Both of these philosophical “systems” have boasted the characteristic of a so-called ‘bravery’. Usually this proclamation has manifested itself under the context of “facing the woeful reality and utter absurdity that is the Universe”. Both parties consider themselves as being ‘brave’ for, not only razing their previous ontological misconceptions and societal conformities, but so too for even continuing with the very act of living (or, in existential terms, living ‘passionately’). But in so making this statement, both parties have also decried each other by affirming the very lack of this so-called lack of ‘bravery’ in the opposing philosophy.
What, to you, is correct in its arguments and postulations?
I’m not really pertaining this question to the significance of bravery, but rather which philosophy of the two is in fact correct in its proclamations. So technically, I am actually asking which one is correct, just under the particular constraints of their arguments with regard to said bravery.
Besides, I seriously consider going up to a black guy and calling him a nigger as being more of a really fucking retarded thing to do, looong before bravery or racism comes into play.
Now saying nigger while being a contestant on Jeopardy is much braver in that it harbors no immediately inherent danger (unless you were bumrushed by an angry audience of African-American Alex Tribet-lovers).
But either philosophy is profoundest in their criticisms of one another, especially with regard to bravery; the biggest dead fish they like to beat each other over the head with is the bravery card. If this ‘individual bias’ towards bravery is the catalyst for its melding with their initial philosophy, than so be it. I don’t care about what came first: the bravery or the philosophy; I just care about which philosophy has sounder grounds for incorporating this bravery.
Nihilist: “The existentialist’s so-called ‘need’ to perpetuate subjective ideals of ‘meaning’ and purpose are, without a doubt, a blatant act of cowardice in the face of life’s absurdity.”
Existentialist: “The nihilist wishes nothing more than to revert back to indifference; to ‘self-succumb’ to the external pressures in nature, instead of standing up in utter defiance and bravery against the inevitability of death’s tidings.”
My question relates the dichotomy between these two contradicting arguments.
Well, not to digress too greatly from the topic at hand, but my view of what hedonism is as follows:
Hedonism is the pursuit of any and all forms of satisfaction; satisfaction is a feeling induced by the individual affirmation of one’s aesthetic preference of what is beautiful. I am hungry; food satisfies my hunger, therefore food is beautiful. This concept scales the ladder into deeper parts of our brains to quench other forms of hunger.
An artist commences the act of creating, usually for the sake of self-satisfaction, originating from a sense of disgruntlement or complete lack of satisfaction. The various forms of art are but scalar levels of thought paradigms being transcended by primal urges for self-satisfaction.
Drinking, drugs, and drag-queens are but lower strata of the sublimation of this will to power. Thus hedonism (not solipsism) is a completely commendable stance that seems more in line with existential, rather than nihilistic ideals.
Claims that individual human beings create the meanings and essence of their own lives. Existentialism stresses that people are entirely free and therefore responsible for what they make of themselves (ie, the affirmation of satisfaction/hedonism). With this responsibility comes a profound anguish or dread. It is a reaction against more traditional philosophies, such as rationalism and empiricism, which sought to discover an ultimate order in metaphysical principles or in the structure of the observed world, and therefore universal meaning.
Nihilism:
[i]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, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively 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.[/i]
They both regard the lack of meaning of the world, they just dispute each other when it comes to what actions are preferable to another; basically why and how we ought to live.
Both simply boast a pretentious feeling of bravery for taking on a sort of quasi- “leap of faith”.
realunoriginal, I’ll respond to your post tomorrow.
Well, the most I can go on is the behavior of the constituents of these philosophies, not so much the ‘dogma’ of the philosophies themselves. Every time I’ve had a discussion with a nihilist or existentialist, both have claimed themselves as being more courageous than the other, as though adhering to the opposing ideology were some sort of cop-out.
