the schizophrenic has to create their own reality or "world" in which they are better heroes. Becker argues that the conflict between immortality projects which contradict each other (particularly in religion) is the wellspring for the destruction and misery in our world caused by wars, bigotry, genocide, racism, nationalism, and so forth, since an immortality project which contradicts others indirectly suggests that the others are wrong.

Another theme running throughout the book is that humanity's traditional "hero-systems" i.e. religion, are no longer convincing in the age of reason; science is attempting to solve the problem of humanity, something that Becker feels it can never do. The book states that we need new convincing "illusions" that enable us to feel heroic in the grand scheme of things, i.e. immortal.

------------------

Any thoughts on this proposed meaning of life?

[Wyman]

From this premise, mental illness is most insightfully extrapolated as a bogging down in one's hero system(s). When someone is experiencing depression, their causa sui (or heroism project) is failing, and they are being consistently reminded of their mortality and insignificance as a result. Schizophrenia is a step further than depression in which one's causa sui is falling apart, making it impossible to engender sufficient defense mechanisms against their mortality; henceforth, the schizophrenic has to create their own reality or "world" in which they are better heroes.

This is tripe. Hyper-simplistic, as is describing humans as a duality between body and symbolic self (identity). Suppose I say 'People look for a purpose in life,' 'People like to believe they've made a difference in the world,' 'Life is what you make of it.' Backer seems to be peddling such bromides cloaked in academic lingo.

[Dalek Prime]

Hegesias, sounds similar to what Peter Wessel Zapffe discussed, but came to a different conclusion than this fellow, much in the same way Schopenhauer and Neitzche, their spiritual pedecessors, disagreed. I might suggest you read him. Only his essay, "The Last Messiah", has been translated from the Norsk.

With Zapffe, I agree. But not this Neitzche offshoot.

(Just to mention, Zapffe was an antinatalist, not a nihilist. I know you didn't say, but I am.)

Btw, if one needs convincing illusions for mankind, as both philosophers say, then there is no meaning to life, so I would reconsider your final phrase. And don't forget to read Zapffe. It's not long, and definitely worth your while, given your interests.

(Welcome to the forum, btw. Watch for shrapnel. )

[Dalek Prime]

Becker seems to be peddling such bromides cloaked in academic lingo.

Totally agree. Offering his meaning, is not meaningful. Zapffe doesn't offer bromides. I wonder if Becker read Zapffe?

[Hegesias]

Thanks for your replies and for the book suggestion. I'll see if I can find a decent summary of it online and perhaps return to post my thoughts.

[Hegesias]

Ah, interesting... I just read the Wikipedia summary of Wessel's essay The Last Messiah. Essentially, Wessel attributes an overly high intellect as the main cause of the human condition.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on theme:

It seems to me that everyone associated with existentialism including Kirkegaard is advocating a Socratic "noble lie". And they're lying to themselves and trying to convince themselves and their audience. Nietzsche does the same trying to fabricate meaning from the void and Camus' take on it in The Myth of Sisyphus just harks back to the Stoics.

The impression I get from Friedrich Jacobi and Kirkegaard is they know Abrahamic monotheism is absurd but they need to believe in the absurd; take a "leap of faith" in order to attempt to ascribe meaning to their lives and existence. I get the same impression when Machiavelli said a lack of religion is a sure sign of decay in a civilisation. The key point is that he didn't say Christianity but rather "religion" and was making reference to ancient pagan city states as well as contemporary Christian ones.

Sorry about my hurried, unpolished writing. I just wanted to quickly convey my thoughts.

Some of the more intelligent political "conservatives" I have known are very much in favour of and supportive of organised Christianity and Judaism because they seem to understand that without religion the people become decadent and the civil society crumbles leading to annui and what some existentialists call "alienation".

[Dalek Prime]

I think, even without the whole essay, you understand Zapffe well. But read it anyways, because he has his solution (which has nothing to do with ending his own life), but with not bringing others into this world. Something that Camus missed completely.

[Wyman]

Ah, interesting... I just read the Wikipedia summary of Wessel's essay The Last Messiah. Essentially, Wessel attributes an overly high intellect as the main cause of the human condition.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on theme:

It seems to me that everyone associated with existentialism including Kirkegaard is advocating a Socratic "noble lie". And they're lying to themselves and trying to convince themselves and their audience. Nietzsche does the same trying to fabricate meaning from the void and Camus' take on it in The Myth of Sisyphus just harks back to the Stoics.

