Resource Existential Nihilism and SS

[bluem00n]

Existential Nihilism (EN) is recognised as a legitimate School of Philosophical enquiry, and many notable philosphers have subscribed to it, albeit with varying degrees of commitment.

By its very nature, dedicated adherents to EN routinely engage in Suicidal Ideation, so it should be no surprise to anyone that they would be well represented on these Forums, and that their posts would reflect EN concepts.

Anyone opposing opinions expressed by an EN adherent is not going to make any headway at all if their posts are offtopic, irrelevant, else mere ad homimem attacks. Such posts will either be ignored outright, else simply flicked aside - such critics are after all attempting to take on an entire and long-established school of Philosophical enquiry, one documented by a vast array of weighty / scholarly tomes at that. To a fully-committed EN adherent, such challenges will tend to come across as pathetically amateurish (harsh), else quaintly naive (charitable).

Of course, most people on the SS Forums are not suicidal for philosphical reasons, and this is where the potential for conflict emerges. For by and large, most members would prefer to be living normal happy lives than be afflicted by one (or several) of the vast array of debilitating health problems represented here, both mental and physical.

Naturally then - from that perspective - those same individuals are prone to take umbrage at posts made by EN adherents, without necessarily realising that when they counter-post or simply harass the adherent, they are in effect taking on the entire School of Philosophical thought that lies behind that EN thread or post.

Obviously, countering an entire School of Philosophical thought is not going to be a trivial undertaking! And dogged persistence won't budge an EN adherent one bit. Far from it, such efforts would be viewed as puny - worthy only of contempt, else a source of great hilarity - akin to the notions of Flat Earthers and Creationists. From an EN perspective, antagonistic posts merely serve to reaffirm and validate EN ideas, and will be attributed to a failure of comprehension (harsh), else a simple misunderstanding (charitable) on the part of the assailants.

It's been fascinating for me to witness of late, these exact same phenomena manifesting on these Forums. So it seemed timely to point it out ... because I'm inclined to think that some SS members don't realise what they're actually taking on when they try to tackle an adherent to EN ... no one's ever going to derail an individual whose entire psychological disposition is firmly entrenched in a long-standing and well-established, highly detailed, and complex philosophy. Bear in mind, SS is a most natural environment for them to hang out.

On the flipside of the equation, it's of course prudent for EN adherents to bear a caveat in mind too - that's there's always the odd sociopath in any online community (just as in real life), and they'd be more likely to persist in harassing EN adherents. Otherwise though - for the majority of 'regular' folk - perhaps it might be better all round to learn to co-exist with your EN fellows!​

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do agree with some points you have raised. I have realised that some posts aren't really looking for a discussion. They are simply rants and the OP isn't looking to have their ideas questioned- evident by the way there is either no response or no budging from their beliefs- absolutely fair enough- I try to leave well alone now.

That said- other posts here do seem to be up for discussion. It can be kind of difficult to know which to comment on- if you are wanting to flesh out contrasting ideas without offending people- perhaps when the OP seems to ask for input would be the safest...

Where I do feel we've found ourselves in hot water recentley is partly a misunderstanding and partly some intolerance working from both 'sides.' I honestly HATE to admit there are 'sides' here- and I certainly don't wish to take one. Feels like school all over again... Still in terms of philosophical thought- I would describe it as a Nihilistic and a more individual pessimistic experience.

I think some of us do struggle- not so much with Nihilism itself but with the idea of it as a universal 'truth' that ought to apply to everyone. Nihilism is a belief. I myself agree that (for me,) this world does indeed lend itself more to Nihilism. Still- I don't think it's right to impose our beliefs on other people- so I don't think it's something we ought to expect EVERYONE to believe.

Otherwise there is something wrong with them, or they are delusional. You could argue that religious people are delusional and 'wrong' (and many people do of course) but respect for someone's beliefs works both ways. I think it's fine to question. The issue I have is proclaiming that a subjective belief is indeed objective fact- which then can make someone right or wrong. That discounts and undermines a person's individual experience of life.

Also, I do feel like we started to see something of a split and to an extent, an ostrocising of people who intimate that they are still able to experience periods of relative 'happiness.' While I do understand why this would be a trigger and utterly unfathomable to someone who rarely, or never gets these 'high's,' I think it's important to take into account the wide range of people who use this platform.

Some people on here will have actually been happy at times in their life- some even 'confess' (and ironically, it does sometimes feel like a 'guilty' confession!) to have enjoyed their life for the most part. Honestly, I did find it rather disturbing that their being here was being called into question. Like I said- this platform has a wide userbase. Suicidal ideation can hit anyone at any time.

