Good Little Nihilists

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

why do you suppose it is that so many philosophers and philosophical theories seem to advocate versions of nihilism? i do not only mean just skepticism in general, which could perhaps be seen as a weak version of nihilism, but i also refer to the tendency toward “extreme agnosticism” of sorts. is this perhaps due to the fact that the philosophers who do NOT do this are misunderstood, or all clearly mistaken? or is nihilism just a reactionary tendency against the unquestioning and uncritical attitudes of most “common people”, perhaps an attempt to separate onesself from “the herd”, or to make onesself seem or feel superior to them…?

i do not wish here to discuss the merits or lack thereof of nihilism itself, only to examine WHY it seems such a strong tendency throughout philosophy; this discussion also necessarily includes the tendency of philosophy undergraduates and graduates to accept philosophical points of view to the degree that they are nihilistic. usually, most students dont accept FULLY the doctrine of nihilism, but they seem to usually have large parts of their worldview wrapped up in extreme skepticism and doubt, and many end up being ‘good little nihilists’ upon graduation from the program.

is this the fault of professors? if so, why do academic professors tend to push these beliefs themselves; is it because they accept these beliefs as true, or is it because they perhaps find it easier to make impressionable students believe extreme skepticism, since the untrained student is not familiar enough with the philosophical issues to detect and refute the various inconsistencies and contradictions that nihilistic viewpoints can possess?

any thoughts on the nature of the appeal of nihilism, or the reasons why it seems prevalent throughout historical and modern academic philosophy would be welcomed; of course, if you disagree with my thesis that a majority of philosophy writers, students and professors tend towards nihilistic skepticism, those thoughts would be welcomed as well.

2

to clarify, i am not claiming that ALL or even MOST philosophers or philosophies are or have strong elements of nihilistic thought; i am, however, claiming that nihilism, or a general doubt or skeptical attitude toward the possibility and/or certainty of knowledge, tends to run a current through MANY historical academic philosophers theories.

i dont really want to get into a debate about the extent to which nihilistic attitudes pervade philosophy; i can accept that this viewpoint is not shared by all, and also that each person’s individual experiences will tend to give them a different picture about this issue. rather, i would like to confine the discussion to: that to the extent that we DO acknowledge that there are at least SOME tendencies towards nihilism and extreme skepticism throughout SOME historical and modern philosophy as well as academic philosophy students/profs, WHY is this the case?

if you reject completely the assumption that there are nihilistic tendencies prevalent, that is perfectly fine, and feel free to argue this claim; however, if you accept that these tendencies do exist, even in a smaller degree than perhaps i assert, please leave this difference of opinion aside and confine your comments to WHY these admittedly-existing tendencies prevail; what is their nature, why do they exist, why are they so appealing?

3

It’s unclear what you mean by nihilistic tendencies - exploring epistemological limits is simply par for the course in philosophy, as is the acknowledgement that certainty is never certain, regardless of what one ultimately believes or does not believe to be true.

There is something romantic about nihilism and extreme skepticism - it leaves things open to mystery, and it’s iconoclastic. On the positive side, tearing down everything leaves limitless possibility. And on the negative side, if there’s nothing to believe, then you’re never wrong - or so one would imagine the nihilistic assumption runs … like you said, tho, it either contradicts itself, or ends in tautology. It is a faith, after all.

It goes:

In asserting that everything is nothing, one also implicitly asserts that nothing is something, and there is solace in that for those who are confronting despair, because it means that one can never be at a total loss, even when one has lost everything.

4

From a pedagogical point of view, teaching nihilism leaves the student in a pristine spot upon which to think for themselves. It also outlines the cognitive limits of philosophy as a mindset. If nihilism is not presented in a substantive way, the student is left with an unnecessarily biased view of the mind game…

5

yes its certainly good and necessary to explore the limits of knowledge, and to never assume your ideas are infallible. but i would define nihilistic tendencies as the rejection even of the notion that we should have ANY certainty in our conclusions or beliefs. people rest their arguments on “oh yeah, well you cant prove that reality is real!”, “you cant prove that logic is always true”, “you cant prove that you exist, or are not a brain in a vat” etc…

thats what i mean-- that there are degrees of uncertainty, and some degree, even a high degree, is a very good thing for a philosopher. but to take that degree to an extreme, to reject assumptions even as simple and demonstratable as “A is A”, “1+1=2”, “something exists” or “i am conscious” is what i mean by nihilistic tendencies.

i agree with you here, that the ‘romantic’ notion is a valid element of extreme skeptical viewpoints. i also would mention that it seems to always be easier to ‘destroy’ than to ‘create’, i.e. its easier to try and disprove a philosophical theory or idea (it only takes one counterexample) than to try and prove or support a philosophical theory (since this can seem overwhelming to the degree that the theory or idea presents some generalized abstractions or apparent ambiguity).

i dont know if i would claim that nihilists are really ‘searching for meaning’ in their nihilism… to me, the tendency is rather to make onesself feel that there is NO meaning to life, and since there is no meaning, then nothing matters, and i dont need to worry about thinking or proving anything beyong my initial emotional reaction to it.

i agree that to embrace nothingness can seem to “create something our of nothing” and that this clearly is a motivation behind some philosophical or religious ideas, but i dont know if it is the ultimate goal, the reason why people embrace these ideas. im sure some people do find comfort in the fact that there is “never nothing”, but i dont know if embracing nihilism is really the way to achieve this viewpoint. i guess im not saying that people arent doing this, im just saying that it seems unjustified, and that i dont think its a general reason why all or most people turn to radical skepticism.

