Nihilism

[Digital Brit]

Just wondering if there are any other nihilists on the forum or how other people view nihilism.

Personally I am an existential and moral nihilist (although some people classify moral nihilism under 'existential' and use it as an umbrella term).

If anyone has any questions I (and presumably others) would be happy to answer them and spread knowledge (this thread was sort of spawned out me seeing people talk about nihilism [not on this forum] and not really understanding it)

[Volbet]

So essentalliy you use the terms existential and moral nihilism to describe taking a Sartrean stance in those subjects?

 

Edit: Wouldn't it be a good idea to descibe what your positions mean? Since most people probably won't know, and as you yourself stated: "seeing people talk about nihilism [not on this forum] and not really understanding it)" 

It would be easier to ask questions about positions we could understand.

[Manny Calavera]

Reading the wiki page, there is a whole dump of ideas n stuff. Why would you even call yourself that and put a label on you. 

[Digital Brit]

So essentalliy you use the terms existential and moral nihilism to describe taking a Sartrean stance in those subjects?

 

Edit: Wouldn't it be a good idea to descibe what your positions mean? Since most people probably won't know, and as you yourself stated: "eeing people talk about nihilism [not on this forum] and not really understanding it)" 

It would be easier to ask questions about positions we could understand.

Hadn't heard of Sartrean stances before, but I've Googled and it seems about right, primarily the part which states that life has no meaning: I've always held that belief and I found that it had a name 'Existential Nihilism'. Hence I call myself a nihilist.

 

On the moral nihilism, I can't find Sartrean content relating to it so I will explain my view: No actions are right or wrong, they are simply actions. No action is evil, no action is good. Morality is a construct of humanity. We use morality to make societal rules to attempt to keep order, but different societies have different moralities. If we are able to pick and choose what is good and evil surely that means that nothing was good or evil in the first place and they become good or evil based on the societal morality that is constructed. (that is pretty badly worded but I hope you get the idea)

[Digital Brit]

Reading the wiki page, there is a whole dump of ideas n stuff. Why would you even call yourself that and put a label on you. 

The wiki page seems to take a more negative-ish view on nihilism. I used the 'Nihilist' label because it was the closest label I could find to what I believe. There are a few variations of nihilism, that's why I specified existential and moral. 

[The Crazed Child]

Can someone explain what it is?

[Volbet]

Hadn't heard of Sartrean stances before, but I've Googled and it seems about right, primarily the part which states that life has no meaning: I've always held that belief and I found that it had a name 'Existential Nihilism'. Hence I call myself a nihilist.

 

On the moral nihilism, I can't find Sartrean content relating to it so I will explain my view: No actions are right or wrong, they are simply actions. No action is evil, no action is good. Morality is a construct of humanity. We use morality to make societal rules to attempt to keep order, but different societies have different moralities. If we are able to pick and choose what is good and evil surely that means that nothing was good or evil in the first place and they become good or evil based on the societal morality that is constructed. (that is pretty badly worded but I hope you get the idea)

But doesn't that moral position deny all the moral rules that all societies have in comen?

We have yet to find a society that accepts murder or raping children (these are just examples. There are plenty more). We might disagree on the finer points: When is a person a child or when is murder justified. Though that doesn't change that the core is the same. 

 

Can someone explain what it is?

Nihilism basically means ´the knowledge (or idea) of nothingness´. However it is rarely used to mean that.

 

In the examples given in the OP, this is what is meant:

Moral Nihilism means the rejection of moral abolutes. Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Whatever we think are right or wrong, are simply subjective contructs, and therefor they can't be made universal. What is moral for you, is only moral for you, and no one else.

Existential nihilism is a bit more tricky to explain. 

1. Most people use the term to describe life as fundamentaly meaningless. We, as humans, are placed in this world with nothing to guide us. It is therefor up to us to create a meaning in life. Again, this meaning is 100% subjective and can't be made universal.
2. Other people take that life neither has nor can ever have any meaning. Therefor all efforts are ultimatly wasted and all there is to life is waiting for death.

[Manny Calavera]

 

But doesn't that moral position deny all the moral rules that all societies have in comen?

We have yet to find a society that accepts murder or raping children (these are just examples. There are plenty more). We might disagree on the finer points: When is a person a child or when is murder justified. Though that doesn't change that the core is the same. 

 

If you also mean religion cult by society, then i am afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

 

The wiki page seems to take a more negative-ish view on nihilism. I used the 'Nihilist' label because it was the closest label I could find to what I believe. There are a few variations of nihilism, that's why I specified existential and moral. 

Problem is, if you talk to like majority of the people, they never think about those things, let alone know what the term means. While i might share same ideas, i wouldnt describe myself as nihilist. People dont even know what atheism means... I would use those points in a discussion, philoshopical one / religion / morality, i wouldnt say "Hey i am that and that and that  Nihilist!". 

[Digital Brit]

@Volbet 
"We have yet to find a society that accepts murder or raping children (these are just examples. There are plenty more). We might disagree on the finer points: When is a person a child or when is murder justified. Though that doesn't change that the core is the same. "

 

While we have yet find one that holds those morals my points was: What's to stop the formation of a society where murder is perfectly OK, they would view murder as morally OK or even a good thing and that would be how they functioned. Morality is entirely subjective, if morals were a universal absolute that knew and followed then the Nazi party would have never existed. But because people can create moral constructs they were able to form a morality where they thought that committing genocide was a good thing.

In a world of objective morality that would have never happened. That is why I am a moral nihilist, because to me it makes no sense to assume that one action is inherently right or wrong.

[Digital Brit]

If you also mean religion cult by society, then i am afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

 

Problem is, if you talk to like majority of the people, they never think about those things, let alone know what the term means. While i might share same ideas, i wouldnt describe myself as nihilist. People dont even know what atheism means... I would use those points in a discussion, philoshopical one / religion / morality, i wouldnt say "Hey i am that and that and that  Nihilist!". 

I'm one of these weird people who likes labels, a way to quickly give blanket terms to people so I can at least partly understand them. If I need to learn more and understand them in greater detail I will.

[Volbet]

@Volbet 

"We have yet to find a society that accepts murder or raping children (these are just examples. There are plenty more). We might disagree on the finer points: When is a person a child or when is murder justified. Though that doesn't change that the core is the same. "

 

While we have yet find one that holds those morals my points was: What's to stop the formation of a society where murder is perfectly OK, they would view murder as morally OK or even a good thing and that would be how they functioned. Morality is entirely subjective, if morals were a universal absolute that knew and followed then the Nazi party would have never existed. But because people can create moral constructs they were able to form a morality where they thought that committing genocide was a good thing.

In a world of objective morality that would have never happened. That is why I am a moral nihilist, because to me it makes no sense to assume that one action is inherently right or wrong.

Subjective and objective is not the only things we have to consider when we talk about morality.

I will agree that morality is subjective. There is no god(s), or other higher being that have determined what is right or wrong. The debate on the morality of reason is way to long, so i won't touch on that.

But when morality is subjective we have to consider the practical use of morality. What sociery is the most stable: A society that allows murder or a society that think murder si wrong? 

The answer should be obvious. The society that is not killing it's members will be the most stable. So while murder while we are not able to condem murder as wrong on a universal level, we can deem it counterproductive and therefor we shun it society.  

This can be said about a number of cases. Human are, in most cases, a social animal. We need to coexist with other humans. We also rely on these humans, therefor it is in our best interest to be on their good side.

 

The argument can also be made the our morals came to be through evolution. The genes that favoured ´healthy´ social interaction was the genes that got spread the most, since the groups that contained the most of these were the ones that survived. 

[Digital Brit]

Subjective and objective is not the only things we have to consider when we talk about morality.

I will agree that morality is subjective. There is no god(s), or other higher being that have determined what is right or wrong. The debate on the morality of reason is way to long, so i won't touch on that.

But when morality is subjective we have to consider the practical use of morality. What sociery is the most stable: A society that allows murder or a society that think murder si wrong? 

The answer should be obvious. The society that is not killing it's members will be the most stable. So while murder while we are not able to condem murder as wrong a universal leverl, we can deem it counterproductive and therefor we shun it society.  

This can be said about a number of cases. Human are, in most cases, a social animal. We need to coexist with other humans. We also rely on these humans, therefor it is in our best interest to be on their good side.

