Nihilism and its consequences

[PyramidHead]

Psychological contribution: the consequences of nihilism are all emotional. The feeling of pointlessness is created by lack of meaningful relationships, which is predictable for a social species.

It's somewhat condescending to say that a person's worldview is a result of not enough checkmarks in Maslow's pyramid. But I say the same thing about people I disagree with sometimes, so I guess it's fair. I would have put it the other way around: recognition of life's pointlessness tends to preclude the formation of meaningful relationships, or at least hinder it.

You can either decide nothing is valuable and everything is valuable, and in both cases you would be correct. But the emotional consequences of "nothing is valuable" are harrowing, and it's a rotten way to spend a life, to waste a lifetime rather. The only lifetime you will ever have.

The first thing I will say is that I am not convinced it is possible to waste a lifetime. To see someone's dead body in a casket, it is hard for me to think of even one way they are better off for having lived.

It is not equally correct to say nothing is valuable or everything is valuable, if we are talking about inherent value. Those who say life is sacred and human rights are inalienable are making a positive claim that cannot possibly be verified. What I am calling nihilism is the denial of that claim. It's really no different from theism vs. so-called 'weak atheism.' In another context, you could be a devout believer telling someone that without an appreciation of the divine, the emotional consequences are harrowing, to say nothing of your immortal soul.

So, it's not as simple as 'deciding' to believe that some things are objectively more valuable than others, any more than a depressed atheist can choose to adopt Christianity to improve his mood.

 

[Unbeatable]

I guess to me nihilism has to be absolute.

What do you think of this article, or this one? Do you believe that they are using the word "nihilism" incorrectly?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I guess to me nihilism has to be absolute.

What do you think of this article, or this one? Do you believe that they are using the word "nihilism" incorrectly?

Who am I to say that what Sartre calls nihilism isn't? I'm not a philosopher in any academic sense. I just stumbled onto Greek philosophy and found it fascinating. And Nietzsche is great fun to read.

But to me, when you deal in reason, there is meaning. Granted, meaning may only exist in the brief moment of our consciousness. But since we live in this consciousness and not in the nihilist vision of the void, meaning will play a part in our lives.

There's a great quote from Bertrand Russell, couldn't find it on the web, to the effect that the questions of philosophy are always open and that's it's the consideration of the problems that is point, not the settling of them.

 

[Unbeatable]

What do you think of this article, or this one? Do you believe that they are using the word "nihilism" incorrectly?

Who am I to say that what Sartre calls nihilism isn't?

The same person you are to say that what Pyramidhead calls nihilism isn't. I'm trying to figure out what your personal definition of nihilism is, because since it doesn't match mine, I can't accurately infer what you're talking about from your use of the term. Since you didn't respond whn I asked you directly, I tried to narrow down what you mean by process of elimination instead.

I'm not a philosopher in any academic sense. I just stumbled onto Greek philosophy and found it fascinating. And Nietzsche is great fun to read.

I'm no philosopher either. My concern is psychology. I want to clarify, as precisely as I can, what real people actually believe, what the actual referents of the words they use are, not how rationally they can argue for things.

But to me, when you deal in reason, there is meaning.

It seems you refer here to semantic meaning.

Granted, meaning may only exist in the brief moment of our consciousness. But since we live in this consciousness and not in the nihilist vision of the void, meaning will play a part in our lives.

But I don't see how "semantic meaning" can fit into these sentences.

 

[Unbeatable]

Psychological contribution: the consequences of nihilism are all emotional. The feeling of pointlessness is created by lack of meaningful relationships, which is predictable for a social species. Fix the relational sphere and life goes back to mental health / wellbeing.

The feeling of pointlessness can be described as the lack of motivation. Its initial external causes can be biological, psychological, or social. Its proximate cause is insufficient emotional attachment to certain illusions in the mind(and possibly excess attachment to others, which can inhibit motivation via anxiety). This variable is often correlated with social variables, but the causal influence is bidirectional. To paraphrase Pyramidhead, insufficient tendency to form emotional attachments will retard if not prevent the intrapersonal processes involved in the formation of subjectively "meaningful" relationships. Meaningful relationships of the sort that produce powerful feelings of motivation practically require that a person succumbs to various cognitive biases and gets stuck in a positive feedback loop of emotion and cognitions that rationalize that emotion.

You can either decide nothing is valuable and everything is valuable, and in both cases you would be correct. But the emotional consequences of "nothing is valuable" are harrowing, and it's a rotten way to spend a life, to waste a lifetime rather. The only lifetime you will ever have.

