Existentalism

[Wenty]

This topic has been around recently in different forms but I just wanted to get a topic down when it was the sole focus of debate.

Pros and cons of this philosophy? (spelt existentialism, not how i've spelt it wrongly)

[elijahcraig]

What do you mean by "pros and cons"? In what sense?

[BuyOurEverything]

The biggest problem I have with existentialism, is how it tends to blame the victim. The whole philosphy seems to be saying "you have ultimate control over your life and so are ultimately responsable for it, no matter what." I think that's just an excuse to blame people who are victimized by circumstances beyond their control.

That's how I percieved it anyways.

[elijahcraig]

I think a Rationalist philosopher once noted how (jokingly spoken) nothing Heidegger said ever made a bit of sense. It was irrationalizing the rational.

I tend to oppose Existentialism (despite my interest in it) because of its trendlike nature which seemed to be essentially anti-essentialist. Foucault is similar, though I like Foucault better.

[Wenty]

Existentialism is a philosophy of liberation, an ethics of action. Fundamentally it is saying that despite the absurdity of human existence, depsite the 'forlorness' and angst we can overcome this by being a being-for-ourselves. There are other versions of the'being for...' aswell, but I think the idea that you can decide whoever you want to be is brilliant. If someone calls you a coward there is nothing to stop you not being a coward basically.

[Palmares]

In Existentialism one does not have absolute responsibility. As everyone has (absolute) freedom/free will, and as a result some may use their freedom against others' freedom (eg You punch me in the face, but I did not want a punch in the face).

[El Che]

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes essence," which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined moral or spiritual essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Human beings are not pre-determined in any way but are free to do as they choose - they must be judged by their actions rather than by 'what they are', since they 'are' entirely what they do. This version of existentialism does not admit the existence of a god or of any other determining principle. Sartre also warned against all 'viscous' elements of existence, that might ensnare the freedom that is the human being. As long as the traps of viscosity can be avoided, the main problem for the human being then becomes that of how to choose one's actions.

[elijahcraig]

It's all good and well to quote Sartre on "freedom," but the question is not whether you like the idea, but whether it is true.

Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality other than to fill a space for the trend.

I used to be interested in Sartre, etc., Heidegger--I am no longer.

[Wenty]

"has no basis in reality" - would you care to elaborate on this point?

[jimi2times]

Although it has it's roots much deeper, existentialism really got off the ground as a backlash to the 2 world wars. In my opinion, it is a school of thinking intended to counter something which the founders couldn't rationally explain. I guess it tries to answer the very old question: If there is a God, why does he allow there to be pain?

As a christian ( but a very open minded one, and who wasn't brought up as a christian), I would attempt to argue that God has given everyone free will, and so we can choose to harm each other and to cause pain if we choose. Also, not everything that happens on the earth is according to God's choosing. If you believe in God, then you believe that there is the devil as well, who for the time being has some control over this earth. In the future (according to the Bible, judgement day etc..) all this will change, but for the time being this is how it is, which has a lot to do with human's own sin. I would also add this.

Take, for example, a man in his mid-forties who has lived what many would deem a 'good' life, trying to do the 'right thing', has a well brought up family, gives lots of his income to charity, etc.. But he happens not to believe in God. Then one day he finds out that he has a growth on his brain, and spends the next year of his life in agony, dying of a brain tumour. If there is a God, how could he let this happen? Would be one of the main arguements of existentialism, and many other people besides.

But if there is a God, then the fact that this man doesn't believe in him would be a major concern to this God. He might be a good and righteous man, but the fact he chooses not to believe in his own creator can't be a good thing. So if by having this brain tumour, the man's beliefs about his own existance have been questioned and maybe he does start to ask himself whether there is a God, then in the long run this is a good thing. Because if you believe that there is a God, then you have to believe that there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell. If someone doesn't believe in God, then according to the Bible, they are going to Hell.

[Wenty]

Although it has it's roots much deeper, existentialism really got off the ground as a backlash to the 2 world wars

I would agree with this in part, perhaps French Existentialism but fundamentally without the works of Kierkegaard or Heidegger it wouldn't exist in the way that it does.

Your point about the problem of pain is a good one however i do not think this is the main area reason for existentialism's birth. It is concerned with what to do in a world without god and the absurdity of human existence. It should also be noted that existentialists such as Jaspers and Marcel were christians. They are part of the other school of existentialism, theistic existentialism as opposed to the atheistic brand seen in the writings of sartre and camus.

[Trissy]

The biggest problem I have with existentialism, is how it tends to blame the victim. The whole philosphy seems to be saying "you have ultimate control over your life and so are ultimately responsable for it, no matter what."

How does it blame the victim? Existentialism holds that you are in control of your actions and must face the consequences of them, not that you necessarily are in complete control of your life. You are in control of your essence and how you act, not everything that happens to you. Denial of one's true freedom leads to acts of bad faith.


In Existentialism one does not have absolute responsibility. As everyone has (absolute) freedom/free will, and as a result some may use their freedom against others' freedom (eg You punch me in the face, but I did not want a punch in the face).

True, but you do have a choice as to how to respond to this unwelcome attack. Do you attempt to fight back? Do you try to flee? The choice is yours...as I said above you may not be in control of every aspect of your life but you are free in the choices you make in responces to acts outside your control.


It's all good and well to quote Sartre on "freedom," but the question is not whether you like the idea, but whether it is true.

Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality other than to fill a space for the trend.

I used to be interested in Sartre, etc., Heidegger--I am no longer.

Yes but Sartre doesn't claim that we can know whether we are truly free or not. Sartre deals with phenomenological ontology which is ultimately about subjective truths not objective ones. I appear to be free...I appear to have choices....how am I to respond to these phenomena?


Although it has it's roots much deeper, existentialism really got off the ground as a backlash to the 2 world wars. In my opinion, it is a school of thinking intended to counter something which the founders couldn't rationally explain. I guess it tries to answer the very old question: If there is a God, why does he allow there to be pain?

I think I must disagree with you on this one. There are many Existential philosophers who are atheists/agnostics (Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc, etc) so why would they care about the problem of evil in relation to the existence of a deity? They're existentialists at the end of the day and not philosophers of religion or theologians. Even Kierkegaard didn't make much of an attempt to solve that question. I think if we must choose a general question to sum up Existentialism (which I don't think is wise but I shall attempt it none the less) then I think a better question is 'In a world where God's existence (or non-existence) cannot be proved how am I to live?'...


