So, an ad populum rebuttal. How could all those people be wrong?
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux
Indeed, millions and millions and millions of men and women around the globe who have taken their own leaps of faith to God can attest to that. Ask them how absurd this assumption is. Sure, they’ll fail to produce this God much beyond a leap of faith, but that doesn’t make sustaining their comfort and consolation any less the center of the universe.
Worth wanting or not worth wanting based on what intuitive assumptions? Based further on what particular understanding of what particular moral conflict?
And, clearly, when the moral objectivists among us speak of flaws this invariably revolves around the fact that others refused to share their own dogmas.
Maybe, but from my own frame of mind, what would make a moral command ultimate is the capacity of those who embrace it to actually demonstrate empirically, experientially and/or experimentally that it is in fact essentially applicable to all rational men and women.
So, how about one of your own “ultimate” conclusions regarding a particular moral conflagration?
Even nihilism gives you meaning. Why do you think Schopenhauer said suicide is an act of self-preservation?
.
Most wouldn’t agree with him, but ‘rock on’ him… 
1 Like
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux
Exactly! The “Intrinsic Self” syndrome. The stuff of objectivism. When I propose to some here that over the years they might change their minds about any number of moral and political issues, they might own up to that. Yes, they once believed one thing about a particular moral conflagration, but they agree with me that, okay, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge they might change their minds.
But…
They almost never ever change their minds about things that “deep down inside” them they grasp “intuitively” through this emotional, mystical, spiritual Real Me self.
Then back to the bottom line. Mine, for example.
It’s not what you profess to believe about any of this, it’s what you are able to actually demonstrate is in fact true for all rational men and women.
Instead, the objectivists among us cling to the assumption that there really is this Intrinsic Self “down there” derived from God or one or another ideological One True Path.
Nihilism disturbs people because it’s merely a hop, step and a jump from objectivism to becoming fractured and fragmented. And that is by far, in my view, why people become rattled. After all, given all of the paths there are to choose from in a free will universe, what are the odds that it, really, really is your own that will prevail?
If the path is self=other: 100%.
After all… all paths opposed to self=other actually point back to it. Like a shadow.
On a related note:
So, your post professed some beliefs of yours.
The intrinsic self syndrome.
which then heads to--------->
Are you are able to actually demonstrate is in fact true for all rational men and women?
What makes your theory, here, not-objectivist? Is it that you consider it possible you will change your mind? First, there are objectivists who believe they might change their minds. One can think the set X is objective while also knowing that revision may be necessary or happen later. Scientists, for example, consider their methodology to lead to objective conclusions, but are aware, in fact it’s built into to the scientific enterprise, that their might be revision.
And if you might change you mind, wouldn’t it be hard to convince all rational men and women?
How does your non-objectivism differ from objectivisms in practice?
Another way to look at this:
You say what matters is if people can convince all rational men and women. Is that a criterion for objectivity? If someone can’t convince everyone else, is it merely subjective? If so, what is objective, then, given the diversity of opinions, amongst humans about pretty much everything? and not just morals.
And just to re-examine the first quote…
Is this an objective formulation? It’s not…
What does that mean? It’s not, for example, important to you. Or is this a factual statement and of what kind? It sounds like objectivist language, but it’s hard to tell what the contruction ‘it’s not’ entails.
Greenfuse:
So, your post professed some beliefs of yours.
The intrinsic self syndrome.
which then heads to--------->
Nope. Not in regard to such things as moral and political value judgments, God and religion, conflicting goods, etc. Instead, I make the distinction here between those things in the either/or world that seem applicable to all of us objectively – the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world, logic etc. – and those things that devolve instead into what can become fiercely contested “one of us” [the good guys] vs. “one of them” [the bad guys] mentality. Indeed, for some here that includes only those who are of the right color or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.
Oh yeah:
What’s crucial from my own frame of mind here is 1] the assumption that we live in a free will world 2] the assumption that there is no God and 3] the assumption that anything that any of us profess to believe about any ot this is inherently embedded in The Gap, in Rummy’s Rule and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome.
None of which I can demonstrate myself.
