It is clear to me that everything I am against as a nihilist extends from Platonism whether it comes to morality, ethics, government, social ideals, abstract epistemology, or falsified objectivism. Those things all extend from Platonism.
The direct opposite of Platonism historically is skepticism and of course the inheritance of skepticism in the modern sense is nihilism. It is known that Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of Plato and Socrates alike.
I wanted to create this thread as a way to criticize Platonism from a nihilistic point of view. I’m still in the beginnings of creating a critique of Platonism but am wondering what others think on the subject.
From an ancient point of view, some parts or at least the consequences of the Platonism were also nihilistic. So if non-ancient nihilists are against Platonism, then they are nihilists who are against a part of the ancient nihilism. This seems to be a contradiction, but this contradiction can be solved, at least partly, because the ancient nihilism is different from the non-ancient nihilism.
I would love to say this will get interesting, but I know better.
Can you identify for me a few Nihilist authors from antiquity, in particular this formula you’ve given, one or two thinkers to represent each category?
Who are, in your opinion the Non Ancient Nihilist, who are against Plato, and what qualifies them for this status?
Who are the non-ancient nihilists against the ancient nihilist, can you give me examples (more than one) from both the Non-Ancient Nihilist opposed to the Ancient Nihilist philosophers, and can you just these Nihilist ancient philosophers as well (likewise, more than one).
Lastly, why is ancient nihilism different from modern nihilism?
Right, as though if anyone might suggest that there are other, more sophisticated or complex reactions to it, they are missing the only point that really matters: yours.
My own rendition revolves more around the assumption – and that is all it is, a subjective/subjunctive assumption – that there is no God. And if there is no God then there is no ontological or teleological font from which to ascribe meaning in the universe. Instead, what we care about would seem to be far more reflective of what, given the life that we have actually lived, we were predisposed to care about. Indoctrinated first as children and then constructed existentially as more autonomous adults.
And that sans God there is no capacity on the part of a mere mortal to demonstrate that what he or she cares about is that which all rational men and women are obligated to care about in turn.
Hell, we don’t even know for certain if an exchange such as this is not but inherently only as it ever could be given a wholly determined universe.
Nihilism is skepticism taken to extremes. It is the view that all meaning, value, and truth is projected from the mind rather than inhering in objective reality, and is therefore unreal. This is indeed opposed to Platonism in that Plato took everything that the mind projected as visions of objective reality.
It should be noted however that Plato wasn’t a wholesale realist either. He was very skeptical of the reality of the senses. In this respect, Platonism and nihilism (at least modern nihilism) can be seen as the inverse of each other: Plato sees the insights of the intellect as the highest reality whereas the visions of the sense are the lowest, but the nihilist sees the insights of the intellect as the lowest reality where the visions of the sense are the highest.
In fact, I started a thread a while back proposing that the history of philosophy was just an exercise in trying to figure out which of our mental states are to be considered real and which unreal: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 1&t=179079.
As for myself, I take a position that is midway between Platonism and nihilism. Like most nihilists, I believe the world is foremost a projection of our minds, but unlike nihilist, I don’t believe this makes it any less real. I believe that the process by which the mind projects the world is what gives it reality. Mind, or consciousness, is a reality generating power. This places me in the relativist/subjectivist camp. The only reality, I say, is what you experience reality to be from a 1st person subjective point of view, and because subjective points of view differ from one person to another and from one time in your life to another, the nature of reality is also relative. But make no mistaken: it’s still real at the time for the particular percipient in question.
What is Platonism supposed to be and how can that be the opposite of nihilism?
I thought teleology was the opposite of nihilism.
Nihilism is thought against thought, will against will, etc. At the heart of it, but maybe I’m wrong.
I am an existential nihilist who thinks there is no objective meaning to life but I do however give meaning to my life
I am not a moral nihilist for I have my own moral code though it is not absolute but one subject to change over time
Nihilism is a philosophical position and as such does not impact upon scepticism which is rooted in empiricism. Indeed my own nihilism does
not compromise my scepticism as I only accept as true that which can be shown to be so either through evidence or proof or logic or reason
Very nice Gib. This is what I was looking for. I don’t know what you mean by extremes. It’s just a polar opposite really.
I don’t know about unreal, just subjective. In another thread I was trying to resolve the subjective versus objective spectrum. Objective things certainly exist however concerning human experience and existence there is nothing that really is objective.
There is no objective or universal state to build upon human experience as a reference.
Yes, Plato is a disease in philosophy I’m coming to believe more and more along with all his descendants stating there to be abstract mental realities separate from human beings in objective form. In this way Platonism has been a disaster upon philosophy and civilization as whole creating confusion along with a complete lack of understanding concerning reality in these idealistic entrapments or snares.
Problems arise when one states their projection of mind is more better, sound, or real than all others which is why we have a pervasive central bureaucracy of philosophical idealistic dogma in Platonist form that we have today.
For me a person can’t believe in morality and be a nihilist at the same time.
You can certainly call it your own personal code where we all have them however nihilism is the antithesis of moral and ethical thought. Nihilism is more in line with amoralism as I always say.
It’s one of the bones of the philosophical establishments, both old and new.
“cause” is also something that needed to exist and was made religious : creationism.
It was one of the bones of philosophical establishment too.
Awesome post by the way.