 

The argument can also be made the our morals came to be through ecolution. The genes that favoured ´healthy´ social interaction was the genes that got spread the most, since the groups that contained the most of these were the ones that survived. 

Granted the example was a bit of a hyperbole, but that was just to get the point across. A less dramatic example would be a society where stealing is not a crime, because some people benefit and some people suffer it as a detriment would it be morally good or bad?  It would be both at the same time based on who you were in the situation based on your subjective morality.

 

I also agree that morals are just a device to stop society imploding (I think I mentioned this previously), if you can group everyone together and make them all think in one particular way then the likelihood of collapse is dramatically reduced.

But that also reinforces my point that morality is just humanity flexing it's manipulative muscles.

[NeatSquidYT]

This is one deep ass thread.

[shiftberry]

Nihilism is atheism in a religious way!

[Digital Brit]

This is one deep ass thread.

How long till it's derailed by completely unrelated things?

[Volbet]

Granted the example was a bit of a hyperbole, but that was just to get the point across. A less dramatic example would be a society where stealing is not a crime, because some people benefit and some people suffer it as a detriment would it be morally good or bad?  It would be both at the same time based on who you were in the situation based on your subjective morality.

 

I also agree that morals are just a device to stop society imploding (I think I mentioned this previously), if you can group everyone together and make them all think in one particular way then the likelihood of collapse is dramatically reduced.

But that also reinforces my point that morality is just humanity flexing it's manipulative muscles.

Just so I'm sure, you do know that there is a difference between moral subjectivism (or moral relativism) and moral nihilism?

Just becuase you think morals are subjective, you can still assign value to these morals. We can do this based on reason, logic and other abstract measures like numbers. This also mean that we can argue which of two (or more) actions is the most moral. This position is moral subjectivism. 

In moral nihilism you can't assing any value to moral actions. When Billy Bob helps an old lady with her daily routine his actions are exactly of the same moral caliber as Anders Breivik's shooting spree.

You would also not be able to justify why you are helping other people insted of shooting them.  

 

For the rest i will assume you do not identify as a epistemological nihilist.

 

Stealing is compareble to murdering when we talk about morals as a concept. So changing from murder to stealing won't change anything. 

A group of humans would have a very hard time surviving as a group, if they kept stealing from each other. 

In your own example you are creating two different groups. The ones that steal and the ones that are stolen from. The ones that steal probably won't steal from their own group, since it couldn't lower their chance of still being accepted by the group.

I would also argue that a group based on stealing wouldn't be a very good group. The individuals in the group that the other member are capable of stealing, and therefor they wouldn't trust eachother.

 

In you second point, you are creating a chicken and the egg situation. You presuppose that morals were constructed to keep sociaty together.

I would agrue that morals were needed to create a society. A lot of individuals that go about their own business, and are mistrusting of others, wouldn't survive very long. Therefor it is preferable to be aware of other people prefrences.

 

How long till it's derailed by completely unrelated things?

Obviously the PS3 is superior to the Xbox One. 

[Trik'Stari]

[Digital Brit]

@Volbet  

When Billy Bob helps an old lady with her daily routine his actions are exactly of the same moral caliber as Anders Breivik's shooting spree.

 

I wouldn't say that they are of the same moral caliber, but that they are simply actions. My way of looking at it is that: While Billy Bob may be doing a thing that has a positive effect, it does not make the action good, but due to a positive effect it may make it preferable to Andres Breivik shooting people, which may have negative effects, the negative effects making it something you would want to avoid. Neither of those actions are good or bad, they are actions and they will have consequences, it is up to those effected by the consequences to say if they will view them in a positive or negative light, giving it the title of 'good' or 'bad' based on how it effected them. Whether they view it as pleasant or unpleasant is up to them, but the action is inherently neither. 

 

 

-Third paragraph-

I was trying to create an example, I'm not very good at those (although I was able to adapt yours)

 

 

(I've come to realise that I may have a tendency to word these quite badly and just end up throwing all my thoughts out onto the screen, I hope you still get the point)

 

 

 

Obviously the PS3 is superior to the Xbox One. 