All you ever have is the present moment. In this moment, constructed memories of the past and constructed predictions about the future may stream through your mind, among other sorts of constructs. If you confuse these constructs of your imagination with reality and cling desperately to them, then of course you'll be vulnerable to the suffering that comes with the make-believe notion that you've "wasted" something or other. And you'll be prone to project onto other people this idea of "waste", because you're unaware that it's just your own dissatisfaction with reality for falling short of your own mental constructs which creates the perception.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The same person you are to say that what Pyramidhead calls nihilism isn't. I'm trying to figure out what your personal definition of nihilism is, because since it doesn't match mine, I can't accurately infer what you're talking about from your use of the term. Since you didn't respond whn I asked you directly, I tried to narrow down what you mean by process of elimination instead.

My mistake. I thought I was replying to PH. I think nihilism is maybe an attempt to avoid responsibility in search of a philosophy; a rationale for emotional distance. Which is why I thought PH wasn't a true nihilist. To my mind, a nihilist could care less who's more likely to go beserk on a stabbing spree, because it doesn't matter.

But to me, when you deal in reason, there is meaning.

It seems you refer here to semantic meaning.

I don't think so, but I'm not sure what you mean.

Granted, meaning may only exist in the brief moment of our consciousness. But since we live in this consciousness and not in the nihilist vision of the void, meaning will play a part in our lives.

But I don't see how "semantic meaning" can fit into these sentences.

Don't think it does. We don't reinvent eating or sheltering every day; the same applies to our relationship with society or reality.

 

[Unbeatable]

My mistake. I thought I was replying to PH. I think nihilism is maybe an attempt to avoid responsibility in search of a philosophy; a rationale for emotional distance. Which is why I thought PH wasn't a true nihilist. To my mind, a nihilist could care less who's more likely to go beserk on a stabbing spree, because it doesn't matter.

It disappoints me that you've arrived at this definition of nihilism, but at least I now understand some of what you're talking about, so thank you for that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

My mistake. I thought I was replying to PH. I think nihilism is maybe an attempt to avoid responsibility in search of a philosophy; a rationale for emotional distance. Which is why I thought PH wasn't a true nihilist. To my mind, a nihilist could care less who's more likely to go beserk on a stabbing spree, because it doesn't matter.

It disappoints me that you've arrived at this definition of nihilism, but at least I now understand some of what you're talking about, so thank you for that.

Why is that a disappointment?

 

[Unbeatable]

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. On the one hand, your definition is pretty much what I expected.

On the other hand, I'd rather have been surprised. As a nihilist(not according to your definition, but rather, according to the definitions in the wikipedia articles I linked to above), I get tired of being misunderstood by people who dismiss "true nihilism" as either a psychological disorder or a punchline from The Big Lebowski.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. On the one hand, your definition is pretty much what I expected.

On the other hand, I'd rather have been surprised. As a nihilist(not according to your definition, but rather, according to the definitions in the wikipedia articles I linked to above), I get tired of being misunderstood by people who dismiss "true nihilism" as either a psychological disorder or a punchline from The Big Lebowski.

Sounds like a teaching moment. Enlighten me.

To hopefully make it easier, I admit a simplistic approach. Constructing a philosophic approach that emphasizes the connections we make in life seems to me affirming, whereas to emphasize the areas we don't know seems to me a rejection. Any worthy system admits of its limitations, it's illusory nature. "No illusions" by definition is too dogmatic for comfort.

 

[Perspicuo]

It's somewhat condescending to say that a person's worldview is a result of not enough checkmarks in Maslow's pyramid. But I say the same thing about people I disagree with sometimes, so I guess it's fair. I would have put it the other way around: recognition of life's pointlessness tends to preclude the formation of meaningful relationships, or at least hinder it.

You can either decide nothing is valuable and everything is valuable, and in both cases you would be correct. But the emotional consequences of "nothing is valuable" are harrowing, and it's a rotten way to spend a life, to waste a lifetime rather. The only lifetime you will ever have.

The first thing I will say is that I am not convinced it is possible to waste a lifetime. To see someone's dead body in a casket, it is hard for me to think of even one way they are better off for having lived.

It is not equally correct to say nothing is valuable or everything is valuable, if we are talking about inherent value. Those who say life is sacred and human rights are inalienable are making a positive claim that cannot possibly be verified. What I am calling nihilism is the denial of that claim. It's really no different from theism vs. so-called 'weak atheism.' In another context, you could be a devout believer telling someone that without an appreciation of the divine, the emotional consequences are harrowing, to say nothing of your immortal soul.

So, it's not as simple as 'deciding' to believe that some things are objectively more valuable than others, any more than a depressed atheist can choose to adopt Christianity to improve his mood.

1)
I did not mention any pyramid. There's no pyramid, there's meaningful relationships. That's why people can die for their kin or go hungry to feed them. Meaningfulness trumps all.

