Nihilism

[Straw Dog]

But you contradicted here, you admit Optimism is positive thinking, but yet you say Optimism sees things as they are. The world is not measured by Positive or Negative, those are artificially made and relative concepts, no system can accurately measure it, therefore it isn't "it" when you say something is positive or negative, you're giving it value when you do that, but things do not have value, we give it value, whether it be positive or negative value.

I did not say that Optimism sees things as they are. Optimism doesn't see anything. I see things. You're thinking about it as a philosophy when I mean it as a disposition or an attitude of gratitude. You're thinking in terms of the quantitative whereas I'm focused here on the qualitative. Either way, I'm not measuring the world. I'm approaching it with a certain disposition or characteristic outlook. To be more specific, the things themselves are not positive or negative. It is my emotional mood and outlook towards them that is positive or negative through my interactions.

I'm simply incorporating my own human condition and experience as a part of that which is. As a sentient being, I value things. These values may be abstract, but they are contained within the programming of the physical construct that is my mind. Things have value because I value them. My mind applies that quality to my experiences. This process is all contained within the physical world. My values influence my actions and interactions with the world just as your values influence you and your interactions. Moods and emotions are very real and have an influence on ourselves, others, and the world around us.

Describing something as it is would not include positive or negative or anything emotional to be a part in describing it, such as "The cake is good" is not describing it as it is, it's describing it as it is in your opinion, and opinions are not facts.

How do you describe positive and negative emotions? Do they also not have their own quality which is contained within the physical construct of the mind? Opinions are not facts, but it is a fact that we have opinions and emotions. Why not work with our nature rather than against it?

Therefore, Optimism is based on opinions, when Nihilism is about facts only, no opinions, emotions, or anything else like that subjective to interfere.

Nihilism is also based on an opinion, unless you've someone transcended your own subjective experience, or I'm still not understanding what you mean exactly by nihilism. Do you not experience emotions? Do you not have any opinions? Do these not influence the rest of your interactions with the physical world? Whether or not one negates the value of our subjective experience, the subjective is still "interfering" nonetheless.

Besides, I don't know that nihilism is about facts only. I don't think any philosophy is about facts only, but rather they're about logical interpretations and ways of living. The scientific method seems to be the only practice specializing in uncovering facts about reality, and it even contains a certain deal of interpretation.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here. I do agree that Nihilism is negating values beliefs and morals, etc because they were not inherit, they are very much subjective, opinions, relative, not based on facts, therefore do not describe the object as it IS.

Though, Nihilism doesn't deconstruct anything, nor destroys anything, there's no reason to, if that's what you're saying. It's only logical to.

Nihilism does believe in concepts, but not for the concepts to be real. It's like saying, just because the concept of God is real, doesn't mean God is real.

In the same way, the concept of morality, value, etc exist but they are not real.

I agree that concepts cannot adequately capture THAT WHICH IS because it ultimately transcends our comprehension. I don't think this subjective/ objective division is so clear cut, though, as we're always required to interpret facts through our concepts. Nihilism itself seems to be a conceptual framework. To be a consistent nihilist, it seems one would also have to not believe in nihilism, but then what's the point of nihilism?

So in the end, morality, value, etc. exist but are not real. So do you think they should be negated or abandoned just because they are not "real" in your opinion?

What use is that? Nihilism seems concerned with asking what is the point. I'm more concerned with asking what is the utility. What use is nihilism? What work is it doing in the world? What benefit does it offer?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I did not say that Optimism sees things as they are. Optimism doesn't see anything. I see things. You're thinking about it as a philosophy when I mean it as a disposition or an attitude of gratitude. You're thinking in terms of the quantitative whereas I'm focused here on the qualitative. Either way, I'm not measuring the world. I'm approaching it with a certain disposition or characteristic outlook. To be more specific, the things themselves are not positive or negative. It is my emotional mood and outlook towards them that is positive or negative through my interactions.

I'm simply incorporating my own human condition and experience as a part of that which is. As a sentient being, I value things. These values may be abstract, but they are contained within the programming of the physical construct that is my mind. Things have value because I value them. My mind applies that quality to my experiences. This process is all contained within the physical world. My values influence my actions and interactions with the world just as your values influence you and your interactions. Moods and emotions are very real and have an influence on ourselves, others, and the world around us.

You seem to value your value, but why? Why value at all? Does your value have anything to do with reality, and if not why use it?

How do you describe positive and negative emotions? Do they also not have their own quality which is contained within the physical construct of the mind? Opinions are not facts, but it is a fact that we have opinions and emotions. Why not work with our nature rather than against it?

