Nihilism.

[peter]

Just fishing for a few posts to help me tighten up what I inderstand by this. A few days ago I came across the term [which I of course have encountered on numerous occasions in my reading] and this time it clicked that I didn't really understand what it means.

A quick bit of wikisearch later I'm about here. Nihilism is the denial of a quality or atribute of existance that is normally [?] taken for granted. An example would be 'existential nihilism' - the denial of any purpose or meaning, or 'intrinsic value' to life. Another form might be the denial that there is such a thing as 'love' [I don't know what this would be called], or the denial that there is such a thing as truth might be another [again I cant 'name' this]. Am I in the right ball park as to understanding the meaning of the term?

How many of you would describe yourself as nihilists - and in what areas? Does the term refer only to 'non-pysical' aspects of existance [love, purpose, truth, beauty, faith etc...] or physical stuff as well. What about ghosts; I don't believe in them - am I an eidolonic nihilist .

[michaelm]

I think existential nihilism is what most people mean by nihilism, but I guess it can be applied to just about anything else.

There was a period in the late 70s (or perhaps retroactively in the early 80s) where punk culture in the UK was referred to as nihilistic. The rejection of social norms and the lyrics of songs like Anarchy in the UK were considered to be a trend towards nihilistic thinking.

I don't know that I heard the term used that much after that, but some years later I started reading a number of well know philosophical works. I seem to recall that it came into Satre's writing quite a bit, at least in terms of the occasional reference (Being and Nothingness is the only work of his that I read).

[peter]

Strangely, the particular reference that got me thinking [which relates back to 'the other' thread we just communicated in] was that of Pope Pius XI's comment to Hitler's vice chancellor Franz von Papen to the effect that he was glad to see at last, someone in the Reichstag [ie Hitler] who would present an effective oponant of the twin evils of 'communism and nihilism'. I was suprised to see the two grouped in this way as I asumed one was a widespread political movement and the other an academic term of limited general applicability.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Can Nothing exist? Can you hold Nothing in your hand? Can you see Nothing? Can you touch Nothing? Doesn't the fact that we can conceive of Nothing make it Something? Consider the null set in mathematics--the set which contains no elements. It is, from a mathematical point of view, nothing. However, if we then consider N to be "the set of all sets which contain nothing" then N is clearly something because it has one element, the null set. If we go meta in our discussion then it is easy to turn Nothing into Something.

On the topic of "traditional" nihilism, note that just because you may reject a concept or because you may embrace the negation of a concept doesn't mean that the concept or quality you are rejecting isn't real and doesn't exist. In other words, I may believe "life is meaningless" but that doesn't mean that life is actually meaningless; rather, it means only that I have adopted a non-falsifiable position--you can't prove that life actually has meaning.

What would we call someone who disbelieves in Nihilism?

[Orlion]

You also have to be careful not to confuse nihilism with existentialism. It's a difference between "Life has no objective meaning/purpose" and "Life is absurd". The first is often used as an argument against the existence of a deity (hence why the Pope would find it unattractive) and the later has often, strangely, been used as proof for a deity. Sarte, I believe, is an existentialist.

Nihilism, like atheism, comes in many forms and flavors... to the point that it is not really an effective description of ones belief... but boy, does it carry a lot of emotional baggage you can use to rile up your base! Whereas all it is is a denial of something.

Much like we are all a little atheist, we are all a little nihilistic.

The connotation/popular understanding, however, is that nihilists do not believe there is a purpose and, as a result, do not believe anything matters. This is manipulative garbage, much like how people might say, "How can you have morals if you don't believe in God?" it is equally ignorant to say, "How can anything matter if nothing has a purpose?"

[Zarathustra]

For Nietzsche, nihilism was a temporary stage mankind passes through once we realize that there are no absolute values/meaning. We become unmoored when we realize 'god is dead' (e.g. the Enlightenment). During this transition stage, many of us still judge the world in terms of the previous value system (having not yet created its replacement), so that we think no godly truth/meaning is the same as there being no truth/meaning whatsoever. But those of us who make it through this transition period realize that we can choose our own values, become our own judge.

[Harbinger]

Nihilism is nihilistic.

Worthless. Meaningless. Not worth contemplating. LMAO.

[peter]

[Truncated response due to Internet Exploder screwing me over again ]

Surely we have to consider this idea in order to be wary of it's 'slipping in the back door' of our thinking [as such ideas are apt to do] {unless of course we embrace the ideas in the first place}.

