Views against nihilism

I'm interested in hearing reasonings from those who don't consider themselves nihilist.

It's often characterized as an overly simplistic ideology or flat out naive, but I'm yet to hear a compelling argument against it. I might come off as defensive but I'd genuinely like to hear some. Just today I was reading from an author (not translated to English) who I generally consider to be well in touch with societal phenomenons but his arguments against nihilism just sounded like he didn't put much thought into it and they could've been counter-argumented with a single sentence.

I've been "nihilist" since before I knew what the word meant or before I read anyone describe the ideology outright. To me it just seems like common sense, how the world works, and I struggle to understand how people, intelligent people, can have an interest in philosophy or psychology without believing in moral or existential nihilism. I guess it's like growing up in a religious household vs. living in a nontheist environment, the way those two people construe everything around them is fundamentally different and therefore either one can't understand the reasonings of the other.

Just to be clear I'm not an anarchist. I believe murder is bad because it causes social unrest. I believe thievery is bad because it violates the principle of private property which our society is built upon etc. To me arguing against nihilism sounds like arguing for "because I said so" arguments. But like I said smart people do it, so there must be more than that to it.

Other urls found in this thread:

earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
vocabulary.com/dictionary/nihilism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Read the bible

>I believe murder is bad because it causes social unrest. I believe thievery is bad because it violates the principle of private property which our society is built upon etc.

You're not a nihilist, you're a social moralist. Do you know what "moral nihilism" means?

I greatly value christianity and believe it to be at the core of what enabled the western civilization to become what it did, but isn't "god wills it" just a "because I say so" argument? I place great value on the teachings of the bible because I consider them to have a positive effect on society, not because they're inherently right.
Moral nihilism means that nothing is inherently or intrinsically good or evil but that those are just labels we place on things we have a personal objection or affection towards. I think it's good murder is outlawed because the society wouldn't be as enjoyable to live in if it weren't. Not because it's inherently "evil". Animals who are predators aren't evil.

reddit. sage.

You didn't sage.

>I think it's good murder is outlawed because the society wouldn't be as enjoyable to live in if it weren't

So now you're just a moral hedonist.

And you know "murder" means "wrongful killing," right? You can't have a concept of "murder" without a concept of intrinsic evil.

Not to say I'm -against- nihilism, rather, much like Nietzsche, I think of it as a form of crisis or a challenge that needs to be overcome.

No one is claiming the views I presented are exclusive to nihilism, that doesn't mean that throwing around fancy terminology will make them not an example of nihilism as well.
>You can't have a concept of "murder" without a concept of intrinsic evil.
The concept of murder is very clearly defined in criminal law with no reference to good or evil. I even checked the local laws before making this post. The term "wrongful" or anything along those lines isn't used either.

Every view is against nihilism, for nihilism is against vision itself. Nihilism is the ideal of equality, of the ultimate apathy towards all.

No you fucking idiot, I'm saying your views are explicitly opposed to nihilism. If you think "your enjoyment" is a moral good, you are a moral hedonist.

>The concept of murder is very clearly defined in criminal law with no reference to good or evil

Why don't you define it without any reference, explicit or implicit, to good or evil? I don't really care what your local laws have to say about it

If you haven't killed yourself you are not actually a nihilist and you do belive in some kind of meaning but you are actually scared of fighting for it.
/thread

Nietzsche had the best arguments against nihilism and he was himself a nihilist

I never characterized anything as a "moral good". All I talked about was the practical outcomes of having certain laws in place.
>Why don't you define it without any reference,
Well I can't unread the definition stated in the law and that's the one I agree with as well. Finnish criminal law is incredibly simple on the matter. The section on manslaughter is literally one sentence long: "he who kills another, is guilty of manslaughter and punishable..."
The section on murder is just practical details of the execution of said manslaughter.

The only other relevant part is the paragraph about self defense which states that "if the act is done in response to an attack that is imminent or already happening..."

Nowhere is evil or wrong mentioned.

I haven't killed myself because there are ways to live that physically make me feel good because of the hormonal or other physical responses that take place in my body. I have no further moral reasoning for it. Killing myself would be taking action for whatever reason, continuing to live is just doing what my body is biologically programmed to do.
I'll look into that.

