Arguments Against Nihilism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Da Bachtopus
I have at no point insisted that nihilism has to be "negative" in this fashion, just that it tends to be, and certainly comes from a tradition that is.
That's really all the concession I needed, tbh. I quite agree with you about the tendency and tradition.
I could say more, but it's honestly beside the point.
(edited 12 years ago)
Just on your first point: I didn't merely want to make a "concession"; I have also attempted to give a "positive" definition of nihilism as well. I don't know if you agree with any of that.
Not quite. Whilst it would have sufficed for me to point out, as I did, that you had misunderstood "my" type of nihilism, thereby rendering a "counterexample" irrelevant, I feel it was necessary to highlight the relationship that these philosophers have with the nihilism, and how that is compatible with "my" understanding; firstly, to give a better sense of what that understanding is, and secondly, to correct your misrepresentation of this section of the article (it does not point to a single "type" of nihilism). In an argument such as this, citing one online encyclopaedia article doesn't really suffice. It's arguable as to whether any of those writers are properly nihilistic. I happen to agree with the author that they are, and have an important relation to nihilism. Nonetheless, you're not really conducting the debate in the correct fashion if you believe that there are clearly delineated "types" of nihilism, and that a single article is enough to suggest that three extremely different writers constitute one of them. It's a hasty paragraph grouping them together in opposition to existentialism, and doesn't really attend to what is properly nihilistic in their thought, or their relation to that tradition: I hoped to show that.
There is quite a lot to unpack here, and I don't want to fall into an argument about historicism. You seem quite preoccupied with taxonomies of philosophical positions; this isn't bad in itself, but it can be inappropriate. I never attempted to give a prescriptive definition of "nihilism", though; indeed, I believe that to do so is absurd. I have attempted to isolate a "kernel" to nihilistic thought but I do not at all believe that that suffices as a definition of the word, which must necessarily incorporate the historical dimension. Briefly, I'll say that, whenever we use a word, we are still invoking its history. When we use the word "nihilism" we cannot do away with the "baggage" I discussed. When you're using the word "nihilism" broadly, you are not merely designating a certain set of claims that could be made ahistorically. When you label a philosophy as "nihilistic" you could be indicating that it does not engage with this tradition, but adopts similar positions -- and yet you are, importantly, inevitably situating it with respect to that tradition. You just can't escape these aspects of the word, and you shouldn't think that we can say things like "nihilism holds that..." in the same way that we can easily say of an analytic position something like "moderate moral autonomism", or whatever.
But, most importantly, you have to consider the historical situation in which such a hypothetical student comes up with his arguments: his concepts do not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore unjust to say that, regardless of his immediate knowledge of the philosophical tradition, he has not in some way been affected by it -- this is most obviously the case with nihilism in the arts, in fact. The point lies in considering how certain views relate to a broader cultural condition. As I say, nothing originates in a vacuum, neither particular tendencies of reasoning, nor the words we might use to describe them.
Of course, I'm not saying that to call something "nihilistic" means that it must talk about Nietzsche explicitly, or so forth -- just that these are the things we mean when we actively use this word, and they are always at least connoted by it. Analytic philosophy has done very well in dealing with definite descriptions (vide Russell), but this only covers an extremely narrow field of linguistic functions. If you wanted to list necessary and sufficient criteria for applying the word, then by all means do so, but I think that would just be heading towards pedantry and, in fact, away from illumination (in that to do so would detract from what actually happens when we use a word like "nihilism"). The core "necessity" is, however, a certain way of dealing with value, and that is what I mainly have issue with. It's just that this particular way of conceiving of value has an historical genesis, and by no means exhausts the things we mean when we talk about "nihilism". Furthermore, a tendency towards nihilistic thinking is arguably enforced by a certain concept of rationality that underpins modern social structures.
I will grant you, that's a pretty sweeping claim in the last paragraph-- but it does follow, if you begin to reflect upon structures of rationality, language and concept acquisition, and so forth.
I'm sorry you misread my first post; I can see how you got the reading that you did. But I was emphasizing an aspect of nihilism in context. I qualified myself as soon as the discussion took another direction. It is, however, deeply frustrating that, after pointing to your error several times, you continued to ignore me. Philosophical exactness, and meaningful philosophical discussion, involve an awareness of context and an appreciation of qualification. I don't believe you were exacting or pedantic, rather -- as I said -- pertinacious, in simply wishing to win a fight based upon a misunderstanding that I had on numerous occasions already corrected. I'll grant that the exact claims of my first post were not clearly exposed. Then again, I had no intention of writing a long and detailed rebuttal of nihilism; rather, I just sought to convey the drift of my thinking in a fashion I found rhetorically amenable. I think I also misconstrued your subsequent post, when you said that "nihilism is about the lack of intrinsic meaning", which I interpreted as merely equating nihilism and relativism; nonetheless, you went on to quote me in such as way as to say that you did believe nihilism was synonymous with a rejection of absolute axiologies. This was the point I really took up on.
I believe, though, from the kinds of arguments you have tried to make, that we have rather different conceptions of philosophy (not to say that mine is not exacting, potentially pedantic, or rooted in analytic thought). Do you study mathematics or natural science?
Original post by Saichu
While highly interesting and entertaining to read, your history is, unfortunately, not relevant. For it was already sufficient that I'd found a "type" of nihilism that disagreed with yours', yet was still called nihilism; that alone was enough to prove my point. Whether or not the author was "naive" about certain philosophers' views, as you claim, is quite beside the point.
Not quite. Whilst it would have sufficed for me to point out, as I did, that you had misunderstood "my" type of nihilism, thereby rendering a "counterexample" irrelevant, I feel it was necessary to highlight the relationship that these philosophers have with the nihilism, and how that is compatible with "my" understanding; firstly, to give a better sense of what that understanding is, and secondly, to correct your misrepresentation of this section of the article (it does not point to a single "type" of nihilism). In an argument such as this, citing one online encyclopaedia article doesn't really suffice. It's arguable as to whether any of those writers are properly nihilistic. I happen to agree with the author that they are, and have an important relation to nihilism. Nonetheless, you're not really conducting the debate in the correct fashion if you believe that there are clearly delineated "types" of nihilism, and that a single article is enough to suggest that three extremely different writers constitute one of them. It's a hasty paragraph grouping them together in opposition to existentialism, and doesn't really attend to what is properly nihilistic in their thought, or their relation to that tradition: I hoped to show that.
Rather, the point is that a hypothetical young student, even having never heard of Nietzsche, could come up with a similar view, and it'd be reasonably called "nihilism" without any of your baggage. This hypothetical student would not "have a dialogue with nostalgia" (as described in the article), and neither would his philosophy be a "response to Nietzsche/any other pessimistic predecessor". Thus, your definition of nihilism failed to account for him, or indeed this entire style. You see how your insistence of tracing the historical tradition is actually a distracting pitfall here!
There is quite a lot to unpack here, and I don't want to fall into an argument about historicism. You seem quite preoccupied with taxonomies of philosophical positions; this isn't bad in itself, but it can be inappropriate. I never attempted to give a prescriptive definition of "nihilism", though; indeed, I believe that to do so is absurd. I have attempted to isolate a "kernel" to nihilistic thought but I do not at all believe that that suffices as a definition of the word, which must necessarily incorporate the historical dimension. Briefly, I'll say that, whenever we use a word, we are still invoking its history. When we use the word "nihilism" we cannot do away with the "baggage" I discussed. When you're using the word "nihilism" broadly, you are not merely designating a certain set of claims that could be made ahistorically. When you label a philosophy as "nihilistic" you could be indicating that it does not engage with this tradition, but adopts similar positions -- and yet you are, importantly, inevitably situating it with respect to that tradition. You just can't escape these aspects of the word, and you shouldn't think that we can say things like "nihilism holds that..." in the same way that we can easily say of an analytic position something like "moderate moral autonomism", or whatever.
