is nihilism rational/logical?
i understand that perspectives are subjective but i would like to hear your takes on this…
No; it’s not if it refers to the fact that no values exist. There is always a value if there is a function between interacting objects. We are not blank, and our reality is not blank, so therefore we can not say that there exist no values. There are processes that we relate to that are characteristic for our own existence, if we ignore those values we destroy our own existence.
We can not create objective values however because every situation is relative from the subjective perspective, but objective if we observe the process wherein the subject interact, and depending on the total direction of the process.
It’s however a basic philosophical question that first requires metaphysical answers.
Johan
Is nihilism rational or logical?
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to get at. Are you asking if it’s okay to be a nihilist or if you can put an ideology in logical form? It’s impossible to reject all values in any given society (such a rejection is a value of that society already), but it’s just as impossible to accept all values of a given society (because no society is ever completely monolithic). So, you’re stuck with a diluted version of nihilism (but that’s not a big deal because everything is always already diluted), so if you want to attack a lot of values in a given society, go ahead, we’ll decide on the rationality later. 
is it rational to reject:
-society, just because society is man made, though necessary for those who do not want to be hermits and live in solitude?
-materialism, because money is not everything and in fact, something that controls our lives and tie us to the pursuit of material?
-values/ethics/morality, if one is a skeptic and believes that there is no universal standards of so?
-relationships, because one thinks that man is egocentric and feel that such ties are trivial and draining?
-life because one simply cannot be bothered to live through this absurd process and would die anyway, thus chose to exit prematurely?
if in this position, the nihilist denounces the above only because of his/her believes though he knows that his believs are subjected to only him. yet so is his reality. thus would it be rational to reject these, even if he must die to fufil his need?
One position that perhaps will be helpful is to think of rationality as something that has nothing to do with values (and hence we cannot answer the original question). David Hume is probably the most well-known proponent of this. Under this view rationality becomes something more like the ability to achieve one’s values, or having true beliefs about matters of fact.
If you believe this about rationality then you are probably not going to think that there are any objective values in the world for us to discover. However our values could still be considered “real but subjective”, and nihlism would be avoided.
However, if by “nihilism” one means that “there are no objective values”, then “nihlism” is a real possibility. Rationality does seems to have something to say about whether values are objective or subjective.
It is unclear to me where values exists between all “interacting objects”. A pencil does not seem to value its user. An proton does not value electrons. It seems that “valuing” is an activity that only conscious beings do.
Value = Different parts that must interact for a specific situation to occur. Example: If you don’t eat you die, if you want to live eating have a value. If you should be able to continue with the process that brought you in to this world you HAVE to interact with processes outside yourself to be able to continue with this process.
Objectivity exist in the meaning of that there exist relative values in subjective situations that can be measured objective if we look at the process from outside and know where a process is coming from and what relations that are required to continue with the process in a certain direction We can however not set up objective rules and expect that they will be very useful to solve unique situations with unique values/relations.
You may however have a small amount of free will to choose directions of your life. But getting free from all the processes of life that developed a person to a certain situation is not possible, so nihilism is not a sober standpoint. Nihilism is only a functional direction when it comes to deal with psychological patterns that are not justified in the field of reality. You don’t have much control over the holistic processes of life. If you want to deny every value of life you only have the freedom to die. But you then die only by breaking the values to show your point; that you are free from values. You die by the rules as well.
Poor Nietzsche; it was not his intention to be used in argument about values; all he did was a rebellion against religious psychology and unjustified moral. When he was ready he did not know where to look for new values so that he could continue with his life in a creative direction. He ended his life as a slave under his own model and denied all values. He became a symbol of a truley free person. Only if you deny all processes inside and outside yourself you are able to be free from all values - and die.
No, a result is required for a value, a written text perhaps in this situation. A person does not have a value, and two persons interactivity does not have a value if there is no direction of the process. ONLY if you control the direction of the process you are free from values, but if you are able to set your own goal of the process you are required to follow values to get there because you have to interact to get somewhere (or else you are standing still). A person is always tied to limitations that set the rules of the possibilities to “control the direction of the process”.