I'm struggling with the 'no absolute values' idea Z. If we all set our own values on good and evil, suffering and ease, love and hate etc, what happens when we disagree. Surely we, in accepting the arbitrary setting of the values, eliminate the idea of 'right and wrong' for the point at which someone else may choose to set their values. How can the 'no absolute, but all relative' idea be convincingly argued such as to circumvent this problem?

re The Punk era nihilism; I guess Sid and nancy lived the most pure version of that [or the most ridiculous depending on your stance], but the refusal to adhere to the social norms of the day was rather a rejection than a denial wasn't it? As Hashi observed, these are not really the same thing, though I think his point was more perhaps that because someone adopts a nihilist position on something does not mean they are correct in their belief. In some ways in our society we seem to have become somewhat nihilist almost by accident as science has pushed further and further back the frontier between the point where knowledge ends and belief begins.

[michaelm]

re The Punk era nihilism; I guess Sid and nancy lived the most pure version of that [or the most ridiculous depending on your stance], but the refusal to adhere to the social norms of the day was rather a rejection than a denial wasn't it? As Hashi observed, these are not really the same thing, though I think his point was more perhaps that because someone adopts a nihilist position on something does not mean they are correct in their belief. In some ways in our society we seem to have become somewhat nihilist almost by accident as science has pushed further and further back the frontier between the point where knowledge ends and belief begins.

It was quite possibly a poor description, but I recall hearing it said quite a lot. Now that I think about it, the likely source was music journalists and in reference to post-punk rejecting the nihilist approach of punk.

[Vraith]

If we all set our own values on good and evil, suffering and ease, love and hate etc, what happens when we disagree. Surely we, in accepting the arbitrary setting of the values, eliminate the idea of 'right and wrong' for the point at which someone else may choose to set their values. How can the 'no absolute, but all relative' idea be convincingly argued such as to circumvent this problem?

There are many ways to argue it, convincing is something else...and whole threads about it. Perhaps we'll get into some of them further on. But, for now, on that above:
People all over through most of history have been believing in absolute good and evil---it hasn't stopped any disagreement, it hasn't stopped death and slaughter...I'd argue that it has vastly increased it. How would you convincingly argue that absolutes cause any less problem than relatives?


But on punk nihilism [and nihilism across many fields---all the philosophy variants, all the fields of art] I think there is a dynamic and paradox, inherent and deep:
Nihilism as a frame/point of view/means to search, vs. nihilism as a fact [or proposed fact] of existence---REAL nihilist DON'T CREATE. [which is related to the mentioned point of difference between denial and rejection].
I'm not sure a real nihilist COULD create.
In addition, I'd say that at a fundamental level involving causes and effects/results, the impact on the world of any of the major absolute ideologies is more nihilistic in outcome than all the nihilistic philosophers and artists combined.

[Zarathustra]

I'm struggling with the 'no absolute values' idea Z. If we all set our own values on good and evil, suffering and ease, love and hate etc, what happens when we disagree. Surely we, in accepting the arbitrary setting of the values, eliminate the idea of 'right and wrong' for the point at which someone else may choose to set their values. How can the 'no absolute, but all relative' idea be convincingly argued such as to circumvent this problem?

This is exactly the same situation with absolute values, except that instead of arguing explicitly for different relative values picked by humans, humans argue for different values that are merely claimed to be absolute (but are in fact always picked by humans). This claim of absolutism is itself a matter of opinion, relative to one's culture/religion/belief/education. Just because you take your own personal values (or your culture's/religion's) and add the word "absolute" to them doesn't change the fact that we still argue about them, so that there is a competition of values in the 'market place of ideas.' Sometimes, it's the literal battlefield of ideas. Just ask ISIS.

If there were absolute values--and this could be determined objectively, irrespective of individual human opinion--then there would never be any argument on the issue. We wouldn't fight wars over ostensible "absolute values." The opinion that values are absolute is itself a relative, subjective, human judgment. The process of proving your values are absolute looks exactly like people arguing for their own relative values ... except for the difference of inauthenticity/authenticity.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

This claim of absolutism is itself a matter of opinion …

Except for the claim that absolutism is a matter of opinion. That's absolute.

[peter]

But if I say [as an example] 'racism is bad', it's difficult for me to see any way around that as an absolute and set value. There may be relativists who could argue the oposite point of view, but I'd consider them wrong - would I also be wrong to do so. [I'll define racism as the hatred of another individual based upon their race {or ethnic difference if you don't agree with the concept of 'race'}]. (nb I don't disagree that values are all relative rather than absolute; I'm just trying to see if it works.)

