Nihilists understand this, so why don’t others?
then it is not nihilism-thus a contradiction againin
nihilists believe in nothing so they cant believe in nihilism
2 posts that seem to have lost me.
Nihilists are not broadly misunderstood. They are criticized on a manner in which neither party (thesis nor antithesis) have empirical justification to rely on. It comes down to what you want to believe.
If you ask me, most people pass adolescence as nihilists, conforming to capitalism by shear pavlovian-style motivation.
“I know you don’t care, but do you really want this steak? Okay, then do your homework. Okay?”
I am curious, realunoriginal, if you want to claim what it means to you in terms of what end results you want to see. What will get you there. I encourage you to put aside specific terminology for a time. Suspending the “isms” and focusing the hard stuff you’re looking for.
Honestly, what is this fascination with nihilism on this board?
- Nihilism asserts, at bottom, that humans prescribe value to things; that no “thing” has value unto itself.
- Nihilism, in its more explicit (and absurd) form, asserts that existence does not exist.
#1 seems to me a fact.
#2 seems to me fucking stupid.
Understand nihilism as #1 and you won’t be bothered. Understand nihilism as #2 and you’ll be rather confused, as you should be because it’s fucking looney.
Well on ILP it seems like nihilism is misunderstood. Take Joker, Aidan, and I guess me for example. It’s like people are confounded by nihilistic ideologies, but I don’t see why there’s a confusion?
There isn’t a certain end result that I see to nihilism as an opinion; there is only one end result. Any living philosopher that claims association to nihilism does so for a very specific reason. It is because when all meaning is lost, when there is no hope, for a person, then why do we live. How can a person live in the face of utter meaninglessness that walks side-by-side with indifference inherent within a chaotic universe?
That is the end result. It is a question: “how does a ‘true’ nihilist” continue to survive in the face of meaninglessness?"
The answer is a part of survival. I know that self-proclaimed “nihilists” understand this, but I don’t see why there is some big misconception.
Again, maybe this is just my personal interpretation of nihilism gone awry. I don’t like “-ists and -isms” either…
simple
as colin leslie dean claims
meaninglessness end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
I agree 100%.
I could get into arguments concerning point #2, but you’re right, it is stupid for the most part.
I am a self-proclaimed nihilist to the degree that a nihilist is:
One whom constantly destroys values as much as humanly possible. That is, the most extremely pessimistic form of existentialism which is shortened down into the term nihilism, causing a great deal of confusion.
To me, a ‘true nihilist’ can’t exist and can’t not exist either; it is ultimate apathy. Nihilism serves no end, proposes no conclusions; it is simply the infinite destroyer of affirmations.
As for we self-proclaimed nihilists, we are misunderstood simply because it seems as though we’ve drawn conclusions under the flag of nihilism. We have not, we’ve drawn conclusions heralded by other flags purely on a temporary basis. Nihilism ends in infinite regress and we know this, we admit this, we accept this, we destroy that acceptance, and accept the destruction of that acceptance.
A theist’s world is made of brick and is too rigid to be blown down by the Big Bad Nihilistic Wolf. An existentialist’s world is made of wood and can be shaken by the Big Bad Nihilistic Wolf, but can also be repaired and rebuilt. A nihilist’s world is substantially a clump of straw, subject to the heaving howls of the Big Bad Nihilistic Wolf; but no matter how hard he blows, the straw is just as subject to the other prevailing winds.
I see no reason to live nor a reason to die. So I live rhetorically. I abide. I am the Dude. (<<< Big Lebowski reference)
props on the reference–lol
I will post more when I’m not on a laptop 
What do you mean “destroy values”? Do you mean like a garbage disposal destroys food scraps or a fire destroys wood? In what way do you mean “destroy”? What is the distinguishing feature of a person who “destroys” values and a person who “creates” values, the necessary antithesis to this? How can I spot a destroyer and a creator? What do they look like and what do they do that distinguishes them?
I want a logical positivist’s view of things. How can I observe this difference? Clearly the “thoughts” of either have no real issue or relevance. Only the behavior would be important.
