Nihilism

[Philosophos]

I was wondering: is the lack of logical arguements to fight back misery the source of nihilism or the lack of well structured emotions?

I believe that it is somehow the lack of knowledge of how to maintain harmony between the emotional and the logical parts of humans.

Discuss...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nihilism comes in many forms and varieties. Sometimes it is based on severe psychological issues, sometimes it is based on unsolvable philosophical skepticism, and sometimes it is based on people being pretentious pricks who don't understand Nietzsche but think they do.

Anyways, any thread on nihilism necessitates a Big Lebowski reference ...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7uqafeTTN1qfbeuh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/shomer%2520shabbos&h=300&w=287&sz=12&tbnid=bgCDK_Zej7OVxM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=93&zoom=1&usg=__wCw2HKvGfCqAHuplYi3jpxm9foM=&docid=s3efCWi4Y9QmEM&sa=X&ei=DNvZUP_mCoSs8QSOzoCoCw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAQ&dur=890http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1280&bih=576&tbm=isch&tbnid=0EKnJzisOnF0uM:&imgrefurl=http://kellycordes.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-sicktionary/&docid=qAGxNRiKTZFNLM&imgurl=http://kellycordes.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/the_big_lebowski_the_dude_donny_walter_sobchak.jpg&w=299&h=224&ei=ONzZUN71I4Xm8gTEx4CABQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=616&vpy=155&dur=1585&hovh=179&hovw=239&tx=110&ty=112&sig=107347600833737108649&page=1&tbnh=142&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:164http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtArdiGu7xE/S-sLDnk8ihI/AAAAAAAAAEA/N40H5n5L8kM/s1600/lebowski.jpg

"say what you will about national socialism, at least it's an ethos!"

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_KkygiGuYt8A08tXeCinFdDMpw4ODM zlYJ3gjpbiVjPqVgZ1cgePWXBR0

[o well this is ok I guess]

vee veleive in naazing

[l'Enfermé]

https://falsedichotomie.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/nihilism.jpg

[o well this is ok I guess]

nihilism =/= solipsism

[l'Enfermé]

^^http://www.dead-philosophers.com/comics/2011-05-21-nihilistgameedit.jpg

[subcp]

Lack of a positive future seems at the root of what people call 'nihilistic actions'.

"Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal" is a great film that examines workplace shootings, specifically the phenomenon of workplace shootings in the US Postal Service. The original few cases in the late 1970's that started the trend (which would go on throughout the 1980's-90's) all read the same: a well adjusted person is 'picked on' at work by the post master, inspectors and supervisors, leading to a thick disciplinary file. Co-workers of the people who ended up shooting up the post office often said the shooters were vocal about sticking up for their co-workers. In each case grievances were taken to the union (NLCA, APWU) who wouldn't or couldn't do anything about it. One guy was put on permanent suspension rather than being fired, so he would be unable to draw unemployment benefits. Whats more surprising is the reaction of their co-workers to the violence; all who were interviewed said they were happy x-supervisors y-postmasters, were dead, even when these same people were present when the shootings happened and could've been victims themselves.

It's disturbing to say the least.

[hatzel]

nihilism =/= solipsism

It also clearly needs to be said that nihilism =/= anomie.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd like to say, and I don't think I'm alone, that if I had the opportunity to join an international conspiracy aimed at destroying the existing order by taking pot-shots at bigwigs, I'd almost be desperate enough to say, "Count me in."

I give myself another handful of years - 'til sometime in my early-mid-thirties.

[blake 3:17]

@hatzel -- you sure about that? The most nihilistic people I've known have been either way unrooted or way too stuck.


Lack of a positive future seems at the root of what people call 'nihilistic actions'.

"Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal" is a great film that examines workplace shootings, specifically the phenomenon of workplace shootings in the US Postal Service. The original few cases in the late 1970's that started the trend (which would go on throughout the 1980's-90's) all read the same: a well adjusted person is 'picked on' at work by the post master, inspectors and supervisors, leading to a thick disciplinary file. Co-workers of the people who ended up shooting up the post office often said the shooters were vocal about sticking up for their co-workers. In each case grievances were taken to the union (NLCA, APWU) who wouldn't or couldn't do anything about it. One guy was put on permanent suspension rather than being fired, so he would be unable to draw unemployment benefits. Whats more surprising is the reaction of their co-workers to the violence; all who were interviewed said they were happy x-supervisors y-postmasters, were dead, even when these same people were present when the shootings happened and could've been victims themselves.

It's disturbing to say the least.


I want to see that. One of the slightly odd differences between the US and Canada is that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been the most militant, most democratic, most radical of all the unions in Canada. Most of the victories were won by mass sit down strikes and sorting plant occupations, but then the militancy went out to the carriers as well.

I've been at numerous pickets, sometimes authorized & other times not, and letter carriers would ask the picket captain or another organizer if and when they wanted them to cross. (A lot of large buildings hold a bunch of different organizations, employers, services, and residences and only one is the target) If we said "no", they wouldn't cross. I was involved in one very long successful strike and I wonder what the employer did. The longest I've seen a Teamster wait is an hour and a half but that'd be each way and they were carrying tanks of sewage across the border.

[Desy]

Hahaha.. That T-trex srtip

[Dog]

Nihilism is self-refuting. If you must need a rationale for living, you're essentially saying that you shouldn't live - but that itself is an ethical statement. Nihilists ask, "Why live?", but you could equally turn that back on them and ask "Why commit suicide?"

Non-cognitivism > Nihilism

[subcp]

I want to see that. One of the slightly odd differences between the US and Canada is that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been the most militant, most democratic, most radical of all the unions in Canada. Most of the victories were won by mass sit down strikes and sorting plant occupations, but then the militancy went out to the carriers as well.

I've been at numerous pickets, sometimes authorized & other times not, and letter carriers would ask the picket captain or another organizer if and when they wanted them to cross. (A lot of large buildings hold a bunch of different organizations, employers, services, and residences and only one is the target) If we said "no", they wouldn't cross. I was involved in one very long successful strike and I wonder what the employer did. The longest I've seen a Teamster wait is an hour and a half but that'd be each way and they were carrying tanks of sewage across the border.

The US postal workers used to be like that (the postal wildcat in 1970 is what gave a lot of public sector/Federal workers the right to collective bargaining)- so did the UK postal workers. I think the culture of "business unionism" without even a veneer of militancy or leftism had dampened the wildcat/rank & file aspects/militancy of the industry. The change is largely in line with the time since the unions became integrated into the business of the postal service/Federal government rather than an expression of rank&filism/the wildcat days of the 60's and 70's.

I would highly recommend the film though, it is very engaging.


Nihilism is self-refuting. If you must need a rationale for living, you're essentially saying that you shouldn't live - but that itself is an ethical statement. Nihilists ask, "Why live?", but you could equally turn that back on them and ask "Why commit suicide?"

Non-cognitivism > Nihilism

That assumes a lot- I think a lot of the expressions of nihilism say a lot more than any of that, which makes it that much more disturbing.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't see why nihilism has to be disturbing :confused: Ever heard of Albert Camus?

