The FUN of Nihilism

[WednesdayAddams]

So, I'm sitting here munching my Pei Wei Spicy Korean Beef over rice, when I hear our trainer (oy) once again bemoaning her existence and how unfair life is and why all this is happening 'to' her, and what is god trying to teach her, yada.

Now. Aside from having been done with her pity party months ago, I have determined something WRT Nihilism, and it is this: Nihilism (Existential Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Existential_nihilism), cuz we're all about the definitions here) gets a bum rap. Besides Futility of Nihilism's excellent username (I love that pun), existential Nihilism is very freeing. Why do we look at it in such a negative light?

Without getting too meta or going down the postmodernist road, Existential Nihilism very simply put also means this: 'Life has whatever meaning you choose to give it.' There was no meaning to be gleaned from the lightning that hit the corner of your house. No god was telling you something when some idiot ran the red light at the corner and took out the parking meter. 'Bad people' (people who don't live the way you think they should) aren't getting ahead for some obscure reason that will all be leveled out after they die. Life has whatever meaning you choose to give it.

Does that mean there should be no morals? No. There will always be morality because we are human beings and that's the way humanity works. But isn't it a comforting idea to think 'I don't have to agonize over what that meant. Sometimes shit just happens and I'm on the receiving end. Time to get on with life.'

[mlerose]

So to sum, Existential Nihilism = shit happens?

[Islander]

How refreshing! I always cringe when those people say "Everything happens for a reason." No it doesn't. Some events are purely random. Make what you like of that.

[Uthrecht]

Not to detract from your nihilism, but I think there's an error in the assumption that, there being a God, he's all up in your shit. Just because there's an omnipotent and omniscient God, doesn't mean he's some kind of busy little bee, always arranging things around you in order to properly train you. Life is not a Skinner box.

Well, okay, it kind of is, in that there are stimuli to which you must respond (or you get no food pellet). But it does not have to therefore follow that there is an Invisible Hand guiding it (apologies to Adam Smith).

[WednesdayAddams]

So to sum, Existential Nihilism = shit happens?
More or less, yeah. :)

Uthrecht: It does, though. Omnipotent/omniscient demands it. If he knows everything that ever has (or ever will) happened, it is because he is also omnipotent and is making sure his will is done. God's omniscience=no free will.

[Uthrecht]

I disagree. The capability to do is not the same as the action of doing. God is not required to be a mandatory driver of all action, simply because he can do anything and can know everything. Let the guy have his own life, quit trying to make him into some kind of nanny. I mean, the guy went and set up all these complicated physical laws just so he wouldn't have to babysit Creation.

[WednesdayAddams]

Okay,

1. It would have to exist before I could try to 'make' it do or be something.
2. I'm not trying to portray god as anything. I am applying definitions set up by religious leaders and determinism based on their deity's rules.

If one is omniscient and omnipotent, then all that is left is determinism. Otherwise, something is going to happen that one did not see coming. That negates omniscience.

[Zeener Diode]

More or less, yeah. :)

Uthrecht: It does, though. Omnipotent/omniscient demands it. If he knows everything that ever has (or ever will) happened, it is because he is also omnipotent and is making sure his will is done. God's omniscience=no free will.

This may be a hijack. ( :hijack: ) bur what you're referring to is random chance versus destiny. Either works for whichever scenario you envision.

[Zeener Diode]

Okay,

1. It would have to exist before I could try to 'make' it do or be something.
2. I'm not trying to portray god as anything. I am applying definitions set up by religious leaders and determinism based on their deity's rules.

If one is omniscient and omnipotent, then all that is left is determinism. Otherwise, something is going to happen that one did not see coming. That negates omniscience.

That argument is false: One cannot see everything and not-see something.

[Uthrecht]

Okay,

1. It would have to exist before I could try to 'make' it do or be something.
2. I'm not trying to portray god as anything. I am applying definitions set up by religious leaders and determinism based on their deity's rules.

If one is omniscient and omnipotent, then all that is left is determinism. Otherwise, something is going to happen that one did not see coming. That negates omniscience.

Sorry, I'm not trying to foist God on you or anything.

I simply think that there is a linked next step that isn't itself required. And yes. Were God to be both omniscient and omnipotent (assuming that means not only can he do anything, but can do any number of anythings at once), then yes, potentially God could control everything. The next assumption that God therefore controls everything would require that God wants to. Which, in some ways, removes free will from God. And again, I find a bit silly to presume that God, were he to exist, would set up such a nicely self-sustaining system and then keep having to fiddle with it. Why must people have an OCD God?


Also, I don't mean to derail your thread or anything. I can shut up on this and move back to Nihilism if you'd prefer.

[WednesdayAddams]

That argument is false: One cannot see everything and not-see something.
That was my point. One cannot be omniscient and yet not know something.

[The Futility of Nihilism]

Aw, geez. I feel compelled to say something, but, er ...

I think I'll just take the Fifth and let it go.

[Zeener Diode]

That was my point. One cannot be omniscient and yet not know something.

So you're accepting that there is an omnipotent/omnipresent force that is active in our universe?

[WednesdayAddams]

Sorry, I'm not trying to foist God on you or anything.