But, most importantly, you have to consider the historical situation in which such a hypothetical student comes up with his arguments: his concepts do not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore unjust to say that, regardless of his immediate knowledge of the philosophical tradition, he has not in some way been affected by it -- this is most obviously the case with nihilism in the arts, in fact. The point lies in considering how certain views relate to a broader cultural condition. As I say, nothing originates in a vacuum, neither particular tendencies of reasoning, nor the words we might use to describe them.
Of course, I'm not saying that to call something "nihilistic" means that it must talk about Nietzsche explicitly, or so forth -- just that these are the things we mean when we actively use this word, and they are always at least connoted by it. Analytic philosophy has done very well in dealing with definite descriptions (vide Russell), but this only covers an extremely narrow field of linguistic functions. If you wanted to list necessary and sufficient criteria for applying the word, then by all means do so, but I think that would just be heading towards pedantry and, in fact, away from illumination (in that to do so would detract from what actually happens when we use a word like "nihilism"). The core "necessity" is, however, a certain way of dealing with value, and that is what I mainly have issue with. It's just that this particular way of conceiving of value has an historical genesis, and by no means exhausts the things we mean when we talk about "nihilism". Furthermore, a tendency towards nihilistic thinking is arguably enforced by a certain concept of rationality that underpins modern social structures.
I will grant you, that's a pretty sweeping claim in the last paragraph-- but it does follow, if you begin to reflect upon structures of rationality, language and concept acquisition, and so forth.
Finally, I'm surprised that a supposed philosophy graduate would complain so much about pedantry or exactness. Rather, your own vagueness and tendency to clarify earlier claims in highly inequivalent ways is what makes your posts so difficult to read (after which you proceed to blame me for that fault). Perhaps a little formality early on would help, not only others, but also yourself, grasp the issues behind what you are posting.
I'm sorry you misread my first post; I can see how you got the reading that you did. But I was emphasizing an aspect of nihilism in context. I qualified myself as soon as the discussion took another direction. It is, however, deeply frustrating that, after pointing to your error several times, you continued to ignore me. Philosophical exactness, and meaningful philosophical discussion, involve an awareness of context and an appreciation of qualification. I don't believe you were exacting or pedantic, rather -- as I said -- pertinacious, in simply wishing to win a fight based upon a misunderstanding that I had on numerous occasions already corrected. I'll grant that the exact claims of my first post were not clearly exposed. Then again, I had no intention of writing a long and detailed rebuttal of nihilism; rather, I just sought to convey the drift of my thinking in a fashion I found rhetorically amenable. I think I also misconstrued your subsequent post, when you said that "nihilism is about the lack of intrinsic meaning", which I interpreted as merely equating nihilism and relativism; nonetheless, you went on to quote me in such as way as to say that you did believe nihilism was synonymous with a rejection of absolute axiologies. This was the point I really took up on.
I believe, though, from the kinds of arguments you have tried to make, that we have rather different conceptions of philosophy (not to say that mine is not exacting, potentially pedantic, or rooted in analytic thought). Do you study mathematics or natural science?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Da Bachtopus
Your latter assertion is rather unfalsifiable; you are practically postulating some kind of subconscious influence by previous philosophical schools. Why not say that every philosophy has a similar subconscious influence by nostalgia/angst, and is therefore stupid by your earlier standards?
But more to the point, this doesn't get rid of the earlier counterexample (even if it, by design, makes it unverifiable irl). One could postulate a theoretical bright kid who is not influenced but who, after reading about what objective values are, is able to cheerfully postulate that they don't exist. Depending on how unfalsifiable you've decided to make your speculation, this may have to take place in a non-European culture, an isolated area, or another planet that has never known angsty non-objectivism. But the kid in question would still be called a nihilist, by the article's standards, and the mere possibility serves as a counterexample.
