nihilism

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

In short, having some moral belief is not sufficient on its own for one to be a productive, altruistic member of society. Ultimately, whether nihilist or otherwise, violent people will be violent.

What’s that supposed to mean…that violent people come into the world genetically predisposed to be violent? And, of course, to the extent that is the case, what does it mean to hold them morally responsible? Blame them for things that are basically just manifestations of biological imperatives?

The concern is that humanity needs a big book or normative philosophy to prevent unnecessary violence, but that hasn’t stopped killers and tyrants before.

Come on, all the big books of normative philosophy in the world won’t matter if biologically/genetically violence is but an intrinsic component of how nature brings you into the world.

And of course, all the killers and tyrants who rationalize what they do by insisting that their own particular “kingdom of ends” justifies any and all means.

Which is why in regard to those like Satyr here, I would be curious to explore not what he believes about race and gender and homosexuality and Jews, but what, if he were able to acquire political power in a particular community, he would attempt to actually do to enforce his own rabid political prejudices. How sympathetic or critical would he be in regard to, say, the policies the Nazis pursued? And, of course, who isn’t curious regarding just how far Elon Trump will go.

Or, how about the part where out of the blue someone who was never violent becomes violent because of a brain tumor or some other medical affliction? All of the hundreds of conditions such that you only have so much control over what you do.

Just as the pendulum can swing from destructive to altruistic, nihilists can be either or somewhere in between. I choose to be altruistic — not because I believe karma or moral goodness expects it, but because I choose to be altruistic for no other reason than to be giving. Nihilists aren’t all killers, just like how preachers aren’t all saints.

Given that nihilists are no less embodied existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way, what they come to believe about meaning and morality is no less as profoundly problematic as the beliefs of the idealists.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

The Untrustworthy Nihilist

Apparently, you can’t trust a nihilist either, at least that is what I’ve heard. The stereotype of the deceitful nihilist seems to be concluded after considering if nihilists don’t believe in good/bad then they have no ethical obligation to keep promises or duties. In other words, nihilists are liars that will not honor any commitments made with them. My rebuttal: Liars lie, but not all nihilists are liars.

Again, here we will need a particular context. What exactly is it, given this set of circumstance, that any particular nihilist is said to be lying about?

On the other hand, no doubt about it, nihilists embedded in the assumption we live in a Godless universe can embrace one or another rendition of sociopathic behavior. Or entirely narcissistic behavior. Or just assume that morality revolves largely around the Dow Jones “show me the money” mentality.

Then the part where any number of moral objectivists insist that unless you share their own truth, you’re a liar. Or a moron. And certainly “one of them”.

Here’s how it works by and large…

Similar to the destructive nihilist double standard, this assumption implies moral believers don’t lie because their morality obligates them to tell the truth.

More to the point [mine] are those who insist that because their own moral or political or spiritual convictions reflect the one and the only true path to enlightenment and beyond, all others are obligated to share it. In other words, it’s less a question of having mutiple standards, and more the assumption that their own standard trumps all the others.

We all know that’s not true, so again, belief in morality isn’t enough for someone to be completely trustworthy. Some Methodists lie about email scandals and some Evangelical Christians institute scam colleges.

Which is why “situational ethics” prevails for many. I just take it further out into the speculative realm, by suggesting that, in the absense of God, mere mortals are left with creating what some construe to be the best of all possible worlds.

And for particular moral nihilists, this revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise…democracy and the rule of law.

[promethean75]

Exactly. This is the part i always come back to… we are awash in chance, change and contingency and subject to change our minds at any moment given new experiences. But the moment we think our view is the Right view, we become fulminating fanatics culminating in attics or culminating fanatics in fuliminating attics, whichever the case may be on this side of the grave in a no god world where everything i do is wholly embedded in the laws of nature. How then can i be anything but a fractured and fragmented dasein regarding what i am to believe and do in life?

Please discuss.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

No, I’m not an atheist. No, I’m not an existentialist. No, I’m not a humanist. No, I’m not an agnostic. Nihilism is a harsh position to relate to for many people. It’s not like finding similarities between a pastor and rabbi or understanding the doubt of an atheist or agnostic. Nihilism throws everything out the door and rejects the basic concept of morality.