For the most part, I'm so relieved that for the majority of the time, we all manage to rub along here trying not to undermine one another. It's really saddened me to see the conflict on here of late. We are all suffering in our own ways. It would be nice if we could ALL just agree to differ when we hit an impasse. Live and let live (or rather- live and let die I suppose would be better suited to us.)

 

[bluem00n]

There's not a single aspect of your post that I'd take issue with @Forever Sleep. Indeed, your post incorporates many well-measured / balanced and fair observations, in total amounting to a set of most thoughtful statements.

Existential Nihilism is routinely touted as 'the end of philosophy', as there's simply nowhere for truly sincere philosophical enquiry to go from there, assuming that is, that a resolute 'seeker after Truth' is ruthlessly honest with themselves, and persists in following their path of enquiry even if it leads to psychological / intellectual hell (in other words, regardless of how viciously it demolishes an entirely understandable desire to cling on to / preserve intellectual 'comfort zones') ... to come to the sickening realisation that all preceding philosphical dispositions are utterly and unequivocally dismissed by EN. More than that, they're annihilated.

To realise that EN reveals tragically unpalatable truths about Life and Reality is the 'Boss Level' of philosophical endeavour.​

 

[WhiteRabbit]

I'm somewhat uneducated on this subject. Is insulting those who don't subscribe to total EN part of the philosophy? Just wondering.

 

[freedompass]

I'm somewhat uneducated on this subject. Is insulting those who don't subscribe to total EN part of the philosophy? Just wondering.

I'm curious about that too. Also. Is SaSu shortly to be renamed Extreme Nihilists Anonymous? If or when it is be sure to let the rest of us know would you?

After having laughed over your many tryhard pseudo intellectual posts BlueMoon while backreading threads I missed, I now know exactly what I'll see and can't be bothered engaging with the nonsense here. Thanks for the comedy gold though.

 

[bluem00n]

I'm somewhat uneducated on this subject. Is insulting those who don't subscribe to total EN part of the philosophy? Just wondering.

I appreciate and quite understand the view that EN posts are insulting, deeply so actually! I used to feel exactly the same way - I'd get utterly enraged by the sheer farkin' 'arrogance' of EN adherents!

Bottom line is though, once I'd arrived at the undiluted truths about Life and Reality through my study of EN, there's no going back - there's simply no way - and to qualify what were the assimilation of extremely hardwon revelations, solely for the sake of sparing the feelings of others, becomes a betrayal of conviction so resolute, and of such magnitude, that the notion is simply impossible to stomach.​

---

PLEASE NOTE! This rest of this post is an aside, a minor qualification, not a significant part of the core thesis presented in Post #1 ...

It has been suggested to me that I should perhaps clarify my closing remarks in Post #1, regarding 'sociopathic' participants in online Forums ...

Oops! I guess I should've pointed out those remarks were intended to be 'clinical observations' rather than defamatory, meant solely as a 'heads-up' for EN adherents unacquainted with a phenonemon that's specifically peculiar to online discourse, but entirely absent from real-world philosophical curriculums.

So OK, seeing as the World Cup is underway, I thought I might use soccer as an analogy!

Imagine two teams ...

Team A always play by the rules of soccer.

In contrast, Team B may play by the rules, but retain the perogative of changing the rules at any time, in whatever way they see fit. Team B are the sociopaths, and - because they lack empathy - they don't feel bad about changing rules to suit themselves, not in the slightest. Their sole aim is to win the game by any means necessary!

So Team B might for example bring on extra players (to harass), pick up the ball and run with it (to deny possession to Team A, especially if Team B feel at risk of losing ground; equates to changing the subject), and commit red-card fouls on Team A without penalty (engage in ad homimem attacks, abuse etc). But they can't change things like the layout of the pitch or duration of the match - anything that would impact Team A's ability to play by the rules.

OK then, so Team A stick to the official rules of engagement, and the two teams play a match according to their respective 'ideologies' of play. So which team is most likely to win ...?

Team B obviously, simply because they'd never have to concede the ball (equivalent in online discourse to never acknowledging a valid point made by an opponent - such conduct would be pure anathema to a sociopath!).