Johan
My whole philosophy on this is that nihilism is self-hatred projected out into the world. You can take that anywhere you want.
— Brad hit the proverbial nail on the head. Nihilism is a self-refuting philosophy. In order to reject all values you would have to reject the value of rejecting all values.
According to a nihilist that wouldn’t matter. After all, if you reject all values then truth and consistency are no better than falsehood.
What wouldn’t matter is the existence of the Nihilist. Those that would consider (absolutely) truth & consistency to be no different from falsehood & repugnance could not possibly survive.
One cannot reject having values they can only form them properly or not. Nihilism is nothing more than a creative idea/dream &/or nightmare.
Regards,
I view nihilism as exactly the same as emotivism ultimately, a nihilist cannot escape value judgements, but they may regard it as pointless to bother rationalising their judgements or justifying them.
bollocks! - thats simply it. All we aretoday is pure nihilists. There is no truth, so we much be nihilists.
You sure that’s true?
Does it matter? 
Yeah, I would say it matters, although defining truth is a bitch (see the Idealism, Realism and Pragmatism thread).
I didn’t mean it literally, I meant that a nihilist need have no concern as to whether their beliefs are true or not, because they placve no value on truth.
i think you can quite easily reject all values, tats what i do. i by no means believe that anything about how i think the world is or should be are of any value. they are simply my opinions. and everyone else also just has their opinions. i remember when i was taking philosophy at school in one of my logic classes the teacher woudl begin talking about how we cannot reject values simply because we cannot prove they exist. but if you look at it the other way how can you accept values simple because we cannot prove they DONT exist. i think its a very rational position to take. and until sombody can prove to me the innate “value” of anything or any interaction between anything. people say well because we perceive things then we humans give things their value. and that is just admiting it there. values only exist in our minds, and are not set in stone as a universal law or rule to apply to everything and anything that dictates its value.
Johan
What! why poor, the man was a genious. EVERYTHING IS INTERPRETATION.
Everything i think is something ive imagined and put into simple segments ontop of ideas ive already had–so i can understand and survive on. What is wrong with nililism?-nothing, i cant be skeptical on the ultimate skepticism. Nietzsche’s Third part of the will to power is a master piece that cant be argued against.
He was right on moral, there is no moral.
i would say that nihilism is just the absance of everything, making it completely rational, if you can truly belive that nothing exists.
Frighter,
you’re quite right that values are in our minds relative to us in belief. In the end we are left with nothing but our Personal Truth.
You mention an example of your logic teacher telling you not to reject values just because they can’t be proven. Before you look at it the other way, look at it more deeply from this way. The only way we can make progress is by studying and proving those things which are not yet proven. In order to prove them, we must not reject things that are not proven yet, take them seriously, study them, and see what develops. This is not to mean you must ACCEPT something that is not proven, which is where I believe your mistake lies. Since your counter-argument to your logic teacher is “how can you accept values simply because we cannot prove they don’t exist” - which is an assumption and a leap in logic. I nor you professor (I believe) would ever tell you to ACCEPT 100% anything in this world. But that is not to mean you shouldn’t take them seriously, investigate, study, think about, and postulate your position on the matter after much deliberation.
You say:
Remember, as I said before, no one could prove anything to you if they didn’t take things that weren’t proven seriously, study them, investigate them, and only then PROVE them to be this, that, or the other.
Lastly, as much as I agree with you about values being in our minds only - I wish to share with you a realization I made a long time ago. It IS important to be aware of values only existing in our minds, but, those values are important nevertheless. Those values help us carry on with our lives in a civilized manner, those values help us feel secure about our insecurities which is where law, and socially accepted customs and traditions come in. Free Speech is a value, it is to say that we feel that letting people speak their mind is RIGHT. This right is protected and helps us feel secure that we need not feel threatened to express our minds. To a certain extent, for instance, we are not allowed to express FREE SPEECH by expressing and proliferating hate amongst the masses. This too is a value, one that is forbidden and seen as WRONG. These values are important enough to say they are a pillar of our society, a pillar that holds the rest of our society up.
What’s your take?