nihilism

[promethean75]

Yes, welcome to the forum, Iambiguous.

Regarding your post we’ll need a context, of course.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

In retrospect, I think part of why I became a nihilist in high school was because I was a social outcast. I never really felt like I fit in. So I tried to come up with an explanation or justification for what I was experiencing. I came to the conclusion that ultimately people can never truly understand one another or themselves. Because there are so many layers of separation and mediation involved in “understanding”.

And yet day after day after day we seem to understand each other just fine in regard to things that in fact can be demonstrated to be applicable to all of us.

Instead, where things become considerably more problematic is in regard to conflicting moral values. Those on both sides of them seem able to justify their own One True Path merely by insisting that their own and only their own assumptions about the human condition must prevail.

To wit:

One starts out with a particular set of assumptions regarding the “human condition”, regarding “human nature”:

1] that it is more in sync with capitalism than socialism
2] that it is more in sync with “I” than “we”
3] that it is more in sync with genes than memes
4] that it is more in sync with God than mere mortals
5] that it is more in sync with sexual restrictions than sexual freedoms
6] that it is more in sync with our race and our gender and our sexual orientation
7] that it is more in sync with conservatives or liberals
8] that it is more in sync with big government than small government
9] that it is more in sync with idealism than pragmatism
10] that it is more in sync with might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

And yet even in regard to the either/or world itself no one seems able to explain why it is as it is and not some other way. Or even why it is something instead of nothing at all. We don’t even have a way of pinning down yet whether or not human beings are acting of their own volition given whatever the ontological nature of existence itself is.

We were separated by our physical bodies, so we can’t really fully understand what one person really means or if their attempts at interpersonal communication correspond 100 percent with what they are thinking.

Then this part:

We are also estranged from ourselves, we can never truly understand who we are because the notion of a Self is incomplete and illusory.

The part, in my view, the objectivists among us are, more than anything else, intent on scoffing at: the fractured and fragmented “I” in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world that for each of us one by one ends in oblivion.

Unless of course that’s wrong. And all I can do is to come into places like this and hope against hope that someone is able to actually convince me that it is wrong.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

This view [above] stemmed from my internal frustration and anxiety in often being misunderstood by my peers. Words and discourse always failed me whenever I tried to just be authentic with others. Language obfuscates rather than clarifies, it invents rather than expresses.

Think about this. You go about your day to day interactions with others. Now, in the either/or world how often are you mistunderstod by them? How often do the words of physicists, chemists, biologists, etc., fail to communicate clearly rather than obfuscate? Sure, it requires an education and years of accumulating knowledge to become ever more precise in communicating what is in fact either this or that. And, yes, in all such fields there comes that part where in regard to the really, really big and the really, really small precision gives way to profound mysteries.

I also thought at the time that truth had no intrinsic value, because life had no intrinsic value. My friends, classmates, teachers and parents didn’t really care about the truth for its own sake–so why should I? Any explanation was good enough for them as long as it appealed to their biases. My bias against human language still persists today but is being slowly replaced by my newfound appreciation for it.

In other words, some things may well never change. As for moral and political biases, it’s not like we acquire them out of the blue. And it’s not like the social sciences have come anywhere near to confronting them as the natural sciences have. It’s not for nothing that among the hard scientists, their work almost never involves conflicting goods. On the other hand, when they do, the powers that be can and often do buy and sell them.

I think I read too much of Dostoyevsky, Gogol and Shestov at the time that I cherry picked some of their ideas into a half-ass nihilist philosophy in order to channel my teenage angst.

Better that than using nihilism as an excuse to shoot up schools or to become a sociopath, or to convince yourself that “show me the money” really is the center of the moral universe.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

My concern here is epistemic nihilism. I found there to be mainly two definitions of what it might be: (1) “Epistemic nihilists hold that, if there are any epistemic facts, then they are as realists say; but, there are no such facts. The epistemic nihilist is a disenchanted realist.” [Cuneo]

Okay, let’s pin down how men and women who believe this might go about explaining all the facts that they encounter day after day after day. Does it all come down to what each of us think we know about this or that particular fact vs. all that actually can be known about the ontological and/or teleological nature of facts themselves?

(2) “The rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker.” [Wright]

Sophistry? And, again, in regard to what mere mortals in a No God world think they know about mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around them…? Are there or are there not any number things that you know and I know and others know such that they reflect what all rational men and women are obligated to know “for all practical purposes” from day to day. The either/or world may not be as we think it is, but I’m certainly comfortable assuming that what makes it an either/or world is not going anywhere anytime soon.

