Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Nihilism Is Not

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#61

Post by skolskoly »

brazzy wrote: post #40
skolskoly wrote: post #33

I wasn't satisfied with the essay, so I thought I'd share my understanding of Nihilism. This is coming from someone who has never read Nietzsche so take it with a grain of salt, I'm curious to know where I might be off. First, I think we've all most commonly seen the "colloquial" form of Nihilism, which is a sort of despair over a lack of meaning in life. I'm pretty sure most people are aware that this is oversimplif…

>Philosophically, if our existence has no purpose, then it seems that everything else we believe and value is built on a foundation of sand. Only if you assume that only "inherent" or externally supplied meaning or purpose is valid. Why make that assumption, though?

Well, that is what Nihilism explores. Under Nihilism we can still have a sort of right and wrong, but only with respect to goals. The goals you pick, are of course arbitrary. However, reality sort of strong-arms us into continuing our existence as a precondition to choosing any other goal (aside from death), and in that sense all other goals become subordinate to that one. I guess there are some other ways to interpret it, but regardless, the implications of this vary from somewhat Utopian (Transhumanism) to very Dystopian (The Borg.)

I'm not a Nihilist but if I were I wouldn't be too happy about it.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#62

Post by mirimir »

1propionyl wrote: post #57
mirimir wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do claim that it's a cult. But that's not my experience. Course leaders are generally highly charismatic, but are not typically authoritarian. There is a heavy emphasis on participants sharing experience with the group, and being coached to see their machinery. But it's a stretch to call that "public shaming and gaslighting". However, people are sometimes very attached to their interpretations, and it can get ve…

I don't know anything about this particular case, but superficially what you're describing is not atypical of well-established cults, rather it is typical. The authoritarianism increases as one moves up levels and more "secrets" are revealed. At the ground floor, it's welcoming and communal, but as you are further inculcated the number of "secrets" or "mysteries" revealed, the amount of potential personal exposure (r…

What you're describing sounds a lot like what I've read about Scientology.

But not at all like what I experienced in Landmark. Seriously, there are no "secrets" or "mysteries". It's all basically laid out in the Forum. The rest is all practice.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#63

Post by thrwaway69 »

incompatible wrote: post #36
MrQuincle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would define "meaning" only as something that can be imposed by an entity outside of yourself. Someone can tell you your life has a lot of meaning... but what does that mean to you. It's vacuous if you don't think that yourself. I won't say meaning is something emergent. It's something about point of view. Or perhaps even stronger. If you don't find meaning in your life, there's none.

This would be some sort of emergent theory of "meaning", originating from individual organisms once they are sufficiently evolved to understand the concept, much like consciousness could perhaps arise. "Meaning" then starts out as the significance that an organism attaches to its own existence.

If there are biological reasons that make you believe your existence is important and you should live, then suicide would be a way of showing freedom from the restraints?

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#64

Post by mirimir »

thrwaway69 wrote: post #59
mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If nothing has inherent meaning then you are the one who has power to give meaning to things. You can avoid giving meaning to mishaps, mistakes, past, nasty comments and anxiety while cherishing and making other things more meaningful (to yourself). Yes, that's exactly it. It's amazing how just noticing that I'm making myself miserable can bring a smile to my face. Or at least, a grin. > The feeling of being able t…

> They made me seriously hypomanic, but emotionally numb. The worst part about that is my avoidant behavior of self care in the pursuit of work that feels good. There are other issues that made it that way. It's akin to being addicted to hard drugs (not meant to be insensitive. Can't find any other analogy atm). Mind and body want different things while also being on their own in the reception/outcome. Priorities shu…

I'm getting that you're working hard at what you enjoy. And that other stuff -- eating, and self care generally -- only matter for practical purposes.

As long as you are taking good enough care of yourself to stay healthy, I don't think that it matters.

> Do people enjoy things on their own merits or external factors coerces them to enjoy something?

> I can't figure out the answer because I do most things for avoidance.

That's a hard question. Some of the things that I enjoy are bad for me. Such as ice cream. So I've learned to enjoy basically frozen fruit juices. And I don't have ice cream around. That's certainly avoidance.

I also make my own frozen food. Typically rice, beans, carrots, other vegetables, and some meat. So that's what's around to eat, and it doesn't take much work.

Otherwise I'd eat junk, and end up fat and unhappy.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#65

Post by incompatible »

thrwaway69 wrote: post #63
incompatible wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be some sort of emergent theory of "meaning", originating from individual organisms once they are sufficiently evolved to understand the concept, much like consciousness could perhaps arise. "Meaning" then starts out as the significance that an organism attaches to its own existence.

