That resonates. I appear to be an extrovert when my mind is not aware of myself & is absorbed in a dialogue/activity with others I enjoy. But once the dialogue/activity is over, if I don’t take time away to recharge, … my body reminds me what it prefers.
But how can that be assessed here?
One wonders.
Hardly, it’s like Henry Miller taking time off from 
to express his retro-could have been wish to become a driver ((of men)) rather .
What became his last ( but not lost) project of doing real art, art he could see to believe,
And so did, tried a harbor scene, let it dry but prematurely dissatisfied , painting over another coat, 
Did that many many times over the course of:
Say years? Months? Don’t recall
And then after X times of doing that, the visage becoming unrecognizable to the point of no return,
Anyway that’s one 
of the things he did lastly.
His stuff was great and resonating no need to find tune, that’s not broken no need fix,
Meno was and still considered an original , albeit resource less slave boy, with lot’s to offer, in fact it’s a mystery why his unfirhotten dreams survive to this day, why it must be a miracle or close yo it.
Cynics abundantly illustrate their weight’s skill in shifting it over and above those bigger, and better even if it’s virtually empty.
…through whatever it is we experience the world through, I suppose.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
TheGrapeThief
Sure, I don’t doubt there are any number of nihilists who are themselves objectivists. I’m just not one of them. I would never argue there is no God, no objective morality, no life after death. I maintain only that “here and now” I have not been convinced that these things exist myself.
So, sure, beyond a leap of faith or one or another Bible and upbringing, if you do believe in these things then by all means note how you were able to convince yourself that they are the One True Path.
Indeed, over the years I have come upon some who seemed to “preach” nihilism as fanatically as any other “my way or the highway” zealot. On the other hand, they weren’t out there imposing moral commandments on others or insisting that those who refuse to think as they do will wind up in Hell.
Also, over and again I have acknowledged that nihilism itself can become a very dangerous frame of mind when practiced by sociopaths or global capitalists intent on reducing everything down to wealth and power.
Some nihilists perhaps. But I certainly don’t reject the idea that each of us seem clearly to be individual subjects living out in a particular world, understood in a particular way. I merely make a distinction here between meaning in the either/or world and meaning in the is/ought world.
This and the distinction I make between discussing this up in the philosophical clouds and bringing theoretical assessments “down to Earth”.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
TheGrapeThief
Again, as though there really is a “one size fits all” description of a nihilist. As though if you do not “reject the very concept of meaning [and] not just the idea that there is an objective meaning to our existence”, how dare you call yourself a nihilist!
Which is why I prefer to connect the dots existentially between nihilism and morality. After all, meaning in the either/or world certainly seems to be objective. Perhaps too objective if we live in a wholly determined universe?
Okay, but religion revolves largely around moral commandments linked to immortality and salvation. And philosophy revolves largely around logic and epistemology – connecting the dots between words and worlds.
Yeah, I suppose so. If you are a nihilist who does say those things. But I am a moral nihilist who suggests instead that even to the extend you do pursue your own personal meaning in regard to value judgments, that meaning is rooted existentially in dasein, and not in a deontological assessment of human interactions. On the other hand, if others believe that they have in fact found the One True Path to moral Enlightenment, by all means, given particular contexts, let them attempt to demonstrate that.
And I would never “write off philosophies like Stoicism and religions”. My “beef” instead is with those philosophers and theologians who insist that if you don’t accept their own Path, you can never attain Enlightenment, let alone all that good stuff on the other side of the grave.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Panda
Again, if some are able to convince themselves that Buddhism is the One True Path to Enlightenment, that “life after death” awaits them and that nirvana is within reach of the most committed then they’ve achieved the peace of mind I wish I could experience again myself.
Thus…
And, of course, any number of Buddhists might choose to do so within the confines of the Sangha. Being able to share that One True Path with those who are not ever likely to question it. What’s crucial is that Enlightenment is configured into day to day rituals and practices. You embody them because that’s what enlightened men and women do. And they do so because they are enlightened.
Here I can only ask any Buddhists among us to note instances from their own life in which they chose their own pain. And, in particular, those contexts in which in choosing one set of behaviors you are confronted with others who insist on their own One True Path instead.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Rick Madchen
Again, however, defenders of nihilism – moral nihilism in particular – are in the same boat everyone else is in. When they speak of things like being free and acquiring clarity, what exactly is that in regard to?