The implication of every law like this, "he who kills another, is guilty of manslaughter and punishable," is that people ought to be punished because punishment stops crime. This is not true, it's not borne out in fact: it's a fantasy. Your fantasy of efficacious retributive justice is a very old and common one

>This is not true
[citation needed]
I very much believe that the state enforcing punishments prevents crime. I don't follow the law because I believe it to be morally just, I follow the law because I know the institutions enforcing them have power over me. Physical power. I cannot win a fight against the entire police force, so I do my best to avoid such a fight. That's how a modern society functions.

>haven't killed myself because there are ways to live that physically make me feel good because of the hormonal or other physical responses that take place in my body.
You aren't a nihilist. Why do you care about feeling good, or society or anything? You are a reddit positivist babby

>I very much believe that the state enforcing punishments prevents crime.
But you're the one who made that claim. I'm not making a positive claim. I'm saying that your claim is retarded and fantastical. Any reference to factual experience shows retributive justice does nothing more than perpetuate the cycle of violence. This concept is older than Christ. You are the one who needs to give citations.

>I know the institutions enforcing them have power over me. Physical power. I cannot win a fight against the entire police force
Every crime you commit will not necessitate that you "fight against the entire police force." Where the fuck did you get this idea?

Nihilism will naturally arise when there is an outside group like the jews infusing your culture with degeneracy and promoting policies that are bad for the nation, like feminism and no fault divorce. This is what jews did in Russia and Russia sank into complete despair as a result. Since the jews were quietly dealt with by Putin the mortality rate and rates of things like alcoholism have improved immensely and to no one's surprise the jews in the west want Putin's head. A healthy culture that is ruled over by native citizens who have a sense of noblesse oblige toward those below them instead of enmity will not do the things that poison culture and cause a society to lapse into nihilism, and it's something that can be easily combated with a healthy ethos. But jews know a society is harder to control if the people are positive about the future and thinking about their own best interests. It's better if they're hedonistic individualists with a mutilated heritage uncertain about the future and their place in it.

earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
its a little lengthy but basically goes through why moral absolutes exist and develops an ethical system (deontology) around this. A rational man knows "a priori" (prior to being told) that murder, theft, ect are wrong. The significance of this is moral absolutism through logic (summarizing greatly). Some dissonance that you might agree with or be able to refute in the future.
In your third paragraph you employ social contract theory as a reason murder/thievery is wrong which de facto makes you a normative ethicist and therefore not an ehtical nihilist. I'm not saying that's checkmate or telling you what you are/aren't, but that particular argument had internal contradictions and if you were arguing somebody who knew that, you'd just have lost your foundation for ethical nihilism.

Thats actually Utilitarianism, read John Stuart Mills

Why do people on anonymous websites argue subjects they clearly don't know the first thing about?

>Why do you care about feeling good
Biological responses of the body as I already stated. That's what "feeling good" is.
Your claim is that outlawing or legalizing something has no impact in the rate of its occurance. Or my claim is the opposite, I don't care about your semantics. Either way to argue otherwise is utter nonsense. People would pay all their taxes to the dime if there wasn't the implication of punishment? People would obey speed limits if traffic tickets didn't exist? Your essentially arguing that the entire justice system and a police force is unnecessary because people would continue living exactly as before if all laws stopped existing overnight. If you truly believe this you are deranged from any reality.
>Every crime you commit will not necessitate that you "fight against the entire police force."
If caught they do. I can be physically restrained to a room straight away if the infraction is deemed serious enough, by their standards not mine, or if I refuse to pay the ticket issued. If I refuse to go to said room I will be physically forced into it, by the police.

I don't know of any law where the penalty isn't either a fine or jail time. Probation still requires me to show up in court, where I will be taken against my will if I refuse, again by the police. My personal morals are completely meaningless in the matter, it's a threat of violence.

Thank you I will read that.

And as for reference to factual evidence look at the international homicide rates. Countries with the most killings are the ones without a strong authority capable of enforcing the law.

>nihilists don't exist meme

That's retarded.

One can perform an action without the belief that it has a meaning or purpose. Not every fart, sip of beer, or walk in a park must be because of some higher purpose.

You can live your life to the fullest and still believe it's all for nothing.

>Countries with the most killings are the ones without a strong authority capable of enforcing the law.
Nah, they're the ones with the most blacks.

>he's not a moral realist

Nihilism doesn't really exist imo. I think it's more likely that people experience social alienation and existential dread, and then default to some kind of psychological hedonism.

