[HN Gopher] The uncanny absence of nihilism ___________________________________________________________________ The uncanny absence of nihilism Author : feross Score : 110 points Date : 2021-08-14 04:47 UTC (18 hours ago) (HTM) web link (meaningness.com) (TXT) w3m dump (meaningness.com) | acituan wrote: | I wish author got out of their self-referentiality a bit before | going deep with their presuppositions into a book. | | > "Nihilizing" is a thing we all do at times: refusing to | recognize meanings that are right in front of us. | | If there is a _refusal_ of recognition, it implies a pre- | processing stage of estimating a lack of payoff for the cognitive | work in that area, which itself is requires a meaning system we | made that evaluation from! This is not nihilizing, it is merely | not committing cognitive suicide by trying to make sense of | _everything_ indiscriminately with a limited information | processing capacity. By their definition, only a "god" would not | be nihilizing. | | > Committing to nihilism, deciding that you "are a nihilist," is | unusual, and typically a big deal. It's a conversion experience, | and the adopted identity may persist for years. It's uncanny that | you can go that long without noticing that there isn't an -ism. | That's a feature of the peculiar cognitive distortions nihilism | produces as a stance. | | Author asserts "true nihilism" is merely an existential state, | and not a system. True nihilism is not a useful category though; | dead matter would be the most "true nihilists" while a breathing | human would always have a pre-supposition of meaning as they | continued to breathe, since they are meaning making agents | _strongly_ embedded to their bodies and within their environment. | This is not a very useful way of diving things up. | | The pragmatic existence of nihilism is not a pure empty state; it | is not even throwing noise to our meaning making machines, it is | throwing "anti-meaning" patterns that take the deconstructing and | dismantling to an extreme without any goal to put things back | better. Certain post-modern thought can both _perform_ and | _propagate_ nihilism in this way pretty well; an _assertion_ of | non-existence of any meta-narrative that joins all narratives | while scrambling all the puzzle pieces you 've tried to piece | together and then throwing them into an acid vat as a proof is an | -ism. | | Peculiarly, author is also a nihilist in the -ism sense; in | addition to this article, their "No cosmic plan" article is | subtitled "Great confusions about meaningness stem from the | mistaken assumption that there must be some sort of eternal | ordering principle.", or "Nihilism: denying meaning" with | "Nihilism is the wrong idea that nothing is meaningful, based on | the accurate realization that there is no external, eternal | source of meaning." | | Those are serious (and in my opinion misleadingly incomplete) | assumptions on first principles that also happens to be the WIP | chapters of their book. | smitty1e wrote: | > And the nihilists they discuss are all fictional! They review | novels that feature supposedly nihilistic characters. These are | storytellers' attempts to imagine what it would be like to | accomplish nihilism. A realistic portrayal would be boring and | depressing: catatonia. | | Maybe. | | If philosophy is noodling about the past, present and future, | rejecting philosophy as a nihilist would be focusing on the | present tense. | | That is, living like an animal. | | Which gets at the point that ours is a most nihilistic age. | | "Nihilism: you're soaking in it." => https://youtu.be/dzmTtusvjR4 | [deleted] | guerrilla wrote: | > That is, living like an animal. | | Not sure why you'd assume animals don't have memory and | predictive ability. | xorfish wrote: | Humans live like animals. Homo Sapiens is part of the group | animals. | smitty1e wrote: | There isn't much going on past the next winter, no? | DangitBobby wrote: | Yes, it seems to me more like Nihilism would lead to Hedonism | as much as catatonia. | thebooktocome wrote: | Author props up a straw nihilism so restrictive such that, if one | held it, one would never communicate that fact (or anything else) | to anyone. | | Author is then surprised that it has no proponents among | academics. | | The reference to uncanniness is also kind of strange. That has a | pretty specific meaning in philosophy (starting with Freud) which | doesn't seem to apply here. | | Oh, well. The rest of the book might be an interesting read. | floe wrote: | I think the target audience is 'people who believe that they | have to believe the strawman', if that makes sense. | | Pointing out that certain statements are self-defeating and (by | definition) have no proponents can help someone escape a | dangerous psychological process ('stance'). | | As a personal example, when I deconverted from evangelical | Christianity, I was disturbed for a long time by the idea that | I now had no reason to act morally. Even though that's | obviously self-defeating (being disturbed was in itself a sign | of morality), I didn't realize that for quite some time. | nathias wrote: | as a philosopher I find this blog offensive | danschumann wrote: | How could one come to the conclusion to be nihilistic? They would | need to experience enough, and then say "the meaning of all the | events of my life led to believe there is no meaning". So, to | come to that conclusion is a