The nihilists are very proud in that they consider themselves as having taken the plunge into the abyss; they usually take on a sort of pretentious-like attitude, believing that they are utterly unafraid of subverting or even completely destroying all forms of subjective worth within their lives. They feel as though they’ve escaped the ‘fool’s world’ and are somehow looking in from the outside, decrying all those whom attempt to even create reason or value in the face of absurdity as being some sort of coward who is too afraid to come to terms with the world’s ‘reality’.
Existentialists, on the other hand, take a different approach. Instead of shunning the ontological world away, they revel in all that is subject, understanding how unavoidable and inescapable ‘essence’ is. To them, the nihilists are but posers; that they believe that they are above all strata of subjectivity, when in fact, they are but contingent upon a wholly new substratum-system of meaning. To existentialists, nihilists are really the cowards, fore they would rather deny the actual ‘truth’; that we are all but provisional conditions of a subjective nature, and trying to suppress and inhibit all instinctual forces, despite their seeming futility and meaninglessness; to try to succumb to the whims of external forces, is a cowardly act in itself.
I really just wanted to see people on this forum whom consider themselves nihilists or existentialists to argue with another on their stances, and clarify any misconceptions we might have of them; especially with regard to ‘bravery’.
Camus had it right. I would have to agree. I mean I’m not one for putting ‘ism’ labels on myself, but I guess one could consider myself as being a bit of a Nietzschean existentialist.
I’m just curious about what Kierkegaardian existentialists and plain ol’ nihilists have to say on the matter.
THE REAL QUESTION:
What makes just sitting at the bottom of the hill ‘braver’ than pushing the rock up the hill, and vise-versa?
And there is the nihilist’s paradox: if no action is truly preferable than another, than why continue eating or even breathing? My belief is that true nihilist ought to be dead by now (a statement that should not to be interpreted as a threat).
If you continue breathing on a semi-regular basis, then you’re doing it for a reason, otherwise it would be pointless and you’d stop. As I’ve said, even if that reason is for hedonistic pleasure-finding/creating, then that no longer makes you a nihilist, just a very pessimistic ‘Nietzschean’ existentialist (like myself).
Cmon, what’s so brave about sitting at the bottom of the hill? So there’s no objective thruth and values, is that really an excuse for doing noithing the rest of the only life you have?
There doesn’t have to be a truly preferable action in any objective sense, why should there be. You are a person, you want things, simple enough. Nihilist are just dissapointed that there aren’t objective values or thruths and can’t seem to get over it.
Exactly! I’m just waiting for a nihilist to pop up in this thread to try to dispute that.
Once again, exactly! I find it very intriguing at how nihilists seem to yearn for some sort of otherworldly ontology despite the fact that they preach with seemingly religious-like conviction against it. Envious maybe?
Seriously, I need a self-proclaimed nihilist to get in on this and defend their so-called ‘bravery’.
I can’t possibly see someone claiming that Nihilism is more “brave” than Existentialism. Existentialism, to me, is bravery to the very core. How could no action be braver than action? Both groups accept the same facts about the universe (no objective meaning), but one wants to stand up to it and do something about it. Why succumb to the meaninglessness and the suffering when you can face it. Nihilism doesn’t echo bravery at all to me.
Besides, who decided that the only kind of truth or meaning worth anything was Objective? There may not be an objective meaning to life, but how does that make subjective meaning bad/weak/cowardly? If there is no objective meaning, why not make a subjective one? I never really understood the problem with denying objective meaning while embracing subjective meaning.
edit
And why would a Nihilist even bother claiming that Existentialism is not as brave as Nihilism? What is so good about bravery anyway? What is so good about Nihilism? Nothing because there is no good and there is no truth and the concept of being brave means nothing to a Nihilist. Being brave and accepting meaninglessness or hiding from it as a coward, they are both just as pointless and without meaning. So why bother?
Insofar as I understand it, neither nihilism nor existentialism really present a thought-out argument as to what bravery is but rather present themselves as brave and define bravery as being in their tradition.