nihilism

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Self-isolating and bored? Reading helps. Across the pandemic-tinged globe one book is flying off shelves: The Plague, a novel by Albert Camus about a deadly epidemic in the Algerian town of Oran. If, as the saying goes, crisis reveals character, why not pick up a book whose central question is “What should I do?”

This article was written smack dab in the middle of a modern plague: Covid.

Start here: worldometers.info/coronavirus/

To date there have been 702,871,779 reported cases. Unless, of course the whole thing is just a hoax…a liberal attempt to impose Big Brother across the entire globe.

And whether a crisis reveals character or not, it can confront us with a world so far off the beaten path that suddenly we are confronted with a new reality that in any number of crucial ways can challenge our thinking about any number of things.

In fact, in an exchange with Maia a while back, she noted this is basically what the Covid pandemic did in regard to her own life. Many things changed and she had to reconfigure her thinking, adjust her behaviors.

Then, of course, those who insist that what they do in confronting a plague – a real one, say? – all others must do as well.

On the other hand, Maia is in possession of a Spiritual Self, an intuitive deep down inside her Self that allows her to retain her “basic values”.

In a plague there is no avoiding the issue. Pretend there is no problem: that’s taking a stand. Remain neutral: that’s a choice. Profit from the crisis: that’s charting a path. Camus’s hero is Doctor Rieux. His answer: make an effort, help the healing.

Then back to why each of us reacts to the plague in different ways. I root this existentially in dasein. What do you root it in? And does anyone here believe that what we really need here is a collection of philosopher kings, those “hypothetical rulers in whom political skill is combined with philosophical knowledge”?

Easier said than done. Avoiding responsibility is a major human sport, matched by the ability to concoct rationalizations. As a mid-20th century figure, Camus inherited the responsibility question as part of a wider framework: religion or nihilism, choose one. His take: they’re both bad. Each makes it easy to avoid responsibility.

True enough. Sometimes. It depends on how you construe the meaning of nihilism:

The dilemma seems odd today. Religion should encourage responsibility. Nihilism, well, the very label has faded. It used to signal that life is objectively meaningless, and that all meaning is subjective. Although the word has faded, the perspective lives on in phrases like “it’s up to the individual,” “whatever floats your boat,” “don’t make value judgments.”

Of course, the thing about deadly plagues is that whatever perspective you embrace, it can precipitate behaviors that have considerably consequences for others. Thus the existential relationship between the plague, the government and each individual citizen can vary enormously.

How about yours? Have you yourself pinned down either the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp the covid pandemic? If only philosophically up in the theoretical clouds?

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Camus wrote The Plague in a way that it would challenge the last pronouncement [above]. Readers are led to make value judgments, to praise Rieux and the volunteers who combat the plague.

No doubt not counting those convinced that all plaques are part of a vast conspiracy by the collectivists to crush all remaining vestiges of rugged individualism.

Here is where “it’s up to the individual” comes into play. It’s an expression with two separate meanings. The phrase, rightly, (a) emphasizes the personal dimension in choice. In a challenging situation, it’s up to the individual to select among options.

Two points…

In some communities youth may be encouraged to “find themselves”, but there are always going to be certain behaviors that are understood to be…mandatory? beyond the pale? Second, there are any number of objectivist communities that revolve around and champion individualism, but these are basically owned and operated by “the founders”. Think Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

In other words, selections based on moral and political prejudices acquired existentially or on objectivist truths derived from one or another Scripture or Manifesto.

However, the fan of full-blown nihilism adds a second dimension. “It’s up to the individual” becomes (b) “whatever choice the individual makes is the right one.” To grasp the contrast, think of nutrition. It’s up to the individual (a) to decide which foodstuffs to ingest. It’s not up to the individual (b) whether those choices are healthy or not.

That’s one manner in which to describe it. But if the individual is basically predisposed [even in a free will universe] to embody one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another, who gets to say which choice is the right one…Leonard Peikoff or Tom Cruise?

Besides, in a No God world, any particular one of us can claim that the choices we are making are the right ones. Then that part whereby, for many moral objectivists, just believing this “in their head” need be as far as it goes in “demonstrating” that it is true.

