nihilism

Bro I think you got it backwards. Why would one endorse nihilism as a ‘defense’ mechanism?

Subconscious mind: 'Gosh you know, I think believing that I’m mortal, that the universe is meaningless and that nothing matters, might make me feel better. I think I’d like to be a nihilist because that’ll help me ignore my real problems.

Buddy. Those ARE the real problems. We are not escaping here. We are not telling ourselves comfortable lies.

christ that wuz dumb. Why would somebody believe THE WORST CASE SENARIO to make themselves feel BETTER?

Woody Allen, Nihilist
By Matthew Boudway at Commonweal website

Bingo!

Well, one of them.

This encompasses my reaction to the Humanists among us. Of which I was once one myself. They reject the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God as 1] a font assuring a definitive differentiation between moral from immoral behavior, as 2] an omnipresent point of view assuring us that no one can ever get away with immoral behavior and as 3] an all powerful Being assuring us that the immoral behavior will be punished.

Yet, while accepting the actual existential reality of 2 and 3 in a No God world, they still insist their own philosophical or political or [for some] scientific assessments can at least determine which behaviors are in fact moral and which are not.

And, okay, I ask them to bring their own assumptions here out into the world and demonstrate to us why, in a world bursting with conflicting goods about practically everything, their own moral narrative and political agenda encompasses either the optimal perspective from which to concoct “rules of behavior” or is, in fact, the only rational perspective. Given that, down through the ages, there have been hundreds of them for us to choose from.

And, given the argument of the nihilists and the sociopaths that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. How philosophically, politically or scientifically is that necessarily wrong?

Unless, of course, given a No God world, there is in fact an argument from the Humanists that transcends the arguments from the sociopaths and the nihilists. My own participation on this thread reflects the ambivalence that consumes me in confronting this. On the one hand, I would like to believe that my own frame of mind here is a reasonable point of view. That I am capable of being rational here. On the other hand, I would like to come across an argument that refutes it. Why? Because in believing it I remain “fractured and fragmented” here and now, preparing to topple over in the abyss that is oblivion there and then.

The irony being that if determinism gets “hard” enough, I am left believing that I am left believing only that which I was ever able to believe in a world where human volition is just a psychological illusion.

And yet I recognize that my own intelligence is hardly the most supple one around. Even here. So there is always the possibility that someone can come up with an argument that hopefully crumples mine to dust.

Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review

Yes, that is clearly one way in which to spin it. On the other hand, a moral nihilist, in rejecting both religious and secular fonts as the basis for an objective morality and/or a doctrinaire political agenda, can instead advocate more for moderation, negotiation and compromise – democracy and the rule of law as the “best of all possible worlds” relating to social, political and economic interactions.

Given of course the historical parameters of political economy. And given the extent to which any particular “I” here might topple over into the “fractured and fragmented” hole that “I” am in.

Come on, any philosophy can only be grappled with in terms of how one connects the dots existentially between theory and practice. Indeed, name a single school of philosophy that does not make claims up in the clouds that, upon coming down to earth and becoming intertwined in human interactions, finds the going considerably more problematic.

Start with the assumptions made by any of the Great Philosophers and defend them in a particular context in which the components of my own moral philosophy come into play.

Go ahead, pick one and see what unfolds.

But as soon as man became conscious of his existential predicament , he tried to fix it, and pass any solutions down to his progeny.

That set of passed down attempts codified and was then revised by later thinkers

So philosophy becalmed a languages in it’s self , for it’s self.

It becalms strung between universals and the individual ontological Das Sein.

There is no way to dispense e with the underlying conditions of it’s genesis or it’s veiled prospective object(ivity)

Iambiguous,

I do feel we may have a conversation here, and referring to a
possible connection of nihilism and Buddhism

It really is no fault of any one of us that we have realized the unrealized -nihilism, and in one sense, it is the angst of the sign of modern civilization.

We alienate generally, in this horrible time of plague, and perhaps it befits Susan Sontag’s concern with it as rising, or lowering to the level of metaphor.

In any case I am looking forward to communicating with You further, as things evolve.

Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review

As though in choosing either option the realities embedded in my own account of nihilism go away. The only factor that seems relevant to me in regard to any path that one chooses as a mere mortal is the existence of God. No God and meaning comes to revolve around that which can demonstrated to exist for all rational men and women. A God/the God and there is a transcending font able to judge the meaning that mere mortals ascribe to…anything.

Thus…

And, in regard, to human interactions in the is/ought world, what prominent philosophers have not introduced one or another rendition of God as of fundamental importance in defining and defending the most righteous “hierarchical order”?

What can Nietzsche possibly have known about nihilism if he didn’t include the Übermensch as well? The irony being that the Ubermensch themselves become slaves to their own moral and political agenda. They end up kowtowing to people like Ayn Rand and Satyr.