Oughtist-- i agree that a general skepticism is healthy for a philosopher, and for any thinker. but it seems that this general skeptical attitude, which is a reflection of having high, critical standards of proof for ideas, is invalidated when nihilistic radical skepticism is embraced, for this would entail the loss of standards by which you evaluate ideas and theories, and this would therefore invalidate the ability to “think for yourself”.

6

Ok. However, the intellectual experience of nihilism can be something of a vaccination for the real life experience of it (nihilism isn’t simply an academic exercise). It needn’t be “embraced” so much as given its due. Nihilism is part of the landscape and the well travelled mind needs to visit it. Otherwise there is much less likely to be a response to it when it suddenly overtakes your everyday life. It’s no less dangerous simply to cling to the notion that “there must be standards”. At times, it can very much seem, there ain’t…

7

Although some people just think out of boredom, I think our thought comes from our natural tendency to seek certainty, or rather to clear away the “uncertainty”.

By seeking certainty, we would prefer logical approach to intuition or simply taking the words of others, because it seems “verifiable” and thus more reliable.

Also, “skeptical attitude” is more or less natural in our thought because we would be thinking based on our questions, which isn’t “believing” attitude to begin with.

By questioning (being skeptical) and by seeking certainty (and thus rejecting not so certain elements), we would arrive at radical skeptic position or somewhat nihilistic understandings, such as relative nature of logic, and moral, etc.

Some people (with gentle heart, a sensitive emo) may react badly to this newly found things and they may go into depression, or denial of everything. :smiley:
Now, it looks like the “nihilists”, we’ve seen.
They may say such nonsense as “god is dead” because they were naively believing in god, before.
They feel lost without absolute ethic/moral because they were so used to follow whatever moral code they were taught.

As for philo students, I don’t know. Maybe they adapt somewhat nihilistic attitude or perspective because other perspectives (religious, for example) seem too stupid.
They don't want to deny all they learned, because they’ve invested lots of time and money, but they see lots of garbage in what they learned, too.
But they may still have a bit of hope in making living in philo-life. :smiley:
So, they can’t decide, and stay in “somewhat nihilistic” perspective, for the time being.
Maybe it’s something like this, but who knows?
Each person has her/his own twisted reasons.

8

i see where you are dividing the philosophical theory of nihilism and the practice of nihilistic attitudes in ‘real life’; some people do seem to act nihilistically, they take risky behaviors, they dont seem to care about their future, etc. what im talking about however is the philosophy, the idea or ‘ideal’ of nihilism-- more of the general attitude, the mental framework of nihilistic beliefs that one has, rather than either philosophical theoretical exercizes in thought (such as this thread) or acting in a nihilistic way.

“It’s no less dangerous simply to cling to the notion that “there must be standards”. At times, it can very much seem, there ain’t”… true that it seems this way sometimes. however, to abandon all standards would be to abandon even the desire, the need to seek truth above falsehood, to have your beliefs conform to reality and not to unreality; to abandon these standards is the death of the intellect, since how then would you even know the validity or truth of anything, if you had no standards or reference points to compare it to or evaluate it by? in this sense, pure nihilism (the rejection of all standards or truth) is self-defeating… but like i said, i dont want to go there with this thread, at least not yet.

btw i agree that its good to be rationally skeptical, to have a general skepticism about life and ideas, as long as that skepticism exists within the framework of the desire to seek truth at all costs, as well as having some preexisting belief structure by which to validate the ideas in question (of course its also important to keep reevaluating the preexisting belief structure itself, as well as its foundations and axioms).

yes, some people who are lead to nihilism probably become depressed.

as far as “god is dead”, yes some people, if they were christian or religious in the past and then accept nihilism and denounce their former beliefs, might feel lost morally or otherwise; however, this isnt necessarily the case. first of all, people can rethink and abandon old views and ideas, even religions, without permanent damage; Nietzsche is a perfect example (the original guy who coined ‘God is dead’), he went to seminary school as a child (although im pretty sure he never bought into it), but his skepticism was healthy, and led him onto further insights and wisdom, without any depression, by rejecting everything he was taught as a child. also, a nihilistic attitude is not necessary to rethink or abandon old beliefs-- Nietzsche was a feirce critic and enemy of nihilism (he actually correctly saw it in christianity itself)-- , that we can reexamine our beliefs from the standpoint of a rejection of nihilism; this would be a better groundwork from which to rethink our old assumptions, rather than a complete rejection of everything.

i certainly agree with this; nihilism seems to be somewhat of a reactionary attitude.

