I Am A Nihilist

[Payne]

permission to reuse in things?

Mine, or what Nigel is saying?  If mine: fo sho.

Yours. What attribution, if any?

Says Rex in the text, so... let's go with Hoopla.   

Here is as good a place as any to tell you that I have recently been replacing Hopeless and Hapless with Hoopless in my conversations (I use these words a lot, I work with truck drivers) in homage to you.

When questioned on it, I look shifty and tell the questioner I cannot tell them about it as Salazorians have ears all over.

It's been fun.

You just made my day.

Wait, no, my year.

Thought you'd like it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

ARE YOU SHITTING ME, UNIVERSE?

I want this on my tombstone.

That would be a good epitaph.

[Cain]

I know I'm splitting hairs with this response, but I'm fairly sure what you're describing Rex is just plain old existentialism.  "Existence has no intrinsic meaning" and all that.

I mean, metaphysical, epistemological and moral nihilism are pretty damn extreme positions.  Nietzsche was approaching metaphysical and epistemological nihilism in his last years of writing, of the sort which says while there may be an objective world, we cannot know anything about it, as all our observations are open to interpretation.  And, of course, Nietzsche viewed nihilism as something to be overcome (then again, he viewed everything as something to be overcome).

And almost no-one, except certain closeted academics, have affirmed moral nihilism as a position, for it literally states that there are no such thing as ethics, and all acts are beyond moral judgement.

The key word is, of course, intrinsic.  It seems to me that nihilists would argue that since there is no instrinsic meaning, there is therefore no meaning at all (and contrary assertions are delusions), whereas an existentialist would argue that since there is no intrinsic meaning, one can either seek for one in trying to understand the ineffable (whether that is God, or the Absurd), or else, in the more atheistic variations of existentialism, forge one's own meanings, based on subjective experience and knowledge.

[LMNO]

Cain comes through once again.

[hooplala]

I know I'm splitting hairs with this response, but I'm fairly sure what you're describing Rex is just plain old existentialism.  "Existence has no intrinsic meaning" and all that.

I mean, metaphysical, epistemological and moral nihilism are pretty damn extreme positions.  Nietzsche was approaching metaphysical and epistemological nihilism in his last years of writing, of the sort which says while there may be an objective world, we cannot know anything about it, as all our observations are open to interpretation.  And, of course, Nietzsche viewed nihilism as something to be overcome (then again, he viewed everything as something to be overcome).

And almost no-one, except certain closeted academics, have affirmed moral nihilism as a position, for it literally states that there are no such thing as ethics, and all acts are beyond moral judgement.

The key word is, of course, intrinsic.  It seems to me that nihilists would argue that since there is no instrinsic meaning, there is therefore no meaning at all (and contrary assertions are delusions), whereas an existentialist would argue that since there is no intrinsic meaning, one can either seek for one in trying to understand the ineffable (whether that is God, or the Absurd), or else, in the more atheistic variations of existentialism, forge one's own meanings, based on subjective experience and knowledge.

I don't think you're splitting hairs at all, you make an excellent point.  I certainly don't deny meaning in any sense. I hadn't considered that.

[Cain]

That's what I'm here for, philosophical precision and, uh, pictures of cats.

I'm kinda surprised you hadn't looked so much at Existentialism though.  I thought I remembered you being interested in it...though I would totally understand being put off by Sartre's long exercise in obsfucation, aka Being and Nothingness.  Kierkegaard and Camus are far more accessible, and amusing in the case of the former.

[Aucoq]

That's great stuff, Rex!  I really enjoyed reading it (and the rest of the thread).

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

Nihilism strikes me as being kinda pointless.




















If you know what I mean.  And I think you do.

And you said you hated puns.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nihilism strikes me as being kinda pointless.




















If you know what I mean.  And I think you do.

And you said you hated puns.

That's not a pun.

[minuspace]

That's what I'm here for, philosophical precision and, uh, pictures of cats.

I'm kinda surprised you hadn't looked so much at Existentialism though.  I thought I remembered you being interested in it...though I would totally understand being put off by Sartre's long exercise in obsfucation, aka Being and Nothingness.  Kierkegaard and Camus are far more accessible, and amusing in the case of the former.

M.M. Ponty categorically defenestrates a lamentable Sartre.

[Cain]

Quite likely.  I've heard good things about Merleau-Ponty, but I've never had the time to check for myself.

[hooplala]

That's what I'm here for, philosophical precision and, uh, pictures of cats.