On the other hand, moral nihilists of my ilk acknowledge right from the start that their own frame of mind is no less rooted existentially in dasein. And given the assumption [and that’s all it can ever really be] that we inhabit a No God universe.

At least until the deontologists among us are able to establish that – philosophically? scientifically? – objective morality is attainable. And then, what, moral conflagration after moral conflagration will be obviated?

Some people handle that by labeling us as “confused.” They refuse to dignify our belief in moral absence by properly recognizing it — instead infantilizing our capability to understand nuanced philosophies and maturity to recognize our own beliefs.

You want confusion? How about the fact that in regard to morality alone there are many different, conflicting assessments:

1] utilitarianism
2] contractualism
3] deontology/kantian deontology
4] relativism [moral nihilism, situational ethics]
5] virtue ethics
6] consequentialism
7] divine commandments
8] bioethics
9] hedonism
10] social contract theory
11] normative ethics
12] rights theory
13] ethical egoism
14] metaethics
15] buddhist ethical theory

Or explore this: https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/moral-traditions/

So, given a particular moral/political firestorm that has rent the species now for millennia, which “school of thought” are you partial to? Or have you invented/discovered an entirely new moral philosophy?

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah

My final rebuttal: Why are you threatened? How does my belief threaten your own spiritual autonomy? It is not as if I am frequenting your home regularly and asking to share the words of Friedrich Nietzsche. I do not set off across the globe in hopes of converting the religiously diverse into a homogenous network of global nihilism.

Actually, I have no hesitation in noting the potential for all manner of ghastly consequences given global nihilism. A world awash in sociopaths?

Unless, perhaps, my own “brand” of moral nihilism prevails. In other words, it is accepted that objective morality is beyond our reach so efforts are made to sustain a political system revolving instead around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

As long as most citizens get something instead of nothing at all, democracy and the rule of law may well be accepted as the “best of all possible worlds”.

Acknowledging, however, that political economy isn’t likely to go away anytime soon. Meaning that those who own the gold are still far more likely to rule.

On the other hand, the world today seems headed in just the opposite direction. Autocratically, as it were.

I respect the beliefs of my family (all of which are one variant of Christianity or another). I respect my friends that identify as Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, etc. I do not degrade their beliefs by claiming they just haven’t figured it out yet or they are just confused.

Me too. At least to the extent they steer clear of appending “or else” to their moral or political or religious agendas.

Also, I’m always willing to acknowledge that my own assessment of nihilism is no less rooted existentially in dasein. In fact, I am motivated as much by finding a way to transcend it myself. God or No God.

Nihilism may not be your cup of tea, and I am not asking for it to be. But in an age where religious tolerance and acceptance are widely paraded, don’t forget that it is a diversity of thought that should be respected, not just religion.

Let’s run this by Donald Musk. Their “ideology” seems to revolve by and large around “show me the money!”

Or else.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah
comment by G. J. W.

I too am a nihilist and it is commendable to see that the author of this article is trying to create some clear distinctions when using the word nihilism. Congratulations must be given to him with regards to its publication. From a literary point, too many lazy written articles of present are using this word with no scope or clarity, all without any attempt made in the writing or research to define what they actually mean by the simple word nihilism.

Also, from a moral and political perspective, the part where, from time to time, nihilism will pop up in one or another news account. But here it almost always revolves more around means than ends.

On the other hand, for those objectivists who are particularly fanatical about their own “kingdom of ends”, it often comes down to “by any means necessary”.

Right?

Without getting into detail, this article expresses what is obvious, that nihilism is surly one of the most defining words of our times and yet remains without a positive and genuine meaning for most people.

From my own frame of mind “here and now”, the one main positive facet embedded in a No God nihilistic assessment of “I” – “I” out in the world around us – is that one’s options increase dramatically. Why? Because to the extent one eschews a scripted Biblical or ideological or deontological account of the “human condition” almost anything can be rationalized. Though clearly “for better or for worse”.

This is the biggest problem we face today when thinking about nihilism. For a ‘true’ nihilist it is not good enough to ask ‘what does nihilism mean’ because we can do this with any concept, i.e. what does ‘science’ mean? Or, what does ‘life’ mean?

