Nihilism for dummies

[-Vincent-]

The same way you motivate yourself: life is enjoyable, if you put some effort it. There may be no grand purpose to life, but that doesn't mean we can't make the most of it.

Well, if life is to be enjoyed, then you believe that pleasure has some purpose. Why don't you simply call yourself a hedonist...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, if life is to be enjoyed, then you believe that pleasure has some purpose. Why don't you simply call yourself a hedonist...

Because that isn't what I said: I said life is enjoyable, not that it should be enjoyed. We can enjoy it, but there's no grand outcome if we do.

 

[JGL53]

Well, I am an existential nihilist. IOW, I see to reason to even suspect that existence - all that we are conscious of existing, including ourselves- is here for some grand or ultimate reason or meaning.

If it did, then I would view myself as a rat in a cage, or an ant in a giant ant farm or a peon in a reality ruled by an all-powerful dictator.

To believe the above would not be good for my mental health, I'm thinking.

So - I would wonder about people who really believe in an invisible god all around - both immanent and transcendent. When such people have sex, either by themselves or with a partner, do they ever think about the inescapable voyeur, watching and judging every move? It all seems so schizophrenic to me.

Rather than be depressed by an existence that has no grand purpose or meaning or reason for being, I think of my life as a free lunch. There is a massive amount of determinism and contingency outside of my power or even preview, and a certain amount of conscious choice - so called free will - which I can exercise. I try to change what I don't like, accept that which I can't change, and try to reason out which is which.

To complain or become depressed or unduly anxious because life just isn't what I want seems wasted energy to me. Denying the obvious facts of reality because I don't like them and just creating my own pseudo-reality to live in - that seems a pitiful waste of the one life I know I have.

As for morality - I think such will be ultimately based in pragmatic consensus, for the most part. We are social beings who learn to suppress out selfish desires to some degree to get along with others to the degree we want - which is usually a lot, e.g., we wish not to pee off others to the degree they will kill us, we wish to work together to obtain goods and services we could never produce as radical selfish individuals. To repeat, it is ultimately pragmatism, in some form of consensus.

 

[Received]

Existential theists -- a la Kierkegaard -- actually have a lot in common with nihilists. Both posit no absolute meaning; even if God exists, the limitation is universal morality as the closest to absolute morality (not absolute, given that there are suspensions of moral precepts), and man is more than a moral creature. He needs something unique, set for him. He needs a particular meaning, and this is assigned by God; for nihilists, meaning isn't assigned, but it is subjective, non-absolute. In particular, the distinction between theistic existentialism and nihilism is meaning as preset (handed down by God) and meaning as constructed by the individual. Phenomenologically, there is no difference at all. Meaning is still present, and the fulfillment of it is still the goal to be pursued. It's the metaethical question that differentiates. In either case, "ultimate meaning" is a misnomer, and potentially dangerous: aligning every human being to an absolute, set-in-stone ideal is disadvantageous; each person has his particularity, and as such needs particular values and meanings.

 

[Suggestion Box]

@Received
what part of 'for dummies' don't you understand!?!

j/k good post lol...

 

[quatona]

by the way, about 3 months ago i was of the opinion that even with God life is nihilistic...

I wasn´t aware that life held opinions.

i was also very depressed about it.

Why?

how does an existential nihilist motivate him/herself to do anything?

In the same way other people motivate themselves to do those things that they don´t think have "ultimate meaning". 'They just do them because they prefer them over the alternatives.
Personally, since I never expected anything to have "ultimate meaning" (whatever that might be supposed to mean) but was only concerned with things having meaning to me or someone else, I never felt that things not having "ultimate meaning" (whatever that might be supposed to mean) was some sort of issue whatsoever.
"Ultimate meaning" is one of those concepts that try to solve a problem that wouldn´t exist without this concept.
Besides, the meaning of "ultimate meaning" fades completely against super-meta-ultimate meaning. Thus, I have no idea why anyone would be satisfied with things merely having ultimate meaning.

 

[quatona]

Well, if life is to be enjoyed, then you believe that pleasure has some purpose. Why don't you simply call yourself a hedonist...

"Life is enjoyable" and "life is to be enjoyed" are two completely different statements.

 

[Tyrssen]

As for morality - I think such will be ultimately based in pragmatic consensus, for the most part. We are social beings who learn to suppress out selfish desires to some degree to get along with others to the degree we want - which is usually a lot, e.g., we wish not to pee off others to the degree they will kill us, we wish to work together to obtain goods and services we could never produce as radical selfish individuals. To repeat, it is ultimately pragmatism, in some form of consensus.

What happens what that consensus determines that it is okay to enslave people, to torture dissidents, or perhaps to execute and existential nihilists that may be lurking about? As a nihilist, you have to accept that your philosophy leads to radical relativism in ethics, which really means no ethics at all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What happens what that consensus determines that it is okay to enslave people, to torture dissidents, or perhaps to execute and existential nihilists that may be lurking about?