That analogy hopefully demonstrates that it never makes sense to waste time or energy attempting sincere debate with a sociopath. Still, once one is familiar with their tactics, it's simplicity itself to ignore them without getting riled, there really is no need whatsoever to get stressed-out by the posts of online sociopaths.​

 

[Forever Sleep]

Existential Nihilism is routinely touted as 'the end of philosophy', as there's simply nowhere for truly sincere philosophical enquiry to go from there, assuming that is, that a resolute 'seeker after Truth' is ruthlessly honest with themselves, and persists in following their path of enquiry even if it leads to psychological / intellectual hell (in other words, regardless of how viciously it demolishes an entirely understandable desire to cling on to / preserve intellectual 'comfort zones') ... to come to the sickening realisation that all preceding philosphical dispositions are utterly and unequivocally dismissed by EN. More than that, they're annihilated.

To realise that EN reveals tragically unpalatable truths about Life and Reality is the 'Boss Level' of philosophical endeavour.

I can perfectly understand why someone who no longer believes in anything has no more need of philosophy- quite right- there's no further left to go- in any direction come to that- it's all meaningless afterall.

Again though- it's this idea of 'truth' and superiority ('boss level') I have trouble with. Have you, or anyone else PROVED that there isn't a God or 'bigger plan' for instance? I'd like to firstly state that I am not deeply religious but neither do I think it's impossible. I simply don't know. Do you KNOW for sure? I suspect the argument will be- 'I don't need to prove there isn't a God.' That somehow that request is nonsensical. But why?

The claim that this life is all suffering without reason in part depends on there ONLY being this life. On the one hand, I would say this feels likely- actual evidence of a God/ afterlife/ reincarnation seem rather flimsy and fantastical to me. Still- to support Nihilism as the ULTIMATE philosophy on life- surely you would need to prove this?

I say all this because some people believe that their suffering will somehow be rewarded in an afterlife. Or- in the reincarnation theory- that their suffering helps them to learn and grow. I'm not saying these are my beliefs. I'm just saying that Nihilism is also based on a system of beliefs, (or rather- non beliefs) not facts. I'd agree with you that more 'evidence' seems to point towards Nihilism but the picture isn't complete when none of us know the facts. Therefore, it still seems unfair (to me) to see Nihilism as something superior everyone should embrace.

 

[freedompass]

I appreciate and quite understand the view that EN posts are insulting, deeply so actually! I used to feel exactly the same way - I'd get utterly enraged by the sheer farkin' 'arrogance' of EN adherents!

Bottom line is though, once I'd arrived at the undiluted truths about Life and Reality through my study of EN, there's no going back - there's simply no way - and to qualify what were the assimilation of extremely hardwon revelations, solely for the sake of sparing the feelings of others, becomes a betrayal of conviction so resolute, and of such magnitude, that the notion is simply impossible to stomach.​

---

PLEASE NOTE! This rest of this post is an aside, a minor qualification, not a significant part of the core thesis presented in Post #1 ...

It has been suggested to me that I should perhaps clarify my closing remarks in Post #1, regarding 'sociopathic' participants in online Forums ...

Oops! I guess I should've pointed out those remarks were intended to be 'clinical observations' rather than defamatory, meant solely as a 'heads-up' for EN adherents unacquainted with a phenonemon that's specifically peculiar to online discourse, but entirely absent from real-world philosophical curriculums.

So OK, seeing as the World Cup is underway, I thought I might use soccer as an analogy!

Imagine two teams ...

Team A always play by the rules of soccer.

In contrast, Team B may play by the rules, but retain the perogative of changing the rules at any time, in whatever way they see fit. Team B are the sociopaths, and - because they lack empathy - they don't feel bad about changing rules to suit themselves, not in the slightest. Their sole aim is to win the game by any means necessary!

So Team B might for example bring on extra players (to harass), pick up the ball and run with it (to deny possession to Team A, especially if Team B feel at risk of losing ground; equates to changing the subject), and commit red-card fouls on Team A without penalty (engage in ad homimem attacks, abuse etc). But they can't change things like the layout of the pitch or duration of the match - anything that would impact Team A's ability to play by the rules.

OK then, so Team A stick to the official rules of engagement, and the two teams play a match according to their respective 'ideologies' of play. So which team is most likely to win ...?

Team B obviously, simply because they'd never have to concede the ball (equivalent in online discourse to never acknowledging a valid point made by an opponent - such conduct would be pure anathema to a sociopath!).

That analogy hopefully demonstrates that it never makes sense to waste time or energy attempting sincere debate with a sociopath. Still, once one is familiar with their tactics, it's simplicity itself to ignore them without getting riled, there really is no need whatsoever to get stressed-out by the posts of online sociopaths.​

Priceless

 

[bluem00n]

The points you raise are entirely valid @Forever Sleep, and there are a number of very interesting post-EN 'theories' that seek to accomodate them.