[Narcissus]

I don't see why nihilism has to be disturbing :confused: Ever heard of Albert Camus?

Camus spent his life opposing nihilism!
In the most basic terms, and please don't be too critical:
Nihilism: nothing matters
Absurdism: nothing matters, and nothing ever will, but lets keep looking
Existentialism: nothing matters, but you can try and pretend something does

I see myself as an existentialist in an absurd world, which edges on the paradoxical, and may have made both Satré and Camus pissed, but who cares. I gifted myself with a massive ego (to combat existential depression) and I think I might only not have killed myself yet because I think I can make a difference to the world. (Nothing matters, but I'm awesome) Ironically I have lots of excellent qualities to offset (or create) my ego. I am Narcissus.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That does sound like an interesting movie. To be frank I generally have avoided the news media when these types of sensational trageties happen. The human suffering is a little hard to watch, of course, but there's no lack of that with war and inequality in our society, so it's more just annoyance at the crocodile tears and feigned humanity of the newscasters as they salivate over the tragety while keeping one eye on ratings. And the vapidness of the media's "answers" and bullshit psychological analysis of the shooters. So maybe a year ago I would have avoided that movie like a root canal, but I'll have to check it out now.

The US postal workers used to be like that (the postal wildcat in 1970 is what gave a lot of public sector/Federal workers the right to collective bargaining)- so did the UK postal workers. I think the culture of "business unionism" without even a veneer of militancy or leftism had dampened the wildcat/rank & file aspects/militancy of the industry. The change is largely in line with the time since the unions became integrated into the business of the postal service/Federal government rather than an expression of rank&filism/the wildcat days of the 60's and 70's.

There were a large number of griviences among US workers piling up by the late 1960s as the economy began to change. This increased in the 1970s as companies began speed-ups and unpaid overtime in order to make up for falling profitablity. And yes, it initially provoked a lot of collective action and workers were able to begin to return some organizing to the shop-floors (wheras most of the unions had either voluntarily or in cooperation with the bosses, decreased union democracy and rank and file militancy and actions - which is part of the reason that grievences were piling up, because workers had contracts that stipulated that job-complaints go through union channels and that managers aren't confronted directly on the job as the new orders or policies are issued).

Of course this was all defeated as any of us recieving a paycheck today can attest to. And when the economy was again hit by recession in the 80s, on top of the old speed-ups, there began to be more cut-backs and more downsizing (which added to more speed-ups as remaining workers were now responcible for a larger workload due to decreased workforce), but with little resistance either from below or from the union leaders. In the public sector, privitization desires on the part of the government meant making public service institutions "Profitable" (fiscally responcible) so that they can be sold-off at some point (you can't privitize something that makes no revenu or has little potential to make profits, there would likely be no incentive to purchase it).

And it's in this period, this time of attacks from above on the class that specifically workers began to flip-out. As you suggested, attacks on workers at the same time that unions are useless and collaborationist means that there's so much frustration with no collective responce and so some people lash out in various ways, even in these kinds of workplace shootings. I don't have any statistics, for the 1990s, but in the 70s and 80s, it really seems to increase in the late 80s when this new class equilibrium that we've basically been living with for a generation settled in.

It seems like workplace shootings may have declined after the recession in the early 1990s, but that's also when you begin to see more school shootings and hmmm - widepread cuts and increases in class sizes and increaded competition for college spaces happens in the same time period. And now we seem to have a string of college (grad-student) shooters at a time when higher education is seeing a ton a pressure placed on students at the same time that their post-college prospects are dimming.

But no, it's definately video-games, bad weed, religious fanatic parents, or guns that have caused this phenomena :rolleyes:

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Anyways, any thread on nihilism necessitates a Big Lebowski reference ...


It was only a matter of time.

[subcp]

Jimmie Higgins- I see it the same way; in one of the other threads there was talk about the immolation of bosses as a regional/national 'tactic' specific to India and the surrounding area, like factory burning, bossnappings, etc. The Sic journal has an article analyzing the change in bossnappings from the onset of crisis in the 60's (more wages) and since capitalist restructuring to the 2007-2008 crisis ("give us more money for severance pay or we will dump sulphuric acid into the river"). Workplace gun violence seems to be a very American phenomenon (850+ workplace violence deaths a year according to the film) growing from the same place as those other acts of "unconventional" workplace violence, all coming from the social implications of the increase in exploitation and eroding standards of living that go hand in hand with restructuring ("post-Fordist capitalism").

[JPSartre12]

Camus spent his life opposing nihilism!
In the most basic terms, and please don't be too critical:
Nihilism: nothing matters
Absurdism: nothing matters, and nothing ever will, but lets keep looking
Existentialism: nothing matters, but you can try and pretend something does


Existentialism does not argue that "nothing matters". It says that while things (people, objects, ideas, anything, etc etc) have no intrinsic value or worth in themselves, but mankind has the ability to give them value, and thus make them meaningful.

It's a philosophy that empowers man to make his own choices, bear full responsibility for them, and make them as he sees fit. This is why Sartre referred to existentialism as "philosophy in action".


I see myself as an existentialist in an absurd world, which edges on the paradoxical, and may have made both Satré and Camus pissed, but who cares.

I'm glad to see that there are more existentialists out there. I feel as if it has been waning in popularity in the recent decades.

[Eleutheromaniac]

Existentialism does not argue that "nothing matters". It says that while things (people, objects, ideas, anything, etc etc) have no intrinsic value or worth in themselves, but mankind has the ability to give them value, and thus make them meaningful.

It's a philosophy that empowers man to make his own choices, bear full responsibility for them, and make them as he sees fit. This is why Sartre referred to existentialism as "philosophy in action".



I'm glad to see that there are more existentialists out there. I feel as if it has been waning in popularity in the recent decades.

Yes. Existentialism is concerned with creating subjective meaning, not with assuming objective futility.

From Camus' Myth of Sisyphus:

Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living.

I'm also an existentialist. :)

[AvantGarde1300]

Existentialism does not argue that "nothing matters". It says that while things (people, objects, ideas, anything, etc etc) have no intrinsic value or worth in themselves, but mankind has the ability to give them value, and thus make them meaningful.

It's a philosophy that empowers man to make his own choices, bear full responsibility for them, and make them as he sees fit. This is why Sartre referred to existentialism as "philosophy in action".

I'm glad to see that there are more existentialists out there. I feel as if it has been waning in popularity in the recent decades.

I think this ends up bringing us in to a discussion about the conclusions that we make from epistemic observations. As you say, we can recognize that nothing has value 'in itself'. But I think that assigning value to things in this sort of pseudo-empowered way is just shooting in the dark. If we're going to talk about nihilism, existentialism, philosophy in general--for me--to recognize a philosophical aim as legitimate it needs to 'pass' the litmus test of moral skepticism conveniently summed up by Hans Albert:


All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:
All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.
One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.

