minorthreat412 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This is my first post here. I know that existential nihilism isn't easy to discuss. Most of the time people conclude that it's not logically possible. I'd like to talk about what would be required for nihilism to be possible. This is interesting because instead of developing new principles in exchange for others, I think understanding nihilism is a bottom up process, and starts with no principles. Definition of nihilism that I'd like to use: Life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Personally, I cannot easily say that I am a Nihilist because I'm not convinced completely that it is possible or what it would entail in every area of what I believe. I'm a subjectivist, if anything. Notable arguments against nihilism (in my own words): It is impossible to believe that nothing has value because you would be valuing the truth by holding a belief that you are correct. If value does not exist, then the idea that anyone "should" do anything doesn't exist. For example, if someone wants to live, they should drink water. Nihilism would require that happiness is not valuable, food is not valuable, and the truth is not valuable. For the sake of robustness... It can be assumed that inductive reasoning cannot be truly justified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Hi. Welcome. Concepts like objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value would be fundamentally the same as a square circle. That's because all of them are logical contradictions and such things cannot exist. Imagine you'd been taught from childhood that square circles exist and that they were necessary. You come to psychologically rely on square circles. Then you learn they can't and don't exist. The only thing that changes is that you know you were lied to and if you hadn't been lied to the absence of square-circles would not make you feel despair or be any kind of issue at all. Nihilism is just another way of saying "there's no god", for what is god if not objective meaning, purpose and intrinsic value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minorthreat412 Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 ....but you would still be valuing the truth if you accept that logical contradictions can't exist as the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 But your definition is that LIFE is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. This means that the 3 arguments against that you offered in your opening post and your follow up post do not even address your definition. As there is no such thing as intrinsic value, nothing can be with it. The meaning of life is subjective. The purpose of life is to survive and reproduce. However, I expect you're looking more for an examination of what the purpose of having a life is. This too would be subjective. I'm curious as to the definition you provided itself. I don't get into labels, but my understanding of nihilism is that nothing is real and/or can be relied upon. Which is of course self-contradictory in a way you elude to. Anyways, welcome to FDR. If you don't mind me asking, what is your interest in nihilism? I ask because you've joined a forum focused on philosophy only to immediately bring up a topic of "bad philosophy." Just curious as to the motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts