Responses to nihilism

[Lark]

If nihilism is the discovery or recognition that values and norms have no objective basis in fact then why does it remain a standard response to become or to do bad or wrong as opposed to becoming good or doing good?

If a decision, any decision is of no consequence what so ever, all outcomes/things being equal, and by that is meant equally meaningless, why does the default trajectory seem to be transgressive/wrong doing?

 

[Reborn Relic]

Honestly, I don't think that's the actual default response to discovering and accepting nihilism, only one that gets highlighted a lot. But I think the main reason you see people like this, is because there are some people who are wired to find evil enjoyable. Such people would find it almost a relief to be able to carry out evil acts.

For some others, this realization about nihilism comes on after a ton of general life stress, and aggressive and wanton behaviour is a way of forcing themselves not to think about that stress and also to become more able to vent it out due to lower impulse control. These sorts of people were probably also told to bottle up their stress as a result of their previous morality, and so feel somewhat betrayed by it and want to hurt it in turn.

 

[Lark]

Honestly, I don't think that's the actual default response to discovering and accepting nihilism, only one that gets highlighted a lot. But I think the main reason you see people like this, is because there are some people who are wired to find evil enjoyable. Such people would find it almost a relief to be able to carry out evil acts.

For some others, this realization about nihilism comes on after a ton of general life stress, and aggressive and wanton behaviour is a way of forcing themselves not to think about that stress and also to become more able to vent it out due to lower impulse control. These sorts of people were probably also told to bottle up their stress as a result of their previous morality, and so feel somewhat betrayed by it and want to hurt it in turn.

Being "wired" to commit any act, good or bad, stress, impulse control or the lack of it and rejecting moral sanctions which encourage, as you say, anyone to "bottle up their stress" are all observations which could only be considered valid if you have not accepted nihilism, they are rationalisations, excuses, for permissive behaviour of one kind or another which a consistent nihilist would consider invalid.

 

[Reborn Relic]

Being "wired" to commit any act, good or bad, stress, impulse control or the lack of it and rejecting moral sanctions which encourage, as you say, anyone to "bottle up their stress" are all observations which could only be considered valid if you have not accepted nihilism, they are rationalisations, excuses, for permissive behaviour of one kind or another which a consistent nihilist would consider invalid.

Not sure why that would be. According to you, the definition of nihilism is that there's no objective reason to follow values and norms--this doesn't also come with the presumption that there must be an objective basis for taking actions. Personal desires are still perfectly valid according to nihilism.

Basically, values and norms are requirements and suggestions. Not having external requirements or suggestions doesn't invalidate whims, which are their own category.

 

[Cellmold]

Game theory and the end point of rationality.

When we create mathematical models of human behaviour on the assumption that the action most likely to be taken is the one most beneficial to the individual (and ONLY that individual) aka prisoner's dilemma style, then we might find ourselves cutting out all contrary evidence to the worldview that creates.

Now a considered nihilism that lets us realise we have to act to build the world we want to see and be (or illusory choices thereof) is one aspect. But the barely considered nihilism that just presumes the worst case of behaviour, moving from determinism into defeatist fatalism, is unfortunately more popular.
There are lot of horrible acts that appear to justify this approach.

But it's not the entire picture and with that narrowing of the potential of human beings, we forget we can be more than that.

 

[Kas]

I don’t think it’s (or should be)a response to doing wrong (?) , it’s quite contradictory when the question what is wrong is not answered.

Saying that, I never met a person who claimed to be nihilist, I knew some who were intrigued, inspired or respect that philosophy. I have some respect to it too.

Quoting what Nietzsche wrote in “Will of power”:
"because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values
and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out
what value these "values" really had.--We require, sometime, new values."

That is logical. The question is what could be the consequences of having no values? Is it worth such an experiment?

Getting to the point I think that nihilism is seen as wrong or even evil because of what it states at the very beginning. If we assume that we are doing the ‘right thing’ because of our values (never mind if they come from us or are developed by society) denying this morality put what one or society believe is right thing equal with what they think is a bad thing, making possibility of choosing more often what's believed to be morally wrong. And besides of that who likes stepping on their values that much?

Hope it makes any sense. Not much time today, I think I will come back to this thread later.

 

[Lark]

Not sure why that would be. According to you, the definition of nihilism is that there's no objective reason to follow values and norms--this doesn't also come with the presumption that there must be an objective basis for taking actions. Personal desires are still perfectly valid according to nihilism.

Basically, values and norms are requirements and suggestions. Not having external requirements or suggestions doesn't invalidate whims, which are their own category.

What you're talking about sounds more like hedonism than what I was talking about.

Its a different question.

 

[Lark]

I don’t think it’s (or should be)a response to doing wrong (?) , it’s quite contradictory when the question what is wrong is not answered.

Saying that, I never met a person who claimed to be nihilist, I knew some who were intrigued, inspired or respect that philosophy. I have some respect to it too.

Quoting what Nietzsche wrote in “Will of power”:
"because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values
and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out
what value these "values" really had.--We require, sometime, new values."

That is logical. The question is what could be the consequences of having no values? Is it worth such an experiment?

Getting to the point I think that nihilism is seen as wrong or even evil because of what it states at the very beginning. If we assume that we are doing the ‘right thing’ because of our values (never mind if they come from us or are developed by society) denying this morality put what one or society believe is right thing equal with what they think is a bad thing, making possibility of choosing more often what's believed to be morally wrong. And besides of that who likes stepping on their values that much?

Hope it makes any sense. Not much time today, I think I will come back to this thread later.

OK, if you take nihilism as a value neutral reality, it simply is but its existence invalidates all conceptions of right and wrong, whether those are personal or social I'm not choosing to deal with right now because its a bigger, different question if you ask me, why is it that this situation or scenario of all behaviour which was formerly considered right or wrong but now is value neutral, people choose what would have been considered wrong rather than what could have been considered right.

I cant really make it any clearer but I accept that its a complex idea I'm trying to communicate.

 

[Cellmold]

OK, if you take nihilism as a value neutral reality, it simply is but its existence invalidates all conceptions of right and wrong, whether those are personal or social I'm not choosing to deal with right now because its a bigger, different question if you ask me, why is it that this situation or scenario of all behaviour which was formerly considered right or wrong but now is value neutral, people choose what would have been considered wrong rather than what could have been considered right.

I cant really make it any clearer but I accept that its a complex idea I'm trying to communicate.

Another argument as to why this is would be that people are taught morality as a system of rewards.

"If I answer the question on the board in the manner that the teacher requires then I will be praised and will be a good student'".

"If I help that person in need I will be considered generous and kind"

"If I adhere to the moral rules laid out in my religion I am rewarded with eternal life in *insert afterlife here*"

I could go on but it's quite simple really. Many also probably reach a point of nihilism when they see those committing wrongs going unpunished. A backfiring of karmic belief systems.

As I outlined in my other post, the issue is that people have been taught that everyone is ultimately selfish in the most destructive sense, rather than a mutual selfishness in which multiple parties can benefit.

This is evidenced in the age of individuality in which we now live. We are constantly marketed to under the notion of "do it your way" which (between the spaces) is really just "to the exclusion of others".

Of course there are still the dangers of misguided altruism as well, but I believe it is less pronounced than it once was and besides, it's a topic in its own right.

PS: Good topic, I've always enjoyed discussing this subject matter.

 

[Mole]

Nihilism, Surviving and Thriving

The genuine response to nihilism is suicide. And natural selection has put survival at the top of our list. And so our morality aids our survival.

Our morality does more and aids our reproduction.

So nihilism is just a clever mind game and does not touch us at the deepest levels of our psyche.

Our psyche has been in preparation for at least 3.8 billion years and it has learnt to survive.

And recently we have learnt how to create national prosperity in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, click on http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

So after 3.8 billion years we have learnt to survive, and after only 250 years we have learnt how to thrive.

And those who are not thriving in prosperous countries we regard as sick and in need of therapy.

 

[Kas]

OK, if you take nihilism as a value neutral reality, it simply is but its existence invalidates all conceptions of right and wrong, whether those are personal or social I'm not choosing to deal with right now because its a bigger, different question if you ask me, why is it that this situation or scenario of all behaviour which was formerly considered right or wrong but now is value neutral, people choose what would have been considered wrong rather than what could have been considered right.

I cant really make it any clearer but I accept that its a complex idea I'm trying to communicate.

Because doing what's wrong comes with different kinds of punishment, while doing what's right comes with rewards (even being pleased with myself is a type of reward). Theoretically thinking of them as neutral makes probability of making what's considered right and wrong more equal.


Now does somebody know a person who considers nihilism as their philosophy? I would like to hear about it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Now does somebody know a person who considers nihilism as their philosophy? I would like to hear about it.

 

[tinker683]

I wandered into this thread hoping for a Big Lewbowski meme (or at least a "That must be exhausting" response). Was not disappointed.

To answer the OP: Nihilism strikes me as self-defeating and not worth much thought

 

[Kas]

You won't believe if I say they are not real people, will you?

 

[Forever]

Because doing what's wrong comes with different kinds of punishment, while doing what's right comes with rewards (even being pleased with myself is a type of reward). Theoretically thinking of them as neutral makes probability of making what's considered right and wrong more equal.


Now does somebody know a person who considers nihilism as their philosophy? I would like to hear about it.

I would at least if we're talking moral nihilism. If that every person does something for some reason then is anything truly justified as evil? When looking back we may say oh, I didn't know. Oh well had I known I would have done this. Given to any situation, we may ask all of ourselves are we bad people because we believe ourselves to be or because of what other people think?

Just as darkness is simply the absense of light, darkness is not evil. It's just a lack of light.