paradox, because reaching that | conclusion is done through assigning "no" meaning. | guerrilla wrote: | You might get something out of this [1] article, especially | it's section on nihilism but the preceding sections on | requirements for their being meaning will probably be helpful | to you. Who I really recommend is Camus and sartre who wrote | quite a bit about it and how to live with it. | | 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/#Nihi | | 2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/ | | 3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/ | acituan wrote: | It is a failure in continuation from the ground of being to a | view on the totality of the existence. | | No one has a problem finding meaning in the minutiae of their | here and now; they avoid pain, they feed themselves, they | breathe. They conform to the meaning of the signals (mostly | pain) that demand we do these things. At this level, everything | is meaningful. | | Then we scale up temporally (longer spans of times) and | spatially (wider spans of space); we can think about tomorrow, | we find it meaningful to go to grocery store and get our | favorite ice cream etc. | | A couple of scale ups later sometimes, something wrong happens | and we can find ourselves in the ultimate scale; totality of | universe; (assumed) "creation" and "death" of the universe. | Even only from a computation perspective; we don't fully | 'understand' this scale, our intelligibility is limited in | comparison to the 'objects' at hand (hyperobjects if you will); | we're using symbolic processing to make sense of it but we | can't frame the ultimate frame, we can't compress this | information very accurately (yet). | | At that point some folks show up with their propositions that | are harder to refute because everything is hard to compute to | begin with. They shine light to certain possibilities (light | bringer pun is intended), they conflate current state of not | knowing with unknowability, or worse non-existence. They | conflate our intelligence with intelligibility of the universe. | They go "there is no single organizing principle, because that | sounds a lot like god" and can't explain how multiple | organizing principles can share the same space if they are not | bound by a common one. They claim pure stochasticity and ignore | the physical reality we have been conforming to through | evolution; or principled approximation to its first principles; | that we _can_ compress reality into formulas, while noise | really wouldn 't compress. They have no good idea on how to | relate to the existence of existence. Nihilism is the result of | such cognitive distortions at this level. | | The problem is not actually about being at the top of the | scale, it is to omit the continuity from our daily scale to it; | it is skipping the intermediary steps that mislead us. That's | why they can conceptualize complete stochasticity at top while | perform perfect faith in meaningfulness of gravity. In | neoplatonic tradition this is countered with practicing the | anagogic ascent, in stoic traditions with the view from above | practices. | | In modern times however we only have DIY spirituality without | proper grounding in _what have been tried before_. Throw some | McMindfulness, read a translation of Nietzche, performatively | worship the god of market normativity and you 're already | confused enough. Blog belongs to a person who has "founded, | managed, grown, and sold a successful biotech informatics | company.", this is their hobby (as they admit) and bunch of | people talk about it. This is how new nihilists are made. | [deleted] | [deleted] | causality0 wrote: | That depends on how you define meaning and significance. A | perfectly rational machine might decide that since the universe | is going to run down and die a cold death regardless of | anything the human race might do, everything is meaningless. | Fortunately I'm not a perfectly rational being and I don't get | a choice about whether temporary happiness and prosperity mean | something. | guerrilla wrote: | It's not necessary that something ending implies that it is | meaningless. A piece of pie can taste good even if you're | going to run out of it. I'm not saying there's a meaning to | life, I'm just saying that's not a reason that there isn't. | croes wrote: | Did you find any meaning in all of this. It's always the same | circle of birth, reproduction, death until the end of mankind, | nature, earth, sun, universe. Whatever comes first. | Robotbeat wrote: | We've got agency to decide which. And maybe, trillions of | years in the future, we discover a way to reverse even | entropy. | pixl97 wrote: | But why does having infinity suddenly give meaning? | | I like the following take on infinity | | https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html | | >P.S. Writing this post made me much less likely to pick | "infinity" as my answer to this week's dinner table | question. Imagine living a Graham's number amount of | years.8 Even if hypothetically, conditions stayed the same | in the universe, in the solar system, and on Earth forever, | there is no way the human brain is built to withstand spans | of time like that. I'm horrified thinking about it. I think | it would be the gravest of grave errors to punch infinity | into the calculator--and this is from someone who's openly | terrified of death. Weirdly, thinking about Graham's number | has actually