Nihilism

[Norsemaiden]

Is anyone here familiar with the books, "Affirmation of Life - Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism" by B. Reginster (Harvard Univ. Press) or "Nihilism Before Nietzsche" M.A. Gillespie (Univ. Chicago Press)? Both are fairly recent publications I believe. I was thinking of pursuing one or both for a bit of clarification on the issue at hand. This is of interest to me as I have found much of Nietzsche's work reflected in my own ideals(as a late-comer to philosophy I have long been of that mind-set, but didn't know Nietzsche from Plato...oh, the wasted years!) and I have long thought of Nihilism as being a rather more "extreme" ideology altogether(not simply extreme for going against social convention, religion, etc.). But based on the general consensus on this thread I have misidentified Nihilism...and perhaps, F.N. did too?!

I think what it is could be that modern nihilists actually DO "overcome" nihilism. The nihilism is a necessary stage to go through, where you sweep aside all the values that have been inculcated into you by your interaction with people - and that leads to a nihilistic state - then you rebuild your values according to your own interpretation of reality, thus "overcoming" the nihilism. (And yet, when you get stressed and start to take things in life a little too seriously, it is helpful to go back to that nihilistic frame of mind, before putting things back into perspective).

 

[Seditious]

This topic fascinates me. I would very much appreciate some advice on reading to better my understanding of the concept of Nihilism over all. I'm stuck between the anti-nihilism of Nietzsche and the realization that I may be more inclined toward the nihilistic on some level, though this may just be a gross mischaracterization on my part. I am woefully behind the curve on formally educating myself on these matters. I respect the opinions offered here and would welcome some reading and research suggestions.

I haven't checked if it's already been said yet, but Neitzsche wasn't exactly anti-Nihilism, he was against faiths like Christianity as they were nihilistic (seeking to find value in an imagined other life which couldn't be found in this life -- they devalue this life by positing the only value to be found is in the next life). He himself was a nihilist in finding there are no absolute values, an idea which ultimately lended itself to poststructuralism. He believed there was no divine plan or purpose, but that itself didn't devalue our lives, it anything it gave more value to our life and the freedom of it - the Existentialist view.

 

[Seditious]

I think what it is could be that modern nihilists actually DO "overcome" nihilism. The nihilism is a necessary stage to go through, where you sweep aside all the values that have been inculcated into you by your interaction with people - and that leads to a nihilistic state - then you rebuild your values according to your own interpretation of reality, thus "overcoming" the nihilism. (And yet, when you get stressed and start to take things in life a little too seriously, it is helpful to go back to that nihilistic frame of mind, before putting things back into perspective).

yeh, a lot of people use Nihilism merely as a response to tradition rather than as 'a philosophy to live by' a phrase which means something like 'a set of ethics' to most people.

Personally I prefer to go on to the likes of Derrida's Deconstruction than to merely use the Nihilistic truth as a way of rebelling from tradition only to delude myself with the self-importance of my own ideals once free to do so which is really only to take oneself back into the history of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Seditious]

The statement "God is dead" is nihilistic in that it demolishes Christianity. If Christianity is nihilistic then saying "God is dead" wouldn't be.

He was saying we have killed God, God is dead to us, we no longer truely believe in him anymore.

A dogma believed by millions is the very opposite of nihilism. What is the opposite phrase to "a dogma believed by millions"? Could it be: "a flexible view of reality, as assessed by the individual"? That's nihilism!

what I think clears this up is seeing a distinction between "Nihilism," a philosophy that denies objective value, and the term 'nihilistic' which is to suggest the devaluing of something.

How could Nietzsche have been anything other than a nihilist, whether he calls himself this or not? If he were not a nihilist then he would have to believe that things have intrinsic value and that this idea cannot be swept aside and reconstructed. Yet Nietzsche is famous for sweeping aside all notions of the value of things and setting them anew. It seems he was somewhat confused, doesn't it?

he was an Existentialist. He valued life though it had no higher value or purpose or ultimate goal to reach. Just as any of you who agree with Nihilism on objective truth still like to get drunk and have sex and ya know... enjoy your life despite the fact it wont be worth anything anywhere when the species is extinct. Your life is only worth what it is worth to you, and so your life is worth more than anything else, because nothing else has value and this is the one thing you have to value -- unless you decide to throw that away in expecting that in exchange for wasting your life in servitude you will be rewarded with a better longer life where you don't have to restrain yourself from all the pleasures that life has to offer.