My problem with existentialism as it exists is that any moral theory or guide to action that we create is fallible at its most fundamental level. Creating our own way of life without a formal epistemic resolution just begs the question of why our actions are legitimate/sensible in the first place.

[Narcissus]

Existentialism does not argue that "nothing matters". It says that while things (people, objects, ideas, anything, etc etc) have no intrinsic value or worth in themselves, but mankind has the ability to give them value, and thus make them meaningful.

It's a philosophy that empowers man to make his own choices, bear full responsibility for them, and make them as he sees fit. This is why Sartre referred to existentialism as "philosophy in action".


I'm glad to see that there are more existentialists out there. I feel as if it has been waning in popularity in the recent decades.

Yeah, I meant that there is no intrinsic meaningfulness to life when I said nothing matters. It's probably not very popular because it does not offer anything to follow blindly - it requires a lot of thought, and relies on the individual for any optimism.

In today's world people want to buy into theories that make their lives seem meaningful, with no effort whatsoever. Like Humanism, or Christianity.

I think it takes a decent bit of courage to be an existentialist - it nearly led me to suicide, but I did not want to fool myself just so that I would stay alive. I would rather be dead and have known the truth, than keep living a lie.

Question everything, question yourself; permanent Cartesian doubt. Only then can you truly KNOW anything.

"An intellectual is someone who's mind watches itself" - Albert Camus

[Decolonize The Left]

In the most basic terms, and please don't be too critical:
Nihilism: nothing matters
Absurdism: nothing matters, and nothing ever will, but lets keep looking
Existentialism: nothing matters, but you can try and pretend something does

I see myself as an existentialist in an absurd world, which edges on the paradoxical, and may have made both Satré and Camus pissed, but who cares. I gifted myself with a massive ego (to combat existential depression) and I think I might only not have killed myself yet because I think I can make a difference to the world. (Nothing matters, but I'm awesome) Ironically I have lots of excellent qualities to offset (or create) my ego. I am Narcissus.

I'm not trying to be critical, but your basic terms are downright terrible.

Nihilism means nothing other than the following:
The basic claim that there is no absolute meaning in life. This has nothing to do with anything 'mattering' to any one person at all.

Existentialism begins with the premise and adds the following normative claim: there is no absolute meaning to life, and so it is up to the individual human to create their own meaning.

Too often, and this thread is perfect testimony to this fact, people make a leap beyond nihilism's basic claim and then say that nihilism makes some sort of normative claims (i.e. nothing matters, life's not worth living, whatever). This is not true. Nihilism is a simple stance on the philosophical and religious positing of intrinsic meaning, and is a rather irrefutable stance at that.

[Narcissus]

I'm not trying to be critical, but your basic terms are downright terrible.

Nihilism means nothing other than the following:
The basic claim that there is no absolute meaning in life. This has nothing to do with anything 'mattering' to any one person at all.

Existentialism begins with the premise and adds the following normative claim: there is no absolute meaning to life, and so it is up to the individual human to create their own meaning.

Too often, and this thread is perfect testimony to this fact, people make a leap beyond nihilism's basic claim and then say that nihilism makes some sort of normative claims (i.e. nothing matters, life's not worth living, whatever). This is not true. Nihilism is a simple stance on the philosophical and religious positing of intrinsic meaning, and is a rather irrefutable stance at that.

Fair enough.
Nihilism does NOT explicitly say anything other than that there is not intrinsic value to life. We cannot ignore, however, the implications that this statement invokes.

When I say that something 'matters', what I am really saying is that it has significance. I don't think that it's a normative statement to say that nothing matters. Is any act significant in a nihilistic world? Is there such a thing as significance in a nihilistic world? On both counts I would say no.

What is wrong with 'life is not worth living'? To me this statement is not normative, as it does not explicitly imply that life should be worth living. It is simply an inevitable product of a nihilistic world in which nothing has value or worth.

Yes 'nothing matters' is not the best way to describe nihilism, and now I think about it, it's fairly inadequate as it only encompasses a fraction of nihilism's claims, but I don't think it is untrue.

[Decolonize The Left]

Fair enough.
Nihilism does NOT explicitly say anything other than that there is not intrinsic value to life. We cannot ignore, however, the implications that this statement invokes.

That may be true, but it is your responsibility to separate the two when doing so.


When I say that something 'matters', what I am really saying is that it has significance. I don't think that it's a normative statement to say that nothing matters. Is any act significant in a nihilistic world? Is there such a thing as significance in a nihilistic world? On both counts I would say no.

Nihilism is positivist, that is, it make one simple and empirical claim. Acts can be very significant as "significance" means only bearing meaning or value for a certain perspective. For example, a meteor crashing into the earth would be a very significant event for all life on this planet.


What is wrong with 'life is not worth living'? To me this statement is not normative, as it does not explicitly imply that life should be worth living. It is simply an inevitable product of a nihilistic world in which nothing has value or worth.

It is absolutely a normative statement - a negative normative statement. You are making a value judgment on life by saying it's 'not worth living.' And no, it is not an "inevitable product of a nihilistic world" because a) there's no such thing as a nihilistic world and b) there no such thing as an inevitable product of a certain perspective.


Yes 'nothing matters' is not the best way to describe nihilism, and now I think about it, it's fairly inadequate as it only encompasses a fraction of nihilism's claims, but I don't think it is untrue.

Nihilism only makes one claim: there is no inherent or absolute value in the world.

[Narcissus]

AugustWest: "That may be true, but it is your responsibility to separate the two when doing so."

Umm, no. It is your responsibility to accept the claim, and deduce the consequences in an attempt to analyse the philosophy. Philosophy is the love of thinking not the love of shutting up and not questioning.

You are then left with a statement: IF we accept nihilism's claims, THEN...

For how else are we to analyse nihilism if not with the power of logic and deductive reasoning?

"Nihilism is positivist, that is, it make one simple and empirical claim. Acts can be very significant as "significance" means only bearing meaning or value for a certain perspective. For example, a meteor crashing into the earth would be a very significant event for all life on this planet."

Wrong. Nihilism does not make ONE claim; it negates many commonly held opinions about certain aspects of life having meaning. You are referring to existential nihilism which argues that: life is without objective meaning /purpose /or intrinsic value.

Objective means that that something is not influenced by personal opinions. So saying that life is without 'objective meaning' means that what one or many people may find important is NOT important, and has NO meaning.

So we can now say that there is no significance derived from either opinion or any intrinsic value in life, and so there is no significance, value or meaning AT ALL.

"It is absolutely a normative statement - a negative normative statement. You are making a value judgment on life by saying it's 'not worth living.' And no, it is not an "inevitable product of a nihilistic world" because a) there's no such thing as a nihilistic world and b) there no such thing as an inevitable product of a certain perspective."

Now we can see that nothing has value or worth, we can include 'living' in our list of everything that has no value /worth / or significance.

If we take the central (and only) tenets of existential nihilism to be true then the world we are examining could be described as a nihilistic world. It is a purely heuristic device.

