“Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other. The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.”
Is that the kind of nihilism we’re talking about here? If so, then I sympathize with some of it, but not all of it. I would probably not refer to myself as a nihilist. I do think meaning and ethics arise only from human existence. Nothing “out there” will deliver us significance in a neat brown wrapper to open during the holidays. We’re on our own. I still, perhaps naively, believe that we can organize ourselves and take responsibility for ourselves to a degree. The first step, strangely, seems to be a mass acceptance of a position akin to nihilism. Most that believe in a supreme being believe that meaning pervades the universe so humans remain a little bit impotent in the face of the great force that guides existence: the invisible hand to end all invisible hands, so to say. So looking into the abyss of our situation may help save us (if the goal is the survival of humans). But as long as we think something or someone else has already done this for us many will probably await the rapture.
I think thats absolute crap. I for one believe in a higher form I think that logically some sort of system must govern everything, weather or not its a big guy with a beard does not matter. After all everything else has a logical place and purpose in the universe so why should the universe itself not? But really thats not the point, the argument against nihilism is not the same as arguing the existence of God. For one thing the existence of God can be argued about over a Million threads and over a million years and we still wont know the answer. Its just something beyond our reach. But one does not have to fall into the despair of nihilism to take responsibility for our actions, on the contrary by the understanding of nihilism taking responsibility would be a crime against such a belief, not caring is paramount. In my experience, believers and non believers alike can take responsibility for their actions, in fact its taught in most of the popular religions that that is exactly what we must do. Don’t turn this into an anti-religious thread because nihilism has nothing to do with it. But just while we are on the point. Many evolutionists would argue that it was faith in a higher being that allowed the human race to survive this far, especially at times such as the ice age when depression was rife, faith gave humans the will to carry on, a purpose to exist. How exactly does the acceptance of having no purpose do the world or even human life, any favors? Not that atheists cant find purpose, but the kind of disbelief you were referring too clearly does.
I call myself a nihilist, I do so based on the very Wikipedia defenition presented by ewomack.
"“Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”
With this position I almost completely agree.
Rhino,
“After all everything else has a logical place and purpose in the universe so why should the universe itself not?”
I believe you are mistaken. According to my interpretation of the data, I do not see how you could say everything has a logical place and purpose in the universe. I think purpose and logic are functions of human perspective. And human perspective apears to be a consequence of (as far as we can tell for now) random forces.
“For one thing the existence of God can be argued about over a Million threads and over a million years and we still wont know the answer.”
In so far as we can “know the answer” I believe I know the answer… There is insufficient data and reason to believe in a god.
“on the contrary by the understanding of nihilism taking responsibility would be a crime against such a belief, not caring is paramount.”
I disagree. Caring or not caring are not functions of nihilism. Like I said, I am a nihilist and I care about plenty of things.
“How exactly does the acceptance of having no purpose do the world or even human life, any favors?”
I do not interpret data and reach conclusions with the intent of doing myself favors. I do so with the intent of finding what I consider to be the most logical, reasonable and complete model of the data.
Mach,
“In reality, it is and always will be evident to other observers, that nihilists apparently have a position on eating being worth doing, and sleeping, and probably going to the bathroom in the bathroom (why not in bed? easier!). They probably talk to people too, and I’m going to guess here, they have some preferences on what others do or do not do. Every one that has posted here in what little I have read, all do this.”
You seem to have a diffirent understanding of nihilism than me. What I would argue is that eating, seeping, bathroom and socialising have no objective value. Nor does life, property, respect, courage, so on so forth. By not having objective value, I mean that there is no “objective” empirical or historical data that can be used to effectively argue that we “should” do anything or act in any particular ways. This is what it means to say that there is no objective value or purpose. For if one could successfully argue that humanity has an objective purpose or there are certain objective values, than one might be able to extend that argument to conclude that we “should” do certain things in respect to those objective values or purposes. My claim, which is yielded from an interpretation of emperical/historical data is that no such objective values or purposes exist. This does not mean that I do not have reasons to act or even that I dont have my own subjective values and purposes. It just means that I would be unreasonable in attempting to objectify those values and purposes. I would be unreasonable in claiming that humanity “should” objectively be a certain way. What I value and the purposes of my life are, as all of human perspective, consequences of apparently random forces. This is my nihilism.