 

[Seditious]

I'm still confused as to whether Nihilism is a sort of code of conduct, or if it's a way of thinking, or whatever.

not really. Nihilism by itself lends itself to a vulgar relativism (anything is as good as anything else since there's nothing absolute to say otherwise), it's once we include the human tendencies and desires and instincts and all these little things into the picture that we begin to invent morals on which to live (Because we decide 'ok, there's no "Truth" to consult for guidance... but I like not being killed, and so do you right? so lets agree not to kill eachother' and so forth like that). Nihilism just gets rid of the idea we can derive morals from any external fixed point of truth.

 

[Norsemaiden]

what I think clears this up is seeing a distinction between "Nihilism," a philosophy that denies objective value, and the term 'nihilistic' which is to suggest the devaluing of something.


he was an Existentialist. He valued life though it had no higher value or purpose or ultimate goal to reach. Just as any of you who agree with Nihilism on objective truth still like to get drunk and have sex and ya know... enjoy your life despite the fact it wont be worth anything anywhere when the species is extinct. Your life is only worth what it is worth to you, and so your life is worth more than anything else, because nothing else has value and this is the one thing you have to value -- unless you decide to throw that away in expecting that in exchange for wasting your life in servitude you will be rewarded with a better longer life where you don't have to restrain yourself from all the pleasures that life has to offer.

This is very helpful! You should post on the forum more often Seditious
There's one thing though - what you say about nihilists considering their own life to be worth more than anything else. Many of us do set value on things above our own life - we could value another person, or people, such that we would sacrifice ourselves for them.

 

[speed]

not really. Nihilism by itself lends itself to a vulgar relativism (anything is as good as anything else since there's nothing absolute to say otherwise), it's once we include the human tendencies and desires and instincts and all these little things into the picture that we begin to invent morals on which to live (Because we decide 'ok, there's no "Truth" to consult for guidance... but I like not being killed, and so do you right? so lets agree not to kill eachother' and so forth like that). Nihilism just gets rid of the idea we can derive morals from any external fixed point of truth.

Yes, excellent comments and anecdotes to explain them. This is many times lacking in philosophical discussion--someone who can explain with real world examples, many of these ideas. Philosophers I think sometimes unfairly mock those who can do so --look at Russell's reception after he started writing his essays and books on Happiness etc (which he won the Nobel for). I also hope you post here more often.

 

[Seditious]

what you say about nihilists considering their own life to be worth more than anything else. Many of us do set value on things above our own life - we could value another person, or people, such that we would sacrifice ourselves for them.

Certainly, and to that I would say we do that inconsistent with Nihilism. That reflects on a point mentioned earlier about 'overcoming Nihilism.' What I would say is rather it is undercutting Nihilism to accept 'there is no value' and then decide to instill something with value for your own satisfaction just because you can. But it's entirely human to do so.

I'd say this is just the same as there are Christians who sin (you'd think if they accept the philosophy of the Christ they'd act according to it, but they still do things which are inconsistent with a belief system they accept). I just put that down to the fact none of us are perfect, we all try to be like our ideals but often fall short and fall back on old habits in that neverending process of creating oneself.
Even if we accept Nihilism, or Christianity, or whatever it is, as a truth for us, that doesn't mean we'll fully change our habits and beliefs from those we've acted upon unconsciously for much of our lives and always act in accordance with the new ideal. Philosophy being so abstract from practical situations many people may simply act as they always used if they haven't taken the time to see how to value and approach an old situation from the perspective of the new belief system they would be happy to live by.


and perhaps I was too careless in my wording earlier, I should have said 'ones own happiness' or 'the happiness of ones own life' rather than just 'one's life' because, to put Nihilism aside and address your point by itself, we may value things above our own existence, even to the extent of risking our life for these things we value, but we do so because to do so makes us happy (or, of equal meaning, we imagine not to do so would make us feel remourse/guilt/sadness/self-loathing/regret/etc). It's that happiness which is what we value above all things.