As for relating this to nutrition and healthcare the more relevant context would revolve around the medical industrial complex and those who wish to change that into a “single payer” system. Both side have reasonable arguments pro and con.

Camus challenged nihilism because of ‘b’. When ‘a’ and ‘b’ are run together, evaluations like “Dr Rieux’s actions are honorable” don’t mean much. “It’s up to the individual” translates into “That’s just your opinion.”

Again, however, in my view, arguing as a nihilist that any choice an individual makes is the right one has almost nothing to do with the real world. One way or another in regard to “rules of behaviors”, each community must intertwine “might makes right”, “right makes might” and “moderation negotiation and compromise.” And ultimately that will revolve around those able to enforce their own set of assumptions. Deontological or otherwise.

Political economy has almost always prevailed here.

Why not, then, go with religion? For Camus, as for Nietzsche before him, religion just offers a disguised version of nihilism. The world is ‘fallen’, meaningless in itself. All values derive from divine commands.

In other words, from my frame of mind, the exact opposite of nihilism. Nihilism swirling around the assumption that, given a Kingdom of End, anything goes.

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Such an emphasis on God’s will bothered Camus. The Plague has a priest called Father Paneloux who delivers two sermons with standard themes: (1) “it’s a punishment for sins;” (2) “God works in mysterious ways.” As far as the doctor is concerned, such sermons carry dangerous messages: find scapegoats, welcome ignorance, accept God’s will, don’t roll up your sleeves and help.

How could an emphasis on Gods that exist only “in your head” or through a “leap of faith” or through “a wager” or through indoctrination as a child or given particular historical and cultural contexts, not bother those who actually expect something in the way of substantive and substantial evidence that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist?

And then to sweep things like this…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l … _eruptions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … l_cyclones
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … ore_deaths
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

…under the rug [philosophically or otherwise] as just punishment? Punishments we can scarcely understand given God’s “mysterious ways”?

Sure, if that works for you in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that revolves around being able to believe in moral commandments and immortality and salvation…?

Then the part where one “rolls up one’s sleeves” and “helps” others? Sounds a lot like what Marx was arguing in suggesting that God and religion “for all practical purposes” can often become “opiates for the masses”. And the various ruling classes down through the ages have certainly been able to take advantage of that, haven’t they?

Rieux realizes that despite bad theory, most religious individuals, in practice, go to a physician when ill.

Of course, with rare exceptions that hasn’t changed. Still, those who do leave everything up to God seem, to some, to be the more reasonable folks. If God created human bodies bursting at the seams with afflictions, who are we to intervene and treat them?

In this regard, Rieux has gotten surprising support. A real priest, the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, agreed. Merton thought Camus was right to judge Father Paneloux’s sermons as “revolting.” It was appalling that the cleric would encourage his flock to “submit to a will we do not understand and even to adore and love what appears horrible.”

Note to IC:

So, what is the True Christian to make of all this? Start here: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7545013/

Camus’s mistake, according to Merton, was believing that such an attitude is “essential to Christianity.” Idol worship is everywhere and even priests can worship false gods.

Then there’s no end to where contentions like this might take the faithful. The whole point being to do the right thing so that, on Judgment Day, you go up instead of down. What on Earth are the judgments of mere mortals down here compared to that?

[iambiguous]

Camus, The Plague and Us
Ray Boisvert on Albert Camus, Thomas Merton and a call to be a healer in a crisis.

Merton provides a sort of mirror image of the ‘a’ and ‘b’ distinction as regards nihilism. What’s right is (a) acceptance of a divinity. What’s wrong is (b) the typical way that divinity is understood.

Then straight back to this: that virtually all of those on divine paths here…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

…will [in sync] argue from that frame of mind. And then go on to insist that if you do not come over to their own spiritual path then, among other things, your soul is fucked.

On the other hand, yes, any number of moral nihilists themselves have their own “my way or the highway” assessment of nihilism as well.

Camus had little patience for irresolvable ideological subtleties. His focus was on “What should I do?” His answer: become ‘true healers’. Become like doctors. Where there is illness, bring healing. Where there is suffering, bring relief. Churchgoers praying are not bringing relief. Nihilists, denying any deep meaning to the words ‘better’, and ‘worse’, are not sufficiently motivated. “What should I do?” Join the healers, do your part.