If yellow and blue make green, Then green can be made from yellow and blue. It is inevitable /unavoidable /inescapable /true.
We have taken our premise, and deduced a conclusion which is Neccesarily True (a logical truth)

[Decolonize The Left]

AugustWest: "That may be true, but it is your responsibility to separate the two when doing so."

Umm, no. It is your responsibility to accept the claim, and deduce the consequences in an attempt to analyse the philosophy. Philosophy is the love of thinking not the love of shutting up and not questioning.

You are then left with a statement: IF we accept nihilism's claims, THEN...

For how else are we to analyse nihilism if not with the power of logic and deductive reasoning?

What is there to deduce? You are making a huge assumption that just because there is a claim there is necessarily a follow-up. I am saying that the nihilist claim "there is no absolute value in the world" does not necessitate a follow-up; it's similar to the claim "no two perspectives can be the same."


Wrong. Nihilism does not make ONE claim; it negates many commonly held opinions about certain aspects of life having meaning. You are referring to existential nihilism which argues that: life is without objective meaning /purpose /or intrinsic value.

Objective means that that something is not influenced by personal opinions. So saying that life is without 'objective meaning' means that what one or many people may find important is NOT important, and has NO meaning.

So we can now say that there is no significance derived from either opinion or any intrinsic value in life, and so there is no significance, value or meaning AT ALL.

I have read no nihilist texts that say that there's no meaning to life at all, as this claim would be immediately falsified by the fact that the nihilist is using language to express this claim and language is a very complex set of meaning structures.

So no, it's not false. The claim is: there's no absolute/intrinsic value to life. I.e. there's no objective value.


Now we can see that nothing has value or worth, we can include 'living' in our list of everything that has no value /worth / or significance.

If we take the central (and only) tenets of existential nihilism to be true then the world we are examining could be described as a nihilistic world. It is a purely heuristic device.

If yellow and blue make green, Then green can be made from yellow and blue. It is inevitable /unavoidable /inescapable /true.
We have taken our premise, and deduced a conclusion which is Neccesarily True (a logical truth)

Unfortunately you have confused your premises again and therefore have reached a conclusion which has no bearing on the discussion of nihilism.

Also, what's with the blue font? It's pretty but makes it difficult to reply to your post in quote/reply form. Cheers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nihilism: Anarchism's more ballsy cousin.

[Art Vandelay]

Nihilism: Anarchism's more ballsy cousin.

Umm I don't really feel like that statement is correct what so ever.

[Narcissus]

AugustWest: "What is there to deduce? You are making a huge assumption that just because there is a claim there is necessarily a follow-up. I am saying that the nihilist claim "there is no absolute value in the world" does not necessitate a follow-up; it's similar to the claim "no two perspectives can be the same."

Conceptual analysis of premises is the heart of philosophy. One does not simply read a philosophical claim, and say "cool"; which is why there are nihilist texts that you have read.

The logical positive principle (that you mentioned earlier) IS that there are not any specifically philosophical truths, and that the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.

Philosophy MUST therefore be analysed in order to gain truth from it. Read some Plato. I really can't be arsed to explain what philosophy is in full, and I can't post links, so type into search bar philosophy.louisiana.edu slash what.html
Please don't take as offensive as it starts off very basic.

"I have read no nihilist texts that say that there's no meaning to life at all, as this claim would be immediately falsified by the fact that the nihilist is using language to express this claim and language is a very complex set of meaning structures."

Surely you know as well as I do that that is fallacy. Equivocation is a politician's trick; don't reduce yourself to that level. I meant (linguistic sense) 'meaning' in its existential sense.

"So no, it's not false. The claim is: there's no absolute/intrinsic value to life. I.e. there's no objective value."

Nihilism posits that there is neither intrinsic meaning nor objective meaning. There are no other forms of (existential) meaning, and therefore there is NO meaning/significance/purpose/or value in a nihilistic world.

"Unfortunately you have confused your premises again and therefore have reached a conclusion which has no bearing on the discussion of nihilism."

I have confused nothing, rather it is you who should reexamine what you think you know about philosophy and nihilism. I do not mean to be rude, and I apologise if I come across as such.

"Also, what's with the blue font? It's pretty but makes it difficult to reply to your post in quote/reply form. Cheers."

I haven't worked out a better way of doing it yet, sorry:)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nihilism comes in many forms and varieties. Sometimes it is based on severe psychological issues, sometimes it is based on unsolvable philosophical skepticism, and sometimes it is based on people being pretentious pricks who don't understand Nietzsche but think they do.

This is another reason why I've never been too philosophical. However, if I may borrow from philosophy for a moment, philosophical nihilism comes to a dead end when conflicting with induction and paradigm shifts.

[The Feral Underclass]

Umm I don't really feel like that statement is correct what so ever.

Are your feelings important to this discussion?

I was making a joke anyway.

[Narcissus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mm
Umm I don't really feel like that statement is correct what so ever.


Are your feelings important to this discussion?

I was making a joke anyway.

I'm pretty sure that he was saying 'that statement IS NOT correct whatsoever' but he was being nice about it.

Presumably he didn't find it funny. I'm not sure how I feel about the etymology of the word 'ballsy' either.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh well.

[Art Vandelay]

Are your feelings important to this discussion?

Oh dear god. :rolleyes:


I was making a joke anyway.


Fooled me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Fooled me.

I'm not sure how you could have thought it was anything other than a joke, but okay. It was a bit of a geeky joke I suppose, but I assumed people were familiar with the history of nihilism and anarchism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Conceptual analysis of premises is the heart of philosophy. One does not simply read a philosophical claim, and say "cool"; which is why there are nihilist texts that you have read.
You have forced my hand:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33217651.jpg



Philosophy MUST therefore be analysed in order to gain truth from it. Read some Plato. I really can't be arsed to explain what philosophy is in full, and I can't post links, so type into search bar philosophy.louisiana.edu slash what.html
Please don't take as offensive as it starts off very basic.
It is very basic and reads like the first text they give you in PHIL101.


Surely you know as well as I do that that is fallacy. Equivocation is a politician's trick; don't reduce yourself to that level. I meant (linguistic sense) 'meaning' in its existential sense.

I don't exactly know why there need be different meanings for the word in question; i.e. linguistic vs. existential sense. I see them as one and the same.


Nihilism posits that there is neither intrinsic meaning nor objective meaning. There are no other forms of (existential) meaning, and therefore there is NO meaning/significance/purpose/or value in a nihilistic world.

It is true re: no intrinsic/objective meaning because these do not exist. What exists is subjective meaning - personal meaning.
"This watch means a lot to me because my mother gave it to me."
The watch in itself has no meaning - it's just a watch, a form of keeping time, a series of dials and screws and gears. But to me it means very much indeed.

There need not be complex definitions for something so simple. Everyone can talk about how something means something to them - a watch, for example. But no one can talk about 'intrinsic meaning' or 'objective meaning' because it is meaningless philosophical banter.


I have confused nothing, rather it is you who should reexamine what you think you know about philosophy and nihilism. I do not mean to be rude, and I apologise if I come across as such.