It's hard to make an argument that "nothing matters" when you are embodied in a vessel of flesh and blood that reacts dopaminergically to both food and chemicals.

Homicide rates have fallen as a result of more powerful means of production. Europe during the late Middle Ages had a homicide rate of 1 in 10 because people were obliged to kill for a living. We produce so much food that occasionally we have to destroy some so it doesn't glut the market. Try again.
>Countries with the most killings are the ones without a strong authority capable of enforcing the law.
Like the United States, right?

Eastern Europe is whiter than Western Europe yet their homicide rates are multiple times higher.

They'll just tell you it's because of muh juice.

Why bother arguing with them?

Of course there is than one factor that plays into it. The more desprate people get the more likely they are to take the risk of facing punishment. Biological necessities like hunger are stronger motivators than rational thought.
>Like the United States, right?
Compare US crime rates, even just among blacks, to those of African nations that truly lack an established government capable of enforcing laws and the difference is night and day.

This. I've never actually met a real nihilist who hasn't killed themselves. All the self-proclaimed nihilists I've encountered, on questioning further you find their beliefs hold some sort of implicit moral standard and a notion of legitimate hierarchy. Its built into the very structure of our thought and being, so you can't avoid it, unless you kill yourself. But even then you're still valuing non-life over life. So in actuality nihilism is an impossible position for SOMETHING to hold (at least with any longevity) as nihilism implies nothingness.

>TL;DR: You don't need theory to refute nihilism, nihilists refute themselves.

But still not very high. Having been to nearly every country in both western and eastern Europe I can say there's little difference in average safety being a regular person because most most of the crime is gang limited and a relic from the disastrous effect jewish communism had on those states. Slavs are also a bit more rowdy and hardened on average but the difference is comparatively negligible.

>I greatly value christianity and believe it to be at the core of what enabled the western civilization
>social unrest is bad
>the principle of private property which our society is built upon
>nihilist
ahahahahah holy shit

I don't experience social alienation or extential dread. I consider myself a nihilist because I aim to have a reasoning behind every opinion I hold. Obviously no man is truly objective, but that doesn't stop one from trying to be. Whether it's my decision not to steal because I might get caught and punished or the decision of the government to outlaw certain behaviour because of the expected impact of passing such law I believe they should be based on logic and reasoning, not inherent "good" and "evil". The definition of good and evil change depending on who you ask, therefore nothing can be considered objectively one or the other.
>It's hard to make an argument that "nothing matters" when you are embodied in a vessel of flesh and blood that reacts dopaminergically to both food and chemicals.
"Nothing matters" is a mischaracterization or oversimplification of nihilism. Just because I don't believe in a higher purpose for my existence doesn't mean I don't believe I can alter the way I experience life, because like you said we are sacks of flesh fueled by varying levels dopamine.
Fair enough. I'll check back in a few hours.

>I haven't killed myself because there are ways to live that physically make me feel good because of the hormonal or other physical responses that take place in my body. I have no further moral reasoning for it. Killing myself would be taking action for whatever reason, continuing to live is just doing what my body is biologically programmed to do.
If you take your actions based on what makes you "feel good", irrespective of whether you place moral value or not, you are a hedonist. Your life consists of maximising pleasure and reducing pain.

Social unrest is bad because I don't want to live life constantly on alert for incoming threats since I find it uncomfortable. That's not a moral issue.

Yes I am, but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I can be wrong but I don't consider hedonism a moral choice either, my motivations are fueled by the biological responses of my body.

Also please don't make the mistake of thinking hedonism is just the act of seeking instant gratification. I'm not saying you are but anyone posting in this thread.

>The more desprate people get the more likely they are to take the risk of facing punishment.
Here you treat punishment like an objective, natural constant. The majority of brigands in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era were in no way concerned with "risking punishment" because they rightly viewed the city guards as their opponents, not their masters whose job it was to "punish" them.

>Compare US crime rates, even just among blacks, to those of African nations that truly lack an established government capable of enforcing laws and the difference is night and day.
This is due to artificially underdeveloped means of production. It is a civilizing (agrarian and sedentary at base) society with a division of labor that produces the idea of retributive justice, not the other way around you historically illiterate philistine.

>Jewish communism

Called it.

Called what.

There are simpler ways to ensure your own security than fixing the whole country you live in.

