Joker
February 21, 2008, 7:55pm
1
Epistemological nihilism is a brand of extreme skepticism which claims that there is absolutely no knowledge. Laying aside the contradiction is turning this idea into an ideology, I’d like to respond to typical proclamation of this faction. It goes something like this: there can be no true knowledge because the tool we use to gather knowledge – logic and rationality – cannot be proven to be correct. The simply assume that they are right and any attempt to prove their correctness would beg the question since it would use logic and rationality in its proof. Basically, if there is no independent source capable of verifying the truthfulness of our truth seeking instruments, they must be considered unable to accumulate any true knowledge.
Criticisms of rationality such as these fall into a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of logic. Logic is simply the transformation of language propositions into mathematical propositions. For example, a proposition like “My hair is brown†would be expressed in logic simply as the proposition P, or in predicate logic as brown(hair). Each of these claims are equivalent to each other. So then, if logic is merely a representation of language, then the truthfulness of logic depends upon the truthfulness of language.
Take again the example “My hair is brown.†How is this proposition determined to be true or false? We simple observe the external world and see if the proposition matches the actual world. In order to do this, we must know what exactly is meant by words such as “my,†“hair,†“is,†and “brown.†And how do we know if what we understand as “brown†is what brown actually is? The answer is so simple that it is often overlooked by the layman and always overlooked by the epistemological nihilist. The meanings of words are only a convention.
Something is “brown†because we as a society have come to collective agreement that things which have such-and-such a look will be referred to as “brown.†Thus a statement like “My hair is brown†cannot possibly be false if the conventional meanings of each constituent part are known and they match the actual world. The very fact that these conventions are readily agreed upon speaks of the fact of a single common external world and gets us past any possible idealist claptrap. This is all there is to truthfulness.
But, an objector may say, many of these supposed conventions are not completely agreed upon and the same proposition may take on more than one meaning. This is true, and it is the duty of rationalist to simplify and define each part of a proposition until it is clear to all parties which one meaning the proposition is to take. If one meaning cannot be agreed upon, there is a simple solution: just stipulate an original definition that everyone can agree on. It’s the action of taking on a moot point. Just say that this is what is meant, then what follows? Rules such as these illustrate the vast flexibility in language and logic which allows to arrive at conclusions and be confident of their truthfulness.
Lastly, a similar vein of argument could be used to argue for the truthfulness of mathematics. Why does 1+1=2? Because of the conventional understood definitions of “1,†“2,†“+,†and “=.†These again merely represent agreed upon meanings of words used in normal language. If one knows the meanings of each of these symbols, the conclusion must follow because it is hidden in the antecedents to begin with. Different symbols could be used to show the exact same proposition if we wanted to. “1+1=2†could have turned out to be “2-2=9†if that is how the original convention had decided to represent the ideas that had in mind.
As for logical truths such as: if P then Q. Q. Therefore P. These can be verified in the exact same way by looking to the actual world and verifying. After many verifications, we understand that the use of truth tables and proofs function in the same way as real world verification and the prior are chosen because they take up less time and effort. Skeptics then come in and see this process at the tail end and erroneously conclude that since logic covers all things, it can never be verified. Such a response only demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what is truth and how it is acquired.
Both cosmic nihilism and existential nihilism come to the conclusion that everything is meaningless and that value is nonexistent. The two approaches differ in the means by which they reach this conclusion. While existential nihilism uses rationality and reductionist arguments against moral theory, cosmic nihilism uses high-sounding and poetic argument. Hence its appeal to those of an irrational bent.
Here are some typical cosmic nihilist arguments. All life ends at the same point, death. So, the intermediary events have no meaning. The earth and its inhabitants consist of only a small sand particle within the vast oceanic universe. Therefore, everything we do is meaningless. Or similarly, anything that I do now has no meaning in a million of years. Thus, everything I do now is meaningless.
These, and the many arguments like them, are irrational because of their irrelevance. A few thought experiments will easily prove this. For, if I were to become immortal, or my size or the earth’s size were to be tremendously increased, or something that I do now will having meaning in a million years, none of these things will cause my life to have meaning and to suddenly create value out of nothing. A part of the effect must always be in the cause and if all causes are valueless, nothing will ever change that fact and allow value to be created.