Then people will be enslaved, dissidents tortured, and nihilists executed. What do you expect to happen when the majority agrees to attack a minority? Flowers and sunshine?

As a nihilist, you have to accept that your philosophy leads to radical relativism in ethics, which really means no ethics at all.

Moral relativism isn't moral nihilism: the relativist accepts that what he sees as moral isn't what everyone else might see as moral, and that there isn't an objective morality. But that doesn't stop him from having a moral code in the first place.

The existential nihilist concludes that morality is, ultimately, pointless: whether we do good or evil is irrelevant. That doesn't mean we can't do good or evil: morality still exists, there's just no reason, no ultimate purpose in following it.
This applies to both objective and subjective views of morality.

 

[The Nihilist]

What happens what that consensus determines that it is okay to enslave people, to torture dissidents, or perhaps to execute and existential nihilists that may be lurking about?

How do you imagine that this is any different from the rest of human history?

 

[Tyrssen]

Because from the ethical realist's perspective, we have solid footing for rejecting those types of behaviors; you have no external reasons for not laying down and accepting them.

 

[The Nihilist]

Because from the ethical realist's perspective, we have solid footing for rejecting those types of behaviors; you have no external reasons for not laying down and accepting them.

Well, that they happened anyway means it hardly matters. But if we still want to pretend, I'm of the opinion that we have what amounts to an implicit social agreement not to rape and murder each other, and to work together sometimes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because from the ethical realist's perspective, we have solid footing for rejecting those types of behaviors; you have no external reasons for not laying down and accepting them.

So? Like I said, the moral relativist acknowledges the subjectivity of moral codes, not the futility of following them. Moreover, even the relativist has reason to abhor things like rape, murder, and theft.

I'm still curious what you mean by "What happens what that consensus determines that it is okay to enslave people, to torture dissidents, or perhaps to execute and existential nihilists that may be lurking about?" - do you consider this some kind of argument against moral relativism?

 

[Nooj]

I think this makes sense if one is an atheist, in fact if I ever became an atheist I think its the only logical belief. How does this apply even if there is a God as someone said before?

The existence of God in itself does not provide life with meaning. You're assuming that God assigns a meaning for your life, but it's entirely possible that God never did such a thing. Which means you can find your own way, as existentialists do. Also entirely possible to be a moral nihilist and a theist, if God never created objective morals.

oh excellent. i have long believed that, in absence of God, life is truly without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value.

Why?

if that be the case, then i think existential nihilism is a very mature viewpoint for an atheist.

Mature? As opposed to immature? Why?

 

[R3quiem]

I think this makes sense if one is an atheist, in fact if I ever became an atheist I think its the only logical belief. How does this apply even if there is a God as someone said before?

Instead of attempting to explain how life would/could still be meaningless without some sort of creator deity, it would be better if you could articulate why you believe that a creator deity would somehow add meaning to anything.

 

[Suggestion Box]

Originally Posted by Suggestion Box

oh excellent. i have long believed that, in absence of God, life is truly without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value.
​

Why?

there's no short answer and i don't have much time but i'll give you a skeleton argument...

if there's no God, or at least some supernatural element outside of the physical universe, then you are left with a closed system, or an infinite system, or a loop. this system is the universe (i.e. all universes; everything natural). this system is governed either by determined cause and effect, or random chance, neither of which can produce truly self-conscious beings (humans. you.) your consciousness is therefore an illusion. you are nothing but a very complex machine, brought on by natural events. nature does not have a motive for what it does. it just does things according to law. the idea of 'purpose' is thus also an illusion, part of the complex machine. your brain invents purpose. what you do every day is for nothing.

now, if we're honest with our logic, the implications here are not particularly attractive to the human mind. thus we say things like "oh, i have purpose, just no overarching purpose!" that's b.s. you're only kidding yourself, and you'll figure that out soon enough if you stick with it too long. many believe that this very sort of logical honesty is what drove Nietzche insane.

so the options i have in front of me are these:
1.) there is supernatural stuff out there - we may not understand it, there may be a means of true purpose out there - human wisdom only goes so far.
2.) naturalism, choosing to ignore some logic so you don't end up insane.
3.) nihilism! *goes insane*

 

[R3quiem]

there's no short answer and i don't have much time but i'll give you a skeleton argument...

if there's no God, or at least some supernatural element outside of the physical universe, then you are left with a closed system, or an infinite system, or a loop. this system is the universe (i.e. all universes; everything natural). this system is governed either by determined cause and effect, or random chance, neither of which can produce truly self-conscious beings (humans. you.) your consciousness is therefore an illusion. you are nothing but a very complex machine, brought on by natural events. nature does not have a motive for what it does. it just does things according to law. the idea of 'purpose' is thus also an illusion, part of the complex machine. your brain invents purpose. what you do every day is for nothing.