But they are not inherit, they are relative, nobody can have the same opinion, therefore they are worthless. Even if everybody did agree on one opinion, it would be worthless when trying to use to describe reality since you are describing it from a human point of view, not a natural one.

Nihilism is also based on an opinion, unless you've someone transcended your own subjective experience, or I'm still not understanding what you mean exactly by nihilism. Do you not experience emotions? Do you not have any opinions? Do these not influence the rest of your interactions with the physical world? Whether or not one negates the value of our subjective experience, the subjective is still "interfering" nonetheless.

Nihilism is based on the opinion that opinions are overrated. It seems to be impossible to completely not experience emotions, since they are in our nature, as much as it is impossible to have no opinion.

But for that reason Nihilists try to lack these subjective things as much as possible, especially 100% when talking and thinking about reality itself.

Besides, I don't know that nihilism is about facts only. I don't think any philosophy is about facts only, but rather they're about logical interpretations and ways of living. The scientific method seems to be the only practice specializing in uncovering facts about reality, and it even contains a certain deal of interpretation.

But Nihilism is the "interpretation" to see things as they are objectively, as they are really, in reality, not from a perspective, but from all.

I agree that concepts cannot adequately capture THAT WHICH IS because it ultimately transcends our comprehension. I don't think this subjective/ objective division is so clear cut, though, as we're always required to interpret facts through our concepts. Nihilism itself seems to be a conceptual framework. To be a consistent nihilist, it seems one would also have to not believe in nihilism, but then what's the point of nihilism?

But just because one believes the concept exists of something doesn't mean one believes in the concept itself.

I would disagree that Nihilism is a concept, it is a philosophy more like, IMO. but that is just semantics come to think about it.

What do you mean that to be a consistent nihilist one would not believe in nihilism? I do want to also point out, one doesn't believe in nihilism, since nihilism isn't a belief.

There is no value in Nihilism, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the description of a man.

So in the end, morality, value, etc. exist but are not real. So do you think they should be negated or abandoned just because they are not "real" in your opinion?

They should when we're speaking objectives, personal values and personal morality I don't see a problem with, but personal morality wouldn't that just be autocracy anyway, so might as well say no morality in all.

What use is that? Nihilism seems concerned with asking what is the point. I'm more concerned with asking what is the utility. What use is nihilism? What work is it doing in the world? What benefit does it offer?

Nothing, why does it have to offer something?

What is the use of Atheism? What work is it doing in the world? What benefit does it offer?

What about Mysticism or Buddhism etc?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The world is not measured by Positive or Negative, those are artificially made and relative concepts, no system can accurately measure it, therefore it isn't "it" when you say something is positive or negative, you're giving it value when you do that, but things do not have value, we give it value, whether it be positive or negative value.

Have you ever considered magnetic forces act in a positive/negative manner, and other forces do as well.
As time evolved we as humans witness these events over and over and realize there is many time if not all times and ebb and flow?

• The tides come in, the tides go out.
• The sun appears, the sun disappears (and things grow)
• Seeds are destroyed, tree grows, tree produces more seeds, seeds are destroyed etc...
• Electricity has a starting a ending point using (for lack of better words) negative and positives.

All around us, are these examples of values naturally occurring that produce real results, not just conceptual ones.
To think we are void of this negative positive system, and that our minds are not in some fashion similar at times, seems well... outdated.


Take even our neurological pathways, a series of negative and positive values, our brains electrical activity, more of the same.


Yet, for some reason we want to exclude our emotions, our reasoning, our thoughts from the naturally occurring process that surrounds us.


I have no problem with understanding the concept of Nihilism, and can appreciate when Fredrick Nietzsche suggests we would be better off to start from scratch if possible and rid the world of notions of right and wrong, and see what becomes from that. I understand why one would think that. Especially in the light of all the "morality" that supposedly is in our leaders and so forth. It would appear it is all a sham.


Yet, after I consider Nihilism enough, I am reminded that many of the powers we observe (and yes label) are negative and positive working together to create what we see around us. I then, can't dismiss that maybe too, I am full of negative and positive values, and maybe there is something to be understood about morals and things of that nature.


Hope you do not mind my opinion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It seems to me that Nihilism is a form of mental illness.

Only in the hands of amateurs. Nihilism as Iggy Pop said, is best done by professionals.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Have you ever considered magnetic forces act in a positive/negative manner, and other forces do as well.
As time evolved we as humans witness these events over and over and realize there is many time if not all times and ebb and flow?