I just read the bottom of your post.
Yes, I think there are some differences in what people claim about nihilism, and parts make sense, and other parts are contradictory.
What you described at the end of your last post, may be some part of nihlism, but it’s also just a fact of reality. You may claim it as nihlism, but it’s just plan old vanilla “reason”. Or “knowledge”. Or “science”. All related to observations of reality.
That is, I don’t agree that there is no “objective” meaning, purpose, value, I agree that by definition there CANNOT be.
There not only is no evidence of such things, but by definition there cannot be evidence of those things.
It’s that next step into reason that holds both consistency, and clarity in my opinion.
For example, can anyone (they cannot) define what an absolute value IS?
“it’s just plan old vanilla “reason”. Or “knowledge”. Or “science”. All related to observations of reality.”
“For example, can anyone (they cannot) define what an absolute value IS?”
Well, this is apparently what we believe and agree upon. But there are plenty of philosophical positions and arguments out there in opposition to our mutual position. You and I would call them poor arguments and positions, but they are none-the-less out there, and I am afraid to say… more prominant than our position.
But, there may be one essential diffirence between you and I. It relates to the part of the nihilist position that claims that there is no comprehensible truth. While I am fairly confident on my position on values and purpose, I am less confident in my beliefs about “truth” and objective reality. Yet I do still hold with the nihilist position on the matter.
I believe “truth” is the attempted objectification of subjective perspectives. It is, I think, a mistake in reason. Diffirent people have diffirent perspectives, diffirent world views, diffirent interpretations of emperical/historical data. And though I think my world view is in some ways “better” (i will attempt to explain what I mean by this in a sec) than others, I do not believe my version of things is the “truth” or should be said to be “closer to the truth,” meaning that it is an accurate or more accurate representation of objective reality. I do not think it is a fact, or the truth, that there is an objective reality, meaning a world outside of and indipendent of the human perspective. Though I do believe in an objective reality… Confused?
The thing is, I believe the conception of and belief in an “objective reality” is just another piece of the model we create from an analysis of our experiences. The concept of an objective reality is just another useful way to organize the data garnered from our experiences. And… by no means is it the only one. I have never attempted it, but I happen to think there is a way to efficiently model our sense-experience without the use of and belief in “a world out there.”
And thats the thing, I believe all belief systems are just models that describe, explain, and if successful (according to my, personal system of determining the value of conceptual models) predict sense data. And this is the sense in which I meant that I believe my world view is better than others. It is simply better at predicting. AND YET! Even here I face a problem… For my claim that an objective reality is not “true” but just another piece of a conceptual model predicts nothing. Many aspects of my belief sysem predict nothing. But, in their defense, they are extensions of the same reasoning that on other subjects displayed predictive capabilities.
The reason I mentioned this nihilistic attack on objective reality is because you (Mach) wrote:
"What you described at the end of your last post, may be some part of nihlism, but it’s also just a fact of reality. You may claim it as nihlism, but it’s just plan old vanilla “reason”. Or “knowledge”. Or “science”
I am wary of talk about “facts of reality” and “knowledge” and “science.” Though I do think alot of the conclusions of science hold alot of weight, I do not condone the common perception of science as having the only claim to truth. This is ofcourse, because I dont believe in “truth”
“Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.”
I do not agree with the last claim. I am not sure about the “secular ethics are impossible” part, for I do not wholly understand it. But I do not accept the claim that no action can be preferable to any other. Nature guarenteed that this would not be the case by giving us natural incentives.
Agreed, except I can be confident I’m correct when I label them unreasonable (fallacy, irrational, or otherwise nonsensical). It is the same confidence you have when you stand up or make a fist. “Did you make a fist”? Would you be concerned about knowing if that was true? Would you care if 1B people told you it was false? no.
You not only examine intelligently what others say, you also note the differences. That’s reasonable, and observant.
But, I’ll demonstrate for us why this position isn’t true.
RTanks’s premise: 1. Truth cannot be comprehended.
Self contradictory. If truth cannot be comprehended, how can we attempt to form a true statement to begin with? “Truth cannot be comprehended”?
