A unique approach to the discussion on nihilism.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
61

For how much it seems to me your writings follow what Sartre said.
However, I have the impression that Sartre cannot be for you a good guide.
There are in fact teachers that can “unintentionally” put in trap their students. To me, Sartre is one of them.
That usually happens when the teacher, having a strong character, is convinced to know the Truth. But that truth is different from how he is living because it is just “intellectual”. Therefore, to really understand the author thought we need to read him between the lines.

Nihilism cannot be faced through an ontology (making a system of the being) but through a periech-ontology (opening to the being).
Philosophy cannot teach the Truth, but it can point out a possible way, then it is to us to go ahead (alone).

The periech-ontology of Karl Jaspers is just that: a possible way.
I found very interesting, so I read and I am rereading it, “Philosophy” (3 vol.)
A good introduction it is to me: “Philosophy of Existence”.

62

What exactly is the being of the encompassing?

63

It is the horizon of every horizon, it is the eternal situation where we always are. It is the Totality, that never can be reduced to thing.

64

Can you tell me how it differs from Dasein?

65

There is a conventional way to attribute meaning to the terms: Dasein and Existence.

Dasein is everything that there is.
It is important to pay attention to that “there”.
Dasein is the contemporary presence of subject and object.

Existence is what I really am. Existence manifests itself through communication. So it is impossible to set that the Existence has to be the subject or the object, it is in the between.
For that reason, from Dasein point of view, there is not Existence

In fact, “there is” only what may be an object for the subject.

Existence may turns up in a limit-situation, where we are deeply shaken up.

Any situation can become a limit-situation, in such a way we put in discussion the Dasein because we are Existence. Only the Existence is conscious of the Transcendence in the situation.
Existence sees the intrinsic open horizon, it knows that Totality is not a thing.

66

Actually, I’m pretty sure that you have those backwards.

67

Impressive, I mean I’m sure what you’ve been saying before was impressive as well, but it was fairly familiar to me. That explanation above really helps me to understand the idea of Dasein, which I’m still only somewhat familiar with.

I tried reading one of Japser’s books, I believe it was “The Philosophy of Existence”, a short book based on lectures. Maybe I would be well off to read it carefully all the way, being that you seem to find so much use in it. May I ask, genuine or not, if you’ve read Heidegger’s “Being and Time”, or some of his similar works?

James, If I hadn’t been studying “Being and Time” recently I would agree, but there seems to be some subtle issues involved that make it so that existence is revealed through communication. Because existence can’t be expressed in a simple statement, such as, “this is true, it exists”, but in the hermeneutical circle existence is shown. Of course, I don’t place much meaning on truth even when revealed in that way.

68

I read Heidegger’s “Being and Time” many times but I have never succeeded in reaching the end. Because it sounded false to me.

69

I’m not about to try to defend Heidegger, but I’m commited to studying “Being and Time” until I either understand it or lose respect for it.

70 
 How is periech-ontology differ from jaspers use of transcendental ideal? (In the use of reason to get Kant out of his hermeanutic circle---not's kant's terminology) are you familiar with this?
71

As far as I understand there is not difference.
The circle, the tautology, the contradiction, is where the honest reason comes (Kant) when it searches the Truth to every cost.
Periech-ontology is the effort to stay in that limit-situation and to listen.

72

nvm

73

I’ve been having a discussion in the “What are you doing thread?” I decided to give my responce here because it’s related to nihilism and may be useful in the context of this thread.

When I was an adolescent, the meaning of the world, whether it was positve or negative, that was often preached to me is a large part of where my depression was from. I wasn’t given much of a chance of creating my own meaning when people were telling me so repeatedly what my meaning should be.

I eventually realized that their was no meaning to the world, but I had no bases for it through experience or philosophy. So I had the right idea, but I didn’t understand that it didn’t have to be a bad thing. That line of thinking didn’t give me much of chance. But, I was lucky and made it to the age of 20. Then I started to rethink my old perseption of the world. Had I had known what books to read I would have been able to turn my ideas on nihilism into a positive attribute, but instead the pressure of letting the meaning preached by others become my own got to me, and in my case I became religious, but there are many other types of meaning that could have caused me similar problems instead of religion.