If there are biological reasons that make you believe your existence is important and you should live, then suicide would be a way of showing freedom from the restraints?

Why would you need freedom from the restraints? You are what you are, and the will to continue living is part of that.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#66

Post by ahartmetz »

mirimir wrote: post #47
brazzy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If nothing has inherent meaning then you are the one who has power to give meaning to things. You can avoid giving meaning to mishaps, mistakes, past, nasty comments and anxiety while cherishing and making other things more meaningful (to yourself). That's one outlook on nihilism As I understand it, that is, in fact, existentialism , not nihilism.

Agreed. But nihilism is the gateway.

AFAICT existentialism is nihilism plus a bunch of pretentious gibberish, so if I was going that route, I'd rather stop at nihilism.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#67

Post by rhyzom »

ok, i finally understand exactly what nihilism concretely refers to now. a state of being similar to the one of the hollow human replicas in "the invasion of the body snatchers"... so, that's what i've been referring to all this time lately when i use the phrase "delirium and drift"... it's not stupidity i've been referring to, but nihilism it seems. explains a lot. dostoevsky's use of the term now suddenly becomes rather disturbing in its 19th century russian context. either way, thank you. that was maybe somehow useful and somewhat insightful in helping me diagnose the surrounding world going clinically/criminally insane..

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#68

Post by jariel »

frutiger wrote: post #49
jariel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"> life is meaningless This is actually objectively true" Definitely not 'objectively true'. It's only 'objectively true' from a narrow materialist perspective, and there are other ways to look at it. "our life are not different to the laws of physics then a rock on the surface of Mars. Our life is meaningful to ourselves, however." This is really quite some contradiction. First - the materialist assumption (which I…

> Consider what 'ourselves' (i.e. life, consciousness) are - something that's by definition not possible to describe with 'physics' because we've ruled it out (energy and matter acting according to rules cannot be 'aware' or 'conscious'). I’m not sure I follow.

Scientific materialism is reductionist - it implies we are random bags noise. You can't have life, love, sorrow, consciousness, wisdom etc. from a bunch of atomic lego blocks working together according to some rules.

The very assumption that the universe must be made up of 'laws that act on matter/energy' literally rules out our own existence as sentient beings, because it implies we are just randomness.

It's a paradox because most people who use materialism as their default perspective (most of us do, daily), also believe in their own life, will, consciousness.

The OP did exactly this: he's describing the objective universe has 'having no meaning' because it's just a bag of noise, but then implying that it does have value 'to us'. Well, 'us' the 'observer' is obviously not accounted for in the materialist, reductionist view, and yet it's there and we all know it.

I believe that scientific materialism for this reason, represents a nihilist philosophy, or at least they are closely related.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#69

Post by yepguy »

Barrin92 wrote: post #45
evdev wrote: post #5

I think if your concept of nihilism holds that Socrates believing that justice is inherently good is nihilistic, it's not a very useful take on nihilism.

I think it's actually a great take. In my opinion there always has been something downright creepy about justice. The way some people talk about justice and the good society is eerily similar to Norman Bates in American Psycho or corporate modernity which the movie mocks. There is a thin line where justice crosses over into complacency, maintaining order or just being a hollow PR slogan that instead of rallying peopl…

You just took Socrates out of the conversation, though. I think the point is that you can only call Socrates a nihilist by refusing to treat him seriously. From the article:

> Thrasymachus’s cynicism is so compelling that Socrates spends the rest of the “Republic” trying to prove that justice is better than injustice by trying to refute the apparent success of unjust people by making metaphysical claims about the effects of injustice on the soul. Socrates is thus only able to counter cynicism in the visible world through faith in the existence of an invisible world, an invisible world that he argues is more real than the visible world. In other words, it is Thrasymachus’s cynicism that forces Socrates to reveal his nihilism.

The logic seems to be that such an invisible world is obviously false - so obviously false that not even Socrates himself could believe it. But the absurdity of calling Socrates a nihilist is easy to see as soon as you give that invisible world a little credibility, even if only to say that Socrates could have found the idea plausible.

Re: What Nihilism Is Not

#70

Post by boomboomsubban »

evdev wrote: post #5

I think if your concept of nihilism holds that Socrates believing that justice is inherently good is nihilistic, it's not a very useful take on nihilism.

It holds that Socrates's argument to show that justice is good was nihilistic, not the belief.
Post reply on HN