• The tides come in, the tides go out.
• The sun appears, the sun disappears (and things grow)
• Seeds are destroyed, tree grows, tree produces more seeds, seeds are destroyed etc...
• Electricity has a starting a ending point using (for lack of better words) negative and positives.

All around us, are these examples of values naturally occurring that produce real results, not just conceptual ones.
To think we are void of this negative positive system, and that our minds are not in some fashion similar at times, seems well... outdated.


Take even our neurological pathways, a series of negative and positive values, our brains electrical activity, more of the same.


Yet, for some reason we want to exclude our emotions, our reasoning, our thoughts from the naturally occurring process that surrounds us.


I have no problem with understanding the concept of Nihilism, and can appreciate when Fredrick Nietzsche suggests we would be better off to start from scratch if possible and rid the world of notions of right and wrong, and see what becomes from that. I understand why one would think that. Especially in the light of all the "morality" that supposedly is in our leaders and so forth. It would appear it is all a sham.


Yet, after I consider Nihilism enough, I am reminded that many of the powers we observe (and yes label) are negative and positive working together to create what we see around us. I then, can't dismiss that maybe too, I am full of negative and positive values, and maybe there is something to be understood about morals and things of that nature.


Hope you do not mind my opinion.

Hi, I don't mind your opinion at all, and you are free to have it

But I would just like to say that the magnetic positive and negative, along with the positive and negative in mathematics, etc. are not the same as the positive and negative based on emotions.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Only in the hands of amateurs. Nihilism as Iggy Pop said, is best done by professionals.

With all due respect, what do you mean by doing Nihilism?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Hi, I don't mind your opinion at all, and you are free to have it

But I would just like to say that the magnetic positive and negative, along with the positive and negative in mathematics, etc. are not the same as the positive and negative based on emotions.

You made the statement earlier that the world is not measured from negative and positive, but that those are artificial things that can't be measured. Yet, we measure that kind of activity all the time.
So, from Nihilism and its ideology, you move to a position to define what emotions are based on?

What basis is that, you need to explain?

If we follow Nietzsche's lead and "assume" nothing about right and wrong, negative and positive, good and bad, all we have to lean on is the world around us, and what is tangible and evident. Two things Nietzsche was quite fond of.

Why then can you say with such certainty, our emotions, decisions, and behaviors are not governed by similar negative and positive forces that govern the entire universe?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

With all due respect, what do you mean by doing Nihilism?

Wait I forgot something:

The amateurs:

Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The professionals:

Alan Watts - The Real You - YouTube

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You made the statement earlier that the world is not measured from negative and positive, but that those are artificial things that can't be measured. Yet, we measure that kind of activity all the time.
So, from Nihilism and its ideology, you move to a position to define what emotions are based on?

Emotions are based on chemical reactions in the brain, but they all go off at different times for different people.

We cannot accurately measure it with emotions, because people have different emotions all the time. My grandpa used to say, "In order for one man to be happy, another has to be disappointed."

What basis is that, you need to explain?

What basis is what?

If we follow Nietzsche's lead and "assume" nothing about right and wrong, negative and positive, good and bad, all we have to lean on is the world around us, and what is tangible and evident. Two things Nietzsche was quite fond of.

Exactly what I'm saying.

Why then can you say with such certainty, our emotions, decisions, and behaviors are not governed by similar negative and positive forces that govern the entire universe?

Because they are subjective not only to our species, but to our individual.

 

[Willamena]

Emotions are based on chemical reactions in the brain, but they all go off at different times for different people.

We cannot accurately measure it with emotions, because people have different emotions all the time. My grandpa used to say, "In order for one man to be happy, another has to be disappointed."

That is a measure.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That is a measure.

A subjective one, though. Two different perspectives, measuring two different things.

Let's say a man who is 5'8 walks to a person who is 5'2, the 5'2 person would say "You're tall"

But then a 6'0 person comes up to the 5'8 man and says "you're short". Which would be realistically accurate? They are both accurate, depending on perspective, but as it is personally accurate, it isn't accurate in reality itself.

 

[Straw Dog]

You seem to value your value, but why? Why value at all? Does your value have anything to do with reality, and if not why use it?

This is kind of pseudo-questioning. I mean, can you honestly say that you do not value anything and that you do not pursue your values? On the basic level, do you not value good food and attractive women?