You have not come across as rude. I am enjoying our discussion.



I haven't worked out a better way of doing it yet, sorry:)


I will help you then. When you wish to use the quote/response method (which is the easiest method for such dialogue), the best way is as follows:
1. Go to the post in question. This would be the post which you wish to respond to. At the bottom right hand corner of the post is the "Quote" button which you have already found. Click on it.
2. You can then see the entire post with the boxes in front and at the end which read
and [/ quote] (but without the spaces, I used them so it doesn't activate the code). You will use these bits of code to signify the beginning and end of the portions of text you wish to respond to.
So the whole text is already boxed in, but you want to separate it into 2 distinct quoted boxes and response to them separately.
3. The first part already has the initial code box
so just go to where you want it to end and type in the end code box [/ quote]. Then simply copy the initial box which reads [quote = AugustWest] and paste it at the beginning of second part and place the [/ quote] box at the end of the text (the end code is already there).

Now click "Preview Post" and see what happened. If the code isn't the way it should be it won't work and you'll see the typed code. Here's how it'll look:

Below I have put spaces after "QUOTE" and "=" to show what happens when it's not done right.
[QUOTE = Narcissus;2562177] Something you said.

Below is correct.

Something you said.

Note that the post number is what gives the quote the little arrow which allows you to click on it and re-direct to the original post. This is useful but unnecessary. You can just type:
[ QUOTE = Narcissus] Something you said.

See?

Something you said.

Cheers.

[Narcissus]

You have forced my hand

I can't say that wasn't what I saw as I wrote it :)


It is very basic and reads like the first text they give you in PHIL101.

Facetiousness is hard to detect over the Internet, so I thought I would cover my bases and counter-troll or educate in one!


I don't exactly know why there need be different meanings for the word in question; i.e. linguistic vs. existential sense. I see them as one and the same.

Come on. Don't do that. You're not stupid. "Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings)." - Omniscient Wikipedia. It's a thing; accept it.


It is true re: no intrinsic/objective meaning because these do not exist. What exists is subjective meaning - personal meaning.
"This watch means a lot to me because my mother gave it to me."
The watch in itself has no meaning - it's just a watch, a form of keeping time, a series of dials and screws and gears. But to me it means very much indeed.

Ok, now I can see that I have come a little unstuck, probably on account of the aforementioned ambiguity of the word 'meaning'. I will resist the temptation to get extremely fastidious in an attempt to retain pride, because I really find pride in myself in my ability to admit when I am wrong, and improve myself accordingly. However sentimental significance seems quite removed from 'meaning' as a word, and so I don't feel much aggrieved about having forgotten it when talking about meaning in nihilism.


There need not be complex definitions for something so simple. Everyone can talk about how something means something to them - a watch, for example. But no one can talk about 'intrinsic meaning' or 'objective meaning' because it is meaningless philosophical banter.

I think any philosopher would be able to talk about intrinsic meaning, and the only people who do not do philosophy are sages (because they are wise) and senseless people (because they think they are wise).

Philosophical banter is not meaningless. It is absurd. At the very least it pertains to meaning, and at most meaning pertains to it.

With what (if any) philosophical stance do you identify most, and why?

Thank you for educating me re: quotes/replying - most helpful. I kind of miss the pretty blue though.

[TheEmancipator]

Political nihilism is obviously another way of saying revolution. They are progressives. Do not confuse them with philosophical nihilists. For me, a political nihilist is sort of the equivalent of an extremist of our thought, what the bourgeoisie call now an "anarchist" (which suits them well). He has no other passion other than Revolution. But he still has a passion.


Philosophical nihilism is rather strange and comes in a huge amount of forms.

For me, a philosophical nihilist is someone who holds both the physical and metaphysical world to no value. That includes past, future and more importantly present, which rules out existentialists as nihilists. Just because you believe events have no pattern or logic or reason behind them doesn't mean they hold no value. That is the existentialist viewpoint.

Nietzsche is in no way a nihilist either, but we're getting there. I couldn't really point out any nihilists for you. They tend not to seek attention.

[TheEmancipator]

I think its worth mentioning too that existentialists do base their philosophy off a nihilist premise that life has no value. That doesn't mean to say that they are nihilist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think any philosopher would be able to talk about intrinsic meaning, and the only people who do not do philosophy are sages (because they are wise) and senseless people (because they think they are wise).

I still do not think there is any such thing as "intrinsic meaning." You, or anyone for that matter, has yet to explain what that is.


Philosophical banter is not meaningless. It is absurd.

Practically speaking, are meaningless and absurd not the same thing?

To refer back to wiki:
"In specialized usage, absurdity is related to extremes in bad reasoning or pointlessness in reasoning; ridiculousness is related to extremes of incongruous juxtaposition, laughter, and ridicule; and nonsense is related to a lack of meaninglessness." wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdity).


With what (if any) philosophical stance do you identify most, and why?

Nietzsche + Wittgenstein + Marx = My personal philosophy.

Marx for breaking down the economy.
Wittgenstein for breaking down philosophy.
Nietzsche for breaking down everything else and some of the above.


Thank you for educating me re: quotes/replying - most helpful. I kind of miss the pretty blue though.

Not a problem. Your response this time was easy to read and understand - you'll find that this format will serve you best. The colors are great, but the problem is that when one responds to a colored text, one's response becomes that color and it disrupts the quote/response text inlay.

[Narcissus]

I still do not think there is any such thing as "intrinsic meaning." You, or anyone for that matter, has yet to explain what that is.

I'm not sure either, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed. If you take, for example, the topic of the meaning of life; many people will tell you that they think life has intrinsic meaning, for a variety of reasons (all of which have no base in empirical fact). Some believe in appeasing a deity, others are humanists of one kind or another, others believe that there is no intrinsic meaning to life, and there are plenty of other opinions going around. This is just about the intrinsic meaning of life. Everyone has an opinion about intrinsic value, even if they don't know they do or can't articulate it. It is a very important part of everyone's lives.


Practically speaking, are meaningless and absurd not the same thing?

To refer back to wiki:
"In specialized usage, absurdity is related to extremes in bad reasoning or pointlessness in reasoning; ridiculousness is related to extremes of incongruous juxtaposition, laughter, and ridicule; and nonsense is related to a lack of meaninglessness."

I was referring more to The Absurd than absurdity (although of course there is a reason the absurd is called the absurd).

To answer your question: not neccesarily

Take a look at the table on Absurdism-Wikipedia titled basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism (Still can't post links yet sorry). I think it consolidates my original statements.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not sure either, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed. If you take, for example, the topic of the meaning of life; many people will tell you that they think life has intrinsic meaning, for a variety of reasons (all of which have no base in empirical fact). Some believe in appeasing a deity, others are humanists of one kind or another, others believe that there is no intrinsic meaning to life, and there are plenty of other opinions going around. This is just about the intrinsic meaning of life. Everyone has an opinion about intrinsic value, even if they don't know they do or can't articulate it. It is a very important part of everyone's lives.



