meaning ex nihilo

Someone once said:
“Nihilism, what horse shit. What did Nietzsche give us besides a few words like ‘lifestyle’.”

For something that doesn’t exist, people have spent an awful lot of time talking about objective meaning, purpose, etc. And now that we all conceive of objective meaning, whether it be divine or otherwise inherent in the universe, it has become like an imaginary standard that all personal meaning, values, and reasons can only fall short of. In the past, if people have assumed objective meaning it seems to have usually been an optimistic assumption that complemented the human desire to know and understand. For someone of this disposition, nihilism is extreme pessimism.

But nihilism can be the primer that ignites a phoenix transformation. Old, tired illusions are shattered and destroyed and from the ashes meaning rises anew. Nihilism is the realization that there is no justification for what you value, for the rightness of your values. It’s not easy to reconcile this belief while living amongst people everywhere giving reasons and rationalizations for their value judgments that are in all cases baseless. Nihilism is not a contradiction, it is not some impossible belief in nothingness, it does not mean that a nihilist should have no reason to do anything.

For a long time now, I’ve understood nihilism to mean the view that there is no inherent meaning or value in anything, that all meaning and value exists dependently on subjects (like us). I think that this can be a supremely depressing thought for people who have been under the impression that meaning and value are objective and concretely given by God or the nature of the universe, indisputable and certain. Thus, the nihilistic realization can come as a truly horrible and irreconcilable let down. On the other hand, if you are comfortable with the idea of subject dependent meaning and value, it can really expose an infinity of possibilities and make life endlessly fascinating and worthwhile. The difference is perspective, and perspective is sometimes a difficult thing to change.

I see nihilism as almost trivially true. And yet, I also believe meaning is part of the nature of human existence. It’s automatic. It’s always already there. It would take deception to believe that all was meaningless.

All we value is absolutely temporally, biologically, and experientially contingent and hence bound to be annihilated. Yes, it’s true. And it’s clear that in a certain light the idea becomes so unbearable and preoccupying…strangling and demotivating…that it begins to hollow out one’s soul into an abyss – a prison of depreciation and denial – where the self disengages from every feeling and incarcerates every beautiful thought. It is very possible however to accept nihilism, as I do, as trivially true and to be emboldened by new possibilities for meaning. I accept that the here and now, the meaning of the moment, of my life, may perish forever in the great procession of the universe. But I will have always been a part of the great procession. That is an absolute. And I can play my part in the grand procession however I see fit. What will I make of it! No deception or delusion necessary, but pure excitement at the possibility of creation.

Have courage [!]

Good post. Courage is required for meaning. If meaning is subject-dependent (and it is) and we can not live without meaning (we can’t) then we have to stand in the face of nothingness upholding what we happen to find meaningful as real. The upside is that subjects have always done this. By their own meaning-establishing they have managed to be subjects. With the advent of collectivized meaning, the power of the subject to assert himself has decreased. Language has weakened us, it has in part “objectified” us, meaning that it has petrified our creative capacity to stand alone, be actual subjects.

The one thing that still retains absolute meaning is the concept meaning itself. Since meaning is always necessary for a being to proceed in its being (“meaning” meaning ‘reason to act/be’) it is inherent in being. Not meaning is dissolved in nihilism, but objectivity, certainty, equality.

Sure I get it. What nihilism also does which is also the reason it is heavily repressed as a academical subject is that it shows the facade of a singular objective authority in human social hierarchy since all meaning is subjective leaving traditional authority in quite a quagmire.

This is why philosophical nihilism remains underground and repressed by the powers that be in order that the status quo of traditional government authority remains in place.

Nihilism threatens the traditional method of acquiring and maintaining power.

Not really - have you read 1984? Any of the Soviet dissident stuff? Dostoevsky? The subjectivity of truth and meaning is a significant weapon in the arsenal of oppressive regimes. We have always been at war with Eurasia; the grand inquisitor’s secret is that he knows the belief is false.

I think you’d like to think that’s the case. It’s really nothing so romantic. In fact, it’s the intellectuals who the oppressive governments go for first. Nihilism is no threat to authority, because nihilists don’t have anything to fight for. They’re too busy moaning.

Or too busy working for marketing departments. Paid well enough, they’re simply marketing the despots themselves.

I would say nihilism, in the technical sense that value & meaning are essentially subjective phenomena, is a problem for authorities. Especially illegitimate authority.

Could you explain what you mean? I’m not sure how the idea that meaning and value are subjective arms dictatorial power and authority.

Can I chime in? I’d say, for instance, that if the U.S. government, or president, or military wanted to increase its power over the population it is supposed to serve, one tactic it could use would be to systematically weaken the idea that all men are created equal, and are born with inalienable rights.

I mean…it’s possible to oppress people no matter what beliefs one is wielding. Is it specifically that much easier to oppress people with the foundational belief that meaning and value are subjective?

That scenario is likely whenever a citizenship is unwitting and oblivious. That meaning and value are subjective need not make it any easier to knock down the surety of conviction with which people hold themselves to have rights or self-value. IF the surety of conviction isn’t there in the first place, and if people are oblivious to the systematic tactics of their leaders, then it make no difference whether meaning and value are thought to be subjective or objective.