I simply think that there is a linked next step that isn't itself required. And yes. Were God to be both omniscient and omnipotent (assuming that means not only can he do anything, but can do any number of anythings at once), then yes, potentially God could control everything. The next assumption that God therefore controls everything would require that God wants to. Which, in some ways, removes free will from God. And again, I find a bit silly to presume that God, were he to exist, would set up such a nicely self-sustaining system and then keep having to fiddle with it. Why must people have an OCD God?


Also, I don't mean to derail your thread or anything. I can shut up on this and move back to Nihilism if you'd prefer.
No, I didn't think you were.

I'm not sure that 'wants to' enters into it. I mean...we can look at it from a deist perspective if you prefer, but the current prevailing opinion is omniscient/omnipotent. I have a few theories about why people need to have an OCD god, but I'm not sure they're germane to the discussion (and they'd probably just annoy those who do believe anyway).

On the whole....yeah, existential nihilism is more fun. ;)

[Islander]

Sorry, I'm not trying to foist God on you or anything.

I simply think that there is a linked next step that isn't itself required. And yes. Were God to be both omniscient and omnipotent (assuming that means not only can he do anything, but can do any number of anythings at once), then yes, potentially God could control everything. The next assumption that God therefore controls everything would require that God wants to. Which, in some ways, removes free will from God. And again, I find a bit silly to presume that God, were he to exist, would set up such a nicely self-sustaining system and then keep having to fiddle with it. Why must people have an OCD God?


Also, I don't mean to derail your thread or anything. I can shut up on this and move back to Nihilism if you'd prefer.

I'm following Uthrecht's argument (tell me to stop if you wish). Simply because god is omniscient and omnipotent, doesn't oblige him to act. Believers will write off whatever happens as god's will. You prayed to him to cure your cancer, and he didn't intervene—not because he didn't hear your prayers, but (for some reason that is too mysterious for us to comprehend) it was his will that you die from cancer. Ergo, god has free will. And he gave it to us humans as well. Witness: we had a choice not to eat that first apple.

[WednesdayAddams]

So you're accepting that there is an omnipotent/omnipresent force that is active in our universe?
Nope. I'm saying if there was one, there would be no such thing as free will.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm following Uthrecht's argument (tell me to stop if you wish). Simply because god is omniscient and omnipotent, doesn't oblige him to act. Believers will write off whatever happens as god's will. You prayed to him to cure your cancer, and he didn't intervene—not because he didn't hear your prayers, but (for some reason that is too mysterious for us to comprehend) it was his will that you die from cancer. Ergo, god has free will. And he gave it to us humans as well. Witness: we had a choice not to eat that first apple.
Not if he's infallible and has a plan we didn't.

[Zeener Diode]

Nope. I'm saying if there was one, there would be no such thing as free will.

Or maybe free will is an illusion: That we are all predestined to follow a path and no matter what we do we will never detract from it.

[WednesdayAddams]

I think free will is a bit of a misnomer, but not because of 'fate.' So yes, I'd agree that free will is an illusion.

[Islander]

Not if he's infallible and has a plan we didn't.

Please explain how infallibilty plays into it.

[Uthrecht]

On the whole....yeah, existential nihilism is more fun. ;)

Heh. Personally, I'd disagree. With existential nihilism, after you've said that there is no greater purpose other than what you impart in it, what's left to debate within the philosophy?

Mind you, I don't disagree with that aspect of it: I don't feel that there necessarily are deeper reasons for why things happen in the world (apart from those things that trace back to a human action); and certainly, within my framework, if they DID, you wouldn't know it, so quit frettin' over it, Jack.

I suppose the flipside to discuss is that, while freeing, it can also be a bit terrifying to some. It's a bit daunting to work without a net.

[WednesdayAddams]

And that's my primary thought as to why people need an OCD god. It's frightening to think there's no one or no thing out there controlling it all. That it's all cause and effect.

[Uthrecht]

And that's my primary thought as to why people need an OCD god. It's frightening to think there's no one or no thing out there controlling it all. That it's all cause and effect.

Probably, although it doesn't bother me. I like a nerd God that spent several days in his basement, setting the subatomic particles up just so, getting them aimed right, and trying to see if he can get a bank shot 10 billion years down the road.

I suppose that's my only turnoff to pure Existential Nihilism. It's a bit more boring to me.

[WednesdayAddams]

So Deism, then? How does that work, exactly? Create something and then just walk away from it? How is that different from nihilism?

[Islander]

And that's my primary thought as to why people need an OCD god. It's frightening to think there's no one or no thing out there controlling it all. That it's all cause and effect.

I'm perfectly comfortable with randomness and meaninglessness. If there's supposed to be a god out there controlling things, he's made a muck of it, what with tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and typhoons and such. For believers, this is an unanswerable question; for me, it's just a shrug.

[Uthrecht]

So Deism, then? How does that work, exactly? Create something and then just walk away from it? How is that different from nihilism?

So, you'd like some literature then?

[Sybarite]

<snip>

I suppose the flipside to discuss is that, while freeing, it can also be a bit terrifying to some. It's a bit daunting to work without a net.
If I'm understanding nihilism correctly, it might be more analogous to say you are working without consequences, rather than without a net.

[WednesdayAddams]

So, you'd like some literature then?
Yes. Sorry if I sounded sarcastic; I wasn't. I really do not see the difference between deism and nihilism, other than the insertion of a being that started the ball rolling.

[Sybarite]

I guess deism would be the aforementioned net.