That’s where reality forces a choice, believe in contradiction, or reject it. You do not need to believe in government, or your neighbor, or your friend, or doctor. Acknowledging reality, that is the only key here, and that’s not even a requirement, it’s a CHOICE (a useful one?).
Even a casual thought experiment will demonstrate this from another angle. “Is it true that I exist?” Necessarily, else, the question could not be formed. If we took it as false, we couldn’t pose the question. So we “accept” it as true and move on (correctly so!).
Truths are only reflections of reality, they are dervied from it.
I think you’re quite close here. A “model”, yes, but a model of what?
Sense data…what is doing the sensing, and what is the object of the sensing?
Reality sets in motion these things, not me, or some goofy philsopher who has no real job. This is a skeptic position, that is, you seem to deny or question reality (truth), yet you accept it at the same time. This contradiction is resolved if you admit that you are indeed sensing SOMETHING, and that to sense requires something to be doing the SENSING. These are self-evident truths, they are their own evidence, they don’t need me or you to support them, they already are. And no, by admitting they are true does not MAKE them real, since truth is DERVIED from reality. If we find we were incorrect, we correct ourselves, but reality is or is not. And that is what the truths are based on.
But that’s only because as you have already noted, most people do not have a clear understanding of things, including scientists, teachers, parents, our friends, everyone. So why would such common definitions be used correctly by the majority? They are not, but don’t let them confuse you.
Science: Knowledge. The study of reality.
Knowledge: Truths of reality.
Reason: System of forming beliefs of reality, which requires observation/evidence.
Truth (of reality): Propositions that correspond to reality, based on reason (and logic).
Note, no one owns these, it doesn’t favor anyone or any philsophy, culture, or race, it’s just reality, and the resulting ponderings we thinking entities do. Once we differentiate this from that, (logic), all the rest unfolds. I see food, I pick it up. That’s reason. You observe, you choose based on observations. If it turns out not to be food, you were, necessarily, incorrect (it was false). To claim there was no truth, requires you to claim “there is no such thing as food”. Which has no meaning.
If one claims they are using reason, it’s not a cult, or a some single persons work that is confusing or convoluted or self-inflated. It’s simply observing reality, no more, no less. No one owns it, or everyone owns it.
And it forces someone who rejects it to claim reality IS NOT. That’s why you can be confident in it, because the necessary logical alternative (A or NOT A), is that we reject reality.
"RTanks’s premise: 1. Truth cannot be comprehended.
Self contradictory. If truth cannot be comprehended, how can we attempt to form a true statement to begin with? “Truth cannot be comprehended”?"
Thats just the thing. I would not claim that my position is true. My position is just one theory, one conceptual model out of, possibly, many. Which was my point. I would not attempt to objectify my personal interpretation of the data. I would not say that since I happen to come to these conclusions, this must be the way things are. This would require me to hold many assumptions that I am unwilling to hold.
“That’s where reality forces a choice, believe in contradiction, or reject it.”
There is no contradiction in my position, because my position is not subject to truth or falsity. What I have come to realize is that truth and falsity themselves are just concepts, more parts of a conceptual model of the data.
““Is it true that I exist?” Necessarily, else, the question could not be formed. If we took it as false, we couldn’t pose the question. So we “accept” it as true and move on (correctly so!).”
Not necessarily. What is truth? What is “I”? What does it mean to exist? These too are all just concepts built from an interpretation of the data. And heres the thing. They are all based on assumptions. Assumptions that I hold and believe in as well, but I am aware that my conceptual model is based on these assumptions that cannot be justified or verified. I accept them because they are useful for me. It is simply useful to believe that there is a world out there and I am an observer in it. But there is no way to verify this, nor that my observations are accurate reflections of it.
“Truths are only reflections of reality, they are dervied from it.”
You assume that there is a reality, that you are in it, and that you are able to derive reflections of it. I assume this as well, I just admit that my world view is based on an unjustifiable assumption, and as such, that “truth” is just a conceptual consequence of this assumption, and nothing more.
“Sense data…what is doing the sensing, and what is the object of the sensing?”