I don't value my value. I simply value things. For instance, I value my relationships with my family, friends, and girlfriend. You might say that these relationships are based on emotional bonding, ergo they're worthless, but why should I have to justify my emotional bonds? I just have them as per my human condition and experience. Furthermore, they are one source of personal meaning in my life.

Why do you value the things that you value? Do you value family and friends? Do you value nihilism? Do you value that which you perceive to be objective reality? Why?

But they are not inherit, they are relative, nobody can have the same opinion, therefore they are worthless. Even if everybody did agree on one opinion, it would be worthless when trying to use to describe reality since you are describing it from a human point of view, not a natural one.

Emotions seem to be inherent to the human condition, or to most all sentience life forms. They may be relative, but so what? It seems like most things in existence work and act upon other things on a relative basis. You seem stuck in the notion that humans themselves are not natural, or that somehow we're separate from the rest of natural reality.

I don't know that we can wholly separate the subjective from the objective. We're experiencing objective reality subjectively and our subjective experiences are contained within objective reality. The objective and the subjective interpenetrate one another. I don't think it really makes any sense to wholly diminish the value of subjective experience anymore than it does to say the objective is irrelevant.

Nihilism is based on the opinion that opinions are overrated. It seems to be impossible to completely not experience emotions, since they are in our nature, as much as it is impossible to have no opinion.

But for that reason Nihilists try to lack these subjective things as much as possible, especially 100% when talking and thinking about reality itself.

I do agree that there's something to say about being excessively opinionated about everything. This is not something unique to the philosophy of nihilism. It's also important for us to distinguish between opinions and facts and to be careful not to confuse the two. Opinions and preferences are best utilized when minimized to specific areas of focus, such as on things that effect us and our loved ones directly or have major impacts on society at large. It's both exhausting and excessive to be opinionated about everything and everyone.

But Nihilism is the "interpretation" to see things as they are objectively, as they are really, in reality, not from a perspective, but from all.

But an interpretation is made from a relative perspective.

But just because one believes the concept exists of something doesn't mean one believes in the concept itself.

I would disagree that Nihilism is a concept, it is a philosophy more like, IMO. but that is just semantics come to think about it.

If it is a philosophy then it is utilizing thinking and concepts in its discourse.

What do you mean that to be a consistent nihilist one would not believe in nihilism? I do want to also point out, one doesn't believe in nihilism, since nihilism isn't a belief.

There is no value in Nihilism, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the description of a man.

When taken to a logical conclusion, total nihilism would entail the negation of even the philosophy of nihilism itself. If nihilism has no value and no meaning, then what's the point of nihilism? There is none, so I don't see any logical reason why I would need to justify my values, morals, and meanings on the basis of nihilistic philosophy or even consider nihilism to begin with.

I don't know that it's possible to be a human being and qualify as a completely consistent nihilist. The closest I can think of would be the Joker in The Dark Knight, but even he eventually admits that he believes in chaos and is working as an agent of anarchy. I could be way off. How would one describe the behavior or characteristics of a totally nihilistic individual?

They should when we're speaking objectives, personal values and personal morality I don't see a problem with, but personal morality wouldn't that just be autocracy anyway, so might as well say no morality in all.

Personal morality can enable an understanding of relative perspectives. It doesn't need to assert itself onto everybody else by force. Our moral sense is codependent upon the moral sense of others, considering that morality arises through social evolution anyway.

Nothing, why does it have to offer something?

What is the use of Atheism? What work is it doing in the world? What benefit does it offer?

I see. So nihilism is akin to atheism in that it is the negation or absence of something rather than outright asserting a belief? In the case of complete nihilism, it would be the negation of all values, morals, meaning, existence, etc. There would be no way of saying then that "values do not exist" or that "life is meaningless" because that would be an assertion of something, unless there is also strong nihilism and weak nihilism.

What about Mysticism or Buddhism etc?

Mysticism refers to various methods for losing oneself in that which is greater than self. This could be the Universe, or Brahman, or God, or Nirvana, etc. Either way it enables the expansion and evolution of consciousness.

Buddhism is a philosophy and way of life proscribed for alleviating suffering via elevating compassion and mindful awareness of things as they are. Specifically it emphases the transcendence of subject/ object duality.

These are ways for pursuing peace and contentment. They work in the world by encouraging more mindfulness of our actions, words, and thoughts, ethical action towards others, and contemplation of that which transcends all comprehension.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Emotions are based on chemical reactions in the brain, but they all go off at different times for different people.

Whether they go off at different times is irrelevant. They do go off and are measurable. Even predictable. I grant you there is much left to learn about the brain, but we do no how the electrical paths fire.

