Now I admit that I don’t completely understand deconstructionism (well…who really does for that matter? 
). But I was wondering what deconstructing nihilism would produce. Deconstructing, in my understanding, is finding the essence of something, and the essence of nihilism is that there is no truth whatsoever. But isn’t this paradoxical? Nihilism says there is no truth…except for itself. Also, nihilism advocates destruction of every meaning and perceived truth. But, through deconstructing nihilism, can we turn destruction against destruction itself? From all this, I’ve decided that apathy is the only way to be a true nihilist, for in nihilism one defines one’s reality and “truths”, and that apathy is the disregard of meaning, thus in a nihlistic view, the destruction of meaning. Any thoughts?
I think a nihilist would tell you that if there were truth, it wouldn’t matter.
There are paradoxes in virtually everything.
Especially Nihilism…
In attempting to deconstruct nihilism, you’ll hopefully get your money back. But it you do it’s more than you deserve.
Dear bomb
Have a look at Derrida’s essay ‘Structure, Sign and Play’
You are completely in error here. Deconstructionists do not believe in essences and the whole notion of finding them smacks of Platonism…
Nihilism as a philosophy means not believing anything, rather than actively believing nothing. But it’s still paradoxical and I’ve yet to meet a nihilist worthy of the name. If someone tells you ‘I am a nihilist’ then they are lying…
Short answer: yes
Nihilism is a lie. No-one I’ve ever met has actually manifested the total absence of belief. If someone claims that they are a nihilist try pushing them in front of an onrushing vehicle - you’ll soon see that they either have no idea what ‘nihilism’ means or that they are just using the tag to try and sound dissaffected and cool…
meh,
nihilism is not a philosophy, it’s a classification. my take on the nihilist paradox is that nihilism provides a starting to point to solve the reductionist/regressive problem of pure skepticism.
also, nihilism is not always “there is no truth.” it is best understood as meaning “there are no values which are true.”
this is a huge difference, as it only renders truth as being invalid, and not the concept of value in and of itself.
the nietzschean concept of “becoming what you are” states this idea quite well, imho. i’d say it’s the differnce between knowing the path and walking the path, and this is an essential concept in existentialism - and existentialism is probably the only approach in which nihlism can be properly understood.
The bell of truth rings clearly on this note.
And on that note,
Welcome to ILP 
thanks 
Welcome to ILP,
According to Nietzsche it is the result of the death of God (and various associated metaphysics)…
As I said above, I’ve never met a proper nihilist. Nihilism as a condition of the herd, the fear at having lost God, truth, causa sui and so on, is something that can be seen quite easily. Nihilism as an individual existential philosophy is meaningless. It cannot be expressed without contradicting it, as it were. There is no ‘way of being a nihilist’ because any way of being (even apathy - which is often mistaken for nihilism) is other than nihilistic.
I think it is best understood in the two ways I mentioned
- as a herd reaction to the collapse of a grand table of values
- as an individual philosophy which cannot be described or acted out
I’ll leave this statement as I’m unsure what you mean.
I’d totally disagree. Nietzsche wasn’t an existentialist. He also wasn’t a Nazi, an Anarchist, a libertarian, a secret Kantian…
Nihilism in the first sense can be understood and observed easily. Nihilism in the second sense is total nonsense and provides us with precisely nothing to say…
To be honest, I’ve never read much about nihilism - i.e. the writings of those who actually consider themselves ‘nihilists’ - because what I did read was a total bore and I didn’t find myself in agreement with any of it. But in terms of my own conception of nihilism, I’ve always seen it as a starting-point for philosophical inquiry: the blank slate of values upon which one then paints their realities and truths. Nihilism as a philosophy thus seems a bit backwards to me; that is, philosophy begins with nihilism, it doesn’t end there.
Deconstruction is something that a concept, book, philosophy does to itself. It doesn’t really lead to an ‘essence’, per say, but exposes that which caused the culprit to grow in the first place. Deconstructing nihilism as you define it would be simple, you did it yourself: if nothing’s meaningful then neither is this, so nihilism is an offshoot of this timeless paradox. The deconstruction of your definition reveals the paradox which was implicit in your definition. Case closed.
Deconstructing a deeper conception of nihilism, say Nietzsche’s, would involve painstaking detail to the texts in which it is presented.
Dave
That is where you differ from Nietzsche.