> I consider myself a nihilist because I aim to have a reasoning behind every opinion I hold. Obviously no man is truly objective, but that doesn't stop one from trying to be.

Every single post you've made has shown that you're really not a nihilist at all. On top of all the other points other anons have highlighted you also consider reason to be a determinant of the value of opinions and believe objectivity exists, which means you believe there is a universal truth even if no one can attain it.

The issue is an issue of perspective. From which perspective do nihilists say what they say? Usually from some kind of "cosmic" perspective or, as in your case, the perspective of some kind of social realism (no morals, but if society is to be maintained we need to do such and such, etc). This is why nihilists are considered naive, because they always end up taking some kind of an impossible neutral perspective from which they can say that there are no morals, or that nothing which happens on this earth matters. Nihilism is not a negative critique of social reality, rather it is a structural requirement that nihilism works on a set of unstated assumptions about reality

But seriously dudes, nihilists are nothing but a convenient strawman, innit? Everybody rages against the "pervasive nihilism of our time", from hardcore conservatives to the hedonist Onfray.
But where the hell are those nihilists? I have yet to meet or read one.

See:

>you also consider reason to be a determinant of the value of opinions and believe objectivity exists, which means you believe there is a universal truth even if no one can attain it.
That is an interesting point. I hadn't considered that. Although I must say I do not believe in the concept of an absolute truth. Everything I believe in, including philosophy, is just the best explanation offered thus far. But is that a moral issue either? I didn't claim the purpose of life is to seek further understanding of our universe.
> in no way concerned with "risking punishment" because they rightly viewed the city guards as their opponents, not their masters whose job it was to "punish" them.
It's still "risking punishment" whether you believe the punisher to have a moral obligation or "job" to do so or not. You can live in a dictatorship you hate and still obey the law out of fear of punishment.
Another good point.
I thought about this, and while it's accurate to say that I act like a hedonist, I am not a hedonist. A hedonist believes that the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure. I object to the notion of a purpose to life.
At the risk of sounding EXTREMELY "reddit" I'll explain my world view, again in terms of most likely explanation.

All matter condensed into a singularity that exploded outwards. For billions of years matter just orbited other matter based on the principles of gravity until in at least one of the trillions or more planets out there just the right molecules required for a living organism with the biological urge to reproduce combined. It might sound improbable but were also dealing with an infinite timeframe. About 3 billion years later I was born. That's it. That's literally all there is to life.

I have opinions on many things. You can ask me "how to get our society to increase its production?" or "how to make the most citizens happy?" and I'll have an opinion as put "(no morals, but if society is to be maintained we need to do such and such, etc)". You can ask "how to make art that provokes thought?" and I'll have an opinion. You can ask me what my favourite color is and I'll have an opinion. These aren't morals. They aren't a purpose to life. They're just opinions I've formed. If the feeling of having a moral value differs from having an opinion I don't think I've experienced one. I've considered the possibility I have what's called "anti-social behavioural disorder" (despite not being anti-social) but I've figured if true it's best to keep it out of my record purely because it might limit my options in life.
Looking past the jew talk I don't suggest that nihilism is the best outlook at life, or that moral values can't serve a purpose. I'm simply not honest with myself if I say I believe in anything else.

True, and I'm not involved in politics. Like above it's simply an example of what I believe to be effective. If a government or nation claims to aim to maximize the happiness of its population, then I believe a law against murder will help them reach that goal.

The concept of "punishment" carries the implication of desert. If you treat someone as your opponent, in dealing with them you risk "harm." If you treat someone as your master, in dealing with them you risk "punishment." It is only "punishment" if you expect it as a response to some "wrong" you feel guilty about. This is why you are a slave.

>About 3 billion years later I was born. That's it. That's literally all there is to life.

Holy fuck, go back to r/rickandmory

Does "nihilism" even mean anything?

>I am my parts

But you are right. I cannot claim to be a nihilist while also claiming that one argument is objectively better because it is logical or relies on proof and reasoning. That is clearly me giving an attribute intrinsic value.

It is punishment when viewed from the perspective of the one dealing it out and since they have the physical power to force you to their will their viewpoint is the one that matters. Regardless it's semantics, the threat of the physical act still remains.

Calling someone Rick and Morty for not having supernatural beliefs only shows how obsessed you are with a funny picture website and a cartoon show for children.