The first definition comes from Terence Cuneo’s book The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism, he comes up with a definition of epistemic nihilism in chapter 4 of his book in order to compare it to moral nihilists and the absurdity of both positions.

“This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist.” oxford academic

Of course, I’m still waiting for the moral realists here to note examples of objective moral facts. In particular, given sets of circumstances from their own lives in which their value judgments came into conflict with the value judgments of others. What facts were both sides able to agree on?

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

While the second definition – “the rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker"-- comes from a paper by Jake Wright, which has a more political angle as he attributes it to ethically questionable practices of people in current mainstream American politics. But this definition seems to be related to axiological nihilism as well, so I will tackle this some other time.

Machiavellian over, under, sideways and down, let’s say. Or Trumpian?

As for axiological nihilism…

“…Axiology is the branch of practical philosophy which studies the nature of value.”

…is someone here more familiar with it able, perhaps, to explain how it might be differentiated – theoretically? technically? – from moral nihilism. Then bringing this scholastic assessment down out of the academic clouds, note how it is applicable given their own grasp of values. Given a particular context of their own choosing.

To be honest this was not what I was expecting. I thought that the academic definition of epistemic nihilism would center around neurobiology and how our brains did not evolve to know reality.

Here, in my view, philosophers can only speculate about all of this in a “world of words”. If there is a neurobiological element, I suspect it will be natural science that discovers it. Unless, of course, the biological component here revolves entirely around…hard determinism?

Or maybe something similar to my previous nihilistic sentiments, that we have so many layers separating us that it is impossible to get at truth or justified knowledge about something.

Which, from my own frame of mind “here and now”, revolves around both dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. We can only acquire so much understanding of the human condition. And much of our own sense of reality revolves around countless variables we may scarcely understand and control. Even regarding the lives we live from day to day to day. Our experiences, our relationships, our access to information and knowledge. In other words, leaving out all of the experiences, relationships, information and knowledge we might have had instead had our lives been different.

[iambiguous]

Epistemic Nihilism
Reflections on The Abyss That Divides Us…
John Timothy Manalaysay

Here’s how I would answer my teenage self-regarding this problem [above]: Knowledge and reality emerge through interrelated interactions between things and people.

One or another rendition of the Benjamin Button Syndrome? There’s just the distinction I then make between these interactions in the either/or world and in the is/ought world.

Most things have emerged from and are dependent on lower processes. Reality is based on your relationship to different things out there in the world. Language is just another layer of reality which is dependent upon lower processes but still has its own sets of rules and can still influence the lower processes it is dependent on.

The lower processes? Biological imperatives, perhaps? And, in my view, reality is based on our own existential relationship to all of the different things out there in the world. Relationships we can pin down objectively and relationships we acquire and sustain existentially given either one or another One True Path or one or another rendition of moral nihilism.

In this sense, knowledge is constructed relationally, which is socially. Things such as propositions, justifications and rationalizations are the product of the social nature of language.

All of which are intertwined in ever evolving historical and cultural interactions.

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

Epistemic nihilism

I take epistemic nihilism to be the rejection of truth as an intrinsic or instrumental good. Often, discussions employing the term focus on at least the view that knowledge via universal epistemic principles is unobtainable…

On the other hand, as with all assessments pertaining to human knowledge, what is most crucial, in my view, is not what we claim to know “in our heads” about whatever reality may or may not be, but the gap between what we claim to know and all that there is to be known about existence itself. God or No God. That’s why over and again I suggest that at the very least attempts must be made to demonstrate why all reasonable men and women are obligated to know this or that.

And this certainly does not exclude epistemology itself, right?

…sometimes accompanied by further claims—for example, Nietzsche’s claim that knowledge would not be useful if it were obtainable or Rorty’s claim that epistemology as an enterprise is fatally flawed and should be dismantled.

Of course, those like Nietzsche and Rorty are in the same boat all the rest of us are in. Unless, perhaps, someone here is able to demonstrate to us why their own assessments really are the exceptions? And not just theoretically but for all practical purposes.

When I use the term epistemic nihilism, however, I do not mean to suggest cases where a speaker believes that truth is unobtainable or cannot be adjudicated using universal principles, and I take epistemology generally to be a fruitful endeavor.

