nihilism by God!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Slavoj Zizek:

[b]More than a century ago, in The Brothers Karamazov and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of a godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.

The French philosopher Andre Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan’ suggests.

This argument couldn’t have been more wrong: the lesson of today’s terrorists is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, are permitted—at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the ‘godless’ Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.[/b]

I couldn’t have said it better myself

Nihilism basically revolves around the premise that mere mortals are not gods; but, that, from time to time, they act like they are.

They do so in the name of God. Or in the name of Reason.

In other words, lincoln log rationalizations derived from syllogistic premises conflated seamlessly into any number of hopelessly contradictory broadsides and declamations.

Which is merely to suggest that, historically, the deontological misdirections of the authoritarian philosophers have surfaced over and over again…slaughtering [along the way] literally millions and millions in their quest to finally render Duty incarnate.

As for God, he is floating about somewhere up in the noumena. Or, perhaps, in Spinoza’s pantheistic rendition: all is one and one is all in the best of all possible…words?

Means and ends forever contorted into [among other things] the very best of intentions.

2

At your best when exploring outwards imo.

Fantastic.

3

That’s actually not what is said, which is sad that Zizek thinks of something like. Everything isn’t permissible, because they wouldn’t be permitted to do anything that God forbade them to do. And, with the example that he gave, they did exactly what was forbidden, which means it wasn’t morally permissible. #-o

And a side point would be that nihilism is basically about things having no meaning, and I’m not aware of any religions with a deity holding that there is no meaning.

4

Nihilism is also about things not having value. It depends on what kind of nihilism you’re talking about since there’s quite a few branches.

5

How do you know what God forbids? That kind of “knowledge” has always come from the interpretation of priests, and holy books, and prophets.

Unless you think for yourself, you’re merely following orders. If you’re merely following the orders of higher authority then whatever that authority commands is what you accept as permissible. By that standard it’s conceivable that one could be made to accept anything as permissible. A lot of people have done horrible things in the name of some authority or other, or by the justification that they were following orders, code, protocol.

6

In regards to your first question, that’s a non-sequitiur, because that doesn’t follow from what you originally posted. That’s an epistemological problem, not a moral problem. The original post was on moral nihilism, not on epistemology.

And your objection of “If you’re merely following orders of higher authority then whatever that authority commands is what you accept as permissible” isn’t a very good objection. You’d be doing the same thing with morality without some deity, because you’d be following some authority, which could be consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, or whatever else. :-k

And I love how you bring up that people have done “Horrible” things following an authority. But that just makes it look like you know what is morally acceptable and what is not, but like you asked with your first sentence, “How do you know what is horrible and what isn’t?” And it looks like you’re going to be following some rule, and that’s exactly the same problem. In other words, you’re following some other authority. Pick your poison, or authority.

7

From what I originally posted? That was my first post in this thread…

No. Not everyone follows unquestionably the commands of a higher authority. If you thought you had a direct link to God and He told you to do something, would you do it?

8

If they were God, then sure I would follow it. That would actually be the morally right thing to do.

And you’re right, I confused you with another poster.

9

So, if I understand that correctly, you maintaint that 9/11 was not nihilism. Do you?

I don’t agree. That sounds more like the French Revolution. This is not (yet) nihilsm.

«What on earth does that mean?» (ha, ha, ha…)

«misdirections of the authoritarian philosophers» ? All philosophers are frustrated serial killers and mass-murderers, honest philosophers acknowledge that.

Good point - not that I agree, but it’s nice, anyway.
It’s not clear how this relates to killing and destruction.

A God who commands to kill, is that a scandal? Nowhere you imply that, you only label that as nihilism.
So what do you mean exactly? God commands nihilism?
In case you do, you proably will convene that has been quite usual for gods. They have always shown some longing for killing, being sacrifice or holy wars. (The idea of God as a healer is peculiar to Christianity).
Why wonder if «a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations»? I dare to say that’s the way it should be. God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, his son, after all. The Old Testament abounds of missions like that.
I do not see anything so new in the idea per se. 9/11 can be nevertheless interesting and deserving debate, but not for the idea of their God commanding to kill infidels.

And - you should add - the roads to hell are paved with best intentions…

10

Yes, I do know what’s horrible and what isn’t. And even when I don’t, instead of blindly submitting to the official decree of a supreme being or His prophets, I’ll explore the matter myself and come to my own determination. That’s what it means to me to be autonomous.

That’s not correct. I asked about what God forbids. I know what I forbid - that’s how I know what’s horrible and what isn’t.

11

Acts of religious fanaticism often appear nihilistic becasue they pursue particular “kingdoms of ends” by any means necessary. But the ends themselves revolve around the complete absense of the absense of meaning.

I don’t agree either. That was rather poorly worded to say the least.

God embodies [whatever that might possibly mean] the Divine Truth. And once moral and political truths are construed as divinely inspired then what can’t be done in God’s name? When we see the carnage embedded in any number of historical pogroms, we think nihilism. Hitler, the nihilist. Stalin, the nihilist. Pol Pot, the nihilist.

Hardly that in my view.

12

The first sentence is - again - good to me, only that here any means is not the most orthodox religious fanaticism, it’s an inflection that can be probably ascribed to our times.
Would appreciate if you develope more the second sentence.