Thomas Nagel, in his article The Absurd, has an excellent reply to the Million Years argument. 1.) If nothing that I do now matters in a million years, then by common reasoning, 2.) nothing that matters in a million years matters now. So, even if 1.) were false and something that I did now did matter in a million years, it still would not matter now because of 2.).
Basically, all arguments from the perspective of cosmic nihilism are poetry posing as philosophy and should be discarded as such. No credit is given for getting the right answer because it was only attained through at admiration of the tragic life, and not through true insight.
A belief is an idea held to be true. Knowledge is the observations and facts that support your belief. What is the relationship between knowledge and belief? The first impulse is to hypothesize that there is a positive relationship. An increase in knowledge is coupled with an increase in the strength of your belief. This view is quite optimistic because it states that truth will be given to all who so desire. But, one must also know where to look. On the contrary, experience with humans leads to the idea that people often hold ill-founded beliefs in great disproportion to their related knowledge. This occurs because people base their self-perception on their self-righteousness. They hold so steadfast to their ridiculous beliefs that they fail to realize that losing a debate means something new has been learned. Belief is more important that truth with this species. Thus, we have arrived at the opposite side of our initial starting point.
There is a negative relationship between knowledge and belief because those with the least knowledge often entertain the most adamant beliefs. This is were the so-called “trailer-park philosophers” shine. The consequence of this perspective however, would imply that those with the most knowledge have the weakest-held beliefs. Ofcourse this cannont be true, can it? We all know people who have attained an abundance of knowledge about trivial issues in order to make themselves feel morally superior. So we revise our hypothesis again.
Instead of the relationship being linear and thus either purely negative or positive, the relationship is curved like a “U.” Those with the most and those with the least knowledge maintain the most stringent beliefs, while those in the middle linger in a state of perpetual indifference. Just look at the apathy surrounding elections here in America.
Clearly, this type of epistemological nihilism is so broad that it could include nearly everyone and becomes uninformative. It’s really not epistemological nihilism at all.
geocities.com/inescapableennui/nihilism.html
agincourt
February 21, 2008, 8:05pm
2
Any form of Nihilism is a result of the intellect crumpling under the disconcerting lack of certainty that exists in every method of describing existence.
No coherent or complete system exists. They either must rely on other systems or contradict themselves (Thank you Mr Godel) Thus there is no means of absolute proof for anything, BUT we can trust some ideas as having a high probability of truth.
Science may only be good for producing bombs and television sets, but I offer the existence of bombs and television sets as evidence that SOMETHING is working and that knowledge is possible.
Laurentius
February 21, 2008, 9:48pm
3
The way I understand Nihilism (and I’m not sure I have got it right please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no meaning of life. We just have to accept that some things don’t have any purpose at all.
If that is true I’m not too fond of Nihilism because then my life has no purpose, and if my life have no purpose, and if my life have no purpose then there is no reason for me to live. If my life is with out any meaning then why don’t I just commit suicide? The only answer I can come up with is that I chose to live and making a meaning with my life, that’s why I at the moment considers my self as a existentialist, believing that I have the power to make choices and at least have some power of my faith.
Blacklung
February 22, 2008, 2:56am
4
Laurentius:
The way I understand Nihilism (and I’m not sure I have got it right please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no meaning of life. We just have to accept that some things don’t have any purpose at all.
If that is true I’m not too fond of Nihilism because then my life has no purpose, and if my life have no purpose, and if my life have no purpose then there is no reason for me to live. If my life is with out any meaning then why don’t I just commit suicide? The only answer I can come up with is that I chose to live and making a meaning with my life, that’s why I at the moment considers my self as a existentialist, believing that I have the power to make choices and at least have some power of my faith.
The nihilist would counter by questioning how you could live your life based on seemingly arbitrary reasons that ultimately mean nothing.
You’re right to say that the person who reaches the conclusion of nihilism(in its purist form) has no real option but suicide, given that if he chooses to live he is placing value on his own life…a true nihilist views his life as meaningless and utterly expendable and would not choose to continue living.
Friends don’t let friends be pure Nihilists…
agincourt
February 22, 2008, 3:04am
6
Actually a pure nihilist is more then justified in living his life at the whims of his animal nature since although there is no real anything he has biological urges and genetic imperatives which which he can guide himself.
Thus the ulterior attraction of nihilism to testosterone addled young men.
Blacklung
February 22, 2008, 3:04am
7
Rubbish. They don’t have friends.