But natural science itself along with one’s day to day existence are bursting at seams with interactions that unfold objectively. They mean what they do. For everyone. Click, of course.

On the other hand, for epistemic nihilists…

“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

…even the laws of nature, empirical facts, personal experiences, etc., cannot ultimately be known objectively. Besides, grasping what they mean would require an objective understanding of existence itself. Although for some moral and political objectivists among us here, that’s still just a trivial pursuit.

[iambiguous]

A Defense for Moral Absence
Broderick Sterrett at the University of Utah
comment by G. J. W.

It also makes no sense to ask about nihilism in terms of cozy logic and language games, such as the statement ‘the meaningless of nihilism is a meaning’ so nihilism is somehow refuted.

I get this from time to time myself. If I note “here and now” that I believe human interactions are essentially meaningless, I’m accused by some of arguing that this in and of itself is essentially true. Only here I am no less drawn and quartered regarding the Big Questions as well.

This is a profound ignorance of logic and utter contempt for language but worse still a complete lack of intellectual rigor.

Would I go that far myself? No. Why? Because it seems clearly embedded in what appears to be a first person omniscient objectivist frame of mind. As though only his or her own understanding of nihilism counts. No way I would ever encompass nihilism in that manner myself.

It would be wise however, for anyone who wanted to use the word nihilism, to acknowledge the history of this concept and its various ‘meanings’.

Isn’t that what I just said?

Or start here: What Is Nihilism? The Philosophy Of Nothingness.

Above all else, we’ll need…a context?

The word nihil-ism etymological means, literally, the study of nothing.

Or, perhaps, in proposing any number of problematic assessments of…somethings? But, again, “somethings” in the either/or world seem considerably more substantive and substantial than moral and political dogmas.

But more importantly a real, as opposed to “fake”, form of nihilism would be one that is philosophical, be it even theosophical.

Of course, from my own frame of mind, it is often the philosophical assessments that stay up in the didactic clouds. And how real can they be unless [over and again] the theoretical assessments are intertwined existentially in actual social, political and economic interactions.

As for this…

Theosophy teaches that the Spiritual Soul and the Spirit do not reside within the human body alongside the other components but are connected to it through the human soul. wiki

…where’s the beef?

Even if nihilism meant the study of nothing as such, we are still left with the bizarre question what is the nothing? Surly this is the most defining question posed by man: Why something exists rather than nothing?

Here, of course, we go way, way, way out onto the metaphysical branch. Although [perhaps] an even greater defining moment here would be encompassed in “why this something and not something else?” Though even here the presumption is that we have the capacity figure all this out autonomously.

The negativity of nihilism we see too often written about to today is one where the ignorance of philosophers, theologians, scientists, politicians, historians, artists i.e. the minds of men and of worldly events, lead to the greatest perils, evils and symptoms of decline of mankind and the World.

Here, on the other hand, I have no illusions about the potential for calamity should the nihilists prevail beyond the amoral “show me the money” mentality of those who own and operate the global economy. Imagine a world in which sociopathic behavior grew leaps and bounds. After all, not all No God nihilists will subscribe as I do to democracy and the rule of law.

If I too am a nihilist, it is not because of this former, negative type, but because of a stronger, more positive and affirming type.

Sure, that is certainly one way to imagine it. Here, though, so much more will revolve around the actual circumstances of one’s life.

[iambiguous]

What is nihilism?
master class

What Is Nihilism?

Nihilism is a continental philosophy (a philosophical ideal that originated in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) that posits that everything is meaningless.

Nihilism is not something I am ever likely to construe as an ideal. Quite the opposite. Instead, my own understanding of it is far more likely to actually deconstruct moral and political idealism.

And it still seems patently absurd, in my view, to deem human interactions in the either/or world as essentially meaningless. That would make sense to me only given a wholly determined universe, or an existence derived from a simulation or something analogous to the Matrix.

Tenets of Nihilism

Although there is more than one form of nihilism, all of them discuss the human condition and its existence. Here are a few underlying principles of nihilism:

Existence is useless. A nihilist believes there is no purpose to having values or beliefs because everything in existence is unfounded.
There is no truth. Everything is unfounded and useless, including the truth, so there are no reasons to uphold moral principles for your own sake or the sake of anyone else.