It seems clear to me “here and now” that one significant advantage accorded moral relativists is that they are liberated from the social, political and economic straitjackets the objectivists are always confined to. With objectivism – left or right, God or No God – one is obligated to do the right thing. And while this might enable someone to sustain a self-righteous assessment of human interactions, they are then anchored to it…to one or another rendition of “one of us”. Otherwise, they risk being shunned or excommunicated. Or worse.
Yes, this may well be the case for any number of “young nihilists”. But what on Earth does it mean “for all practical purposes” to acquire a more fully developed moral nihilism? As always, we need to explore this out in the world of actual flesh and blood human relationships. What does constitute a more or a less fully developed set of moral and political convictions?
On the contrary, for any number of physicists, chemists, biologists and the like, meaning and purpose revolve around the laws of nature. A centuries old foundation that has resulted in any number of extraordinary inventions, technologies and engineering feats. All of which appear applicable to every one of us. And while this “physical world” stuff is no less embedded in “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”, most of us recognize the manner in which we are all intertwined in what appears to be as close to an objective reality as we have discovered so far.
Yes, and to the extent the happiness of a moral nihilist is not derived from the unhappiness of others this might well reflect the “best of all possible worlds”. A moral relativist can champion democracy and rule of law. Through moderation, negotiation and compromise – the political process – everyone gets something, and no one gets it all.
Taking into account political economy of course.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
S. M. Henderson
Yet almost all accept that in regard to the either/or world, the things we find meaningful are applicable to each and everyone of us. And if some insist the meaning is other than what it actually is that doesn’t make it any less objective. If, for example, someone thinks that “Mary had an abortion” means that she just gave birth is that acceptable because, after all, it’s just her own personal perspective?
On the other hand, if someone insists that Mary will one day burn in Hell because their God deems abortion [the killing of the unborn] to be a Sin, that does seem to be more in the way of a personal perspective. One that others will disagree with vehemently.
Then what? If for whatever reason someone comes to believe that abortion means giving birth, they can be set straight as to what it really means.
Shades of Dogtooth – https://youtu.be/0bYpMPXXsvI?si=fLbhS6gxhxLUSMW1 – perhaps?
On the other hand, from my own frame of mind, speculation of this sort revolves more around “the Gap”. Still, the object either exists for all of us objectively or it doesn’t. Where things get tricky of course is when the object becomes involved in a moral or political or religious conflagration. A book is a book is a book. But if the book is the Bible or Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries or one of these – The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000 | American Civil Liberties Union – it can mean many different things to many different people.
So, can philosophers pin down how rational men and women ought to react to them?
Pick one and let’s get started.
You’re talking cultural relativists whose straight jackets are Kierkegaard’s ethical stage. Oddly you go on to call that a version of objectivism. It is not objectivism in any sense of the word. The only objective truth about the morality of subjects is that every self is an other to another self. So many cultures recognize that but fail to acknowledge it. Acknowledging it is freedom from those straight jackets. It is building the kind of culture that is beautiful.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Alexander Summerville
[quote]Q: How do I refute nihilism?
A: It’s actually pretty easy; no serious philosopher is likely to espouse actual “nihilism”. Rather, it’s a term used by philosophers to criticize the thinking of other philosophers as irrational! As far as I can tell, the only people who take it seriously, as a philosophy, are people who know little about philosophy.[/quote]
Sure, if you are convinced that this is a reasonable assessment of nihilism, and it fits snuggly into your own philosophy of life…a philosophy that others here do take seriously…how about taking it down out of the philosophical clouds and, given particular sets of circumstances, exploring situations in which others construe nihilism from entirely different perspectives.
Mine, for example.
Same thing. Note actual experiences you have had that enabled you to grasp how nihilism is essentially self-refuting “as a concept”. What for all practical purposes does that even mean?
On the other hand, this particular nihilist makes a distinction between discovering what things mean objectively for all of us in the either/or world and the claims of moral objectivists who insist they have discovered what things ought to mean in the is/ought world as well. Their focus is less on nothing, however, and more on telling others what everything means. And if you’re lucky you won’t find yourself living among those who impose their own rendition of “or else” if you refuse to.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
On the contrary, out in the world of actual human interactions, you can claim many, many things are true…and in simply believing that they are true, that makes them true. For you. Thus it is always important in discussing nihilism that references are made to particular human experiences. Is there in fact a meaning that we can all agree on?
