Nihilism is an inevitability.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Nihilism: The understanding that all values and judgements are arbitrary and nonsensicle. Everything has no meaning, and no purpose.

Does life have a purpose?

For me Nihilism was an unavoidable inevitability that is also an unavoidable struggle. Nihilism has shown its face to me, and now I have to struggle to accept it. I would like to think that I’ve accepted nihilism and the fact that i’m worthless, and that I don’t matter, but it is admittidly hard to do. It goes beyond my purpose though, it goes on to the fact that nothing matters, and everything is worthless.

For Neitzsche(the optimist) the way to overcome this, and avoid becoming me, avoid become the last man, was to create purpose for yourself. For Neitzsche the Ubermensch was the only way out of Nihilism, and the idea of Eternal reocurrance.

But I don’t accept that, I think that is ultimately the result of Nietzsche’s weakness. His inability to accept the fact that Nihilism is an inevitiability for all atheists, and that their is nothing wrong with that. His inability to accept the fact that even an overman is still bound by nihilism. His inability to accept the fact that even the overnman does not matter. Nietizsche theorized the time when I would come(the last man), but he also said I am pathetic, and simply a brigde to the ubermensch. And I think Neitzsche is wrong. Their is no Ubermensch, their is no bridge, and eternal reocurrance is a noble idea, but so was the categorical imperative. Sure it would be nice to live life like you would if you had to do it over for the rest of eternity, but that changes nothing. Life is still worthless, and we’re all left with an emty feeling in the pit of our stomach.

Is their purpose? Is nihilism an inevitiability? Do we all have to accept Nihilism? Can the Ubermensch ovecome Nihilism? Does Eternal Reoccurance change anything? Is the Last man and inevitiability, that will bring about the Ubermensch?

All moral systems tend to become more and more rational over time…Compare our current system to what we had 100 years ago…Their is much less tradition, and a much more rational system…Moral systems will continue to become more and more rational untill they are pure ration…It is the natural progression of western morality…Once the morality of our society has evolved as far as it can, it will be based purely off the rational, and logic/experience…Once it is based off that, Nihilism will quickly follow.

2

i totally agree, i think it maybe his all too-human metaphysical need in a time of passive nihilism. Presumably most people would, or should, find the eternal reocurrance to be a shattering thought to know; in such a case i’d wish to edit-out all the horrors. His philosophy of the Superman is almost like that of the Viking warriors who believed they would join Zeo(or something) in warrior heaven, waiting to return to the same life in battle again. I just couldnt accept such a idea without some self-deception, indeed, my thoughts are with its antithesis: finite ocurrance; which do hold there own shattering thoughts. The only way to look for the eternal reocurrance is in science, the myth makers behind physics and what small fabbles maybe found.–The Metaphysical Myth of Mortality

In what sense or fashion do you imagine this to occur in?

1)Intially i would expect war from those that have not excepted nihilism, the most terrible war. Death on sucj a scale, that it would dwarf WW2.
2)Disregard of law and customs, and therefore conventional, communities. A return to the natural way of life in which men and women would be promiscious and children a common concern for all. Shamelessness, the philosophy of antisthenes and diogenes, anacharists and the cynics would evolve. Moral excellence would be found and obtained in methodical asceticism, demarcating external/internal goods and to except the burden of physical and mental pain that accompanies the goal of virtue. It would be a simple life, a anarchist utopia in which men would live “naturally”.

Or im totally wrong. nietzsche’s perspectivism. :confused:

3

…but now I might just go and do that. He seems to angry to be capable of clear thought. I would like to know why Nihilism is so inevitable, however. By the way, the idea that moral systems are becoming more rational is merely a trend. I predict that fanatiscm will be on the rise soon. Or it already is, ie: Charasmatics. There will always be the need for direct communion with God or god, or the god. Or perhaps the goddess?

4

I don’t expect people to necessarily accept it either…But it seems that it will nonetheless happen…

I don’t think anything like this would occur at all…I think law would stay, but it would change for the better…The rational human knows that society will benefit him in the long run, does he not?

I don’t think people wouldn’t adopt asceticism at all…As morality would not exist, and therefore moral excellence would not exist…People would no longer see things as good/evil, only as human…The ascetics would no longer exist, they could not exist…

5

I see nothing but baseless assumption backed up with nothing. Consider the change in morality that has occured in the last 100 years. We no longer see African-Americans as inferior, we no longer see women as “kitchen-maids”…Main stream media has nudity and vulgar language in it. Main stream media is about mystical beings, and horrible violence. Consider what they would have if they saw this 100 years ago. Consider the move away from “family dinners”, and the “traditional family”. Consider every facet of our society…

I see no major historial backtracking in regards to the progression of morality moving away from the rational…Becoming more rational is merely a trend? A trend that has been going on for since the scientific revolution, and more or less the whole the common era?