9

Well there, the common nihilistic fallacy is simply that because all four of those statements are tautologies they are logically invalid, and since such statements are, in fact, the foundations of all logical thought, then logic thereby invalidates itself. The problem with that is, in making that assertion, they are accepting logic as a standard by which to measure the validity of the statemements - so they are using logic to reject logic, which is a dubious endeavor at best, and philosophically counterproductive most of the time. Besides, just because something is a tautology doesn’t mean it’s wrong

I think a healthy dose of pragmatism is enough to offset most non-extreme nihilistic tendencies. We can then distinguish between practical certainties and absolutes, which is usually enough to satisfy most agnostics, because it leaves room for the tautologies to be subject to further clarification.

usually, but it depends what you’re trying to destroy - and sometimes it’s necessarry to destroy in order to create - this is what i think Oughtist was getting at with his analysis of the usefulness of certain nihilisms for intellectual development

That tendency certainly exists, but . . .

. . . but I don’t think all or most people turn to radical skepticism. You asked us not to talk about that, however.

10

well a tautology in logic is something that is always true, but i think that ‘truism’ would perhaps be a better word. i see what you are saying, however, that nihilists claim to invalidate logic with logic (and as i stated in a different thread, this is the quintessential example of begging the question)-- but they usually dont see it this way, however, at least not in my experience.

this is a good observation-- the need to separate practical “real-world” knowledge from absolute “theoretical” knowledge is always essential in logic and philosophy. its something that ive seen nihilists tending to not understand.

i can see how an agnostic could try to justify remaining doubtful of theoretical knowledge while accepting the validity or truth of practical knowledge.

its ok, i dont mind discussing that viewpoint. i agree that radical skepticism or pure nihilism are not as common as perhaps i might be inclined to believe… but at the same time i have seen them manifest many times in academia and in colloquial discourse, even among non-philosophy students.

i think that its important to try and understand the motivations behind why people adopt nihilistic attitudes and philosophies-- not always in the strict sense of pure nihilism, but also in the sense of a general defeatist attitude regarding truth or reality. like we mentioned earlier, truisms such as “reality is real” and “A is A” seem to be the basis for all rational thought and logic,; and even discounting full-blown pure nihilism, i see these truisms attacked and rejected everywhere, from my former fellow students to professors to philosophy writers to many people here on ILP, so i think in this sense, perhaps, the general attitude towards an automatic or default nihilistic perspective is more prevalent than maybe it first seems…

11

I’ve seen this “nihilistic tendency” elsewhere in the humanities and the social sciences too and I wonder if it has to do with a particular stage in the development of our critical understanding, that in order to think in a truly philosophical way we need to recognise and come into contact with the potential for nihilism. Lots of academics and the vast majority of students, however, either haven’t faced up to the potentially nihilistic consequences of their intellectual activities (and thus persist in an unreconstructed realism) or have given in to the seductive powers of their “metaphysical lust” (to flagrantly appropriate a phrase) by making themselves the arbiter of values (and thus delight in an unreconstructed relativism). Nihilism, if you like, is just the contemporary equivalent of the Heraclitean Fire.

12

Nihilism doesn’t necessarily arise from a lack of objectivity, more often than not it is a negative conclusion, a conclusion that there is no purpose, value, or meaning in the universe.

What’s wrong with agnosticism? Tell me does god exist?

What do you consider objective? Entropy?

Is the ball on the log objective?

Is the flow of the universe, interpreted as need/suffering, an objective observation?

Your conclusions concerning the universe can be disputed indefinitely. What do you have to offer? what is your point?

13

I think this is a good general point, but as usual the devil’s in the details. For instance, the “theoretical knowledge” that A=A versus the “real-world knowledge” that, say, the Poor are the Poor: the latter is a “truth” that begs to be critiqued; the former is by definition a value-less observation. Just as much as there’s a need to separate the two realms of knowledge, so too is there a need to keep them together. And there is just no one way of doing that.

In that same regard, perhaps it is a zeitgeist you are concerned with here, and not simply the lecturings of forelorn academics to over-crowded lecture halls. Philosophy reflects on its time, like art and all other lofty pursuits, in order to produce a representation by which humans might digest the “contemporary meaning(s)”; and, on the whole, the reflection of the day is not one necessarily blossoming with meaningful meaningfulness. So, given the historically unparallelled potential reality of countless swaths of humans living in effective meaninglessness within our lifetime, it might be worthwhile intimately to experience that state on an intellectual level. Indeed, I think it is precisely a question of practical knowledge. In a world where the intercultural mishmash of theoretical standards are bending under the ever self-reproducing weight of practical urgencies, the “truth” of nihilism should not be underestimated. Reduce, reuse, recycle only goes so far…

14

How are intellectual activities potentially nihilistic in your view?

What is an unreconstructed realism, can you give me an example?

How do academics make themselves the arbiter of values?

Can you give me an example of an unreconstructed relativism?