However, I feel they'd be outside the scope of this thread, and as I'm a stickler for staying ontopic, I'm disinclined to elaborate further here, as they'd be substantial posts in their own right! Still, I plan to address such matters down the track, as time permits.​

 

[WhiteRabbit]

Still, once one is familiar with their tactics, it's simplicity itself to ignore them without getting riled, there really is no need whatsoever to get stressed-out by the posts of online sociopaths.

I'm assuming that you're indirectly referring to particular posters on this site when you say "online sociopaths."

 

[Forever Sleep]

The points you raise are entirely valid @Forever Sleep, and there are a number of very interesting post-EN 'theories' that seek to accomodate them.

However, I feel they'd be outside the scope of this thread, and as I'm a stickler for staying ontopic, I'm disinclined to elaborate further here, as they'd be substantial posts in their own right! Still, I plan to address such matters down the track, as time permits.​

Ok, cool. I look forward to reading more if/when you have the time.

 

[bluem00n]

I'm assuming that you're indirectly referring to particular posters on this site when you say "online sociopaths."

No, not at all ... it's a general 'heads-up' to EN adherents on this site that's all, as such factors are not taken into account in the real-world Philosophy curriculums of educational institutions (sociopaths aren't in the slightest bit interested in Philosophical studies concerning ethics and suchlike, so they're not much encountered IRL - online environments on the other hand, are optimum habitats).

A consequence is that first-year students aren't always alert to the need to differentiate between online / offline dynamics, and that's why I felt it prudent to mention it. After all, sociopaths make up a measurable percentage of the population, so it's reasonable to anticipate their presence in online environments as well. But like I said - and I'd emphasise again now - it's just a minor aside, and not intended to be a significant part of the core thesis in Post #1. It's a heads-up, that's all.​

 

[freedompass]

No, not at all ... it's a general 'heads-up' to EN adherents on this site that's all, as such factors are not taken into account in the real-world Philosophy curriculums of educational institutions (sociopaths aren't in the slightest bit interested in Philosophical studies concerning ethics and suchlike, so they're not much encountered IRL - online environments on the other hand, are optimum habitats).

A consequence is that first-year students aren't always alert to the need to differentiate between online / offline dynamics, and that's why I felt it prudent to mention it. After all, sociopaths make up a measurable percentage of the population, so it's reasonable to anticipate their presence in online environments as well. But like I said - and I'd emphasise again now - it's just a minor aside, and not intended to be a significant part of the core thesis in Post #1. It's a heads-up, that's all.​

Your immense comic talent is wasted on here

 

[Pluto]

Many of the finest minds in ancient Greece inclined towards skepticism, questioning whether knowledge was possible at all. The paradox of the wisest person in Athens saying "I know that I know nothing" demonstrates humility being a natural byproduct of insight.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I used to work alongside Jehovah's Witnesses and recognise the telltale signs of people aggressively pushing a dubious agenda. That includes continuous preaching, never having any genuine openness to alternative viewpoints and winning 'debates' through unrelenting stubbornness. Keep in mind that atheism is also a religion for the purposes of this discussion, and is completely distinct from those who does not partake in cosmic discourse or lack any particular belief system.

The intrinsic tragedy is that the wise mind holds an inherently flexible perspective, while the fool is too ignorant to see their own ignorance. This is the mechanism by which so much insanity perpetuates in our world.



Given the intended subject matter of this website, it will be up to site admin to decide whether to allow self-righteous teenage preachers pushing a nihilistic atheist agenda to render the forum an increasingly unwelcome space for the diverse, wider community of people struggling with suicidal suffering.

 

[SamTam33]

Outside of atheism, which is extremely straight-forwand and simple, I've never been able to classify or label my belief system with any success.

I haven't read much about EN. It sounds like something I'd be interested in, but a few paragraphs in and I'd probably stumble across a tenet I disagree with.

I think a lot of times on here (and internet forums in general), people become upset when every possible POV isn't acknowledged. General statements about life/death/religion make people with nuanced positions feel unheard and unseen.

Kinda like the participation trophy mindset, where everyone must be equally validated. Or else it's just not fair...

But most times it's not necessary to identify all the exceptions to a 'rule.'

You can share your perspective and I can acknowledge that your experience exists, but I don't have to find it particularly significant or relevant. I don't have to appreciate it.

(You mentioned wanting to stay on topic. I don't know if my post qualifies or not.)

 

[Forever Sleep]

Outside of atheism, which is extremely straight-forwand and simple, I've never been able to classify or label my belief system with any success.

