A unique approach to the discussion on nihilism.

I know this is long so I divided it into three parts. The third is the only necessary one, so I recommend skipping ahead to it.

This is meant to be philosophical, I’ll use personal example only to clarify. Like most I have unresolved personal issues, but I didn’t exactly write this to express myself, everyone who writes about philosophy has, often hidden, personal motives for what they write, but there is still a clear distinction between personal expression and philosophy. I’ve read a relatively small amount of the major philosophical works; I’m interested in hearing from people who wish to offer a perspective based on the history of philosophy as well as those who don’t. Also, it should be noted that I’m writing this from a somewhat optimistic perspective, not the stereotypical pessimistic perspective one usually applies to nihilists.

(Nonetheless, if someone is reading this and taking it very personally, then please feel free to share what you personally think of my ideas or ask me to clarify what I’m saying. Or send me a PM.)

Part 1

We have three terms I want to explore; nihilism, nihilist and nihilate. The first two terms have a lot of ambiguity about them because of their long history, so I’ll set a standard definition for them to use in this thread. I’m interested in reading perspectives on their proper use, but I’m admitting from the start that I may be using the terms incorrectly. The third term “nihilate” is somewhat obscure, I believe first used by Sartre.

I’m very familiar with Sartre through Being and Nothingness and I’m just beginning to study Heidegger’s Being and Time. Perhaps Heidegger with the term Dasein has a fundamentally better way of describing being than Sartre, but in the context of this thread perhaps that issue is not important.

The first term I want to explain is nihilate. The translator of Being and Nothingness, Hazel E. Barnes wrote in the key, “Consciousness exists as consciousness by making a nothingness arise between it and the object of which it is consciousness. Thus nihilation is that by which consciousness exists. To nihilate is to encase in a shell of non-being.”

To make a somewhat rough paraphrase; we are in a, perhaps, deterministic world, being is as it is, it changed and will change as it must. In order to experience the world we must not be a part of the world, that is we are separated by a metaphorical nothingness. All this means in practical terms in that we don’t create the world or even control it in any manner, but we choose our experience in it, by letting ourselves be conscious of what we will without being that which we are conscious of.

I was tempted to speak us the term nihilate like this, “we can accept an idea or we can nihilate it, that is truly no longer recognize its existence”, but it seems that Sartre was saying that all being that we are conscious of must be nihilated. Perhaps, we can completely reject an idea in a way that we no longer recognize its existence. I’ll get back to that later.

So based on the above we all must nihilate, in a way that is all that we do. So rather than try to consider a nihilist to be only one who rejects all values, I’ll define a nihilist as one who recognizes that we must always nihilate. And then nihilism will simply be the philosophy of explaining that.

Though, I would set higher standards for one to be a nihilist than simply say they understand and believe this philosophy, there is certain faith required to be a nihilist. I’m using the word faith in a very loose way. Many have faith in things that logic finds very difficult to work with to say the least, but many also have a lack of faith in things that logic works with very well, such as any particular aspect of well established science. That doesn’t necessarily mean they reject the logic of that aspect of science, but for example, one might be very familiar with medical science and need a simple surgical procedure done, that has, let’s say, an outstanding success rate, still without faith they may not have it done.

The logic of nihilism as I defined it is up for debate (preferably not here) but if one accepts the logic of it, it is still in question if they have faith in it. I’ll say right away that bad experiences can (though of course not necessarily) be what it takes to obtain that faith.

This is my experience. I believed truth must exist, I was involved in constant reflection on trying to figure out where truth came from, I did no serious reading because I didn’t think many knew the truth and I had no idea which ones did. I had to live in the mean time so I just made “educated guesses” as to what the truth was.

I started reading Sartre (but, I think any philosopher with even remotely similar ideas would have worked) to see what the “enemy” had to say, that is what one who didn’t believe in truth especially truth of morality. Once I started to understand him, I started to believe him in the sense that I couldn’t refute his logic and was no longer looking for truth, but I still was completely hung up on the “educated guesses” I had made, mostly very bad one’s for my own well being I might add.

