Nihilists

[gorillafuck]

Do nihilists reject ethics along with morality?

If so, wouldn't that make them take extremely dodgy positions?

[Rooster]

Don't get me wrong but don't ethics describe morality systems? I don't think they're that separable.

And what do you mean dodgy positions? You mean like a nihilistic doctor?

[HammerAlias]

Nihilists reject objective morality and ethics.

[Decolonize The Left]

Nihilists reject objective morality and ethics.

Technically speaking, this is correct. Nihilism rejects all absolutes and objective perspectives resulting in an extreme subjectivism/relativism/perspectivism.

So to the OP - nihilists will reject ethics and morality in-so-far as they proscribe a you should to the reader. Given that almost all ethical theories and moral imperatives involve such a claim, yes, nihilists will reject them.

Is this an extremely dodgy position? That all depends upon what you mean by those terms.

- August

[gorillafuck]

And what do you mean dodgy positions? You mean like a nihilistic doctor?
What?:confused:


Technically speaking, this is correct. Nihilism rejects all absolutes and objective perspectives resulting in an extreme subjectivism/relativism/perspectivism.

So to the OP - nihilists will reject ethics and morality in-so-far as they proscribe a you should to the reader. Given that almost all ethical theories and moral imperatives involve such a claim, yes, nihilists will reject them.

Is this an extremely dodgy position? That all depends upon what you mean by those terms.

- August
What would a nihilist think if I said "you should not rape somebody"?

[HammerAlias]

What?:confused:


What would a nihilist think if I said "you should not rape somebody"?

There is a fine line between metethics and normative ethics.

[NGNM85]

What would a nihilist think if I said "you should not rape somebody"?

Probably something along the lines of; "Why not?" or "Why should I care?" Basically every possible argument is going to involve an 'ought', which they would reject automatically. Nihilism is a black hole, it's also a fairly dubious philosophical position.

[MarxSchmarx]

How can nihilism be anything but incoherent? If nihilism were an objectively correct world view, then this would contradict the claim that no world view is objectively correct. On the other hand, if nihilism is mistaken, then there is no reason to entertain it seriously.

Nor does restricting the scope to ethical nihilism work. For is not accepting the veracity of an argument also a normative act (as in "you should accept as true a statement which is, in fact, true")? So if there is nothing that compels us to accept the claims of nihilism as true, why should we accept it those claims as true? On the other hand, if we do commit ourselves to nihilism, then we are already accepting as true that which is objectively true. But this contradicts the claim of nihilism that we need not act according to objective truths.

Thus nihilism, in all its forms, is self-contradictory.

At least relativism has the advantage that it can qualify its veracity by appealing to contingent circumstances. Relativism (moral or epistemic) is thus internally consistent, but a coherent nihilism is afforded no such luxury.

[gorillafuck]

How can nihilism be anything but incoherent? If nihilism were an objectively correct world view, then this would contradict the claim that no world view is objectively correct. On the other hand, if nihilism is mistaken, then there is no reason to entertain it seriously.
Do nihilists all claim that no worldview is correct?

[black magick hustla]

first there is no such thing as "literal" nihilism.

however there are certain things people have called before "nihilism". nietzche probably popularized the term as an adjective for a sort of ideological mediocrity borne out after the death of god. lazy, relativistic men that just go with the flow. it does not mean literally believe in nothing, in as much as it just means a sort of spiritual poverty and impotence.

Another group of people who called themselves nihilists were people who engaged in a certain type of terrorism in 19th century russia. they rejected contemporary civilization and its mores in order to create a revolutionary future through violence. they called themselves nihilists because they rejected contemporary society, but they represented more a sort of populist, terroristic socialism.

finally, there are certain people today who call themselves nihilists due to their aderence to dupont's "nihilist communism", which is not so much "nihilism", but a very grim understanding of the future, the rejection of the pro revolutionary millieu, and an embrace of a very extreme form deterministic historical materialism(i.e. the militant and organization are worthless for the social break, which will be determined by objective conditions, not the agency of militants)

[synthesis]

finally, there are certain people today who call themselves nihilists due to their aderence to dupont's "nihilist communism", which is not so much "nihilism", but a very grim understanding of the future, the rejection of the pro revolutionary millieu, and an embrace of a very extreme form deterministic historical materialism(i.e. the militant and organization are worthless for the social break, which will be determined by objective conditions, not the agency of militants)

Seems like a false dilemma, no?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Most people, here and in general, typically identify all nihilism as existential nihilism, but there are many different forms. At base, nihilism in general could be seen as a sort of strong skepticism, though how that is applied varies greatly.

