Even though nihilism and existentialism are generally about nothing, they are nevertheless articulated philosophies, the defense of which give proponents purpose and meaning in their meaninglessness in the same way defending and spreading religious/philosophies gives their proponents purpose and meaning.
Nihilism, existentialism, Christianity, Islam, republicanism et al. are the bullet proof vests of cowards, our attempts to fill the void. Only when we can live without any of them will we be considered “brave”.
Well, there is a fine line between what I’d consider ‘authentic nihilists’ and those whom only claim to be as such. As I’ve said, the only real nihilists would have committed suicide by now.
So, considering that it is rather useless (yet far from difficult) to beat dead people over the head for their previous beliefs, I’m more or less aiming my invocations towards alleged nihilists, those whom make such wild and spectacular claims such as the bravery-notion. I’m with you, their philosophy technically doesn’t recognize any form of significance, let alone bravery.
You must remember, I’m not talking about existentialism and nihilism, rather existentialists and nihilists; the constituents of these philosophies. I know, I should have made this thread’s topic be more specific.
Once again, not the ‘isms’ but rather the ‘ists’ (if that makes any sense). I know neither philosophy specify their immediate superiority over the other (though in Nietzsche and Camus’ sake, it is heavily implied). I’m asking why the people of these thought-systems propound such claims. If you need proof, look at what Dan~ has said.
Granted, nihilism is (paradoxically) just as subjective as any of those other ideologies you put forth, but that isn’t to say that it at least attempts (vainly so) to shed itself of all ontological ideals.
Okay:
a.) have you never read Camus, man?! An existentialist who claimed all belief in hope detracts one’s attention from living ‘authentically’. If bravery is to be defined according to its utter acceptance of futility and meaninglessness, existentialists definitely take the cake. They not only embrace a complete lack of meaning, but even the futility of nihilists’ attempts to ‘escape’ from subjectivity and ‘kitsch’;
b.) but if you’re considering bravery as being a biological or genetic condition of being, you’re also saying that it is a contradiction of fear, of which is a propensity of evolution. Like Nietzsche said, some agents within the animal kingdom will risk their own lives for the reaping of advantageous successes, therefore quelling the idea of the ‘will to live’. Thus bravery is means to an end, an end that usually pertains to a claim to power. Either way, fear is provisional upon, as you said genetics, while bravery is a psychological development.
Well, the “ists” are gonna claim to be brave because both existentialists and nihilists claim to be facing the world as it is as opposed to some sugar-coated form of reality. This is necessary because both systems have a strong “us” vs. “them” mentality, with the “us” being the enlightened few and the “them” being the sheeple out there. Both are self-serving philosophies at the end of the day and so they present themselves as “brave” because it strokes their ego.
This, of course, isn’t particularly unique to either system.
Agreed, but I also think what makes existentialism … “braver” (?) is that it predicts this very ‘ego-stroking’ you speak of, whereas nihilists are in constant denial of the idea that they too are adhering to a form of kitsch. Nihilism is very Christian as Nietzsche so proposed; it refuses to accept its subjective qualities that make it self-serving. Existentialism on the other hand merely revels in its own subjectivity.
When arguing from the point of view we need to abandon all “ideologies”, listening to arguments regarding their merits and demerits is a waste of time.