I might be a Nihilist.

Gary L

Nihilism (pronounced /ˈnaɪ.əlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.əlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value- Wikipedia

As this seems to be one of the bigger intellectual taboo's, I'm wondering if I've misinterpreted the meaning of the term. Its not that i see no meaning in the universe, its just that I think its unconscious and therefore has no meaning independent of conscious examination. Does that make me a Nihilist or would I have to really see no point in it all to get that label?

Black Swan

Friedrich Nietzsche in Will to Power suggests that "Every belief, every considering something true is necessarily false, because there is simply no true world." Values were subjective, and associated reason were biased constructions to be repudiated by the nihilist. "The highest values devalue themselves," under scrutiny claims Nietzsche.

Joe1919

The guy in the link below suggests that we create our own meaning and that there are fundamentally three sources of meaning that people draw upon to construct an overall sense of meaningful existence:

1. emotionally intense relationships with others,
2. work and leisure activities, and
3. convictions to idea systems.

I tend to agree with him, although I do think that relationships can have meaning without emotional intensity. e.g. friendships, pets(animal).
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v52/steve.htm

grungepants

Jesus i tend to agree with the joe who quoted that other guy about the meaning of life.Seriously you can make your life mean more to yourself by entering an intence relationship,Working and playing and having conviction in your ideas.

Problem solved

Black Swan

Joe1919 wrote: »

The guy in the link below suggests that we create our own meaning

Stephen J McNamee also summarizes in his paper: "Meaning in life is an abstract and elusive concept that is fraught with potential theoretical and methodological difficulties." Meaning is subjective, as are "convictions to idea systems," and can be debunked by the (Nietzsche) nihilist?

Gary L

This quote got me thinking;
"I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" -Neitzsche

If Nihilism is just the rejection of objective meaning, then it follows that all value and meaning are generated by human subjectivity, and applied to the objective world. They emerge from the combination of our genetic predispositions and our conscious experience.
I think old Neitzsche expected that this realization would lead to individuals taking responsibility for their ideas and living authentically, thinking critically and generating new values.

There seems to be a mainstream conception of Nihilism though that it rejects meaning in the objective and subjective sense. Its certainly the kind of Nihilism often crudely associated with Atheists by Theists. I'm not sure yet which is the accurate definition, can anyone clear it up for me?

Black Swan

Existential nihilist Jean-Paul Sartre’s preposition “existence precedes essence,” suggests that life comes first, and illusions follow (i.e., invented meaning); and the latter must be abandoned if freedom is to be realised.

With the loss of illusions, nothingness remains, placing humans in an existential crises. Should such a state of nothingness be realised by the nihilist, to emotively appreciate it, I am reminded of a line from the film Apocalypse Now, "The horror, the horror!" In other words, the freedom realised by casting-off human invented illusions leaves the nihilist with the existential horror of nothingness.

The association of atheism with nihilism by theists would be consistent with the Neitzsche proclamation that "God is dead!" In other words, God was seen as a human invented illusion by Sartre, and once this has been abandoned, atheism remains.

Joe1919

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

....... Meaning is subjective, as are 'convictions to idea systems', and can be debunked by the (Nietzsche) nihilist?

I think you are right about meaning being subjective but there is perhaps a difference between 'conviction to an idea system' and 'an idea system'. The 'idea system' is making an objective claim of some type. But 'conviction' is a passion or feeling and is subjective and its this that gives the feeling of meaning.

One cannot debunk something subjective. If I like something, then I like something. No amount of objective or subjective arguments can change the fact that I like it.

To pick one analogy. The 'idea of football' can be reduced to what it is. i.e. 22 guys or more chasing a bag of wind around a field while people on the sideline wearing funny colours roar and shout them on. But reducing football to this wont hold with the football supporter as it leaves out the feelings. He has a passion and love for his sport and he wont be debunked by this.

Indeed, I think 'convictions to idea systems' are on the increase. Every pop or film star (and everyone else) at the moment has become an expert on politics and economics and banking and seems to have a passion about how to fix the country.If a new government make things worst, I can see a certain amount of political 'nihilism' creeping in but I hope I am wrong.

18AD

Joe1919 wrote: »

1. emotionally intense relationships with others,
2. work and leisure activities, and
3. convictions to idea systems.

I don't think these would be said to be meaningful under a nihilistic interpretation. They would be pleasurable activities at best, and fulfil some basic human drives and therefore be perceived as "meaningful." Especially if meaning is a "good" thing.
In fact, nihilistically, why are these good?

There seems to be a mainstream conception of Nihilism though that it rejects meaning in the objective and subjective sense. Its certainly the kind of Nihilism often crudely associated with Atheists by Theists. I'm not sure yet which is the accurate definition, can anyone clear it up for me?

There's never going to be an accurate definition of many terms. Pick and choose and state your choice, if it comes to it.

But be careful. Atheism is not nihilistic if it places value in science. Science does not give value to anything. In fact, it totally ignores the human subject as a subject. It places ultimate truth in science itself.