Several near death experiences are what it took to give me faith in nihilism. Yes, I have yet to hear any good logic refuting nihilism (and as you may have gathered I was very open minded and still am), but I have just as much unexplainable faith in it as I have the simple respect for its logic.

I’m not as faithful in nihilism as some Christians are faithful in God. My faith in nihilism is about as strong as the average Christian who actually prays three times a day even when they’re alone, and goes to church every week even when they are out of town and no one will know. I assume even the average Christian, such as that, has faith that is usually contingent on circumstances, but strong in a sense, that is as far as my faith goes. I’d like to think that "'m willing to argue the logic of nihilism more than they would the logic, or lack thereof, of God, but who knows.

Part 2

The belief in a lack of belief is paradoxical. It seems a true nihilist wouldn’t say one with other beliefs is wrong. They will speak of nihilism in a way that conveys the message, “the only truth is that truth doesn’t exist”, but they must admit that that truth must not exist either then.

So what does it mean pragmatically to believe the there are no truths. It doesn’t mean we believe nothing but the “truth of no truths”, we live in the world and speak of things without qualify every statement with, “but maybe not”. Me: “I called you yesterday”, you: “did you really, I didn’t get any calls”, me: “yes, I’m certain”. I don’t shy away from that type of speech.

So my faith in nihilism isn’t a simply position I hold and wish to hold onto. Doesn’t a Christian try to hold onto their faith? Why must they try to hold on to it, why not let it come and go as it pleases? Well they are told to hold on to it, but I believe that it’s deeper than that, once one has faith they naturally wish to further it. It seems this is axiomatic, have you ever heard of someone with faith, who says they are trying to get rid of it.

The following statement will show how loosely I’m using the term faith. We either believe something or we are indecisive about it. One may not know if they should take a new job, there is no reason that they should ever come to a decision in the form of saying in their head, “yes, I’ve decided to take it.” They can remain perpetually indecisive, but if they do make that statement in their mind they wish to keep it, any further discussions they have, despite themselves, about the pros and cons of taking that job will include as a pro that they decided to take it in their mind already. The real decision is really only made after they accept the new job and give notice to their old.

So in a certain sense I’m equating decisions or “beliefs that one declares to them self” to faith. I used to be the most indecisive person there was, if I had to decide between going left or right I turned into a spinning top. I’m no longer indecisive, not because I make decisions quickly and then stay with them, but because I don’t ever make direct decisions. I may tell myself that the weather is good enough to go to the store later today, but I won’t, even in my own mind, further that by a declaration of intent.

I have rejected most previously declared beliefs that I made when younger, such as who I want to be what I want to do, and didn’t replace most of those beliefs. But I have many remaining beliefs that are more intuitive. For example, I know that the English language can be as flexible as I want as long as it is coherent, but I still use it within a certain degree of traditional standards. What about the belief in happiness? I used to have a strong belief that happiness was purpose and happiness was simply luxurious living. I’m now very torn between the idea of happiness being luxurious living and happiness being mostly in creative work. But, I don’t want to believe in the idea of happiness or misery at all.

I have only two beliefs besides that of nihilism which I have declared, which I feel intuitively, which I have faith in, and which I don’t wish to ever change. Those beliefs are firstly, that I should continue to live basically no matter what (the exceptions being if my life is so intolerable it was as if I was burning alive, but I mean that in the most literal sense) and secondly, I believe in the two family members that I care about (perhaps coincidentally the only family that cares about me).

But, make no mistake I have no belief in anyone else that I wish to perpetuate. I have a friend or two I’d like to think I might sacrifice a little for if the situation arises, even if I manage to reject my belief in them entirely. You see, I have no wish to stand out; I have no wish to break any rules, written or implied. I have two friends that social custom dictates that I help to a certain extent if needed. That’s fine, I’ll do it, but I won’t believe in it. I have an idea that a true nihilist is the person who fits the description of the ridiculously ambiguously defined “average moral” person. To do significant harm or significant good requires that you believe in something. But, maybe I’m just referring to myself.