Finally, even assuming everyone to be [subconsciously] historically influenced, I would question the validity of your original assertion. Why would [subconscious] influence by the "stupid" types of nihilism make the new type of nihilism, in turn, stupid? So the nonhypothetical student considers cheerfully (in the manner described by the article) the lack of objective values, and what he comes up with is stupid because of what Nietzsche et al did a century ago? How does that make any sense?
Original post by Da Bachtopus
The emboldened is essentially saying, "I personally define it this way", which would have been fine, considering that various definitions are possible. [I'm not as interested in taxonomy as you think I am.] But instead, you were insisting from the first response that "nihilism" was what you said it was, and that any encyclopedia article would concur with you (the latter I knew to be blatantly false).
As for whether I agree with your recent "positive" definition of nihilism: it's okay, and at the same time not my cup of tea. I prefer elegant definitions that don't depend on consulting numerous authors/texts. Coincidentally, this is also the type more likely to be adopted by an encyclopedia, as they too tend to select efficient answers for the reader.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Saichu
As for whether I agree with your "positive" definition of nihilism: it's okay, and at the same time not my cup of tea. I prefer elegant definitions that don't depend on referring to numerous authors. Coincidentally, this is also the type more likely to be adopted by an encyclopedia, as they too would prefer efficient answers for the reader.
An encyclopaedia has a very different function from a dictionary.
My understanding of nihilism is perfectly sound and what I have said in this thread corresponds with that encyclopaedia article. I have even, in that lengthy post I believe you glossed over (since it actually discussed philosophers), shown that to be the case.
However, I have the feeling that we are talking past each other, primarily because you are not a philosopher, and indeed seem to dislike the idea of the subject as existing in any form other than as an exchange of propositions within an idealized discourse community. Am I right in suspecting that you are a physicist, programmer or mathematician? You are attempting to model philosophy purely after scientific method and seem to be invoking Popper.
I am not going to respond to the rest of your points in detail. To do so would be fruitless, as we would inevitably be flung into a series of debates about designation and historicism. You have a flawed understanding of the former and you misconstrue me on the latter. Nor is it, fundamentally, for lack of clarity on my part: you are clearly arguing from a position thoroughly entrenched within a very narrow concept of philosophy that is uninterested in the social or historical aspects of reason. If you had read more widely, you would have reflected more thoroughly upon this position, and would be familiar with the terms and categories that I'm employing. Certainly with regard to designation, my point has clearly passed you by. Your failure to see that "elegant" (or superficial) definitions are not always appropriate or accurate says as much. I have gone some way to explaining this myself, and do not wish to begin repeating. I am not being particularly obtuse or difficult, either. Just do some work of your own.
As for historicism, I simply do not have time to go through the foundational arguments that would clarify my terms and categories, and thereby my position, further. I said as much, too. This is, to an extent, laziness (and prioritisation: I have real work to do). But such arguments are difficult enough when engaging with sympathetic interlocutors, let alone the unsympathetic and uninformed. I will, however, happily compile a reading list for you, if you are genuinely interested in understanding my position; that is, in learning more about philosophy, and not merely squabbling.
Until we are able to find some common ground in our understanding of philosophy and the aim of this discussion, however, I see little point in continuing and will step back from this debate.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Da Bachtopus
This is actually incorrect: the unfalsifiability of your position was only one of several observations I'd brought up, and my arguments do not hinge on it.
My main thrust, rather, is how your position of "nihilistic stupidity" makes sense when the influences are merely subconscious (as well as why this does not, in turn, make everything else "stupid"). The issue is not even "am I using 'narrow philosophy'", but rather "he's stupid because he's influenced by stupid predecessors? Does that position actually make any sense?"
Original post by Da Bachtopus
But that's the thing: it does not quite. Rather, the article includes an (apparently) much more general definition, which you've claimed is equivalent to yours' by citing subconscious influence. Fair enough (albeit questionable and unfalsfiable), but that does lead naturally to my above question: how could subconscious influence, alone, make a worldview (that, say, a kid comes up with) automatically stupid?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Saichu
This is incorrect: the unfalsifiability of your position was only one of several observations I'd brought up, and my arguments do not hinge on it.