Amid the morons making fun of you I gotta give it to you that that's exactly how I feel about religion (Not just Christianity). Without religion nothing significant would have happened, the world would've been purely chaos.

>It is punishment when viewed from the perspective of the one dealing it out and since they have the physical power to force you to their will their viewpoint is the one that matters.

Again, this is why you are a slave. Actually, if you think physical force is enough to materially supplant a "viewpoint" (short of killing someone), you're stupid and slavish.

I'm calling you r/rickandmorty because you do have supernatural beliefs (in private property, society, "might makes right," etc.) like all pious atheists, but you're pretending as if you don't. This is why Rick and Morty is so silly; it preaches a morality it condemns, like you do.

I am my parts, that much I know. My body and mind respond to certain biological processes, this I also know. Neither proves that I can't be something else as well, nor do I claim them to, but until I figure out what I'm going to keep living based on the things I do know. I will keep making choices based on pleasure.

Of course not, but it's still The Truth.

>you do have supernatural beliefs (in private property, society, "might makes right," etc.)
You're attempting to put words in my mouth. Of course private property isn't an inherent right, it's simply the foundation of our society which is what is allowing us to be the ones sitting comfortably while others slave in swetashops. It exists because it is enforced. Might doesn't make "right", might makes things concretely happen. I can't understand what it is you don't grasp. It makes no difference who can outwit the other in a moral debate if one has the power to physically imprison or enslave the other. Society is just a word for a group of people, again enforced by people with guns. You can choose not to believe in it all you want but that won't make the border guard let you in.

Hey finnbro I mostly agree with you, also the dude who was blabbering about retributional justice above doesn't get that Nordic countries don't merely punish for retribution, but for rehabilitational purposes as much as possible.

I think people are getting bogged down by the label "nihilist". If it means no -inherent- or intrinsic values, I'm on board. This doesn't mean we can't value things or that things don't have a value to an individual, and by extension a group of individuals, a society etc.

>I thought about this, and while it's accurate to say that I act like a hedonist, I am not a hedonist. A hedonist believes that the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure. I object to the notion of a purpose to life.
>At the risk of sounding EXTREMELY "reddit" I'll explain my world view, again in terms of most likely explanation.

There are different types of nihilism. You seem to be talking about existencial nihilism, which is the idea that life can have no objective purpose or meaning. It's considered naïve because it argues that it's impossible to construct your own meaning, unlike other branches of existencialism.

When we talk about nihilism we usually refer to the broader definition of nihilism, the rejection of *all* meaning and value, which includes moral nihilism. It's pretty clear that this doesn't describe you since you value things like pleasure, knowledge (or else you wouldn't be discussing philosophy on a semitic cuneiform script board), and your own life.

I'm quoting wikipedia but
>For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.
I believe this. I think to believe otherwise would be to believe in some intervention from a higher power. A predatory animal isn't evil for feeding, but humans have the luxury of having created sets of rules for themselves to abide by.

It's true I'm no nihilist in the broadest sense. Metaphysical nihilism etc. don't really interest me. But I still feel like existential and moral nihilism (which are the two I specified in OP) do.
>it argues that it's impossible to construct your own meaning
Does it? It's my understanding that nihilism merely rejects "intrinsic meaning to life". One you create yourself can't be considered intrinsic.

I value pleasure and knowledge based on my own physical experiences. These are values I have created, not ones I believe to be a natural part of the world that I have inherited. I also don't believe anyone is inherently "evil" for believing otherwise. Good and evil don't have concrete meanings but are rather relative to the observer. Is that not moral nihilism?

>I think people are getting bogged down by the label "nihilist". If it means no -inherent- or intrinsic values, I'm on board. This doesn't mean we can't value things or that things don't have a value to an individual, and by extension a group of individuals, a society etc.
That is always how it has always been defined to me, and how Wikipedia describes it as well. I think many people on here have seen The Big Lebowski one too many times and confuse nihilism with anarchism or something.
For example this: vocabulary.com/dictionary/nihilism is an inaccurate definition yet it pops up frequently especially in American sources.

I can say "facebook is evil for invading our privacy" and I can fully believe that statement, but since the concept of privacy doesn't exist in nature and is rather an artificial concept we have created it's impossible for invasion of it to be inherently wrong.