Are you sure this isn’t just another romantic metaphorical description of man that breaks down by the slightest probing? Of course it is. Ask yourself this: what would be the observable difference in human action that a third perspective could identify simply by watching, between two dichotomous ideals such as “create” and “destroy” (which really aren’t natural phenomena themselves…but forces…entropy for instance)?
You see that the mental world of human beings is not a sufficient cause or a sufficient effect of the material world. What I mean is the thoughts of man are entirely contingent, while the the reality of the world is absolutely and causally necessary. If you do not believe in freewill, you must admit that the behavioral differences of the creator and the destroyer are not caused by the thoughts of such, but rather reversed; the behavior, the infinite executive functions which are prior to voluntary self awareness and thought, those causes which have already set in motion a momentum which ends and expresses itself as a “thought”, are defined as “intentional”, while in reality the thinking is contingent. In the material world there is no such dichotomy as “creator” and “destroyer”, since there would be no real distinction between the conditions involving their actions. They would do the same same, more or less. The “ideal” does not determine what or how anything happens, happens.
This is the hardest determinism you have ever seen, and you are a little frightened. That is okay but I must warn you. A cold wind blows through Spinoza. And yet, it isn’t “determinism” because that concept itself has problems. The idea is there but it is a bad choice of words- “determine”. It has several semantic implications which go unanswered and undefined where ever it is being used. It implies that what happens was “going to purposely and specifically happen and was thought up before it happened by a thinker who wanted something to purposely and specifically happen a moment from now.” Nothing is determined by anything else because everything is causally related. If there was a “determiner”, it too would be an effect. And there is nothing before the event that “had the next event planned”. I’m sorry. “Determined” is not a good word to use.
The best way to describe us would be in this analogy- somebody threw a handful of marbles into a void…which became the universe. The moving marbles and the place they were moving in. It meant absolutely nothing. For no reason is this happening. You are “detrop for eternity”, as Frenchy put it once.
I suppose I will let you keep your romantic metaphors about man because without them you would be a helpless coil. Truth is not a mobile army of metaphors, but you can pretend it is.
From Wiki:
[i]"Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:
- there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
- a “true morality” does not exist, and
- objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.
The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence."[/i]
Post-Christian nihilists are still essentially Christian in the sense that lack of objective meaning and essential value are somehow seen as necessarily leading to “the pointlessness of existence”. It’s like believing fire can’t exist or isn’t natural since it doesn’t primordially exist in the two sticks which when rubbed together produce it. Christians and nihilists have a lot in common that way.
I’m a bit curious about how you got to this conclusion.
I’ve never considered myself as a nihilist nor belonging to any other particular category of thought school.
But your description of nihilism is somewhat similar to my view.
I came to see no possible absolute value nor meaning in anything, one night, suddenly, when I was young.
I thought about dying in the next instance, but I saw that there is no value in dying right away, and I lost motivation for dying.
Since then, I’m living the aftemath, without anything to depend/rely upon (as far as belief, reasonning, basis goes).
It was a bit confusing in a way, but also very confortable and relieving, too, as I knew we were totally free.
After many years, it became more and more clear that what I was seeking was the absolute certainty, and what I went through was the result of what I wanted.
I saw it as a form of void, or nothingness, at the time, and didn’t know that it was absolute certainty.
But now, I know why it has to be percieved and also described only in negative form, and thus give us the feeling of void or nothingness, even darkness.
Also, it’s clear to me that most of us have the same tendency to seek absolute certainty.
It can be seen in our conversations and thoughts.
When someone affirm something, it is usually done with hidden but easily detectable tone of absoluteness.
In other words, human being seems to be born with this tendency to seek and also imply absolute certainty in our mental activities.
But unlike me or someone like me, many of us don’t get in touch with actual absolute certainty … possibly beacause it can be a scary thing … as it does destroy all notion of value, meaning, moral, altogether with many adjectives and adverbes.
So, without the absolutely certainty, people can get unconfortable, and start using some arguments and theories to nurse their wondering mind.