I predict that breathing is just a trend, and that permanent breathe holding will be on the rise soon, or already is.
[/quote]

6

in what way better?

Maybe we do, but the direction in europe is liberal, individualism, and moving towards independence to such a extreme that in comparison to today, perhaps it’ll be industry’s not governments that have there own law’s.

Fundamentally, nihilism represents a philosophy of negation of all forms of aestheticism, how could a society have law without some sort of asceticism? Nietzsche’s perspectivism is self-contradictory, since perspectivism must be true in an absolute, that is in a non-perspectival sense. And as you pointed out, the eternal reoccurrence is Nietzsche’s own ascetic ideal, and most people could not accept the eclipse of a ascetic ideal and the intrinsic meaninglessness of existence and will thus seek other more scientific absolutes to invest life with meaning. So i wouldnt say nihilism is inevitable, just probable. Asceticism is perhaps more desireable than nihilism.

You could look at hedonism as a form of materialistic nihilism, the goal of leaving the ascetic behind and holding pleasure to be the good. Hedonism is the of off-shot of the cynics. I believe the superman is a Cynic? Through total independence and freedom from all conventions, the Cynic would emerge with superior potential completely master of himself and strike off from “morality" to create his own ascetic values, which are completely rooted in the life on this earth.

A return back to nature, cynics dont need to ask why there here.

7

To Nihilistic:
Thank you for the chance to further explain myself, but you do, really, sound very angry… or perhaps just agitated with the fervor of debate. By the way, your approach to anylyzing societal trends is, perhaps just a bit too simplistic. What we really need here is a couple of historians, not philosophers. In fact, philosophy might do itself a deal of good to abandon the physical world and climb the tiered ladder to absolute abstract contemplation.
But here I go, on with the practical, anyway. There has been violence in society long before now, so lets eliminate that from your list. I certainly dont know too much about language, but nudity has been with us since… say the Venus of Willendorf. Racial equality is not a new concept, and neither is the idea of a strong female leader (think matriarch). Tradition, as it is in our society, is a somewhat new device, in terms of the case of the world in general. Equally true is the fact that man has grown to be immensely rational before now.
–But what is all this talk about the boundaries of rationalism falling and a new panorama of “strange loops” and etc unfolding before us? We could talk on that, but I know to little to be a valuable interlocutor.–

ANYWAY, it would be mere vanity, dont you think, a sort of modernistic patriotism -really real fanatiscm- to espouse the idea that this movement towards rationalism is new… dont you think? I call upon the powers of all the long dead philosophers to give my words weight that rationalism is not a new invention. As for this concept of vacillations, ever heard of the “Dark Ages”? Apparently things seem to decline after they reach a certain point. Oh, I know that’s just prophesizing, but its better than saying, “I predict holding one’s breath will become a popular pastime”. Although if there ever is an attack from one of those Weapons of Mass Destruction, that might actually be a rather viable alternative to dying just right away.

IN SHORT, (which I suppose I have little concept of) I guess I am unswayed by several tendancies of the last hundred years… make it the last four hundred even, as compared with the vast scope of history. You expect me to believe that we are headed on a vector-line to some unheard of destiny? No doubt, something new and exciting is happening to society, but not something unfounded, for really,
“There is nothing new under the sun.”
This is a whole new debate.

8

I’m not exactly sure, but I’m certain we wouldn’t have people debating the need for an admendment outlawing gay marriage. And we wouldn’t have laws requiring liqour stores to shut down on Sunday.

If we have only laws that are rational(rationality defined by the society as the whole, social rationality…Which would probably be different from individual rationality), then do we not get rid of the petty “moral laws” and simply stick with the laws that are needed to insure freedom for everyone? Their is a fine line between what is rational and what is moral with reguards to laws, I’m not exactly sure where the line is though…

Well, is it so bad to assume that government control over capitalism is rational? We’ve seen what can happen with laissez faire, and I’m pretty sure that system was not rational. Is it rational for a DEMOCRATIC society to allow a few to oppress the many? I don’t think so, but who knows…

I am very torn here…I see a need for the society, and thus a need for law, but I don’t want to fall into the same trap neitzsche fell into.
Is the government/society itself a form of asceticism? It seems to be, and yet it CAN"T be. Is it possible for a nihilist to be part of a ascetic society without actually becoming ascetic? I think it is, and i also think that what is rational and nihilistic for the collective, is different from what is rational and nihilistic for the individual…

Does the society not see every single person as necessary to its survival, as every single blood cell is necessary for the survival of the Ubermensch? If the collective can itself be nihilistic, and can be rational by itself, then I see no asceticism in laws.