From my frame of mind, this would seem to be more in sync with such fantastic assumptions as sim worlds or dream worlds. “It’s a radical form of skepticism that claims there’s no reason to believe anything, including the view itself.”

So, right from the start proponents of epistemic nihilism would seem to be acknowledging there is no reason to believe even this. Instead, it would seem that one would need God or God’s equivalent given an ontological/teleological explanation for the universe itself.

Further, though I will not argue for it here, I accept a correspondence view of truth that accepts claims as true insofar as they align with an actual state of affairs in the world.

Let’s call thus the…either/or world?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

Perhaps the closest use of the term to my own is Arendt’s view of nihilism as ‘a way of thinking that can look rational but is really an attack on the purpose of rationality’.

Again, for those of my ilk, it all comes down to just how far out on the metaphysical limb it’s taken. In other words, in the vicinity of sim worlds or dream worlds or solipsism? Sure, if someone is actually able to demonstrate that all knowledge is illusory, let them give it a try.

In the interim, I’m sticking with the rooted existentially in dasein assumption that knowledge embedded in the laws of nature, in mathematics, in the empirical world around us, in the rules of language, etc., while still profoundly mysterious given The Gap and Rummy’s Rule, are clearly less illusory [to me] than knowledge that is claimed to be objective regarding conflicting value judgments.

There’s what a doctor either knows or does not know about performing safe abortions. And then there’s what ethicists claim to know about the nature of human morality itself here.

Click, of course.

As I discuss cases of epistemic nihilism, a common thread that emerges is the obscurance of truth because the truth is not valuable to the speaker who is attempting to influence their interlocutor’s rational deliberations.

Come on, how is this not far, far, far more pertinent to moral and political and religious conflagrations. Whose truth, after all?

This section examines such nihilism by considering the similarities between three exemplars of nihilistic speech—lying, bullshitting, and trolling—as well as the advantages of viewing activities like these as tokens of a larger type.

Right, that’s really all that nihilists ever pursue given their interactions with others…lying, bullshitting and trolling. Now let the epistemic nihilists among us note how, what they think they know about this themselves, is…illusory>

Though, yes, I may simply be misunderstanding what this…

“Epistemic nihilism, as it is termed, is committed to the claim that there are no epistemic facts. It is argued that this type of view yields a radical type of scepticism, according to which there is no reason to believe the view itself or anything else, for that matter.” Oxford Academic

…does mean for all practical purposes.

I also discuss how epistemic nihilism can transcend individual instances and become an identity or way of life, which has implications for how we ought to respond when combatting extreme cases of such nihilism.

How on Earth can someone go about the business of living life from day to day without being pretty damn certain that they know lots and lots of things. Things that have been a part of their lives for years, or even decades.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@iambiguous

committed to the claim

They meant “to an institution”. Hope that helps.

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

As a third example, trolling differs from lying and bullshitting in that success depends not on the interlocutor believing the troll, but rather because the interlocutor is unsure what to believe because it is unclear what the troll believes.

Imagine trying to pin down what “for all practical purposes” trolling encompasses here? Especially given all the hardcore objectivists we have who basically construe a troll to be someone who refuses to come around to their own points of view. But, again, as with Stooge, different folks, different strokes.

Essentially, trolling is a behavior in which outlandish claims are made or actions are undertaken for the purpose of garnering a reaction.

Here? Let’s name names!!

Often, though not universally, such activities are otherwise aimless resulting merely from a desire to disrupt.

Merely? Tell that to those here who have watched their own threads reduced to rubble by those who, perhaps, have no business being in a philosophy forum in the first place.

As noted later in this chapter, the generally aimless nature of most trolling provides vital cover for more nefarious instances of trolling that seek to disrupt in order to achieve a particular aim, like mainstreaming extremist views, retreating to familiar trollish responses that their actions are unserious and ought to be taken as such.

On the other hand, what does this have to do with epistemic nihilism? Other than perhaps that once you’ve convinced yourself “knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings”, there’s not that can’t be rationalized, is there?

Not much that doesn’t allow you to shrug off, right? Trolling perhaps being the least of it in this world.

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

A unified theory of epistemic nihilism

Then the part that interests me…taking these theoretical assumptions about epistemic nihilism and grappling with how on Earth they are applicable to our own chosen behaviors. Click of course.

There are important differences between lying, bullshitting, and trolling, such as whether their success depends on the interlocutor believing a false claim or whether the interlocutor must believe the speaker is representing genuinely held views.