made me feel a little bit calmer about death, | because it's a reminder that I don't actually want to live | forever--I do want to die at some point, because remaining | conscious for eternity is even scarier. Yes, death comes | way, way too quickly, but the thought "I do want to die at | some point" is a very novel concept to me and actually | makes me more relaxed than usual about our mortality. | Robotbeat wrote: | Is there some possible world where there is meaning? | [deleted] | mmazing wrote: | I mean, wouldn't a true nihilist simply not care to spread | awareness of their position? | | Maybe there are plenty and they just don't give a shit. | __s wrote: | Yep. Lots of philosophies which by their nature aren't | successful on the basis of memetic evolution preferring ideas | that encourage their hosts to propagate them more. Rather than | being actively taught they're something which either have to be | observed or deduced | | Like minimalism. Sure, there's the minimalism that's being | sold, but that's some mutant strain made to be able to market | | The Index Card is a bit amusing | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Index_Card where it's rooted | on something free (the content of the index card), yet somehow | they've tried to expand on it enough to be able to have | something to sell | | I think this also shows up with corrupt people reaching places | of power, where you can't blame them so much as the power | structure selecting corrupt people for its own self propagation | (the idea that "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand | Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding | It" can arise without the man being willfully ignorant when | there was a selection process for someone capable of that | ignorance) | mmazing wrote: | I think another good example is psychopaths. | | There are plenty floating around, but it's sort of the prime | feature of their behavior - they really only care about | themselves. So, why would they write a book to give society a | glimpse? | | Their motives simply don't align with that goal, because it's | the literal definition of their behavior. | [deleted] | mrweasel wrote: | A few of the open Danish nihilist declared their intention to | run for parliament a few years back, with The Nihilists People | Party (or something like that). The thing is, you need around | 20.000 signatures to get you party listed at the next election. | The Nihilists party knew this, but didn't really cared to | collect the signatures. | simonh wrote: | Apathetics of the world unite! | | Or not, whatever. | cryptica wrote: | Nihilism can be a positive force in people's lives. | | Nihilism allows me to not take anything too seriously because I | know that nothing is important and everything will end | eventually. | | Surprisingly, it can also be a source of altruism. For example, I | know that once I'm dead, I will be nothing. My consciousness will | be destroyed permanently and all my achievements will cease to be | my own since I will have no connection at all to the universe or | my former identity. Any trace I leave behind in the universe | might as well have been left behind my someone else who is not | me. | | The fact that when we die, we all end up in exactly the same | state of absolute nothingness gives me compassion towards fellow | humans and other conscious creatures. We are all the same in the | end; nothing. | | It also helps me to enjoy life more because from a nihilist | perspective, every second of my life seems to defy the foundation | of my belief system. Even though I know consciously that this | sense of meaning is just an illusion in my primal brain. | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> Any trace I leave behind in the universe might as well have | been left behind my someone else who is not me | | You are making a value judgement there. Rookie mistake in this | nihilism business. | georgewsinger wrote: | > Nihilism can be a positive force in people's lives. | | Also another value judgment. Two rookie mistakes. | | OP seems to be implicitly arguing that nihilism is morally | justified (incoherent) because it can cause altruistic | behavior (but who cares, if you're a nihilist?). | rufus_foreman wrote: | Good catch. | Notkel wrote: | If value judgement is incorrect. What is the proper way to | judge a system of thinking? | rufus_foreman wrote: | It doesn't matter. | [deleted] | boogusbdg wrote: | Existence the way you put it, is quite beautiful like that, | isn't it. The senselessness as a fundamental feature of cold | and beautiful austerity. | farmerstan wrote: | That must be exhausting. | fzzzy wrote: | This is a big lebowski quote about nihilism. | | "Ulle doesn't care about anything, he's a nihilist." "Ooh, that | must be exhausting." | | Definitely a good movie to watch if you are interested in | nihilism. (Spoilers) Nothing matters in that movie. | krylon wrote: | The first time I watched the Big Lebowski, I hated it and | found it really annoying, but I have re-watched it plenty of | times by now, and it does get better every time. A Classic. | | EDIT: Also, thank you for pointing that out, I would not have | caught that reference otherwise. I think it's a sign I need | to re-watch The Big Lebowski again. | georgewsinger wrote: | Here's a simple proof that moral nihilism is false. | | 1. Suppose moral nihilism is true. | | 2. Then it would be incorrect to think that boiling a