The impression I get from Friedrich Jacobi and Kirkegaard is they know Abrahamic monotheism is absurd but they need to believe in the absurd; take a "leap of faith" in order to attempt to ascribe meaning to their lives and existence. I get the same impression when Machiavelli said a lack of religion is a sure sign of decay in a civilisation. The key point is that he didn't say Christianity but rather "religion" and was making reference to ancient pagan city states as well as contemporary Christian ones.

Sorry about my hurried, unpolished writing. I just wanted to quickly convey my thoughts.

Some of the more intelligent political "conservatives" I have known are very much in favour of and supportive of organised Christianity and Judaism because they seem to understand that without religion the people become decadent and the civil society crumbles leading to annui and what some existentialists call "alienation".

But the 'noble lie' is a lie to those the philosopher kings would rule, not a lie to themselves. Is it even possible to lie to yourself in such a way? I don't think that 'faith' is taken by anyone as equivalent to lying to oneself.

Kierkegaard wrote about Abraham's supreme faith as he led his first son Isaac to his death. Abraham had faith that God knew best and everything would work out in the end. Abraham had unquestioning faith - someone merely lying to themselves wouldn't raise a dagger above their son's chest with the intent to kill.

Compare Dostoevsky's version of this scenario in The Brothers Karamzov. Two of the brothers, Ivan and Alyosha, have a discussion of religion - Alyosha is a devout Christian, presented in the book as a Christ-like figure. Ivan asks Alyosha if he would be willing kill a young child (or allow one to be killed) if he knew for a certainty that it would fulfill God's divine plan; so that afterwards they would all - including the killed child - be 'saved' - i.e. invited to heaven.

Alyosha says 'no' to such an action and shows that he does not have true faith in God or else lacks the strength of the truly faithful. Ivan, on the other hand, says he believes in God but doesn't want anything to do with Him. He doesn't want to be a part of a divine plan that calls for such suffering; so he rebels against God and 'gives Him back his ticket' to the kingdom of heaven.

I think Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard both think of faith as something very few believers actually have - for it is something terrifying and powerful; so much so that to have it exposes oneself to committing atrocities. That is, following the idea of 'faith' to its logical conclusion leads us to things like the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

On the other hand, following reason, atheism, socialism, secularism to their logical ends also leads us to 'one animal devouring the other' as Ivan described his brother Dmitry's killing of their father.

What's an existentialist to do?

[Dalek Prime]

According to Zapffe, we lie to ourselves all the time just to hang on, Wyman. All of us. And, for my mind, accepting the absurd is throwing in the towel. Zapffe never threw in the towel on his life. He led it to the fullest, but ensured that he would not drag anyone else into it by having children.

To put it in Camus' terms, we are stuck with the rock and the mountain (like Sisyphus). But we do not have to stick junior with it. (That was my reply to a Buddhist monk who wrote an article on the myth.)

[Dalek Prime]

Double post.

[Hegesias]

Okay, I've read the English translation of Wessel's essay now. It's interesting. But the problem with antinatalism is it's not very practical as an ideology and it's not likely to enjoy widespread appeal is it? And if it did there'd be a complete collapse of the civil society resulting from the loss of morale from such a mindset. Not to mention one hell of an ageing population problem. Are you familiar with Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist School dalekprime?

[Hegesias]

Ah, interesting... I just read the Wikipedia summary of Wessel's essay The Last Messiah. Essentially, Wessel attributes an overly high intellect as the main cause of the human condition.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on theme:

It seems to me that everyone associated with existentialism including Kirkegaard is advocating a Socratic "noble lie". And they're lying to themselves and trying to convince themselves and their audience. Nietzsche does the same trying to fabricate meaning from the void and Camus' take on it in The Myth of Sisyphus just harks back to the Stoics.

The impression I get from Friedrich Jacobi and Kirkegaard is they know Abrahamic monotheism is absurd but they need to believe in the absurd; take a "leap of faith" in order to attempt to ascribe meaning to their lives and existence. I get the same impression when Machiavelli said a lack of religion is a sure sign of decay in a civilisation. The key point is that he didn't say Christianity but rather "religion" and was making reference to ancient pagan city states as well as contemporary Christian ones.

Sorry about my hurried, unpolished writing. I just wanted to quickly convey my thoughts.