On the other hand, if you are an advocate of epistemic nihilism aren’t you always going to be stuck in having to acknowledge that what you think you know about any of this here and now is no less included in your assessment of what others can’t know?

Further, significant literature exists discussing how to address each activity individually, ranging from innumerable discussions of dishonesty in various subfields of applied ethics to discussions of the psychological motivations behind bullshit acceptance—as well as how to counter such openness—to strategies for countering trollish behavior.

Okay, how then, for all practical purposes, can the above be reconciled with this:

“Epistemological nihilism is a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings.” wiki

Then this part…

“It should not be confused with epistemological fallibilism, according to which all knowledge is uncertain.”

Sort of like the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

It is not my goal to suggest that nothing can be learned by such focused attention [above]. Instead, I suggest that grouping nihilistic activities under a common umbrella also carries with it certain advantages.

Okay, how about we run this by a few philosophers here. What nihilistic activities would be right at the top of their list? And how would they be construed as advantageous to them for all practical purposes. After all, there are some here who actually insist that Christianity itself is a manifestation of nihilism. I mean, how ludicrous is that?

First, approaching the problem through a common lens allows us to note similarities between actions that abandon truth as useful or intrinsically good.

Our common lens or their common lens? Our truth or their truth? Then [again] the part where epistemic nihilists might note things like this but then, on the other hand, if epistemological nihilism encompasses “a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings”, what exactly are they conveying to us about, well, anything at all it is possible to know?

That’s why I make a distinction here between epistemic nihilism and moral nihilism. My own nihilism is embedded by and large in the is/ought world. In regard to the either/or world, however, I’m far more confident – click – that what I think I know here and now is in fact applicable to all of us.

Second, insofar as commonalities exist, we are better positioned to develop general strategies and apply extant strategies focused on one token of this type.

Okay, but who exactly is this applicable to? And how exactly would these commonalities be communicated in any particular family, neighborhood, community, state, nation, etc., such that conflicting goods themselves are subsumed in…what exactly?

Third, grouping actions under a common banner allows us to sidestep questions of taxonomy when such questions are not useful. We need not parse whether a difficult case is a lie, bullshit, trolling, or something else if little rides on such a distinction; we may simply note an instance of epistemic nihilism and respond accordingly.

Taxonomy is a practice and science concerned with classification or categorization. wiki

No, really, for any epistemic nihilists among us, please note how on Earth and for all practical purposes these classifications or categorizations are applicable given your own day-to-day interactions with others.

[Meno4]

@iambiguous

Taxonomy

@iambiguous

No, really, for any epistemic nihilists among us, please note how on Earth and for all practical purposes these classifications or categorizations are applicable given your own day-to-day interactions with others.

This is true, but even at a more profound level, the focus sought , by so called epistemic nihilization are distracting efforts, that confound the reader and simultaniousl y loose the coherency of the resultant unfounded train of thought. In fact an epistemic nihilism is a contradiction of terms.

But say, maybe a new venue can take from such relative incoherency, other than distraction for it’s own sake, what’s wrong with that or, is there some who would believe that even if it is wrong morally or otherwise, so what of it, ?

Some are reluctant to venture out and seek new vistas.

I may certainly be wrong on that, but then what’s the use for the distinction in the first place?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

The threat of epistemic nihilism

Liberal democracy is premised on active, good faith participation from forthright members of the commun ty, which provides a more-or-less level playing field.

Epistemic nihilism aside, moderation, negotiation and compromise hardly unfold on a level playing field. The ruling class sees to that.

Epistemic nihilism rejects this premise by abusing the assumption that interlocutors are engaging in good faith. When successful, such actions advantage nihilistic behavior.

Not entirely sure what this is meant to convey. Instead, from my own frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in rejecting moral dogmas [God or No God], that affords me many more options.

In addition to providing a rhetorical advantage that is the direct result of bad faith engagement, nihilism has the further deleterious effect of encouraging conspiracists and other fringe actors willing to engage in actions well outside the scope of normal democratic participation.

Okay, but again, I’m not really sure what on Earth this has to do with epistemic nihilism. After all, how would their own assessment of all this not be what they themselves claim to know is true regarding the human condition?

[iambiguous]

Towards a response to epistemic nihilism
Jake Wright

The dangers of nihilistic speech

In addition to providing a rhetorical advantage, nihilistic speech can encourage actions that are anathema to reasoned deliberation that is the ideal of democracy.

