There are people who, by their philosophical outlook, are nihilists. Some of these people are cheerful and happy, functioning individuals. Being a nihilist and being happy/functioning seems apriori mutually exclusive to me. What is it that makes those nihilists happy/functioning? How can those people maintain a nihilistic outlook, yet still be happy and functioning? Are they not thoroughly nihilistic? Does a person's philosophical outlook have no bearing on how happy or how functioning the person will be?
can one assert that difference is ontologically primary and be a monist? (i'm not entirely sure.) but i think you already know this: c'mon, is it even possible to be thoroughly (fill in the blank) ? likewise, even praxis/theory (or temperament and philosophical "outlook") cannot be neatly parsed; but neither are they one and the same.
To be clear, I am not sure what is at stake here (for me). But I do feel a kind of hypnosis/paralysis around people who profess to be nihilists (even if I just read their texts). I am not sure what does me in more: the nihilism itself, or the confidence with which they promote it. To me, even a what seems like a relatively small dose of nihilism seems debilitating. Just reading a text with nihilistic statements brings me down. Why could this be?
oddly, i find more "authentic" nihilistic tendencies in those who emphatically assert that they are not nihilists; whereas those who openly endorse nihilism (oxymoronic as that is) tend to be blind to their own hypocrisy and inconsistency. i can partially sympathize with you here: i'm somewhat... unsettled by the way, say, nietzsche "embraces" the nihilistic inclinations of his own cultural milieu or deleuze (and even chomsky perhaps, albeit in a very different fashion and for very different reasons) "embraces" that of advanced (consumerist) capitalism; although such can be regarded as a sort of alternative to revolution or insurrection. for me perhaps, it might simply be a matter of temperament--to assert that i have a volatile personality would be an understatement. and yet, i find myself comforted by the nihilistic qualities of certain apophatic tracts--be they buddhistic, (quasi)judaic (i.e. levinas or jabes), or even catholic--or post structuralist writings or manifestations of dada. of course, this may also very well have much to do with my temperament--my capacity to create is stronger than my capacity to critique. as deleuze remarked, the "goal" is to bring into existence and not to judge. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and here is the irony in nihilistic thinking/action: the negation of meaning or value is tantamount to desisting from judgment (for judgment entails valuation), and in this abeyance of judgment, value and meaning emerge. for most, i do not think this is readily apparent; rather it demands a dramatic shift in perspective--and this is accomplished through a radical and disciplined apophasis. in more concrete terms, the dark night of the soul is cathartic. well, maybe that's not very "concrete," but... edit: i realize i didn't address your query, "why could this be?," but i'm not really sure how to. on a somewhat related not, upon reflection i can distinguish two very distinct types of depressive states (for me)--and given my neurological problems, i experience extremes of "mood" (with both positive and negative psychosis) far too frequently. the first type is characterized by all the usual symptoms of depression; afterward i feel genuinely relieved and even "grateful," in a sense. the second type is characterized more by persistent and unabating suicidal ideation. i could never act upon this because i am literally paralyzed (catatonic) by all consuming, obsessive thinking. afterward, i do not feel relieved at all; rather, i'm thoroughly drained, pissed of, resentful ... so, what is to account for this difference?
I think this is another content/expressive act confusion, on their part, and then like a virus over to you. They like saying these things because of what it does.
some people are barely holding it together. whatever paperclips and duct tape they can desperately apply to their broken glasses, they grab after with great force. And who can blame them. You can see this as a kind of confession.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes. But then it is also a dynamic act - professions of nihilism. It is a relationship, with others, with themselves, with the universe. Or a tool. I think decisions made on points like this often boil down to 'there seem to be two options, and given the two....' I do not think enough time is given to actually see/feel if there are other options, even to allow for the yearning for them. If this space, interlude is nto allowed - because somehow it seems like one must choose and now - certain third ways do not come into the world - or minds of certain people. Nice. And horrible that someone who said this could be driven to suicide.
for me there is a perpetual battle between my nihilistic inclinations on one hand, and my tendencies towards hyper-religiosity--or excessive attribution of meaning to the point of absurdity--on the other. one of my favorite directors, jess franco, openly concedes that most of his films are simply awful and that he has never made a decent film; and yet, he is perhaps the most prolific film director of all time--at present, he has produced over 180 films. and one must take into account whether the professor's nihilism is epistemological or ontological in nature. it's difficult to say whether this be a product of necessity, of economy, or even of style; and yet--discounting the latter most option--i find it ultimately unsatisfactory. still, i "allow" it as all too human and am hardly one to judge--don't know if this analogy works, but i'll give it a shot anyways: one of the multitude of reasons i cite for not driving an automobile is that i simply do not like to stop. as a bicyclist, i treat stop signs and lights as "yields," and given that i sometimes must yield, i nevertheless "move in place." funny. i hadn't even thought about that when i wrote the bit about suicidal ideation. but when considering nihilistic attributes--from apophasis to dadaism--and suicide broadly, i.e., "suicide," there's quite a correlation: from arthur rimbaud to nico* to mark rothko. * nico carried about a copy of "beyond good and evil" for many years, dedicated songs to folks as "varied" as richard nixon and andreas baader, and devoted the latter part of her life to annihilating whatever "beautiful" qualities others were to find in her.
Nihilism isn't a condition, nor is it a fixed temperament that one adheres to religiously. And I'm sure Nietzsche never proposed it as a constant but rather as a derived but transient quality that leads to either renewal of self—the new dawn—or atrophy of self.