Yes, people might have to outline a new conception of rights and ground their self-value in experience rather than theory, but there’s no reason people cannot hold firm subjective beliefs, backed up with new kinds of reasons rather than revelation or a priori arguments.

No, I wouldn’t say so.

I agree, though I think it’s important to have an accurate conception of what “unwitting and oblivious” means. Many of the brightest minds in the world have been possessed by demons. On the other hand, I do sometimes wonder if “conviction”, understood as adherence to values and to virtue even in the face of extreme adversity, almost necessitates a conception of those values as transcendent in a way that the nihilist summarily rejects.

I think it might be the case that for subjective beliefs to hold firm, they may need to be conceived of, by the people holding them, as objectively true. Perhaps its better for beliefs to not hold firm? But then aren’t you potentially ceding power to the oppressor?

Yes, good point, the idea does need more fleshing out, though I believe there is a way of understanding conviction without also assuming objectivity or the transcendental.

A topic that could turn into a life’s work!

No I think it is fine to have firm beliefs, but the firmness should come from legitimate experience and reasoning and always with respect for new ideas and relations with others.

I know this is vague on my behalf, but I haven’t fully conceived of the way belief works after nihilism. Meaning ex nihilo may only be one side of the coin. I believe meaning comes from no ultimate authority and that it is fluid and impermanent, but it does have an origin.

I’m also interested in how you incorporate ideas of legitimacy and illegitimacy into a nihilistic framework. Those are very specific words, and I’m not sure I understand how you are employing them.

Yes, I will be focused on trying to articulate my thoughts better. I can’t promise when you’ll see the results though. I’m at work now, so I’m only able to think about it intermittently.

I gave you a reading list in my post. If George Orwell can’t explain things, I’m not sure I can.

If the truth of a statement is dependent on nothing but social acceptance (rather than, say, its relation to the state of the world), or if truth in and of itself has no value beyond that granted to it, then it’s ultimately a power game. An oppressive regime defines the truth as it suits it to be, and demands your conformity. Your personal valuation system has no intrinsic worth, as a nihilist, so they do nothing wrong in breaking you to their will. It is as it is; all you’re doing by insisting that the sun rises in the East when they say it rises in the West is angering them and provoking your own punishment.

Wait a second, I’m talking about meaning and value. There may be other things that are objective. Meaning and value aren’t. I’m not focused on the concept of truth in itself here. I certainly never said truth is subjective.

What makes you attribute these statements to me?

The weapon of oppressive regimes here is the will and power to demand the conformity of others, by nearly any means necessary. Not subjectivity about value and meaning - I don’t see how they are the main source of power for oppression from what you are saying.

My personal valuation system has no intrinsic worth because intrinsic worth isn’t possible. It does have worth, though, because I value it. So it is actually going to be a problem if someone shits over my values. I’m not sure how you approached this thread, but I don’t think you understand my position. I feel like you looked at some of the words I typed (e.g., nihilist, objective, subjective, value, etc.) and are making points against some typical and generic position that you’ve encountered before.

I didn’t - if you look back, I was replying to James L Walker’s point (which is a fairly typical and generic stance, albeit a different one than you mention), and not to your OP. So insofar as your position and his differs, it’s understandable you might think I’ve misinterpreted your point or attributed a view to you that you don’t have. I think existentialist is a more accurate description of your stance (some see as a subset of nihilism, some don’t), while JLW is more a classical nihilist - according to my vocabulary, at least.

But, for the record:
On what does the truth of a statement depend, given that meaning is subject-dependent?
What value does truth have (to you), besides the value that you give it?

For clarity here: will and power aren’t weapons. Weapons are used to enhance power, which is used to enforce will.

I didn’t say that they are the main source of power, only a significant weapon. A culture will only resist your directions insofar as it clashes with the members’ values - defang the values, your job is much easier.

It’s a problem, absolutely. You’re not going to he happy about it. But it’s not a (morally) wrong thing to do, to a moral nihilist, because morality is a fiction. Just like it’s not a sin, to an atheist.

I don’t think I’m skim-reading - as I said, I was responding to another post.

O_H,

Fair enough. I thought your post was directed at both of us.

Meaning is subject dependent, but subjects derive meaning from their experience and the convergence of their senses and the external world. Although, I haven’t fully thought it over, I believe that a useful conception of truth is consistent with my version of nihilism (or my version of post-nihilism). In other words, a true statement should be one which honestly corresponds to the convergence of human sensation, logic, and the external world.

Besides the value I give it, I struggle to see what other value it could have. For the record, I value truth highly. I think we are driven to value truth because that has been a successful trait for survival.

Is anything essentially a weapon? The closest thing to being essentially a weapon is a thing created for the purpose of being a weapon. I would still argue that the thing itself isn’t essentially a weapon for it could come to be used for a completely different purpose, given the way people decide to use it and think about it. This relates to what I’m talking about concerning subjective meaning. I say will and power are weapons if used/directed in certain ways. If thought about as a weapon, if used as a weapon, will and power are de facto weapons.

Morality is subjective. It’s still a morally wrong thing to do according to my assessment. You may either agree somewhat with my assessment or not.