Here we can cue, among others, the sociopaths and the amoral global capitalists. And what is particularly ideal for a democracy is the assumption that there may well not be any objective moral or political truths. After all, if there were, the philosopher kings and queens would have long ago provided us with something in the neighborhood of a deontological agenda.

While the nihilist themselves might not be concerned with the truth, their interlocutors often are, thus creating the possibility of such individuals accepting genuinely dangerous claims.

On the other hand, does not the truth embraced by the epistemic nihilists basically revolve around the assumption that there are no such truths? Or none that we can have any conclusive knowledge regarding?

Which is why I would like to discuss this with anyone who subscribes to epistemic nihilism. In particular, an exploration into how they would describe their day-to-day interactions with others.

Ever and always for those of my ilk, it comes down to the “for all practical purposes” aspects of any philosophical assessment.

For example, public health efforts aimed at reducing the spread of Covid-19 have been implemented to varying degrees of success globally. One of the largest factors impacting success is the degree to which they are countered by what the World Health Organization has called an ‘infodemic’ of misinformation (Evanega et al. n.d.; United Nations Department of Global Communications 2020).

That’s the part where one of two things happen:

1] it all becomes hopelessly entangled in conflicting moral and political prejudices
2] in order to sustain your own comfort and consolation, you defend your own dogma all the way to the grave

In the United States, preliminary analysis has found that the largest driver of misinformation has been Donald Trump himself. 37.9% of all misinformation captured by the study were directly associated with Trump, and a ‘substantial proportion—possibly even the majority—of the [discussion surrounding] “miracle cures”’ may have been driven by Trump as well, since he frequently touted supposed cures like hydroxychloroquine and injecting bleach. Such misinformation is not a theoretical exercise; it impacts individuals’ view of the pandemic itself and the trustworthiness of genuine sources of medical knowledge. Partisan differences regarding the seriousness of the pandemic and the efficacy of preventative measures exist and can reasonably be explained, at least in part, by the fact that a major American political party is led by an epistemic nihilist.

There are lots of things I’d call Trump, but epistemic nihilist isn’t one of them. Unless, again, I am missing the point the author is attempting to convey above. Somehow, I can’t imagine Donald Trump, clearly an amoral global capitalist, arguing that “knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings.” Instead, he is particularly arrogant regarding his own “my way or else” mentality. Though, sure, with those of his ilk, it’s often difficult to make these distinctions with any actual clarity.

[iambiguous]

Paradox of nihilism
Wikipedia

The two basic paradoxes are reflective of the philosophies of nihilism that created them; metaphysical nihilism and existential nihilism. Both paradoxes originate from the same conceptual difficulty of whether, as Paul Hegarty writes in his study of noise music, “the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning”.

Then the part where some here are likely to insist that in defending moral nihilism, I am in turn arguing that those who do not defend it are wrong. Also, the part where I am here hoping to bump into someone able to convince me that “for all practical purposes” my assessment of moral nihilism is entirely unreasonable.

Metaphysical nihilism

Metaphysical nihilism is based around skepticism that concrete objects, and the self which perceives them, actually exist as concrete objects rather than as abstract objects. It is not a far stretch, in the framework of this theory, to assume that these objects do not exist at all.

Really, how preposterous is that? This, in my view, is clearly in the general vicinity of sim worlds and dream worlds and solipsism. Not out of the question, perhaps, but close to it? What man or woman can go about the business of living from day to day socially, politically and economically and believe something like that?

The paradox arises from the logical assertion that if no concrete or abstract objects exist, even the self, then that very concept itself would be untrue because it itself exists.

Language games, some will call this. And exposing yet again what some construe to be the limitations of language…of logic…in describing particular aspects of human interactions. And you know that critical distinction that I make. Here and now, of course.

And how is metaphysical nihilism different from epistemological nihilism?

"Metaphysics is an area of philosophy concerned with what there is in the universe (ontology) and the nature of what exists. Epistemology is a related area interested in knowledge and how we know things about the universe. khan academy

Given a particular context, of course.

[iambiguous]

Paradox of nihilism
Wikipedia

Existential nihilism

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no inherent meaning whatsoever, and that humanity, both in an individual sense and in a collective sense, has no purpose. That is to say: while objects have the capacity for purpose or meaning, there is no universal truth that guides this individual purpose.

On the other hand, while no less a theory than that proposed by the metaphysical nihilists, existential nihilists [of my own ilk] note that human interactions [historically, culturally and pertaining to personal experiences rooted intersubjectively in dasein], are bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting assessments regarding what any number of things are said to mean or what their purpose is proposed to be.