We want light because light shines opportunities and we can do more things than things with lack of light. The less light we have, we're limited only to animalistic basic instincts. So what's rational if you want more choices you work up to it and learn about things and how society and systems work.

Morality in my opinion is only to keep order. I think for some, it's best that people do not know about amorality because it simply doesn't need to be preached. A lack of something, is just nothing really. There are irrational people out there who are out of tune of both of their feelings and of their mind. Our feelings guide towards what's best for us, not necessarily what is for everyone.

There really is no heaven and hell, idea of religion was to control, now in today's society it's to a much lesser extent and it's more about connection than political affairs like they did in the early days of the English or Roman Catholic Church. The idea of the devil is only to make you fear. There are no such things as demons or the devil. Those who are mentally ill are caught in darkness and are stuck in a negative state of things attracting lower things and are consumed by their own thoughts. It's not easy to get out of.

I think it should be in our best interest to help everybody out where it's appropriate and possible and it's up for you to decide because death just only cancels opportunities and understanding in the grand scheme of things.

I often had the thought of these way several years ago when I was still religious that when you became or are with God, there aren't human boundaries anymore. Morality is a social construct.

Thus I do not harm others (at least not exclusively) because really it's unjustified and your better interests are at stake.

I'm fine with having laws and the justice system and am thankful that my emotions stop me from doing what's only going to limit my potential.

 

[Kas]

I would at least if we're talking moral nihilism. If that every person does something for some reason then is anything truly justified as evil? When looking back we may say oh, I didn't know. Oh well had I known I would have done this. Given to any situation, we may ask all of ourselves are we bad people because we believe ourselves to be or because of what other people think?

You’re getting back to objectivity vs subjectivity of right and wrong. Maybe it’s difficult to separate it. Is lack of knowledge a justification of making a wrong choice? Sometimes it can be, we act according to our conscience and knowledge in that particular moment. But choosing not to know is ignorance and I don’t think ignorance can be a justification.

Just as darkness is simply the absense of light, darkness is not evil. It's just a lack of light.

We want light because light shines opportunities and we can do more things than things with lack of light. The less light we have, we're limited only to animalistic basic instincts. So what's rational if you want more choices you work up to it and learn about things and how society and systems work.

Morality in my opinion is only to keep order. I think for some, it's best that people do not know about amorality because it simply doesn't need to be preached. A lack of something, is just nothing really. There are irrational people out there who are out of tune of both of their feelings and of their mind. Our feelings guide towards what's best for us, not necessarily what is for everyone.

It’s not only about opportunities. It’s better to know, understand and to build one’s opinion on that understanding.

There really is no heaven and hell, idea of religion was to control, now in today's society it's to a much lesser extent and it's more about connection than political affairs like they did in the early days of the English or Roman Catholic Church. The idea of the devil is only to make you fear. There are no such things as demons or the devil. Those who are mentally ill are caught in darkness and are stuck in a negative state of things attracting lower things and are consumed by their own thoughts. It's not easy to get out of.

I don’t think that matters to this thread whether moral system comes from religion. However I want to say that from what I saw the religion isn’t only based on fear, first foundation should be love. Though I’ve seen religious people acting wrong (in my opinion), but I’ve seen too a lot of strength and kindness coming from people who said they wouldn’t be able to proceed this way without the faith. It's funny how same factor can bring out the best or worst of us. Sorry for off top. If you want to discuss that you can write me Forever.

Btw I wanted to use multiquote, but I don't know how

 

[Reborn Relic]

What you're talking about sounds more like hedonism than what I was talking about.

Its a different question.

Nah, hedonism suggests that one should always maximize pleasure. Nihilism isn't suggesting that, but that doesn't eliminate the drive to seek pleasure out.

I think the reason we're having trouble understanding each other is because you're trying to figure out what in a philosophy causes someone to do something that's more rooted in their psychology. It's the wrong framework to use here, because we're ultimately not talking about philosophical imperatives but human action, which philosophy can drive but doesn't have to.

Because doing what's wrong comes with different kinds of punishment, while doing what's right comes with rewards (even being pleased with myself is a type of reward). Theoretically thinking of them as neutral makes probability of making what's considered right and wrong more equal.


Now does somebody know a person who considers nihilism as their philosophy? I would like to hear about it.

I've talked to people who are moral nihilists, so I'm half there maybe? XD

Also one of said moral nihilists has told me that I'm basically one of them but haven't accepted it yet, which I could buy. I'm more of a prescriptivist with a dash of something else though. Maybe emotivism.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You won't believe if I say they are not real people, will you?

But actors *are* real people.

 

[Lark]

Nah, hedonism suggests that one should always maximize pleasure. Nihilism isn't suggesting that, but that doesn't eliminate the drive to seek pleasure out.

Hedonism validates pleasure seeking and considers it legitimate, nihilism would not validate it and consider it as illegitimate a driver or motivator as any other.

You are presupposing an objective or natural order which includes individual pursuing seeking, possibly as ontological, though nihilism would not consider that so.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]