For one who had know the world as meaningless, meaning had to actually be meaningful, so i didn’t take religion as a hypocrite would, but unfortunately hypocritical religion or any other type of hypocritical meaning is the only healthy sustainable kind of meaning. So once again I was up a creek without a paddle, but I survived that too, and years later I once again understood, as I did as an adolesent, that the world has no meaning, but now I understand it both through experience and philosophy.

I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with one believing in hypocritical meaning if it is easy them, but for many it is impossible to live well in that way. I don’t think people such as that have to learn how to believe in nihilism, in a healthy sustainable way, through years of vain searching for meaning, such as I did. I believe learning about the philosophy of of nihilism may be enough. And as I made obvious, despite my philosophy of nihilism, I care a lot about certain matters.

74 
 I went through a very similar experience. Too bad were we not friends in high school.  Had I too known to be able to realize that I wasn't a nerd (well they called them outcasts back in those days, ii would have avoided the painful but exciting world of the compensatory nature of a philosophy of categorized meaning: as the" meaning of philosophy" as a separate world, best described by a film "the meaning of life" have anyone seen it?
75

I never studied the philosophy of categorized meaning. I spent years virtually only reading fiction, much of it relatively average modern fiction, and trying to categorize meaning myself. It was a very long project, begun when I was only 9, but I was so insistant on getting it right that I never got anywhere, I think I was approaching the philosophy of nihilism without even being aware of the word “nihilism”, sometimes I wish I could have seen what how far I would ahve gone with my reference free writing. I almost think I would have written my one coherent, or semi-coherent, philosophy on nihilism. But, I finally decided to start reading philosophy. It was mostly unbearable, especially ethics, then I found Sartre. It was probably for the best, I came to this forum knowing so many of the ideas expressed here but little of the terminology, if I hadn’t read Sartre, I would have been completely lost.

76 
 This is very strange. In my experience, it was books that found me, just the reverse of your experience.  This "find" is complex and arguable, but it really is happening, all the time.  This is why I believe in the living word.
77

To give you an example, and I don’t’ exclude the integration of other forums’ content if there is relevance, it helps to dissipate the concept of "trolling–well at least form me, and showing how things can come in through the back door.

Michael Polanyi came to mind without prior exposure, after a night of confusing thoughts, as if out of the air.  I had heard the name, but when I saw his ideas were analogous to heidegger's notion of "Being in the World" I thought I was still dreaming.

This whole process came upon a strange dream ihad a while ago about the fear of falling, -while hanging on to the top of the poll-

The process, of which function I do not know, bears on my questioning of the identity (the I’d of the entity) which seems at times to possess me. I know why that is, it’s because my intense need to know, why I feel so much inadequacy and even guilt about dropping out of philosophy, and the absolute need, one way or another, to answer pertinent questions.

In my nerdish days, it never was a quest to become philosopher" like tenured or something, it was just a pre-disposition, which I din’t take quite as seriously as I would had. At any rate, there is very little doubt in my mind of this, and God being my witness. So dreams are really tellers of hidden truths. And it is the stuff of another reality.

78

I don’t recall your take on existence before essence. I realize is a statement that can lead to extreme confusion just about the terminilogy of the two terms, without even approaching the underlining concept, so let me give you several statement that I consider to be somewhat synonymous in the context used; being before knowledge; undifferentiated being before differentiated being; being is not created by the human mind, but is there before and is given meaning subsequently.

I ask that because, I wonder if it relates to what you meant by believing in the living world.

79 
 Very much so. And how so?  Mearleau Potny thinks that the intentional act of thought is not really that much differente from the content. He ascribes this to a higher level, though.
80

I’d like to give an update on my views of nihilism for anyone who cares. Three months ago when I wrote the OP I was well aware of the circle that develops when one wishes to speak of the truth of no truth, but not as aware as I am now. Nothing I say will even come close to accurately expressing that truth, and then why should it being that that truth is self-defeating by nature.

I’d like to create a dichotomy that I’ll be using, but let me first remind people of the following saying; there are two types of people in the world, those that divide the world into two types of people and those who don’t. If the significance of that saying when applied to any given dichotomy is lost one anyone, first don’t feel bad, it was lost on me most of my life, second just ask if you want an explanation.

The dichotomy is speech (written as well) and acts (that is any act other than speaking). So I claimed to be a nihilist for the most part back in the OP. That was my claim, but if anyone had known me in person they would know my acts hardly spoke as one who was even close to being a true nihilist. Now I won’t worry about giving myself the label ‘nihilist’. Still one will find that I’m very pro-nihilism in my speech, after all I wouldn’t be continuing this thread if I wasn’t. I’d like to explore using that dichotomy how pro-nihilism I really am.