My most succinct proof of this value distinction is that you don't step in front of a car trying to save your cat even though you may do it to save the love of your life, because though you value your cat, you value your life and the happiness you imagine it can still continue to have despite the death of that cat you do nothing to stop, where as you imagine if you do nothing for that lover (which you value for how much happiness s/he can bring you) the happiness you value will be at serious risk (lasting guilt/regret/etc.) and we may imagine we would at least die happy knowing we'd rescued the one we loved or at least tried our best, so in any case we evaluate the act by our own happiness. -- you only risk your life for someone else if that someone else is tied up in your own happiness, so it is in fact your own happiness you're looking out for and that individual you're protecting represents just one source of that which you don't want to lose. (it's not a nice way of saying things, basically saying 'there is no altruism', 'people are means to our ends' but I've been hard pressed to find a good argument for altruism, but there are plenty of people who believe in it so the idea I just tried to explain may be entirely wrong).


Thanks for the welcome fellas, I've been signed up for the Hypocrisy forum for months and only just noticed this board, I'll definitely be keeping my eye on it

 

[OldScratch]

Certainly, and to that I would say we do that inconsistent with Nihilism. That reflects on a point mentioned earlier about 'overcoming Nihilism.' What I would say is rather it is undercutting Nihilism to accept 'there is no value' and then decide to instill something with value for your own satisfaction just because you can. But it's entirely human to do so.

I'd say this is just the same as there are Christians who sin (you'd think if they accept the philosophy of the Christ they'd act according to it, but they still do things which are inconsistent with a belief system they accept). I just put that down to the fact none of us are perfect, we all try to be like our ideals but often fall short and fall back on old habits in that neverending process of creating oneself.
Even if we accept Nihilism, or Christianity, or whatever it is, as a truth for us, that doesn't mean we'll fully change our habits and beliefs from those we've acted upon unconsciously for much of our lives and always act in accordance with the new ideal. Philosophy being so abstract from practical situations many people may simply act as they always used if they haven't taken the time to see how to value and approach an old situation from the perspective of the new belief system they would be happy to live by.


and perhaps I was too careless in my wording earlier, I should have said 'ones own happiness' or 'the happiness of ones own life' rather than just 'one's life' because, to put Nihilism aside and address your point by itself, we may value things above our own existence, even to the extent of risking our life for these things we value, but we do so because to do so makes us happy (or, of equal meaning, we imagine not to do so would make us feel remourse/guilt/sadness/self-loathing/regret/etc). It's that happiness which is what we value above all things.

My most succinct proof of this value distinction is that you don't step in front of a car trying to save your cat even though you may do it to save the love of your life, because though you value your cat, you value your life and the happiness you imagine it can still continue to have despite the death of that cat you do nothing to stop, where as you imagine if you do nothing for that lover (which you value for how much happiness s/he can bring you) the happiness you value will be at serious risk (lasting guilt/regret/etc.) and we may imagine we would at least die happy knowing we'd rescued the one we loved or at least tried our best, so in any case we evaluate the act by our own happiness. -- you only risk your life for someone else if that someone else is tied up in your own happiness, so it is in fact your own happiness you're looking out for and that individual you're protecting represents just one source of that which you don't want to lose. (it's not a nice way of saying things, basically saying 'there is no altruism', 'people are means to our ends' but I've been hard pressed to find a good argument for altruism, but there are plenty of people who believe in it so the idea I just tried to explain may be entirely wrong).


Thanks for the welcome fellas, I've been signed up for the Hypocrisy forum for months and only just noticed this board, I'll definitely be keeping my eye on it

This has been very helpful across the board! I particularly appreciate the Existentialism connection(this speaks directly to my own ideological/philosophical bent - much more so than Nihilism proper, I suspect). Additionally, I believe you are spot-on with respect to altruism. Not only is it devoid of good supporting arguments(as you noted) but it seems it may well spell the doom of the west - as we collectively squander our own relevance and 'treasure' on altruistic folly the world over...and for what?

 

[cryosteel]

We are the only radio show present that dares to take on any subject without moralizing or turning it into a popularity contest. We're not interested in entertaining you with commercials, rants or mass-produced music; we're here to inform you about our modern society and where it is failing. It is our belief that when we strip away our personal fears, our inherent guilts, our plastic technology, and our social pressure from other people, we are able to perceive reality on a more realistic level. We wish to provide you with an alternative way of looking at things, and guiding you into a more positive path for the future.

