[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Be careful not to reduce nihilism to fatalism.

Huh? A fatalist has no problem acting as far as I know.

	A nihilist can act in the world.

How can he do it without expressing a value judgement (formulating a goal in your jargon)?

	He just holds that none of those acts have any meaning.

Well then I guess it depends what he means by meaning...I've always taken the claim to be one about "objective meaning", or meaning outside of the self. If the claim is that you can't even delude yourself into thinking something has meaning, the claim is empirically false I guess. I never took it this way though, and I don't see how anyone ever has.

	He can act out of pragmatism or basic necessity without placing a value judgment on it.

How? He's valued pragmatic ends, or basic necessity, he's created the value of basic necessity...that's a meaning. He's no longer a Nihilist.

	I ate because I had an instinct to eat due to a feeling of hunger.

We all do that, but Nihilists won't. There was a case of a Danish professor some years ago that said near the end of his career, "I can't disprove Nihilism. I'm a Nihilist." He left his position immediately to go to a cabin where he ceased all action. They found him dead from starvation a few months later.

	He is not placing any value judgment on the act of eating.

Yes, he is. He has said that there is meaning in staying alive, he has valued staying as alive as "positive" and he therefore has valued eating as "positive" because it is required to stay alive. Otherwise there's no way to account for him eating...

If there is some way to account for his eating, then I would think all actions could be explained by that theory, and whatever position this is would be correct.

	Similarly, a moral nihilist doesn't believe any acts can be good or bad.

I don't know what that means. I agree that the words "good" and "bad" don't apply to facts. I simply don't see how they do, except as value judgments by particular persons about those facts.

	That doesn't mean that he cannot act.

It means that he cannot act without forming a value judgment.

	It just means that he can't judge any act better than another one.

One would think that ipso facto the act one takes is defined as the highest valued act.

	To a nihilist there is no good or bad, there is just cause and effect.

A very ambiguous sentence. In what sense of existence do you mean?

	You act and then there is a consequence, though that consequence is meaningless and on par with any other alternative consequence because they are all equally meaningless.

I must admit, this seems true to me.

	Though pragmatism is not incompatible with nihilism.

How the hell is it not? How are these two claims not incompatible:

1. I should always value the acts that are most pragmatic and bring me the most pragmatic consequences.

2. I shouldn't value any acts over any others.

How is there not a contradiction there?...

	You can act pragmatically without postulating value judgments but the position is still blatantly absurd even given that it doesn't necessitate reduction to fatalism because you still have no particular reason to act in a certain way or prefer a certain outcome.

I am not sure this sentence has any meaning...

	This just isn't how people function in the world.

You have omniscient knowledge of how people function in the world?

	People have goals and aspirations and usually when they act they have some aim in mind. Nihilism can't account for this except to state that all these people are suffering from a grand illusion.

Seems like a perfectly good account to me. Humanity constantly finds out that it suffers from such grand delusions.

Remember that whole affair with Copernicus?

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Huh? A fatalist has no problem acting as far as I know.

Fatalism is the view that everything is fated and so we should not strive for anything because whatever will happen, will happen no matter what we do since it is fated to happen. It is similar to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
which is often misapplied to nihilism.

Originally Posted by The Idle Argument

One famous ancient argument regarding fatalism was the so-called Idle Argument. It argues that if something is fated, then it would be pointless or futile to make any effort to bring it about. The Idle Argument was described by Origen and Cicero and it went like this: If it is fated for you to recover from this illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not. Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so whether you call a doctor or not. But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness, or it is fated that you will not recover. Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.

Nihilism does not necessitate idleness or defeatism. Though a nihilist could likely hold a view like that in addition to believing that there is no meaning in the world.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How can he do it without expressing a value judgement (formulating a goal in your jargon)

I'm not a nihilist, nor do I believe their position is tenable but they will try to argue this.

One example is emotivism which is a type of moral nihilism. An emotivist argues that when you say something like "abortion is wrong" you are not stating a value judgment you are merely expressing the attitude "Boo! Abortion". That is not value judgment or a claim that is truth assessable. If someone says "Boo! Abortions" you can't say "you're wrong". That doesn't make sense because they weren't making a claim or expressing a value judgment about abortion, they were merely expressing an attitude. An attitude does not necessitate a belief. To say "Boo! Abortion" does not necessitate the belief that "abortion is wrong". It may likely follow from saying "Boo! Abortion" that someone believes abortion is wrong but it does not necessitate it and that belief is in addition to the expressed attitude. A emotivist moral nihilist says that there are no good or bad actions, but when people say something is right or wrong they are merely expressing attitudes and not beliefs or value judgments.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not a nihilist, nor do I believe their position is tenable but they will try to argue this.

