What Nihilism Is And Isn't: Dispelling Misconceptions

Mictlantecuhtli · June 27, 2016, 11:21pm

I post pictures and illustrations to make philosophy more interesting, fun, and entertaining unlike the same old boring regurgitating dullards such as yourself.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 27, 2016, 11:26pm

I would argue accountability is a moral cultural invention.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 27, 2016, 11:32pm

My whole shtick is pointing out the amoral or immoral behaviors of so called moral people and organized social systems.

Complaining about authoritarian governments? You misinterpret me, I poke, prod, and jab government systems shining a spotlight on them because for me government manage societies will eventually collapse under their own weight possibly destroying the entire world along with them. For me it’s all rather amusing, entertaining, and ironic. It’s all a giant absurd gag!

My only complaint is the festering hypocrisy and deception behind it all in that there exists a lack of honesty or authentic clarity for it. I wish more people understood the pathetic existence of human civilization and fully acknowledged it.

I try really hard in my writings to bring that all out in my own way of course.

The_Golden_Turd · June 28, 2016, 12:55am

What?

You realize your operating upon a retarded, easily refuted synthesis, right?

Secondly, I take everything very seriously, like light passing through a prism. I combine what is separate, by pitting the unexpected together, and I peer into the morass of being and break things down to their constitute parts. Instead of light, I work the dialectic, but the principle is all the same. I take it all very, very seriously… changing the nature of a idea while keeping it pure is a very delicate task. A well experienced surgeon with a steady hand is the master of a fart joke, within the echoing realms that the spirit passes through, the many twists and recesses of the mind.

iambiguous · June 30, 2016, 5:43pm

Admittedly, I don’t claim to be privy to what a “true Nihilist” is.

Still, just for the record [as a moral nihilist], I’d like to respond to this particular rendition of nihilism.

Trust me: Just because you are a nihilist, it doesn’t make food taste any less delicious, music sound any less sublime, sex feel any less exhilarating, love feel any less fulfilling, accomplishment feel any less satisfying. Et cetera.

Instead, the argument here seems to focus only in on the sort of “meaning” that revolves around one or another objectivist rendition of one or another so-called teleological moral and political narrative.

And, in that respect, Kropotkin seems [to me] to be but the liberal rendition of uccisore.

Sure, they both reject the sort of nihilism that I espouse. But let’s not get carried away regarding the extent to which being a nihilist is actually a reason to kill yourself.

On the contrary, nihilists are not anchored to one or another God or to one or another political dogma. So that actually increases their options, doesn’t it?

They just don’t have access to one or another “natural” truth in order to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”.

Arminius · June 30, 2016, 8:18pm

If all governing people (the public and the hidden ones) and all other people who are more than the average people are nihilistic resp cynic, what can most of the average people and most of those who are less than the average people do except being nihlisic and cynic too? They just copy them - more or less. Resistance is something for a minority - as always.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 30, 2016, 10:19pm

iambiguous:

Peter Kropotkin:

If one actually believed in Nihilism, they would kill themselves as there
is no point in living because living and dying have the same meaning…none…
and no way to have meaning, so death is the only option for a true Nihilist.

Kropotkin

Admittedly, I don’t claim to be privy to what a “true Nihilist” is.

Still, just for the record [as a moral nihilist], I’d like to respond to this particular rendition of nihilism.

Trust me: Just because you are a nihilist, it doesn’t make food taste any less delicious, music sound any less sublime, sex feel any less exhilarating, love feel any less fulfilling, accomplishment feel any less satisfying. Et cetera.

Instead, the argument here seems to focus only in on the sort of “meaning” that revolves around one or another objectivist rendition of one or another so-called teleological moral and political narrative.

And, in that respect, Kropotkin seems [to me] to be but the liberal rendition of uccisore.

Sure, they both reject the sort of nihilism that I espouse. But let’s not get carried away regarding the extent to which being a nihilist is actually a reason to kill yourself.

On the contrary, nihilists are not anchored to one or another God or to one or another political dogma. So that actually increases their options, doesn’t it?

They just don’t have access to one or another “natural” truth in order to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”.

I approve of this post.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 30, 2016, 10:24pm

In my world there are two different kinds of nihilists, government nihilists and anarchist nihilists such as myself.

Government nihilists learned a long time ago to give lip service to morality and socialist ideology by telling the general ignorant public exactly what they want to hear even if none of it is true or that those in government don’t actually believe in any of it themselves where they don’t actually care about the general public at all they’re governing…

In this way I suppose government nihilists are better liars and deceivers. I suppose our open candid nature and careless honesty is our Achilles heel for us anarchist nihilists by comparison. We just don’t have a knack concerning general political sophistry as government nihilists do.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 30, 2016, 10:57pm

Government nihilists want to create a nihilistic social order through a centralized structure reaffirming their own power over the world. Government nihilists tend to like fascism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism.