I strongly believe each individual's morals to be a set of rules they have chosen or have been lead to believe. Some behaviour can possibly even be in our DNA, like avoiding cannibalism. That doesn't mean "nothing matters", it just means what each person finds worth mattering is their own interpretation of their environment. Only a person who believes their purpose to be serving a higher purpose would interpret this as "nothing matters".

Whether or not OP is a nihilist, the main argument for me goes: nihilism says nothing- being a negation of everything, it's essentially impossible to go about making a positive argument about nihilism. Since there is no reason for existence, everything is convoluted, random, and there is absolutely no purpose in trying to connect things in a logical manner at all.

Essentially, nihilism is a skeptic's existentialism, and being skeptical is great and all, but all you can do is make your stupid point and whack at the logical foundations of others.

tl:dr

You could say it gives a clean slate to build your own ideology's or beliefs on. That can be seen as a positive, like a sterile environment in a scientific experiement.
>there is absolutely no purpose in trying to connect things in a logical manner at all.
That doesn't mean anyone's forbidding you from doing it. I absolutely don't believe there is a intrinsic purpose that is "given out" or forced upon everyone. You can create a purpose if you wish to or find that something gives you a feeling of purpose. You can have a purpose for certain actions, usually being the likely end result of said action. "My purpose in reading philosophy is to better understand the world around me.", "My purpose in walking to the store is to get eggs." These are two of the same. You might place more value on one than the other, but that is another choice made by you and effected by your environment.

And you're right, this thread isn't about me but nihilism.

Well, the primary point of the issue remains on the whole "there is ultimately no purpose" bit. Yes, I can put up facades of purpose, but in the end, I am not really walking to the store to get eggs, as everything is *essentially* purposeless. By even bothering to put value on anything, you discard the term "nihilist".

You could argue that a nihilist could live with two mindsets regarding value judgements, but again- it's hard to argue anything positively with a complete negation.

And I'm more using positive in the sense that my points do carry something (whether it be bad or good), whereas negation here is a sort of "net zero".

>By even bothering to put value on anything, you discard the term "nihilist".
Whose definition of nihilism is this? Because this board seems hell-bent on it, but it absolutely isn't Nietzsche's definition or the one commonly found in textbooks.
>The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism.
The lack of absolute values or universal morals does not mean the lack of personal values or morals.
>classify Nietzsche as a moral skeptic; meaning that he claims that all ethical statements are false, because any kind of correspondence between ethical statements and "moral facts" remains illusory. (This forms part of a more general claim that no universally true fact exists, roughly because none of them more than "appear" to correspond to reality). Instead, ethical statements (like all statements) remain mere "interpretations."
You're free to have your own interpretations. For example your body requires nutrition to live, this is a physical fact. You buy the eggs to fill that need. This is a choice you have made, it's not any absolute moral that you "should" do so. You might choose not to feed it and die of starvation, and your choice is not any more immoral than having fed it. What is moral or immoral is purely up to you to decide, that is nihilism.

I guess I should correct myself in saying that you dying of starvation is an absolute fact as it is but a mere interpretation of evidence from thousands of years of recorded history. I used the term fact colloquially.

The fact (or the interpretation I hold based on experience yadda yadda) that I can ask you "why did you buy the eggs?" or "why do you think killing another should be outlawed?" and you can have more than one answer is proof in itself that absolute morals or thruts don't exist. If they did, no explanation would be necessary. If they did, people wouldn't have to make up reasonings for their actions. But people do, and they vary from person to person, which clearly shows that morals and values are flexible, and therefore not absolutes.

Nihilism usually means Subjective Nihilism, the denial of Self through Christian-Scientist perspectives and the indifference to the world caused by the Epistemological apathy inherent to such thinking.

nihilism eats itself, for the same reason that relativism eats itself when it encounters the dimension of objective truth/meaning.

so we dont really need an argument against nihilism, or relativism, they simply self implode upon examination, any sufficiently intelligent person notices this.

Post an example of an objective thruth outside of mathematics, which itself is an artificial concept created by man.

I don't need a specific example because Nihilisms' response to the very possibility of an "objective truth" is sufficient to undermine its own validity and thus truthfulness.

Nihilism, just like relativism, reduces every element of objectivity to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction process itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is "no truth" as if this were truth... or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing.

The axiom of nihilism is that “one can never escape from human subjectivity”; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls dead under its own verdict. It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity.