If only up in the clouds of intellectual contraptions where, among other things, being and time get to mean whatever he said they did. Oh, and Dasein too.

Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review

From wiki:

Cynicism…is a school of thought of ancient Greek philosophy as practiced by the Cynics. For the Cynics, the purpose of life is to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people can gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which is natural for themselves, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions.

Then there’s my own tendency towards a cynical philosophical perspective. It has little or nothing to do with souls or living virtuously or being in agreement with nature or shocking anyone…let alone “embrac[ing] a life of begging and destitution.”

Instead, my own reasons revolve around a philosophical assumption: that all of the paths chosen by all of us in regard to souls and virtues and nature and conventions is rooted largely in dasein. Thus while some may call themselves cynics there does not appear to be an argument they can make that would obligate others to choose it as the most reasonable manner in which to think about human interactions in the world around us. It’s just one of many frames of mind that can seem reasonable to some based on the manner in which they conflate their own personal experiences and their attempts through the study of philosophy to “think through” to a rational understanding of the most meaningful and moral life.

As though in taking this “vision” down out of the clouds the sheer complexity of human interactions in the modern/postmodern world won’t rip it to shreds. In fact, the only antidote that seems to remain is objectivism. In other words, the vision is sustained largely “in your head”. Then others around you may or may not be hammered into it. Or, if the “vision” revolves around ideologies like fascism or Gods that sanction going after the infidels…?

In other words, historically, Cynics weren’t the only ones to have a “vision”.

Thus to what extent could this frame of mind…

…become just another rendition of objectivism?

To speak their truth fearlessly. To expose that which they construed to be lies. All embedded in their own particular world in their own particular historical and cultural context.

Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review

Okay, but how then is Platonism not the equivalent of a religion for any number of “serious philosophers”? Given that distinction he makes between being in or out of the cave; and certain crucial components of philosophical realism and political idealism. As though Plato’s thinking here is not embraced by some as if he were the one and only source to go to.

What if my own assumptions about the “human condition” more reasonably reflects the nature of the “twilight world” mere mortals embody from the cradle to the grave?

Whereas from my frame of mind, Nietzsche merely concocted another illusion: the Ubermensch. The “next world” is scrapped but what about this one? Is there a way to channel the “will to power” rooted in the evolution of life on Earth into a “philosophy”, into a “way of life” into a moral narrative and political agenda argued to be the closest to living “naturally”? Or, instead, is his philosophy just one of many embedded in Humanism to make the claim that they and only they have concocted the one true path to “ultimate pointlessness” for mere mortals in a No God world.

What’s crucial for me then is this part: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

The psychology of objectivism. Only with no God around to make the final judgment.

Nihilism & Philosophy by Gideon Barker
Roger Caldwell scrutinises philosophical revolutions.
Book Review

Exactly. If, for Niezsche, the “death of God”, the “will to power” and the “Übermensch” are seen to be paths enabling mere mortals to “overcome nihilism”, how then do they not become just one more secular rendition of religion itself? The only things missing are immortality and salvation.

No small things, obviously, but: But at least on this side of the grave you have access to the one true path that separates you out from the contemptuous “masses”. You become a “master” of all you survey by adopting one or another rendition of, say, the philosophical tripe peddled by Satyr over at Know Thyself.

If, for me, nihilism revolves around a “fractured and fragmented” I, confronting “rival goods” out in an essentially meaningless world, the narrative of all too many Nietzscheans today seems to be downright noble, righteous, honorable.

Right?

Here of course we confront Heidegger’s doctrine pertaining to Nietzsche’s doctrine regarding the will to power such that for any particular flesh and blood human being, it can mean practically anything. What does it mean to you? Me? I’ll need a context first.

Seriously, though, what on earth are we to make of something like this? How is it applicable to your own life from day to day given the manner in which you connect the dots between will to power and nihilism?

“Sense of homelessness”?! Huh? A little help with that please.

I’m trying to imagine if it is actually possible that this could be further removed from my own considerably more existential assumptions about nihilism. In particular, moral nihilism.

And, just out of curiosity, if the author is right about what Heidegger tells us here, how might Heidegger go about connecting the dots between it and, say, the Nazis? Or is this only a “technical” thing that has absolutely nothing to do with the lives that we live.

Try as I might, I can’t make any sense of this. It’s basically just intellectual gibberish to me – everything that I have come to despise about the sort of philosophy some practice. Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.

All I can do then is to ask someone who thinks they do understand how “for all practical purposes” this is relevant to their own lives, to describe in more detail how and why that is the case. Otherwise for me I’ll stick with the distinction I make between knowledge able to be conveyed and exchange in the either/or world as opposed to the is/ought world.