I would attempt to argue that God has given everyone free will, and so we can choose to harm each other and to cause pain if we choose. Also, not everything that happens on the earth is according to God's choosing. If you believe in God, then you believe that there is the devil as well, who for the time being has some control over this earth

I really don't want to discuss such theological issues as we'll get off topic but I must raise the following points. You have attempted to account for evil through the popular 'freewill defence' under which we are responsible for evil and God cannot intervene as this would compromise our freewill. But even if this is so how are you accounting for natural evils such as Earthquakes, famines, disease, etc, etc? There are two usual replies to this and I don't frankly think any of them are good arguments. One is that these evils are punishment for the Original sin (which requires us taking a literal translation of the Bible and to refute evolution), and the other is that they are the work of the devil/demons (which begs the question why doesn't God intervene? He does not have to worry about compromising their freewill since they have already been judged as sinners). The other option on this one tends to be to fall back to the bunker of faith and plead ignorance (any comments Adam?.


If someone doesn't believe in God, then according to the Bible, they are going to Hell
Which I always thought to be a foolish comment if ever I heard one. Firstly it is equating belief with morality which is an odd notion since many atheists/agnostics lead good lives. Secondly, why would a loving God punish people for merely questioning His existence? If we have no evidence for or against His existence then we are left with a choice between suspending having to make a choice, or taking a leap of faith (to or away from faith). If this is an irrational act like Kierkegaard states then how can we be punished for making either choice? A loving deity who requires His creations to jump through illogical hoops doesn't amount to a deity worthy of my belief...

[jimi2times]

Although I have attempted to give some reasons as to why God does allow pain, i must admit that my short-comings are just that. The real answer is that we will never know ( until judgement day?!) why God allows pain, disease, famine etc..

I would however argue that there is evidence for his existance, and that it is planted in the souls of all of us. We can see God's creation all around us, through the beauty of the natural wolrd, humanity itself, morality - how we unconsciously know to do the right thing, but it is also something that goes much deeper than that. It's something we were all born with and at some point in our lives we choose to believe in God or not.

The idea of free will vitally important to christianity. If God could force us to believe in him then we would be like robots, having no choice. But we do have a choice. I think one of the most importnat things that is so often over-looked in these debates is that God is love. He had no reason for making us what so ever. He loved us into existance. It wouldn't be a loving deity worthy of my belief if i was then forced to love my creator.

[RedAnarchist]

It's good that you have your beliefs, even though Christianity isnt exactly the epitome of socialist thinking.

But what you must remember is that with free will comes freedom of thought. Do allow yourself to question your religion from time to time, just like we question authority.

[cubist]

not particularly up on this philosophy,

but i feel that it encourages selfishness, and is a hazard to any political ideal.

[jimi2times]

He does not have to worry about compromising their freewill since they have already been judged as sinners

The christian point of view is that when Jesus Christ died on the cross, then he wiped the slate clean for all of us, so that we haven't already been pre-judged by God as sinners. He commited the ultimate sacrifice which was to die for our sins, even though he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He died for everyone so that we could be made right with God. Because Jesus Christ lived on this earth for 33 years he is well aware of how hard it is, the temptations, desires etc...

This is a God of love and forgiveness, not a stern, tempermental, judgemental one. He had no reason for making us, simply did so out of love, then teaches us to do the same.



Do allow yourself to question your religion from time to time, just like we question authority

Every christian has doubts. Terrible things happen to christians just like they do to everyone. We all have the same temptations etc.. But if you know that God exists, because he has come into your life and made a massive difference in it, then you cling on to your beliefs because you remember what he has done in your life. You have faith in him.

[RedAnarchist]

Personally, i'm a little agnostic, a little atheist.

[Wenty]

basically the same thing then.

I think you should look into theistic existentialism more jimi2times. You may become a convert to the liberating philosophy that is existentialism.

[Trissy]

But how can you possibley consider the argument from design to be a good argument when you have still failed to account for natural evil? Erm...surely all the things that can kill us like storms, big cliffs, diseases, Eartquakes (not to mention all the unbelievable suffering there is in the animal kingdom) are a little flaw in this 'best possible world' that God supposedly created for us?

Okay, let's count the amount of unanswerable assumptions you have made...
*That we have souls...
*We know right from wrong through some kind of innate sense (our conscience?)...er...and all the differences in culture arise from what? In Saudi Arabia I cannot have a drink...in the UK I can do but I can't smoke pot...in Holland I can do both.
*That there is a God
*That He loves us...all of us....what does the statement God is love mean exactly? It's a tad conditional don't you think because he seem to have a problem with an awful lot of people (see Bible)

I overlook all of these things because they amount to nothing...what you are saying cannot be verified or falsified. At least Existential is deals with phenomena...


The christian point of view is that when Jesus Christ died on the cross, then he wiped the slate clean for all of us, so that we haven't already been pre-judged by God as sinners. He commited the ultimate sacrifice which was to die for our sins, even though he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He died for everyone so that we could be made right with God

If you go back and reread what I wrote then you'll see that what I wrote was a question to the suggestion that the Devil is somehow responsible for natural evils. I don't think you understood me because I cannot honestly see a Christian arguing that Jesus died in order for Lucifer to be forgiven...because otherwise what is the point with all that 'hell' stuff you try to scare us with?


This is a God of love and forgiveness, not a stern, tempermental, judgemental one. He had no reason for making us, simply did so out of love, then teaches us to do the same

Are you forgetting the Old Testament and the Israelites? Didn't God order them to go into Jericho and kill all the men, women and even the children? Sounds very loving of him doesn't it!

In fact I remember just the other day my own father threatened me with slaughter followed by an eternal spell of misery and punishment if I didn't do what he said.

Plus have you ever thought that if there is a God, maybe he just made us to prove to himself just how powerful he really is. After all if there was nothing but God before us then he had nothing to show for himself...

[Dawood]

There are many Existential philosophers who are atheists/agnostics (Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc, etc)

Nietzsche was a nihilist for fucks sake! Niilism may be alike to existentialism in some ways, but they are by no longshot the same.

[Trissy]

Nietzsche was a nihilist for fucks sake! Niilism may be alike to existentialism in some ways, but they are by no longshot the same.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He was a yes sayer to life! He even says so himself. Have you read much of his work because if you read it/re-read some of his work then you'll find that the ideas behind eternal recurrence, the Superman and the will to power are essentially positive ideas. I agree with you that he revealed the abyss to the world and caused the ground to shake with his utterance that the death of God will oneday be upon us but the last thing you can call him is a nihilist because of this.

If it's nihilism you want then why not look into Schopenhauer or Christianity? saying Nietzsche was a nihilist is about as well founded as calling him a Nazi...one is required to submerge oneself in his work and his life before one can begin to understand what he means.

[Wenty]

Any other thoughts on Existentialism?