Anarchist nihilists on other hand want to return to a more natural nihilistic world environment where nobody rules everything, in order to bring about that perspective is held that all centralized social order or organization must be destroyed and abolished.

Yes, nihilists don’t even agree with each other on everything. There are differences in all ideological ranks or factions.

To clarify one more time government nihilists believe in central organized government tyranny and social order whereas anarchist nihilists believe in the decentralized surrender or acceptance of natural chaotic flux. For anarchist nihilists social order must be destroyed or abolished by any means.

It is my firm belief that the goals or ambitions of government nihilists is the more fool hardy concerning their maladaptibility to the chaotic flux of both nature and existence where eventually anarchist nihilism will affirm itself over them. Social order of any kind never lasts for very long as chaotic flux is the master of everything through entropy.

We anarchist nihilists hold chaotic flux in high regard as the pinnacle of the universe.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 6:37am

Ontological Nihilism

As Quine once noted, the question “what is there?” admits a truthful reply of just one word: “everything”. The glibness of this point illustrates a difficulty encountered when posing ontological questions. When the philosopher asks us if there are trees, we are inclined to say that of course there are. If the philosopher is frustrated by the ease with which this reply is given, it is likely because they sought to place a stricter meaning on the verb ‘to be’ than we have granted it. The question was not really “are there trees?”, but “are there really trees?”

Armed with this general caveat we can divest ontological nihilism — the view that nothing exists — of some of its surface angst by rendering it more faithfully as the view that no thing exists. In their paper on the topic [1], John O’Leary-Hawthorne and Andrew Cortens (who will from hereon in be assimilated into the unity known as ‘HC’) approach the idea (which they defend) by considering the various degrees of commitment we can hold towards objects in general.

Straightforward realism. The world comes to us “articulated into distinct objects” [2]. On this view the ontologically honest sentences are those which take the familiar grammatical form in which nouns are used as subjects. Example: “There is a pebble.”

The world consists of stuffs, not of things. Many of what we think of as objects are actually just partial regions of scattered stuff. The ontologically honest sentences are those that employ mass terms [3] which refer to these stuffs. Here the pebble example would more honestly be put as: “There’s a bit of pebble.”

Token monism. There is just one object, and that object is the world. Everything we perceive as an object is just some local modification of the world-stuff. (This view is associated with Spinoza and Parmenides. [4]) Our example becomes: “The world-stuff is pebblish there.”

The positions on this list become more ontologically innocent [5] as we ascend, in that they become committed to the existence of fewer and fewer objects. Realism treats all or most of the things we refer to with nouns as objects, the stuff view reduces this number dramatically, and token monism reduces it to one. Ontological nihilism is then the view which reduces this number to zero.

To see how this works it is helpful to consider which sentences would be ontologically honest according to nihilism. The paradigmatic example given by HC is “It is raining.” Sentences of this type are referred to as ‘feature-placing’ [6], and are distinguished by the fact that ‘it’ is not being used as a noun-subject, and hence carries no tacit existential commitments. (As we can see by noting that “It is raining” is not semantically equivalent to “There is a thing which is raining”.) Adding it to our list, we have:

Ontological Nihilism. There are no objects. Ontologically honest sentences are those, like feature-placing sentences, which are completely ontologically innocent. Our example becomes: “It is pebbling there.”

Arguments against

The primary argument against nihilism appeals to the indispensability of (ontologically guilty) subject-predicate grammar. We are, of course, far more at home with descriptions like “there is a pebble” than “it is pebbling there”. The question is then whether this familiarity is simply a matter of historical contingency, or if subject-predicate grammar provides an intrinsically good way of representing reality which we have, as it were, discovered in the course of our linguistic development. If it is the latter then the case can be made that this utility is best explained if reality really is divided into objects prior to its perception, i.e. if object realism of some sort is true.

HC criticise this argument by challenging the indispensability of subject-predicate grammar directly. They do so by attempting to provide an account of how a descriptively rich language can be constructed based on ontologically innocent sentences. The first step, as we’ve seen, is to replace noun-subjects with feature-placing verbs: “there is a pebble” becomes “it is pebbling there”. Next, predicates of nouns are replaced with adverbs: “there is a white pebble” becomes “it is pebbling whitely there”, then adverb-dropping inferences are dealt with, then counting terms, tense terms, generalising quantifiers, etc. Finally, charges that these constructions smuggle objects back into the picture are met. I will not go into details here — let us just grant that there may be some hope for this approach. For the remainder of this post I will assume that it succeeds.

If the indispensability argument can be undercut in this fashion, then pending further objections to nihilism the playing field is levelled. What’s more, nihilism’s greater parsimony seems to sway things in its favour. Still, a point won on appeal to Occam’s Razor is unlikely to provoke revolution. What ontological nihilism needs is some substantial arguments in its favour.