Everything is meaningless. Active nihilism says that since there is nothing and nothing we do matters, all things are therefore meaningless, including the meaning of life.

Back again [at least for me] to distinguishing between truths and meaning and utility pertaining to the either/or world and the part where in interacting in this world – at home, at school, on the job, etc., – we come into conflicts over any number of things revolving instead around value judgments.

While there are multiple positions and variations on nihilism, they all work around this premise of pervasive pointlessness and no purpose to life. The word “nihilism” comes from the Latin word “nihil,” which means “the absence of anything” or “nothing.” The current version of the term nihilism comes from the German word “nihilismus,” which dates back to the eighteenth century.

Then the part where each of us will react to this in different ways. Very, very different ways, at times. So, given that, how would we go about situating a definition and a meaning for nihilism such that the “failures to communicate” regarding it were…kept to a minimum?

[iambiguous]

What is Nihilism?

Forms of Nihilism

Since the twentieth century, there have been various takes on nihilism that put forth different perspectives. Forms of nihilism include:

1. Epistemological nihilism: This form of nihilism goes one step further beyond the thinking of a skeptic who questions the validity of information. In this case, nihilism states that knowledge does not exist. Alternatively, if there is knowledge in the universe, we cannot attain it, therefore it might as well not exist at all.

On the other hand, how would an epistemological nihilist go about demonstrating that?! It may well be true but going back to how the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself, the gap here suggests that other than in a philosophical argument, the final truth is simply beyond our reach. Even beyond the reach of science here and now.

2. Ethical nihilism: Someone who considers ethical nihilism to be their moral philosophy believes that there are no ethics. Therefore, there’s no reason to hold themselves or anyone else to any ethical standards.

That’s me according to any number of posters here. Only that’s not me at all. I would never argue that ethics do not exist. I would never argue that ethics are not objective or universal. I would only point out that “here and now” I’m just not able to believe this myself.

3. Existential nihilism: Here the position is that life has no meaning. Everyone everywhere, at every point, has no value to the universe. Existential nihilism overlaps with the branch of philosophy called existentialism. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about existential nihilism.

No, in my view, it’s the position that life has no essential meaning. Also, that Sartre believed existentialism “somehow” had to be intertwined in political economy.

4. Passive nihilism: This philosophy of nihilism states that nihilism is its own end, and there is no reason to pursue higher values.

Uh, whatever, “for all practical purposes” that means?

5. Political nihilism: This methodology states that nobody should hold any political views and should instead try to tear down all political institutions.

On the other hand, how [of late] is that working out for you?

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

Imagine that you’ve developed a new lie detector test and recruit a thousand people to try to beat it. You give them a series of questions and ask them to tell one or more lies among their answers. Your device detects every lie and never calls an honest response a lie.

Here we go again…

In other words, the part where truths and lies are more readily distinguished in regard to the laws of nature, the empirical world around us, objective facts, etc., than in regard to value judgments and conflicting goods.

You’re hooked up to this lie detector and asked “who is now the president of the United states”?

Donald Trump, right? That’s the only correct answer.

On the other hand, you are asked, “is Trump doing a good job as president?”

Yes? No? What reflects the objective truth here?

Then comes subject 1001. Asked a question, he answers “yes” and your device indicates that he’s telling the truth. But you ask virtually the same question immediately afterwards, he says “no,” and the device again registers truthfulness. The man swears that he believes what he said. He submits to a psychiatric evaluation and is found free of any major disorder. He is not delusional. How is this possible?

Well, if he’s me, that would revolve around my own “fractured and fragmented” sense of reality pertaining to value judgments and conflicting goods. There are facts that all can agree on and there are our reactions to those facts regarding whether they reflect a good thing or a bad thing.

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

God is dead. Nothing matters. All is meaningless. Nothing is true. These are the sorts of laments often associated with nihilism, a philosophical perspective premised on the belief that the world is incurably imperfect, flawed, defective.

Ever and always in my view this has to be contrasted with those who choose instead to go in the opposite direction. In other words, those who embody the belief that their own value judgments are as close to perfection as mere mortals are ever likely to get.

According to the nihilist, the way that the world actually exists is not the way it ought to be.