Okay, so what should we do in regard to abortion, to gun control, to immigration policy, to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Whose suffering must take priority? Whose behaviors really are “better” or “worse”?

Then Camus seeming to reduce everything down to individual freedom…as though the points raised by those like Sartre in regard to political economy and the class struggle were not relevant at all to human interactions.

Of course: those all up and down the ideological spectrum embrace the part where we should do all we can to heal. But then the part where they get around to those that they insist are causing all the pain and suffering?

[iambiguous]

The Departed
Eric Wills reveals how Nietzschean morality is displayed in Martin Scorsese’s Oscar-winning movie.

“We are all on the way out. Act accordingly.”

And how might that be? Reactions to this can vary considerably from individual to individual. There are the religious fanatics who insist that “out” is not really the end of it at all. Thus, we should act always given the assumption that Judgment Day awaits us. Then the hardcore sociopaths who assume instead that the life we live is all that there is. For them the refrain is not “do the right thing for goodness sake” but, “don’t get caught doing what society tells you is the wrong thing.”

In his recent film The Departed, Martin Scorsese presents us with a conflict between Martin Sheen’s conventionally moral policeman and Jack Nicholson’s amoral gangster, each of whom has his own informant working undercover on the other side.

Okay, you’re a “serious philosopher”. Which frame of mind comes closest to your own understanding of objective morality? Is Sheen necessarily the embodiment of virtue while Nicholson is inherently the embodiment of vice? Do laws necessarily, inherently reflect “the good”? Or are they [historically and culturally] merely the product of those in any particular society who have the political and economic power to differentiate right from wrong based solely on their own self-interests?

Frank Costello (Nicholson) finds his protégé, Sullivan (Matt Damon), in church, and he tells him to kneel to nobody. He encourages him to join the police and be his informant. On the other side, DiCaprio’s character Billy Costigan disowns his petty-criminal father and wants to join the police. His boss tells him he can prove his moral conviction by joining Frank Costello’s gang and feeding back information to the police.

Same thing. For some, “gangster life” is their pride and joy. Think Henry Hill. For others it is evil incarnate. So, philosophically, which is it?

Just as, for some, nihilism is entirely reasonable, while for others it epitomizes an entirely irrational philosophy of life. So, philosophically, which is it?

The story illustrates Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that everything living seeks to express its strength. This is Nietzsche’s doctrine of the will to power, which he takes to be the reality hidden beneath the mask of our conventional notions of good and bad.

How do you express your “strength”? Conventionally or unconventionally? And how do you defend it, objectively or subjectively?

As for that infamous “will”, those like Satyr seem to encompass it as the philosophical equivalent of a “soul”. It’s just “in there” somewhere, somehow. And only a very, very few [like him] are able to embody their own will such that, in a No God world, they become one of the Übermensch among us.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.

Raul Gonzalez

There is a misconception with the interpretation of nihilism. A laymen will interpret the popular definition of nihilism; “Life is meaningless”, to mean that there is no point in believing anything. This is incorrect.

Life can be taken as my own personal life, or Life can be understood as everything, the universe.

Of course, when I come upon something like this, my first inclination is to suggest that, in regard to the “meaning of life”, who among us can actually demonstrate what is in fact correct or incorrect? Such that all rational men and women would be inclined – obligated? – to agree.

This goes back to 3 assumptions I make.

1] that “somehow” when biological matter evolved into us, we acquired free will.

2] that any speculations about the “meaning of life” has to take into account both “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. In other words, what we simply do not grasp about the ontological/teleological relationship between the human condition and the existence of existence itself.

3] the distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world. For example, “what does it mean when the state executes a prisoner?” What objective facts can we all agree on? As opposed to, “what does it mean to be right about the morality of capital punishment?” Is there a deontological assessment – a moral imperative – that all rational men and women are duty-bound to accept if they wish to be thought of as reasonable and virtuous?

Nihilism does not propose that the individual life has no meaning, rather that the universe has no meaning. The world does not posit a morality or a value system. The world does not have a religion or a political position.

Most philosophers will always be driven to explore questions like this even if a part of them recognizes that they are likely to go to the grave taking only their own “rooted existentially in dasein” moral, political and philosophical prejudices with them.