Blacklung
February 22, 2008, 3:06am
8
agincourt:
Actually a pure nihilist is more then justified in living his life at the whims of his animal nature since although there is no real anything he has biological urges and genetic imperatives which which he can guide himself.
Thus the ulterior attraction of nihilism to testosterone addled young men.
Such men do not exist. How can one live “at the whims of his animal nature” when doing so is counter intuitive to survival in the modern world?
agincourt
February 22, 2008, 3:41am
9
Because the animal nature is easily cowed by threats of force, and in this society there are plenty
agincourt:
Actually a pure nihilist is more then justified in living his life at the whims of his animal nature since although there is no real anything he has biological urges and genetic imperatives which which he can guide himself.
Thus the ulterior attraction of nihilism to testosterone addled young men.
I think the pure nihilist must commit suicide, because there is nothing holding him/her back from death in the face of absolute meaninglessness…
Then again, I don’t really feel like arguing toward this point.
I do consider myself a Nihilist though in many regards.
Blacklung
February 22, 2008, 5:40am
11
Human survival is dependent on society, whether it be small bands or large nation states. I get the impression that many here have some image of a “natural” or “pure” human being as a lone individual in the woods going his own way and by his means and put that image on some idealized pedestal. Humans are social animals. This inclination led to the formation of small societies and cultures and increased odds of survival(through cooperation). Society did not arise to neuter man’s nature. Rather, man’s nature caused society to come into being.
Laurentius
February 22, 2008, 11:37am
12
Blacklung:
Laurentius:
The way I understand Nihilism (and I’m not sure I have got it right please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no meaning of life. We just have to accept that some things don’t have any purpose at all.
If that is true I’m not too fond of Nihilism because then my life has no purpose, and if my life have no purpose, and if my life have no purpose then there is no reason for me to live. If my life is with out any meaning then why don’t I just commit suicide? The only answer I can come up with is that I chose to live and making a meaning with my life, that’s why I at the moment considers my self as a existentialist, believing that I have the power to make choices and at least have some power of my faith.
The nihilist would counter by questioning how you could live your life based on seemingly arbitrary reasons that ultimately mean nothing.
You’re right to say that the person who reaches the conclusion of nihilism(in its purist form) has no real option but suicide, given that if he chooses to live he is placing value on his own life…a true nihilist views his life as meaningless and utterly expendable and would not choose to continue living.
Thanks I think I’m a bit closer understanding Nihilism now
but I still don’t get why people say’s that their life is without meaning… it sounds so depressing and Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy in the end. I simply don’t get why people do this if they aren’t mentally ill (I’m not saying that all nihilist’s are mentally ill). I still don’t get that.
Laurentius:
Thanks I think I’m a bit closer understanding Nihilism now
but I still don’t get why people say’s that their life is without meaning… it sounds so depressing and Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy in the end. I simply don’t get why people do this if they aren’t mentally ill (I’m not saying that all nihilist’s are mentally ill). I still don’t get that.
From my own experiences, it comes directly from an absence of love and the hatred of things. Not everybody grows up with two loving parents and gets to coast through life forever-innocent.
The power and benefit of Nihilism is a deeper sense of meaning in the world by understanding the contrast between meaning and meaninglessness , and understanding nothingness and the negation of existence/self .
Joker
February 22, 2008, 6:56pm
14
agincourt:
Actually a pure nihilist is more then justified in living his life at the whims of his animal nature since although there is no real anything he has biological urges and genetic imperatives which which he can guide himself.
Thus the ulterior attraction of nihilism to testosterone addled young men.
Instinct and impulse is the motion of nihilism.
Joker
February 22, 2008, 6:57pm
15
Some are easily manipulated. Others are not.
Joker
February 22, 2008, 6:59pm
16
Laurentius:
The way I understand Nihilism (and I’m not sure I have got it right please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no meaning of life. We just have to accept that some things don’t have any purpose at all.
If that is true I’m not too fond of Nihilism because then my life has no purpose, and if my life have no purpose, and if my life have no purpose then there is no reason for me to live. If my life is with out any meaning then why don’t I just commit suicide? The only answer I can come up with is that I chose to live and making a meaning with my life, that’s why I at the moment considers my self as a existentialist, believing that I have the power to make choices and at least have some power of my faith.
Since in nihilism existence is the absence of meaning there is no reason to committ suicide unless one chooses to do so just as it is equally posited that a nihilist can choose to live if they want to making all optimists and posivists tremble in their feet.