9

Euthyphro

Yes, but violence has never been mainstream and has never been out in the open like it is today. Society has been violent since it was created, but graphic gore, and foul/abusive language coupled with explicit sex has never been as wide spread as it is today. Societal violence has slowly been progressing towards a more liberal policy, a more rational policy.

The sistine chapel was painted over because M painted the figures nude. Women used to where skirts no shorter than their knees, and those who did had a special classification. Magazines now have open nudity, like they never did before. Nudity has been apart of history, but not like it is now. It has slowly been becoming more and more acceptable. We have slowly been becoming more and more rational.

Untill recently womens place was in the kitchen, untill recently it was frowned upon for women to go to work. Untill recently women weren’t “allowed” to divorce. The rise in womens rights in the past 50-60 years in undeniable. If you simply look at the higher divorce rates, and the balancing out of the men to women in the work place. Women have historically had restricted rights as compared to men…But but not anymore. Same with race. It is undeniable.

I do not how you can honestly make such a statement. Tradition is heavily connected with religion, and as we move away from religion we move away from alot of the tradition. Tradition was the cause of many social inequalities, that has just recently dissappeared. Tradition is leaving.

Now I see. My examples of the recent movement towards the rational, is only designed to prove my idea that morality wil lalways become more rational. I never said this is a new invention, only that it was more or less heightened by the scientific revolution.
This has indeed been going on for all of the common era, in fact i specifically said that. I use modern day examples for the exact reason tha they are more relevant for the discussions of today.

My examples are not designed to say that ONLY recently we have been moving towards the rational…I dont mean to imply that we weren’t moving towards the rational during the 10th century…

I see no major moral backtracking in the common era. And at first glance I see no major backtracking since the emmergence of modern society in Jericho…

Just because what I say is different from you, doesn’t mean I’m angry.

10

:confused:

11

I agree. I don’t know much about Charismatics, or the fanatics theoretically, but the evidence of their thought os clear in the world.
I think moral systems in the society cannot be becoming more rational as a whole. there is always a rise and fall, after a period of rationality its counterpart takes over. in any sort, a “new age” sensibility or whatever, if I understand well.
if moral rationalising was the point, where would we aim to see its peak?

well, here I miss the real life examples to clear the subject matter up…

12

Why? I can see no argument for this assertion.

13

I always though the Theist was much worse off than the Atheist in terms of the possibility of an ethical action, or at least no better off. The edicts of an all powerfull being seem by there very nature arbitrary- if something has the power to change the norm then its not really a norm. It seems for all theist, if we had only had a different God then we would have a different morality.

It seems rather to avoid nihilism we need truly static an non-arbitrary evaluator. The most aparent such evaluator (depending on your views of Quine) would be logic. This leads to questions such as does logic have any ethical recomendations?

However, I take a different route. I take it as faily self evident that some works of art are better than others. Of course, there is some abitraryness in art, like a play being written in English instead of an alien language, or paintings in our color range instead of a bumble bee’s. Yet, I belive that if you abstract away such things, some art is better than other art, and more importantly all things have greater or lesser artistic value. From this point ethics is deriveative; it is those actions which produce or promote things of high artistic value.

One last point I want to make. Purpose seems to be as useless a basis for ethics as God. If I were made by something with the purpose of killing potheads, that would say nothing about moral value of doing so. So don’t look for puporse, just look for a non-arbitrary property that deserves the name good. I think I’ve found it, but I’m only an undergrad.

14

Nihilistic:
Apparently I misconstrued your tone in the first response. I hardly think that a viewpoint opposed to mine is inherently angry. As for mainstream violence, consider Imperial Rome and the colloseum. Do I need a history lesson here? I mean, I’m pretty sure I can put foward the argument that public executions are intrinsically more violent than say, the mock executions (which is in reality, only symbolically violent) of recent movies. As for racism as a form of slavery, that hasn’t always been with us, clearly it is only a recent phenomenon due to certain specific beliefs (scientific racism, for example, Social Darwinism, the primitive nature of most African societies circa 1400-1800) that lent itself to the universal tendancy (for all times, integral to being human) of bigotry towards those who are not lilke us. By the by, if we have been becoming gradually more rational, why was race-based enslavement a counterpart of this age for so very long -and not so prominent in ancient times? (Aside perhaps for the ability to subjugate a particular race) I think that the last thirty years of African American rights, important as they have been, pale in comparison to the several hundred years before them. Have you considered womens roles in native American societies, or in (I think) ancient Minoa? I call upon the historians amoung us to supplement or destroy my claims.