Part 3

My goal is to increase my lack of belief, that is a wish to get rid of all but three of my fundamental beliefs (my fundamental beliefs that I wish to keep are life, family, nihilism). I would never advocate that a nihilist or anyone else not believe in life. Also, I would never suggest anyone stop believing in family and friends that are as close as family.

So I must try to believe in those three things, and I only want to believe in them more. So how do I increase my faith in nihilism? It comes down to abstract ideas that can be expressed in language, symbols or any other form of expression. Perhaps rather than speaking of ideas we should speak of art and “beauty”. I’ll use music as an example. Obviously, I no longer wish to like or dislike any type of music. If I can actually accomplish that then music would only be white noise to me. But, you see living a life where I place no value on things is not my goal. My goal is to, with the noted exceptions, get rid of all previous value judgments and then once there to start fresh. To create entirely new values that are entirely my own, to live Sartre’s authentic life in a fuller way, by far, than even he expressed it.

Obviously, I can’t go all the way, as said in a certain ways I don’t even want to. To oversimplify that’s the nature and nurture debate. As much as I’m taking the side of nurture I can’t rule out nature. I’m so tired of the beliefs I grew up with, they are mostly self destructive, they are untenable, they are incoherent. If one treasures their beliefs then by all means keep them, I don’t.

So I have two questions:

1. How far can I go in getting rid of all beliefs and value judgments (except life, family, and the belief in no truth)?

2. If my goal is to one day have almost entirely new beliefs and value judgments, is the approach, as stated above, of getting rid of all prior beliefs, then starting from scratch the best way to do it? Or should I should I just replace them piece meal?

In other words I have a large wall I want to paint. Should I paint one fourth of it over four days, knowing that there will be three vertical lines permanently on the wall, or should I paint it all in one day, despite how tired I’ll get from 15 hours of constant painting?

I wonder if you’re using nihilism as a philosophy or as a method, but that may be because I have my own definition of nihilism as a method of gaining a clear platform on which to build one’s personal philosophy. Nihilism, as a philosophy on its own, is self-defeating, to me.

To me, the ability to be as honest with yourself as is possible in introspection is the most valuable tool on the tool-kit called your mind. You won’t be able to “get rid of all beliefs and value judgements,” but you can try to evaluate their worth to you within your world, along with determining why and/or how you internalized them to begin with. The basis of propaganda is to say something so often and so ‘sincerely,’ that people believe it to be true. Keep that in mind; but remember, also, that you won’t be able to answer all your questions logically and/or rationally. At some point, you’ll probably say, "I believe this bit of what I’ve been taught because I ‘feel’ it is true. I’m not a self-help columnist, though.

I guess I’m using it in both ways. Now that I think about it I have been describing the method more than the philosophy. When speaking of Sartre or Heidegger I’m speaking of work related to the philosophy of nihilism. But, the method you described seems to be a good way of summarizing what I’m trying to do as well.

Exactly! My self has so often defeated me, I’d now like to defeat my self. What better than a self-defeating philosophy? To defeat my self I must either get rid of it entirely, such as one may be able to do through years of meditation and other techniques, or I must get rid of all that is in my self that is not mine. Meditation is out of the question so I’m left with nihilism.

I’ve done that my whole life, I wasn’t raised and taught any worse than anyone else in the modern world, but the problem was a took everything I was taught literally, or at least I assumed if it had any truth then it was entirely true. So the teaching was ok, but the way I learned them wasn’t, so my fault or “theirs” I didn’t pick up any ideas and values on life and so forth that weren’t destructive to me. So they’re mostly all bad, back to the paint analogy, I can dab the old chipped paint here and there until the paint covers the wall entirely, and it will look very bad and uneven, or I can just repaint the whole wall. So the question=s goes back to how to go about it.