[Dawood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 10:40 PM

Nietzsche was a nihilist for fucks sake! Niilism may be alike to existentialism in some ways, but they are by no longshot the same.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He was a yes sayer to life! He even says so himself. Have you read much of his work because if you read it/re-read some of his work then you'll find that the ideas behind eternal recurrence, the Superman and the will to power are essentially positive ideas. I agree with you that he revealed the abyss to the world and caused the ground to shake with his utterance that the death of God will oneday be upon us but the last thing you can call him is a nihilist because of this.

If it's nihilism you want then why not look into Schopenhauer or Christianity? saying Nietzsche was a nihilist is about as well founded as calling him a Nazi...one is required to submerge oneself in his work and his life before one can begin to understand what he means.
N.'s rejection of all values, all beliefs, all morals etc. is clearly nihilistic. He even calls himself a nihilist in some texts.

Since someone else probably can present it better than me anyway I leave the floor fro the American Nihilism Association: http://www.nodogs.org/nihilism.html

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which in my humble opionion is his greatest work, is clearly nihilistic. Life is nothing but a bridge towards a superior human, a road paved by self improvment. The ubermensch can never come about as log as morality exists, and that, the destruction of moral, is his most nihilistic side.
Not to mention that Nietzschie is mentioned as an nihilist almost everywhere. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that he was not an nihilist.

I am however guessing that you don't know what nihilism is, so maybe this discussion is meaningless? Christianity is the exact opposite of nihilism.... why would I look for nihilism there?

[elijahcraig]

"has no basis in reality" - would you care to elaborate on this point?

That merely means I don’t believe the theories of existentialism are true.


I would agree with this in part, perhaps French Existentialism but fundamentally without the works of Kierkegaard or Heidegger it wouldn't exist in the way that it does.

And if you read the essay Heidegger wrote on Sartre and existentialism, he claimed not to be an existentialist.


Denial of one's true freedom leads to acts of bad faith.

The man in your avatar would disagree.


Yes but Sartre doesn't claim that we can know whether we are truly free or not. Sartre deals with phenomenological ontology which is ultimately about subjective truths not objective ones. I appear to be free...I appear to have choices....how am I to respond to these phenomena?

Sartre doesn’t claim we know anything at all other than we are condemned to subjectivity, in other words freedom.


There are many Existential philosophers who are atheists/agnostics (Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc, etc) so why would they care about the problem of evil in relation to the existence of a deity?

Nietzsche WAS NOT an Existentialist.


This is a God of love and forgiveness, not a stern, tempermental, judgemental one. He had no reason for making us, simply did so out of love, then teaches us to do the same.

NO. It teaches you to construct deities in order to justify your actions.

God has no reason to invent mankind, and if he did so, it would not be out of the use of a human emotion.


But if you know that God exists, because he has come into your life and made a massive difference in it, then you cling on to your beliefs because you remember what he has done in your life. You have faith in him.

How do you “know” God exists?

And don’t tell me about how you “just know,” please.


Nietzsche was a nihilist for fucks sake! Niilism may be alike to existentialism in some ways, but they are by no longshot the same.

Nietzsche WAS NOT a Nihilist.



It would surprise me if you people had actually ever picked up a book the guy wrote by the way you sling him into categories he doesn’t belong in.

[Wenty]

this post seems to be dogmatic. A whole lot of 'NO' with little explanation why you think that.

Also, would you like to say why you don't think existentialism is true!

[elijahcraig]

this post seems to be dogmatic. A whole lot of 'NO' with little explanation why you think that.

Also, would you like to say why you don't think existentialism is true!

I'm not sure what you mean by "dogmatic."

It's obvious Nietzsche was no nihihlist just by reading him--he hated nihilism.

Nietzsche's theories are so far off of existentialism, that he doesn't qualify for existentialist thought--which came out of WW2, which Nietzsche did not experience obviously.

Existentialism seems to me to be a thought which relies very much on anti-essentialist components with which I disagree. It seeks to make, not prove, life meaningless. Which I think is an effect produced by the historical current of the time.

I also believe in the unconscious in terms of psychological thought, so I disagree with Sartre's view of psychology.

My thought is closer to Nietzsche's.

[Wenty]

i meant the meaning of the word.

You still haven't really put forward an argument against existentialism, you've just said you disagree with it.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:52 AM

this post seems to be dogmatic. A whole lot of 'NO' with little explanation why you think that.

Also, would you like to say why you don't think existentialism is true!

I'm not sure what you mean by "dogmatic."

It's obvious Nietzsche was no nihihlist just by reading him--he hated nihilism.

Nietzsche's theories are so far off of existentialism, that he doesn't qualify for existentialist thought--which came out of WW2, which Nietzsche did not experience obviously.

Existentialism seems to me to be a thought which relies very much on anti-essentialist components with which I disagree. It seeks to make, not prove, life meaningless. Which I think is an effect produced by the historical current of the time.

I also believe in the unconscious in terms of psychological thought, so I disagree with Sartre's view of psychology.

My thought is closer to Nietzsche's.
*sigh*

But you still haven't explained how N. "hated nihilism". Just claiming it without arguing your point is nothing. I can as well say he was a christian, but then I would have to argue that point, which I obiously can't.

This is what N. says about Nihilism:


What is Nihilism Today if not That?
by Friedrich Nietzsche

(Excerpted from The Genealogy of Morals - translated by Francis Golffing - Doubleday & Co., 1956)

Here I want to give vent to a sigh and a last hope. Exactly what is it that I, especially, find intolerable; that I am unable to cope with; that asphyxiates me? A bad smell. The smell of failure, of a soul that has gone stale. God knows that it is possible to endure all kinds of misery - vile weather, sickness, trouble, isolation. All this can be coped with, if one is born to a life of anonymity and battle. There will always be moments of re-emergence into the light, when one tastes the golden hour of victory and once again stands foursquare, unshakable, ready to face even harder things, like a bowstring drawn taut against new perils. But, you divine patronesses - if there are any such in the real beyond good and evil - grant me now and again the sight the sight of something perfect, wholly achieved, happy, magnificently triumphant, something still capable of inspiring fear! Of a man who will justify the existence of mankind! ... The leveling and diminution of European man is our greatest danger; because the sight of him makes us despond.... We no longer see anything these days that aspires to grow greater; instead, we have a suspicion that things will continuously go downhill, becoming even thinner, more placid, smarter, cozier, more ordinary, more indifferent, more Chinese, more Christian - without doubt, man is getting “better” all the time ... This is Europe’s true predicament: together with the fear of man we have also lost the love of man, reverence for man, confidence in man, indeed the will to man. Now the sight of man makes us despond. What is nihilism today if not that?