[Uthrecht]

Well, I would say there are still consequences to actions in the direct sense. There wouldn't necessarily be moral issues or greater issues or whatever phrasing you want to get into it, except those that you (or I suppose the guy with the badge) puts into it.

That would be the key: that under Existential Nihilism, nothing above or outside man has come along to impart reasons or purpose to actions, or established a moral code or something. People are all doing it themselves. That would be the lack of net to which I referred.

And sorry for any derailings Wed; I'm gonna quit talking about anything outside Nihilism, as I don't want to keep that going.

[Zeener Diode]

I see your point of nihilism and how it can keep our actions (and those of other around us) in perspective. It's at the same time spiritually refreshing and frightening, depending on who you talk to.

[SmartAleq]

Or maybe free will is an illusion: That we are all predestined to follow a path and no matter what we do we will never detract from it.

You don't need a god in here to make this work--time itself, perceiving it as we do, as duration, might be an illusion based on inadequate means to encompass the full reality. It's possible that all times are one time, that all that is and was and ever will be is enclosed in one continuum in which all moments are the same and coexist together, from Big Bang to Heat Death, but since we operate under sensory apparatus which demands causation/effect and duration we can either think we have free will to do as we please or think that we're all on a predestined course with no way of changing things and both viewpoints would, technically, be correct.

[hilarity n. suze]

Dammit! I mulched my chrysanthemums with leaves raked from my yard and now I find out I should have used evergreen branches, to keep it airy. Do I need to remove all those leaves?

ETA: Whoops, how did I end up in this thread?

[SmartAleq]

Dammit! I mulched my chrysanthemums with leaves raked from my yard and now I find out I should have used evergreen branches, to keep it airy. Do I need to remove all those leaves?

ETA: Whoops, how did I end up in this thread?

S'okay, mang, shit happens! :science:

[WednesdayAddams]

I see your point of nihilism and how it can keep our actions (and those of other around us) in perspective. It's at the same time spiritually refreshing and frightening, depending on who you talk to.
That was very zen. :)

Yes, that's how I look at it as well. The question I have (and I suppose I should have framed it in the OP) is: why does Nihilism carry such a negative connotation? There is no sinister agenda behind nihilism. At most, it states that 'meaning' is a semantically null term.

[hilarity n. suze]

S'okay, mang, shit happens! :science:

I must have been MEANT to be here!

[Metallic Squink]

Based on what little I've read here, I must be a Nihilist.

[Metallic Squink]

If I'm understanding nihilism correctly, it might be more analogous to say you are working without consequences, rather than without a net.

I think it's that you aren't trying to find a root cause of everything. You aren't caught up in trying to explain every little thing that happens.

That's not the same as no consequences.

[Uthrecht]

There is no sinister agenda behind nihilism.

I'll thank you to please stop giving negative connotations to left-handers (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinister), thank you.

Well, it seems to me that at the basic level, nihilism of any stripe is quite bleak and uncomforting. It is most certainly empowering, but it does so by removing all external moral shackles from a person: they can now feel free to do any actions they see fit, under their own internal framework.

This is not necessarily the kind of thing that society at large wants. Or, for that matter, what you necessarily want in your neighbors. Of course, it can make a decent foundation for some other societal outlook. That kind of thing might end up making you Swedish or something, so your mileage may vary.

[WednesdayAddams]

I think it's that you aren't trying to find a root cause of everything. You aren't caught up in trying to explain every little thing that happens.

That's not the same as no consequences.
Right. There may or may not be consequences for your actions. But there's no meaning to life. Life just is.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'll thank you to please stop giving negative connotations to left-handers (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinister), thank you.

Well, it seems to me that at the basic level, nihilism of any stripe is quite bleak and uncomforting. It is most certainly empowering, but it does so by removing all external moral shackles from a person: they can now feel free to do any actions they see fit, under their own internal framework.

This is not necessarily the kind of thing that society at large wants. Or, for that matter, what you necessarily want in your neighbors. Of course, it can make a decent foundation for some other societal outlook. That kind of thing might end up making you Swedish or something, so your mileage may vary.
BORK BORK BORK!!

I don't think that nihilism or any -ism can remove or morals. As I said, because we are what we are, we are going to have a societal structure and rules that apply. There will always be morals. Saying 'there is no ultimate meaning behind life' doesn't suddenly make it okay to go on a killing spree. It simply acknowledges that the meaning in our lives was put there by us.

[Metallic Squink]

BORK BORK BORK!!

I don't think that nihilism or any -ism can remove or morals. As I said, because we are what we are, we are going to have a societal structure and rules that apply. There will always be morals. Saying 'there is no ultimate meaning behind life' doesn't suddenly make it okay to go on a killing spree. It simply acknowledges that the meaning in our lives was put there by us.

I agree. I don't think Nihilism implies a lack of morals at all.

[SmartAleq]

Well, it seems to me that at the basic level, nihilism of any stripe is quite bleak and uncomforting. It is most certainly empowering, but it does so by removing all external moral shackles from a person: they can now feel free to do any actions they see fit, under their own internal framework.


