Nihilists on trial

Can someone tell me how nihilists can profess the world to be essentially meaningless and without value, when they use reason in their estimation of it?

They say there is no reasonable proof of such and such a diety. But they overlook the value they have invested in their own perception, namely reason.

Am I wrong to think they should put more stock in the irrational view points? Wouldn’t that be more conducive to a meaningless existence?

I’d love to call myself a nihilist, but I think I’d end up feeling like a faker, by doubting my own doubts.

I saw a comedian once who talked about songs that say, “throw your hands in the air and wave em like you just don’t care”. He then said, “wouldn’t it be a better show of apathy to not throw your hands in the air at all?”.

its funny because its true

To me nihilism seems like the most depressing belief one could have.

This is essentially what I was going to say. Nihilists believe everything to be meaningless and so pointless. Yet, many supposed ‘nihilists’ carry on living, despite the fact that they profess life as pointless. The only true nihilist, in my opinion, is the one that kills himself.

Reason is the most objective criteria that we have. I am sure that even nihilists know that reason is only as good as we, humans are.

Even with the use of something other than reason, the uncertainty will remain (because of our limitation). If reason can be labeled as value, so can anything else.

How can something be conductive or not conductive to a meaningless existence?

How can an irrational view be more conductive to such an meaningless existence than a rational one, when the meaning that you have procured is still meaningless? In that, how can accepting a meaning be more conductive to meaninglessness?

I think there needs to be a distinction between what has been called “passive Nihilism” and what has been called “active nihilism”

Passive nihilism is what has already been characterized in this thread. Someone who shrinks in the face of a meaningless and an absurd world. Instead of engaging, the passive nihilist withdraws from the uncertain world. The task is too daunting, the uncertainty too crushing, withdraw is the only option.

On the other side is the active nihilist, who is emboldened by the freedom that comes with a meaningless and absurd world. Instead being paralyzed by uncertainty, the active nihilist take the opportunity to create. The active nihilist becomes the generator of meaning for the absurd world, he imposes his will upon it.

There’s a problem with your definition of active nihilism. The active nihilist believes there is some worth in the ‘freedom’ which comes from nihilism. This is obviously a paradox, and shows that he’s not a true nihilist.

I think you missed the point, the Active Nihilist makes what he wants out of the meaningless absurd existence. That is his freedom, to create in whatever fashion he so chooses. I also don’t think there is any paradox with a Nihilist valuing things for himself, a self imposed value, if you will. See, the Passive nihlist is crushed by the uncertainty and freedom of a meaningless existence, while the Active nihilist is emboldened by it…he makes what he wants out of it.

So he puts value into creating something? Then he considers something ‘of worth’ and so is not a Nihilist! I assume you consider yourself an active nihilist. But it seems that there’s no such thing. Sorry about that.

I see no problem with a nihilist valuing something for himself. If he values creating, then it is a self-imposed value. If he values freedom, then it is a self imposed value. You are applying the definition of passive nihilism to all types of nihilisms…Which is quite fine, but there is a lot of very rich literature on the topic that make such a distinction, and it might be useful to open up your definition a little bit.

The active nihilist you describe sounds much like an attempt at existentialism.

I don’t completely disagree, but I am not familiar enough with Existentialism to make a detailed comparison. As far as I understand it, “Existentialism” is a group of different philosophers that share certain base assumptions, but ultimately it doesn’t have a definitive definition. Perhaps the Active Nihilism of Nietzsche, expounded by Camus, is a specific flavor of Existentialism, but I am not in a position to say one way or another. It is however, interesting to note, that Existentialism has it’s origins in Nietzsche(and Kierkegaard).

I thought a Nihilist was someone who saw no meaning in anything whatsoever. Am I mistaken?

Dictionary: “someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief”

Turns out I am wrong. Ignore me.

That’s right, just be careful that it’s not misapplied. A personal ethic, is not the same as a theory of morality or religious belief. Also, seeing no meaning in anything, doesn’t mean one cannot create meaning from one’s own will.

Active Nihilist:

Things are not imbued with meaning, they do not contain meaning, there is no good and evil, there is no absolute true and false. But, there are things that have meaning for me, there are things that are good and bad for me, and there are things that are true and false for me. There is a certain recontextualization of the words.

The AN tears down all conventions and previously held beliefs and values, and out of the abyss creates his own. The AN views the Univerrse as uncertain, absurd, and meaningless, but takes this as an opportunity to impose self defined standards.

Nihilism necessarily means total selfishness in everything, then? Assuming that I understood you when you said that things ‘only have meaning for you’.

Well, yes, Active Nihilism embraces total selfishness to a degree. But do you think there is anything else besides total selfishness in everything?

To a degree? Why only to a degree and not wholly?

Well, technically, the relevant philosophers will claim that everyone is whole hearted selfish, that one’s existence itself is at odds with and in spite of every other individuals.

I say “to a degree” to safeguard against the notion that an AN cannot help others, or love, or whatever else. Whatever he does, his psychology is such that, he affirms that it is done for himself. As opposed to a moralist who holds up avatars of selflessness, while in actuality is whole heartedly selfish.

The claim is, that humans are such that everything they do is done for themselves, but there is at base a difference in psychology. The AN who recognizes this, and doesn’t pretend to justify actions with moral whimsy, and a moralist who doesn’t recognize this, and tries to justify and rational his action in terms of helping others.

Thus, the nihilist’s paradox.

Jimmy Carr = hilarious British humor.