Actually, it is vital to cite the past since it is the entire scope of human history you are considering. You cant make the statement that we are becoming more rational (as opposed to the past) without considering the past. Now, religion is tradition, you say, but you do not define religion. Perhaps I may help:
Religion: a system of belief that attempts to explain the unexplainable. ie: creation of something out of nothing -which is presupposing nothing, but anyway, its equally difficult to imagine a world with an infinite history that ends in entrophy, because that would have already occured.
By this definition (dispute it if you will, please, and I am sure I could) man’s role in understanding his place in the scheme of the universe is not intertwined with tradition --remember the line between Philosophy and Religion is prone to blurring and disintigration-- and consider that tradition is in fact much larger than religion and the ability to “found” a new religion. I could start one now.

Its called Popism, where the ultimate goal of man is to drain as many bottles of Coke as possible while abstaining from all other commercial products except for the occasional interval of Pepsi. This is not to be confused with consumerism or product loyalty because of its abstinance -in general- from products and its dedication to not one, but two opposed brands of cola. Anyway, after years of drinking and many dental operations -some with chainsaws- the devotee will realize complete nirvana by the dry, balmy taste in his or her mouth. At this point he will merge with the great sea of Coke in the tastiest tier of heaven and will in turn bear witness to the experience of being bottled, drunk and pissed out by someone else. From there he is reabsorbed into the great lifestream (called the sewer) and becomes remanufactured into Chemical X which is again placed in the Great Coke Sea in the Tastiest Realm of Heaven.

Ok. The point of that was just that religion is not necessarily traditional. And in turn, tradition is not necessarily religious. Atheists, who scorn the term “religious” have been around plenty long. Besides, most of them fall under my definition of religioun anyway as Scientists or Philosophers or whatnot.

Whew! Dont make me post this much again.

15

Lostguy:
I dont think that God, if there is one, must be arbitrary. I think there is the possiblity that he, as the fashioner of the universe and of logic as it currently works (or perhaps logic is a result of creation not creation itself?) would be predisposed to follow along the lines he had laid out for himself and us. For example, it is immoral to kill --why?-- because a society of murderers and cut-throats is, as intrinsic to humanity, a fearful and “horrible” place to live. Its also not “fair” to take someone’s life for no reason save greed. Also, consider the Golden Rule.
Lets debate the meaning of “justice” and “fairness” if you like. I have a friend who thinks that they are not the same thing. Bullshit! Well, I think so anyway.
Is it logical to suppose that iff there is a God he has revealed himself in some way to us? Perhaps. If so, logic is a tool, not the end in itself.

16

Well, God certianly wouldn’t be abritrary in the sense that he would hate murder one minute and encourage it the next. He would be arbritrary in the sense that if he decided that he was suddendly in the mood for total humanity cage match, he could simply change the past, present, and future to change this new outlook. So the only thing keeping muder immoral is the whim of God, and if we extend his omnipotence the only thing keeping him from changeing that whim is another whim, on and on ad infinitum. So I feel that is pretty abritray.

However, there is another possibility, that the are morals outside of god. (The little ‘g’ represents a loss of power.) And that God is aware of these morals and helps us follow them. This is what I meant when I said that haveing a God doesn’t help, because in this case the question of basis of ethics is the same.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is that God is irrelevent to the subject, because in the best case senario we are left with the same problem.

17

Purpose: Yes but it doesn’t have to be in the classical telelogical sense. I don’t humanity needs to have a specific task or ideal set before it.

Nihilism inevitable: I’m not sure, how are you definining ‘nihilism’, I think there is an expected absurdity to our particular lives when contemplating the infinite or realizing place in our extensive history and world. I don’t think there is a necessary connection between the confusion of finding place and determining identity within the vastness of experience and the conclusion that nothing has meaning.

Ubermensch: I suppose so. The self-determination often associated with the Ubermensch might be able to overcome the hopelessness of nihilism.

Is it the last man…: I often think of the Ubermensch in terms of person progress rather than social. On a personal level, there must be conscious apprehension of identity before identity can be overcome. could this be the last man? I don’t know, that is just a way I look at it.

This tendency of enlightenment thinking, christianity and our platonic roots is present but I think Nietzsche helps provide a great response to this in Twilight of the Idols. In it, Nietzsche appeals to life not nihilism. Our rationality must be adapted to incorporate the wealth of types and the abundance of nature. It is the domination of rationality and the forced submission of everyone to one idea that is the problem. This system alienates some people. This alienation might inspire a nihilism in response to the alienation.