By understanding nothingness of all existence one is close to freedom that has no limits.
One can feel free and be happy in a state of nihilism depending on the state of one’s perspective on life.
There is no cosmic rule that stipulates happiness must need meaning.
Joker
February 22, 2008, 7:04pm
17
agincourt:
Any form of Nihilism is a result of the intellect crumpling under the disconcerting lack of certainty that exists in every method of describing existence.
No coherent or complete system exists. They either must rely on other systems or contradict themselves (Thank you Mr Godel) Thus there is no means of absolute proof for anything, BUT we can trust some ideas as having a high probability of truth.
Science may only be good for producing bombs and television sets, but I offer the existence of bombs and television sets as evidence that SOMETHING is working and that knowledge is possible.
Crumbling of certainty? No.
I believe nihilism is the result of the intellect coming to terms with a cosmos that is chaotic, indifferent and uncaring.
It is the result that the answers of life are not found within the sky but instead lies within ourselves only.
And we do so on absurdities and assumptions.
How do you come to the conclusion that somthing is working?
Knowledge is possible to, what?
agincourt
February 22, 2008, 7:22pm
18
Joker:
Crumbling of certainty? No.
I believe nihilism is the result of the intellect coming to terms with a cosmos that is chaotic, indifferent and uncaring.
It is the result that the answers of life are not found within the sky but instead lies within ourselves only.
And this is where we will never be able to reconcile our views (Even though you are my favorite person to argue with on this forum) I look at the universe and can’t help but see evidence of a deeper order and truth beneath the absurdity and mess.
I do agree that in the end however, the self is where we will find what we are looking for. We are all individuals for a reason and in the end we all go through our lives as individuals with the self being the one thing under our control. I may believe in ideal answers to the questions of life but I recognize that the only place we will really find them is within ourselves.
I meant that as a simple statement, Knowledge is possible as opposed to the counterclaim that knowledge is impossible. As for my conclusion? If I push the power button, I can watch Jerry Springer. There are thousands of scientific theories that are validated whenever I sit on my ass and watch rednecks reveal their illicit love for one another.
Laurentius
February 22, 2008, 11:56pm
19
realunoriginal:
Laurentius:
Thanks I think I’m a bit closer understanding Nihilism now
but I still don’t get why people say’s that their life is without meaning… it sounds so depressing and Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy in the end. I simply don’t get why people do this if they aren’t mentally ill (I’m not saying that all nihilist’s are mentally ill). I still don’t get that.
From my own experiences, it comes directly from an absence of love and the hatred of things. Not everybody grows up with two loving parents and gets to coast through life forever-innocent.
The power and benefit of Nihilism is a deeper sense of meaning in the world by understanding the contrast between meaning and meaninglessness , and understanding nothingness and the negation of existence/self .
Does this mean that nihilism is about accepting life and the way things are?
Laurentius
February 23, 2008, 12:26am
20
Joker:
Laurentius:
The way I understand Nihilism (and I’m not sure I have got it right please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is no meaning of life. We just have to accept that some things don’t have any purpose at all.
If that is true I’m not too fond of Nihilism because then my life has no purpose, and if my life have no purpose, and if my life have no purpose then there is no reason for me to live. If my life is with out any meaning then why don’t I just commit suicide? The only answer I can come up with is that I chose to live and making a meaning with my life, that’s why I at the moment considers my self as a existentialist, believing that I have the power to make choices and at least have some power of my faith.
Since in nihilism existence is the absence of meaning there is no reason to committ suicide unless one chooses to do so just as it is equally posited that a nihilist can choose to live if they want to making all optimists and posivists tremble in their feet.
By understanding nothingness of all existence one is close to freedom that has no limits.
One can feel free and be happy in a state of nihilism depending on the state of one’s perspective on life.
There is no cosmic rule that stipulates happiness must need meaning.
You do have a point there… happiness doesn’t necessarily need meaning. But “making all optimists and posivists tremble in their feet†that sounds like some sort of provocation of all who are positive. When I sit in a class room just before the first lesson starts, and I’m tired and some cheerful person practical jumps throe the door screaming: good morning! I usually get a bit annoyed with them. But isn’t it possible that when you say: “making all optimists and posivists tremble in their feet†it’s just some way to get back at those morning freaks who has caffeine running throe their wanes. Is that nihilism or just a mental battle?