Existential nihilism posits that life has no meaning or special significance and/or that the human species has no special value.

Ethical nihilism posits that there is no objective morality; that no choice or action is necessarily preferable to any other; that there is no "right" or "wrong."

Epistemological nihilism posits that nothing can be known.

Metaphysical nihilism posits that objective reality may not even exist; that "existence" itself may not even exist.

Political nihilism is a bit different in that posits that things like the state (police, courts, prisons), government, religion, the family, morals, etc., cannot be rationalized and thus shouldn't exist. Political nihilists typically reject the irrational in favor of the scientific.

Nihilist communism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-monsieur-dupont) "argues against the conception of 'consciousness raising' and recruiting as practiced by the far left, whereby it is implicitly assumed that the social revolution may be brought about by enough persons spreading communist ideas effectively enough."

[Ravachol]

Seems like a false dilemma, no?

Dupont has had somewhat of an influence on me and i don't think Nihilist Communism should be seen in a positivist light, as an actual call to sit on our asses and 'do nothing'. If anything, it should be seen as a critique in the vein of non-primitivist anti-civilizational critiques, aimed at hammering down some of the institutionalized mores of the radical left. Essentially it is a critique of personal agency and a call to move beyond the quantitative idealism so common in 'the Left'. They assert that revolutionary change cannot be willed into existence and revolutionary consciousness cannot be imposed but are subject to the tidings of history.

[MarxSchmarx]

How can nihilism be anything but incoherent? If nihilism were an objectively correct world view, then this would contradict the claim that no world view is objectively correct. On the other hand, if nihilism is mistaken, then there is no reason to entertain it seriously. Do nihilists all claim that no worldview is correct?

No, as Maldoror notes the word has meant very different things esp. in the 19th century. But if you look at the intersection of all the groups the NHIA ids (which is what I meant by "nihilism"), then it would seem that those nihilists which subscribe to that world view would be committed to the claim that no worldview is correct.

[Decolonize The Left]

How can nihilism be anything but incoherent? If nihilism were an objectively correct world view, then this would contradict the claim that no world view is objectively correct. On the other hand, if nihilism is mistaken, then there is no reason to entertain it seriously.

Nor does restricting the scope to ethical nihilism work. For is not accepting the veracity of an argument also a normative act (as in "you should accept as true a statement which is, in fact, true")? So if there is nothing that compels us to accept the claims of nihilism as true, why should we accept it those claims as true? On the other hand, if we do commit ourselves to nihilism, then we are already accepting as true that which is objectively true. But this contradicts the claim of nihilism that we need not act according to objective truths.

Thus nihilism, in all its forms, is self-contradictory.

At least relativism has the advantage that it can qualify its veracity by appealing to contingent circumstances. Relativism (moral or epistemic) is thus internally consistent, but a coherent nihilism is afforded no such luxury.

Nihilism is not self-contradictory, it's self-refuting.

- For the nihilist claims that the world has no meaning.
- They themselves are a part of the world they are claiming that has no meaning
- And given that this claim is a form of meaning, they refute themselves.

As to the rest, maltador's post is spot on.

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

Nihilism is not self-contradictory, it's self-refuting.


I fail to see the substantive difference.


- For the nihilist claims that the world has no meaning.
- They themselves are a part of the world they are claiming that has no meaning
- And given that this claim is a form of meaning, they refute themselves.

Will a nihihlist claim that they are, in fact, part of the world?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Nihilism is pretty much the perfect crime.