And here is the difficulty of language. Language itself is just a set of concepts that themselves rely on the original assumptions. So when I speak of sense data, inherent in that concept is, as you say, the concept of the senses and the things to be sensed. But these too are just conceptual consequences of the original assumptions.
All we realy have in the begining is the data. Only later do we conclude that this data is achieved through an interaction of the observer and the observable and we come to term this data “sense data” or “experience”. But this conclusion is just a theory. Just one way to describe and model that data. We can never know if it is the “best” or only way to model that data because the rest of our “knowledge” and understanding of the data is completely founded upon and reliant upon this original conclusion. The original conclusion becomes the framework for the rest of our conceptual model. We are stuck in this perspective, this way of looking at the world, and there is NO argument that you could generate that would effectively argue that we “SHOULD” be using this conceptual model, or that this is the “right” or “true” conceptual model, because any such argument would inevitably be framed from within that conceptual model. Because concepts such as rightness, correctness, truth, are all only relevant and meaningfull within that conceptual model. Language and even logic are only meaningfull within that conceptual model.
“This contradiction is resolved if you admit that you are indeed sensing SOMETHING, and that to sense requires something to be doing the SENSING. These are self-evident truths, they are their own evidence”
I do not believe it is a self-evident truth that what we call “sense-data” requires something to be sensed, and something to sense it. The idea of “sense-data” came AFTER the original data. Could you provide an argument for why this data neccissarily implies an observer and the observeable?
If you actually read about nihilism it basically says that one can only trust their own instincts and intuitions but everything else outside of themselves is false.
If I read somthing it is false but if I can expirience somthing in contrast through my own senses it is real.
Ive read many things regarding nihilism. but those who say they follow it do not, thats my point, those out there wh call themselves nihilists like yourself are nothing better than angry anarchists, nihilists are a failed archtype that cannot live up to their name
If you don’t claim it’s true, not much to discuss, but I’ll demonstrate more below. Please note, even if you claim it’s not true, you are implicitly claiming - it’s true that you are claiming it’s not true. - That’s not word games, or English semantics, it’s logic. Even if we only used numbers to codify this, the resulting answers would be the same.
Implicit in every statement you make, you necessarily accept logic.
Here is how one reads this:
“RT believes it is true that no contradiction exists in his position, because it is true that his position is not subject to truth or falsity. He has come to realize that it is true, that truth and falsity are just concepts, and it’s true that they are just more parts of a conceptual model of the data”.
You may be able to see from that why the position is without real meaning. It is full of contradictory claim, even if you claim they are not there, they are. Self-contradictions don’t depend on our beliefs about them being contradictory or not. And they always start with axioms, which will solve the dilemma you impose (bottom of post)
I will address your concern about assumptions and how they are not justifiable, not “truth”, etc. All in one demo below (to save us time/reading/writing)
Good, this will get used below as well.
I’ll address this one as well in the all inclusive reponse. Making sure you know these aren’t glossed over.
What you describe is reason, but it’s more comprehensive than what you currently limit it to in descriptions above.
These constructs of language cannot be used, then later claimed to have no meaning. If you do, no discussion is taking place, just jumbled words on a page. It rests on logic, not human certainty. You can reject logic, but by rejecting it, you accept it anyway. If you say nothing, then you are silent on the topic, which is also fine. But you cannot avoid it, once you engage in discussion.
Axioms are precisely that, assumptions. Assumed to be true, or rather, accepted. All of reason is based on these assumptions. Which matches your observation that all we make are assumptions. You do not have a differing view, although you may not see the implications of that, or the root it starts from.
Don’t take just my word for it: Non-logical axioms are often simply referred to as axioms in mathematical discourse. This does not mean that it is claimed that they are true in some absolute sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Same wording. Reasoned truths/falsity start with an assumption that is not claimed to be absolute anything (cannot be claimed as such). Truth is falsifiable (!), by definition.
Once we start discussing something (anything), what underlying assumptions are implicit already? Is the fact that our assumptions are made out of convenience, somehow less accurate than other methods (no)?