People make the same argument regarding theists v. atheists too but it's valid in neither case. The plain fact is that everyone, regardless of what they claim to follow, is always following their own moral code. Granted, it might be lifted wholesale from Vacation Bible School or from a Hermann Hesse novel, or be a pastiche of many philosophies or made up from whole cloth, but either way the person internalizes and invents their own moral code. To claim anything else is ludicrous--that would mean there are no pedophile priests or toe tapping Christian evangelicals, let alone the ones that bareback rent boys while snorting meth off their butts. When people claim to follow a uniform moral standard, yet still behave in markedly different ways it's a clear sign they're lying to someone, probably themselves.

The nihilist is just her own god, and what's wrong with that? :science:

[Uthrecht]

I don't think that nihilism or any -ism can remove or morals. As I said, because we are what we are, we are going to have a societal structure and rules that apply. There will always be morals. Saying 'there is no ultimate meaning behind life' doesn't suddenly make it okay to go on a killing spree. It simply acknowledges that the meaning in our lives was put there by us.

And yours is a valid belief. Mind you, this is the kind of societal outlook which is rather hard to test without getting into large developmental testing, which can be viewed as morally questionable (and thus generating a recursive logic loop).

My point is, that this kind of philosophy removes all external/theological/whatever moral frameworks: the only ones which would exist would be those that people create. Further, that means that the only punishments would be those that people can impart. Part of the benefit to using theological moral frameworks is that you have your Big Omniscient God peeping down on Dirty John and getting ready to give him the Big Holy Wedgie as punishment. When it's just people, maybe Dirty John can dye his hair and become Friendly Jim and hope to escape punishment.

And certainly, those who *like* the theological moral framework are more likely to worry that a human-only moral framework will be insufficient to keep people in line. This likely also gets into whether you subscribe to the theory of people being inherently good or wicked. Which is again, something that is hard to determine without the kind of experimentation mentioned at the beginning.

[Metallic Squink]

And yours is a valid belief. Mind you, this is the kind of societal outlook which is rather hard to test without getting into large developmental testing, which can be viewed as morally questionable (and thus generating a recursive logic loop).

My point is, that this kind of philosophy removes all external/theological/whatever moral frameworks: the only ones which would exist would be those that people create. Further, that means that the only punishments would be those that people can impart. Part of the benefit to using theological moral frameworks is that you have your Big Omniscient God peeping down on Dirty John and getting ready to give him the Big Holy Wedgie as punishment. When it's just people, maybe Dirty John can dye his hair and become Friendly Jim and hope to escape punishment.

And certainly, those who *like* the theological moral framework are more likely to worry that a human-only moral framework will be insufficient to keep people in line. This likely also gets into whether you subscribe to the theory of people being inherently good or wicked. Which is again, something that is hard to determine without the kind of experimentation mentioned at the beginning.

So only those that believe in God can have morals?

[Uthrecht]

I see. I'll let myself out now.

[Metallic Squink]

What did I say? I wasn't being sarcastic. I was honestly asking if that's what you thought (because I do think a lot of those that believe in God do believe they are the only ones who can have morals and I'm wondering if that's what you think as well).

[Uthrecht]

Okay. Some probably do. This gets into my comment about whether people are inherently wicked or good: if you think people are basically wicked, then they don't really have an internal compass to follow.

However, my exacerbation was that I specifically discussed externally-based morals (i.e., theological or other) and human-based morals. Wherein the first type are the kind that Puts You In the Hurt Afterlife, and the latter sticks you in the county jail. Such that if you are a real believer, you're going to have a greater disincentive to go against the moral code. At the least, that would be the point of it.

To sum: some people probably think that people themselves can't have their own morals without a theistic framework. Others might think that morals/rules that come only from people would not have the same kind of disincentive as those that come from a higher power. Neither of these groups would really like taking that theism away.

[Metallic Squink]

Okay. Some probably do. This gets into my comment about whether people are inherently wicked or good: if you think people are basically wicked, then they don't really have an internal compass to follow.

However, my exacerbation was that I specifically discussed externally-based morals (i.e., theological or other) and human-based morals. Wherein the first type are the kind that Puts You In the Hurt Afterlife, and the latter sticks you in the county jail. Such that if you are a real believer, you're going to have a greater disincentive to go against the moral code. At the least, that would be the point of it.

To sum: some people probably think that people themselves can't have their own morals without a theistic framework. Others might think that morals/rules that come only from people would not have the same kind of disincentive as those that come from a higher power. Neither of these groups would really like taking that theism away.

The way I see it, though, is that the human-based morals are the ones with the most immediate consequences and therefore have more of a disincentive than a theologically-based system. I know a lot of people who've done some very non-Christian things and dismissed them because they knew they would deal with it with God (as opposed to say the person they just punched in the face). For me, I deal with the here and now and I find it much more satisfying personally.

[Uthrecht]

The way I see it, though, is that the human-based morals are the ones with the most immediate consequences and therefore have more of a disincentive than a theologically-based system. I know a lot of people who've done some very non-Christian things and dismissed them because they knew they would deal with it with God (as opposed to say the person they just punched in the face). For me, I deal with the here and now and I find it much more satisfying personally.

Well, if you want to get into the Torah, the wording is basically that if you do these things, you will die (it's left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether God or other people would carry out sentence, although the Ark is a good example of God being willing to get in your business). So in that case, not only might you be in for the world of hurt in the afterlife, God might be willing to drop by and collar you himself.

