Philosophy Now Forum

Wikipedia wrote:Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no objective meaning or purpose. The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Existentialism wrote: From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exis ... hiCrisMode
-

1. Nihilism and the Crisis of Modernity

We can find early glimpses of what might be called the “existential attitude” in the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies of antiquity, in the struggle with sin and desire in St. Augustine’s Confessions, in the intimate reflections on death and the meaning of life in Michel de Montaigne’s Essays, and in the confrontation with the “dreadful silence” of the cosmos in Blaise Pascal’s Pensées. But it was not until the nineteenth century that the ideas began to coalesce into a bona fide intellectual movement. By this time, an increasingly secular and scientific worldview was emerging and the traditional religious framework that gave pre-modern life a sense of moral orientation and cohesion was beginning to collapse. Without a north star of moral absolutes to guide us, the modern subject was left abandoned and lost, “wandering,” as Nietzsche writes, “as if through an endless nothing”.

[...]

These social transformations created the conditions for nihilism, where modern humanity suddenly found itself adrift and confused, unsure of which path to take or where to look for a stable and enduring sense of truth and meaning. The condition of nihilism involves the shocking recognition that there is no overarching reason, order, or purpose to our existence, that it is all fundamentally meaningless and absurd. Of all the existentialists, Nietzsche was the most influential and prophetic in diagnosing and conceptualizing the crisis. With the death of God and the loss of moral absolutes, we are exposed to existence “in its most terrible form … without meaning or aim” And it is against this anomic background that the question of existence, of what it means to be, becomes so urgent. But it is a question that requires taking a radically different standpoint than the one privileged by the philosophical tradition.

Chat GPT - EN (summary) wrote:Existential nihilism is a philosophical perspective that suggests life has no inherent meaning, purpose, or value. Here's a brief summary:

Core Ideas:

No Inherent Meaning: The universe and human existence are ultimately meaningless.
Rejection of Objective Values: There are no objective morals, values, or truths [EDIT: In the context of what we OUGHT to be doing] that govern life.
Human Consciousness: We are aware of this lack of meaning, which can lead to feelings of absurdity, despair, or freedom.
Responsibility & Freedom: In the absence of predefined meaning, individuals are free (and responsible) to create their own purpose.

Ben JS - ILP (2012) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/beyon ... lism/33573 (origins of Ben JS / Joe Schmoe)

I closely relate to Existentialism. Mainly that there is no objective meaning or purpose, therefore we can choose our own. Now this is where things get tricky. I’ve thought about who I am as a person, and what I value in life… what I could try to achieve. The problem is, I can’t find anything with enough integrity to pursue. Nothing that has enough value to justify the endurance of life and all it’s suffering, ignorance and general discomfort.

People are defined by their experiences. Their values and identity are shaped by their experiences. Every question our brain asks, is only relevant because we’ve chosen it. All choices lead back to the same cause. Our identity. This is a completely subjective act. Of what relevance is all the questions we ask? At the core, it would seem, we’re all seeking meaning and understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.

The truth is, we don’t need to look beyond ourselves to find our place and our meaning. I believe our pursuit of (irrelevant) ‘knowledge’ is really just our will to deny the ultimate truth. What could we possibly find that would be of significance? We know our place. We are here because we’re capable of being here. There is no intent for our existence. There is no intent. We’re mutations that are efficient at surviving.

When we’re young, we live in the moment. When we’re adults, we acquire our trinkets, theories and values. When we’re old, we put it all to rest and embrace the end. Life is but an experience, the senses, emotions and journey. The only thing that keeps us alive is our will to live and fear of death. This has just evolved due to natural selection and has no more integrity than the will to die.

Ben JS - 2012 (3rd post) wrote: Why do I describe myself as Existentialist?

I do this because I relate to the different concepts that it encompasses. Whether it’s despair due to the absurd, the will to live an authentic life, or the angst due to choice. I believe Nihilism alone ignores our subjective interest towards Life which is intrinsic to being human.

We are born with a scale that we measure Life and experience with, but the scale isn’t unbiased. It is already weighted down towards anything that affirms Life. This is due to natural selection. Those with the desire to live faired better than those without. However, this creates conflict. Our body says it is interested in Life, but our mind says Life is empty, pointless… absurd.

My position may be better described as Existential Nihilism.

