What are Flaws of Nihilism?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

I see. I thought you meant that. But that is Nietzsche’s first book, of course—very early in his philosophical career. In my view it can only be understood if one understands his early “artist metaphysics”, which he later said one might call “arbitrary, idle, fantastic”. Also, it was written before his On the Use and Disadvantage of History for Life (UD), and even there he could not reconcile truth and life:

[size=95]Truth and life are never reconciled in the book [UD], but their conflict is presented as the greatest problem of modern life, one that must be solved if a recovery of cultural vitality is ever to occur. The book is therefore ‘pre-Nietzschean,’ it antedates the reconciliation of truth and life that Thus Spoke Zarathustra exists to present. Still, it exhibits the Nietzschean problem with great force and relates it to the history of philosophy.
[Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, page 281.][/size]
Later, ‘intoxication’ (Rausch) is understood as simply a sudden augmentation of the feeling of power. But in the period of the BT, ‘intoxication’ is the state (or rather ec-stasy) in which one is put in the place of the Primordial One (a.k.a. the Original Oneness or Primal Unity), and from there sees the phenomenal world as a divine spectacle. This is similar, by the way, to Nietzsche’s mature period (the period of TSZ) where he describes the Superman as a God Who also regards the world as a divine play (BGE 56). So in this sense ‘intoxication’ is actually the answer to nihilism (namely, the willing of the eternal repetition of that play).

The willing of the eternal recurrence is the new highest good, as it represents the greatest enhancement of the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man:

[size=95]What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 2, trans. Mencken.][/size]
Note that the word translated as “evil” is schlecht, “bad”, and that Nietzsche emphatically distinguishes bad from evil (GM I.17). But Mencken is right in that bad is the new evil. I was partly wrong when I wrote:

[size=95]Let us guard against equating “bad”, that is, weak, contemptible, etc., with “evil” - morally reprehensible. It is not morally wrong to be a slave! It is not morally right to be a master! It only feels good, feels right. Let us not connect feelings with metaphysics!
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/21][/size]
For:

[size=95]We can […] not simply say that whatever enhances the feeling of power is good: for this may be enhanced by weakening and exhausting oneself: with the idea that one’s “soul” thereby “chastises” one’s body, exercises power over one’s body. Nay, our measure shall be the Grand Style!
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/23][/size]
But:

[size=95]Seeking to define the grand style inevitably leads us to the task of “defining” the great man. For my new “definition” of the grand style makes it a function of the great man:

“The grand style really communicates the soul of a great man.”
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/283][/size]
Compare:

[size=95][W]ith a new meaning, we arrive at an ancient formula: justice is the will of the strongest! The greatest justice available at any given time is the verdict of the most powerful man—in the full sense of “power.”
[George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 368.][/size]

22

Nonsense.

23

Then according to the Nietzschean logic you present, it must be the only choice available in a world where ‘intoxication’ is not an option, meaning the “sudden augmentation of the feeling of power,” I presume, which occurs outside the bounds of critical judgments. If truth and life were to be reconciled then, there would have to be a clear understanding of their relationship both to power itself and the feeling of power in an individual human. This of course would be predicated on the idea that a person must be strongly concerned with power in the first place just to approach the ideas of truth and life, or else truth and life open up to a person who is closely allied with power or has it regardless of his or her relative cultural conditioning or bias towards memes of science and rationalism. I would of course question that strongly. There is such a thing as gnosis, direct intuition, and the wisdom in the bones so to speak. Truth and life can be experienced and arrived at through more than one avenue without any regard to one’s position in life or relative place in any power scheme.

24

This is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The first argument has to do with the irony implicit in the ontological foundations of relativism… that one who preaches relativism for each individual is actually determining what is good for all. Your argument has to do with the possibilities for specific choices by individuals, but because it is predicated on relativism in some imprecise sense, you apparently think there is some logical connection when there isn’t.
[/quote]
I see the apparent irony, but it is only an apparent one, not an actual one.
Saying “there is no objective good” is not determining what is good for everyone, it’s a statement of (potential) fact.
[/quote]
What do you mean by saying it’s a statement of a potential fact exactly. Are you saying only because it’s a potential statement there is no objective good in the sense your saying that statement means that objective good is only a potential to be correct not certain. Therefore it does not determine what is good for everyone as the statement may be wrong. Please do enlighten me if I’m wrong. I would indeed like to understand what your saying.