Now one will find me on occasion in other threads mentioning the ambiguity of various situations, but I avoid that for the most part being that mentioning such ambiguity often sounds like I’m just simply saying, “it doesn’t matter”, over and over again to every subject that presents itself. So I take positions, but always with the underlining idea that it doesn’t matter and that my position is no more right or wrong than anyone else’s.

So that would make it seem as if I was very much pro-nihilist, but it may be misleading. I often feel strongly about the issues I speak of. Feel, is the key word here, I don’t usually share my opinions on controversial matters without feeling some degree of emotion, obviously then I care, whether I admit it or not.

And as I said my actions in person or offline hardly speak of one who is a true nihilist. I certainly look after myself and know what I want in many regards and work towards that. In fact it is very hard for me to see where I would be a nihilist in any regard of the ‘act’ half of the dichotomy at all.

So what would make me pro-nihilism (rather than one who simply has the ephemeral disposition to call myself that and to say things such as “I don’t care”) is not so much based on what I say or what I do, but who I am, that is where I see myself as a person based on my past experiences and thoughts. I’ve explored absurdity through much reflection and study and I’ve lived some degree of absurdity. So I can say that everything is absurd, ambiguous and underliningly meaningless with a conviction that comes from dual causes, study and experience or logic and feeling.

In other words, no matter how strongly I agree with the logic of a statement, theory, etc. I agree with the logic of absurdity even more so. So no matter how convinced I may be about the logic of certain ideas I would never fail to admit when pressed that even those ideas are absurd and underliningly meaningless. For example, in my OP I spoke much of Sartre. I am still very impressed by his ideas, but I would hardly say that Sartre’s philosophy is any more true, logical, meaningful or useful than any other philosophy when it comes right down to it.

And the same goes for emotion, but not to the same extent as reason or logic. I think that is to be expected since I have spent more time thinking so many supposed logical statements into obscurity or absurdity than I have spent living an absurd life. As well as impressed by Sartre’s logic I am also excited about his ideas. Most people don’t seem to be excited as well and usually lose interest when I speak of him. If I found someone who truly wanted me to discuss Sartre’s philosophy with them, I would be happy about that. I am even more emotional when someone challenges Sartre’s ideas.

So let’s say I was in an argument with someone who knew Sartre’s work very well, but thought it completely worthless. Let’s say after much struggle I was starting to win the argument, that is convince the person of Sartre’s worth, then someone jumped into the discussion and mentioned that I was pro-nihilism and therefore I believed that everything and every philosophy is ultimately absurd. Perhaps one may think I would resent such an interjection and negate it so as to win the argument, but that isn’t true. As impressed and excited as I am about Sartre’s work, it is not to the same degree as my esteem for nihilism. I would readily agree that Sartre is indeed truly absurd and meaningless. Perhaps I would try to qualify that by mentioning that he’s certainly no more absurd than any other philosopher, but that would hardly save my argument.

So in conclusion, one may ask what the use of all the above is or what do I hope to accomplish. I certainly would like to persuade people to my way of thinking (who wouldn’t?), but there is more to it than that. So much of what I feel strongly about is based on the misapplication of concepts of truth and facts, or the close mindedness of certain views, the views who’s close-mindedness bothers me the most often being the supposed open minded views that contradicted the traditionally held closed minded views.

I like to say that I like to be honest or non hypocritical, but obviously I fail in both just making such a statement. There is no truth and therefore there is no honesty (or dishonesty). But, still perhaps one can at least tentatively look past the paradoxical nature of that. I believe the truth of no truth is the best truth and when one is expressing that they are being as honest as possible. One shouldn’t have to qualify everything they say such as, “It’s true that I’m tired”, with a statement such as, “That is if anything was true”, but, the idea should always be dwelling beneath the surface.

Now I gave a bad example in that I have no interest in denying that those who are tired are in fact tired and it is a fairly mundane topic anyway. But, there are so many other issues that those here may agree are very important and yet very complex, that is with it’s ambiguity being very apparent. So if one wants to make progress while discussing such subjects one perhaps should first admit to it’s complete and utter ambiguity and then realize that everywhere we go from there is just about one’s disposition. We might then find that the subjects that are most meaningful to us can actually be worked on much more effectively with that taken as a given.