For example, on June 27 at 9 p.m., CNN will host a presidential debate between Trump and Biden. The fact of the debate, the reason for the debate, the questions asked and the answers given are all part of the political process here in America. What does it mean? Well, it’s not likely many will insist it’s a beauty contest or a game show.
But when the discussions shift to squaring their answers – their policies in office – with what each of us believes it might mean for America’s future?
Same thing.
In discussing the fact of the debate how many are going to say “nuh-uh, it has nothing to do with politics or the presidential election. It means something entirely different”.
There are things that we can know epistemologically about debates. We can’t just make up our own meaning. At least not if we wish to be thought of as a rational human being. But in reacting to what the candidates say, what it means for America can vary considerably from person to person.
I merely root this by and large in dasein rather than in anything an epistemologist can tell us about meaning here.
What else would it be rooted in? We are each a meaning maker (dasein) like the Meaning Maker who is Dasein. Make meaning according to the reality that we are all meaning makers. That’s what it means to be a kingdom of ends. We bump up against each other’s meanings and smooth off each other’s rough edges and work out any misunderstandings so that we share meaning making in a meaningful way for all of us. It’s a conversation, a communication, a creation to which we all contribute. A game as long as it’s fun… a conflict to resolve back to fun when it isn’t.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
[quote]So to start, I would differentiate off the bat whether they/you want to know if nihilism can be shown to be necessarily incorrect as a worldview, or whether you are wondering if nihilism is ‘likely’ or ‘probably’ a correct worldview. A ‘fastest horse in the race’ idea.
Is it possible that it’s true? Yes. Is it probable? Nuh-uhn.[/quote]
A necessarily correct or incorrect “worldview” regarding what? Likely or probably true regarding what?
It always comes back to the same thing for me: that in the absence of a demonstrably proven God [or a God that reveals Himself] there does not appear to be a way for mere mortals to acquire an ontological or teleological understanding of the human condition. Let alone of existence itself. At best, we can take a “leap of faith” to one or another secular “Ism”. A Humanism. We can note the laws of nature and conclude that if there is an essential meaning to be found we’ll have to come a lot closer to grasping the human brain itself in order to find it.
Pulled and tugged in different directions here too. And in whichever direction, “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule” are ever and always present.
Some, however, will go all the way to the grave convinced their own understanding of all this is the correct one. And there is little likelihood of someone like me changing their mind. Why? Because it is that they believe in the One True Path that comforts and consoles them. What that path happens to be could be almost anything.
But until someone does manage to prove their own understanding of human interactions is the correct one given one particular context after another I’ll remain entangled in my own fractured and fragmented quagmire.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
Here, however, nihilism as I understand it is purely in the speculative department. Salt in the ocean is squarely embedded in the either/or world. We can explore the oceans around the globe and determine if there are parts of them where the water is not salty. Scientists can explain why the ocean is salty…why it must be salty given the inherent – natural – components involved.
Define meaning here? define value? Then “somehow” connect the dots between what they mean to you “here and now” and what they mean objectively in a No God world. What they mean to…Nature?
And while we were created and continue to exist in the cosmos, how on Earth is that the same thing as the Cosmos creating us? As though the universe were an actual entity in possession of an ontological and teleological agenda.
[quote]pause for the 'But that’s just subjective! It doesn’t equate to objective truth of any of those!’ I know.
It doesn’t — not necessarily anyway. I’m not sure the universe as a whole can experience pain, and pain is certainly subjective, but you’d better bloody well agree that pain exists and that it definitely does objectively exist.[/quote]
And then there are those born without the capacity to feel pain. And those mascohists who actually seek it out. And those sadists who seem all but compelled to inflict it. It just seems obvious to me that while pain is an inherent [objective] componet of human biology, how we react to it as individuals can be profoundly problematic. Profoundly subjective.
The concept of pain? More to the point, who doubts that “for all practical purposes” pain [both mental and physical] is an objective componet of the human condition? Instead, the conflagrations revolve far more around which pains are said to be morally justified and which are not.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
On the other hand, let’s face it, we live in a world today where many of us interact with others by engaging personas. How we act [and react] is only what we think others expect of us in different situations. And those like me – drawn and quartered, tugged ambivalently in different directions – are just particularly fractured in the is/ought world.