Again, the ultimate downside to human-based punishment is that it required them to identify the culprit, find them and bring them to justice (for some definition of justice). With theological-based morals, you're gonna get it (and possibly Right Soon).

Of course, when people have blurry interpretations of the theological morals it gets rather sticky, I agree. But I'm just talking about why some people would think that it would be dangerous to remove the theological framework (in both cases, there would be the human framework).

[Sybarite]

That's the consequences I meant - eternal or big-picture ones, rather than the eat beans, get gas kinds.

I'm sort of thinking how to bring Buddhist principles into this - must cogitate on it and get back to all y'all. :)

[Metallic Squink]

Well, if you want to get into the Torah, the wording is basically that if you do these things, you will die (it's left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether God or other people would carry out sentence, although the Ark is a good example of God being willing to get in your business). So in that case, not only might you be in for the world of hurt in the afterlife, God might be willing to drop by and collar you himself.

Again, the ultimate downside to human-based punishment is that it required them to identify the culprit, find them and bring them to justice (for some definition of justice). With theological-based morals, you're gonna get it (and possibly Right Soon).

Of course, when people have blurry interpretations of the theological morals it gets rather sticky, I agree. But I'm just talking about why some people would think that it would be dangerous to remove the theological framework (in both cases, there would be the human framework).

Maybe I'm talking about something different, then. Regardless of whether I think anyone else is watching or if I'll get caught, I still try to do the right thing. Any consequences will either be my own guilt for doing something wrong or fear of retribution from another person (be it the law or just another human being).

[mlerose]

Maybe I'm talking about something different, then. Regardless of whether I think anyone else is watching or if I'll get caught, I still try to do the right thing. Any consequences will either be my own guilt for doing something wrong or fear of retribution from another person (be it the law or just another human being).

Same here. Thank you for writing my post for me, Squink. :)

[WednesdayAddams]

Aw, geez. I feel compelled to say something, but, er ...

I think I'll just take the Fifth and let it go.
I missed this. You of ALL people are not allowed to let it go! I wrote the thread for YOU! :D

[Uthrecht]

Maybe I'm talking about something different, then. Regardless of whether I think anyone else is watching or if I'll get caught, I still try to do the right thing. Any consequences will either be my own guilt for doing something wrong or fear of retribution from another person (be it the law or just another human being).

And that's great. But in this case, I'm talking about why someone would find nihilism scary or negative or whatever. And I was going the societal route (the personal route probably being more worried about meaning of life and afterlife and such). So the issue would be less whether you, personally would be more or less likely to follow the rules without a theological framework, but whether society at large would.

[WednesdayAddams]

But people still do those thing while still believing that there will be BIG consequences later. As a deterrent, it's sort of like the US' death penalty. And I'm not sure people refrain from doing 'bad' things for fear of retribution. Or at least not solely for retribution.

[SmartAleq]

Not to mention all those people who get Jesus in the slammer, on account of that whole forgiveness angle. Must be nice, I suppose, but it seems morally cowardly to me.

[Metallic Squink]

And that's great. But in this case, I'm talking about why someone would find nihilism scary or negative or whatever. And I was going the societal route (the personal route probably being more worried about meaning of life and afterlife and such). So the issue would be less whether you, personally would be more or less likely to follow the rules without a theological framework, but whether society at large would.

I see what you saying but I think the same fear that keeps someone (or an entire society) in that theological framework is the fear that does not let them see that there is morality outside of that framework. Nihilism frees you from that fear.

[Uthrecht]

I would argue that it's the other way around. Someone doesn't say that they will embrace nihilism and then suddenly they don't have that mindset; they choose nihilism because they've decided not to have that mindset. Nihilism is does not "free you" from that.

And that's at least somewhat semantic, but I put it that way because I don't think nihilism has the market cornered on that kind of philosophy. Either you believe in the need for a theological morality or you don't. If you don't, nihilism is one of the options open to you.

[blank]

There's a good article on Nihilism in the current issue of Adbusters: https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/84/nihilism.html

[WednesdayAddams]

Thanks, blank. That pretty much epitomizes my objection to the commonly held view on nihilism. The tautology of nihilism as despair. The opinion piece godwinizes itself and then blames all the ills of the entire world on a nihilistic view point.

[Metallic Squink]

I was thinking more about this and I have a question (and I'll admit I have not read as much as I should about Nihilism): is life being insignificant the same as life having no value? I'm thinking that "insignificance" here is that we as humans are not making any discernible mark on the universe. I don't think that necessarily means a Nihilist holds that life has no meaning, does it? I could (and do) believe that as humans, we are but a blip on the timeline of the history of whatever, but my own life and the lives of other humans have some meaning and humans are deserving of life. I'm wondering if people are equating "insignificance" with "lack of value", i.e., I and all other humans might as well be dead.

[WednesdayAddams]

Well there are several different forms of nihilism (per the link in the OP), and even more arguments about what each one means. 'Nothing means anything and nothing matters' is the boiled down version. I sort of waver between moral nihilism (there is no intrinsic morality) and existential nihilism (life has no intrinsic meaning).

One of the better known arguments goes like this: We live on a planet without any interaction from anyone/thing else in the known galaxy or universe. Nothing we say or do affects that galaxy or universe. Even if we blow ourselves up tomorrow, the galaxy and universe around us, hell, even the other planets in our solar system, will continue on as if nothing has happened. Likewise, if I were to be gone tomorrow, would the world really be affected? The only place our lives have meaning is in our own heads. Our existence matters only to the extent that we make that existence felt.