I never said your arguments hinged upon the issue of unfalsifiability, just that you were invoking Popper, which you were. This reinforced my assumptions about your approach to philosophy, and what you study, owing to his popularity amongst science undergraduates who haven't ventured very far into the literature, believing the entire discipline to be derivable in casual conversation on an ad hoc basis. Ironically, when you profess not to be using "narrow" philosophy, then attempt to reduce everything I've said to a central (inaccurate) claim, this merely confirms your crippling dogmatism, as does your perverse notion of -- and indeed almost libidinal obsession with -- definition. Your procedures bear out everything I have said about their limiting the possibility of a further meaningful engagement between us.
Your basic inability to read complicated texts and to understand the scope of individual claims in fact suggests that you suffer from some more fundamental cognitive difficulties. You are incapable, as it were, of inferring the assumptions necessary to "keep score" (in David Lewis's sense) during a conversation, or of dealing with any mode of presentation that is not absolutely procedural.
I will be leaving TSR for the next month or so in order to minimize distraction from my studies, so will not be replying further. I wish you the best of luck in coping with your condition.
Original post by Da Bachtopus
You mean I "invoked" him by saying "unfalsifiable" twice and not using it in any of my actual arguments. OK.
Original post by Da Bachtopus
Actually, I'd very much like to hear how this claim is inaccurate. There are people who have never read formal philosophy, but who conclude that there are no objective values (without despairing or doing any of the things you claimed). It's difficult to see how the philosophical influence on them would be anything other than subconscious.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by miser
I've been struggling for a while with nihilism. A few years ago I accepted the thesis of existential nihilism: that there is no intrinsic value able to be attributed to existence such that existence is better than non-existence. Ever since that time I've understood myself to be an existentialist (believing that meaning can be found extrinsically in the environment - in people, causes or beliefs), but since a few months ago, I have found my perspective flip as I began to realise that I could not justify existentialism; I could not reconcile to myself the reason why any action I perceived as 'meaningful' was more important than any other action, and this lead to a transition to nihilism.
Now that I am a nihilist, I cannot help but feel surrounded by the inherent feeling of purposelessness of any action or any inaction. I bother to stay alive because my instincts tell me that any suicide would hurt my friends and family, but I cannot separate feelings of instinct against feelings of free will, or any feelings that could truly be said to belong to 'me' and not simply be a product of my 'design' (or the specific configuration of matter that constitutes 'me'
.
So, I would like to ask, is there any strong argument in favor of existentialism over nihilism? Or of any other philosophy?
For additional details, I'd like to clarify that my nihilism is not related to depression (I'd like to mention this since it is a common misconception regarding nihilism) - my nihilism has not lead to feelings of depression, nor has any feeling of depression contributed to my current beliefs; I've thought in-depth about philosophy for a long time, and I'm simply unable to justify any feeling of purposefulness over any other feeling.
The only compelling argument I can think of that even tempts me is that the existence of consciousnesses necessitates the existence of morality, and so therefore perhaps it is more logically sound to devote one's life to humanism or altruism. Or perhaps that the existence of my own consciousness inherently justifies hedonism, according to the idea that existence could only be said to be more worthwhile than non-existence if it was better than non-existence.
I'd be really interested to hear others' thoughts on this subject. Thanks for your time!
Now that I am a nihilist, I cannot help but feel surrounded by the inherent feeling of purposelessness of any action or any inaction. I bother to stay alive because my instincts tell me that any suicide would hurt my friends and family, but I cannot separate feelings of instinct against feelings of free will, or any feelings that could truly be said to belong to 'me' and not simply be a product of my 'design' (or the specific configuration of matter that constitutes 'me'
.So, I would like to ask, is there any strong argument in favor of existentialism over nihilism? Or of any other philosophy?
For additional details, I'd like to clarify that my nihilism is not related to depression (I'd like to mention this since it is a common misconception regarding nihilism) - my nihilism has not lead to feelings of depression, nor has any feeling of depression contributed to my current beliefs; I've thought in-depth about philosophy for a long time, and I'm simply unable to justify any feeling of purposefulness over any other feeling.