25

To say everyone else’s good is good is to say their good is your good. But is this strictly logical? As certain beliefs conflict in the sense that their elements could never exist together. If you assume these elements have value to you as you do as you say their good by saying their beliefs which contain them are good. Then you have to assume if the overall value of a belief as a product of it’s elements is greater then the overall such value of another belief when they conflict you can only call one good.
That is you can only call one good in the sense that it is"the better" of the two and preferable by choice. That doesn’t mean they cant both be good in the sense that they both have positive value in that their both good to an extent.
I think some relativists are people who see different beliefs as all having value to an extent.
However as for the selfish relativists who say all beliefs are equally good this is by logic of the definition of the word good strictly incorrect.
It just so happens as I would say that their “idea” of good says they should be relativists in this sense but all they are doing is having a goal not being “right” or good. Their idea of good or right for themselves doesn’t correspond to actual good or right.

26

Agreed. That is exactly what I’ve been struggling to understand…

By “determining” I mean what has been established as ‘fact’ by the subject – that ‘matter of fact’ has been determined. Though, establishing something as a ‘matter of fact’ does not necessarily mean that what has been established is “good”. It’s just a statement about how things are, regardless of what moral values we ascribe to that ‘matter of fact’.

27

I could be wrong in understanding you and please forgive me if I’ve got you completely off the mark. Would it be as such anyway that your saying that saying there is no objective good does not determine what is good for everyone.
In other words such people, relativists cannot determine what is good for everyone by being relativists.
Rather relativism in itself is what determines what is good for everyone. That there is no objective good is a fact in itself and the people relativists cant make any difference too that.
I think I haven’t indeed quite caught what your saying as you said saying a statement is a statement of potential fact is one that can only be false or true. I think if it is the case I haven’t got what your saying it’s because I haven’t looked far enough into your old post. In other words I’m trying to run before I can crawl.

28

The real question is “what are the flaws of nihilism for you”. Who the hell cares about the rest of the bums?
For me I don’t like it. Because there is one thing left. How do you treat other people when neverything is crap?

29

edit

You don’t know what is good. You know only what is good for you. That’s all you are interested in, that’s a fact. Everything centers around that.

30

I wouldn’t say so. If you cant tell what’s good for you chances are you can tell whats good for others. Were all human. We all have the same potential feelings. If you can determine say what brings about any of these happy feelings for yourself you can do if others.
That would be part of the good as I would believe the good is to make others as happy as possible and yourself and not suffer.
If you define however the good only as what makes you happy then you cant know the good for others as you say as there is then no good for others.
Although to me this would be a false understanding of the good.
As for saying people are inherently selfish I’d have to disagree even the great human nature philosopher Nietche(for short) believed humans were not inherently selfish and very strongly advocated selflessness.

31

While I agree that being 100% sure of anything is foolish (let alone existential nihilism), this is not enough to warrant committing oneself to the opposite direction. There may be some substantial benefits to living one’s life according to a nihilist’s code even if one can’t be unreservedly sure about it. Having fun and living guilt free is one example. Isn’t being 99% sure of this enough to make it worth while?

Again, I agree about the folly of being certain (about anything), but if I understand this brand of nihilism correctly (that is, existential nihilism), we cannot rule out the possibility of inventing one’s own ‘truth’ (so long as one acknowledge its coming from one’s own inventiveness). In that case, one is entitled to invest confidence in a few truths of his own.

How so?

Keep in mind that mystery != miracle. And either way, how would that be a blow to nihilism?

True, but this goes for anything.

You’re welcome. Now let me answer your original question:

IINM, existential nihilism says that nothing is inherently meaningful or of value, and it only acquires meaning/value insofar as we project/invent some for it. It doesn’t deny, however, at least as I understand it, that we are presented with experiences, with things in the world. My question for the nihilist is this: could the experiences we are presented with not come already packaged with meaning and/or value? If I see a chair, could that experience not have a meaning that says “there is a chair there” - or, if the nihilist likes, if ‘chair’ is already a projected meaning onto a buzzing blooming confusion (to use James’ description of raw sensory experience on its own), then whatever I experience that “buzzing blooming confusion” to be, couldn’t that just be the meaning? I mean, if I were to translate the meaning into words, wouldn’t it just come out as “a buzzing blooming confusion”; after all, the fact that we can give it a description such as this entails that the experience means that to us. How can we come up with a meaning at all unless we were given something meaningful to start with?

And what about value? Isn’t the experience of physical pain or pleasure valuable in and of itself? Doesn’t it come pre-packaged (so to speak) with the seeds of value? Isn’t pleasure valuable to us solely on account of its being pleasure?