now, if we're honest with our logic, the implications here are not particularly attractive to the human mind. thus we say things like "oh, i have purpose, just no overarching purpose!" that's b.s. you're only kidding yourself, and you'll figure that out soon enough if you stick with it too long. many believe that this very sort of logical honesty is what drove Nietzche insane.

so the options i have in front of me are these:
1.) there is supernatural stuff out there - we may not understand it, there may be a means of true purpose out there - human wisdom only goes so far.
2.) naturalism, choosing to ignore some logic so you don't end up insane.
3.) nihilism! *goes insane*

Could you describe, preferably with a few details or examples, how a god, or some supernatural element outside of the physical universe, can add overarching meaning to an individual's life?

I mean, even if this said god or supernatural element did exist, I do not see how it affects your argument that we are but mere machines.

You claim that under naturalism, what one does every day is for nothing. If you believe that is true, then what do you believe an individual's life is for if it is true that a god or supernatural element exists?

 

[KingCrimson250]

Good thread. I saw something on the first page that I wanted to ask about:

The same way you motivate yourself: life is enjoyable, if you put some effort it. There may be no grand purpose to life, but that doesn't mean we can't make the most of it.

I have found myself unable to live this way. When you look at something and say that it has no purpose, for me the enjoyment just seems to dissipate. It no longer becomes an enjoyable activity and instead becomes just a way of passing the time until you die, and a way of trying to escape the haunting void that you feel when you believe in a life without meaning. Is this something you ran into at all? If so, how did/do you address it?


Also, I don't want to get in the way here, but in just a brief response to r3quiem's question, I think the traditional conservative Christian reply would be that God has a plan, an over-arching purpose that all of creation is steadily moving towards. Thus someone adhering to this particular belief might argue that meaning is an all-or-nothing affair: Either there is a God with a divine plan, in which case every single action, person, and thing is significant in the sense that it has some impact on this plan; or, there is a God or multiple gods who do not have any sort of purpose laid out, or there is no God at all, in which case nothing can ever have any meaning because there is no purpose with which it could relate to.

An alternative argument would simply be the one of infinity: The actions we perform on Earth have an impact on the afterlife. Why many people might consider life to be without purpose is because it is impermanent; why bother building up that which will only be destroyed? It is meaningless. However, to the Christian, we will be held accountable for our actions at the end of the world, and when we honour God on Earth we are storing up what Christ refers to as "treasures in heaven." What this might look like is up to the reader's imagination as no detail is given, but the notion is that our actions on Earth are all meaningful because they impact eternity - they are permanent, and as the Bible says, that which is built up in heaven will never be destroyed.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

[Nooj]

The actions we perform on Earth have an impact on the afterlife. Why many people might consider life to be without purpose is because it is impermanent; why bother building up that which will only be destroyed?

Why watch a movie when you know it will end? Don't mean to sound so blaise about it all, but that's what I really think about it. A building that will eventually fall down is still useful while it exists, and you can live enjoyably even if you know it'll all end.

 

[Eudaimonist]

if there's no God [...] this system is governed either by determined cause and effect, or random chance, neither of which can produce truly self-conscious beings (humans. you.)

I disagree that those are the only two alternatives (it depends on one's model of causation), but I'm puzzled why you think that this rules out self-conscious beings. I can understand that you might think that some form of freewill is ruled out, but not self-awareness.

your consciousness is therefore an illusion. you are nothing but a very complex machine, brought on by natural events.

Why can't a complex machine brought on by natural events be conscious?

nature does not have a motive for what it does. it just does things according to law.

Agreed, only people have motives for what they do.

the idea of 'purpose' is thus also an illusion, part of the complex machine.

Why can't complex machines have purposes?

your brain invents purpose.

So? A purpose is a goal at which one aims. This is precisely what a brain is well suited to do.

what you do every day is for nothing.

Why should a purpose be for nothing just because it is invented?

now, if we're honest with our logic, the implications here are not particularly attractive to the human mind. thus we say things like "oh, i have purpose, just no overarching purpose!"

No, I would say simply that I have no divine purpose. I have an overarching purpose, which is to flourish in life.

that's b.s. you're only kidding yourself, and you'll figure that out soon enough if you stick with it too long.

I've been doing this for at least twenty years as a metaphysical naturalist without any trouble. (All my life, really.) What am I supposed to experience that will tell me I was mistaken?

many believe that this very sort of logical honesty is what drove Nietzche insane.

Who does? The dominant theory is an illness. I don't know of anyone who thinks it was logical honesty. Few people who would agree with Nietzsche on these points have gone insane in their lives.


eudaimonia,

Mark