According to other nihilists, however, how the world ought to be [teleologically, deontologically] is beyond the grasp of mere mortals in a No God world.

We hope for Truth, but we never seem to grasp it in its entirety. We desire Beauty, but find only blemished examples of it in the concrete world. We want things to have value, but nothing seems ultimately all that important. We want the world to be perfect, but it always disappoints us with its flawed nature.

On the other hand, I suspect each particlar nihilist has his or her own account of what “for all practical purposes” this amounts to given their day to day interactions with others. Why? Because nihilists and their own value judgments are no less embedded existentially in dasein.

This might not be so bad if only the nihilist had faith in our potential to somehow improve things. However, nihilists reject this sort of optimism, instead claiming that it is beyond humanity to mend the eternal rift between our real state of existence and the way we ideally desire things to be. For the nihilist, the real and the ideal are in everlasting conflict with one another, and there is nothing that can be done to alter this condition.

I never go this far myself. After all, it seems to suggest this can actually be demonstrated to be true. As though certain nihilists are themselves able to render The Gap and Rummy’s Rule moot. Sure, it may be possible to reconfigure the real into one or another ideal. After all any number of these folks…

List of religions and spiritual traditions

List of political ideologies

List of philosophies

…are convinced of it.

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

This seemingly bleak and depressing philosophy of life has been wrestled with by many of the world’s greatest thinkers, most of whom, like Beauvoir, have endeavored to reject it, and move beyond it.

Here and now, I don’t see how that is possible without a God, the God. Also, in my view, existentialists who champion “authenticity” while rejecting those said to embody “bad faith” are rather far removed from my own “fractured and fragmented” moral and political philosophy. I understand what they are aiming to accomplish in going this route but who really gets to say in regard to human interactions what is unequivocally authentic or inauthentic.

That’s why I believe my own moral philosophy truly disturbs others. Nothing said or done is inherently a manifestation of bad faith or good faith, nothing said or done is necessarily authentic or inauthentic. And to the extent that some existentialists reject this is the extent to which, in my view, they blink. Just as Nietzsche did with his Ubermensch mentality.

Thus we find philosophers such as the Buddha, Immanuel Kant, Max Stirner, Søren Kierkegaard, Arthur Schopenhauer, Martin Heidegger, and perhaps most explicitly, Friedrich Nietzsche, struggling with the problem of nihilism, proposing their own ‘solutions’, and suggesting ways that might guide us on a path toward the overcoming of our despair.

And the last thing any number of existentialists will accept is the futility of overcoming it. In other words, moral and political idealism are not within reach but as long as some behaviors are said to actually be more or less authentic, existentialists can still claim sets of behaviors said to be more or less appropriate.

Thus, instead of accepting moderation, negotiation and compromise – democracy and the rule of law – as the best of all possible worlds, there are existentialists who often seem no less committed to a “my way or the highway” mentality regarding certain behaviors. Then those existentialists who took a leap of faith to God. Or a leap of faith to political economy.

[iambiguous]

In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

Despite the efforts of these great intellects, by some accounts nihilism is a more urgent philosophical syndrome today than it ever has been.

It certainly helps to explain the never ending world-wide proliferation of “my way or the highway” One True Paths. After all, how many people do you know who are willing to accept that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that morality is rooted existentially in dasein and that death = oblivion?

In fact, part of the reason I post here and in other philosophy venues, is the hope that someone might be able to, well, make all that go away. How? By convincing me that moral nihilism is able to be transcended by one or another God/No God moral philosophy. And I’m certainly not arguing that it can’t be. Only that “here and now” I am unable myself to transcend it.

It certainly continues to be a challenge not to be taken lightly, and certainly not something most people feel inclined to laugh at. And yet this is precisely what I propose here. In what follows I shall argue that the most appropriate response to nihilism consists not in despair, but in the adoption of a humorous attitude – one that allows us to laugh into the void of nothingness that separates us from our highest ideals.

Over and over and over again, so much here revolves around the actual circumstances of your life. If from day to day to day your life is in the toilet with no end in sight, you will almost certainly be inclined existentially to despair. And that certainly does not exclude nihilists.

Also, as many get closer and closer to the abyss, there is a likelihood here as well to feel despair. And that doesn’t exclude nihilists either.