Still, why these “big questions” are utterly fascinating to some and utterly irrelevant to others is no less the embodiment of dasein, in my view. Again, however, to assert things about “the world” that you believe to be true “in your head”, may well be nowhere near the same as being able to prove it. Back to how, in some important respects, philosophy simply does not possess the equivalent of the scientific method.

It is erroneous to say, “I am a nihilist, therefore nothing matters.” A nihilist believes that value statements are not true or false with respect to life, universe, and everything. Value statements are human statements, posited by humans, and enforced by humans.

On the contrary, if you reach a point in your life where you genuinely do believe that nothing matters, that human interactions are essentially meaningless and purposeless, how is that really any different from what someone else believes “in their head” that they assert about religion or politics or genes and memes?

For me, you can either reconfigure your words such that they are shown to be applicable to human social, political and economic interactions, or you can’t. Or, as is often the case with many conflicting goods, many all up and down the moral and political spectrum simply insist that you are either “one of us” [right] or “one of them” [wrong].

Nihilists do not say that there should not be value and meaning in life. Nihilists just believe that value and meaning are enforced by human will, and not intrinsic truths of the world, like gravity.

Yes, that seems reasonable to me. Meaning is everywhere in our lives. But this doesn’t make the distinction between existential and essential meaning go away.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Cole Bisaccia

Nihilism, in my experience, is a rationalization of an individuals lack of connection to the world.

Rationalization: “the act, process, or result of rationalizing: a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.”

Rationalization is one of the many “psychological defense mechanisms” that mere mortals employ to anchor their supposed “intrinsic Self” in one or another One True Path. The point is to believe, above all else, that which “comforts and consoles” you. What that turns out to be, however, is no less the embodiment of dasein.

I’ve also gone through periods of my life where I’ve felt utterly disconnected from life. The majority of my waking day was spent engaging in hollow interactions with people, going through the motions without any sense of purpose or direction.

Here, again, it all comes down to the extent to which it is important to you that there be an essential meaning and purpose in life. In your own life, of course, but for the objectivists, the obligation of all other rational people is then to think the same way. The Ayn Rand Syndrome let’s call it. Or, here, the lorikeet syndrome. On the other hand, there are also those who not only accept that human existence is essentially meaningless, they revel in it. The sociopaths, for example.

This feeling of isolation manifested in the content of my thoughts, in which I began to put together a picture of the universe which confirmed the way I felt internally.

Sure, we are all capable of “thinking this through” and arriving at our own subjective conclusions. But just how ludicrous is it for someone to imagine that what they think about the universe “here and now” will actually be anywhere near reflecting what the universe actually is?

Still…

Nihilism was initially so attractive to me because most of the statements are truisms, and also it conceived of life at a magnificently grand scale. No one can argue with the fact that the individuals place within the universe is insignificant. No one can dispute that every human soul on earth is headed for death, ultimately rendering our life choices inconsequential. To conceive of life in this cosmic and ephemeral nature elicits a certain feeling of wonder and amazement.

Of course, for many objectivists, “the magnificently grand scale” of the universe revolves precisely around the assumption that what makes it grand is the “fact” that how they understand the universe is what comforts and consoles them in the first place. That way they can convince themselves their place in the universe is significant. And then for the a God, the God, my God folks, that this grandness continues on beyond the grave itself.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

If only we understood that Life is not longevity, but contact with reality by recognizing in our thoughts, values, and actions that every self is an other to another self…and wondering how that recognition got there unless we started out with at least two selves that could always communicate according to that recognition.

And the desire to share the USNESS … just …reverbed … eternally.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Panda

I was nihilistic for a while, however, what I found that helped me was Buddhism. Nihilism states basically that “Life is suffering and there’s nothing we can do about it”. Buddhism, which -to me-, is the flip side of the same coin of Nihilism…because Buddhism states, “Yes, Life is painful, our attachments to desires make them painful, but you can choose what kind of Pain you wish to go through”.

Sure, there are any number on “one true paths” that one can take in order to convince oneself that any suffering endured is for a reason. You fit it all into one or another “Ism”. And then suffering becomes…meaningful? And for many the suffering is intertwined in the assumption that on the other side, it will all be compensated with immortality and salvation.

