Questions about nihilism

[Nooj]

I think of myself as a nihilist, because I don't think inherent, absolute values exist. But I'm not sure how I came to this point. I honestly can't remember the steps that lead me to this belief. So my question is, how does a person come to think that inherent, absolute values do not exist? I guess it's an epistemological question, how do I know what I know?

Can you become a nihilist by rationalising yourself to this point? What empirical evidence is there?

[gamera]

I don't think inherent, absolute values exist either, but I don't think that makes me a nihilist. I think there is a second prong to nihlism, and that is existence is meaningless because there is no absolute value, and I would reject that. Existence is always meaningful to a self-aware being, perhaps all the more so because there are no inherent values. We cannot avoid deriving meaning from our existence, since as Heidegger points out, meaning is an existential structure that allows us to claim meaninglessness. A truly meaningless world would not be meaningless, and the experience of meaninglessness presupposes a world that is interpretable by us.

But to your epistomological point, I can't imagine any emperical basis on which one could discern inherent or ultimate values. By definition such a conclusion would have to be nonempirical, since the empirical cannot test the inherent or absolute, only the observable and experienced. There is nothing I discern in the observable universe that suggests any inherent values, except as Haldane noted, an inordinant fondness for beetles.

[Preno]

I think a pretty good first step is to clarify what one actually means by "inherent" and "absolute" (and "value").

[James T]

I'm coming to understand nihilism mean't something completely different from what it is currently taken to mean (which is many inconsistent things in itself).

[Received]

A person comes to the conclusion that absolute values don't exist if his own acceptance of these values doesn't culminate in what value aims at -- happiness. He learns not to value this absolute value, and so uproots value as absolute.

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.

[James T]

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.Hardly the only take on it. It can be (though perhaps not normally) an affirmation of the fact that while there are no values, foundations or ultimately any underlying inherent value in anything we can accept this in making our own.

[GenesisNemesis]

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.

I think you're confusing nihilism with pessimism.

[Nooj]

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.Hardly the only take on it. It can be (though perhaps not normally) an affirmation of the fact that while there are no values, foundations or ultimately any underlying inherent value in anything we can accept this in making our own.Existentialism, I believe...which I also happen to agree with.

I'm sorry I haven't been responding very well, but my keyboard is broken and it makes it hard for me to write a proper response. :yuck:

[Received]

Hardly the only take on it. It can be (though perhaps not normally) an affirmation of the fact that while there are no values, foundations or ultimately any underlying inherent value in anything we can accept this in making our own.

Or that, but I think (value) relativism better encapsulates that definition. I just consider the implicit "negation" that nihilism implies to mean something psychological.

I think you're confusing nihilism with pessimism.

I think pessimism is implicit in nihilism, yes, but they're different things.

[gamera]

A person comes to the conclusion that absolute values don't exist if his own acceptance of these values doesn't culminate in what value aims at -- happiness. He learns not to value this absolute value, and so uproots value as absolute.

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.

This assumes that the ultimate value is happiness, which of course could be disputed (and which I would dispute).

[gamera]

Nihilism doesn't mean that you reject absolute values (although all nihilists do this). It means that you, quite simply, perceive no reason in the world that could make you happy. Ironically, it means an absolute belief in the bleakness of the world.Hardly the only take on it. It can be (though perhaps not normally) an affirmation of the fact that while there are no values, foundations or ultimately any underlying inherent value in anything we can accept this in making our own.Existentialism, I believe...which I also happen to agree with.

I'm sorry I haven't been responding very well, but my keyboard is broken and it makes it hard for me to write a proper response. :yuck:

Just another example of our finitude, and the fact that we are thrown into a world not of our own making (where keyboards don't function)

[Ian Nerr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I guess I'm a nihilist then. It seems like a pretty silly label. What is "objective meaning" even supposed to mean? What would an intrinsic value be?

[Received]

Happiness not the highest value, gamera?

[gamera]

Happiness not the highest value, gamera?

No. If that were the case, morphine addiction with a ready supply would be our highest goal.

[Received]

Should be our highest goal. Changing the perception of drug use isn't easy; it takes time, not to mention government docility. And not many can get unlimited morphine. Not many once addicted would prefer a return to the addiction. In an ideal world...

I do see what you're saying. It seems that a focused drive towards a single perceived source of happiness ultimately costs more than the drive is worth taking. That's the negative seduction of living to be happy, yes; we replace the intuitively valid goal with certain contextual criteria. In a material-soaked society, this means having more stuff, to the point where we've lost the reason why we initially sought this stuff but still have the stuff. Oh well.

[gamera]

Should be our highest goal. Changing the perception of drug use isn't easy; it takes time, not to mention government docility. And not many can get unlimited morphine. Not many once addicted would prefer a return to the addiction. In an ideal world...