You can tell that he don't like the word "nihilism", however, he is actually more nihilistic than the nihilistst, when he reject philosophical nihilism as an philosopical ideology.

Nietzsche is forever and will always be the Mad Prophet of Nihilism... :lol:

[elijahcraig]

i meant the meaning of the word.

You still haven't really put forward an argument against existentialism, you've just said you disagree with it.

I am on the Jungian side of the Nietzsche-interpretation, and dislike for the same reasons in many cases Harold Bloom does, the existentialist-foucaultian side.

I’m not getting into the particulars of Being and Nothingness, etc.

I simply don’t buy their “arguments,” “being-in-the-world,” etc.


Nietzsche is forever and will always be the Mad Prophet of Nihilism..

I would advise you to read “The Antichrist.” Nietzsche has never claimed to be a Nihilist. His utter hatred and denial of Nihilism is not proof enough that he was not one?

He considered Nihilism the main sin of Christianity against master morality. Nihilism is the destruction of all that is virtuous and aristorcratic in man.

Nietzsche’s thought is so complex psychologically, many misinterpret Nietzsche—as a Nazi, a Nihilist, a Fascist, an Existentialist.

You are in that camp.

And have shown no proof of your assertion that Nietzsche was a Nihilist.

[Solace]

Dawood, the quote you posted doesn't really show anything about Nietzsche defending nihilism in anyway.


But you still haven't explained how N. "hated nihilism".

Have a look at this...


I saw the great danger to mankind, its sublimest enticement and seduction—but to what? to nothingness?—it was precisely here that I saw the beginning of the end, the dead stop, a retrospective weariness, the will turning against life, the tender and sorrowful signs of the ultimate illness: I understood the ever spreading morality of pity that had seized even on philosophers and made them ill, as the most sinister symptom of a European culture that had itself become sinister, perhaps as its by-pass to a new Buddhism? to a Buddhism for Europeans? to—nihilism?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Dawood I don't believe Nietzsche was a nihilist either, I have a few quotes and notes on this from my own personal reading over the last two years.


This creed of nihilism which I see everywhere is the result of too much learning

He seems to follow a general line of thought on education that too much information leads to indigestion of the spirit. The warning is that if we travel too far down this road we will choke on our own reason. True knowledge must be useful for the projects of human action.

More importantly we get to his view on life itself.

When he talks of pity and the non-egotistical instincts he is suspicious believing these qualities (the anti-life feelings of compassion, self denial, self sacrifice) will lead to a will that turns against life and leads to nihilism which he actually compares to a disease!

However I must admit in the Genealogy of morals the ascetic ideal and the slave ethics do constitute for Nietzsche the greatest affliction of mankind but entirely of our own creation. It is decadant and thus our human need to find meaning in existence-even a negative one which denies the possibility of human existence is brought up.

To finish of course the final question, a favourite Nietzschen quote of mine aswell:


Man would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose

The more you read him the less nihilistic you will find him to be, I am sure of that.

[Dawood]

It depends on what period of his life we are talking about. Thus spoke Zarathustra, which in my mind, clearly is nihilist, and also his most important work.


I would advise you to read “The Antichrist.” Nietzsche has never claimed to be a Nihilist. His utter hatred and denial of Nihilism is not proof enough that he was not one?

No. What he thinks really dosn't matter. Nihilists will still read Nietzsche and like what they read and like his nihilistic qualities. The rejection of all moral is the fundamental principle of both the big N and all other Nihilists.


He considered Nihilism the main sin of Christianity against master morality. Nihilism is the destruction of all that is virtuous and aristorcratic in man.

What does nihilism have to do with christianity?


When he talks of pity and the non-egotistical instincts he is suspicious believing these qualities (the anti-life feelings of compassion, self denial, self sacrifice) will lead to a will that turns against life and leads to nihilism which he actually compares to a disease!

That just didn't make any sense. I have the feeling that none of you actually have any idea what nihilism is.

[Trissy]

N.'s rejection of all values, all beliefs, all morals etc. is clearly nihilistic. He even calls himself a nihilist in some texts.

Nietzsche rejects all modern value, all modern beliefs, all modern morals that were present in his day. He call for the 'Revaluation of all values'...this is why I don't think he can be classified as a nihililst because he often praises the principles of noble ethics...the ethics of the Superman...someone who creates his own values. I do not believe he advocates a life with no values. Plus Nietzsche called himself lots of things. It is part of his style. He often says things to provoke the reader and to cause outrage amongst the members of the herd who try to dismiss what he is saying...


I am however guessing that you don't know what nihilism is, so maybe this discussion is meaningless? Christianity is the exact opposite of nihilism.... why would I look for nihilism there?

Well you guess wrong then.

I can briefly state why Christianity can be seen as a nihilistic urge in man. Christianity wishes to produce equality amongst man and the desire for equality can be seen as a desire for nihilism. If I am the same as you are, and if the whole of the human race are equal...if our actions are of equal value...then why do we need values at all? Christianity desires to hold back man and limit what man can do...it is the desire of the herd to conquer the individual...for the triumph of slave ethics over noble ethics. Whilst on the surface we see Christianity as imposing values on us, if we look to the potential it has within its ideology we ultimatelty see that it is nihilism in a cunning disguise. Like someone esle suggested, I think 'the Antichrist' is a suitable read if one wishes to know more on this topic...


With this I am at the end and I pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity, I raise against the Christian church the most terrible of all accusations that any accuser ever uttered. It is to me the highest of all conceivable corruptions; it has had the will to the last corruption that is even possible. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its corruption; it has turned every value into an un-value, every truth into a lie, every integrity into a vileness of the soul. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! To abolish any distress ran counter to its deepest advantages—it lived on distress, it created distress to eternalize itself ... The worm of sin, for example: with this distress the church first enriched mankind!— The “equality of souls before God,” this falsehood, this pretext for the rancor of all the base-minded, this explosive of a concept which eventually became revolution, modern idea, and the principle of decline of the whole order of society—is Christian dynamite ... “Humanitarian” blessings of Christianity!
- 62. The Antichrist




Denial of one's true freedom leads to acts of bad faith.

The man in your avatar would disagree.

Alas I think he might...but I still read his works none the less. I find I disagree with many of his thoughts but I find they provoke new lines of inquiry and thought for me to follow...and very often I do come around to his way of thinking.


Sartre doesn’t claim we know anything at all other than we are condemned to subjectivity, in other words freedom

That's what I was trying to say in a round about way. I was merely trying to point out how Existentialism can be seen as useful even if anybody ever does manage to prove we not free but determined.