Aware or not, people start to lie about what they really wanted, the absolute certainty, around the age of 18 to 20 … depending on each individual.
Some of us abandon the ability to question/think, and become blind followers of religion or organized belief system.
Now, back to the question of why it destroies all affirmations.
Logically speaking, any affirmation requires the possibilty of the absense of that affirmation.
For example, to affirm the existence, there must be the possiblity of non-existence.
Thus, any affirmed result is confined by at least one condition and so it’s limited in nature.
But what we imagine as absolute cetainty is something without any limit nor condition.
So, any affirmation can’t saisfy us if we wanted absolute certainty.
As we try to obtain correct/accurate answer (but actually absolutely correct and accurate one) in our thinking process , any affirmation becomes useless and thus destroyed by the absolute certainty.
There is another way to see this.
Any affirmation is asserting at least one attribute of the subject.
To affirm “existence” of something, we are giving the attribute of “existence” to it, so to say.
And affirming any attribute is to confine the subject inside the limit or boundary of the given attribute.
So, anything with any attribute cannot be something absolute, whihc must be free of any limitation and boundary.
That’s why something absolute has to be something devoid of all attributes, something we tend to see as absolute void, absolute nothingness.
In other words, the absolute certainty cannot be described in any affirmative way other than confirming the absence of all attributes.
I knew already (instinctively, but for sure) that I cannot describe it, or logically define (affirm some attributes of) it, back when I was thrown in it.
But it took relatively many years to grasp it within the logical form.
Well, do I look like a nihilist?
Maybe so, but I don’t care at all, beacause in the absolute cetainty, such classification pales and looses any meaning, naturally. 
On the next Maury Povich!
…Closet Nihilists… 
Oh well, I might add why I would see that there is no absolute meaning nor value in anything.
It’s simple.
To begin with, what is this “value” thing?
To declare that something has certain value, we must have the clear definition of the subject matter and also valid mesuring method for the prupose.
Now, defining subject matter is one thing, but how about the valid mesuring method for values?
Is there any universally acceptable mesuring unit for values?
Let’s say “1 value” is equal to “1 pint of beer after work” might work for some people, but it’s far from universal.
Unless we are one of those fanatic believers (nicer way of calling people happy with voluntaly induced form of ignorance), I think it’s nearly ovbious that thee is no universally acceptable or absolutely valid way of evaluating “values”.
It depends on each person’s vague, irregular, and arbitrary ways of evaluation, which is hardly acceptable for universal use.
Therefore, there is no such thing as absolute value for anything that can be logically declared correct.
I’m not saying that your old dirty carpet in the salon has no value what so ever.
It might be the only souvenir of your last girl friend and thus holds lots of emotional value to you.
But that’s not enough to be qualified as absolute value.
Similarly, “meanings”, “rights”, “obligations”, “responsibilities”, and so on and on and on and on have no validity/certainty in the absolute sense.
It doesn’t exclude the possible common/shared vue of values and meanings among people or communities.
Still, it doesn’t qualify as the unversal or absolute value.
It’s a fairly simple concept; to devalue values. I hope you know I’m speaking within the context and strata human of subjective structures. I’m temporarily toying with concepts of destruction and creation, all the while understanding that they are devoid of ontological essence. Nihilism is rather polemic (entropic as you’ve stated); it simply points out the redundancy of any and all affirmations, including itself.
Okay.
Okay. That’s a fairly well-founded premise, though, once again, it lacks a point (I realize you’re trying to make one; maybe I’m just an idiot, I can’t see it).
I should note, practically any and all affirmations are tainted with romantic metaphors, i.e. metanarratives. Sure, to a degree I subscribe to one (it’s impossible not to), but I subscribe to one that’s at least self-aware.
Okay. That’s been said before. Nihilism makes no self-proclamations of being an image-concept such as ‘the destroyer’ in contrast to the ‘the creator’, it’s constituents do, simply for the sake of subjective understanding and context. These claims are, once again, self-aware and serve temporary ends, i.e. shorter, smaller narratives.
Agreed?
Nice analogy.
So your previous metaphor is crap? That’s funny, I thought it was nice.