I haven't read much about EN. It sounds like something I'd be interested in, but a few paragraphs in and I'd probably stumble across a tenet I disagree with.

I think a lot of times on here (and internet forums in general), people become upset when every possible POV isn't acknowledged. General statements about life/death/religion make people with nuanced positions feel unheard and unseen.

Kinda like the participation trophy mindset, where everyone must be equally validated. Or else it's just not fair...

But most times it's not necessary to identify all the exceptions to a 'rule.'

You can share your perspective and I can acknowledge that your experience exists, but I don't have to find it particularly significant or relevant. I don't have to appreciate it.

(You mentioned wanting to stay on topic. I don't know if my post qualifies or not.)

I think the problem is language and unfortunately- that's all we have to communicate in.

Trouble is- there IS a big difference between saying something like: 'I detest the colour yellow' and: 'Everyone should detest the colour yellow. If they don't, they are delluded or just plain wrong.'

One is a personal opinion that allows for other people's opinions. The other isn't. Yes- I can ignore the later statement- if it's clear that trying to open up a discussion will only cause an argument and that's likely the easiest way forward if we're never going to agree.

Of course- I know the argument is about life. I'm also beginning to see that the Nihilist point of view is so strong, that it's also kind of pointless trying to argue with it- so- each to their own.

Funnily enough- atheism was actually something I gently clashed swords with someone here when I only just joined. (Sadly, I can't remember the user...) Anyhow- I was under the impression that atheists didn't believe in God full stop. I was actually saying how I envied their piece of mind at their absolute unbelief. However, this user corrected me to say the correct answer posed to an atheist about the existence of God would be- that they don't actually know but would require evidence to be certain that God did exist. I always thought that was Agnostic (which is closer to what I am.) Yet apparently, Agnostics apparently think it's unlikely we'll ever have proof on whether God exists- which I don't necessarily agree with either! So, you're not alone in not being able to absolutely categorise your beliefs. Still- who cares? I suspect most of us are a mixture of different beliefs that make sense to us- given our own unique life experiences.

I realise I've REALLY derailed the thread there- sorry OP. Still- I think these things are interesting to think about...

 

[FuneralCry]

I don't understand why there is a need to overcomplicate this and analyse it in such a pretentious way, but if that makes people feel better doing that then good for them. Anyway, to me nihilistic beliefs make sense. The way that I see it, life only exists as a consequence of evolution and there is no meaning or purpose to any of this, but the fact that humans have the ability to be conscious and aware means that people question the 'meaning of life' and invent theories relating to this as the true meaninglessness nature of existence is too difficult for them to come to terms with.
If one tries to look for an objective purpose to all of this, then none will be found. Life only exists just to inevitably deteriorate and die, that is the fate of all beings, and to exist is just a temporary distraction from our inevitable fate. Eventually everything that this life has burdened us with, will be long forgotten about and this is the only thing that could ever be close to a relief.

 

[Winterreise]

Funeral cry is like a varm voice giving me the blessing. Like the words of a priest.

 

[Himalayan]

This has to be sarcasm.

 

[bluem00n]

Many of the finest minds in ancient Greece inclined towards skepticism, questioning whether knowledge was possible at all. The paradox of the wisest person in Athens saying "I know that I know nothing" demonstrates humility being a natural byproduct of insight.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I used to work alongside Jehovah's Witnesses and recognise the telltale signs of people aggressively pushing a dubious agenda. That includes continuous preaching, never having any genuine openness to alternative viewpoints and winning 'debates' through unrelenting stubbornness. Keep in mind that atheism is also a religion for the purposes of this discussion, and is completely distinct from those who does not partake in cosmic discourse or lack any particular belief system.

The intrinsic tragedy is that the wise mind holds an inherently flexible perspective, while the fool is too ignorant to see their own ignorance. This is the mechanism by which so much insanity perpetuates in our world.

View attachment 102440

Given the intended subject matter of this website, it will be up to site admin to decide whether to allow self-righteous teenage preachers pushing a nihilistic atheist agenda to render the forum an increasingly unwelcome space for the diverse, wider community of people struggling with suicidal suffering.

Well, Nihilism is just Skepticism taken a few steps further along a continuum, one that starts with doubt > progresses to cynicism > then to pessimism > and lastly to nihilism.

In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nihilism is defined as 'extreme' or 'radical' Skepticism, which is why it's often portrayed as 'the end of Philosophy' (EN is specifically discussed halfway down the page under heading '3').