On the other hand, any number of moral objectivists among us predicate their own assessments on the assumption that they are indeed wholly in sync with this deep down inside them Intrinsic Self – the Real Me – that enables them to grasp The Right Thing To Do. Mostly through Gods and Goddesses or theoretical constructs, or assumptions about genes and memes.
There are objectivists who do change their minds. Me, for example, over and over and over again. I don’t argue myself that there is no God, or no moral obligations, or no “best of all possible worlds” political ideology, or no “most rational” assessment of nature vs. nurture. I merely ask those who “here and now” embody one or another One True Path to Enlightenment – and immortality and salvation? – to bring their own philosophical/theoretical/spiritual assumptions down to Earth and in regard to a moral conflagration of note, explore our respective moral philosophies given particular contexts.
My “aim” here revolves around what I construe to be my “win/win” frame of mind. On the one hand, I can never rule out the possibility that someone might succeed in enabling me to yank myself up out of the philosophical hole I have my “self” down into here:
On the other hand, I might be able to convince them it really is entirely reasonable to think about the human condition in a No God world as “I” do, from a fractured and fragmented moral respective and embedded in an essentially meaningless universe that ends for each of us one by one in oblivion.
Is there another way you can do this? So, not in the political and morals sense, but in some other sense?
Then why put forward the hypothesis, then, repeatedly, if it is not something you can justify and rational men and women, all of them, are not in agreement over it?
Right you don’t argue that. But you argue other things that you cannot demonstrate to all rational men and women. It’s not clear to me why you think it’s better or less problematic when you do this?
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux
Right. On the other hand, how many of these folks…
…might beg to differ?
Then the part where the discussions get around to “intuition”. But: What on earth is that exactly? For some it seems to be the equivalent of the soul. This “thing” embedded deep down inside them – the Real Me? – that “somehow” just comes to grasp what is rational and what is irrational, what is moral and what is immoral.
Whereas from my own frame of mind it is no less the embodiment of dasein. That’s why in regard to any number of moral conflagrations, you will find those at both ends of the political/ideological spectrum claiming to “just know” that they are right.
Come on, morality has always existed in human communities. Though it might have been called other things. After all, how can a cummunity sustain itself unless there are rules of behavior? It’s just that, as Marx reminded us, these rules are embedded in the historical evolution of political economy. And, once the human species advanced to the point where “surplus labor” allowed for the existence of philosophers, “morality” as encompassed here – https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=cb561b9e69f24b2b31d6ae0ef9d8dc8d – was born.
Actually, it would seem to shift in both directions. If you want moral commandments, immortality and salvation, how can a God, the God, my God not be worth wanting? And, let’s face it, millions upon millions of mere mortals do what they do precisely because, one way or another, their morality is entirely in sync with one or another God or religious path.
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux
On the contrary, some suggest, a moral command exists for most simply because they believe it is a moral command. From the Bible or from the Party or from the Committee or from the People. They leave all that “questioning about what is ultimate” stuff to the ecclesiastics.
Perhaps. But how are we not always faced with anchoring the idea in the often far, far more complex reality of actual human interactions? And then in a No God world the fact that even if philosophers could establish that hurting puppies is wrong deontologically, you still have to get caught doing it. After all, one of the reasons we invent Gods is to create Divine Justice. With most Gods, there is no question of being caught. And thus no doubt at all about being punished.
Again, for all practical purposes, given this particular context, what on Earth does that convey? The idea that hurting puppies is wrong is one thing, a demonstrable proof that it is inherently/necessarily wrong [in a No God world] to hurt them…?
Tell that to the sociopaths.
“How do I refute nihilism”
(proceeds to quote multiples times from wikipedia)
(dies)
1 Like
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Mitchell Greig
Spoiler Alert: I don’t have the answer.
Bigger Spoiler Alert: If there was one answer then there would be no nihilism.
Instead, we live in a world where hundreds and hundreds of various objectivists – God/No God – insist they have already found an Answer. And that it’s their own answer shouldn’t surprise us. And I’m certainly not here to suggest that my own assessment is anything other than but one more “educated guess” given all the variables involved.