Perhaps, my problem is that I don’t feel many things to be true no matter how many times I hear them. Think about it this way. They told me “never tell a lie”. Most never give that rule a second though, or even a first one, they lie when ever it’s opportunistic, and some even when it’s not, that is they are the happiest of people. Some do eventually feel the belief in that rule. They feel it’s true so as “morally” ambiguous situations arise they simply go with their gut on whether to lie or not. I took such “moral rules” literally, that is I believed or at least decided to respect the logic of it in deference to my parents. There is no logic to the idea though. The issues of when it’s “right” to make an exception to the rule aside, one doesn’t always even know what the truth is. One might suggest just saying, “I don’t know”, but sometimes you don’t know if you don’t know! One must not take these rules as logic, feel them, understand them intuitively, that is inconsistently and self servingly, if at all.

Nihilism is not matter of faith but of rationality.
Nihilism comes directly from rationality; it is its obscure side.
When everything in the world appears to be rational, then nihilism turns up.

There is no need to have faith in nihilism, because of its evidence. Nihilism, the strong nihilism of whom does not want to delude himself, is where obligatorily he comes who believes that rationality is source of Truth.

Nihilism can be a forced passage, to gain the only necessary faith: Faith in Truth.

Strong nihilism does not respect any value, even life or family.

However, really strong nihilism has feet of clay. Because when you reach it you immediately refuse it: it is impossible to keep.

Reaching it is however an occasion, because in front of the abyss it can happen the rush of the faith in Truth.

Thanks for the comments, I mostly agree with you, except I don’t expect to find truth with nihilism, I mean I recognize that possiblility that I will, but I doubt it. Can you explain why you believe it will lead me to truth?

All depends on my free being. I exist only because of my free will.
Without free will I would not exist.
But what does it mean to be free?
It means to be unconditioned.

Unfortunately, the rational interpretation of reality doesn’t admit any unconditional.
That is, my existence could be an illusion. And I would be only “being here”.

More the rational interpretation of the reality is considered truth and more the nihilism grows.
Up to when I don’t find me in a limit-situation, that shakes me in the depth.
Then I must choose who I want to be, conscious that this is a choice for the eternity.

Choosing, my Existence turns up affirming: “I am, because I am free, against any evidence!”, and so doing she breaks the “being here”, and she gives a look to her own Transcendence.

How do you figure?

You believe you are unconditioned? You think, for example, your physiology isn’t conditioned for life on this planet? Or your thoughts aren’t conditioned to your senses?

Everything we are able to know is conditioned.

Our reality is “being here”, the original division subject-object.
In the “being here” there is not any freedom.

When I say I am unconditioned I appeal directly to my origin: “I want to be myself!”.

Free will is an action.

When I act doing what I must, I am free.

I get the impression that what nihilism is to you is to keep the beliefs/values you have down at the level of intuition rather than up at the level of commitments to fully conscious principles–wishy-washy and flexible, not firm–no?

I would suggest not replacing them at all. If my above interpretation is correct, then the intuitive level is exactly where you want to be–for the rest of your life. This is where you are most flexible and adaptible to most of what life throws at you. If you want to replace all your old beliefs/values with new ones at the level of conscious principles, that’s fine too, but just don’t cling to them.

Bobgo, what you’ve been saying about freedom is very much about what Sartre says in Being and Nothingness, the term “being here” reminds me of Heidegger’s “being there” or Dasein. I wonder what philosophy you’ve studied in the past or are these mostly you own observations? I’m going to have to think about how that description of freedom relates to finding truth, but perhaps we just have a different definition of the word truth.

Definitely.

Thanks for the advice, I’m going to have to think about that some more.