Nietzsche WAS NOT an Existentialist

True, he wasn't part of the Existentialism that during the Second World War but I believe that many of his ideas have an Existential ring to them. I include him as an Existentialist (along with Kierkegaard) because I believe much of what they wrote can be classified in the same field as work by Sartre, Heideggar and whoever you classify as 'Existentialists' (it's a hard label to justify). Jaspers did refer to them both as the the 'fathers' of the movement due to the fact that traces of what to was to come can be seen in their work...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:14 PM



When he talks of pity and the non-egotistical instincts he is suspicious believing these qualities (the anti-life feelings of compassion, self denial, self sacrifice) will lead to a will that turns against life and leads to nihilism which he actually compares to a disease!

That just didn't make any sense. I have the feeling that none of you actually have any idea what nihilism is.
It makes sense and should make sense to any Nietzsche reader, I understand what nihilism is, I have a feeling you dont understand Nietzsche at all.

You are a pciker, somebody who wants to use philosophers when it suits them, in your case Nietzsche is a nihilist because you want him to be.

Are you stating that the term nihilism is in some way difficult to understand?

[Dawood]

I can briefly state why Christianity can be seen as a nihilistic urge in man.

You just proved my point.



Christianity wishes to produce equality amongst man and the desire for equality can be seen as a desire for nihilism.

No.


If I am the same as you are, and if the whole of the human race are equal...if our actions are of equal value...then why do we need values at all?

It is an interesting thought, but it isn't nihilistic. According to most nihilists humans aren't equal, that is a myth that are spread among the religeous.
For why would humans be equal? If all humans are equal that would imply that there is some mystical "value", which then logicly must have been put there by someone, e.g. god.
The belief that all humans are equal is ultimatly extremly un-nihilistic.



Christianity desires to hold back man and limit what man can do...it is the desire of the herd to conquer the individual...for the triumph of slave ethics over noble ethics. Whilst on the surface we see Christianity as imposing values on us, if we look to the potential it has within its ideology we ultimatelty see that it is nihilism in a cunning disguise.

You have once again proven that you have no concept of what nihilism is. It is not an ideology, it is an anti-ideology, one of the main points of the Nihilistic Manifesto is even "death to ideaology".


*sigh*

As I suspected. You have no idea about the nature of nihilism.


This is nihilism (taken from www.counterorder.com):

A common (but misleading) description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance, they are invalid serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome. Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense. Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so". All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.

The second element nihilism rejects is the belief in final purpose, that the universe is built upon non-random events and that everything is structured towards an eventual conclusive revelation. This is called teleology and it's the fatal flaw plaguing the whole rainbow of false solutions from Marxism to Buddhism and everything in between. Teleology compels obedience towards the fulfillment of "destiny" or "progress" or similar such grandiose goals. Teleology is used by despots and utopian dreamers alike as a coercive motivation leading only to yet another apocryphal apocalypse; the real way to lead humanity by the nose - tell them it's all part of the big plan so play along or else! It may even seem reasonable but there is not now and never has been any evidence the universe operates teleologically - there is no final purpose. This is the simple beauty nihilism has that no other idea-set does. By breaking free from the tethers of teleology one is empowered in outlook and outcome because for the first time it's possible to find answers without proceeding from pre-existing perceptions. We're finally free to find out what's really out there and not just the partial evidence to support original pretext and faulty notions only making a hell on earth in the process. So f**k teleology too.

Nihilism is primarily skepticism coupled with reduction but in practical reality it takes on more than one facet which often leads to a confusion of definitions. In the most general sense nihilism has two major classifications, the first is passive and usually goes by the term existential or 'social' nihilism and the second is active and is termed 'political' nihilism.

Existential nihilism is a passive world view which revolves around such topics as suffering, and futility, and even has connections to Eastern mysticism like Buddhism. In a more direct sense, existential 'social' nihilism is manifest within the sense of isolation, futility, angst and the hopelessness of existence increasingly prevalent within the modern digital world sometimes referred to as the 'downward spiral'. A direct way to describe it might be 'detachment from everything'.

Words used to describe political nihilism include - active, revolutionary, destructive and even creative. Political nihilism is defined as the realization "that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility." It deals with authority and social structures rather than simply the introspective, personal emotions of existential nihilism.

Political nihilism especially is a world-view that's rational, logical, empirical, scientific and devoid of pointless, extraneous emotion. It's the logical psyche that distills everything down into what is known, what can be known and what can't be known. It's the realization that all values are ultimately relativistic and in some ways the simplicity of nihilism is its own complexity.

Nihilism That conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.

An estimable and succinct definition of a (political) nihilist comes from Ivan Turgenev's 1861 novel Fathers And Sons, "A nihilist is a person who does not bow down to any authority, who does not accept any principle on faith, however much that principle may be revered." Clearly a real, mature nihilist is a very serious person with a sharp, cogent mind but one dealing with a double edged sword that can just as easily lead to damage as to enlightenment.

So the two classes of nihilism overlap but Nihilism's Home Page is mostly about this second stage of 'political' nihilism for reasons of brevity, because the existential angle when not stillborn generally leads to political nihilism anyway, because nihilism isn't something to just talk about it's something you live, and finally because political nihilism has real world history and experience as we will read concerning the Russian revolutionaries in Historical Nihilism below. Ultimately however, the nihilistic direction one travels depends on what the individual wishes to make out of life.

To negate and circumvent the paradox's and internal contradictions inherent within 'social' nihilism is the course of the 'political' nihilism you're reading about. I don't want to use the philosophy lexicon any more than necessary nor the confusing verbosity of academia (just a few colorful adjectives where necessary); nihilism is the destruction of philosophy the negation of idealism, the negation of mythology, and the destruction of perplexity along with the disingenuous despots that profit from it as the monopolist interpreters of the confusion.







Nietzsche rejects all modern value, all modern beliefs, all modern morals that were present in his day. He call for the 'Revaluation of all values'...this is why I don't think he can be classified as a nihililst because he often praises the principles of noble ethics...the ethics of the Superman...someone who creates his own values. I do not believe he advocates a life with no values.

Neither does nihilists. Nihilistis advocates a life where you don't have someone elses values, you create your own, based on the real world, and not anything else.


It makes sense and should make sense to any Nietzsche reader, I understand what nihilism is, I have a feeling you dont understand Nietzsche at all.

Nhilism has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.


You are a pciker, somebody who wants to use philosophers when it suits them, in your case Nietzsche is a nihilist because you want him to be.

You think Nietzsche would like someone to create an ideology out of his thoughts? THAT is against everything Nietzsche stood for, taking someone elses values and then raise them to the skies without thought. I am a Nietzschean Nihilists just because I stand for the same thing as Nietzsche, and if there is something I don't like then I say just fuck that, thats stupid and forms my own opinion.
It is sad to see that such a critic of religion and ideology as Nietzsche would end up being used to justify an ideology. Anyone who is not a "picker" stands for the exakt opposite of what Nietzsche stood for.