Of course, the antidote of choice for most here is still objectivism:
“What persona? This is who I really am. And, more to the point, why aren’t you the same?”
Yep, by and large, for some of us, in relationships, at work, at school etc., fictions prevail. We “play the game” anticipating how others might react to us and then making the necessary adjustments.
Also, with the advent of virtual relationships [like ours], it is often tempting to create a whole new identity. Or playing video games. It’s just that most of us still recognize the difference between who we let others think we are and who we really are instead. That’s just not an option for me in regard to value judgments.
Here and now.
Pick three:
1] new experiences
2] new relationships
3] new information and knowledge
That’s really how the human condition unfolds, isn’t it? You believe something but then things change in your life and you find it harder and harder to go on believing it. Everything here revolves around the extent to which your life stays more or less the same year in and year out. Here the objectivists will often think, “I was wrong about that One True Path, but not about this one.” Again, it’s convincing yourself morally and politically there is but One True Path – the psychology of objectivism – that is far more crucial in my view.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
Then those who suggest the possibility that we only find particular things meaningful and valuable because our material brains compel us to. Then those who go even further and suggest the possibility of a sim world reality or a dream world reality or solipsism or that we we are entirely duped by those who own and operate the Matrix.
On the other hand, we are still confronted over and again with those who insist that how they think and feel and what they say and do really are unequivocally worth the most. It’s not that philosophy isn’t scat but that only their own philosophy is the antidote.
Pooph!?
Uh, a God, the God will do it for me. And let them decide amongst themselves which one really does exist. In other words, I’m assuming that an omnipotent God [if that describes yours] could easily come up with a way such that no one could possibly doubt His existence.
As for those who are partial to, say, pantheism instead, where to even begin in explaining how the universe – in Its Divine wisdom? – chose teleologically to create us?
On the other hand, come on, in our interactions with others who, as well, derive their value judgments existentially from dasein, we can more than just “stub our toes” on their values, or “bump” into their conflicting ethical concepts. Human history to date for example shows us over and over and over again how that unfolds.
Extroverts, in my experience, feel strong excitement and joy when around other people. Especially when interacting and being the center of attention. This “gives them energy”, fires them up so to speak.
Introverts are not quite the opposite, I mean an introvert might also enjoy being around others, interacting and being the center of attention but this will ‘drain their energy’ after a relatively short period of time and they will need to isolate themselves away from others to recover. Also, and not necessary because of this, introverts tend to be more selective and have higher standards for the types of people they want to be around and interact with.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux
Here, of course, it comes back around to how different individuals – philosophers or not – define nihilism. Also, what does it mean to each of them given the manner in which I construe such things [in the is/ought world] as rooted existentially in dasein.
Here’s one description:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. IEP
Now, in some respects this encompasses me, but in other respects it does not. For one thing, I root my own value judgments here given my own set of assumptions:
1] No God
2] that human morality is an extremely complex intertwining of genes and memes in a world ever evolving historically and culturally amidst a swirl of contingency, chance and change
3] that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I might change my mind regarding what nihilism means to me “here and now”
Right. In fact, that is often how I react to some of the “serious philosophers” here. Those who take nihilism [and morality] up into the techincal – theoretical – clouds and exchange post after post after post in which the assessments almost never actually come down to Earth. And that mysterious “intuition”…that “deep down inside” you “gut feeling” that some behaviors are moral and others immoral. Cue the “intrinsic self” that “somehow” transcends dasein.
Now, of course…
As though nihilism were a great white shark or a pride of lions or a pack of wolves after you. With nihilism, in my view, you can “escape” it only to the extent you can make it escapable…in your head. Given the manner in which “I” construe it “here and now” I can’t imagine finding an escape route myself.
Other than oblivion.
On the other hand, how many times in the past was I an objectivist myself? This part:
Am I wrong about nihilism? Sure, that’s entirely possible. And for those here who do reject it themselves let’s bring our respective moral philosophies “down to Earth” and explore our own assumptions given a particular set of circumstances.
Biggy lives.
If you feel a need to refute nihilism then you may be a nihilist.