Arguments for

HC offer two positive arguments, both of which aim to show that nihilism can help to dissolve certain metaphysical problems which are (they allege) in grave need of dissolution. The first concerns the persistence of identity over time, the second concerns composite objects.

In the case of identity we are asked to consider a watch that has been taken to bits then reassembled with a faulty part replaced. Some feel it is the same watch as before, others feel it is a new one. Who is correct? HC note that the temptation is to view this as a pseudo-problem, and to convey the dispute as a semantic one. But it’s hard to see how this can be the case given object-realism. If we are serious about objects, then the problem remains stubbornly metaphysical: is it the same watch or not? It seems as if the realist’s realism leaves them unable to diagnose their own suspicions. For the nihilist the problem just doesn’t come up. There are no objects, only verb-like happenings of the mysterious ‘it’ (“it was watching then and now it’s watching likewise”), so there is no problem of object identity.

There is a sense in which this would get us out of the fix, but I do not think it is a particularly compelling strategy. We can always dissolve a problem by denying the existence of its subject matter, but this will rarely do much to alleviate the tensions that gave rise to it in the first place. It is inconsequential whether it’s the same watch or not, so the example illustrates their point well. But consider a situation in which moral outcomes hang on identity criteria. If we were to develop teleporters in the far-flung future, whether or not the person who emerges from one end is the same person as whoever entered at the other seems roughly equivalent to asking whether teleporting someone is murder. To take a more sober example, the question of whether we have moral obligations to ourselves (a question with obvious implications for the ethics of suicide) seems to hinge on whether we remain the same person from decade to decade as our cells are gradually replaced.

If the ontological nihilist doesn’t want to embrace moral nihilism — and deny the existence of yet another subject matter — how do they make good on such quandaries? If nihilism is to provide a genuine dissolution to the problem of persistent identity, then it will have to do so in the cases that matter.

The situation with composite objects is mildly better, but ultimately amounts to the same thing. In what sense can we say that a table exists, as opposed to just that its parts exist and are “arranged tablewise”? [7] Again the problem seems false, again the realist is powerless to identify it as such, and again HC dissolve it by nuking the concept of objects altogether. While the link to consequential matters is perhaps less obvious in the case of composite objects than it was in the case of persistent identity, HC’s treatment of it is uncompelling for much the same reasons.

The general worry is that the nihilist is going to lose the ability to articulate ontological contrast of any sort. This leaves them with a problem when it comes to making sense of disputes which are couched in terms of ontological commitments, but whose content is not wholly ontological (moral disputes in particular). There are no doubt ontological disputes for which dissolution is the wisest approach (do gaps and crevices exist?), but there are others which are harder to dismiss as contentless (do human rights exist, or are they just useful fictions?). It is the latter that the ontological nihilist will have to account for if their constructive project is to succeed.

theplatopus.com/tag/ontological-nihilism/

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 6:43am

Values

Human machinations are often explained as the inveterate search for happiness, and while this explanation suffices to a minimal degree in casual philosophical discussion in fact the human mind is not so simple that it just seeks happiness in every action and decision. Many people seek things that don’t make them happy, power for instance. Many people seek to become Presidents, Prime Ministers and dictators but look at how much trouble they get out of the bargain when and if they arrive? Or what about fame; the famous say ‘don’t be famous - it isn’t worth it’, but who listens? Something deeper is going on here …

In reality the human mind, and the body supporting it, is enmeshed within a complex system of relationships, connections, and interactions and we have to very carefully, continually and with great effort, map out a path and measure our actions against the consequences and impacts that our efforts will have upon the people, objects and connections in our environment. Unless they’re a woefully dysfunctional psychopath, people aren’t little atoms bouncing around trying to feel good all the time and the few fools that try this don’t last very long! It seems surprising how few seem to recognize this fairly simple concept of interconnections and, perhaps because it’s so difficult to quantify, this misunderstanding is especially common in the male mind.

Most important to recognize is that humans are not living beings that can exist independently; humans are not one-celled organisms, they are highly networked, social creatures. We all exist inside, and because of, a complex network of relations formed between objects, individuals, and an ever-changing array of groups composed of both. Our goals and values are a direct result of that system we are enmeshed within.

Hypothetically, the choice of which value system we adopt depends on what kind of goal we want to achieve but in practice we rarely know exactly what we want and even less often how to get it. So the entire argument that characterizes philosophy and metaphysics, as a dissection of the individual human mind and body, is a charade and it just ends in the same dead-end of argument because it doesn’t aim towards, or find the root, of the issue.