Some may take that as depressing as hell. I see it as a statement that because we are alive for a very short time and what we do will only matter if we see it as mattering or make it matter to others, we should not waste any of the precious time we have. Make every second matter. In the end, you're the only one who can say what meaning it had. Self-worth is the only worth that matters.

Sorry if that doesn't answer your question. Yes, I think that people do equate insignificance with a lack of value.

[Metallic Squink]

You did answer my question, thanks. I agree completely with your post and that's why I think I am a Nihilist. I think it's different from say concepts of Atheism or immorality.

ETA: I probably shouldn't say "I think I'm a Nihilist" since I haven't read up on it as much as I should before labeling myself. I guess I should say that based on what little I've read so far, it's very likely I'm an existential Nihilist and at the very least, have Nihilist tendencies. It is a challenge to raise children with this attitude, I must say. Try explaining to a child why they should stay in school when the reality is, I don't think it matters all that much beyond just wanting to improve yourself as an individual. Five-year-olds don't always get that!

[Uthrecht]

One of the better known arguments goes like this: We live on a planet without any interaction from anyone/thing else in the known galaxy or universe. Nothing we say or do affects that galaxy or universe. Even if we blow ourselves up tomorrow, the galaxy and universe around us, hell, even the other planets in our solar system, will continue on as if nothing has happened. Likewise, if I were to be gone tomorrow, would the world really be affected? The only place our lives have meaning is in our own heads. Our existence matters only to the extent that we make that existence felt.

I can work with the last part there, since to me existential nihilism talks about presence or absence of meaning (meaning being something of a construct), but I don't agree with the premise that the galaxy or universe has no interaction with our planet, or vice versa. Things that we send out, objects moving through space towards our planet, there are many interactions happening. An extra-solar object that's been traveling for 8 billion years could swing in and make Australia disappear. But according to existential nihilism, that action does not have any inherent meaning to it, it's simply something that happened. And if we were to blow ourselves up in a fairly significant way, there would be some kind of electromagnetic pulse (even if it was slight), and could possibly be measured eventually from other systems. However, that pulse, if measured, would only have the meaning that was read into it.

[SmartAleq]

I was thinking more about this and I have a question (and I'll admit I have not read as much as I should about Nihilism): is life being insignificant the same as life having no value? I'm thinking that "insignificance" here is that we as humans are not making any discernible mark on the universe. I don't think that necessarily means a Nihilist holds that life has no meaning, does it? I could (and do) believe that as humans, we are but a blip on the timeline of the history of whatever, but my own life and the lives of other humans have some meaning and humans are deserving of life. I'm wondering if people are equating "insignificance" with "lack of value", i.e., I and all other humans might as well be dead.

I dunno, is a virus insignificant? Grant you, it's very small, you'd never know it was there until it kills off a significant portion of your species. The thing is, nobody ever knows what's going to be significant--the smallest little coincidence can end up changing your life and what at first seem to be the biggest changes can sometimes reveal themselves to be merely more of the same in the end. I think the better definition is that EVERYTHING has EQUAL significance--which means, practically, that nothing much has more consequence than any other thing except on a personal level.

I find being insignificant in the macrocosm to be quite comforting, as I know that my significance in the microcosm is pretty much up to me. Nobody's gunning for me up in the clouds, nobody's gonna be disappointed in me, likewise. Any shortfalls or triumphs will take place in my own sphere where I can observe the consequences of my actions and take such steps I deem necessary to correct what I perceive to be wrong directions.

[Fromage A Trois]

Personally I find nihilism positive and freeing - as Wednesday said, the universe doesn't much care what I do or don't do, which means that my life has whatever meaning I want it to have. I can make my own life and do with it what I want - this does not mean I have no morals, since what I choose to do with my life is to live in line with my human morals.

I can see how this can be scary for some people - the fact that human morals aren't absolute and backed up by supernatural punishment could lead them to believe that without absolute morals we'll all do what we like. This isn't true, since there are plenty of good reasons for having morals outside of "God made these laws" (I won't go into them here).

It's also not true that our lives have no value or meaning. Compared to the mass of the entire universe, I'm pretty skinny, and arguably my mass is insignificant in comparison. However, that doesn't mean I don't weigh anything - my mass is non-zero and on the human scale on which we live, quite significant. The same is true of the value of an individual's life - pretty small compared to the whole universe, but significant on a human scale.

[Uthrecht]

It's also not true that our lives have no value or meaning. Compared to the mass of the entire universe, I'm pretty skinny, and arguably my mass is insignificant in comparison. However, that doesn't mean I don't weigh anything - my mass is non-zero and on the human scale on which we live, quite significant. The same is true of the value of an individual's life - pretty small compared to the whole universe, but significant on a human scale.

Well, I think that would be the point. Your life has the meaning that is measured by you or another observer. The philosophy would say that there is no greater meaning, because there is no greater measuring tool or observer to impart it. As you say, the universe would not be measuring it. And therefore, I would think, that if you were the last human and died, your death would not have meaning. Certainly your lack of existance wouldn't have meaning.