Yes. indeed, that is what God is about - you could even discard Divine and leave only Truth. And for what can’t be done, well I guess that “sky’s -or heaven’s - the limit” would apply here.
Your statement is ultimately paradoxical. Because if nihilism is subsequent to death of God - according to Dostoyevsky - then one would expect that what is done in the name of God it is not. On the other side we clearly are not accustomed to associate God and violence, the Christian heritage forbids that. (Notably for Catholics), God is only love and forgiveness - outside that there’s no God (there’s not… being).
But that’s a recent acquisition, historically that was not the chosen path when dealing with other creeds.
Even today Christianity has a violent “dark” side. We have no right to be upset if the faithful claims that everything should be done in name of God. Rule of law is again a recent acquisition - not even endorsed in the whole Western world, most religions date to some age when law was subject to religion and not the other way round. So, it would be consistent to argument that what is done not in the name of God, what appears blaspemously against Him, shall not be done. That appears extreme to us, but we need not to focus on fanaticism to see the display of this attitude. Even in Puritan America, actions again abortion or teaching of evolution theory are ultimately stemming from that view.
What I am trying to maintain here is that destruction triggered by religious belief is “normal”, consistent, moral and therefore even required (for the believer). We have problems to accept that because in our modern mindset, which is ultimately nihilistic, we fail to see how beliefs might trigger such a course of action - because we shun beliefs (“the agony of choice” that you referred to in your thread some time ago) and normally need not beliefs for what we do (we have decency and duty instead).
I can push it even further, I would be ready to argument that, in the case of 9/11, the killing of innocents does not belong to the roots of Muslims’s faith, this is a contamination of the Western world. This nihilism is “us” (at least “us” in Europe, you rightly refer to Stalin and Hitler, Pol Pot is another outbreak of “our” contagion) - not “them”.

13

In other words, you just make sheit up. I like how you think for yourself, because you just get to create your own world. And I’m sorry, but unless you live in some world with no other people, or other things, you’re just deluding yourself into thinking that your autonomous.

14

What are you talking about? No, it’s not like making shit up. It’s like a serious consideration of the world around me and a continuously evolving judgement of what is desirable and what is not.

autonomy: self-law

15

The only person making shit up, is the shit that ZenKitty was making up when considering what fuse had said… which apparently came from nowhere, because it was certainly not from what fuse said—which was as reasonable as anything could be.

16

Well, if only in modern times, religions revolve around Gods said to be omniscient and omnipotent. And, in turn, most are seen as embodying what is deemed just and moral—even if in ways too mysterious for mere mortals to grasp.

Therefore, most folks worship and adore God – and act out what they construe to be His Will – because all that is truly meaningful in life is said to revolve around Him. And one or another sacred text.

Nihilists, on the other hand, are often seen as embracing the anarchy, chaos, mindless mayhem etc. rooted in the ever problematic and turbulent “will”. There is no essential meaning [or morality] to tug at their conscience. All is permitted so long as you can get away with it. An entirely different manner in which to reconfigure means and ends.

Some then reorient them to Reason. And ideologies are born.

The modern mindset is, in my view, largely rooted in pop culture, the mindless consumption of “things” and the worship of celebrity. Who would have thought that nihilism could sink this low?!! But evangelicals the world over are reacting to this by fleeing back to the first century. And either more or less accomodating this with the modern world. Folks like us then sit back and wonder what to make of it all.

But the “self” here is no less rooted in dasein; and there is no way in which “I” can establish the most rational way in which to understand it. Let alone to transcend it with something “better”.

At best we can champion democracy and the rule of law while exposing the role played by wealth and power in corrupting these crucial institutions.

17

Then it is only a question of whether your “own determination” can be hooked line and sinker to Reason. But “who” “am” “I” here? Why do I make one particular determination and not another? And what happens when my determination conflicts with the determination another autonomous mind makes?

And why do some insist there is only one truly rational path for the autonomous “I” to embrace?

In my estimation, this sort of reasoning can lead to revolting ideologies like Objectivism. Revolting because individual autonomy is often reduced down to whatever folks like the Ayn Randroids insist is the most rational behavior. And you either agree with them or you’re out.

Thus the individual and the collective become as one.

If you know what I mean.

18

iam,

Reason is always hooked line and sinker to one’s starting premises, and in this case my starting premises are my concerns, desires, and instincts, as opposed to authoritarian religious doctrine.

Since I am naturally concerned about the world around me including the people in it, these considerations are reflected in my starting premises.

19

I too prefer the former to the latter. I merely have fewer illusions than most regarding the extent to which “I” can ever be more than just a particular – existential, subjunctive – work in progress; dasein situated out in a particular world viewed from a particular point of view that is ever subject to change.

And I have had any number of “authorities” over the years guiding me to the promised land. Still, it all ends in oblivion, doesn’t it?

There is no way to know how one ought to live. In an essentially absurd and meaningless world, any one particular behavior is interchangable with any other. Once this is acknowledged, you make one leap after another in a world without God.

Unless, of course, there is one.

20

But “essentially absurd and meaningless world” is from an irrelevant perspective. No man sees the world that way except by denying the meaning that always already exists for him. For us, it is an essentially meaningful world, perhaps still an absurd world but a meaningfully absurd world.