I don't see how they could argue that.

And I say this as someone that professed to be a Nihilist for a long time before realizing this.

If it can be argued that it can be done, then I will happily return to being a Nihilist, as the position would make 100% sense to me.

If you can take actions without value judgements then Nihilist must assuredly be the most accurate view there is.

---------- Post added 07-01-2012 at 05:11 PM ----------

Emotivism is probably wrong simply because it can't answer the Frege-Geach problem.

If you expand that problem out, then you will quickly see that any theory that says that you can get attitudes separated from beliefs/acts isn't going to work out.

If Nihilism tries to separate them in any way, it probably will always be doomed.

---------- Post added 07-01-2012 at 05:13 PM ----------

Btw, emotivism tended to posit (at least Hare, it's founder, posited) a "secondary meaning" which was essentially a value judgement of the thing.

So when you say "boo! abortion!" you express the attitude, but also make the value judgment that abortion is wrong, even though the two are supposedly separable.

[Disillusioned]

Well I know emotivism is an actual position in moral nihilism but I don't know how it could be applied to existential nihilism at any rate. Moral nihilism just states that moral claims are meaningless. Existential nihilism states that there is no meaning to be found in the world at all. I don't know how someone is to defend that position nor do I even find emotivism to be convincing in any way, but it is at least comprehensible.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Btw, emotivism tended to posit (at least Hare, it's founder, posited) a "secondary meaning" which was essentially a value judgement of the thing. So when you say "boo! abortion!" you express the attitude, but also make the value judgment that abortion is wrong, even though the two are supposedly separable.

The way I learned about emotivism in my ethics class was that they claim that you are not expressing a value judgment. It wouldn't make sense to say that when someone says abortion is wrong they are really saying "Boo! Abortion" but then add, "but they are also making the value judgment that abortion is wrong". That would defeat the whole point of the emotivist claiming that "abortion is wrong" expresses an attitude and not a value judgment. This is what makes it a position for moral nihilism. They say that when someone says

"Abortion is wrong"

they are really saying something like

"Boo! Abortion"

even though it seems like they are making a claim about the wrongness of abortion, they really are not.

If the argument went

When someone says

"Abortion is wrong"

They really mean

"Boo! Abortion"

And

"Abortion is wrong"

then it would be useless to assert it in the first place. You see the "Boo! Abortion" part is meant to take the place of the "Abortion is wrong" claim. If it doesn't take it's place but is just an additional statement then the view is pointless and people already know that "Abortion is wrong" means "Abortion is wrong".

[sunkmanitutanka]

@ Subgenious, I am most definitely a Christian who used to be nihilist. You can believe what you like about my past though it doesn't bother me. Mark wrote down the eye witness account of Peter and Luke was writing down a number of eye witness accounts. Also, Matthew, John, Jude and James were there for Jesus. Paul for the early church.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well I know emotivism is an actual position in moral nihilism but I don't know how it could be applied to existential nihilism at any rate. Moral nihilism just states that moral claims are meaningless. Existential nihilism states that there is no meaning to be found in the world at all. I don't know how someone is to defend that position nor do I even find emotivism to be convincing in any way, but it is at least comprehensible. The way I learned about emotivism in my ethics class was that they claim that you are not expressing a value judgment. It wouldn't make sense to say that when someone says abortion is wrong they are really saying "Boo! Abortion" but then add, "but they are also making the value judgment that abortion is wrong". That would defeat the whole point of the emotivist claiming that "abortion is wrong" expresses an attitude and not a value judgment. This is what makes it a position for moral nihilism. They say that when someone says "Abortion is wrong" they are really saying something like "Boo! Abortion" even though it seems like they are making a claim about the wrongness of abortion, they really are not. If the argument went When someone says "Abortion is wrong" They really mean "Boo! Abortion" And "Abortion is wrong" then it would be useless to assert it in the first place. You see the "Boo! Abortion" part is meant to take the place of the "Abortion is wrong" claim. If it doesn't take it's place but is just an additional statement then the view is pointless and people already know that "Abortion is wrong" means "Abortion is wrong".

Did you actually read R.M. Hare's texts where he formulates the theory? Or did you just listen to some graduate student mumble about it?


It strikes me that the claim of Nihilism cannot even really be evaluated properly as we still lack a theory of meaning.

What do we even mean by the claim, "there is no meaning"?

I've seen so many interpretations of that claim that I no longer think anyone has the slightest clue what it means, and it is obvious that there isn't a single, concrete definition, or way of taking it.

Perhaps if we knew what meanings were, we'd know whether Nihilism was true or false...