Stuart, a lot of us were given a list of “shalt nots” while growing up; we were taught in black and white. As we matured, we began to see all the shades of grey that lay between the black and white. This can present us with moral dilemmas. Can we or can we not follow the 10 Commandments exactly? This is where we have to decide 1) what the Decalog means to us in our world, and 2) are we obligated to follow them?

It depends on you. The first three Commandments have to do with God and how He’s to be recognized and worshiped; but what if you don’t believe in a Biblical God? At the same time, you may not be able to rid yourself of a God-concept completely, since it’s led to an internalized system of morals and ethics that might lead to ‘good.’ The Commandments are guidelines; only later did religions prescribe punishment for actively ‘disobeying’ those guidelines.

The following seven Commandments have to do with how to live in a social world.

Honor your father and mother. Is that possible if they’re abusive or if they flaut the law?
Don’t lie. Actually, the Commandment reads, don’t bear false witness against your neighbor–don’t accuse him falsely.
Don’t steal, don’t even want what your neighbor has, or his wife, because that might lead you to steal from him.

And so on. These are moral precepts. But they’re quasi-religion-based. You can get rid of religion without getting rid of morals and ethics.

I think that’s what Nietzsche was saying when he wrote about the ‘free-spirit’–I interpret that as meaning a spirit freed from the restrictions of strictly interpreted religious values(?) and able to think on his own. IOW, don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water.

The way you describe the ten commandments is a lot tdifferent than the description I got from some random Christian website. It seems they are as bad as I thought, but I was taught them in the same way as that website. I hear people saying so often, on this forum and eslewhere, that the best morality is to look after yourself. One must often act moral to help oneself, that’s what I intent do do, so I’m not interested in throwing away useful skills that I learned, I just want to lose all respect for them, except in how they can help me and my two close family members.

I meant they aren’t as bad as I thought.

Sorry if it’s off-topic, but, um, what?

Who says this?

The only person I can think of at the moment is Captain.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=181024&start=25

He may have only been half serious, but I’ll let you know who and where when I think of other examples. I say this a lot, but, still, to be sure you don’t get the wrong impression, that view is not one I was originally inclined to ascept and while I adopt it as a nessesity I’m don’t admire those who’ve always had that view and don’t really put any thought into it, I just think they’re much smarter than I was.

Well, Captain is nowhere near as smart as you, I’ll say that.

Cheers.

Compliments are rare and far inbetween, so thank you.

Interesting situation (and well stated).

So you want to convince yourself that you know nothing?
…except that life and family is good (I guess).

“I want to believe that all mathematics is indeterminate except 2+2=4 and 3*3=5.”

…hmmm…

I suspect your “starting all over” option would be the better one.

A person cannot change anything of himself without discipline, “faith in oneself”.
But then a person who wants to change himself has faith in what exactly?

Suggestion;
Get a blank bound writing booklet and promise yourself that you will write nothing in that book until you are 100% absolutely certain that it is either true or valuable, depending on which concern you are seeking, truth or value.

Of course, depending, you could possibly just forget the book because it would take quite a while before even the first entry, so it helps to have incentive. Two historical incentives have been;
“don’t speak until you speak absolute truth” and
“don’t move until you know absolute value”.

Of course you will want to compromise, maybe with;
“speak only of niceties until you know an absolute truth to speak instead” and
“don’t eat until you know absolute value”.

But I suspect you would want to compromise even further.
But you get the idea, right?

Thank you, as well.

Well, I think my life would be in bad shape if I believed all math is indeterminate, but I’ll believe 3*3=5 if I must, it’s not like I work with numbers in any important capacity.

I don’t even want to recognize my self let alone have faith in it. A cat has faith in life and he or she doesn’t have even the notion of self according to most zoologists. A cat will learn to hunt rats instead of mice if necessity dictates. Necessity dictates nihilism for me, and thank you for offering your view as to that question.

Actually, years of looking for truth had the incidental effect of leaving with little “accomplishments”, so you’re absolutely right. Now that I don’t believe in absolute value I’m getting a few things done here and there.