Given a particular set of circumstances.

Speaking of this…

…here’s the latest intellectual gibberish from Satyr:

I challenge – dare! – one of his disciples here to reconfigure this into a set of circumstances in which one could clearly differentiate the behaviors of a moral Übermensch from a moral nihilist.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

Come on, admit it, accepting this can be all you need to put everything – everything – in perspective. And once you convince yourself that this is true for everyone else, they are dumped into the same “bonfire of the vanities” that you are in. You have nothing to prove to a God that doesn’t exist and there is nothing that can be proved to mere mortals in a world that is essentially meaningless up until the point where, tumbling over into the abyss, you become nothing at all but mindless matter on its way back to star stuff.

Not only that but since you don’t have to be concerned with living your life within the confines of some religious or ideological agenda, your actual options increase dramatically. You can choose to do only those things you construe to be in your own selfish interest, concerned only with not getting caught when you do something that others might not go along with.

On the other hand, it depends on the actual set of circumstances when this first occurs to you. Obviously, if your life is filled with all manner of fulfillment and satisfaction attached to one or another religious or secular font, you lose all of that. Especially if you are able to convince yourself that “I” – your soul – continues on into one or another configuration of immortality and salvation.

Thus, like most things, it depends on where you are and what is happening to you when the idea of nihilism first pops into your head. Dasein is clearly written all over this frame of mind.

It might surprise you to learn that I have experiences like Wendy’s.

Then we need to explore the extent to which your own subjective rendition of sunny nihilism is or is not compatible with that aspect of nihilism – the darker side – which has resulted [for me] in a fractured and fragmented “self” convinced that his own existence is essentially meaningless and getting ever so closer to oblivion.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

That’s one rendition of Nietzsche. Another revolves around the Übermensch. The Übermensch sets “as a goal” the “overcoming” of nihilism. How? By separating himself out from the flocks of sheep [God or No God] and, through the sheer “will to power”, rising above the herds.

Then some [like Satyr] link this to the one and the only correct understanding of human behaviors that can be described as “natural”. In other words, in sync with the one and only rational manner in which to grasp human nature itself. As they do. This can then be made applicable to race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and religion and many political dogmas.

Similarly, for the Übermensch, there are any number of interpretations regarding the makeup of the Last Man.

And who really knows the extent to which it may or may not be, well, more or less true? Genes and memes become intertwined in any particular “I” out in any particular world understood in any particular way that, down through the ages, there have been hundreds and hundreds of “schools of thought” to explain the “human condition”. And, sure, there is no way for all of the others to demonstrate conclusively that it’s not yours.

Actually, given the Blue State/Red State mentality that suffuses the current election year, there are still plenty of folks able to see the world as divided between those who are “one of us” [the true moral majority] and “one of them” [the true deceivers].

Again, in many crucial respects, there is no actual “post-truth” reality. The objective reality of the either/or world is still around. It’s just the extent to which one is able to demonstrate it.

youtu.be/3v5zNMtMtiM

Here is Satyr’s latest defense of objectivism embedded in genes [natural behaviors] as opposed to subjectivism embedded in memes [social behaviors]

This guy goes on and on up in the clouds of intellectual abstraction coming down to earth only in regard to trees and trunks and branches and apples. Then delving into particularly dense, abstruse reflections on “psychobabble”. Then equally obscure references to religion.

He starts out by saying that…

“Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility.”

Well, not my own relativism. The laws of matter, mathematics, the empirical world, the rules of language. My own nihilism would never suggest that knowledge communicated in regard to them…in regard to material and human interactions in the either/or world…is relative to the subjective interpretation of the individual.

Then preposterous assumptions like this:

“In the existentialist universe there is no room for objective and unwavering intellection.”

Huh? Do the laws of matter, mathematics etc., not apply to existentialists? To nihilists?

And the irony is that minds of Satyr’s ilk are ever and always intent on insisting that only their own arrogant “intellections” regarding race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and every other example of a “conflicting good” counts as “natural” behavior.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

In other words, in our pop culture world, nihilism itself becomes just another adjunct of social media. Reduced to Seinfeld writ large across the entire “reality TV” mentality of each new generation. Certainly not something to be discussed…seriously? Even here I can’t those who choose to become members of a philosophy forum to examine it in terms of the behaviors that they choose in their interactions with others from day to day.

Come on, we’ve just had an election here in America in which one thing is crystal clear. That there are still millions of objectivists on both sides of the political spectrum who are not yet reduced down to the social media rendition of nihilism. On the contrary, they take the “news” very, very seriously. And “meaning and purpose” for most is still divided distinctly into “one of us” vs. “one of them”. Nihilism – especially nihilism in the manner in which I construe it – is the farthest thing from their minds.