I would say a lot of post-modernists, feminists, post-marxists and other schools have begun this project.

Nah! We need some Hegelians to do both history and philosophy.

Are you in Utah too? :wink:

Mill’s on Liberty makes the lines more distinct but they are still blurred.

18

I look at nihilism as a breakdown of the beautiful thoughts and idea(l)s once made. There coud be quite well some inevitablity in it, because hope and despair are part of everyone’s life* (even if they haven’t read philosophy). But I sure don’t hope nihilism is an end.

[size=75]*Isn’t despair a first step to nihilism? You ask yourself ‘why?’, and you think deeper and deeper. Then you come to a point, when the thinking doesn’t make sense anymore, because the thinking self is to be doubt.[/size]

What’s next? The rationallity, of which nihilism sprung out, is to be surpassed. And there comes the overman :slight_smile: . But before that, you have to have sense of what’s into life, all and nothing.

19

Lostguy:
Yes, well I suppose you mean that God could, on a whim, make morality immoral, and make murder righteousness. And certainly, many gods have ordained killing, under certain circumstances(Think Old Testament and Bhagavad-gita). I wont ask how he would have to change reality in order to make a “bad” thing “good”, as I dont think that is relevant to the question at hand. The question is, if the same act under the same circumstances could be either moral or immoral, is morality contingent on God’s whim to make it so? Then we have to acknowledge a broadening of the definition of morality to become: What God ordains. Not what is “right” or healthy.
Morals without God can at best be that which is healthy for a man, and nothing more(i.e. not “good”).

On the other hand, the ego seems to determine much of this “God-independant” morality. I do not think that the ego is inherently bad either. If God is omnipotent and the ego has ANY will, then it must be a part of him. (Correct me if I have strayed from the path here) So, the gut response of a wronged person is to make a moral judgement as to the fairness or unfairness of the act. If I punch or insult you, you automatically respond with a vengance because you feel that this sense of you, this sense of the moral you, has been violated. Help me clear my thoughts up on this here.

20

I said their would be pockets of variance. And anyway I wouldn’t call having slaves and captives fight against each other rational. So moving away from that violence is infact the same thing as moving toward the rational. And nothing I said is contradicted.

You can imagine my reluctance to call killing political opponents rational. You can imagine my reluctance to agree with you that public execution is a form of rationality that has been lost. You have no point unless you want to claim that Chopping someones head off in town square because he opposes you politically or cheated on you is a rational act. Moving away from that is infact moving towards the rational.

The fact is that slavery was common place in Africa and the Americas before Europe ever arrived. And yet Europeans were the ones that ultimately outlawed it, and made it illegal.
While us beginning slavery in the 1600s looks like a step towards the irrational, it is not. Previous to 1600s we were not opposed to slavery, we didn’t find it inherently bad, we just didnt’ have anyone to enslave. So while it does seem that slavery happened upon us in the 1600s…That doesn’t mean we went from anti-slavery to pro-slavery, it just means we went from no one to enslave, to people to enslave.
It’s almost as if you’re unwilling to look beyond the superficial and analyze events…

Throughout history, society has been largely patriarchical. There have been “rogue” societies throught the ages that allowed women rights, but the dominating society has always been patriarchical.

The patriarchical societies were different from the more equal societies…Our society, the one that ultimately resulted, did not come from the societies that had womens rights. our society in general came from the older patriarchical societies.

No, but the major western religions are infact very traditional, and many of the western traditions stem out of current or pagan religions.

Religions of the past were even more traditional than the relatively modern religions. Look at the religions in the Americas during the foundation periods. They are peppered with traditional sacrifices and cerimonies. They are based around the idea that certain acts(traditions) will make the gods happy. Without these acts(traditions) the world will not work properly.

Now look at more modern religions. Islam Christianity and Judaeism all have traditions. But the traditions are not as severe and unerring as the ones that were found in the religions during the foundation periods.

Even the caste system is starting to lighten up a little bit, and how many times do you see devine right leaders nowadays?

I see what you’re saying, in that in the past there were places where violence and other things were more acceptable than in our society. But upon closer examinations, we cannot call this violence rational, and thus moving away from it is moving towards the rational. My examples do not serve as being absolute, they only serve to show modern examples of trends towards the rational.
In the case of violence, ancients move away from slave fighting, and death matches, and thus away from violence is a move toward the rational. You have to look at more than just the fact that their was violence. You have to look at the scene behind this violence, and the cause of it.

Modern day mainstream violence is not the result of slavery, or deathmatches, anymore than it is a result of political oppression. It is the result of a society relaxing its morality and becoming more rational.