[sommers71]

How about I describe reality as a priori morally nihilistic. To make moral judgments of reality is to infer/induct falsely propositional statements as rationally founded objective propositions deduced from moral objective rational basis of absolute criteria. I believe the moral objective criteria of rational basis of objective moral judgments is not reasonably founded to rationalizable/justifiable medium of exchange, without rationalizing external a posteri objective morality as a priori objective morality (IE. "Just because I said so"). Actions only occur as we say they do, but also as we say they do may not be how the future or past may agree with or even act upon said moral objectives. Without moral objective rational basis of justification/rationalization a priori acceptable, objective morality is logically without rational basis. To assume so is induction/inference.

[Disillusioned]

Originally Posted by sommers71 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about I describe reality as a priori morally nihilistic. To make moral judgments of reality is to infer/induct falsely propositional statements as rationally founded objective propositions deduced from moral objective rational basis of absolute criteria. I believe the moral objective criteria of rational basis of objective moral judgments is not reasonably founded to rationalizable/justifiable medium of exchange, without rationalizing external a posteri objective morality as a priori objective morality (IE. "Just because I said so"). Actions only occur as we say they do, but also as we say they do may not be how the future or past may agree with or even act upon said moral objectives. Without moral objective rational basis of justification/rationalization a priori acceptable, objective morality is logically without rational basis. To assume so is induction/inference.

We do so with math and logic. Accept it based on a priori axioms. Why is it the case that if p then q, p therefore q? Well, because we take it on a priori axiom that this is a true logical statement. If someone says "well that doesn't seem right to me. Why does q follow from if p then q and p? All I can do is appeal to the axiom itself. If that person doesn't accept it there is nothing else I can say to them to prove that it's right other than to appeal to intuition. It intuitively seems clearly right. This is the exact same way I and many others argue morality works. A metaphysical naturalist who claims that nothing exists except for natural things would also have to deny that mathematics and logical truths exist either. These are also non-natural like morality. That is, they don't exist anywhere in the natural world and we can know them a priori.

[AlfredSchnittke]

There are tons of versions of mathematics though.

There's not objective about mathematics.

And since morality appears to lack any formal axiomitized systems anyway, it's hard to even see what the argument is.

Suppose morality doesn't need FAS, because it gets held to a lower standard or something, it doesn't matter.

What are we supposed to glean from this?

That there are a bunch of equally valid moral systems that you can apply at any given time?

Big deal. It doesn't seem to help us very much.


Also, I don't buy the "non-natural" distinction. Unless you think that human beings are not part of nature, which seems like an incredibly tenuous claim.

[WilliamGull]

A great cure for nihilism is looking into the eye of a newborn or a dog. It's hard to think nothing matters when a pure innocent living being is looking at you and asking for protection.

Go to a dog shelter and stay there for an hour. Tell me then if nothing matters.

[TheWanderer]

If Albert's Nihilism is how all Nihilists are supposed to act, I see no point arguing against it, its doing a great job defeating itself.

And you still haven't presented anything in favour of it. If I were on the fence this would be driving me away pronto.

[Paul Siraisi]

Observe, objectively, human nature: Humans want to be happy.

Note that you are a human: Be happy.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by WilliamGull To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A great cure for nihilism is looking into the eye of a newborn or a dog. It's hard to think nothing matters when a pure innocent living being is looking at you and asking for protection. Go to a dog shelter and stay there for an hour. Tell me then if nothing matters.

I don't understand these kinds of responses.

I've done these things. They just make me think nothing matters even more strongly than before...

---------- Post added 07-02-2012 at 09:18 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If Albert's Nihilism is how all Nihilists are supposed to act, I see no point arguing against it, its doing a great job defeating itself. And you still haven't presented anything in favour of it. If I were on the fence this would be driving me away pronto.

You are very threatened by the existence of Nihilism aren't you?

Because you know deep down, beneath your shallow shell of delusion that it's still there, at the bottom. Maybe some nights you feel cold, and alone and you don't know why. Maybe sometimes you have panic attacks for no reason.

All because you're too afraid of the reality of things.

If I could feel sorry, I would feel sorry for you.

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are very threatened by the existence of Nihilism aren't you? Because you know deep down, beneath your shallow shell of delusion that it's still there, at the bottom. Maybe some nights you feel cold, and alone and you don't know why. Maybe sometimes you have panic attacks for no reason. All because you're too afraid of the reality of things. If I could feel sorry, I would feel sorry for you.

Still heard no argument..

[WilliamGull]

	Originally Posted by Paul Siraisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Observe, objectively, human nature: Humans want to be happy.

I don't want to be happy. I want to do the right thing. I want to be an atheist saint.