Nihilism's main thesis renders itself invalid, the assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility....And so nihilists have no metric to judge their worldview superior to a fool's worldview, or even ask for an "example" of something objective and true. They have no foundation to make critique of anything, just like their worldview has no foundation to stand on.

I thank you for your thoughts but I don't agree with your logic. The idea that there is no objective thruth is in itself subjective. It is an idea created by man and thus cannot escape subjectivity. I don't see why you find that nihilism proposes itself to be above subjectivism, it is the subjective view of a nihilist that no objective thruth exists.
>if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls dead under its own verdict
The statment does not hold objective value. Suggesting this causes it to "fall dead" is your own subjective interpretation. You are the one setting this requirement for statements to be objective in order to be logical, not nihilism.
>This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity
I disagree. Regardless of if a person believes objective thruts to exist or not he can consider a certain opinion or thought to result from a subjective view. From there it's just an interpolation of the idea. The human mind is capable of imagining things that do not exist, therefore acknowledging the concept of a objectiveness doesn't require for it to exist anywhere.
>the assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false
Again, it is your personal subjective view that all statements must be objective in order to be logical.
>so nihilists have no metric to judge their worldview superior to a fool's worldview
That's kind of the point. There is no such thing as objectively superior, and that is at the core of nihilism. Nihilism doesn't declare itself to be superior unlike you seem to think, and that would be contradictory to itself.
>They have no foundation to make critique of anything, just like their worldview has no foundation to stand on.
I have my subjective views. That's all anyone has.

I asked for an example of an objective thruth because I don't know of one. Sure, you can say that it's because I refuse the idea of one existing and that itself is subjective and you're right. That however does not prove one to exist.

I was like you once. Trying to understand Kant’s categorical imperative made my head spin. I couldn’t understand why someone would do something except to make themselves happy, or make themselves feel good.

Here’s the best answer I can give:

The atomic building block of doing good for a higher cause is an ineradicable part of the human soul. You don’t lack it. You have just temporarily forgotten it, most likely because you live in a deeply debased culture (as do we all..).

It’s not impossible to regain, however, and it’s certainly not an illusion.

>it’s certainly not an illusion.
But how can anyone know? I don't believe in the concept of a soul, however I think you just used it as a metaphor for human thought which I can understand.
>why someone would do something except to make themselves happy, or make themselves feel good.
Again it's important to remember this does not simply refer to instant gratification. People who donate to charity say it makes them feel good. People who hold themselves to high (personal) moral standards get satisfcation from it. How can anyone say this isn't just a result of learnt behaviour, when there exists no man free of influence from their environment?

I'm not claiming my views to be superior or other viewpoints to be inferior. Nihilism is simply the only ideology I've heard so far which subjectively makes sense to me.

>Nietzsche had the best arguments against *passive nihilism and he was himself a nihilist
ftfy

> I don't see why you find that nihilism proposes itself to be above subjectivism, it is the subjective view of a nihilist that no objective thruth exists.

Because it declares "there is no truth" absolutely, it's taken as a universal fact, not simply a thought-experiment or possibility/probability, but a definite reality -- it declares absolutely true that there is 'nothing but the relatively true'. This is how it eats itself, its based on a contradiction.
Even if you were all-knowing and all dimensions were in your vision and comprehension nihilism's claim would still be a failure because if its claim is universally true (that there is no absolute truth but only relative truths) then it has short-circuited itself by finding a universal, absolute truth. Get it? Maybe you don't realize the exception it makes for its own reductionism...oh well.

But anyway, the nihilist can't see every dimension, every concept, every possibility so the nihilist has no grounds to make such grandiose claims about reality and truth...
if you're trapped in your own subjectivity, then act like it, you have no grounds to talk about the objective.
let it be a region outside your vision.

No, I fully understand what you are saying and why you find it contradictory.
Part of the problem is that there exists no set in stone rules of what nihilism is. There is no nihilist manifesto. You say
>it declares "there is no truth" absolutely
I never considered it an absolute statement, nor did Nietzsche in my interpretation of his work.

A person believing in nihilism does not rise above subjectiveness. His belief that there is no absolute thruth is no less subjective than any other belief of anyone else. I think this is made clear, but apparently not. Declaring that statement to be an absolute truth would contradict the whole idea, which is why such a declaration isn't made. In fact the core principle of nihilism that all knowledge is subjective makes the exact opposite claim.