Are you stating that the term nihilism is in some way difficult to understand?

No, it is impossible for you to understand it since it dosn't even register on your radar.
Not even nihilistis can truely understand nihilism (me included), since it is so different from everything else, and we are raised with delusions since we are small children. That is what the concept of the ubermensch is about, the ubermensch will be the first true nihilist,

Nihilism is sanity in an insane world. The text I posted above is a good enough introduction, but it requires an open mind, or you will get nada out of it.

[jimi2times]

NO. It teaches you to construct deities in order to justify your actions.

God has no reason to invent mankind, and if he did so, it would not be out of the use of a human emotion.


This is the whole point of christianity. Jesus Christ was a human being. According to christianity, we are made in the likeness of God. So why is it so irrational to believe that God doesn't have feelings and thoughts, just like he made us with. Love is the reason we exist. This is the focal point of christianity.

I have read many posts on this board and i don't really understand what people are FOR. There are lots of reasons to be against things. To doubt and to rationalise but surely we must move on. I'm reminded of a quote from 'Life of Pi' by Yann Martel.


Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

[Trissy]

You just proved my point.

How?


No.

Thank you for that wonderfully elaborate answer.


You have once again proven that you have no concept of what nihilism is

I'm sorry. I was using the usually definition of nihilism that can be found in most dictionaries. Was I so wrong? Perhaps you should inform dictionary writers worldwide of their mistake (or are they your sworn enemy as publishers of horrible false definitions?).

I was taking the definition of nihilism to be that of 1b



ni·hil·ism
1.Philosophy
a.An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b.A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2.Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3.The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4.also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5.Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

[elijahcraig]

It depends on what period of his life we are talking about. Thus spoke Zarathustra, which in my mind, clearly is nihilist, and also his most important work.

Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking off the top of your head?

Zarathustra is NOT nihilistic, it has no strands of nihilism in it, and is the whole point of Nietzsche’s philosophy—not to be nihilistic towards life.


No. What he thinks really dosn't matter.

What Nietzsche thinks about Nihilism doesn’t matter if we are discussing whether Nietzsche was a Nihilist? Moron.


Nihilists will still read Nietzsche and like what they read and like his nihilistic qualities. The rejection of all moral is the fundamental principle of both the big N and all other Nihilists.

Nietzsche does not reject all morality.

It would surprise me if you ever read the fucking man you little “Nihilist,” ie, most likely some little twelve year old goth kid.


What does nihilism have to do with christianity?

They both reject life—and Christianity leads to nihilism.

REALLY—go read Nietzsche and stop making a fool of yourself.


QUOTE
Christianity wishes to produce equality amongst man and the desire for equality can be seen as a desire for nihilism.


No.

I don’t necessarily agree with that either.


It is an interesting thought, but it isn't nihilistic. According to most nihilists humans aren't equal, that is a myth that are spread among the religeous.
For why would humans be equal? If all humans are equal that would imply that there is some mystical "value", which then logicly must have been put there by someone, e.g. god.
The belief that all humans are equal is ultimatly extremly un-nihilistic.

Nihilism can be summed up as “Faith in nothing,” so its obvious you wouldn’t believe one way or the other.


This is the whole point of christianity. Jesus Christ was a human being. According to christianity, we are made in the likeness of God. So why is it so irrational to believe that God doesn't have feelings and thoughts, just like he made us with. Love is the reason we exist. This is the focal point of christianity.

Mere babble.

Unless you have some proof or reason to believe this other than you read it in a book, then I don’t feel like debating it.

[Wenty]

Everyone seems to be going off topic.

My one point about Nietzsche would be this.

It is accepted by modern academians of Nietzsche that throughout his work he had various different voices and 'masks' used to conceal his own opinions. Much ink has been spilt over how Nietzsche's work is contradictory and ironic.

[elijahcraig]

http://whalonlab.msu.edu/Student_Webpages/.../nietzsche.html (http://whalonlab.msu.edu/Student_Webpages/Nihilism/Webpage/nietzsche.html)

That is a site I found talking of Nietzsche as a Nihilist.

I’ll attempt to deconstruct this view:


Nietzsche is known for his apathetic view towards life, and his theory that people are not inherently good at the core.

Being “good” at the core has absolutely nothing with Nietzsche’s view towards life.

Nietzsche first and foremost ACCEPTED life, he reveled in it, and he believed that any nihilistic urge towards denying life—and don’t give me your nonsense that this is not the case—was wrong. Nietzsche was an affirmer of life no matter if it was chaos and pain or love and goodness.
He had no apathetic view of life, but towards ignorant people.


In his book Will to Power, he makes the following statement. “Nihilism is…not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one shoulder to the plough; one destroys”.

Out of context most likely, Nietzsche never praised Nihilism. I don’t own this book. Wenty? Trissy? Do you have a copy? I think they left Will To Power out of the Complete Works I own because it was largely manipulated by his sister.

Here is a description by Heidegger I found:

1 The thought of eternal return is the "thought of thoughts that leads out of disgust at Nihilism."

Here is a passage I found over the internet on Heidegger on Nietzsche

VOLUME II: PART ONE: THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE OF THE SAME

In this set of lectures, Heidegger explicates Nietzsche's THOUGHT of eternal recurrence as the central, fundamental concept of his philosophy. We remember that N. is bringing to an end 2,000 years of western philosophy embedded in Christianity. He reaches for the most burdensome thought of all in order to wrench us experientially out of our conventional understanding of the nature of human experience ("Human beings are cornered in the blind alley of their own humanity." p. 99).

The thought of eternal return is one of the three points in the Nietzsche philosophy along with the will to (of) power and the revaluation of all values. Will to power is "the pervasive constitution of beings." Eternal return is "the mode of Being of beings as a whole." (p. 162) The two cannot be separated.

The thought of the eternal return of the same can occur only when one sees that "belief" petrifies life, brings it to a standstill. Knowing, creating, loving are at the center of living in the Nietzschean sense of freedom. They are impossible to achieve in the old formulations. One achieves them by thinking the thought of eternal return.

One has the thought of eternal return after one thinks of Nihilism. This evokes disgust. So does the pinched behavior of the usual human being. The will to power affords one access to the thought of eternal return. The thought of eternal return is the "thought of thoughts that leads out of disgust at Nihilism."