I was referring more to The Absurd than absurdity (although of course there is a reason the absurd is called the absurd).

To answer your question: not neccesarily

Take a look at the table on Absurdism-Wikipedia titled basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism (Still can't post links yet sorry). I think it consolidates my original statements.

I have read the table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism) (linked if others want to follow) and while it is very helpful, I still come back to my original complaint in regards to the characterizing of nihilism as the rejection of all meaning. Nihilism does not reject linguistic meaning and I am claiming: there is no such thing as existential meaning.

existential meaning = linguistic meaning.

In other words, I am claiming that there's nothing more than linguistic meaning in our brains, only our brains have evolved to the point where we think there's more; i.e. we think there's something called "existential meaning" but this is nothing more than linguistic meaning abstracted.

So to work with the table:
1. There is such a thing as meaning or value: Yes, but only linguistic meaning and materialist value.
2. There is inherent meaning in the universe: No.
3. The pursuit of meaning may have meaning in itself: No as there is no pursuit.
4. The individual's construction of any type of meaning is possible: Yes.
5. There is resolution to the individual's desire to seek meaning: No. Well, maybe. But only if this meaning is well contextualized within the fact that only linguistic meaning exists - and hence one is well aware that one is writing one's own story for no other purpose than to write this story. In short, so long as one accepts that there is no "existential meaning."

[Narcissus]

I have read the table and while it is very helpful, I still come back to my original complaint in regards to the characterizing of nihilism as the rejection of all meaning. Nihilism does not reject linguistic meaning and I am claiming: there is no such thing as existential meaning.

existential meaning = linguistic meaning.

In other words, I am claiming that there's nothing more than linguistic meaning in our brains, only our brains have evolved to the point where we think there's more; i.e. we think there's something called "existential meaning" but this is nothing more than linguistic meaning abstracted.

First off, the table doesn't reject linguistic meaning; when it says there is no meaning, it means no existential meaning.

I disagree with existential meaning being an abstraction of linguistic meaning.

A caveman (or woman) feeds their family, and makes sure they are warm, and isn't sleepy yet. He/She thinks to themselves 'what now', 'what do I have to do now'. Nothing. He/She realises they currently have no purpose, and begins to wonder if they have ever had a purpose. - This is existential thought; the root of the concept of 'existential meaning'.

Linguistic meaning and existential meaning are entirely separate concepts, but existential thought borrows the word; creating 'meaning' (existential) an entirely separate word.


So to work with the table:
1. There is such a thing as meaning or value: Yes, but only linguistic meaning and materialist value.
2. There is inherent meaning in the universe: No.
3. The pursuit of meaning may have meaning in itself: No as there is no pursuit.
4. The individual's construction of any type of meaning is possible: Yes.
5. There is resolution to the individual's desire to seek meaning: No. Well, maybe. But only if this meaning is well contextualized within the fact that only linguistic meaning exists - and hence one is well aware that one is writing one's own story for no other purpose than to write this story. In short, so long as one accepts that there is no "existential meaning."

You seem to be imposing your own bias on the table I think :)
Is that your idea of Nihilism's answers to those questions, or your own? Question number 4 is the most telling in this regard. In nihilism there is NO meaning, and none can be created - that's why it's called 'nihilism' from the Latin 'nihil' - nothing.

It's bleak, it's hard to stomach because its very hard to do things when you have no reason, so inevitably the question is asked 'If life has no purpose, why should I live'. This does not necessarily imply that suicide is logical, but worse, (to me) it implies a life dominated by despair. I prefer to take humour in the paradox of the absurd, and hope in the possibility that the world might be changed for the better. Communism.

[Decolonize The Left]

First off, the table doesn't reject linguistic meaning; when it says there is no meaning, it means no existential meaning.

I disagree with existential meaning being an abstraction of linguistic meaning.

Very well - then I ask you what do you mean by "existential meaning" and how does this differ from linguistic meaning?


A caveman (or woman) feeds their family, and makes sure they are warm, and isn't sleepy yet. He/She thinks to themselves 'what now', 'what do I have to do now'. Nothing. He/She realises they currently have no purpose, and begins to wonder if they have ever had a purpose. - This is existential thought; the root of the concept of 'existential meaning'.

That just looks like regular thought to me - and all thought is linguistic... In fact, you yourself state so below.


Linguistic meaning and existential meaning are entirely separate concepts, but existential thought borrows the word; creating 'meaning' (existential) an entirely separate word.

Indeed. It created an entirely separate word, which is still a word, still linguistic meaning. All I'm saying is that there's no need to complicate things by claiming that "existential meaning" actually exists independently of linguistic meaning.

Counter example:
Linguistic thought: I have finished making my fire, I wonder where fire came from?
2nd linguistic thought: Maybe it came from big lizards which fly around the sky?
3rd linguistic thought: Maybe it came from a dude in the sky who controls everything.
4th linguistic thought: Maybe this dude made everything, including me.

Now would you want to say that the 4th thought is somehow different than the others, just because it deals with the notion of a god. As though, at this point, is ceased to be linguistic and became.... theist, or religious? No. It's just another thought.



You seem to be imposing your own bias on the table I think :)
Is that your idea of Nihilism's answers to those questions, or your own? Question number 4 is the most telling in this regard. In nihilism there is NO meaning, and none can be created - that's why it's called 'nihilism' from the Latin 'nihil' - nothing.

It's bleak, it's hard to stomach because its very hard to do things when you have no reason, so inevitably the question is asked 'If life has no purpose, why should I live'. This does not necessarily imply that suicide is logical, but worse, (to me) it implies a life dominated by despair. I prefer to take humour in the paradox of the absurd, and hope in the possibility that the world might be changed for the better. Communism.

I apologize as I wasn't clear - that was my take on the table.

[Narcissus]

Very well - then I ask you what do you mean by "existential meaning" and how does this differ from linguistic meaning?

That just looks like regular thought to me - and all thought is linguistic... In fact, you yourself state so below.

Indeed. It created an entirely separate word, which is still a word, still linguistic meaning. All I'm saying is that there's no need to complicate things by claiming that "existential meaning" actually exists independently of linguistic meaning.

Counter example:
Linguistic thought: I have finished making my fire, I wonder where fire came from?
2nd linguistic thought: Maybe it came from big lizards which fly around the sky?
3rd linguistic thought: Maybe it came from a dude in the sky who controls everything.
4th linguistic thought: Maybe this dude made everything, including me.

Now would you want to say that the 4th thought is somehow different than the others, just because it deals with the notion of a god. As though, at this point, is ceased to be linguistic and became.... theist, or religious? No. It's just another thought.

This all seems a little facetious. By this logic, surely every concept is just an abstraction of linguistic meaning. Nowadays it is impossible to escape linguistic thought, and I often wonder about the power and freedom that no knowledge of language might give the imagination (at the expense of clarity).