Some of the more intelligent political "conservatives" I have known are very much in favour of and supportive of organised Christianity and Judaism because they seem to understand that without religion the people become decadent and the civil society crumbles leading to annui and what some existentialists call "alienation".

But the 'noble lie' is a lie to those the philosopher kings would rule, not a lie to themselves. Is it even possible to lie to yourself in such a way? I don't think that 'faith' is taken by anyone as equivalent to lying to oneself.

Kierkegaard wrote about Abraham's supreme faith as he led his first son Isaac to his death. Abraham had faith that God knew best and everything would work out in the end. Abraham had unquestioning faith - someone merely lying to themselves wouldn't raise a dagger above their son's chest with the intent to kill.

Compare Dostoevsky's version of this scenario in The Brothers Karamzov. Two of the brothers, Ivan and Alyosha, have a discussion of religion - Alyosha is a devout Christian, presented in the book as a Christ-like figure. Ivan asks Alyosha if he would be willing kill a young child (or allow one to be killed) if he knew for a certainty that it would fulfill God's divine plan; so that afterwards they would all - including the killed child - be 'saved' - i.e. invited to heaven.

Alyosha says 'no' to such an action and shows that he does not have true faith in God or else lacks the strength of the truly faithful. Ivan, on the other hand, says he believes in God but doesn't want anything to do with Him. He doesn't want to be a part of a divine plan that calls for such suffering; so he rebels against God and 'gives Him back his ticket' to the kingdom of heaven.

I think Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard both think of faith as something very few believers actually have - for it is something terrifying and powerful; so much so that to have it exposes oneself to committing atrocities. That is, following the idea of 'faith' to its logical conclusion leads us to things like the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

On the other hand, following reason, atheism, socialism, secularism to their logical ends also leads us to 'one animal devouring the other' as Ivan described his brother Dmitry's killing of their father.

What's an existentialist to do?

Kirkegaard's understanding of faith and his take on the binding of Isaac are at odds with the Central tenets of Christianity. Kirkegaard was a fideist if you follow him to his logical conclusion.

[Dalek Prime]

Okay, I've read the English translation of Wessel's essay now. It's interesting. But the problem with antinatalism is it's not very practical as an ideology and it's not likely to enjoy widespread appeal is it? And if it did there'd be a complete collapse of the civil society resulting from the loss of morale from such a mindset. Not to mention one hell of an ageing population problem. Are you familiar with Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist School dalekprime?

I don't follow a philosophy due to its widespread appeal. I do it because I accept it as the closest thing to the truth, after much searching. So, are you telling me that his conclusion is nonsensical? How is perpetuating meaningless existence to others that don't need it, of import?

Anyways, not trying to sell anything. It seemed to fit into the topic, so I thought I'd share. But I will say, at least Zapffe offers a solution, where others say "accept it", and perpetuate the problem. That, to my mind, is behaving absurdly.

So, if you don't see value in not perpetuating absurdity, what solution do you propose in its place? So far, no one else has ever proposed one.

[Hegesias]

Okay, I've read the English translation of Wessel's essay now. It's interesting. But the problem with antinatalism is it's not very practical as an ideology and it's not likely to enjoy widespread appeal is it? And if it did there'd be a complete collapse of the civil society resulting from the loss of morale from such a mindset. Not to mention one hell of an ageing population problem. Are you familiar with Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist School dalekprime?

I don't follow a philosophy due to its widespread appeal. I do it because I accept it as the closest thing to the truth, after much searching. So, are you telling me that his conclusion is nonsensical? How is perpetuating meaningless existence to others that don't need it, of import?

Anyways, not trying to sell anything. It seemed to fit into the topic, so I thought I'd share. But I will say, at least Zapffe offers a solution, where others say "accept it", and perpetuate the problem. That, to my mind, is behaving absurdly.

So, if you don't see value in not perpetuating absurdity, what solution do you propose in its place? So far, no one else has ever proposed one.

Philosophy is not an applied discipline but you're advocating something. What you have is ideology so that's how I'm looking at it. from a practical standpoint all Zapffe could've expected to achieve is to wipe out the family lines of a handful of intellectuals who were hapless enough to stumble across his essay and foolish enough to take his advice to heart. So as an ideology it sucks big time. Anyway, if I was a moral nihilist I'd sooner snuff out the dull folk than the bright.

[Dalek Prime]

Seems I've misjudged you for being open to ideas. Have a great one.