As for nihilism as a “philosophical question” examining “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein, forget about it. It’s a non-starter not only for the “masses” but even for those who have an active interest in philosophy.

When we last examined Satyr’s take on nihilism I was bitching [yet again] about his refusal to bring those godawful “intellectual craptions” of his out into the world where “for all practical purposes” we could examine his argument given the behaviors that flesh and blood human beings actual choose.

Alas, my bitching has come to naught:

Oh, yeah:

But my challenge is still open. If anyone here does read a post of his in which he takes these “godawful intellectual contraptions” out into the real world, please bring it to my attention.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

Let’s be really, really clear here. When these folks speak of nihilism it bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the manner in which I explore it on this thread. Philosophically, for example. But starting with the premise that in a No God world meaning and morality are rooted in “existential contraptions rooted in dasein in an essentially meaningless existence that ends for each of us one by one in oblivion”, is not exactly where Jia will be taking us in reacting to the “post-global financial crisis” in America. Or for that matter the extreme global turbulence brought on by the coronavirus today.

As for feeling “lost and apathetic”, it’s one thing to attach these reactions to one individual’s life that has been flushed down the toilet and another thing altogether to dismiss that life ontologically and teleologically as ultimately valueless and completely futile.

Yes. This is clearly one way in which to deal with a nihilistic frame of mind. To actually take advantage of it. Only in order to “wild the fuck out” you have to have access to both options and a willingness to accept the consequences of those the “wilding” might do harm to.

Also, the author doesn’t focus at all on the points I raise in regard to moral nihilism. The feeling of being “fractured and fragmented”. And the way in which some who “wild the fuck out” become sociopaths, making life hell for all those who come between what they want and how they choose to get it.

Sure, when you turn the “nihilistic baddies” into cartoon characters in a movie, the only ones to feel their wrath are cartoon characters themselves. But out in the real world don’t expect much in the way of a “ecstatic, fundamentally ironic but also incredibly sincere, unhinged quality” to prevail.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

Okay, he starts out with the same nihilistic assumption that I do: that human existence in general and your own existence in particular is essentially meaningless. That ultimately nothing in life really matters.

And, as well, he makes another point that I do: So what? You can still find any number of activities that bring you satisfaction and fulfilment. Or what he calls happiness.

What he does not examine however is moral nihilism. Okay, you set out to be happy in an essentially meaningless universe. You can even use that to your advantage. How? Well, if your existence is ontologically and teleologically anchored only to that which makes you happy, then you are not anchored instead to one or another dogmatic moral and political and spiritual agenda which ever and always requires you to do the right thing.

In other words, this part…

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

…just never comes up. It’s all about being happy. And if what you choose to do in order to be happy comes into conflict with what others choose instead?

Next up: Siddharth Gupta…Confessions of an Existential Nihilist.

Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian

youtu.be/5iLk42uOUhg

How hard is it to find meaning in life? There are countless paths you can take. In business. In the arts. In sports. In relationships. In families. In hobbies. In education. In social and political interactions. Things become meaningful here because from day to day they are attached to the satisfaction and the fulfillment that participating in all these different things can provide.

Instead, what some find hard is in anchoring existential meaning to one or another overarching essential meaning of life. An ontological and teleological font that enables you to tie all the things you do to some all encompassing meaning. Whether anchored to God or to any number of secular Humanisms. And, in failing to accomplish this, some can become quite disturbed.

And, as well, rooted in dasein, some never go searching for this at all. They are either content to feed off the gratification that their day to day commitments provide, or they choose instead to make it all about accumulating experiences that simply bring them pleasure. Hedonists for example.

But here again we can still encounter the objectivists. There may be no inherent meaning, but they still manage to convince themselves that “my meaning” reflects the most rational manner in which to understand the world around us. That they come closest to the least hollow perspective on the human condition.

There are or have been any number if them here. Some religious. Some secular. But they all come here with these often elaborated thought out “theories of everything” which they then try to convince all the rest of us to embrace in turn. So, for all practical purposes, there night just as well be an inherent meaning when they comes across those who won’t or don’t accept their own .

On the other hand, nihilism deeply disturbs those who insist that they and only they can tell you which behaviors you must choose if you want to be thought of as a rational human being.

The ones that they choose, for example.

More to the point though are those who insist as well that only their own “intellectual” assessment of nihilism is ever to be tolerated in discussing it.

That way they never have to bring the words down out of the pedantic clouds…out into the world we interact in…in order pin down nihilism in regard to a set of circumstances where others refuse to just accept their own objectivist font.

Still, I don’t read all of the posts [both here and there] in which nihilism is discussed.

So, sure, if anyone here does come across a reference to it relating to a particular context, please bring it to my attention.