For simplicities sake, I think it's fair to postulate that all thought is linguistic thought, or at least MOST thought. Language is a tool to help us better express to others and ourselves our thoughts. As such, all our thoughts have linguistic meaning almost by default. Therefore I don't think it is fair to mutually exclude concepts from being independent of linguistic meaning, just because they are expressed through language.

Yes, existential meaning is a concept normally expressed through language, but this does not neccesarily make it just language. I think existential thought preceded language (certainly language in the form of words) and could exist independently of any language, provided the person had no prior knowledge of language.

If two things share a property, it does not necessarily make them the same. Lots of things have sugar as a primary ingredient, yet it would not be fair to say that custard is merely an abstraction of sugar, because you would then have to also say that cake, chocolate, and cookies are merely abstractions of sugar too (which they simply aren't because there are plenty of other key ingredients that make them distinct from one another, and sugar.) You could also describe these things as 'stuff you put in your mouth' but they are not just that.

So with regards to your counter examples; yes they all have linguistic meaning, but they are all different. 1 is not the same as 2... etc. even though they are all represented linguistically.

Linguistic meaning is what a word, sign, or symbol denotes.
Existential meaning is more about the purpose (or lack of purpose) of a being or object's existence.

They are different. Those are certainly not perfect or complete definitions, but I think they do the job.

[Decolonize The Left]

This all seems a little facetious. By this logic, surely every concept is just an abstraction of linguistic meaning.

Yes.


For simplicities sake, I think it's fair to postulate that all thought is linguistic thought, or at least MOST thought. Language is a tool to help us better express to others and ourselves our thoughts. As such, all our thoughts have linguistic meaning almost by default. Therefore I don't think it is fair to mutually exclude concepts from being independent of linguistic meaning, just because they are expressed through language.

Very well. I would then need to ask for an example of a concept or thought which is not expressed though linguistic meaning.


Yes, existential meaning is a concept normally expressed through language, but this does not neccesarily make it just language. I think existential thought preceded language (certainly language in the form of words) and could exist independently of any language, provided the person had no prior knowledge of language.

I don't think you can justify this claim. You would need to first, explain what you mean by linguistic thought (I see you attempt to do this later), and second, explain how this would function without language.


If two things share a property, it does not necessarily make them the same. Lots of things have sugar as a primary ingredient, yet it would not be fair to say that custard is merely an abstraction of sugar, because you would then have to also say that cake, chocolate, and cookies are merely abstractions of sugar too (which they simply aren't because there are plenty of other key ingredients that make them distinct from one another, and sugar.) You could also describe these things as 'stuff you put in your mouth' but they are not just that.

No - and thank goodness we have language to help us differentiate between them!
But seriously, the food analogy does a decent job of conveying your point, but consider its shortcomings. Unlike language, food ingredients are not infinitely malleable; nor are the basics (the dry storage) kept in your head always and available at any time.
The reason why I bring this up is that we, as a species, have spent song long with this as our condition that I believe it is becoming more and more difficult to sort through the errors of the past.

So in regards to the sugar/custard analogy: I am saying that we didn't actually make custard. We didn't actually make anything - we still have a lot of sugar. But over time we learned that it's ok to call it custard, and over time from then we learned that it's ok to treat it as custard, and over time from then we thought that we learned that it actually is custard. After all, if it walks like a duck...


So with regards to your counter examples; yes they all have linguistic meaning, but they are all different. 1 is not the same as 2... etc. even though they are all represented linguistically.

No, that's true. They are different sentences with different meaning structures.


Linguistic meaning is what a word, sign, or symbol denotes.
Existential meaning is more about the purpose (or lack of purpose) of a being or object's existence.

They are different. Those are certainly not perfect or complete definitions, but I think they do the job.

As you may have surmised, I do not.

I don't think you'll claim that an object has a purpose: a chunk of rock drifting through space which was spun off of it's parent object (a bigger chunk of rock) in a collision. It has a purpose?
So we move on to non-human animals: are you saying that the shark in the ocean has a purpose above-and-beyond it's biological purpose of reproduction? If so, why? And how do you justify that?
If not, ok, then we move on to humans. Humans surely can feel like they have purpose - I think feeling like you have purpose is fantastic. But this doesn't mean it exists somewhere and can be verified by anyone else.

Ex:
A young woman is raised in an isolated village in the middle of nowhere. She is born and raised to believe that her sole purpose in life is serving her father who works on the farm. Her father is a nice man, kind to her, and loves her dearly. Unfortunately this is the only way he knows how to raise a daughter.
She spends her whole life happily with the one purpose: serving her dad. That is, until she learns of the whole wide world out there. Suddenly, she feels cheated and runs away.

The point of the story is that her (and all our) "purpose" is totally dependent upon the conditioning that brought it about and the circumstance that either justified it or undermined it. I don't think you'll argue that the notion of purpose is brought to us when we are young through language. So what I am saying is that we have mistaken this linguistic meaning for something more - in short, we have believed the words so much that we think they are true.

Addendum: I may be hard to understand in that you may feel as though you are trying to communicate something simple which I am not grasping (such as the difference between linguistic and existential meaning). I do understand you, but if it helps, I do not think that there is such a thing as a self. I believe that what we call the self is a mistaken by-product of the linguistic process. I only offer this as context to my above post. Not trying to split the thread.

[Narcissus]

Ok, I feel like I am beginning to understand your position a lot better now. Am I correct in thinking that you think all human thought/concepts/ideas/and so forth to be abstractions of language (and not just other thoughts that all happen to be represented by language - as I do)? Our minds are permanently bound to language, but imagine that there was a human that had never experienced language before. For this scenario I will go with total amnesia (no this isn't a movie), woken up in the woods. Is it impossible that this person could ponder his existence without words ever appearing in his mind? I don't think so. They would not have to come to a conclusion, and any conclusion would not have to have any base in empirical fact, to prove that existential thought exists, and also the idea of existential meaning.


I don't think you'll claim that an object has a purpose: a chunk of rock drifting through space which was spun off of it's parent object (a bigger chunk of rock) in a collision. It has a purpose?
So we move on to non-human animals: are you saying that the shark in the ocean has a purpose above-and-beyond it's biological purpose of reproduction? If so, why? And how do you justify that?
If not, ok, then we move on to humans. Humans surely can feel like they have purpose - I think feeling like you have purpose is fantastic. But this doesn't mean it exists somewhere and can be verified by anyone else.

I agree that objects are just as likely to have a purpose a humans are. If one were to posit that the rock had a purpose, they would not have to be right to prove that the idea of things or beings having purpose exists. I think the idea exists, but I don't think it is correct.


IThe point of the story is that her (and all our) "purpose" is totally dependent upon the conditioning that brought it about and the circumstance that either justified it or undermined it. I don't think you'll argue that the notion of purpose is brought to us when we are young through language. So what I am saying is that we have mistaken this linguistic meaning for something more - in short, we have [I]believed the words so much that we think they are true.

I couldn't agree more with this. We have all been conditioned every second of our lives, and I believe that until you break from that conditioning you cannot have a chance of truly knowing anything.