2)
"Inherent value" is nonsensical. 'Value' the noun... actually comes from the verb 'valuare' (valu-are), 'to value' (the verb). Value means someone is valuing something and is a phenomenon in the subject, about the object. Inherent value would mean a value that mysteriously inhabits the object regardless about the subject. Who values the object... it's own inner soul self-observing? A turd has no value... for you. For microbes its home sweet home (literally sweet, for them that is, because they eat it).

 

[Unbeatable]

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. On the one hand, your definition is pretty much what I expected.

On the other hand, I'd rather have been surprised. As a nihilist(not according to your definition, but rather, according to the definitions in the wikipedia articles I linked to above), I get tired of being misunderstood by people who dismiss "true nihilism" as either a psychological disorder or a punchline from The Big Lebowski.

Sounds like a teaching moment. Enlighten me.

About what? You've already been to the wiki articles, right? You know that your way of using the word "nihilism" is not the only one, but that's apparently insufficient to persuade you not to refer to it as "true" nihilism and to deny that the others are actually nihilism. Motivating you to use different terminology is beyond my scope. If you have a specific question about moral or existential nihilism, I can try to answer it, but I really don't know how to go about "enlightening" you in some general sense that isn't already covered by the articles.

To hopefully make it easier, I admit a simplistic approach. Constructing a philosophic approach that emphasizes the connections we make in life seems to me affirming, whereas to emphasize the areas we don't know seems to me a rejection. Any worthy system admits of its limitations, it's illusory nature. "No illusions" by definition is too dogmatic for comfort.

There are no sentences in this paragraph that I can completely understand. If I had to guess at the general gist, it seems like you're merely expressing a sort of distaste for a type of philosophical position, rather than a disagreement with it on a factual level. I'm generally content to agree to disagree on matters of taste.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sounds like a teaching moment. Enlighten me.

About what? You've already been to the wiki articles, right? You know that your way of using the word "nihilism" is not the only one, but that's apparently insufficient to persuade you not to refer to it as "true" nihilism and to deny that the others are actually nihilism. Motivating you to use different terminology is beyond my scope. If you have a specific question about moral or existential nihilism, I can try to answer it, but I really don't know how to go about "enlightening" you in some general sense that isn't already covered by the articles.

To hopefully make it easier, I admit a simplistic approach. Constructing a philosophic approach that emphasizes the connections we make in life seems to me affirming, whereas to emphasize the areas we don't know seems to me a rejection. Any worthy system admits of its limitations, it's illusory nature. "No illusions" by definition is too dogmatic for comfort.

There are no sentences in this paragraph that I can completely understand. If I had to guess at the general gist, it seems like you're merely expressing a sort of distaste for a type of philosophical position, rather than a disagreement with it on a factual level. I'm generally content to agree to disagree on matters of taste.

To hear why your tastes run the way the way they do is exactly why I ask you to explain instead of reading an article. Presumably you derive some benefit from your outlook. I'd like to hear about that.

 

[Unbeatable]

To hear why your tastes run the way the way they do is exactly why I ask you to explain instead of reading an article. Presumably you derive some benefit from your outlook. I'd like to hear about that.

To explain why my tastes run the way they do, I would have to thoroughly explain my genetics and life history. This is impractical.

What I can say is that I don't share your discomfort with the supposed dogmatism of "no illusions". I'm much more uncomfortable with illusions, pretenses, ambiguities, cognitive biases, leaps of faith, groupthink, doublethink. I don't want to be conned, brainwashed, seduced, or otherwise manipulated. Understanding reality and the ways in which the brain is prone to distorting it allows me to better defend my mind against the falsehoods that people use to subvert each other's wills. A worldview devoid of illusions is probably impossible, but I can at least strive to minimize the ones that colonize my mind. Fiction is a great place for illusions; a worldview is not. A benefit of moral/existential nihilism is that these descriptive theories, to me, make the most sense of the available evidence while introducing the fewest illusions.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What I can say is that I don't share your discomfort with the supposed dogmatism of "no illusions". I'm much more uncomfortable with illusions, pretenses, ambiguities, cognitive biases, leaps of faith, groupthink, doublethink. I don't want to be conned, brainwashed, seduced, or otherwise manipulated. Understanding reality and the ways in which the brain is prone to distorting it allows me to better defend my mind against the falsehoods that people use to subvert each other's wills. A worldview devoid of illusions is probably impossible, but I can at least strive to minimize the ones that colonize my mind. Fiction is a great place for illusions; a worldview is not. A benefit of moral/existential nihilism is that these descriptive theories, to me, make the most sense of the available evidence while introducing the fewest illusions.