Signal, Of particular concern here is your omission of definition. This makes it difficult to respond appropriately. From what you've written, it seems to me that you're interpreting nihilism in a significantly different sense than that which is ordinarily used. Ordinary usage of "nihilism" means a state of belief characterized by a refusal to positively assert anything definitively. Given that, parmalee's comment: is right on the mark. There's nothing excluding the nihilist from being happy. What's more, this of course leaves open the murky waters of supplying a definition for "happy", and other such aesthetic terms...
And such a definition of nihilism fits with my line of reasoning about nihilism and happiness. You will have to explain this a bit more, please. Because it points at what I am trying to get at. Note that I have also said functioning (in everyday life, like going to work). I agree that there is some lack of definitions here in this thread, but I see this lack as part of the topic, as I am trying to find what it is that makes a nihilistic outlook, happiness and everyday functioning fit together; and also why they fit togther for some people and not for others.
Because there is pressure that they should. For example, some poeple become atheists because of the incessant pressure from atheists accusing those with some religious or spiritual inclination to be "irrational", "crazy", "merely subjective", "sentimental". People generally do not wish to be thought of as "irrational" etc., so they act in such a manner that they avoid getting that label (wherby it seems to matter very little what "irrational" etc. actually mean).
Can someone who doesn't assert to be a nihilist, still be considered a nihilist? Well, yes - which is what I find so bizarre about self-professed nihilists. Yes ... How do they live with that?
That's the troubling thing. There are many different ideas of what nihilism is. In most senses, I'm not a nihilist, because for one thing, I do not reject all moral theories. But on the other hand, I'm pretty sure there is no objective purpose to existence. I used to think nothing is inherently valuable, but I've been coming to think that consciousness, and specifically pain and pleasure, give our lives real value. I know I feel pain and pleasure and I think it's logical to assume that so do others. Pain and pleasure are real. When you are pricked with a needle, the brain turns that spike train into something real. I don't know how it does it, but it doesn't matter, because I am feeling it, and because there's probably nothing special about me, it's likely that you are too. How do I cope with being a "sort of" nihilist? Well, it took a lot of time. But the main way I cope with it and achieved happiness is by taking good care of my body. Exercise a lot, eat well, maintain relationships, sleep eight hours per day. Happiness is a state of mind, which you can self-induce by knowing how the brain works and by applying that knowledge in a disciplined way. Once you take care of the body, you're almost automatically happy. I know that nothing really matters, so I don't let things really bother me. I am in control (kind of) of how I react to things. That's not to say I don't have ups and downs, but deep inside, I've developed a peace, that's kind of always just there. I still participate in life, but from a more detached observing way. It's kind of nice.
Oooh. An interesting thread. Spider, a man doesn't "adopt" a philosophy and retain any semblance of honesty. One, rather, comes to accept it. As somebody else mentioned, as well - there are many different definitions or forms of nihilism. For some, it invokes feelings of despair and meaninglessness; for others, not quite so much. There is a school of thought which assumes that without faith in one god or another, one is a automatically conferred the qualities of a nihilist, perhaps without any real knowledge of the fact. I think this is something I'll need to deal with sober. Hopefully the thread won't be completely dead by the time I achieve that.
Nihilists Unusually bad post Doreen. It's poorly thought out rubbish I think if you re-read it, and the posts that led to it, you will agree. Possibly you are just trying to wind people up. I do that a lot, and people expect it. If I had written it, it would be fine, but people expect you to say exactly what you mean.
I disagree, no one adopts a particular worldview unless they really want to. I suspect nihilism comes with a great sense of freedom.
I think that would be on the cynical end of the spectrum of interpretations and one I have sometimes. I am suggesting that you (and I) are taking their assertions as content focused assertions about reality, when in fact they may be saying things expressively and also because of what saying these things does for them. I had a friend who was not a nihilist, but she did say often 'this is my favority thing'. When five minutes before it had been something else. I did not take her literally. This is a very simple, not complicated example, whereas the nihilist is doing something more complicated. In addition to the not literalness there is this added dynamic. What they gain from saying what they are saying AS IF it was literal and the likely fact that they believe themselves, at least sometimes, that they are making literal content based assertions about reality. I am guessing that both you and I can sympathize with what they may be trying to DO by saying some of these things - and the feelings surrounding them - if not at the same time deciding to seriously consider taking up their assertions as new beliefs.
Yes, I have some of this split also. Yes, or as I have been putting it, what he is doing when he asserts this. What is the assertions function. I think some people are more comfortable saying things that represent where they are in a given moment, rather than repeating their official position in all instants. They do not necessarily even come up with an official position. So the complexity of their experiences and impressions is reflected by what appears to be hypocrity or sloppiness over time. absolutely...it is all too human. And always leaving open for a third option or more options may not be a good guiding principle either. I do know I can get irritated with people who have decided there are two choices, where I think there are more and I see them contributing to the very problems they seem to be trying to fix. But, again, human this is. I found Deleuze very inspiring, but he did not provide, for me, a base to work from. It often felt like he ended up focussing to much on the ideas on the page without grounding them in himself. IOW there was something inhuman about what he was suggesting. I doubt he would have taken that as a criticism either. I am not sure humans can do without a certain warm core to a philosophy, even if this seems sentimental, metaphysical, religious, sappy, weak or whatever the philosopher in question may find reprehensible. And however trite that sounds sad to me. Like a kind of partly harsh aesthetics becoming a mode of life, with a similar I have as my concern about a warm core expressed above.