ETA: I'll also note that I'm reading in a bit (since I can, hah!) to your comments there. Part of why some folks would want an external/greater observer would be because they want their lives to have meaning, greater meaning, and such. Without that, it has only what people here read into it. Which could be a bit bleak, particularly if you feel like you are not terribly impactful. An alternate reading of my previous paragraph: if you are born on a desert island, live alone there all your life and die there, what was the meaning behind your death? There was no one else to observe it.

[Fromage A Trois]

Yes, I can see that if one considered oneself to be pretty meaningless, believing that there was a greater power offering greater meaning (a grand plan, etc) it would be comforting - "maybe there's something in that plan for me further down the road". Having been in depression world, I know that it sucks and that a nihilistic "make some meaning for your life!" statement would be counter-productive. But for those in a positive frame of mind I think it helps amplify the positivity.

In terms of the death of a lone human, I think the meaning behind that persons' death is the same as the meaning of their life at the point at which they die. This is the physicist in me equating it as a move from "Existence of A" to "Absence of A". The difference the existence of the human was making to an otherwise unmolested desert island (cleaning the shore, tending the coconut tree) is equal and opposite to the step back down to no human on the island.

The suggestion that the meaning behind an individual life is proportional to the number or size of the observers to that life matches "common sense" - arguably my next-door-neighbour's life has less meaning than Barack Obama's, since he is unlikely to affect as many people. One could even argue it means his life has less value. However, extrapolating the line, it does suggest that a life with no observers (not even grains of sand) has no value, a conclusion I'm not sure I agree with. I need to think on that one for a bit longer.

[Metallic Squink]

Well, I think that would be the point. Your life has the meaning that is measured by you or another observer. The philosophy would say that there is no greater meaning, because there is no greater measuring tool or observer to impart it. As you say, the universe would not be measuring it. And therefore, I would think, that if you were the last human and died, your death would not have meaning. Certainly your lack of existance wouldn't have meaning.

ETA: I'll also note that I'm reading in a bit (since I can, hah!) to your comments there. Part of why some folks would want an external/greater observer would be because they want their lives to have meaning, greater meaning, and such. Without that, it has only what people here read into it. Which could be a bit bleak, particularly if you feel like you are not terribly impactful. An alternate reading of my previous paragraph: if you are born on a desert island, live alone there all your life and die there, what was the meaning behind your death? There was no one else to observe it.

Why can't my life or my death have whatever meaning I alone ascribe to it? Why do I need an observer? I see what you are saying in that some people find comfort in thinking there is some larger force in the universe that might care if they live or die. I guess I don't understand that need. That need requires reliance on some external force to give your life meaning.

[Uthrecht]

Well, there's the rub. If there is no inherent meaning in anything, the only meaning is that which is given by an observer (the flipside being, if there is inherent meaning, that would suggest a larger external observer; also, you count as an observer to yourself). So, any action only has the meaning given to it by an observer (this gets into what Wed was saying). Your life only has the meaning you give it, and any observers to you give it. I'm not saying that if an action has more observers, it necessarily has greater meaning. Simply that, if an action has no observers, it has no meaning. So, to me it follows that your death very quickly stops having meaning to you, and would therefore only have the meaning given to it by observers. Likewise, the meaning you have ascribed to your entire life winks out once you die. Only the meaning ascribed by others continues.

[Romola]

And that's great. But in this case, I'm talking about why someone would find nihilism scary or negative or whatever. And I was going the societal route (the personal route probably being more worried about meaning of life and afterlife and such). So the issue would be less whether you, personally would be more or less likely to follow the rules without a theological framework, but whether society at large would.
Do you mean that without a supposed external punishing/rewarding/directing force, others should be assumed to act selfishly? My usual response to that is that the only thing I can be 100% sure of, ever, is my own action. Given that, I act as i would like others to (ok, I slip occasionally, I'm not God). So I don't do things like buying stolen goods, selling out my colleague, bigging myself up at someone else's expense etc. If i don't do it, the law of averages says that at least some other people don't do it either, and that's good enough for me. If some others do, it's in the realm of things I can do nothing about, and therefore don't need to worry about. I like Wednesday's proposition, i find nihilism very freeing as well.

[ephekt]

I think free will is a bit of a misnomer, but not because of 'fate.' So yes, I'd agree that free will is an illusion.
This is only the case if you define free will as something other than the ability to make choices. The easiest proof that free will exists is our ability to control our emotions (for example, I don't have to get mad when someone does something I dont' like). That said, free will is definitely limited by determinism and social influence.

So the issue would be less whether you, personally would be more or less likely to follow the rules without a theological framework, but whether society at large would.
Society at large would continue to follow the rules because it's what allows society to exist. If society rejected the rules it would diminish and split or fall apart.

The assumption that morality is a result of religion has no factual basis and is nothing more than a historically entrenched tool for imparting a society's mores. Even ignoring the clear history of an ethical zeitgeist that has evolved despite religion - ethics, empathy, compassion, a sense of community, civics et al can be and are taught through non-theological means. If society lost the need to appeal to a magic "higher cause" or afterlife for reward and punishment, "real life" social cause/effect would be the obvious motivator for morality (failing the true principles I believe you were insinuating would fail).

[Uthrecht]

Society at large would continue to follow the rules because it's what allows society to exist. If society rejected the rules it would diminish and split or fall apart.