That’s what we bombard others here with post after post after post. Our Meaning. Our Morality. Our Answer.
Taking us – taking me – back around to this: “in the absence of God, all things are permitted.” At least until philosophers or scientists are able to provide us with moral commandments able to be demonstrated as the next best thing to God. If only on this side of the grave.
Which, I suspect, explains in part people’s reactions to me. Any options available become increasingly more problematic the more fractured and fragmented you feel. The objectivists will squabble over who is “one of us” or “one of them”. But I come along and argue there may well be no way in which to differentiate right from wrong behaviors in a No God universe. That, however, many sustain moral philosophies derived from lives awash in contingency, chance and change, in lives that evolve out of uniquely personal experiences awash, in turn, in variables they did not either fully grasp or control…doesn’t surprise me.
Instinctive morality? That’s just we need, right? Only some instincts are more equal than others. Those, for example, that are anchored to one or another religious or ideological or deontological dogma among those who actually have the political and economic power to enforce it.
A soldier on the battlefield refuses to function in their assigned role, and deserts the unit.
This is an event of the same sort as the dawning of philosophical nihilism.
Everyone may then strike their pose at the horror of what the soldier has done. How he has betrayed his country, his fellow men fighting in the unit, the principles of the republic, the need to defend our democracy, etc. etc.
But the soldier may walk away a Socrates or a Stirner.
What appears as complete dysfunction WITHIN the presumptions of the delusional linguistic system that caused the war to be necessary in the first place, may in actual fact be the soldier’s post-traumatic moksha-freedom, moksha-liberation, moksha-moksha-transcendence-moksha and a sinewey, twisted spasm of new health. MokSHA Om Moksha Om RITAM, he mutters to himself unknowingly though the shell-shock, as he ends the war forever with the sword of nihilistic clarity within himself. And no longer responds to any telemarketing calls from all his long-corrupt moral duties. He is no longer part of any “we” and has emancipated himself from our delightful company & the need to share our worst fears. It is the same with the philosophical nihilist who cares very little for our comfort.
“You are uncomfortable? Good.”
-WL
1 Like
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch
This is admittedly only a half-answer, but I think the primary error regarding nihilism is granting right from the get-go that it should be considered the default position…
I see no reason to do that. Nihilism, at very minimum, is highly unempirical. The history of every culture I am aware of attests to that.
Let’s be blunt: until we have a far, far more comprehensive understanding of how existence itself came to evolve into us, then practically anything that mere mortals can “think up” might be the default position.
Click of course.
Go ahead, ask some of these folks…
…what we should all be defaulting to. Then [I suggest] the part where it is often advisable to steer clear of those who tack on “or else”.
Actually, from my frame of mind “here and now”, what seems far more critical is not how you answer questions about nihilism, but the extent to which you are able to demonstrate why your answers are the correct ones. And not just theoretically either.
Here, however, it’s important, in my view, to differentiate nihilism deemed pertinent to human interactions in the is/ought world and nihilism deemed pertinent to human knowledge itself. As iwannaplato suggested above…
“There’s nihilism about values (morals, aesthetics). Then there’s nihilism about knowledge also. I think mostly the thread has been dealing with the former.”
Oh, yeah.
On the other hand, how does this make “the Gap” or “Rummy’s Rule” go away? Even so-called “complete nihilists” are only accumulating their own collection of assumptions here.
How does what make those go away?
Matthew Murdoch
This is admittedly only a half-answer, but I think the primary error regarding nihilism is granting right from the get-go that it should be considered the default position…
This seems to me to be his main point. To a nihilist, potentially at least, it may seem reasonable to consider nihilism the default position. Nobody knows. I claim not to know so this is a default. I am being epistemologically parsimonious. And that means this is a better position.
To put that another way, some nihilists think that what you call objectivists are making unjusitified assumptions SO nihilist is the default.
He denies that it is or should be the default.
I think both the nihilist who assumes it is a better default and this guy have reasonable points.
One way I would come at the issues is to say that beliefs are not as important as actions, which are in a sense beliefs with direct effects. Unless the nihilist manages to withdraw from all human contact - and even that is an act with consequences - they will affect the people around them by their speech and behavior. Nihilism in the head is not an objectivism. But any nihilist will choose certain actions, and likely with patterns, and avoid other actions - again with patterns - and all this will have effects.