human child | alive for pleasure is morally wrong. | | 3. But clearly (2) is false. | | 4. Therefore (1) is false. | | You might wonder how we can know (3). The answer is that (3) | appears to us to be true, _and_ we have no good reason to think | it is not true. This has been called the "Principle of | Phenomenal Conservatism" in philosophy books, and it's the same | principle that justifies our belief in physical/scientific facts | (e.g., that tables exist, or that evolution is true). But it | _also_ implies that moral facts exist as well! | | Of course, sometimes things appear to us to be true, but we | eventually discover reasons strong enough override those | appearances. For example, if you stick a pencil in a cup of | water, it appears to us that the pencil is broken in half. But | through scientific rigor, we have learned that this appearance is | just an illusion. But this is not the case with (3). It both | appears us that it is wrong to cause needless harm to children | for fun, _and_ any reason we might consider to doubt this fails | to be strong enough to persuade us otherwise. | Retric wrote: | Your argument boils down to saying I believe something | therefore I am correct. Which isn't an argument as someone else | saying they have a different belief provides exactly as much | evidence. In other words the mere existence of nihilism | inherently disproves your argument. | | Also, that's really not why scientific facts are considered | true. Science is based on positive evidence as in a prediction | is made and it turns out the prediction was accurate. Simply | presupposing something is true isn't considered evidence that | it is true. | georgewsinger wrote: | > Your argument boils down to saying I believe something | therefore I am correct. | | No it doesn't. It boils down to something _appearing_ to be | true to me (or "us") _and_ there being actually no good | reasons to think that it is not true. | | > Also, that's really not why scientific facts are considered | true. Science is based on positive evidence as in a | prediction is made and it turns out the prediction was | accurate. | | You're wrong, and here is why: first I would ask you what | counts as positive evidence that a prediction made was | verified. You would give me some theoretical explanation | (depending upon the context), and _then_ I would keep asking | you more detailed questions about your explanation. | Eventually I would ask a question that you wouldn 't really | be able to answer, other than "look, it just _appears_ to me | that such-and-such counts as predictive evidence! " (or | something like that). | | So for example if we had a scientific theory that all red | cars cannot exceed 100mph, and you said "that's not true, for | look at my red car going 105mph!", I could ask you "well, | yeah, your speedometer reads 105mph, but how do you know | you're actually going faster than 100mph?" You would give me | an explanation about how speedometers work, and I would say | "well yeah, but how do you know that theory can be | generalized to this particular case <blah blah blah>". | Eventually after this chain of questioning you would be left | relying on some sort of mere appearance being true. And of | course that is rational. The problem is that this chain of | reasoning can also be applied to moral theories as well. | | > Simply presupposing something is true isn't considered | evidence that it is true. | | I'm not merely presupposing something is true. I'm observing | that something first appears to be true, asserting there are | no good reasons to think it is not true, and _then_ supposing | it is true. | | Contrast these two cases: | | 1. It appears to me that 2+2 = 4, and I can think of no good | reasons at this moment to doubt otherwise. I guess, | therefore, that 2+2 really is 4. | | 2. I shall pressuppose that 2+2=5! | | You're acting as if I'm taking the strategy of (2), but I am | actually taking the strategy of (1). And in fact you are as | well. Here's a really simple way to see why. | | Suppose you thought of some argument that showed that the | Principle of Phenomenal Conservativism was false. But why | should you, after pondering that argument, believe that | argument? Because it _appears_ to you to be true, and you can | give no plausible retort for why it 's false. Thus in | "refuting" the Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism, you must | use it! This shows that it is self-defeating to argue against | the Principle. | | The Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism has to be true for | other reasons as well. For example, the following are all | statements that I'm sure you agree are true: | | 1. 