[Orlion]

But if I say [as an example] 'racism is bad', it's difficult for me to see any way around that as an absolute and set value. There may be relativists who could argue the oposite point of view, but I'd consider them wrong - would I also be wrong to do so. [I'll define racism as the hatred of another individual based upon their race {or ethnic difference if you don't agree with the concept of 'race'}]. (nb I don't disagree that values are all relative rather than absolute; I'm just trying to see if it works.)

It's a simple matter, really. All I'd probably say is that how racism has been viewed has changed over time. Not so long ago, we had the concept of the White Man's Burden. It was so clear that the whites were superior and had to help everyone else during this time (a concept which you see has not really gone away, it's just rephrased differently).

From there it's easy to point out that we view racism differently because we are from different cultures now than in the past. An older gentleman wouldn't see anything offensive about the phrase "You speak quite eloquently for a black man" whereas we might respond with a "whoa, whoa, what the hell, man?"

Values change and evolve based on the situation and the environment we are in. In our current environment, we seek peaceful and profitable co-existence between myriad cultures. Because of that, we view racism as bad because that attitude is detrimental to the environment we wish to build and maintain.

On the other hand, if you live in a country that is trying to maintain a singular cultural identity, racism is a very good thing, since outside cultures threaten your environment and way of life.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

But if I say [as an example] 'racism is bad', it's difficult for me to see any way around that as an absolute and set value. There may be relativists who could argue the oposite point of view, but I'd consider them wrong - would I also be wrong to do so. [I'll define racism as the hatred of another individual based upon their race {or ethnic difference if you don't agree with the concept of 'race'}]. (nb I don't disagree that values are all relative rather than absolute; I'm just trying to see if it works.)

It's a simple matter, really. All I'd probably say is that how racism has been viewed has changed over time. Not so long ago, we had the concept of the White Man's Burden. It was so clear that the whites were superior and had to help everyone else during this time (a concept which you see has not really gone away, it's just rephrased differently).

From there it's easy to point out that we view racism differently because we are from different cultures now than in the past. An older gentleman wouldn't see anything offensive about the phrase "You speak quite eloquently for a black man" whereas we might respond with a "whoa, whoa, what the hell, man?"

Values change and evolve based on the situation and the environment we are in. In our current environment, we seek peaceful and profitable co-existence between myriad cultures. Because of that, we view racism as bad because that attitude is detrimental to the environment we wish to build and maintain.

On the other hand, if you live in a country that is trying to maintain a singular cultural identity, racism is a very good thing, since outside cultures threaten your environment and way of life.

Your argument turns upon a blurring of the distinction between Ideology and Metaphysics.

As Z has already demonstrated, one cannot get around the making of absolute claims, even in defense of Relativism. There's no way of getting around it. We all accept, as a self-evidency, that Truth is Knowable.

[Orlion]

We all accept, as a self-evidency, that Truth is Knowable.

I don't. Not capital-T Truth anyway. Lowercase t truth like "sometimes, I enjoy a good black raspberry ice cream", sure. But that's not the sort of truth you're talking about, correct?

[Zarathustra]

+JMJ+

This claim of absolutism is itself a matter of opinion …

Except for the claim that absolutism is a matter of opinion. That's absolute.

No, it's just a fact. Factual claims aren't relative* or absolute, they're merely true or false. This one happens to be true: it is an opinion that some values are absolute. It's a fact that all opinions are relative.

Humans have opinions and values. That's a fact. It's also a fact that we can create them ourselves (i.e. relative), or adopt those we've heard from other people or books (i.e. still relative to the people who created them or wrote the books). Nothing so far elevates these values above the level of relative. In order to achieve ostensible absolutism, some supernatural being must be invoked. But it's a conjecture that these values can come from a supernatural being from whom they derive their alleged universal or absolute quality. That's not a fact. It's a myth that can only be accepted with faith (which is merely a stubborn or dogmatic opinion).

But if I say [as an example] 'racism is bad', it's difficult for me to see any way around that as an absolute and set value. There may be relativists who could argue the oposite point of view, but I'd consider them wrong - would I also be wrong to do so. [I'll define racism as the hatred of another individual based upon their race {or ethnic difference if you don't agree with the concept of 'race'}]. (nb I don't disagree that values are all relative rather than absolute; I'm just trying to see if it works.)