The thought of eternal return has no objective nature: "the truth of this thought is such only when it is OUR truth." "This thought is only when those who are thinking--are." (p. 169)

Nietzsche thus is dealing with an experiential situation, grounded in the materiality of human existence. It is impossible to know the terrible burden of the thought of eternal return until a person experiences the disgust of Nihilism. This is symbolized in the episode of the shepherd who has a snake stuck in his mouth. Zarathrustra commands him to bite the snake's head off in order to free himself. The shepherd does so and laughs, free from disgust and made over into someone who can think the most burdensome thought. In fact, the bite itself, which severs the head of the snake, IS the thought of eternal return. It is the thought that overcomes all other knowledge, which includes disgust at the contempible condition of human beings.

The right way to think the thought of eternal return has two conditions. First, one must think in terms of "the Moment" (das Augenblick). "We transpose ourselves to the temporality of action and decision, glancing ahead at what is assigned us as our task and back at what is given us as our endowment." (p. 182). The Moment is that in which future and past "affront one another." (p. 98). It occurs at midday, the midpoint between past and future. That is the location of the thought of eternal return; it takes account of the coming and going that make up the eternal return. This is the "magnificent midday," the "decisive time." (p. 150)

Second, one must think the thought of eternal return "as the overcoming of nihilism." (p. 182) "We transpose ourselves to the condition of need that arises with nihilism." (p. 182)

So, as H. says later (p. 250): "To think return [of the eternal same] is to bite decisively into the repulsive snake of nihilism....Eternal return thus has its proper content, not in the trite assertion 'Everything turns in a circle,' but in a dual movement by which the thought recoils on the thinker and the thinker is drawn into the thought."

This requires the existential engagement of the particular person bodily; without such there is no thought, no idea. [The "eternal return of the same" thus cannot be taken as a transcendental form or idea; it must remain totally rooted in the body of the person who realizes the disgust and nausea of the nothing.]

N. dwelt on the essential nothingness as a condition to which to react. He saw chaos as a "defensive notion in consequence of which nothing can be asserted of being as a whole." (p. 92) The world becomes "something we fundamentally can not address" in totality. (pp. 94-5) Chaos is necessary but lacks order. N. expressed in a note his "profound aversion to reposing once and for all in any sort of totalized view of the world." (p. 38).

When N. said, "I no longer believe in anything," Heidegger says that he meant the following: "I will not have life come to a standstill at one possibility, one configuration; I will allow and grant life its inalienable right to become, and I shall do this by prefiguring and projecting new and higher possibilities for it, creatively conducting life out beyond itself."

In this spirit, the thought of eternal return "fixates by determining how the world essentially is--as the necessitous chaos of perpetual Becoming."

N. rejects Heraclitus's image of the ever-flowing stream with ever-new reality. Rather, he says that "I teach you redemption from the eternal flux; the river flows ever back into itself, and you are ever stepping into the selfsame river, as the selfsame ones." (p. 146)

Heidegger explicates the symbolism of Zarathustra's two animals in his loneliness. He thinks it is important to identify the teacher of the thought of eternal return in terms of the animal symbols. The eagle and the serpent are entwined with each other. Their circling and coiling together represents the circle and ring of eternal return (past future present). The eagle represents pride, the serpent discernment or wisdom. They constitute together "the basic stance of the teacher of eternal return [ie, pride] and his mode of knowledge." They speak not in propositions but "from out of their essential natures what is essential." (p. 48).

http://webpages.ursinus.edu/rrichter/heidegger1.html

Here is an essay on the subject I found:

http://www.ferrum.edu/philosophy/nietaffirm.htm

It is from the standpoint of the Heidegger school of thought viewing Nietzsche


Here he is saying that when a person is a nihilist they can take any value or belief, and run it into the ground. Thus, nothing is true, because everything can be destroyed, or negated. This is one of Nietzsche’s central theories.

This is just a bad interpretation of a out of context remark.


At one point, Nietzsche says “The highest values devalue themselves”. Here Nietzsche is again displaying token nihilism. By saying that vales destroy themselves is making the claim that values do not exist, because their destruction makes them obsolete, thus there are no values.

The author of this website just made a horrible interpretation of one of the core systems of Nietzsche’s thought: Value System.

Nietzsche NEVER claimed there were no such thing as “values,” and the author of this website offers no proof that he did so.


lso, Nietzsche says “God is Dead” This indicates that God, which is a belief for many people, does not exist. If God, the ultimate belief in many cultures does not exist, than beliefs do not exist.

The phrase actually comes from Nietzsche’s specific field of study which was language and primitive culture. The phrase “God is dead,” is a nod to the old custom of killing the godman in the tribe in order to save existence. This in no way means “beliefs do not exist.” Once again a pathetic jump and bound by someone who most likely hasn’t read Nietzsche at all.


His thoughts carry over into the scientific realm, because many scientist believe in his nihilistic theories, and use them while making their own theories about science. Thus, while Nietzsche does not specifically address science, he effects scientists, which can carry over in a very specific way.

What does that even mean?




Everyone should also read this: http://www.addall.com/detail/0691017387.html if you want to get a non-Existentialist view of Nietzsche.

[elijahcraig]

Here is another site of Nihilists "claiming" people to be part of their crowd who were really not:

http://www.counterorder.com/nihilismbios.html

So there appears to be a pattern.

Other people they have attempted to claim as Nihilists:

King Solomon
Buddha
Gorgias
Niccolo Machiavelli
Mikhail Bakunin
Andy Warhol
Baader Meinhof Gang
The Sex Pistols
John Dewey
Tristan Tzara
David Lynch

Ridiculous.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Dawood I am really not sure you either understood my post or are just going to interpet people's words as anti-nihilistic jargon or that we are forcing an ideology upon you or something?

I'll wait until this topic goes back on track or perhaps you start making sense.

Gorgias is a nihilist according to the website as well,


His philosophy was existential nihilism in the disbelief of truths along with the expression of principles of the personal interpretation of reality. The whole Sophistic spirit identified knowledge with sense-perception. Since impressions differ by person, unique sensations dictate unique realities for each observer. Since sensations are unique they can't be communicated accurately if at all, it follows that then even if anything could be known it couldn't be communicated - the very roots of nihilistic philosophy.

Talk about tailouring to suit your needs.

[Dawood]

Here is another site of Nihilists "claiming" people to be part of their crowd who were really not:

Did you actually stop to read the text? :rolleyes:
The creator of that site uses known people, and things they are known for, to give examples of different nihilistic views, Baader-Meinhof is destruction, the quote from King Salomon that everything is meaningless, Machiavelli about the rejection of morals in politics etc.


Being “good” at the core has absolutely nothing with Nietzsche’s view towards life.

Exactly.


and he believed that any nihilistic urge towards denying life—and don’t give me your nonsense that this is not the case—was wrong.

That is not the case. Why would a nihilist deny life? It clearly exists. A nihilist denies that which cannot be proven. I know I live, so why should I deny it?


Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking off the top of your head?

Zarathustra is NOT nihilistic, it has no strands of nihilism in it, and is the whole point of Nietzsche’s philosophy—not to be nihilistic towards life.

Well, lets see, in the forword to some of his later books he rejects his earlier writings... I think that is a clue that he changed opinions...

And what the hell is "being nihilistic toward life" supposted to mean?


What Nietzsche thinks about Nihilism doesn’t matter if we are discussing whether Nietzsche was a Nihilist? Moron.

Why would it matter? We are discussing his ideas, not his opinions. Many of his ideas are nihilistic, it is as simple as that. So I count him as an nihilist. You on the other hand dont have a fucking clue what nihilism is, so that is why you fail so miserably in arguing about it.


Nietzsche does not reject all morality.

It would surprise me if you ever read the fucking man you little “Nihilist,” ie, most likely some little twelve year old goth kid.

Sometimes people who actually have no arguments have trouble controlling their fear when their views are challanged, and lash out in anger. What do you know about me? Twelve year old goth kid who have never read Nietzsche? And what do you base that on? You are just speaking out of ignorance as you can't controll yopur feelings when you realise that you are left without arguments. Someone who knew more about the matter than you could maybe prove me wrong, even though it wouldn't alter my views on Nietzsches nihilistic sides, but you are hardly that person.
Now go out and play and let the adults discuss in peace.


Nietzsche rejected moralism. That IS the basic element of all his philosophy, he rejected terms like "good" and "evil", and that humans were responsible before a higher authority.


They both reject life—and Christianity leads to nihilism.

I still haven't seen you explain how nihilism rejects life.



Thank you for that wonderfully elaborate answer.

I elaborated later in my post.



I'm sorry. I was using the usually definition of nihilism that can be found in most dictionaries. Was I so wrong? Perhaps you should inform dictionary writers worldwide of their mistake (or are they your sworn enemy as publishers of horrible false definitions?).

I was taking the definition of nihilism to be that of 1b


QUOTE

ni·hil·ism
1.Philosophy
a.An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b.A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2.Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3.The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4.also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5.Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.


2 and 4 are more or less correct, the others might be other meanings of the word, but they have nothing to do with neither philosophical or political nihilism.
3 is partly correct, but it should be "3.The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary wheter that will lead to future imrovment or not"
Simply the realisation that the society sucks so badly that it is justified to destroy it, even if you don't have a better plan.

[elijahcraig]

Did you actually stop to read the text?
The creator of that site uses known people, and things they are known for, to give examples of different nihilistic views, Baader-Meinhof is destruction, the quote from King Salomon that everything is meaningless, Machiavelli about the rejection of morals in politics etc.

YES, I did read the text.

Baader-Meinhoff was a Marxist-Leninist(-Maoist) group.

Machiavelli was a political opportunist in philosophy—whatever gets you the powerful position.

King Solomon has nothing to do with Nihilism other than pulling quotes out of context and fitting them to some “ideology” of Nihilism.


That is not the case. Why would a nihilist deny life? It clearly exists. A nihilist denies that which cannot be proven. I know I live, so why should I deny it?

I don’t mean you “deny life” in a literal sense, you moron! My god, I can’t believe I’m arguing with you; you reply like you have never read Nietzsche at all.


Well, lets see, in the forword to some of his later books he rejects his earlier writings... I think that is a clue that he changed opinions...

And what the hell is "being nihilistic toward life" supposted to mean?


Etc. I can’t really reply except to say that you have provided ABSOLUTELY no proof that he was a Nihilist.

And if you have read Nietzsche, he says it often enough what “being nihilistic towards life” means.


Why would it matter? We are discussing his ideas, not his opinions. Many of his ideas are nihilistic, it is as simple as that. So I count him as an nihilist. You on the other hand dont have a fucking clue what nihilism is, so that is why you fail so miserably in arguing about it.

This is bordering on lunatic fringe debate in your argument.

Why does it matter what he thinks? Why does it matter what his opinions of Nihilism are? Why does it matter what his ideas are towards Nihilism? Well, if you can’t see that—and not take any god damn fucking quote the man has out of context and using it to your ideology—then you are a complete fucking moron.


Sometimes people who actually have no arguments have trouble controlling their fear when their views are challanged, and lash out in anger. What do you know about me? Twelve year old goth kid who have never read Nietzsche? And what do you base that on?

Your complete misunderstanding or lack of understanding or lack of familiarity with the texts.


You are just speaking out of ignorance as you can't controll yopur feelings when you realise that you are left without arguments.

YOU have presented no arguments except a quote you arrogantly categorize as “Nietzsche was a Nihilist.”


Someone who knew more about the matter than you could maybe prove me wrong, even though it wouldn't alter my views on Nietzsches nihilistic sides, but you are hardly that person.
Now go out and play and let the adults discuss in peace.

As someone who has read Heidegger’s biography and writings on Nietzsche, Jung’s writings on Nietzsche and Zarathustra, Nietzsche’s complete works, Foucaults writings on Nietzsche, and many other such works—I am very familiar with Nietzsche, very knowledgeable of Nietzsche, and your blatant arrogance in the face of debate of “you don’t know what nihilism is,” and “you don’t know Nietzsche,” is just pathetically humorous.



Nietzsche rejected moralism. That IS the basic element of all his philosophy, he rejected terms like "good" and "evil", and that humans were responsible before a higher authority.

Nietzsche the morality of the virtuous. And that is rejection of all morality of the nihilist, christian, and low-class brand. Nietzsche rejected morality of it being harmful to the aristocratic nature of the upper classes, and their artistic culture (Wagner, etc.). He did not reject morality if it led to a better Aesthetic. In sum, as Heidegger wrote, “To Nietzsche, Art is more important than Truth.”


I still haven't seen you explain how nihilism rejects life.

See above.



I have a problem with anyone attempting to label or categorize Nietzsche’s thought. He has influenced many, many strands of thought—he fits in none of the modern,post-modern categories people attempt to put him in. He is not an Existentialist, he is not a Jungian, he is not a Foucaultian, he is not a Nihilist, and he is not a Fascist. He is Nietzschean.

[leftist manson]

http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/clare.htm
hey bros , read this

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nietzsche rejected moralism. That IS the basic element of all his philosophy, he rejected terms like "good" and "evil", and that humans were responsible before a higher authority.

He rejects them in terms of their philological status and so forth not neccessarily because he has no faith in them. He finds morality absurd because it has become so distorted etc. if we need to get into the slave morality thing then we can.

My feeling is you havent read much Nietzsche other than second hand sources about Nietzsche. That is the impression your posts give out anyway.