1 = 1. | | 2. The law of non-contradiction is true. | | 3. Empirical theories which make testable predictions are | more likely to be true than empirical theories which can't. | | 4. The keyboard in front of you actually exists. | | But why do you believe these statements? You won't be able to | insert some other empirical theory to justify them. They are | instead just sort of raw appearances that we suppose are true | (because we can't think of any good reasons to doubt them). | We make use of our sensory instruments to do this (e.g, our | eyes, our non-moral intuitions, etc). But this is exactly | like me asserting that "it's wrong to torture children for | fun", which relies on a moral intuition that it is wrong | (plus the fact that we can't think of any good reason to | think otherwise). | | All of this is to say: you can't be a scientific realist | without also being a moral realist at the same time, or at | least if you can, it's because of some argument I haven't yet | considered :] | Retric wrote: | > Eventually you are left relying on mere appearances. And | of course that is rational. | | No, I am relying on a prediction of appearances. If I | predict an instrument will show blue I don't need to go | through anything below that level. It's now on someone else | to make a different prediction _and show new evidence._ | | > Contrast these two cases: | | There is zero difference between them 2 + 2 = 5! could be | true. 2 + 2 = 4 could be true, or they could both be false | and 2 + 2 = 7.629. | | We define math as things that follow from assumptions. 2 + | 2 alone doesn't have a definite answer, it only has a | specific answer in a specific context. We generally don't | need to list the underlying assumptions to build a chain | like 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4, but that's simply based | on an assumed context. | DangitBobby wrote: | Imagine that we are lobsters having this conversation, and they | got to | | 2) Then it would be incorrect to think that boiling a lobster | child alive for pleasure is morally wrong. | | They would probably get through 3 and 4, but many humans would | not agree with them. So the proof is not universally | applicable. | georgewsinger wrote: | I actually side with the lobsters in this example (e.g., I | believe it is wrong to boil a lobster alive for the mere | sensory enjoyment of eating the lobster). But yes, many other | humans don't. | | But that doesn't mean there aren't moral facts. It could | instead mean that either the humans or the lobsters are | wrong, and there is a good argument that one of them hasn't | considered as to why they are wrong. | | If you disagree, then you must not believe that there are | scientific facts either? After all, two separate people can | disagree over which scientific theory is true/best fits the | evidence (which is a process that boils down to asking which | theories best comport with our raw sensory appearances, BTW). | But if mere disagreement implies that there can't be truths | in a domain, then this would mean there are no scientific | facts, which is of course absurd. | | It's a much more plausible position to think that there are | controversial scientific theories which we are less certain | of, that one (or both) parties to scientific disagreements | are just mistaken, but that there are after all scientific | facts. Similarly, it is much more plausible position to think | that there are controversial moral theories which we are less | certain of, that one (or both) parties to moral disagreements | are just mistaken, but that there are after all moral facts. | HKH2 wrote: | Not the GP, but I don't see a problem with rejecting | scientific absolutism as readily as moral absolutism. Is | not skepticism part of science? | Barrin92 wrote: | This isn't convincing because the power of the argument comes | from conflating different ways in which things are true. | | Intuitively some moral claims are 'true' yes. But they're | psychologically or socially true. All normative statements are | only 'true' or 'false' to us in a cultural sense, they're not | claims about facts in the world. That's simple to show. Proof | to me that your moral claim is true in the same way you proof a | scientific fact, you can't, in fact there's no way to even make | sense 'where' that truth or false property of any moral claim | is supposed to be located, or how one would go about proving | it. | | Moral nihilism is not the claim that authority or intuitive | values or consensus does not exist, moral nihilism is the claim | that there are no moral values _as such_ , that there is no | finality or meaning to them beyond the one we imprint on it. | | The moral nihilist may be perfectly fine with accepting that | boiling children is wrong the same way not paying your car | insurance or cheating at chess is wrong, the world's a more | orderly place if people aren't going around boiling kids. What | the moral nihilist denies is that this has any meaning beyond | that conventional sense, that it is simply a useful fiction. | Josteniok wrote: | For #2 if we say "Then it would be incorrect to think that X is | morally wrong" is there an "X" that is always true in all | places and for all times? I ask because "boiling a human child | alive for pleasure" seems to be safely chosen to be something | that everyone in all places ought to be able to agree is wrong | but there have been other chosen Xs at other times in our own | culture that have changed and are now no longer considered | "morally wrong". This would seem to indicate that the X is | subjective. How subjective is it? What is it a function of? | georgewsinger wrote: | Scientists disagree with each other on whether scientific | theories are true. In fact the history of science is the | history of overturning well-established theories for better | theories that best fit the body of available evidence. | | But it would be absurd to think that scientific disagreement | implies that there are _no_ scientific facts. Analogously, it | is absurd to think that moral disagreement implies that are | _no_ moral facts. | Josteniok wrote: | I happen to agree with you. But I still wonder, can we | figure out what these moral facts