Levi is not impressed

[LifesCompanion]

Just my rant: 

 

By no means, are what we perceive as morals fixed in stone - I would even go to say that I think what we tend to define as "morals" don't truly exist. 

What we perceive as morals can be broken down into evolutionary traits, take a look at any animal, what they do is the very essence of morals, kill what you need to kill, let what brings you no harm, live. But do they have what we define as morals? No. 

 

For me, morals are what we collectively agree upon and what we wouldn't want to happen to us (e.g. don't stab someone - that would fucking hurt) - which we tend to agree upon. That being said, "morals" are a fluid, there is no true morality, there is no true way of living your life. 

Take this, albeit extreme, example: In WW2, we considered what the Nazi's were doing to be immoral however, take a second and look at it from a Nazi's perspective - what they were doing was eradicating the scum of the Earth (their perspective not mine, I can not stress that enough) and that they were doing the world a favour. According to their set of morals, they were morally correct, but to us, it was absolutely disgusting. 

 

Morals are a flexible, fluid, almost living being. You can't categories what it means to me or you. It's inevitable that we all have different "morals", none of us are the same, similar? Perhaps, but we will never be the same nor will we believe in the same set of "morals" 

 

Nihilism is atheism in a religious way!

I would disagree, atheism is the rejection of any and all deities. Nihilism is simply the denial of a particular aspect of life. 

Mixing the ideas of religion with nihilism is like mixing oil and water, it just won't work. 

 

 

EDIT: fixed some grammatical errors 

[Volbet]

@Volbet  

I wouldn't say that they are of the same moral caliber, but that they are simply actions. My way of looking at it is that: While Billy Bob may be doing a thing that has a positive effect, it does not make the action good, but due to a positive effect it may make it preferable to Andres Breivik shooting people, which may have negative effects, the negative effects making it something you would want to avoid. Neither of those actions are good or bad, they are actions and they will have consequences, it is up to those effected by the consequences to say if they will view them in a positive or negative light, giving it the title of 'good' or 'bad' based on how it effected them. Whether they view it as pleasant or unpleasant is up to them, but the action is inherently neither. 

 

I was trying to create an example, I'm not very good at those (although I was able to adapt yours)

 

 

(I've come to realise that I may have a tendency to word these quite badly and just end up throwing all my thoughts out onto the screen, I hope you still get the point)

 

 

Levi is not impressed

notimpressed.png

when you attribute positive and negative values to action, you do not act like a nihilist. You act like a moral subjectivist. 

A moral nihilist would not be able to assign any action with a positive or negative value. 

 

i would argue that we can debate the moral value of an action based on logic, reason and numbers, just as I already stated.

Debating based on these thing won't make morals objective, but it will give us a common ground to debate on. 

It will insure that you won't argue A while I argue B. 

 

I'm not a price to won when it comes to making examples and argument. Especially in written form. This is why i usually prefer a verbal discussion.

 

I would disagree, atheism is the rejection of any and all deities. Nihilism is simply the denial of a particular aspect of life. 

Mixing the ideas of religion with nihilism is like mixing oil and water, it just won't work. 

 

 

EDIT: fixed some grammatical errors 

This depends on what sort of nihilism. 

In the Nietzschen sense of nihilism, religion is nihilism, since keep people content with not knowing anything (very simplyfied).

 

But I do agree that you can't setup nihilism as an ideology, since it is a rejection of ideas.

[Digital Brit]

@Volbet

 

i would argue that we can debate the moral value of an action based on logic, reason and numbers, just as I already stated.

Debating based on these thing won't make morals objective, but it will give us a common ground to debate on. 

It will insure that you won't argue A while I argue B. 

Logic is always good, shall we begin?

[Volbet]

@Volbet

Logic is always good, shall we begin?

I don't really know what we would argue, since we basically agree on the nature of morals, we just disagree on definitions. 

And if you are a moral nihilist, logic wouldn't have an impact on anything.

[Digital Brit]

I don't really know what we would argue, since we basically agree on the nature of morals, we just disagree on definitions. 

And if you are a moral nihilist, logic wouldn't have an impact on anything.

Definitions are finicky in philosophy.

 

I am a logic driven creature, I chose 'moral nihilist' as a label because I could find nothing more appropriate, but I would still call myself a nihilist due to the existential nihilism.