Indeed.
that’s about as accurate as saying there is no fire because no smoke exists.
what if a type of fire, say a chemical/fuel fire like in a F1 race, produces no visible smoke? hell, no real visible flame for that matter. it’s still there.
no, what nietzsche was pointing out in that modern civilization was that man’s observable morality in actoin was as if god was dead. for he lived in the holy roman empire… the so-called germanic coming out party, and he was worried that these nut bags were getting ready to go on the war path.
hint: he was right.
the reality of nihilism not properly understood causes people to “believe” versus “to know.” this is better revealed in the master/slave argument of the geneology of morals, which i would encourage you to discover for yourself.
essentially, the argument whcih i see you routinely apply is an empty strawman. you can expect me to point this out to ad nauseum.
how is nihilism a “proper philospohy”?
answer: it isn’t.
you never have, and you never will meet a “proper nihilist philosopher” becuase the entire idea is falsely predicated on your pretending that nihilim is, in fact, a systemic philosophy.
if it is a philosphy, tell me how and what it is? you cannot… so you “looking” for it and pointing out that a strawman, is made of straw, tastes of obviousness and smacks of an agenda.
no, that would ne the description of “slave morality”
have you given your strawman a hat yet? 
and thus the paradox of your, well i will call it a misunderstanding, is revealed. DENIAL.
your name dropping and cross-pollination of unsubstantiated and out of context references to other threads is quite annoying. though, i enjoy it as it reveals to me your true philosophic intent. i find your pretense to knowledge to be most stimulating, and i imagine you are one of the better and more enjoyable elements on the forum.
consider me your friendly neighborhood antithesis…
your entire argument is analogous to me saying this:
i have never met a proper wizard. wizards cannot explain themselves. until a wizard can explain themself to me and to my egotistical satisfaction, they are not scientists.
well, duh.
you post contains your own paradox, if nihlism is a starting point, which it is - why do you also maintain that it is also a philosophy? cannot be both, can it?
it is not a philosphy, you have the essence of the truth already, it’s a classification.
you are so close, you can almost taste it, but alas if you continue to pretend it is what it is not, you will be unfulfilled by it.
false notions do tend to be unsatisfactory.
that is entirely correct. nihilism is simply a classification, or a reframing of the paradox by describing the paradox as a thing in itself. in that sense, its also more like a philosophical definition or concept.
this does involve a bit of a leap of faith, and it’s the stumbling block for most who are more concerned with destroying what they do not understand.
revealing the paradox of nihilism is like revealing that there is sand in a sandbox.
Sure it can, and is. You’re presuming nihilism to have but one meaning - namely the only you’ve elected to employ: “…simply a classification … more like a philosophical definition or concept” - when there are indeed broader senses of the term, I’m sure you’re aware.
- An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
- A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
- Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
- The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
- (From nihilists.net) The rejection of customary beliefs and morality. The belief that there is no meaning or purpose to existence.
The third definition, for example, is the reason Nietzsche is often classified a nihilist. The fourth, emerging during the Russian revolution in the 19th Century, is in fact worthy of the phrase ‘a philosophy’, as is the fifth. Hence, my point was simply that as a philosophy (i.e. nihilism in the third, fourth, and fifth senses) it misses the mark in my view, but as a starting point, the concept is valuble and has application.
those are merely more narrowly applied defintions.
pray tell, which one of those is a self-sustaining philosophical system? why is it a system? who espouses this “system”?
your entire argument is strawman with a false assumption. philosophy is not found in dictionaries.
nihilism is not a philosophy, it’s a concept. a paradox is also JUST A CONCEPT. above are five variations. just like a dictionary gives more than one listing…
- the skeptical paradox
- applied to moral value, the paradox is not a “base”
- see 2, religious applications of
- power structures as values
- see 1 and 2
all you have is application of the baselessness of value in morality. its about “why believe in morality.”
is, most of the political philsophy in this approach values power, and the morality of power. you just do not get it, i am afraid.
who are these “nihlists”? they are little more than [p]sychophants and charlatans that enable the ongoing strawman being applied to nietzsche.
i am sorry, you can restate your strawman anyway you like, i tire of if and it is completely false.
I was just looking my post over, and yes, you’re correct. Was about to delete it but couldn’t because of your response. Your attitude could use some work, I should add.