are and what the criteria | are for them or are they worse than the n-body problem | referred to in another front page article and impossibly | complex with no closed solution? | | I don't like the answer of "Because this X is obviously | true" since the "obviously true" part changes so much. Do | we think that morals that are "obviously true" are | proceeding forward, like science, and are based on an | increasing body of knowledge? There certainly doesn't seem | to be the same kind of rigor applied to moral knowledge as | there is to scientific knowledge. | georgewsinger wrote: | 1. Yes, we can use our moral intuitions + philosophical | analysis (just as we use our sense data + scientific | analysis in science). | | 2. I believe we can resolve a lot of moral questions, as | well as a lot of scientific questions. Some might be out | of our grasp (just as some scientific theories might be | out of our grasp of testing, given technological | limitations over time, or what have you). | | 3. There is evidence that we have an increasing body of | moral knowledge (aka "moral progress"). For example, 500 | years ago it would have been an insane position to think | that a society should be governed by a non-King, that | slavery was unjustified, that women should have the right | to work in all fields, etc. If you zoom out, moral | positions across all cultures on earth seem to be | converging to something. This is evidence that that | something is actual moral truth. | | 4. Things seeming "obvious" to one but not "obvious" to | another is just moral disagreement. But moral | disagreement doesn't imply moral nihilism, just as | scientific disagreement doesn't imply scientific | nihilism. All we can do is keep better watch over our | moral intuitions, explore counter-arguments/thought | experiments, etc, and try to converge to reflective | equilibrium/moral truth. Just as all we can do in science | is to make better/simpler theories that best fit our | sense data, and keep conducting scientific experiments. | HKH2 wrote: | As far as I see, Nietzsche was about embodying meaning - doing! | Which is why he was an existentialist. | | I think people are far more likely to declare themselves as | depressed or even antinatalist than nihilist. | jonplackett wrote: | Nihilism is probably not a very helpful evolutionary strategy for | an individual or group so no surprises there isn't much of it | around. | | Better to believe in anything however pointless and get doing | something productive. | im3w1l wrote: | I love how this basically turns the paperclip optimizer on its | head. Traditionally "optimizing paperclips" is seen as a | metaphor for some useful industrial process and taking over the | universe is seen as a catastrophe. But your argument is | basically that humans are in the same situation except for us | the paperclips are pointless and their only purpose is to | motivate us to take over the universe. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence | weatherlight wrote: | Our consciousness is the "parent of all horrors, an | evolutionary defect that has doomed us to a futile search for | meaning while our survival hinges on the response to pain, the | fear of death, and the instinct to procreate. Awareness of this | absurdity pushes us to shut it out, trapping us on a proverbial | hamster wheel where we busy ourselves with whatever will keep | those thoughts away--religion, hedonism, even the distractions | of art and music. | jayd16 wrote: | I consider myself a nihilist in that I take a side eye whenever | anything is described as "truly" something. I find it much easier | to see the world with no universal meaning and instead its | something we each find personal meaning in. Most (if not all) | things are just concepts. No tables exist, there's just a lot of | matter arranged in a way that fits my concept of a table and I | have breakfast on that. | | People often find the term nihilist detestable though. It seems | like most people get frustrated or anxious thinking this way. | | That said it _is_ mildly frustrating to talk about. The arguments | on both sides are very unconvincing to the other. | Borrible wrote: | Isn't absence the default for nothingness? | drops wrote: | Did not read past the first bold paragraph. 'Nihilo' means "out | of nothing, nothing is produced"; why does the author think that | nihilism needs to have a famous proponent? A linguistic quibble | far off the mark. | | UPD: I tried reading further, and it did not take long for the | author to convince the readers that he is an idiot. | | Quote: "Committing to nihilism, deciding that you "are a | nihilist," is unusual, and typically a big deal." No, it's not. | Most people in this world are in search of meaning: it is | probably the most common source of suffering in the modern times | - feeling lost, not having a purpose, etc. The fact that people | don't brand themselves as nihilists doesn't mean that they | aren't. | | Cue the downvotes from pseudo-intellectuals. | Grimm1 wrote: | Most people aren't nihilists, in so much as the fact they're | searching for meaning by your own admission. If they were | nihilists they wouldn't be looking. Most people believe there | is or should be inherent meaning in things. | | You're getting downvotes because you yourself put out a surface | level thought that is easily demonstrably wrong with half a | second of thought and then insulted people, nothing to do with | pseudo intellectualism. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _The fact that people don 't brand themselves as nihilists | doesn't mean that they aren't._ | | ... Not a rebuttal to: | | > _Committing to nihilism, deciding that you "are a nihilist," | is unusual, and typically a big deal._ | | Do you see how these are different? You're talking past the | author. | guerrilla wrote: | Ignorance isn't evidence of absence. Epistemic nihilists call | themselves skeptics and there have been plenty throughout | history, the earliest I know of being Pyrrho. Moral nihilists | call themselves hedonists (or if you're being really strict, | moral skeptics) and they are legion, many here in this very | forum, plenty in the history of philosophy. There were a dozen or | so Russian political nihilists for a while and you could probably | argue that all anarchists are political nihilists in a sense | (especially Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Max Stirner). Then there | are many really niche ones like mereorological nihilists who, I'd | argue, call themselves monists. Existential nihilists, who deny a | meaning to life and/or value, call themselves existentialists and | absurdists and reigned in continental philosophy for half a | century (the blog is vague but seems to mainly be referring to | these.) | | I'll give the author that I've never heard of a serious | metaphysical nihilist. It's hard to deny that something does | exist and that it does work in some way. | | There's another flaw in the analysis too: Why would people write | about things they don't believe in and don't care about? Anti- | theists do that, but what if they're the exception rather than | the rule (because of a certain oppressive history in the area | there.) | enkid wrote: | I don't think it's appropriate to consider "Existentialists" or | "Absurdists" like Sartre or Camus as nihilists. Rather, they | developed techniques specifically to avoid nihilism even if | life does not have a prescribed meaning by making your own. | guerrilla wrote: | It depends on your definition. They certainly did not believe | in any objective or universal values or meaning to life. Your | criticism applies to most hedonists, moral relativists, etc. | too. | enkid wrote: | I don't think the common understanding of either moral | relativism or hedonism categorizes them as nihilism. For | example, hedonism is just a specific form of | consequentialism. | gremloni wrote: | I mean it's true that nothing really matters unless you assign an | arbitrary baseline that you as an individual are trying to | optimize for. | | What's there to write about. It's categorically true. | dvt wrote: | > Nietzsche is easy and fun to read: straightforward, vivid, and | outrageous. He was brilliant; the best philosopher of all time, | in my opinion. | | I've read almost everything by him, and, cards on the table, I | don't really like Nietzsche, but calling him the best philosopher | of all time is a bit of a stretch. With that said, this idea that | his philosophical writings are deeply nihilistic just needs to go | away. His entire corpus basically deals with how to _escape_ | nihilism--how to find purpose in purposelessness. | | The will to power is not nihilistic at all. Sure, it's extremely | amoral and probably wrong, but it's certainly not nihilistic. The | eternal recurrence is brought up as a way to cope with | meaninglessness and as a way to find purpose in ones life. Other | ideas are purely rationalist, like the subject-predicate | (non-)distinction (in his famous lightning flash example). Sure, | _Genealogy of Morals_ is probably all wrong, but its purpose is | to re-intuit a moral system without socio-religious | underpinnings. | | The idea behind nihilism is that it's _valueless_ , whereas | Nietzsche tries to find _new_ values. | wolverine876 wrote: | >> Nietzsche is easy and fun to read: straightforward, vivid, | and outrageous. He was brilliant; the best philosopher of all | time, in my opinion. | | > I've read almost everything by him, and, cards on the table, | I don't really like Nietzsche, but calling him the best | philosopher of all time is a bit of a stretch. | | IMHO: A few years ago, "straightforward, vivid, and outrageous" | was exciting, transgressing. Now it's very tired and a bit | aggravating - who wants to deal with more of it? | Fellshard wrote: | That's still nihilism, it's just trying to build new values ex | nihilo. | fruffy wrote: | Are there any (continental) philosophers you would recommend | over Nietzsche? I keep trying to move past him and Stirner, but | have not managed so far. | Errancer wrote: | Deleuze's books on history of philosophy are interesting and | approachable. Although they are more about his own philosophy | over people he write about they're still very valuable. | Deleuze gets bad reputation for his other writings as they | are difficult to read but that's not the case with books on | history. He also have books on Nietzsche so that might be a | nice starting point. Other continental philosophers that you | could try are Heidegger, Foucault or Bataille. Everything | depends on what you're looking for, but if you're coming from | Nietzsche and Stirner they might be interesting for you. | | Edit: As someone else mentioned, Walter Benjamin is also very | interesting! | waingake wrote: | Try Simone de Beauvoir's the ethics of ambiguity. It's deals | with many of the concerns Neitzsche raises