You're right; it would be better to agree to disagree, thanks for attempting to teach me.

No evidence of inherent purpose is good, the rest, not so much.

Again with significance. Equally insignificant is the same as equally significant.

A measure against which everything fails is of limited use. A good place to start; and a good reminder to keep a sense of perspective, but no use beyond that.

 

[Togo]

What I can say is that I don't share your discomfort with the supposed dogmatism of "no illusions". I'm much more uncomfortable with illusions, pretenses, ambiguities, cognitive biases, leaps of faith, groupthink, doublethink. I don't want to be conned, brainwashed, seduced, or otherwise manipulated. Understanding reality and the ways in which the brain is prone to distorting it allows me to better defend my mind against the falsehoods that people use to subvert each other's wills. A worldview devoid of illusions is probably impossible, but I can at least strive to minimize the ones that colonize my mind. Fiction is a great place for illusions; a worldview is not. A benefit of moral/existential nihilism is that these descriptive theories, to me, make the most sense of the available evidence while introducing the fewest illusions.

Curious. How do you reconcile the idea that 'a worldview devoid of illusion is probably impossible', with the idea of existential nihilism as being either factual or useful? Is not existential nihilism just a more stark and bare variant of the same old illusions?

 

[Unbeatable]

Curious. How do you reconcile the idea that 'a worldview devoid of illusion is probably impossible', with the idea of existential nihilism as being either factual or useful?

As far as I can tell, the idea that a worldview devoid of illusion is probably impossible has no implications for the way one actually lives, except I guess for providing a rationale for not getting upset about falling short of an unreachable standard, or something like that. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether existential nihilism is any more factual than the ideas competing with it. As for utility, everything is useful in some contexts and useless in others.

Is not existential nihilism just a more stark and bare variant of the same old illusions?

How could the answer to that question even be known?

 

[Togo]

As far as I can tell, the idea that a worldview devoid of illusion is probably impossible has no implications for the way one actually lives, except I guess for providing a rationale for not getting upset about falling short of an unreachable standard, or something like that. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether existential nihilism is any more factual than the ideas competing with it. As for utility, everything is useful in some contexts and useless in others.

Is not existential nihilism just a more stark and bare variant of the same old illusions?

How could the answer to that question even be known?

If the answer can't be known, and doesn't make any difference in practice... then is it really a thing? Is there any difference between this kind of nihilist and a non-nihilist, except for the amount of shrugging?

 

[Unbeatable]

How could the answer to that question even be known?

If the answer can't be known, and doesn't make any difference in practice... then is it really a thing?

I don't know what "it" you're referring to when you ask if "it" is really a thing. I don't know what it even means for something to be "a thing" or not. If you can talk about whether or not something is a thing, then it seems to me you've already identified it as a thing. So maybe you're referring to some subset of "things" that you haven't specified, but I have no clue what it is.

Is there any difference between this kind of nihilist and a non-nihilist, except for the amount of shrugging?

It seems to me that the difference between the categories of "existential nihilist" and "non-nihilist" would probably be that when asked the question "Does life have objective meaning/significance/value", the former answers "no" while the latter answers "yes".

 

[Togo]

If the answer can't be known, and doesn't make any difference in practice... then is it really a thing?

I don't know what "it" you're referring to when you ask if "it" is really a thing. I don't know what it even means for something to be "a thing" or not.

What I'm getting at is whether it is a content-free analytical proposition, but I try to avoid technical terms because they're often so local.

The point is what it is that this construction of existentialism consists of. It doesn't appear to have any moral or practical implications. It doesn't appear to be based on any kind of concrete fact or observation. It appears to be entirely a matter of chosing a particular definition. Satre goes into quite a lot of detail as to what the implications are of existence proceeding essence, and that's the position that his book concerns. But no one is doubitng whether or not he can define man as existing first, and having an essence second. The interesting bits are what the implications of this definition are and that's how he defends it.

Is there any difference between this kind of nihilist and a non-nihilist, except for the amount of shrugging?

It seems to me that the difference between the categories of "existential nihilist" and "non-nihilist" would probably be that when asked the question "Does life have objective meaning/significance/value", the former answers "no" while the latter answers "yes".

Which depends on what you mean by 'objective value'. On it's face, 'objective value' is just the idea that other people will agree that something is valuable. What's interesting about an exisitential nihlist is how that changes their morals, principles, and interactions with the world. If we strip the definition down to the bare essentials, calling someone an existential nihilist tells us very little about them, and thus the amount we can conclude about someone from saying that they are an existential nihilist, approaches zero.

I'm not being clear - I suppose my concern is to be clear whether we are talking about a particular stance on morals and principles, or a simply a way of defining terms.