It’s like being trapped in an opaque sphere. If you cannot know what is outside of it (or if outside is even relevant), you cannot comment on it. And your assumption that “I am inside a sphere†is true INSIDE the sphere. Even if an alien puts mind probes in your head that make you “think†you were inside a sphere, and you were really on a medical table, it does not change the truths/falsities INSIDE the system. Yes, once you have access to outside the system, you can then, and only then, comment on things like “I wasn’t really in a sphere, I was just perceiving that due to these mind probesâ€. It doesn’t make the inner truth false, it’s an entirely new system of truth/falsity, which includes new axioms. Truth is relative to the system it’s presented in.
Yes, this precisely matches axiomatic systems of truth. Original assumptions (axioms), some necessarily true in the system they are defined in (logic, existence, etc.) It’s not chance that it’s identical, it’s because it’s all based on reality (whatever reality may or may not be, is irrelevant).
Now, with all of that written, we can look at this statement of yours above.
It is useful. Correct, that’s what we create language, systems of reasoning/logic, etc., for.
Saying nothing, would be less useful in many cases.
“No way to verify this is accurate.â€
Yet nothing in such a system CAN be verified as absolutely accurate. To verify as accurate, means instead of A being a symbol for A, A would have to BE A. And we have no system to discuss this, because that’s existence, with no symbol for existence, a contradiction. Necessarily, if we are discussing it, this system necessarily will include such symbols (since we could not discuss it otherwise!).
That’s why inside this system of meaning we use, “accurate†does not mean anything more than “based on observation, as defined in this system†(or however we word that). Accuracy CANNOT mean something more.
How could a human, for which ALL knowledge is based on observation (internal and external senses), know of an absolute anything? There is no conceivable way to! And no need to, since truth/falsity are already dependant on observation, and truths can be falsified, and the axioms are based on the system we find ourselves in.
Every truth I claim here, I fall back on observation, and logic. If it’s purely symbolic, axioms + logic. If it’s about reality, axioms + logic + observation. And realistically, we observe even when we develop concepts in our mind…
Yes, but that’s why it’s failed, not an insult, but because that doesn’t make sense.
When you see someone, how is this different than the “expereince” of yourself that you claim is real? Both are observations, one external, and one internal. What magical quality intervenes and makes one real, and the other fiction? (There is none).
What specific sense are you using when you say “if you expereince it?”
Your sense of touch? What if we numb you so you cannot feel, do things magically become “false” that were once “real”?
I agree, it’s skeptical anarchism by the common definitions, and both are contradictory positions.
There is not truth nor untruth, there are but relations and those are temporal, can that which is temporal be said to be truth, it is all in movement, a generality, even your particularity through subjectivity which takes snapshots of these relations, is itself in motion,itself temporal. Give us nihilists a break, some of you find the worst interpretation one can imagine of a nihilist and embrace it in your righteousness. If you believe the objective world is without meaning in the absence of a subject, you are a nihilist, another word for being in touch with reality.
I dont think I would have a problem with a nihilist if they actually existed I only have a problem with the hypocricy of the notion. There is NO point to anything? no meaning? Kill yourself, or dont, it shouldnt make any difference right? dont reply to what Im posting because you shouldnt care anyway, and dont get upset at the state of society because it doesnt matter to you anyway, you say you dont care, then the logical corse of action is to do nothing about it.
You say I should give you guys a break? why do you care, my words have no meaning anyway according to you, but then neither do yours. So do nothing
But you wont and cant do that, your fakes.
And by the way “Is it true that there is no truth?” is a paradoxical statement if you belive there is no truth, how can that statement itself have truth, and since we know paradoxes are just logical slip ups. It stands to reason that their must be truth
A fitting handle for such a rant, there is a lot of irrational emotion here, what is that about? You accuse me of things I have never layed claim to, you need to read the post again. Just a thought, has a nihilist raped your sister?
There is not truth nor untruth, there are but relations and those are temporal, can that which is temporal be said to be truth, it is all in movement, a generality, even your particularity through subjectivity which takes snapshots of these relations, is itself in motion, itself temporal. Give us nihilists a break, some of you find the worst interpretation one can imagine of a nihilist and embrace it in your righteousness. If you believe the objective world is without meaning in the absence of a subject, you are a nihilist, another word for being in touch with reality.
