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.
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
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.
Sunny nihilism: ‘Since discovering I’m worthless my life has felt precious’
Wendy Syfret at The Guardian
And what examples of this trend might that be? What particular communities in regard to what particular situations in which “sunny nihilism” seemed to prevail?
Anyone here familiar with situations of this sort? And: in today’s world, given the events that have been unfolding this year?
No, instead, the word nihilism is still used as a pejorative to tar those whom one is convinced are clearly part of the problem:
washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
nytimes.com/2020/12/11/opin … court.html
Both in terms of ends and means.
So, what can we discern from this such that we might come to grasp the one true understanding of nihilism. And how to differentiate the sunny from the cloudy rendition. Who’s “own meaning” in regard to solving what problems? And what happens when the points that I raise come into play. Not that they ever really do of course.
No, there is still what I construe here to be an important distinction between coming to conclude that you are essentially worthless in an essentially meaningless universe that ends for all of eternity in oblivion, and recognizing all of the many ways in which worth can be embedded in the lives we live existentially. Instead, the difficulties are derived from all of the many, many contexts in which conflicting goods become entangled in those behaviors that are attached to moral and political prejudices that are at odds.
The author went in one direction. But other more cloudy nihilists can go in very different directions indeed.
And that’s before we get to all of the dangers embedded in authoritarian objectivists who are able to secure the political power necessary to make life hell for those who are not “one of us”.
Have We Regressed into Nietzsche’s “Moral Nihilism”?
Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage
These two events are seen by me in very, very different ways. The Christchurch murders – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchu … _shootings – happened as a result of a a fanatical right wing racist employing “any means neccessary” in pursuit of his own “kingdom of ends”. This end being anything but nihilistic. On the contrary, it was profoundly objectivist. Only the means might be reasonably described by some as nihilistic.
As for the cheating scandal – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_coll … ry_scandal – yes, it might be reasonably described as something a moral nihilist might rationalize. All that mattered to the parents here was getting their kids into the best universities. Conventional morality be damned.
Given the first event, the moral outrage might be shared by those opposed to attacks on Moslem mosques. But for those [religious or otherwise] who share the political convictions of Brenton Harrison Tarrant, there is nothing to be outraged regarding at all.
My point of course is that in a No God world, it’s not a question of devolving into nihilism so much as recognizing that ethics itself is merely a manifestation of the assumptions rooted in fonts such as God. Or reason. Or philosophy. Or [for some] even science itself. Human interactions require rules of behavior. Some behaviors will be rewarded, others punished. And this is rooted in historical and cultural contexts predicated in large part on the evolution of political economy.
One person’s “slippery slope” and “ground zero” is not going to be the same as another’s. Thus for some communities the slippery slope in regard to, say, gun ownership can go back and forth politically resulting in a ground zero that either prohibits private citizens from owning guns or allows them to own shotguns, machine guns, high-powered rifles, semi-automated weapons, etc.
When does all of this result in “nihilism”?
Tell me about it! Mine too!! You know, here!!!
Well, okay, maybe not in a dozen different ways: 
Allow me to translate this for you:
Nihilism is an intellectual contraption that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to actual human interactions.
On the other hand, sure, if anyone here speaks “serious philosophy” fluently and would like to make an attempt to note its relevance to their own interactions with others, by all means, give it a shot.
You know how this works.
1] He posts something at KT
2] I ridicule it as an intellectual contraption
3] he reads that and then posts yet another intellectual contraption
As though to mock me. Or, sure, to mock himself.
Here’s the latest:
Now, again, for those here who speak his “serious philosophy” fluently, what on earth is he telling us here about nihilism in regard to, say, that which he and I discussed when, according to Wendy, he makes his annual “Christmas visit” to ILP.
The subjects being gender roles and sexual preference.
Here are the arguments that I made:
So, how would he construe my points here as nihilism? And how does he actually go about demonstrating that his own arguments – being just intellectual contraptions – are not lies?
How are the points I make not reasonable?
Let’s focus in on this point:
Now, with nature, the mutations have no teleological font. Unless you believe this is God. They just happen biologically given the brute facticity embedded in the evolution of life and existence. And, depending on the context, for, say, lions as predators and zebras as prey, it’s good news for one or the other.
But it’s not like the lions and the zebras go online and, philosophically, discuss the implications of it.
It’s all basically instinct.
But, in regard to gender roles and sexual preference, how exactly does nihilism work/unfold “for all practical purposes” within our own species.
This because unlike with lions and the zebras, the “mutated” behaviors can also revolve around historical, cultural and circumstantial/experiential memes. Human beings [given free will] have the capacity to weigh in on what is thought to be or not to be “biological imperatives”.
Thus, for those animals wholly lacking in memes, biological imperatives are everything. Just not so for our own species. With human beings, gender roles and sexual preferences encompass a vast, vast panoply of conflicting options.
Naturally, as it were.
Again, he refuses to actually make this brand new “intellectual contraption” applicable to the subjects that I proposed: gender roles and sexual preferences. Nor does he situate it out in the world of actual flesh and blood human beings interacting in another context where value judgments precipitate behaviors that come to clash precipitating in turn actual consequences that reverberate far beyond merely a world of words precipitating yet another world of words.
He is a “serious philosopher” and that is just not done!
So, all I can do is to ask anyone here who speaks “pedantic intellectual” fluently, to embody his ideas in regard to feminism and homosexuality. What makes them part of the nihilistic “modernism” that is flagrantly opposed to what nature intended.
Given that conflicting assessments of gender roles and sexuality have been around now for thousands of years and the species keeps reproducing new generations just like it always has.
Also, if we can do something – anything – and we are a part of nature, how can it be said to be “unnatural”. It is as though Nature was this actual entity that existed [like God] and you could go to it and ask if same sex fucking and women running a government was inherently and necessarily Unnatural.
Note to Satyr: You’re up at KT. And I double dare you to come down out of the clouds.
Have We Regressed into Nietzsche’s “Moral Nihilism”?
Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage
Who really knows if this actually is what Nietzsche meant in regard to morality. Especially when the focus does shift to a particular context. Also, from the perspective of those who do shoot up schools, places of worship or workplaces, their own motivation and intentions might be deemed by them to be anything but the embodiment of crazed behavior. In fact, for some, their behavior can be seen by them to be quite the opposite of nihilism. On the contrary, from their frame of mind their behavior, anchored to one or another “kingdom of ends” is defended as entirely moral.
Well, this moral nihilist would say that, sure, there might be an objective morality accessible to mere mortals. But this particular mere mortal here and now does not believe that there is. But: if other mere mortals [here at ILP for example] do believe that there is then let them note both an argument to encompass it and a demonstration, given a particular context, in which an attempt is made to note how “for all practical purposes” they might be able to convince others that if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings they are obligated to concur.
You’re up.
There are two kinds of nihilism:
1: Neutrality. Super passive. Silent. Desireless.
2: Anti meaning. Deconstructing and debunking virtually everything.
We’ll need a context of course.
Or are those things moot when you can encompass nihilism so succinctly in points like yours?
Context is presupposed by text
Or, aesthetically, the foreground retains focus in spite of the background.
No 'practical way to reduct or induct this pretty down to earth, presently significant conclusion. ignorance of this ‘law’ is not excusable.