I agree with you on the latter. I do not think the former is a given. We have had plenty of instances through history where there was some kind of governing breakdown with a chaotic period as a result. Just because failing to follow the rules results in chaos and an overall poorer situation, does not necessarily mean that people at large will recognize this and avoid that.

But that's probably irrelevant to the overall situation. I was more trying to poke at reasons I could see people feeling that nihilism was bleak, dangerous, bad, negative or otherwise an unhip scene.

[Joben]

RULES. What "Rules"?

Stuff just happens,.

Wars. Billions of dollars to protect the "Owners" of "Billions of Dollars.

Governments.

Across the World.

The Big Boys.

THEY run the world.

Oh, quit.

Billions and trillions of dollars...the folks who know about "billions and trillions of dolllars" and those who 'protect' billions and trillions of dollars are (cough, cough) guys (mostly) of EVERY country and EVERY form of government and EVERY philosophy in the World.

These People just hang back in every country; see how things "play out", adjust their "messsage to the masses" to 'play' for American "Newsmakers" .... and...wait...

The "Bloody."
The "Horrible."
The "French Revolution."

He he he

Can the "masses" figure out "WHY" this may have happened?

SCREWED, Globally, by the fierce persons who sought to make as much money as could possibly be made by governments and markets and politics that COULD be made.

And that would be....?

Every Single "Head of State" we've seen for the past three decades.

You "Middle Class" folks...in every country of the world are SCREWED,

Do you REALLY love the FANTASY that you will EVER play with the "Big Boys"?

[WednesdayAddams]

Three decades? Quite the optimist, aren't you? Go back several centuries.

That said...your post has what to do with the fun of nihilism?

[Elyanna]

Three decades? Quite the optimist, aren't you? Go back several centuries.

That said...your post has what to do with the fun of nihilism?

Her post is fun and means nothing?

[WednesdayAddams]

Oh, good. I was worried she was going to do the whole tinfoil hat thing.

[lifeboat]

Simple Cube Divinity is. the. most. "perfect" and life supporting "form" existing in the universe and on Earth - including Earth itself.

Do you realize... "that" a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle? A full "rotated" square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and "4" simultaneous 24 "hour" Day circles within "only" "a" single imaginary cubed "Earth" roation.

"This" amounts to a spiraling quad helix of Earth as it revolves around the Sun - rotating as it revolves around the Sun, to induce "the" value of the Sun revolving about the Earth. This act demonstrates that both Sun and Earth rotate around each "other" simultaneously "-" thus creating
Opposites existing only as Opposites with a zero value existence "between" the binary and "cancelling" to nothing as One or God theism.

"Al" "Creation" occurs "between" "Opposites""," "and" exists "only" as "Opposites" "-" "with" "a" "zero" value existence. As One or as a Godism, all Opposite values cancel out to nothing. The Circle you see "around" Earth divides Earth into Opposite values equal to a zero existence. As One "or" God, both Earth and Human cancel to nothing.

The whole of the Universe is composed of Opposites "-" with a zero "value" existence - that camcels to nothing as One or a God.

Humans worship "ONEness" of DEATH, thus they are destroying the LIFE of all Opposites by which all Creation exists.

I have found Evil lies in the Bible that will rock religious and academic values to their primitive origin. There is no Human or God who "can" match my Cube Wisdom as a Cube Phenomenoligist - "The" Cube God Measurer.

While the Circle of Earth rotation is a perpetual embodiment as it is void of the Corner Time notches that
accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner residents. Have you mentality to know 4 Days rotating simultaneously on Earth"?"

[Joben]

"Tinfoil Hat"...are you kidding?


Really?

[Joben]

Oh, and by the way...

"nihilsim" is STUPID.

[Joben]

nihilism
should any want to argue spelling.

Might still be wrong....but does it matter??

[Random Precision]

Nothing matters. And so what if it did?

[The Futility of Nihilism]

Nothing matters. And so what if it did?
I think that's a rather fruitless philosophy.

[WednesdayAddams]

full circle. :D

[Khampelf]

Nearly two pages and no one has invoked Hasan-bin-Sabah?

"Nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted."

It's not only freeing, it's powerful, and that's FUN!

Your enemy believes god is displeased if they fight on the Sabbath?

An attack at midnight on Friday would then be ideal, yes?

I think this is behind Col Kurtz's soliloquy where he talks about finding the dead children.

" I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terrorare your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

[jayjay]

To me, there's no real difference between "theological morals" and "human-created morals". The only difference is minor, and is basically the temporal distance between the time that the morals were created and the present. "Theological morals" ARE "human-created morals". All morals are human-created morals. The ones that became common long, long ago only have the false authority of time behind them.

Human civilization has been the story of changing morality from the beginning. We no longer sacrifice children to Moloch. We no longer allow our local lord to enjoy droigt de seignur. We no longer give the Church temporal power (ideally...). We no longer treat wives as property or as inferior beings. We no longer consider it proper to burn homosexuals on a pyre (mostly).

The idea of "theological morals" is disproved by all the things people thought God told them to do in the past that we are absolutely appalled by now.

I guess that makes me a nihilist, more or less. There is no "purpose", other than to maintain a society where people can walk down the street without being murdered in cold blood (and when it does happen it's considered a horrible anomaly (mostly)).

Of course, I don't talk about this subject with my Italian Catholic family because I don't much like screaming in close proximity to my ears...