Whereabouts an individual resides on that continuum depends on a lot of factors of course, but those who embark upon philosophical enquiry typically start in response to doubt (due to a crisis of faith perhaps, maybe a mid-life crisis), then proceed along the continuum as far as their comfort levels and time permit. And because the journey can get extremely unsettling, it can take a very long time, a lifetime in fact.

In contrast, the continuum you reference Pluto, heads off in the exact opposite direction! - towards dogmatism (with the religious indoctrination you mention being its most extreme flavour). I'd be very surprised if any thinking person took that route - regressing from Skepticism back to Religion - the flow is always the other way, surely.

You seem to be implying that Nihilism is dogmatic, but that could be said about any sincerely-held point-of-view couldn't it, including Skepticism! The thing is, a point-of-view is only dogmatic when it becomes intractable even in the face of compelling contradictory evidence. And as things stand, the accumulated evidence points further along the continuum from Skepticism towards its current endpoint, Nihilism.

As for your closing paragraph, I'm not too comfortable with the inflammatory tone there. Asserting that there are "self-righteous teenage preachers pushing a nihilistic atheist agenda" seems an extravagant characterisation to say the least. I can't see any evidence that nihilistic members are pursuing an 'agenda' here at all, if anything it's their opponents who appear to have an 'agenda'.

Sure, nihilists can appear dogmatic, but that's solely because Nihilism is an absolute endpoint of a continuum, and backpedalling to a more 'accomodating' position is no more viable for them than an adult can sincerely revert to a belief in Santa Claus. So in light of that, it helps to bear in mind that there's a fundamental difference between dogmatists at each end of the continuum ...

... a religious extremist has been brainwashed, no original / individual thought was involved in the formulation of their dogmatic worldview.

... in contrast, a nihilist goes through a lifelong process, from indoctrination to individuation. They've usually had to first think their way out of some form of cultural conditioning - religious perhaps, maybe political (of the North Korean kind, say) - to arrive at what Maslow calls a 'self-actualised' worldview. So a nihilist's dogmatism is based on tangible accumulated evidence, it's not simply handed down.

Once a nihilist has divorced themselves from the prevailing collective 'groupthink' however, they run the risk of being ostracised as 'folk devils', and can even become the subject of 'moral panics' (both phenomena seen on SS, albeit in miniature).

The same kind of thing happened to those who first asserted that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the other way round, and of course Evolutionary Theory was likewise pilloried initially.

Same thing with Nihilism, it's not mainstream, but that's just where things currently stand - should mainstream thinking increasingly align with Nihilism, then it's inevitable that individual control over Death will be part of the package. And that's surely an upside worth keeping sight of, especially here on SS, in which case shooting the messengers / early adopters just because they're at a different point on the continuum may not be the best plan!​

 

[Forever Sleep]

just because they're at a different point on the continuum

I don't have a problem with people who hold strong views. Or those who don't feel they want to discuss their views or change them. Still- I do enjoy talking about people's views- so I hope you don't mind me chipping in again...

I also agree with you that Nihilism seems like a perfectly reasonable way to perceive the world and life as it is. (Especially if your experience of life is awful.)

What I personally struggle with is this idea that Nihilism is the only true path as it were. That if everyone only thought hard enough about it- they would come to the same conclusion. In that spirit- I do agree with @Pluto . Referencing 'skepticism, questioning whether knowledge [is] possible at all.'

There's a big difference between saying 'I KNOW something and I 'BELIEVE' something. Nihilism may have more evidence going for it but it is still a belief in my book. People should be entitled to hold their own beliefs I believe. (Although it's still perfectly acceptable to question them of course- as I am doing here...)

To break down the main points, Nihilism being:

'a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless' (from Merriam-Webster.com)

I'll go with you that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded- let's ignore all that religious 'clap trap' for now.

So- existence is 'senseless and useless.' What is this based upon? I'm imagining that because there seems to be no universal meaning to life (that we know of)- this is the problem. Does there need to be an underlying meaning for life for it to have felt meaningful to an individual? Do people's feelings, experiences, personal sense of achievement not count? Does self awareness and perception not count in philosophy? The only reason you are even able to contemplate all this is because you are aware! Why is it ok to say because you (may) find your life meaningless and useless- that this is the truth?

I really would like to have a discussion about this. I did start another thread on whether Nihilism SHOULD be the worldview. I would love to hear your thoughts here or there if you're interested:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/should-nihilism-be-the-worldview.105513/

 

[Pluto]

Well, Nihilism is just Skepticism taken a few steps further along a continuum, one that starts with doubt > progresses to cynicism > then to pessimism > and lastly to nihilism.