[TheWanderer]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't understand these kinds of responses. I've done these things. They just make me think nothing matters even more strongly than before... ---------- Post added 07-02-2012 at 09:18 PM ---------- You are very threatened by the existence of Nihilism aren't you? Because you know deep down, beneath your shallow shell of delusion that it's still there, at the bottom. Maybe some nights you feel cold, and alone and you don't know why. Maybe sometimes you have panic attacks for no reason. All because you're too afraid of the reality of things. If I could feel sorry, I would feel sorry for you.

My issues with nihilism come from meeting nihilists themselves. And your doing little to change to that. Most of them make more an effort to actually defend their postion though

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by WilliamGull To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't want to be happy. I want to do the right thing. I want to be an atheist saint.

Why do you want that - would it make you happy? Doesn't "wanting" something imply that you'd be happier to have it than not to have it?

[Paul Siraisi]

	Originally Posted by WilliamGull To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't want to be happy. I want to do the right thing. I want to be an atheist saint.

Obviously, that would make you happy. Aside from that, what saints do is take human happiness very very seriously.

[Analyze]

Even if you find a way to cure your nihilism, it won't matter anyways.

[Joonas]

To nettneu and Paul Siraisi,

Happiness isn't the only goal people can have, and achieving goals doesn't always lead to happiness.

	Originally Posted by Zarkai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm curious as to how people are able to establish meaning in a world that appears meaningless. I'm not so concerned if there is (objectively speaking) meaning in the world but only strategies to create subjective meaning. I know of a couple strategies but I don't see them as options.

A cure for nihilism could be to understand that value does exist, even if you personally don't feel any value towards stuff. Your devaluing has practically no impact on the current value of things, because there are so many others who do value stuff.

It might work if you try to respect other people's values as if they were your own.
Edit: Ah sorry, I was thinking about values, not 'meaning', but I guess it works the same way.

[Sethis]

Why would anyone want to cure nihilism? It's not a disease or something. We're actually assigning bad meaning to something which is merely a philosophical viewpoint. I don't think that this is our problem here.

[realitycheck]

Originally Posted by sunkmanitutanka To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Christian conversion. I used to be Christian then I turned nihilist, then I believed in using my life to aid my fellow humans, then I believed in love to do this, now I'm back to being a Christian again. The fact is the New Testament isn't written like a big conspiracy or hoax to mess with people's heads and get them to believe a false religion for the hell of it. THAT'S what doesn't make any sense. It's actually eye witness accounts from four people who were there when the events unfolded. Granted you have to take these accounts on faith just like you would in a court of law which can be difficult for the logician and rational thinker, but with four people writing down what they witnessed it makes it a little easier. Also If you've ever researched true creationism from scientists such as Ken Ham you'll find the Christian theory on evolution with the global flood fits the scientic facts just right (which isn't really all that surprising to me now). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I always had a healthy amount of suspiscion that human beings weren't just souless beasts reacting to stimuli in a more complex fashion than the typical living organism. Also, I've witnessed some pretty unspeakable things in people that go slightly beyond the typical evil in humanity. Have you ever met someone that just wants to watch you fucking burn for absolutely no reason? I don't mean just disliking or even hating you. Just observing how people act and how in a flash their behavior can completely change and their eyes glow in a completely different light makes me believe in possession. We understand so little of the brain and conciousness in science. That's what turned me back to Christianity. Many religions believe in these beings which objectively speaking I don't believe is a mere coincidence but only Jesus was able to cast them out. What do you mean when you say reading stuff that is incredibly moving reinforces your melancholic view?

You have to be kidding me right now. If you are advocating the existence of God because the Bible affirms it, then that warrants me advocating the existence of Batman because it says so in the cartoons. That is exactly the kind of reasoning, or should I say blind faith, that humanity feeds off of. This causes the human condition, which is denial.

To find a cure for Nihilism is nonsensical on multiple levels, one of them being the absurdity of the question itself. Nihilism is possibly the most intelligent thought process one could have, because it forces you to analyze reality on a critical and deconstructive manner, it forces you to accept the meaninglessness of life, which in turn makes you a strong and goal-oriented person, not the opposite. Nihilism frees you, while religion suubjects you to constant fear. Nihilism allows you to abide by the rules of Carpe Diem, or for the non-Latin scholars out their, the rules of seizing the day.

---------- Post added 07-13-2012 at 05:16 PM ----------

If you go off of that belief system, then you might as well start believing in batman and superman, because there have been witness accounts in comic books, cartoons, movies, tv shows, documentaries, magazines, news papers, etc. You can also start believing that there's a talking ham sandwhich in the sky who is judging you based off of its list of ten things that it doesn't want you to do. Do you see the denial people go through when they base their life's beliefs and morals off of blind faith?

---------- Post added 07-13-2012 at 05:20 PM ----------

So what happens if you 1) can't stand animals and 2) lack sympathy enough to give a crap?