>In fact the core principle of nihilism that all knowledge is subjective makes the exact opposite claim.
>all knowledge is subjective
>all knowledge is subjective
>His belief that there is no absolute thruth is no less subjective than any other belief of anyone else.
>all knowledge is subjective
>I'm not making a universal claim ;)

Look, you're making a universal claim and you just admitted nihilism does this in the above quote. You can't negate this fact by saying "I only make it in a subjectivist sense ;)" or w/e you're trying to do.

Either you allow for the real possibility of objective/absolute truth in which case you wouldn't be nihilist, or you categorically deny the possibility of objective truth, in which case you get the problem I mentioned above already, which I think you agree is a problem, but you think you can avoid it somehow. But you can't. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't work.

>You can't negate this fact by saying "I only make it in a subjectivist sense ;)" or w/e you're trying to do.
Why not?
A claim can be universal and subjective simultaneously. It's not an absolute TRUTH just because it can be applied to anything. It's simply a universal claim. You are confusing "universal claim" with "universal truth".

>It's simply a universal claim. You are confusing "universal claim" with "universal truth".

Claims have a truth value.
If it turns out that reality is how nihilists claim it is, that all knowledge is "relative", then you just discovered an absolute/universal/unchanging truth about knowledge. If this is the case then nihilism is false. If nihilism's claim isn't actually true, then it's also false. Either way it is false.

>A claim can be universal and subjective simultaneously.

First of all, universal truth means its true from all reference frames. Subjective truth means its true relative to a subject.
Secondly, you can't talk about "all knowledge" since you do not possess all knowledge. Do you?

Don't call yourself a nihilist, call yourself a positivist. That way instead of invoking condescending smirks in other philosophers you invoke frothing rage.

Nothing feels as good as dismantling 4,000 years of philosophy with two words: "prove it."

>If it turns out that reality is how nihilists claim it is, that all knowledge is "relative", then you just discovered an absolute/universal/unchanging truth about knowledge. If this is the case then nihilism is false.
That is an interesting viewpoint, however I think it too is contradictory. All knowledge being relative could by virtue never be proven to be an absolute truth. Whether this disproves nihilism or whether it fits right into it is a matter of interpretation. You could turn the same reasoning around and say that since such proof can never be reached, nihilism can never be proven false with this logic.
>First of all, universal truth means its true from all reference frames. Subjective truth means its true relative to a subject.
>Claims have a truth value.
I know, but a claim being universal does not mean it's the truth. I can say all pigeons are white because I've only seen white pigeons and that is a universal claim about pigeons, but not true. A claim is just an assertion of what I consider to be true, which according to nihilism is always subjective. The claim being universal only affects the things are covered by the claim, not its truthfulness.
>Secondly, you can't talk about "all knowledge" since you do not possess all knowledge. Do you?
That is true. I'd say my subjective view is impacted by my environment in that I take lessons from the scientific method. My claim that universal thruths don't exist isn't an absolute truth itself, but rather the most likely theory I can come up with in my subjective mind.

>prove it

Aka "convince me"

Yeah, convince me why your moral pontificating is anything more than just your opinion in the way that being bashed over the head with a rock leading to death is significantly more than just an opinion.

'positivist' reduced to incoherent gibberish in one post.

>it is always the case that If X then Y and we can demonstrate this empirically because it is an integral part of the natural (only) world
>it is not always the case that if A then B and I couldn't demonstrate it even if it were but my """knowledge""" is just as valid as the above knowledge, just a different type!!! stop being mean to me!!!

who are you quoting? had a rough day?

Proof doesn't exist.
Reference to the object thus only serves to reinforce it.

>It makes no difference who can outwit the other in a moral debate if one has the power to physically imprison or enslave the other. Society is just a word for a group of people, again enforced by people with guns. You can choose not to believe in it all you want but that won't make the border guard let you in.

Except if I sneak across. Seriously, you are one of the dumbest people I have ever had the misfortune to speak to

>Nordic countries don't merely punish for retribution, but for rehabilitational purposes as much as possible.

Jesus Christ, has the UV exposure fried your brain? Of course this is how Nordic countries justify it; punishment is absolutely equivalent to rehabilitation in modern prison systems. It's just a matter of whether rehabilitation takes place through physical violence (artificial rape camps) or forced sequestration (hotel-prisons of Norway etc.)