This is a very complicated reaction to Socrates having the humility and honesty to say, "I don't know". Not knowing is a state of freedom, integrity and it also proves infallible when deeply scrutinised. It is the same answer that an infant, a tree or an eagle would give if they could speak.

It is a forward progression to pick up some idea about existence being senseless and proclaim oneself as having achieved the ultimate state of enlightenment? No, this is arrogance and ignorance parading as mastery.

Having said all that, there is a stage beyond recognising the futility of the human brain to comprehend the cosmos, and ironically it is something that all the great religions attempted to point to, only to regress to mere cultural traditions, tribal conflicts, power structures and intellectual concepts. The only thing to say about it is that the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao. Approaching it intellectually is futile. Before there is openness to an actual state of enlightenment, the futility of thought must be seen clearly.

 

[Forever Sleep]

... in contrast, a nihilist goes through a lifelong process, from indoctrination to individuation. They've usually had to first think their way out of some form of cultural conditioning - religious perhaps, maybe political (of the North Korean kind, say) - to arrive at what Maslow calls a 'self-actualised' worldview. So a nihilist's dogmatism is based on tangible accumulated evidence, it's not simply handed down.

Agreed- it's all THINKING and perception... Philisophy IS just that- thinking about the world and trying to understand it.

I agree- it's perfectly reasonable to look at many religions and philosophies and 'happy' ways of looking at the world and think- the facts and the majority of people's lives don't reflect this. So I will reject all this- perfectly fine.

This is STILL perception though- it may be more based on fact when it comes to religion and philosophy but you can't look at someone elses life and predict (let alone decide) what they (should) perceive it to be- either now or in the future.

HOW we perceive things is very individual- according to our background and experiences. Yes- religion and good fortune may make a person believe their life has value. Illness, suffering, trauma and reading about Nihilism may make us see the world through a more futile lens.

Your philosophy has come about through the process of self awareness and perception. Philosophy is impossible without it. Those were the very tools that created the theory in the first place and allowed you the ability to learn about them and decide you agree with them. Yet within your philosophy, there IS no place for self awareness and perception. People who perceive their lives to not be utterly devoid of meaning and usefulness- you just claim to be wrong. Why is your perception of their life more real or true than their own?

Do you honestly believe that all those people simply aren't aware? That their perceptions are rose tinted falsehoods? I don't think that everyone who isn't a Nihilist is either stupid or non reflective. They have simply settled on different beliefs that resonated more with them according to their own experiences. Maybe they will become Nihilists in the future, maybe not. It may well depend on how life continues to treat them.

I want to emphasize that I'm not criticizing Nihilism as a theory itself. I agree with you to some extent- if more people uptake these ideas, the likelihood of 'us' getting assisted suicide increases- all good. On the other hand, I imagine many people see Nihilism as extremism (I'm right and enlightened to the truth and you're wrong type thinking.) I don't think that helps anyone. Therefore, I think it's important to have discussions like these.

I'm not saying I'm right either (for clarity.) Like @Pluto was saying- I simply don't know. I'm even happy to be convinced by you- I'm part of the way there anyhow to be honest and I expect you're much better read than I am. I'm fascinated to hear what you think.

I've actually been thinking about this a lot this morning- as I'm sure you can tell from the multiple posts (instead of job hunting- whoops.) I think we all imagine Nihilists to have come to their decision via unhappiness/ unsatisfaction. Still, I guess you must also get the odd hedonistic Nihilist. Maybe even the odd psychopathic one. (Not claiming anyone here is psychopathic...) With the abandonment of all rules and the acknowledgement that everything and everyone is utterly worthless- you would be free to do absolutely whatever you like and damn the consequences.

 

[Pluto]

All fair points, @Forever Sleep .

I don't want to get into a heated debate so will boil it down to the basics and leave it at this:

If someone says, "I feel unhappy and life seems futile and meaningless," any person who has experienced depression will acknowledge that feeling. But calling it Nihilism and turning it into the ultimate super-philosophy that everyone must conform to is irresponsibly peddling a cult of doom on already unhappy people, plus shows a lack of self-awareness as well. This an emotional low rather than an intellectually supreme position.

The argument that if everyone on Earth conforms to Nihilism then our politics will shift towards voluntary euthanasia is... interesting. It might be more realistic to support existing right-to-die groups which directly oppose fundamentalist Christians who - you guessed it - claim to know everything and push their belief systems on others.