Ben JS - ILP (2015) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why-i ... y/35695/29
As to what you ought be called, not certain - but existentialism seems close, which was spawned out of existential nihilism.

Wikipedia wrote: Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

Wikipedia wrote: In existentialism, the individual’s starting point is characterised by what has been called “the existential attitude”, or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.
[…]
Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher, though he did not use the term existentialism. He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely (“authentically”).

My stance, which I think is aligned with yours:

Ben JS wrote:

Person A wrote: Is there a way in which to encompass – theoretically and for all practical purposes – an objective morality? Is there a way in which rational men and women are obligated to behave if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women?

To act towards achieving and maintaining one’s ideal state, regardless of what they be.

To engage and respond to one’s environment, in a way that would result in the highest net positive - according to one’s values / priorities.

For example, one may think it’s positive to avoid pain, so avoiding pain without any other consequences, would be a net positive. It could thereby be said, if this same person put themselves into a position where they were subjected to pain, without any other consequences, this would be a net negative.

Thus, if someone acts in a way that causes more net negative, when they’ve got better alternatives - causing, if nothing else, less net negative - then they could be said to be acting unwisely, since they’re acting in a way that needlessly undermines them.

=

To this I would add, one’s values need not only reflect narrow self interest. For example, a parent may prioritize the welfare of their child of themselves, in which case, to act in a way that would as a consequence hurt their child, even if it had positive results, would likely be a net negative.

EDIT:

Also, if someone’s confident they’re going to shortly be tortured to death - It may be a lesser net negative, to commit suicide, thus avoiding a potentially greater net negative.

Ben JS wrote:

Person A wrote: How is “positive” and “negative” to be construed when what is clearly positive for the woman choosing an abortion is just as clearly construed to be negative by the father who wants the child to be born? And certainly negative for those who claim to speak for the dead fetus.

First off, I’d say it isn’t clearly positive for a woman to have an abortion in this circumstance, and it isn’t clearly negative for the father if the abortion happens.

Even within individuals there’s an array of conflicting interests, let alone between people.

Explanation:
[tab]In the case of the woman, she may love the father, and not want to hurt him. It may risk causing a breakdown in the relationship, not only with her partner, but with family - To avoid this risk is a partial positive. She may dislike the idea of abortion, but considers it due to fear. Having an abortion could potentially haunt her in later life - she may regret it.

Perhaps she doesn’t appreciate how much joy a child could bring into her life. Perhaps a child could completely change the way she lives her life, and sees the world - giving her a platform to connect to others in a way she previously lacked. Perhaps having a child could fulfill her in a way she didn’t even notice she wanted. Perhaps this pregnancy was her last opportunity to have children.

These are just a few things that could internally be conflicting for the woman in the decision to have an abortion. I would say it’s clearly a positive for the woman to have the abortion, despite wanting it.

For the father,

Persuading the mother to go through with pregnancy could damage the relationship, and hurt the mother. Having a child may be too stressful for the father, he may inevitably find it too much. Perhaps he isn’t in a position to give the child all it’s needs due to the father’s prior commitments. Having a child may inhibit him from pursuing other passions in his life.

etc. etc. etc.[/tab]

==

As for how positive/negative is to be arrived it:

One must declare a yardstick - a standard. Then positive / negative is judged in relation to that.

Mine:
[tab]I take a utilitarian approach, as said:

To engage and respond to one’s environment, in a way that would result in the highest net positive - according to one’s values / priorities - given the circumstances, and potential to succeed.

In this context, the best course of action would be arrived at by factoring in all relevant values / priorities / goals, weighting them according to their degree of concern to the individual, i.e. weighting the consequences of what happens to your child higher than, for example, the consequences of what happens to an ant on the other side of the planet.

After all consequences have been considered, one should rationally choose the one with the highest net positive, even if that means only minimizing negatives, such as in the case of suicide.

That’s roughly my standard.

It’s rational, and can be assessed beyond opinion. Regardless of where that path leads.[/tab]

Person A wrote: when someone argues that such and such a behavior is or is not moral, how is she able to establish this objectively

[tab]Morality is differentiation between good and bad. Based on whatever standard.

To say something’s moral, is to say to it’s good - to say it’s not moral, is to say it’s bad.

One can argue that there’s sufficient reason to adopt a certain standard, but until one does, morality simply isn’t applicable. Furthermore, as said earlier, we’re not born obligated to any standard. If you want to reason without someone without any objective, values, priorities - you’re shit out of luck. At that point, it becomes a matter of asserting force.