The difficultly here comes in simply noting all of the at times hopelessly conflicting assessments of what human interactions are said to mean [ontologically] and what their proported purpose is [teleologically]. In other words, the part where the theorists up and down the moral and political and spiritual spectrum all insist that “for all practical prposes” their own assessment really, really is the One True Path.

And the part where I am more than willing to acknowledge there may well be an essential meaning, an essential morality, an essential metaphysics…God or No God.

In fact, any numberr of us here insist there is. And their own True Path is often anchored to one or another rendition of “or else”.

Thus, without a universal purpose, all meaning that objects could have does not exist, and the idea of any purpose or meaning attributed to something is untrue.

Again, though, all of this is moot if you still believe your own moral and political assessment encompasses both an ontological meaning and a teleological purpose. And merely believing it need be all that it takes to make it true. And while we may still live in a world where the objectivists among us fail to actually demonstrate their own dogmas, it’s not like the metaphysical or existential nihilists among us are any more sucessful in demonstrating that they don’t exist.

If this is taken as a given, then existential nihilism holds that humans are compelled to make up meaning for themselves and others in the absence of a universal, unilateral meaning in order to spare themselves from the negativity surrounding the inevitability of death.

The good news though is that as long as one need but take a “leap of faith” or conjure up a “wager” to “anchor” the Real Me to immortality and salvation, millions upon millions will continue to do so.

Existential nihilism explores both the nature of this invention and the effectiveness of creating meaning for oneself and others, as well as whether the latter is even possible. It has received the most attention out of all forms of nihilism in both literary and popular media.

In other words, any number of existentialists are able to make distinctions between, say, God and No God, between living “authentically” or “inauthentically”, between some measure of hope for moral Commandments and little or no measure whatsoever.

[quote]Ethical nihilism

According to Jonna Bornemark, “the paradox of nihilism is the choice to continue one’s own life while at the same time stating that it is not worth more than any other life”. Richard Ian Wright sees relativism as the root of the paradox.[/quote]

And that is because, in my view, for any number of mere mortals in a No God world, essential meaning and morality and metaphysics are simple not necessary to sustain an enormously fulfilling life…if only all the way to the grave.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@iambiguous

And that is because, in my view, for any number of mere mortals in a No God world, essential meaning and morality and metaphysics are simple not necessary to sustain an enormously fulfilling life…if only all the way to the grave.

And merely believing it (viewing it that way) need be all that it takes to make it true…if only all the way to the grave?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@iambiguous

one or another rendition of “or else”

Our options.

a) blow up with bomb over slightest violation (omission or commission)

~a) ignore even the worst violation — ignoring C when the Holy Spirit is obviously last-chancing you

b) eye for an eye … adds more pain, no wholeness (retributive rather than restorative) … does have deterrent value, but action is fear-based, not genuine (THIS IS BIGGY’S BEEF… and Socrates’ in The Republic, but anywhayz) … however, lex talionis prevented the overkill in “a”.

c) perfect sacrifice (mercy) for any imperfection, least to greatest — if accept, repent, and love others likewise [seems unjust to “make” the innocent pay, but it is a “KARMA” cycle-stopping example BOTH must accept voluntarily and live out—that’s why the greatest/worst (~a) can’t be dealt with via mercy… even though IT WAS/IS… it has to be received voluntarily]

Why does sin (consent violation, @Ecmandu) suck so bad? It takes our focus off the good, beautiful, and true (mutual consent respecting) we could be enjoying instead of the bullshit we settle for.

(Ec… “Tap out” on consenting to consent violation, and tap in to consenting to consent respecting… the only solution to ALL your problems… which provides a lot of fulfilling ones to solve… together… with whomever chooses you back. And don’t fricken say that’s nobody or I’ll resort to plan A, you freaking know I will.)

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

lex talionis prevented the overkill in “a”

Unless, of course, someone swings the opposite of C, like the US did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki… and the preemptive strike on Iraq. Not to mention the Trail of Tears. Need I go on? Abortion stats? Trafficking in baby parts? “Emergency use authorized” triaging of people to death with a lethal cocktail of end of life drugs, disproportionately “favoring“ the disadvantaged? Human capital in a Kingdom of Means?

The audacity of some to still claim this is a Christian nation?

There is nowhere to hide from the lightning strike that is coming.