The message emanating from the reduction-oriented methodology of Nihilism concerning values is simply that because of our tenuous and constantly changing situation our values and goals are not absolutes but are in a continual flux. Consequently our values are not fixed but actually quite relative. For various reasons we typically use great effort to hide this value ambiguity by concocting false absolutes, such as through myths and religious beliefs held together by dogma, but in the end our actions reveal this for the delusional foolishness that it is.

The fully and properly developed human mind and body are seeking more than simple short-term self-interest, but also seeking to better fit into the vast and often complex surrounding environmental network. This entails a constant process of adaptation, questioning, solution seeking and struggle while continually creating and destroying the networks that characterize our social and physical environment. Because of this, in this struggle called life the Nihilist has a profound awareness to not hold anything sacred and never get too attached to anything.

counterorder.com/revolution.html

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 7:02am

Realism In Relation To Nihilism

Does realism, every form of realism, assume the indifference and obliviousness of the real?

Is the notion of the indifference and obliviousness of the real logically intrinsic to the realist view?

Is every realist forced by philosophical necessity to admit or concede the indifference and obliviousness of the real?

Every realist assumption sooner or later leads to nihilism. Realism asserts a mind-independent universe which is not the product of a mind. Please note that the idea that the universe is created and governed by a mind or some reason given to it by a mind is an idealist concept. It is the antropomorphization of existence. The moment we assume that reality is either created by or is a part of a mind, we assume idealism. Realism assumes the opposite of that. Realism maintains that the universe exists without a mind to create it or to perceive it. Reality is mind-independent in every possible sense. But if the universe is not created and is not a part of a mind then it is devoid of any reason . Reason is the product of a mind and if the universe is mind-independent, existing without a mind to perceive or create it, then it is devoid of reason. And thus devoid of any human notion of “meaning” and indifferent to any such notion. If realism is true there is no other choice but to accept the lack of reason and meaning to reality.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 7:15am

The Irrationality Of The Universe And The Human Construct Of Reason, Meaning, Or Intelligence

The fact that intelligence developed in the universe does not mean that there is a meaning or reason for the existence of that intelligence or for the existence of the universe. The universe existed before the intelligence which developed in it. Universe is anterior to intelligence and thus we have no reason to suppose that it is dependent on reason, which is always a product of intelligence. Sure, intelligent beings can “imbue” the universe with reason, but that would be a purely subjective action of human though and would, objectively, mean nothing. And for realist thought, also mean nothing.

If there is no meaning to existence then there is no meaning to existence period. A meaning for the universe can’t just “pop-up”. To claim that meaning is possible in an already meaningless universe is a contradiction.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 7:41am

Human Constructed Logic In An Illogical And Unreasonable Universe.

If the world is paradoxical in nature then the notion of logical intelligibility is moot at best and laughable and absurd at worst.

Suppose for a moment the world is in fact paradoxical. Does logic still apply here?

In other words: If the world is paradoxical then logic has nothing to say about it.

A thought experiment: Put yourself in a paradoxical universe. Does logic apply here?

Now imagine the universe you know so well is actually at heart paradoxical. Does logic apply here?

In other words: Logic is a closed construct: It only applies to logical systems. Since we haven’t established beyond all doubt that the universe is at heart a logical system it’s best to suspend judgement as to the supremacy of logic as a tool for revealing mysteries and determining the nature of reality.

statiktech · July 1, 2016, 1:07pm

What have we established beyond all doubt? If logic is the means by which we discover the apparent paradoxes, then, yes, logic would apply in such a universe. Also, even if we were to suspend judgment about the efficacy of logic, it’d be impractical to suspend the use of it until you’ve established a better system.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 1:51pm

For me logic isn’t all that logical especially when we consider the imperfect nature of the animal wielding it and of course we can see that the universe itself absent of meaning more than likely isn’t consistent or logical as human beings would like to anticipate it to be.

Your utilization of the word impractical conjures up that humanity has a goal, ambition, or activity that it must fulfill upon the efficacy of logic.

statiktech · July 1, 2016, 2:35pm

The tool and how it’s used are two different things. Logic can be used incorrectly, like any tool.

Your second statement makes no sense.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 3:02pm

Yes, and it is because of that imperfection that a logical model for the entire universe will never be made moreover as I’ve stated with the universe being absent of meaning more than likely the entire universe wouldn’t conform to such a human model anyways.

You say abandoning the logic we have or possess would be impractical but really I see no concern in abandoning it like you do. I see no difference in its abandonment. It means very little or nothing at all.

statiktech · July 1, 2016, 4:07pm

That seems pretty evident based on most of the things you say around here.

Mictlantecuhtli · July 1, 2016, 4:43pm

Well, I’ve never claimed my philosophy is perfect and I believe you hinted at the imperfect nature of human logic, so why do you think your imperfection is better than mine? You seem to be acting like you’re embracing a far more superior stance.