 

[Doom]

Therefore, it still seems unfair (to me) to see Nihilism as something superior everyone should embrace.

because Nihilism is based on evidence? There is no evidence that there is an afterlife or that our soul continues in any way. Even if there is an afterlife, the believer would still have to prove that their religion is the true one or that the afterlife is based on some purpose - because it could simply be random reincarnation though rearrangements of atoms and nothing else. That said, I think assuming that there is any greater purpose in this life is a baseless assertion. But why is nihilism based on evidence? because death is a fact. We know one day we will age, deteriorate, that all our efforts will be lost in a few decades because we will die. Many people are born into this world only to suffer horribly, some die so prematurely they don't even make it past their childhood to even wonder why its happening. How could there be a greater purpose in such a cruel world?

 

[Jarni]

Don Juan was also a nihilist. Because the life itself was not enough for him. From this point of view I'm also a nihilist. Without poetic incredible adventures, lots of romantic love, intense emotions, very interesting people to discuss of philosophy, arts, littérature etc., creative things, beautiful place to live etc., I'm not interested in life. Too boring. But I'm here because of the disabling illness...

 

[Forever Sleep]

because Nihilism is based on evidence? There is no evidence that there is an afterlife or that our soul continues in any way. Even if there is an afterlife, the believer would still have to prove that their religion is the true one or that the afterlife is based on some purpose - because it could simply be random reincarnation though rearrangements of atoms and nothing else. That said, I think assuming that there is any greater purpose in this life is a baseless assertion. But why is nihilism based on evidence? because death is a fact. We know one day we will age, deteriorate, that all our efforts will be lost in a few decades because we will die. Many people are born into this world only to suffer horribly, some die so prematurely they don't even make it past their childhood to even wonder why its happening. How could there be a greater purpose in such a cruel world?

VERY well put- and I agree with a lot of it. Like I say- I feel the same way a lot of the time... I'll drop the religious argument then- because like you say- there's no proof.

Still- wouldn't you agree that believing your life to have meaning or not is largely based on how you perceive life? Isn't it a reaction (part contemplation, part emotion) to the stuff that happens in it? We wouldn't all experience the same set of circumstances the same way- so- what makes one person right and the other wrong?

To focus on some of the worst elements- Death is a fact- absolutely undeniable. Pain and struggle are facts- true also- but to varying degrees to different people. Does the fact that we will die and possibly suffer make ALL people feel that their entire lives are meaningless? No. That comes down to personal belief learnt through experience.

From my perspective- I agree with you. It seems WAY too risky to inflict this life on someone- which is partly why I don't intend to have kids.

I do agree that death and suffering are sadly intrinsic to life. Still- we don't all experience those things in the same way. I'm not denying that the most horrific stuff does go on in this world. I'm just saying- SOME people DO go through horrific things yet still see life as meaningful. Not necessarily because they are 'blinded' by religion. Maybe they have fantastic families and friends. Maybe they are artistic and plough all that pain into their work. Maybe they find deep fulfilment in helping others get over similar traumas. I don't know- I can't say anything has worked that effectively for me- I'm here afterall... (Some people of course, get let off relatively lightly and suffer far less in the first place.)

Perhaps you will argue that this is all 'distraction' or 'filler.' Maybe- or maybe their brains are wired differently or they just make themselves pull through. Why is your response to your life, pain and death more valid than theirs? If it is formed through perception- how can you be sure that it is their perception that is warped and not yours?

Theirs may be greatly influenced by experiences of love and fulifillment, yours pain and suffering. Is there a right or wrong when you are refering to someone's individual reaction to their own life? We're largely talking about emotions here... Are ONLY negative emotions real and authentic then?

I'm not saying it's 'normal' to enjoy pain, I'm just saying- in the grand scheme of life, SOME people think their lives are still worthwhile, meaningful and even good- despite encountering tragedy.

We don't know the ACTUAL universal meaning to life. Agreed. So- doesn't that mean we are allowed to attribute our own meanings or non meanings to life? Isn't it all perspective based on evidence then? I agree- most of the 'evidence' people here will likely have amassed strongly suggests that life is shit but your theory doesn't allow for people who experience their lives differently. Like I say- I don't necessarily understand those people but I don't see how you can say my experience of life is factual and theirs is delusional when it is based on an emotional reaction to something.

Who are more emotionally 'broken' then? People like us or the 'normies?' I imagine we're in the larger proportion of those on anti depressants and anti psychotics to 'fix' our emotions.

Of course, if there is indeed no mental illness and we are the 'sane' ones for seeing the world and our lives for the true horror they are- then- I guess you're right.