My point is that one cannot avoid being a de facto objectivist, whatever beliefs bubble around in the mind of the nihilist. I would argue that this creates a ‘what-might-as-well-be’ objectivist morality. You have patterns of interaction that you prefer and these patterns affect people.
Perhaps you are less dogmatic, perhaps not.
And objectivist can value humility, not using power over others, seeking to find compromise, etc. A nihilist can have patterns of behavior and speech that fall into any type of interpersonal tactics.
So, while the nihilist on paper or in the mind may not be an objectivist, they still act like an objectivist, in the sense that they have patterns of human interaction that affects other people (for good and for ill to evaluate as an objectivist, pleasantly or unpleasantly to evaluate as a hedonist, and so on).
We can’t avoid having these effects.
So, is nihilism more parsimonious. In the head, potentially. On paper, potentially. But in reality, on the ground, in interactions between people, no.
Others are still dealing with someone with interpersonal habits who either vote or don’t who try to make things, at least locally and perhaps in general, as they prefer.
Regardless of our meta-ethical positions we directly affect others as if we have objectivist moral positions, in that the effects come from patterns we maintain, until we don’t.
EDIT: Another way to look at it not necessarily being the default is that if one argues it is better to have as the default, then it’s an objectivism. If one says there is no way to tell whether having an objectivism or not having one is better, then there is no default, according to that nihilist. There’s no ground to assume or prefer nihilism.
Of course, one can simply find oneself a nihilist, but what is there to talk about at that point. Curiosity might lead one to questions others, but mere curiosity.
Nihilism is an inevitable pitfall of excessive philosophizing. After pondering countless partially answered questions and inadequately supported theories, one may succumb to the feeling that life serves no discernible purpose.
The relentless pursuit of knowledge and truth can lead to intellectual fatigue, existential despair, and theoretical skepticism.
But at the end we still feel deep inside there’s something bigger. A purpose a logos.
Has anybody feel that way too?
“People seek agreement. Philosophers seek disagreement.”
Or that other quote, I can’t recall it exactly, about how if you want to know the truth just look for that about which everyone else remains silent.
Philosophical nihilism would, in theory I suppose, be a lot different from the average trendy emo nihilism. Yet any philosopher would already possess within himself and as a consequence and necessity of his being a philosopher, the inability to experience so-called nihilism. Even Socrates laughed at his own fate.
To be a philosopher properly means one lives inside truth, one has in a sense ‘become truth’. As such, nihilism would be all but impossible in so far as truth-love already incorporates vast networks of values-structures and deep meanings encoded in and as crucial aspects of one’s own consciousness. This is, perhaps, why wisdom is a thing approached slowly over time, a quiet accumulation even while philosophy itself and as method, its potent energetics often force huge extremes of passion or insight or work in small spaces of time. Tectonically you could have numerous such explosions sustaining an overall ethos and personality-‘being in the world’ that appears quite calm and slow to accumulate wisdom. But I think at first and in our youth we tend to correlate our inner and outer realities much more automatically and without a whole lot of reflection. The face of nihilism would appear differently in either case, in youth something to mock and laugh at as Nietzsche tried to do, making nihilism into his enemy, while in wisdom something to recognize in pity far more than shame.
Yeah, u could be totally devoid of ambition and live your life distracted by one triviality after another, and still u couldn’t be a nihilist.
Real nihilists set themselves on fire like that buddhist dude on the Rage Against The Machine album cover. The fake trendy fashion nihilists like Biggs read french existentialism on apartment balconies and in coffee shops, and wear bland faded black, grey, and brown all the time. They’re not really nihilists. They’re cynics. Disheveled a little but not deeply philosophically offended by existence. Ultimately they settle as hedonists and enjoy the little things in life. Stiff espressos and unfiltered cigarettes that stain your teeth for hours at cafe bars as they debate the pivotal moment in the play The Crucible with fellow students from the liberal arts drama department, or log on to PN and do what Biggs does.