I do see what you're saying. It seems that a focused drive towards a single perceived source of happiness ultimately costs more than the drive is worth taking. That's the negative seduction of living to be happy, yes; we replace the intuitively valid goal with certain contextual criteria. In a material-soaked society, this means having more stuff, to the point where we've lost the reason why we initially sought this stuff but still have the stuff. Oh well.

Well, I think struggle and growth are part of becoming more humane, and to me that is a value worth living for. We are finite beings and if finitude makes happiness a rather forlorn hope. The gift of finitude is the potential to grow, and that isn't painless.

[Received]

Right on. But I don't think the existence of pain negates happiness as a goal in the act of trudging through pain. Nietzsche: he who has a why can live to bear almost any how. The "why" here can be interpreted as meaning, which means goal-oriented behavior. The goal, I'd say, is happiness. Growth and pain are necessities by virtue of finitude; but it's just as true to say that we tolerate these pains for the sake of a higher telos, or else we'd have no reason to tolerate them -- except fear of the unknown with regard to suicide. But even that fear of the unknown presupposes happiness as a (meta)value.

[Ian Nerr]

Pleasure and happiness are not the same thing.

[gamera]

Right on. But I don't think the existence of pain negates happiness as a goal in the act of trudging through pain. Nietzsche: he who has a why can live to bear almost any how. The "why" here can be interpreted as meaning, which means goal-oriented behavior. The goal, I'd say, is happiness. Growth and pain are necessities by virtue of finitude; but it's just as true to say that we tolerate these pains for the sake of a higher telos, or else we'd have no reason to tolerate them -- except fear of the unknown with regard to suicide. But even that fear of the unknown presupposes happiness as a (meta)value.

My inclination is to see any definition of happiness that meets the requirements you outline as not what we generally mean by happiness. Struggle and pain seem to be the exact opposite of happiness. The fact that it is only through dealing with our finitude that we encounter our humanity doesn't, I think, count for happiness. It counts for discovering our humanity.

That may in fact be a melancholy event, since the world is essentially a tragic place. But in the self-awareness, and the opportunity to gain knowledge and authenticity, seems worth it. Not because it makes us happy, and even when it doesn't, and maybe because it doesn't.

This may be happiness in the deeper Greek sense of eudaimonia, but I doubt that's even true. I might say grasping onto authenticity isn't necessarily a happy event, but the alternative is worse. And that's all we have, being finite beings.

[Received]

Why is gaining knowledge or truth a higher value?

And how do you mean "worse" when you say "the alternative is worse"?

[gamera]

Why is gaining knowledge or truth a higher value?

And how do you mean "worse" when you say "the alternative is worse"?

A difficult question to answer, like all questions of value. I'm not suggesting it is higher in some ontological sense. All values are values for somebody.

But I think I would argue Heidegger's point, that it really isn't a values question at all, but an existential one; that our existence has an existential structure, and that structure includes the struggle between everydayness and authenticity. It is in the state of authenticity that we are most who we are, for better or worse, and have the solace of that knowledge.

The alternative, of being subject to history to the extent that we don't grasp onto our own self-awareness, is worse because we are alienated from who we are, and in a sense lost.

As I say, push come to shove, I wouldn't even argue this is about values, but about who we are and what happens when we forget our own unique confrontation with finitude. I don't think that brings happiness, but maybe peace, maybe even the peace that passeth understanding.

As Heidegger says, existence is always my existence (not some existence in general). And I might add, finitude is always my finitude, not some finitude in general.

[Received]

The alternative, of being subject to history to the extent that we don't grasp onto our own self-awareness, is worse because we are alienated from who we are, and in a sense lost.

But I would say that it can go deeper than that, even if (especially as a hardcore Kierkegaardian) I can completely agree with what you're saying. I agree that self-alienation, inauthenticity, etc., is worse than the alternatives: self-awareness, authenticity, the return to being. But I just think are there are necessary implications when we use words like "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" that can reduce further than brute philosophical or conceptual explanations. And this correlates with my own experience (which is the bitch of it all: validated personal experiences): I am happier when I am self-aware, when I am living authentically, when I feel the depth of being, when I have meaning -- even if I'm occasionally attacked by anxiety, or given a fuller consciousness of my despair. I am happier than I was before; and if I wasn't happier, I don't see how all this would be worth it.

So we've rooted down to personal experience, and I think this proves we're outside of argumentation. I did make an error: unlike the Aristotelian notion where happiness is the highest good, I think happiness is implicit in "good", and "good" is implicit in value. Any time a person speaks of something being good for him, he's implying that he perceives it to make him happy. The mechanisms we espouse as to what we think most easily reach happiness may differ, and it's obviously possible to lose our happiness goal by focusing too much on what we initially thought was a step that would lead us to it. This is what I think.

As I say, push come to shove, I wouldn't even argue this is about values, but about who we are and what happens when we forget our own unique confrontation with finitude. I don't think that brings happiness, but maybe peace, maybe even the peace that passeth understanding.