CORRUPT radio and radio NIHIL

These resources have offered nihilistic commentary without engaging in mainstream moral sycophantry or marginal dogmatic ranting so common to radio shows. The commentary is inserted between ambient, classical, black and death metal selections. These particular non-popular audio landscape selections seem to reinforce the show content and the mission statement quoted above.

 

[JColtrane]

Of course Nietzsche is not a Nihilist! It should be fairly clear to anyone who has read a decent amount of his works that his entire corpus is an attempt to combat what he saw as the imminent collapse of all morality due to Nihilism.

Here's a quick summary:

1.God is dead (thus Christianity is a kind of Nihilism because it's morality rests on a foundation that has already been destroyed).
2.Previous morality was based on the concept of God
3.A new basis must be found, or morality itself will cease to exist (what he concieved Nihilism would accomplish if left uncombated)

Thus his project: trying to find a new basis for morality. In my opinion the basis he found was precisely the Will to Power, valuing nobility of soul and other essentially Greek virtues.

 

[Seditious]

Thus his project: trying to find a new basis for morality. In my opinion the basis he found was precisely the Will to Power, valuing nobility of soul and other essentially Greek virtues.

Which does address the realm of ethics, but I would say it is more a replacement of morality than morality itself. I know many people use the two synonymously. The Greek virtues were amoral to at least a Christian evaluation (that's probably what I love most about Plato), as you see with Odysessus---the 'hero'---deceiving and killing, being cunning and ruthless in one's own will to power (here I mean in a more Schopenhauerean sense---having an endless desire for power out of the insecurity of sustaining what we value subjectively) because that was being virtuous, that was an ethos, but it was not 'love thy neighbour' or something we could easily call some basis for morality---it was a basis for wise action, for virtue, but not for good will unto all god's creatures or some such aspiration. Of course the question of ethics needs to be answered, 'how should we act', but I don't think he expected the answer to be that of a form of morality, where The Last Man might be nurtured and loved by the Ubermensch.

 

[JColtrane]

There's a really great scene in Book IX of the Odyssey involving Odysseus's "cunning":

Odysseus has just scourged the Cyclopses eye, and Polyphemus laments about how "Mn tis" ("No man", pronounced May tis) had decieved him, and then after hearing the speech Odysseus laughs to himself about his great "mntis" ("cunning"). It's pretty much the greatest play on words I've ever encountered; it's almost like Homer is so good at poetry that he's just toying with you. Anyways, there's really no way to catch that in a translation, so I though y'all would like to know.

Also I would agree with you for the most part Seditious, as Nietzsche is intending to go beyond any traditional conception of ethics (i.e., beyond good and evil), but it pretty much all depends on how you define "morality".

 

[Seditious]

There's a really great scene in Book IX of the Odyssey involving Odysseus's "cunning":

Odysseus has just scourged the Cyclopses eye, and Polyphemus laments about how "Mn tis" ("No man", pronounced May tis) had decieved him, and then after hearing the speech Odysseus laughs to himself about his great "mntis" ("cunning"). It's pretty much the greatest play on words I've ever encountered; it's almost like Homer is so good at poetry that he's just toying with you. Anyways, there's really no way to catch that in a translation, so I though y'all would like to know.

hmm? not sure I understood that. where do you get the idea that "mntis" is synonymous with "cunning"?

all I recall about it was he pretended his name was noman, and when they replied to the cries of agony to Polyphemus, asking who hurt you, he said 'no man', and so Odysseus was able to get away cos he was that cunning (he was that 'no man' which Polyphemus was referring to, but, I'm not sure if that's what you're saying here)

 

[JColtrane]

It's the original language, Greek. Sorry, should have made that more clear.

 

[Seditious]

still not sure I understand sorry

 

[JColtrane]

still not sure I understand sorry

Oh no, it's my fault. It's pretty easy if you know the vocabulary, so I should have just done that:

Mn (pronounced 'May')= "No" or "not"

Tis="Someone", "anyone"

Mntis="Cunning"

So Odysseus gives his name as Mn tis (no one), and then laughs about his mntis (cunning).


Wow, that was way off topic

 

[Seditious]

lol, you're right, that's some multi-layered brilliance!

 

[Reign in Acai]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Seriously!

 

[Seditious]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Seriously!

fuck, I still haven't seen The Big Lebowski.