Buddhism is just trickier because the part about the “afterlife” is all the more problematic. But at least you will always “come back”. Also, become enlightened enough and…

“The goal of Buddhism is to become enlightened and reach nirvana. Nirvana is believed to be attainable only with the elimination of all greed, hatred, and ignorance within a person. Nirvana signifies the end of the cycle of death and rebirth.” Stanford University.

On the other hand, which particular rendition of Buddhism comes closest to the “real deal” here: Schools of Buddhism - Wikipedia

For me, this gave me hope and strength, because if Life is indeed Pain, then we can choose what kind of trial and tribulation we want to go through for the most part. Not every chance will be offered to us, but when it is, we can decide what path we wish to travel. If life is indeed pain, then let me choose what kind of pain I wish to experience; instead of, the pain being chosen for me by Life. Hope this helps, Namaste.

See how it works [for many]: as a psychological defense mechanism. Religions comfort and console mere mortals in a world where comfort and consolation are often needed.

As for chossing your own pain…maybe. But, in being a human being, there are experiences we all have that can result in terrible pain. Which I suspect is why some Buddhists prefer to congregate only with other Buddhists: The Sangha: The Buddhist Community | The Pluralism Project

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
TheGrapeThief

Most [nihilists] will begin every discussion with the preconception that you are just trying to avoid a painful “truth” they are convinced exists.

Like me, right? Human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, dasein negates objective morality and in the end it’s oblivion. For all the rest of eternity, you cease to exist.

Only I am no more convinced they are true than I can be given the gap between what I think I know about them and all that there is to be known regarding where the human condition fits into what may or may not be the ontological – teleological? – explanation for existence itself. It’s just that I then suggest it is applicable to everyone else as well.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong. The win/win syndrome.

Their very belief in nihilism negates any and all arguments against it. They are convinced it is an attempt to refute something objective while everyone who is arguing in favor of a different philosophy is often aware what they are debating is subjective to each and every person.

On the other hand, I don’t argue that others are wrong when they champion their own rendition of moral objectivism. I merely ask them to bring their theoretical assumptions down to Earth in order to explore the “for all practical purposes” implications of what I construe to be their didactic discourse.

In other words, most people who follow a philosophy know it isn’t absolute, that there is some shred of doubt to be had in it and there is a possibility they are wrong. Anyone who has never had some doubt in their philosophy or views it as an absolute truth that cannot and should not be questioned is blinding themselves.

Unless, of course, that’s the whole point. You find a philosophy of life – God or No God – that most comforts and consoles you. Or you have been indoctrinated to accept the philosophy of life of those who raise you. And over time you become blinded by the light. You come to embody what I call the “psychology of objectivism” here: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative - Psychology and Mind - I Love Philosophy

The rest is history.

[PZR]

@iambiguous

Unless, of course, that’s the whole point. You find a philosophy of life – God or No God – that most comforts and consoles you.

If that consoles you I guess lol.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@iambiguous

I merely ask them to bring their theoretical assumptions down to Earth in order to explore the “for all practical purposes” implications of what I construe to be their didactic discourse.

You want them to show you in their words?

I recognize your personhood. You ought to be treated as a person like any other person. You are valuable because you value. You are an end (purposeful, meaningful) because you hunger for the end (purpose, meaning). Nihilists will not accept artificial purpose or meaning — they are therefore more essentialists than they even know. I see you more than you see you. Your hunger for true meaning is beautiful.

[PZR]

Na you got him all wrong. It’s just an excuse to unquestioningly hang on to whatever halfass emotionally satisfying doctrine he had already chosen and realized was halfass.

“If it’s all illusion anyway…”

[PZR]

Like this Rosa character he hangs on to. If you go read what this famous Rosa wrote, it’s the actual most mediocre shit you ever read.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

whatev sock puppet

[PZR]

Don’t be angry Itchtas.

[promethean75]

Biggs reads Rosa Lichtenstein too? Nice!

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

suspish

[PZR]

Brian, what’s the story behind the backwards N?

[iambiguous]

Great! Another thread in the philosophy forum reconfigured into “the Corner.”

Yak, yak, yak, right Kids?