=

However, as soon as a person adopts a standard, that’s when they can be held to account. That’s when their actions can be objectively assessed.

Just like in a court of law. We’re forced to adhere to a set of standards / laws, and our actions can be assessed in accordance with these standards / laws. A court can declare objectively that one has done wrong, in relation to their standard.[/tab]
Define the objective / standard, then get the other to agree to it.

As soon as there’s an agreement on the standard, good and bad can be established in relation to that.

Ben JS - ILP (2022) wrote: There are multiple types of nihilism, each with their own scope.
iambiguous refers to being a moral nihilist, the scope being nihilism regarding morality.
I consider myself an existential nihilist - I don’t think existence has objective meaning, but we can create our own.
I could agree with iambiguous that there is no basis for objective morality, but I do believe there is one for subjective morality.

Person B wrote: Nihilism is a teenage cope for emo-type simps who are mad at their fathers.

I haven’t been following the conversation, so responding to this may be cherry picking - if so, forgive me.

This statement appears very dismissive. Nihilists can be very happy, optimistic and loving people.
I can understand how your statement may apply to Young nihilists, who may very well be lashing out.
My point is there’s more to nihilism than a teenager’s conception of nihilism.

Person B wrote: That is why they all inevitably treat their favorite writers/artists/philosophers as gods who cannot be criticized. Then they borrow some of that “holiness” to themselves by virtue of they’re being SO SMART to recognize the supreme godliness of their hallowed visionary gurus (Nietzsche simps come to mind here).

I never really had a Nietzche phase [preferred Schopenhauer] - I took issue with the community that hijacked ‘Will to Power’ as a ticket to be assholes.
However, if one interprets WtP as: life bestows a surplus of energy within each of us [energy = power], and our will is to express this energy - then it sits fine with me.
I was really influenced by his life affirmation:

If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event – and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed. - Nietzsche

Eternal return proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is greater than zero (we know this because our world exists). If space is infinite, then cosmology tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.

“If my life were to recur, then it could recur only in identical fashion.”

The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life.

Nietzsche celebrates the Greeks who, facing up to the terrors of nature and history, did not seek refuge in “a Buddhistic negation of the will,” as Schopenhauer did, but instead created tragedies in which life is affirmed as beautiful in spite of everything.

As I grow older, mend the wounds of the past, experience more, and come to have different beliefs about the nature of reality - I come closer to being in agreement with Nietzsche and affirming existence - whilst remaining an existential nihilist, as I think Nietzsche was.

==

EDIT: Ok, I see a more considerable response from you.

Person B wrote: Nihilism is a supposed rejection of meaning. In which case it should reject the meaning of nihilism, in which case nihilism would no longer exist or it would exist as some kind of empty placeholder term.

The etymology of nihilism stems from the Latin word ‘nihil’ which means nothing.
So nihilism is saying something at a certain scale is nothing or meaningless.
As said earlier in my post, there are scales/scopes to which one can be a nihilist.
Your argument stands if one claims to be a global nihilist.
To say there is absolutely no meaning, defeats the need to communicate or even define the term.
But again, not all nihilists claim there is absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

Person B wrote: But that isn’t how nihilists use nihilism, they use it to ADD more meaning into their own lives, thoughts and emotions. Nihilism is precisely meaningful to a nihilist, which is pretty ironically funny. And you can tell how meaningful it is to them because they always get super emotional about it, defend it, or talk about it all the time. Like you know, making entire huge threads and writing about it almost every day.

I think given my previous marks, you can follow the dots to see how it’s still rational [not the only rational position btw] and consistent to claim the universe doesn’t have inherent meaning, but due to the bias of the living, who create their own subjective meaning, we still have skin in the game - and discussion of this issue remains relevant to us.

Person B wrote: And not only this, but nihilism is a lie, a self-lie that nihilists tell themselves when they close their eyes and pretend that meaning isn’t there, when it always and absolutely is there.

Different scales, different scopes. Objective meaning vs subjective meaning. So I disagree that it’s a misconception, let alone a lie.

Ben JS - ILP (2022) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/nihilism/46856/437
-

Meaning, in the regard I was speaking, was to the question:
Why ought I exist? What should I being doing with my existence?
Meaning for one’s life.