Best.
AD

Red Hand

Gary L wrote: »

Nihilism (pronounced /ˈnaɪ.əlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.əlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value- Wikipedia

As this seems to be one of the bigger intellectual taboo's, I'm wondering if I've misinterpreted the meaning of the term. Its not that i see no meaning in the universe, its just that I think its unconscious and therefore has no meaning independent of conscious examination. Does that make me a Nihilist or would I have to really see no point in it all to get that label?

Things that give you pleasure, give you pleasure, full stop. As someone says further up the thread about the football match.

Yet, you can also think about the absurdity of that action..."I'm sitting here shouting at a man kicking a piece of inflated plastic and rubber about.")

I would say that there is no such thing as a nihilist cause everyone gets pleasure and meaning from certain things, even if it's instinctual pleasure derived from enjoying food when one hasn't eaten in a while. We all have drives, which need to be sated. You can think in a nihilistic fashion about everything, but you cannot live your life like that all of the time.

Joe1919

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

........You can think in a nihilistic fashion about everything, but you cannot live your life like that all of the time.

I think this is well said. I think perhaps that some people have this problem. They initially believe that there is an ultimate and absolate truth out there to be known . But when life fall short of this, they become disappointed and disillusioned and conclude that because there is no ultimate truth, there is nothing to be known.

But life is not like that. Daily we make decisions based on less than perfect information. Parenthood is a good example. One becomes a parent, sometimes by accident and ends up with a child to look after. There is no handbook or set of instruction on how to help or guide the child. But such is life. One muddles along and does one's best and hopes that one makes the right judgements and choices because there is no other way. One knows that there are no ultimate right answers. Nevertheless, there are wrong answers and we all know when we make serious mistakes and get things badly wrong.

Joe1919

18AD wrote: »

I don't think these would be said to be meaningful under a nihilistic interpretation. They would be pleasurable activities at best, and fulfil some basic human drives and therefore be perceived as "meaningful."

'Meaning' and 'good' and indeed 'true' are different things.
For example, it has often been noted that having a common enemy or scapegoat can give a society meaning. It may also be the case that having a strong ideology in a community gives meaning.
However, that does not necessarly mean that the ideology in itself is 'good' or 'true'. An example of this is how 'war' can give meaning or how facism lifted the national spirit in many countries prior to ww2..
Another example with the individual is 'hate' and 'resentment'. Both of these can give meaning to one's life, and one can live one's life with the goal of revenge. (Nietzsche argued that resentment played a large part in Christianity in that the Christian got pleasure and meaning in his belief that his enemies would burn in hell etc.)

However, I am not recommending that one get meaning in these way.

raah!

I don't see how it could be logically consistent to be a nihilist (with the word here not being specified to mean only nihilistic with respect to a certain area, like 'moral nihilist') and still advocate a political campaign, talk about how one system of belief is morally preferable to another, or how one is untrue while another is true.

18AD

Joe1919 wrote: »

'Meaning' and 'good' and indeed 'true' are different things.

You have me there. I wished to point out that meaning itself, for someone like Nietzsche, was basically a symptom of being human. Essentially there is no meaning in any event except for the subject. But this meaning is simply a psychological event and does not really mean anything beyond itself.

At least that's what I got from it.

raah! wrote:

I don't see how it could be logically consistent to be a nihilist (with the word here not being specified to mean only nihilistic with respect to a certain area, like 'moral nihilist') and still advocate a political campaign, talk about how one system of belief is morally preferable to another, or how one is untrue while another is true.

I think you can still do all of these things as a nihilist. The only thing is you wouldn't actually believe them. They would be means to ends. If you take things to ultimately be will to power, as Nietzsche did, they would be simply charades in order to attain power.

Best.
AD

raah!

18AD wrote: »

I think you can still do all of these things as a nihilist. The only thing is you wouldn't actually believe them. They would be means to ends. If you take things to ultimately be will to power, as Nietzsche did, they would be simply sharades in order to attain power.

Ah right, well I was making a deliberate reference to the OP's signature, and asking, if he were a nihilist would he be advocating this or that. One could say that someone who is just an atheist could be a nihilist, but not the modern colour of atheist who would hold certain moral/political/epistemological ideas in common.

Josh_Calvert

Lots of small things give life meaning.It's meaning by distraction or delusion though.

Try having kids.That passes the buck and seems to make most people feel happy.

Personally I dislike the unsystematised accumulation of stimulation that passes for lifestyle these days...I really despise hedonism.Nihilism often leads to it unfortunately.

Gary L

raah! wrote: »

Ah right, well I was making a deliberate reference to the OP's signature, and asking, if he were a nihilist would he be advocating this or that. One could say that someone who is just an atheist could be a nihilist, but not the modern colour of atheist who would hold certain moral/political/epistemological ideas in common.

This kind of gets to the meat of my question, which is am i still a nihilist if I accept that the world is meaningful to humans, and indeed to myself, but reject the idea that meaning can be objective and independent from us?

18AD

Gary L wrote: »

This kind of gets to the meat of my question, which is am i still a nihilist if I accept that the world is meaningful to humans, and indeed to myself, but reject the idea that it that meaning can be objective and independent from us?

I think so.