We cannot accurately measure it with emotions, because people have different emotions all the time. My grandpa used to say, "In order for one man to be happy, another has to be disappointed."

The point is, that our universe is governed by forces that are opposing in MANY cases, if not all cases. Yet, you want to make humans unique from this. And it appears on the basis because we are "different" because we have subjective emotions. That really isn't a valid argument.

What basis is what?

What is your basis for suggesting emotions are not governed by negative and positive forces that are measurable. So far, you have said they are subjective therefor not measurable. However, I disagree. If I throw a rock on 100 people feet, I can expect the same brain activity, (unless there is some anomaly)

Because they are subjective not only to our species, but to our individual.

wrong, you mistake our emotions as something separate from the rest of the universe, simply because we are higher developed beings in some regards.
It is no argument to say emotions are all subjective because they are unique to human beings.
It is akin to saying certain high pitch noises are subjective because only dogs can hear them.

 

[Willamena]

A subjective one, though. Two different perspectives, measuring two different things.

It still can be perfectly accurate.

If it's true that A is taller than B, then it's accurate for B to say, "Hey, you're tall."

Let's say a man who is 5'8 walks to a person who is 5'2, the 5'2 person would say "You're tall"

But then a 6'0 person comes up to the 5'8 man and says "you're short". Which would be realistically accurate? They are both accurate, depending on perspective, but as it is personally accurate, it isn't accurate in reality itself.

Both would be realistically (objectively) accurate. Comparing them relatively (to make them 'subjective') doesn't negate that.

It's only you that make them 'subjective', by choosing to look at them relatively.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It still can be perfectly accurate.

If it's true that A is taller than B, then it's accurate for B to say, "Hey, you're tall."

It is true that A is taller than B but it isn't true B is tall (in general).

Both would be realistically (objectively) accurate. Comparing them relatively (to make them 'subjective') doesn't negate that

.

The way you put it I never disagreed with, but that's not exactly what I was saying.

It's only you that make them 'subjective', by choosing to look at them relatively.

It's from a perspective point that B is tall, but from another perspective B is small. It doesn't make him tall for all.

 

[Willamena]

It is true that A is taller than B but it isn't true B is tall (in general).

But it's true that A is taller than B.

True is true.

The way you put it I never disagreed with, but that's not exactly what I was saying.



It's from a perspective point that B is tall, but from another perspective B is small. It doesn't make him tall for all.

The concepts "objective," "subjective," "relative" and "absolute" don't depend on numbers. There's nothing about numbers here in my dictionary (*flips pages*)... nope. Just perspectives.

But I guess we should save it for another thread *oops*.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But it's true that A is taller than B.

True is true.

I agreed to that. But I also said that B isn't tall in general.

The concepts "objective," "subjective," "relative" and "absolute" don't depend on numbers. There's nothing about numbers here in my dictionary (*flips pages*)... nope. Just perspectives.

I don't think I said that.

But I guess we should save it for another thread *oops*.

hehe, Why? Might as well continue here if at all

 

[Willamena]

I don't think I said that.

I just meant that these concepts don't rely on the number of perspective points that utilize them. The objectivity of something relative to A isn't affected by something being relative to B. If it's relatively objective to A, it's always relatively objective to A, regardless of how many other letters have something relatively objective to them, because the thing relatively objective to those other letters won't be the same thing relatively objective to A.

Person A is standing on one side of a mountain, and person B is standing on the other side. Person A says, "Whoa, that mountain is covered with trees!" and person B says, "Whoa! It's covered with rock." Are you going to claim their statements 'subjective'? They're talking about the same mountain, but different sides, so they're really talking about different things. Same with the person who is tall and small--they're talking about the same person, but from two different relative positions, which makes for them essentially talking about two different things.


Subjectivity is another matter...

Edit: To be clear, I'm saying that when you change your position relative to something else, it relatively becomes something else. Relativity is defined by the relation between two points; if you change your position, you change that relation.

 

[idav]

I was wondering what are the basics of it and do you really have to be anarchist?

To me nihilism just sticks to the pointlessness of things. It is just one aspect though. We can't figure there would be a why it is as it is? It really just is?

 

[John Thiel]

No, they contradict. Optimism is positive as in everything is good, Nihilism is neutral as in everything just is.

I believe you're right, Sum. But a whole lot of nihilism doesn't follow the definition of nihilism, and reasons onward pessimistically. Nietsche, for instance, went from that to "Bedam to the way things are" and "man need not just be...he can be a superman, beyond good and evil, a ruler".