32

What’s good for you is your business. What is for me is mine. I’m not talking about fulfilling wants or anything, rather what guides you in all situations.

33

Only in the world of ideas and communicating ideas do we need the use of semantics. There is nothing beyond the ideas and their meaning. There is just the dull repetition of the ideas and the experiences conditioned into the personality.

34

Honestly I made this topic for answers to my question, rather than questioning my reasons on my beliefs, or I would’ve been more detailed in my explanations. I had no intention of trying to convince others of why my thoughts are right… Nonetheless

“Is it not worth sticking to a moral code for even the most fundamental reasons (ex. safety, society, individual rights and liberties, persistence and advancement of humanity, etc.)?”
Assuming the only times you would stray from a moral code would be when one is 100% certain that law will not condemn you, humans will not judge you, etc. That when straying from a moral code would only be absolutely certain to be in personal interest. Advancement of humanity, (from an immoral view) what do I care? I’ll reap the fruits of immorality if I can, it’s not like it’s currently proven that value (etc.) exists.
The truth is, the advancement of humanity is one of the main reasons I stick to a “moral code”, as there is always hope for currently unknown truths to be proven, among other things.

“I’m also curious as to what, exactly, you mean by a “legitimate” human life. I’d venture to say that intoxication is a part of most human life, to some degree. Under what circumstances would you say one must resort to living an “illegitimate” life in adherence of a moral code?”

A legitimate life being one that appreciates arts, where one that loves and feels, appreciates beauty (instead of acknowledging nothingness, understanding that things are only perspective), and living by a moral system because it is truthful.

“Why? An overly rigid, mechanistic view of determinism seems to lead many people to a conclusion of nihilism. Causality doesn’t implicate value though, perspectives do.”
What if chaos theory dictates who we are? Example, (going beyond society/environment motivating who we are, past thoughts, perspectives, etc.) my dad closing the door really loudly when I was 3 years old turned me into being a serial killer. Or I waited an extra 5 seconds to cross the road when I was 5, changing a whole bunch of things slightly after that. I completely believe that things like that will make you who you are, change the way you think, etc. Basically I mean that not only if (example) my dad beats me my whole life and turns me into a “bad” person , but all sorts of small things change us into who we are, whether we want to be that way or not.

“The conventional idea of ‘free-will’ is a farce to me. Free from what?”
Free from what? What?

“The ‘Id’ - the part of the psyche concerned with fundamental, primal drives - is theorized to be chaotic and utterly disorganized by Freud. How does that allude to value?”
It defies determinism, a strong argument towards valuelessness… To me at least.

“Would inherent, objective values be necessary for the “miracle” of life? I wouldn’t think so.”
It would if the only explanation for the miracle, God existed. If a god existed, then that would be reason to believe in value.

35

One would have to make a case as to where that value comes from and why. Care to give it a go?

Well you kind of imply subjectivity of experience in this example, so the meaning would be all your’s in that context.

All you would need is a cognitive understanding of what you’re experiencing and the concept of a ‘meaning’. From there you can perceive value wherever you like. The value to you is that you see a chair, while the value to another is that the chair is comfortable.

36

can you experience something outside the framework of the cognitive understanding you have of it?

do the neurons have the ability to create concepts all on their own without being given the knowledge of what it is to conceptualize?

The capacity to accomplish these tasks is obviously there.

37

I suppose I should have not have chosen to say existential nihilism, so much as more precisely the value of love/hate for example… I agree things still have value, in and of itself, such as eating your favorite food, sex, mocking old people, however what about, example, love? Is love for someone worth anything, or is it the same as loving a robot, an empty soul, being that there are no real morals behind who they are, and they are an inevitable outcome of determinism?

38

What do you mean by “critical judgments”?

All life is concerned solely with power.

Yes, as the demotion of power to one concern among many is your path to promotion—i.e., to greater power.

39

And whom of me and finishedman do you associate with the former and whom with the latter statement?

40

Yeah, I was never happy with what I wrote there. I finally think I meant outside the bounds of good and evil and moral judgments thereof… something like that.

I think that is the view of the person still stuck in the lower chakras of their animal nature, particularly chakra 3 with its aggressive power concerns untransformed by the energy of the heart. By that I mean that it looks as though the kundalini has not awakened to move up to the heart, from passion and power to compassion and empathy, to the realm of spiritual transformation and the concerns of love, grace, wisdom, and other aspects of divinity.

Sounds like projection here. Why would any question or view involving ways of knowing or coming to knowledge necessarily be concerned with power as you describe it? It simply adds something and enriches the life of the mind and its thought on these matters.