With this context in mind,
objective meaning would represent a purpose for one’s existence -
that isn’t rooted in one’s own subjective preferences.

I believe there is no anchor beyond personal preferences,
to root one’s life meaning to.

A religious person may very well answer - ‘God’s will’.
‘Whatever God declares, is the best and most fundamental compass that I ought follow’.

I hope this clarifies your question.
-
And one wouldn’t want invest in building one’s life meaning on sand, if they wanted it to be sturdy.
Thus, they analyze their foundations and their building plans alike.

Keeping in context,
anchoring one’s life meaning to something imaginary [God imo],
sets one up to guide their life for the pursuit of a heaven,
which never comes.
One would sacrifice their life in servitude… to nothing.
Sounds rough.

The foundation that I built upon,
is that broader reality has no concern for us.
We’ve got ourselves alone - life has to have it’s own back.
There aren’t wider forces with our interests at heart.
Play your cards as best you see it.
-
That it’s possible two people will rationally disagree and there’s no way to reconcile it, or appeal to more fundamental truths.
If someone says, ‘It’s my life. Fuck all y’all. I’m getting mine and I don’t care who foots the bill.’
If they’re willing to face whatever threats you may lob at them, there’s no way to convince them otherwise.
And there’s no rational argument you can make, which renders their position irrational.
So if that was some objective anchor by which all could be evaluated,
then it shouldn’t result in multiple mutually exclusive answers.
The only way to get something bordering on objective,
is to say something or broad and fuzzy that it loses it’s functional utility.
‘People ought act towards their preferences / interests’ — ok, so now what?
This doesn’t resolve many questions.

Ben JS wrote: It isn’t the responsibility of the existential nihilist to decide who ought want or not want objective meaning.
There are many who do seek, or demand objective meaning - particular religious types.

From a scientific approach, it is relevant to establish the parameters of what one is evaluating - in this case: meaning.
If one is to establish a philosophy, one must lay the ground work (foundations) before building upon it.
One seeks solid foundations for which one can trust to be stable and have integrity.

The existential nihilist claims there wasn’t intent behind the origins of life.

No larger entity to look towards for any guidance.
This is relevant in the face of claims to the contrary.
This leaves us in a position where any action can only be evaluated respective to a goal.
There is no inherently wrong action.
We can only attempt to make the case as to why an action isn’t in the interest of the actor -
or why it is in our interest to inhibit the actions of another.
Also, the possibility that a set of values/interests can be completely rational - yet at odds to our own.

I have my personal beliefs [cases that I’d make] in relation to these, but that’s besides the point.

annajoy wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 3:00 am From my point of view, existential nihilism confronts us with the unsettling truth that life has no inherent meaning, yet in that void lies a radical freedom to shape purpose on our own terms. It is both a burden and a liberation, a call to live authentically without illusions,[SPAM LINK DELETED] knowing the meaning we create is ours alone.

Ben JS wrote:The existential nihilist claims there wasn’t intent behind the origins of life.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 11:36 pm

Ben JS - ILP (2012) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/beyon ... lism/33573 (origins of Ben JS / Joe Schmoe)

I closely relate to Existentialism. Mainly that there is no objective meaning or purpose, therefore we can choose our own. Now this is where things get tricky. I’ve thought about who I am as a person, and what I value in life… what I could try to achieve. The problem is, I can’t find anything with enough integrity to pursue. Nothing that has enough value to justify the endurance of life and all it’s suffering, ignorance and general discomfort.

People are defined by their experiences. Their values and identity are shaped by their experiences. Every question our brain asks, is only relevant because we’ve chosen it. All choices lead back to the same cause. Our identity. This is a completely subjective act. Of what relevance is all the questions we ask? At the core, it would seem, we’re all seeking meaning and understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.

The truth is, we don’t need to look beyond ourselves to find our place and our meaning. I believe our pursuit of (irrelevant) ‘knowledge’ is really just our will to deny the ultimate truth. What could we possibly find that would be of significance? We know our place. We are here because we’re capable of being here. There is no intent for our existence. There is no intent. We’re mutations that are efficient at surviving.

When we’re young, we live in the moment. When we’re adults, we acquire our trinkets, theories and values. When we’re old, we put it all to rest and embrace the end. Life is but an experience, the senses, emotions and journey. The only thing that keeps us alive is our will to live and fear of death. This has just evolved due to natural selection and has no more integrity than the will to die.