For me, this peace is in the teeth of happiness; you can't speak of peace without happiness joining hands with it. It might be limited, shallow, affective, transitory; but happiness is a continuum, even if the etymology fucks things up ("hap", fortune).

[James T]

For me, many ways in which peace is not related to happiness. In some ways peace is the antithesis of happiness.

[gamera]

But I would say that it can go deeper than that, even if (especially as a hardcore Kierkegaardian) I can completely agree with what you're saying. I agree that self-alienation, inauthenticity, etc., is worse than the alternatives: self-awareness, authenticity, the return to being. But I just think are there are necessary implications when we use words like "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" that can reduce further than brute philosophical or conceptual explanations. And this correlates with my own experience (which is the bitch of it all: validated personal experiences): I am happier when I am self-aware, when I am living authentically, when I feel the depth of being, when I have meaning -- even if I'm occasionally attacked by anxiety, or given a fuller consciousness of my despair. I am happier than I was before; and if I wasn't happier, I don't see how all this would be worth it.

So we've rooted down to personal experience, and I think this proves we're outside of argumentation. I did make an error: unlike the Aristotelian notion where happiness is the highest good, I think happiness is implicit in "good", and "good" is implicit in value. Any time a person speaks of something being good for him, he's implying that he perceives it to make him happy. The mechanisms we espouse as to what we think most easily reach happiness may differ, and it's obviously possible to lose our happiness goal by focusing too much on what we initially thought was a step that would lead us to it. This is what I think.

Yes, ultimately it is personal experience that we try to describe with philosphical discourse that isn't necessarily well suited to the task. The experience is the experience, and then we place it in a self-narrative. In this case, we are arguably unhappy or not as happy when we are alientated from our existential condition, and when we grasp onto our destiny as Dasein, we are happy, or at least not as unhappy.

I don't mean to quibble about that. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the use of the term "happiness" in this existential narrative. It conjures up the trivial. I can say I'm happy when I find out there's still some icecream left in the back of the freezer. I'm happy when I win at poker. So, I'm not quite sure happiness best describes what I experience when I confront my existence honestly and openly. I'd like to use some other term like fulfilled or meaningful.

It's curious we don't have a special vocabulary for this, except perhaps what we inherited from religious discourse.

For me, this peace is in the teeth of happiness; you can't speak of peace without happiness joining hands with it. It might be limited, shallow, affective, transitory; but happiness is a continuum, even if the etymology fucks things up ("hap", fortune).

Peace may not be le mot precis. Like I say, it's curious our lack of terminology for this state, except what we borrow from religion and mysticism. I was just drawing on Paul, who seemed to be in the realm of what we are discussing.

How about "at one with ourselves"? or "transcendant"?

[Received]

Transcendence would work generally, I think. But there are moments of immanence fleeting between trancendences that can be very positive. You fall in love and you're conscious of yourself in love between moments of selfless (transcendent) loving.

I can't label it, and you're damn right about the trivial history that happiness as a term has meant. I'll take the wager, however, in assuming you know what I mean. You can be happy over icecream or skittles; but this happiness is more transient than the happiness that pervades when you become who you are (through the completion of self-actualizing tasks).

Maybe "salvation" would be a preferred term. It denotes "wholeness" or "healing", but even this points more to the salvific agent (in a religious context, the deity one has faith in) than the state itself. So take existential wholeness, but what does that mean? Happiness in the trans-icecream sense; real, durative, deep feelings -- perhaps transcending feelings as responses to negative stimulii, seeing how a person can be happy while he's persecuted (even because he's persecuted).

Not sure.

[FreezBee]

Can you become a nihilist by rationalising yourself to this point? What empirical evidence is there?

A true nihilist doesn't ask for empirical evidence, since empirical evidence has no intrinsic value.

- FreezBee

[gamera]

Transcendence would work generally, I think. But there are moments of immanence fleeting between trancendences that can be very positive. You fall in love and you're conscious of yourself in love between moments of selfless (transcendent) loving.

I can't label it, and you're damn right about the trivial history that happiness as a term has meant. I'll take the wager, however, in assuming you know what I mean. You can be happy over icecream or skittles; but this happiness is more transient than the happiness that pervades when you become who you are (through the completion of self-actualizing tasks).

Maybe "salvation" would be a preferred term. It denotes "wholeness" or "healing", but even this points more to the salvific agent (in a religious context, the deity one has faith in) than the state itself. So take existential wholeness, but what does that mean? Happiness in the trans-icecream sense; real, durative, deep feelings -- perhaps transcending feelings as responses to negative stimulii, seeing how a person can be happy while he's persecuted (even because he's persecuted).

Not sure.


Oh man I like that: salvation.

And maybe the meaning applies here:

Philippians 2:12 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I'd like to think the religious sense is derived from the existential one, and not vice versa. What better way to describe finding one's true self than salvation.