I'm kinda surprised you hadn't looked so much at Existentialism though.  I thought I remembered you being interested in it...though I would totally understand being put off by Sartre's long exercise in obsfucation, aka Being and Nothingness.  Kierkegaard and Camus are far more accessible, and amusing in the case of the former.

I'm pretty well grounded in existentialism, for what amounts to a layman.  I've read everything Sartre wrote, and though I admittedly needed a guide to take me step by step through Being and Nothingness, I would argue that is because the book I read is not printed in English, despite being printed in English.  I know the words, but the sentences seemed not to add up to anything I could gather meaning from.  The guide was more helpful in that respect.  Besides that, his thesis is stated extremely directly and succinctly in Existentialism is a Humanism, which nobody would need a guide for.

I am admittedly less brushed-up on nihilism, despite my affirmation in the OP to being one.  I've read mostly second-hand accounts of nihilism, but was under the impression that I basically understood the concept(s).  I fully admit that I may be wrong about that.

I would, however, argue that my position is still existential nihilism.  Keep in mind, I made no claims about moral or epistemological nihilism, only existential (which probably makes the title incorrect, or at best overly sensational).  Others can create meaning for themselves if they so choose, but in all honesty I do not.  I mean, I prefer to be happy rather sad, but I'm not certain anyone would consider that a valid "meaning" on existence, apart from hedonists.  But, I don't consider myself a hedonist.  I'm content not to be happy at all moments.  And yes, while others can create meaning for their lives, I don't think their meaning... means anything.  If they find their notions pleasing, well, bully for them, it doesn't change my view of the universe.

I've had a couple drinks this evening, so this may not have made as much sense as I had intended.  But, I am open to Cain (or anyone else) picking apart what I have said for holes or mistakes.  I am here to learn, and if it turns out I am simply a tried and true existentialist and not an existential nihilist, I am completely fine with that.

[minuspace]

That's what I'm here for, philosophical precision and, uh, pictures of cats.

I'm kinda surprised you hadn't looked so much at Existentialism though.  I thought I remembered you being interested in it...though I would totally understand being put off by Sartre's long exercise in obsfucation, aka Being and Nothingness.  Kierkegaard and Camus are far more accessible, and amusing in the case of the former.

I'm pretty well grounded in existentialism, for what amounts to a layman.  I've read everything Sartre wrote, and though I admittedly needed a guide to take me step by step through Being and Nothingness, I would argue that is because the book I read is not printed in English, despite being printed in English.  I know the words, but the sentences seemed not to add up to anything I could gather meaning from.  The guide was more helpful in that respect.  Besides that, his thesis is stated extremely directly and succinctly in Existentialism is a Humanism, which nobody would need a guide for.

I am admittedly less brushed-up on nihilism, despite my affirmation in the OP to being one.  I've read mostly second-hand accounts of nihilism, but was under the impression that I basically understood the concept(s).  I fully admit that I may be wrong about that.

I would, however, argue that my position is still existential nihilism.  Keep in mind, I made no claims about moral or epistemological nihilism, only existential (which probably makes the title incorrect, or at best overly sensational).  Others can create meaning for themselves if they so choose, but in all honesty I do not.  I mean, I prefer to be happy rather sad, but I'm not certain anyone would consider that a valid "meaning" on existence, apart from hedonists.  But, I don't consider myself a hedonist.  I'm content not to be happy at all moments.  And yes, while others can create meaning for their lives, I don't think their meaning... means anything.  If they find their notions pleasing, well, bully for them, it doesn't change my view of the universe.

I've had a couple drinks this evening, so this may not have made as much sense as I had intended.  But, I am open to Cain (or anyone else) picking apart what I have said for holes or mistakes.  I am here to learn, and if it turns out I am simply a tried and true existentialist and not an existential nihilist, I am completely fine with that.

I guess the bare bones of it is that anything beyond what you just said just amounts to frosting on the cake.  The trick is to not romanticize obvious: elation is not the same ex-stasis.  Happiness is not a value, however, it has meaning when you communicate it to others Because there is no reason to do so beyond transmitting the wonder itself.  If that sounds hokey, just try making sense of it by yourself

[Penumbral]

I really like this Hoopla. Cain seems to be right about the analysis but I don't think that takes away from the prose.

[hooplala]

Thanks.  I'm hardly an expert in any field, so the probability of me being incorrect on terms hovers around 99%.