The only compelling argument I can think of that even tempts me is that the existence of consciousnesses necessitates the existence of morality, and so therefore perhaps it is more logically sound to devote one's life to humanism or altruism. Or perhaps that the existence of my own consciousness inherently justifies hedonism, according to the idea that existence could only be said to be more worthwhile than non-existence if it was better than non-existence.
I'd be really interested to hear others' thoughts on this subject. Thanks for your time!
Hey OP, thought I'd drop in 7 years later to ask if you feel / think any differently. What you've written more or less mirrors my experience. (Before reading Nausea I loved and was inspired by existential writing, afterwards... I found that absurdity dropped a pretty big turd on the true/great thoughts on freedom, self definition, responsibility etc). I'd be grateful to know of anything you've read/done/thought etc that you have found helpful.
Cheers,
Paul
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by pablito15
Hey OP, thought I'd drop in 7 years later to ask if you feel / think any differently. What you've written more or less mirrors my experience. (Before reading Nausea I loved and was inspired by existential writing, afterwards... I found that absurdity dropped a pretty big turd on the true/great thoughts on freedom, self definition, responsibility etc). I'd be grateful to know of anything you've read/done/thought etc that you have found helpful.
Cheers,
Paul
Cheers,
Paul
Hey, thanks for the nostalgia - I think this was my very first post on TSR.
Yes my thoughts have changed a lot. I was stuck in a nihilistic rut for about 6 months, but I realised that I believed some things actually do matter, irrespective of whether we think they do or not. For example, the fact that my family is happy rather than in pointless pain and suffering matters not only to me, but if I died I believe it would still matter. It mattering isn't dependent on my thinking so, it just does.
Believing that nothing had any meaning was very psychologically burdensome and I wasn't happy living that way. Now my life is practically the complete opposite: I look forward to every day because I have things I want to do and I'm always moving closer to things that are important to me.
On balance I'm grateful for descending into the nihilistic pit for a while because scrutinising everything allowed me to build a very robust philosophical framework that I've continued to use ever since then. Spending that period of questioning everything means that I know now very clearly what things in life are important to me and how I should live.
But the thing with the nihilistic pit is that I was lucky to find a way out - that's not guaranteed. If you don't find something truly meaningful you can get stuck down there for years.
So it was life events rather than reading or something intellectual that changed things?I feel like it's hard to argue against Nihilism in some ways. I can perfectly see how the logic is laid out.
I don't believe in a 'God' as a higher being who instills a specific purpose in us. I don't believe that in 1tsnd years from now anything I do will have made even the smallest difference. I don't believe in life after death.
So I can see the logic behind taking those ideas and formulating the conclusion that life is ultimately meaningless.
My view, however, is that all meaning and purpose originates from the individual. The deity that guides us is our own conscience, and meaning is to be found in taking responsibility for our own selves.
I don't believe in a 'God' as a higher being who instills a specific purpose in us. I don't believe that in 1tsnd years from now anything I do will have made even the smallest difference. I don't believe in life after death.
So I can see the logic behind taking those ideas and formulating the conclusion that life is ultimately meaningless.
My view, however, is that all meaning and purpose originates from the individual. The deity that guides us is our own conscience, and meaning is to be found in taking responsibility for our own selves.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Got stuck in nihilism and existential crisis.
- Eduqas Religious Studies A-Level
- Politics 25 mark extract question structure
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Relationship help!!!
- Is A level philosophy (aqa) hard if you study?
- A level politics edexcel
- English language gcse questions
- Writing Essays
- Does anyone look back at their old threads they started and just say "yikes"?
- A level politics help
- Should Starmer hand the Labour Party leadership to Reeves?
- How often should I mention my research in my EPQ essay?
- Vicarious liability
- can someone pls mark this eng lang 2 question 5 for me?
- History A Level Essay help
- LNAT Essay
- Help with History competition
- GCSE R.E
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