What difference does it make if the judgment "racism is bad" is absolute or relative? Is the goal to force everyone agree? If so, we'd have to get rid of our freedom of speech, which protects unpopular or even despicable opinions. What's the point of having freedom of speech/religion if some values are absolute? If they are in fact absolute, then shouldn't our laws reflect that? Even if we did legislate that everyone agrees that racism is bad, would that actually make it absolute? No. People could still easily disagree. You can't force people to think in certain ways.

On the other hand, if the goal is to stop discrimination, can't we just pass a law that makes it illegal to discriminate? Well, that is what we've done. And it can be enforced even if the judgment is relative, even if people disagree with it.

So we have a situation where even if the judgment is absolute, you could never get everyone to believe in a way that reflects this alleged fact (nor would you want to, in a free society). And, even if the judgment is relative, you can still force people to act in ways that don't harm others, even if they disagree with the judgment. So claims of "absolutism" make no difference to this situation whatsoever.

Even if the judgment is in fact absolute, it didn't stop racism or slavery. What good is an absolute value if not everyone agrees? As long as people disagree with it, it's relative in practice. If any absolute value can be relative in practice, then it's relative in fact. As such, claims of absolutism add nothing to distinguish them from those values which we claim are relative. Thus, claims of absolutism are merely the means to force your values on those who disagree. These claims are ideological weapons used by dogmatic people who do not recognize the difference between fact and opinion, nor the right to choose our own values.

*[... unless we're talking about relative to one's physical reference frame, i.e. velocity, acceleration, etc. Facts such as mass and time are relative in that sense, but that's not the sense we mean here: relative to subjective human opinion.]

[Vraith]

We all accept, as a self-evidency, that Truth is Knowable.

I don't. Not capital-T Truth anyway. Lowercase t truth like "sometimes, I enjoy a good black raspberry ice cream", sure. But that's not the sort of truth you're talking about, correct?

Neither do I---not the the kind he seems to be talking about.
The only moral Truths that exist are the ones we make...which means they can change/evolve.

Wossie: The problem you seem to be pointing at is the idea of "There are no absolute truths" being an absolute truth and contradicting itself.
But it isn't so...it is just an artifact/misunderstanding of frames/pov, aboutness/reference.
Absolute truth claims, OTOH [like absolute good] suffer because they are about things within systems.
It's like the difference between talking about what math is for/what can be done with it and doing math/claiming proofs/solutions.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

We all accept, as a self-evidency, that Truth is Knowable.

I don't. Not capital-T Truth anyway. Lowercase t truth like "sometimes, I enjoy a good black raspberry ice cream", sure. But that's not the sort of truth you're talking about, correct?

I placed it in capitals in order to underscore the principle involved. We all believe, as a self-evident principle, that Truth is Knowable. It underlies every claim we make, even when we are claiming to deny the principle.

—————————————————————

This claim of absolutism is itself a matter of opinion …

Except for the claim that absolutism is a matter of opinion. That's absolute.

No, it's just a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's a conclusion which lies beyond the level of the empirical.

Here's a fact: People make absolute claims.

And the reason that we can have confidence in the accuracy of facts is because we believe, in principle, that truth is knowable.

[Zarathustra]

No, it's not a fact. It's a conclusion which lies beyond the level of the empirical.

I'm not talking about empirical states of affairs. I'm talking about the difference between opinion and fact. "Some values are absolute," is an opinion. The previous sentence states a fact.

Here's a fact: People make absolute claims.

And the reason that we can have confidence in the accuracy of facts is because we believe, in principle, that truth is knowable.

Yes, people make absolute claims (about values, not facts). Sure, truth is knowable. In other words, we can verify whether or not factual statements are true (in principle). But verifying that statements of fact are true has nothing to do with making an absolute claim, because an absolute claim (in this context) is always made about a value, which is an opinion, not a fact. So truth being knowable has nothing to do with values, absolute or otherwise. Values aren't true or false, like facts.

"This tree is green" can be verified as true or false. It's a statement of fact.

"This tree is good" cannot be verified. It's an opinion, which is relative to your subjective opinion of trees.

"This tree is Absolutely Good, thus sayeth the Lord," is even less verifiable. It's an opinion which is relative to a belief system which may or may not have anything to do with trees whatsoever, but instead what some religious text has said about them.

I've made no absolutist claims. Your assertion that I have is the result of blurring two different meanings of "absolute." Making an absolute value claim is not the same as making a definitive factual claim with confidence or certainty. "This fact is demonstrably true" may be similar to saying, "This fact is absolutely true," but it's nothing all like saying, "This value judgment is true in all contexts, universally, objectively, independent of subjective human opinion."