I myself live in a state of permanent Cartesian doubt. I challenge everything I think I know, and everything I am told with cold unbiased logic. I will never be free from my conditioning, as I must always work to replace it (and will never be done) but I am more free than most from it. Any of my ideas are immediately scrutinised, and rid of influence from my conditioning.

I personally think that until you have scrutinised yourself in such a way, any purpose that you once thought you had can be discounted as wishful thinking/untrue/no base in fact. As such I don't think I have a purpose, but I think I am able to create a personal purpose for myself, that wouldn't mean jack to anyone else, but possibly something to me. As such this can't be considered intrinsic meaning - more 'imposed meaning' if you will (which you probably won't) I see them as different, but they are both forms of existential meaning, and so neither can be permitted to exist in a nihilistic world.

I am an existentialist, not a nihilist, and it sounds to me as if you have confused exactly what nihilism is, and it's boundaries with existentialism. Will you agree that there is no existential meaning in nihilism? The Wikipedia page on meaning (existential) provides a pretty good overview of what I mean when I say existential meaning.

It really doesn't matter what any one person's thoughts about the validity of a concept is - but that the person has an opinion on it proves that the concept itself exists.

Do you believe that it is the linguistic process itself (language) which holds so much sway, or the way that language is used to communicate the unscrutinised thoughts of others?

If it is the first there isn't much point continuing arguing, because it would be like me saying 'we're in the matrix' and you saying 'no we're not'. One reaches similar problems as when encountering solipsism re: it's a conspiracy, there's nothing you can say to change my position because my dogma is omnipotent. Basically as long as you're not suggesting that every thought is just words that we just think are more than words, I am happy to continue the conversation (otherwise it's not going anywhere). Also if that, why do you bother reading Nietzsche (or anything)?

I feel like I've covered both possible options here, and it's time for you to admit that Existential meaning is as distinct a concept from linguistic thought as any other concept, or that there is a pancake inside your brain.


Addendum: I may be hard to understand in that you may feel as though you are trying to communicate something simple which I am not grasping (such as the difference between linguistic and existential meaning). I do understand you, but if it helps, I do not think that there is such a thing as a self. I believe that what we call the self is a mistaken by-product of the linguistic process. I only offer this as context to my above post. Not trying to split the thread.

This interests me. Why do you object to the idea of a self? What is replying to me if not a brain made up of electrical impulses that make up an organ with what seems to be a distinct 'personality' - something with intelligence?

[Decolonize The Left]

Ok, I feel like I am beginning to understand your position a lot better now. Am I correct in thinking that you think all human thought/concepts/ideas/and so forth to be abstractions of language (and not just other thoughts that all happen to be represented by language - as I do)? Our minds are permanently bound to language, but imagine that there was a human that had never experienced language before. For this scenario I will go with total amnesia (no this isn't a movie), woken up in the woods. Is it impossible that this person could ponder his existence without words ever appearing in his mind? I don't think so. They would not have to come to a conclusion, and any conclusion would not have to have any base in empirical fact, to prove that existential thought exists, and also the idea of existential meaning.

The person who woke up in the woods without language would not be able to ask his/herself "where am I?" "How did I get here?" They would not be able to say "this is not my beautiful wife. This is a forest." They would be operating on total instinct and emotion. If something scared them, they would run. If they saw a stream, they would drink.

So yes, thus far I will agree to your statement that I think all thoughts/concepts/ideas and so forth are abstractions of language.


I agree that objects are just as likely to have a purpose a humans are. If one were to posit that the rock had a purpose, they would not have to be right to prove that the idea of things or beings having purpose exists. I think the idea exists, but I don't think it is correct.

Yes. Whether or not the rock, as a rock, has an actual purpose depends on whether or not everything has a purpose which depends on whether or not one believes in a deity or an underlying purpose to the universe. That question aside (whole new can of worms), people do believe it does. I do not.


I couldn't agree more with this. We have all been conditioned every second of our lives, and I believe that until you break from that conditioning you cannot have a chance of truly knowing anything.

I myself live in a state of permanent Cartesian doubt. I challenge everything I think I know, and everything I am told with cold unbiased logic. I will never be free from my conditioning, as I must always work to replace it (and will never be done) but I am more free than most from it. Any of my ideas are immediately scrutinised, and rid of influence from my conditioning.

I have been in that place - it was not fun.


I personally think that until you have scrutinised yourself in such a way, any purpose that you once thought you had can be discounted as wishful thinking/untrue/no base in fact. As such I don't think I have a purpose, but I think I am able to create a personal purpose for myself, that wouldn't mean jack to anyone else, but possibly something to me. As such this can't be considered intrinsic meaning - more 'imposed meaning' if you will (which you probably won't) I see them as different, but they are both forms of existential meaning, and so neither can be permitted to exist in a nihilistic world.

I want the latter to be permitted and hence it is, in my world. I want you to create the meaning of your life - perhaps re-create it, perhaps several times, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you do it. I am still doing it, but it feels a lot better than being in the place mentioned before.


I am an existentialist, not a nihilist, and it sounds to me as if you have confused exactly what nihilism is, and it's boundaries with existentialism. Will you agree that there is no existential meaning in nihilism? The Wikipedia page on meaning (existential) provides a pretty good overview of what I mean when I say existential meaning.

It really doesn't matter what any one person's thoughts about the validity of a concept is - but that the person has an opinion on it proves that the concept itself exists.

Do you believe that it is the linguistic process itself (language) which holds so much sway, or the way that language is used to communicate the unscrutinised thoughts of others?

If it is the first there isn't much point continuing arguing, because it would be like me saying 'we're in the matrix' and you saying 'no we're not'. One reaches similar problems as when encountering solipsism re: it's a conspiracy, there's nothing you can say to change my position because my dogma is omnipotent. Basically as long as you're not suggesting that every thought is just words that we just think are more than words, I am happy to continue the conversation (otherwise it's not going anywhere). Also if that, why do you bother reading Nietzsche (or anything)?

I feel like I've covered both possible options here, and it's time for you to admit that Existential meaning is as distinct a concept from linguistic thought as any other concept, or that there is a pancake inside your brain.

The problem I was encountering earlier re: existential/linguistic meaning is that I had not considered that you meant that existential meaning was descriptive. As you do, I will agree to that point. I have no issues or qualms with using the term existential meaning as a descriptive term - my qualms arose as I see it as (perhaps generally) used in a prescriptive sense.

And to answer your other question, I believe that it is the linguistic process itself which holds so much sway. It did not at first. At first it was a brilliant tool for survival. But over the course of so much time we have lost ourselves within it.


This interests me. Why do you object to the idea of a self? What is replying to me if not a brain made up of electrical impulses that make up an organ with what seems to be a distinct 'personality' - something with intelligence?

Your description there is fine. By "self" I mean the general idea that there is someone or something that lives independently of your body inside your brainmeats. Again, and I'm enjoying my new terminology, the self as a descriptive term (you just used it as such in the quoted text above) is groovy, but the self as a prescriptive term is unacceptable and dangerous.