in the area of | ethics and moralality and provides some convincing arguments | in a short accessible book. | krylon wrote: | Personally, I like Albert Camus very much. | | Like Nietzsche, he has a bad reputation for being moody and | depressing, but the way I see it, he is really liberating and | optimistic. A true humanist. | HKH2 wrote: | Where does either of them have that reputation? | pasabagi wrote: | Maybe Adorno's Minima Moralia might be nice? It's well | written, in the sense Nietzsche is well written. Can also | recommend Walter Benjamin. | | In terms of interpreters of Nietzsche, it's considerably more | difficult, but Deleuze wrote a really good book on Nietzsche | that's worth reading. | goodpoint wrote: | Schopenhauer! | andi999 wrote: | If you like depressed mood then have a look at Schopenhauer? | m_a_g wrote: | Soren Kierkegaard could be a good candidate. | HKH2 wrote: | I think Dostoyevsky and Camus are more accessible. | _red wrote: | >His entire corpus basically deals with how to escape nihilism | | You must admit there is some sort of grand comedy in this: | Nietzsche's one 'novel', "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" entire plot | line is about a man who tries to warn society of the evils of | nihilism and instead of being scared-off by it, all the people | he warns fall in love with the idea (ie. willing trade their | dangerous freedom to gain safety). | | Its a deeply ironic that the current pedestrian understanding | of him is that he advocated "atheism and nihilism". You almost | couldn't make it up. | scott_s wrote: | I think it's worth noting that dvt's post agrees with the | submitted essay. Quoting more: | | > At times he described himself as "a nihilist," by which he | meant not that everything is meaningless, but that he actively | rejected the available eternalisms. He also condemned | "nihilism," understood as apathetic unwillingness to take | problems of meaningness seriously. He particularly included | Christianity and "Apollonian" rationalism in that. Nietzsche's | intention was to develop a new, positive alternative. | platz wrote: | Then the author's use of the word nihilism in this article is | a redefinition of what is the accepted definition of the | term. | smhost wrote: | Rejecting accepted definitions is fine if you have a | purpose for doing it. The problem with Chapman is more that | he's very sloppy with his langauge. If you read his blog, | you might be left with the impression that Nietzsche is | just some simple pseudo-mystical bullshitter, because | Chapman doesn't explain Nietzsche's double movement from | knowing to unknowing and vice versa. To use Chapman's own | taxonomy, what Chapman thinks he's doing is dwelling in the | space between meaningfulness and meaninglessness, but he's | just being meaningless while expecting Nietzsche to somehow | do the heavy lifting. Nietzsche probably would've hated | this guy. | scott_s wrote: | I think the point this author is making is that | _Nietzsche's_ use of word "nihilism" does not match our | accepted definition. | jonnyone wrote: | >Sure, Genealogy of Morals is probably all wrong | | All wrong according to what exactly? | dvt wrote: | > All wrong according to what exactly? | | All wrong as a viable moral theory. It gained a bit of | popularity in the "evolutionary ethics" crowd (i.e. those | that might think _The Selfish Gene_ is a profound piece of | work), but no one really takes it seriously when compared to | utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc. | VoodooJuJu wrote: | Had Nietzsche existed today, he'd just be written off as some | edgy 4chan troll. I'm glad he was able to get his ideas on paper | in the time period that he did. | weatherlight wrote: | there's different types of nihilism, Epistemological Nihilism, | Moral Nihilism, Political Nihilism, Existential Nihilism, etc. | It's the latter that the author seems to be engrossed in. | | I'll leave you with a quote. "This is the great | lesson the depressive learns: Nothing in the world is inherently | compelling. Whatever may be really "out there" cannot project | itself as an affective experience. It is all a vacuous affair | with only a chemical prestige. Nothing is either good or bad, | desirable or undesirable, or anything else except that it is made | so by laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we | live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, | inaccurately--imparting meaning to what has none of its own. Yet | what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking | machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. | There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and | no one to know. The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as | pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as | individuals who know what is known to the depressive. How | advantageous that we are not coerced into choosing one or the | other, neither choice being excellent. One look at human | existence is proof enough that our species will not be released | from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to | hallucinations. That may be no way to live, but to opt for | depression would be to opt out of existence as we consciously | know it." | | -- Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race | itsdsmurrell wrote: | Is there a point to this article? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-14 23:00 UTC)