Logical Fallacy

Gary L wrote: »

This kind of gets to the meat of my question, which is am i still a nihilist if I accept that the world is meaningful to humans, and indeed to myself, but reject the idea that meaning can be objective and independent from us?

Nope.

As is my understanding, if you are a Nihilist then nothing has meaning for anyone.

18AD

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

As is my understanding, if you are a Nihilist then nothing has meaning for anyone.

Surely if you were a nihilist you would think that other peope had meaning in their lives, but that it was completely illusory? Or more to the point, being a nihilist doesn't depend on what other people think.

I guess it boils down to what kind of nihilism you're talking about, as there are many.

Morbert

A similar thread has popped up before and again I have to say I am technically a metaphysical nihilist insofar as I don't believe it is necessarily true that anything exists (note that this is distinct from the claim that nothing exists).

Gary L

18AD wrote: »

Surely if you were a nihilist you would think that other people had meaning in their lives, but that it was completely illusory? Or more to the point, being a nihilist doesn't depend on what other people think.

I guess it boils down to what kind of nihilism you're talking about, as there are many.

To say that the meaning of the world comes from consciousness is a far cry from saying its an illusion. The world means a lot to me and to you and everyone else, love it or hate it. But does it mean anything to itself? Is it aware of anything at all? Obviously not, unless it is actually conscious.

Now you could say that as we are made of the world, our awareness of it is its awarness of itself, and the meaning we see in it is the meaning of it. I'd like to think that, because it paints a picture of us humans as more than just observers. I guess thats the kind of nihilism I'm talking about. Cheery Nihilism

raah!

Gary L wrote: »

This kind of gets to the meat of my question, which is am i still a nihilist if I accept that the world is meaningful to humans, and indeed to myself, but reject the idea that meaning can be objective and independent from us?

While nobody has given a solid definition here, I'm pretty sure that with all forms of nihilism, there is a difference between nihilism and relativism, or perspectivism. The argument people make is that relativism leads to nihilism. According to a wikipedia article I just read on the topic, nietzche's nihilism stems from his perspectivism. And If I remember correctly, dostoyevsky often strongly associates the two, or at the very least, provides strong criticisms of relativism.

The argument generally made by the theist against the atheist you are talking about is nihilism via relativism. In dostoyevsky's case we see that in crime and punishment, raskolnikov's relativism leads him to kill the old lady and justify it. By the time The Brothers Karamozov was out he was on to "if there is no god, then everything is permitted". Here he says that there are no moral values, or moral differences between actions, so this is moral nihilism. It could be argued that there is no difference between the maximum form of relativism, and nihilism. For example, if whether something is morally good or bad depends on the individual, then no matter what someone is doing, they can say "I'm a relativist, and doing this is good for me". Or you could say "I can't say that person is doing somethign bad, because whether or nto somethign is good or bad depends on the individual, and I am a different individual".

As far as I can tell it doesn't make sense to say that there is no intrinsic meaning in this or that, but that the subjective meaning you have applied is more correct than that applied by someone else.
I might be completely wrong, but it seems to me, that once someone declares one position to be more right than another, esepcially morallly, then one is no longer a complete relativist, and certainly not a nihilist.

Surely if you were a nihilist you would think that other peope had meaning in their lives, but that it was completely illusory? Or more to the point, being a nihilist doesn't depend on what other people think.

Doesn't this mean that there is not actually meaning in their lives? And that, if you thought that there was, some non illusory meaning in peoples lives then you were no longer a nihilist?

18AD

Gary L wrote: »

To say that the meaning of the world comes from consciousness is a far cry from saying its an illusion. The world means a lot to me and to you and everyone else, love it or hate it.

It's illusory in as far as the mind creates meaning. The meaning is basically grounded in physiology. It's a pleasantry of the mind to keep us thinking that life is worth living ie. has meaning. It doesn't actually mean anything. It's a mechanism.

The fact that it opperates in everyone had me doubting the possibility of nihilism at all. Is it possible to shut off your minds meaning mechanism?

Gary L

If there was absolutely no life in the universe, no consciousness of any kind at all, would it still mean something?

Cannibal Ox

Meaning is probably contingent on human beings as the whole idea of meaning is a human abstraction. It'd be absurd to say that dogs see a meaning in a walk in the same way that humans see a meaning in a walk. But that doesn't give primacy to the human conception of meaning and it's role in constructing the world. If anything it limits the possibility of meaning in interpreting the world.

GaryL wrote:

To say that the meaning of the world comes from consciousness is a far cry from saying its an illusion.

I think you're giving yourself problems with the word consciousness and the implication that meaning is held (or given) by the individual. I think if you try to measure meaning through consciousness, you're ignoring the unconscious, social, historical and biological influences on how individuals grasp meaning. I think it leads down the path of, if you blink, does the world disappear? Or, if you sleep, does the world loose meaning?

18AD

Gary L wrote: »

If there was absolutely no life in the universe, no consciousness of any kind at all, would it still mean something?

No! But it doesn't mean anything now, even if you think it means something to humans.

Gary L

18AD wrote: »

No! But it doesn't mean anything now, even if you think it means something to humans.

Well I agree completely. Not sure now why I thought i was in an argument.