I am largely ignorant of what, exactly, nihilism entails, although I have a basic and naive conception.
1. Political Nihilism: The rejection of the legitimacy of political order. I am a bit unclear on whether this differs from anarchism, which aims to create a political order that is entirely voluntary and uncoerced. I would imagine, though, that anarchists and nihilists would agree on the vast majority of political issues.
2. Moral Nihilism -- The rejection of the viability of moral meanings. On these terms, nihilism is amoral, not immoral. What would the relation between moral nihilism and moral relativism be?
3. Metaphysical or Epistemic Nihilism -- The rejection of all meaning...on these terms, epistemology is impossible and all knowledge-structures are capricious...whatever IS cannot be known. This sounds a lot to me like the post-modernist critique to me, but I could be mistaken. I'm also wondering where someone would go with this sort of philosophy.

Input from Scratch or others would be appreciated, as would suggested readings.

ebola

I hate nihilism! All I want to do is DESTROY it!!

:grr:

The Rev

I think he's asking some excellent questions. I wish I could answer them....

looks on with layed back unrest, ahem, I mean interest.... :yes:

eta: indeed Mr Frog......"Excellent" is quite what one comes to expect of ebola.

3. Metaphysical or Epistemic Nihilism -- The rejection of all meaning...on these terms, epistemology is impossible and all knowledge-structures are capricious...whatever IS cannot be known. This sounds a lot to me like the post-modernist critique to me, but I could be mistaken. I'm also wondering where someone would go with this sort of philosophy.

(Poststructuralist) Postmodernist critique - in my understanding - only postulates that language is non-referential (meaning is a linguistic construct) and that any concept which introduces stability or which is otherwise seen as impeding the state of constant change is to be labeled 'metaphysical' and hence, suspect. That is only meanings representent as being stable are suspect. The aforementioned state of constant flux is deemed desireable because of the horrible things meanings represented as stable have brought mankind in the twentieth century. Hence, postmodernism has an ethical component/imperative.

This is a Derridean thing, I think.

What would the relation between moral nihilism and moral relativism be?For one, the latter often involves only a limited scope of application of moral values instead of a rejection of them.

Ve beleef in NUZZIN Lebowski!

>>I hate nihilism! All I want to do is DESTROY it!!>>

LOL. I do wanna get away, however, from the stereotype of nihilists as physically destructive or sociopathic.

>>I think he's asking some excellent questions. I wish I could answer them....

eta: indeed Mr Frog......"Excellent" is quite what one comes to expect of ebola.>>

Thanks. :o ...I'm just glad this is of interest.

>>(Poststructuralist) Postmodernist critique - in my understanding - only postulates that language is non-referential (meaning is a linguistic construct) and that any concept which introduces stability or which is otherwise seen as impeding the state of constant change is to be labeled 'metaphysical' and hence, suspect. That is only meanings representent as being stable are suspect. The aforementioned state of constant flux is deemed desireable because of the horrible things meanings represented as stable have brought mankind in the twentieth century. Hence, postmodernism has an ethical component/imperative.

This is a Derridean thing, I think.>>

Interesting. So this would indicate that I was really taking too hard a reading of the post-structuralists. Also, it would seem (although I'm relatively naive here) that they are running into the territory of the American pragmatists (James, Dewey, etc.)...

>>For one, the latter often involves only a limited scope of application of moral values instead of a rejection of them.>>

What is the scope of moral relativism? Under what circumstances could a moral relativist make a moral claim? It really doesn't help clear things up that "moral relativism" is more often used as slander to declare others immoral than it is adopted by people as a lable for themselves.

>>Ve beleef in NUZZIN Lebowski!>>

"Say what you want about the tenents of National Socialism...at least it's an ethos."

ebola
np: meshuggah

Catch.

http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html

ETA: The rest of the site could help, too.

I thought it was a rancid song

Maybe it is.

My guess would be that a political nihilist would place no faith in the ability of any political system to solve or prevent a majority of humanity's social problems...i.e. that every political system is comparably error-prone, only the specific nature of the errors to which they are prone would differ. In other words, no one political system would be any better or worse than any other in the long run, all things considered. Since anarchism could be considered a political system in a broad sense (in the same way that agnosticism could be considered a religion), political nihilists would feel that anarchism would have just as many flaws and weaknesses as a bona-fide political scheme.

I'm not very well-read in this area, but this is my guess.

only postulates that language is non-referential (meaning is a linguistic construct)
I'm not sure I follow you here...I guess you mean that language refers to transient objects in a concrete, static way...but how could language be a construct of language? Or do you mean the way we refer to things is a product of language's inherently limited structure?

What is the scope of moral relativism? Under what circumstances could a moral relativist make a moral claim?
I don't know which you mean, the scope of how many moral claims are relativized, or (what I meant) what they are relative to.

As for the former, one possible characteristic and maybe a basis of criticism is that the value of tolerance is not relativized but is held universal (but this might apply mainly to non-academic relativism). As for the latter, answering that question is indeed seen as a problem - is there any non-arbitrary way of demarcating what the values are relative to (Western culture or a small subculture or maybe just the mere individual).

ETA What I'm talking about here appears to be some sort of normative relativism - which might be misleading.

<<is not smart enough to engage in this conversation.

<<closes the door quietly when she leaves.

{---listens through window to discover what made freshtart leave so quickly....

{----desides too many brains have been sucked out through the vortex of motherhood to even consider engaging in such a conversation...much less having anything valid to say. Except this...Mothers don't make good nihilists....they also make terrible moral relativists. :no:

{---accidentally breaks a stick while trying to walk away from open window as quietly as possible.

3. Metaphysical or Epistemic Nihilism -- The rejection of all meaning...on these terms, epistemology is impossible and all knowledge-structures are capricious...whatever IS cannot be known.

This sounds correct, so why bother discussing it? ;)

j/k

>>Catch
...
"Political nihilism especially is a world-view that's rational, logical, empirical, scientific and devoid of pointless, extraneous emotion. It's the logical psyche that distills everything down into what is known, what can be known and what can't be known. It's the realization that all values are ultimately relativistic and in some ways the simplicity of nihilism is its own complexity.">>

If Nihilism entails that one shed all that is taken on faith, how can nihilism embrace the rational (or in turn the scientific)? How does nihilism embrace (on its own grounds) the presupposition needed to get any sort of investigation off the ground?

Conversely, why is emotion discarded? Does it not have a sort of immediacy for us that does not rely on faith?

>>"Anarchists are idealists, they believe in subjective concepts such as peace, justice, and especially the ultimately noble nature of the individual (at least under the proper social conditions). The nihilist reality is devoid of such foolishness. The nihilist realizes that history is often abused and misconstrued through the formation of artificial lines and erroneous connections between disparate events only to substantiate preconceived interpretations of reality, the classic teleological myth.">>

hmmmm...I don't think this sort of view is ubiquitous among anarchists, but it is rather common. I think this sheds some light on one of my original questions in a direct way.

>>"It's about accepting what is and working within that framework to generate a lifestyle of efficacy and natural perspective. ">>

But efficacy towards what?? This sounds to me like the reintroduction of the telos against which this writer argued in the prior sections.

>>As for the latter, answering that question is indeed seen as a problem - is there any non-arbitrary way of demarcating what the values are relative to (Western culture or a small subculture or maybe just the mere individual).>>

Yeah, I think this is more of the problem I was getting at. It is very rare indeed that I see someone making no moral claims whatsoever, shedding the "should" entirely...so there still seems to remain some criterion by which criticism may occur for the relativist...what is it?

>>is not smart enough to engage in this conversation.
...
desides too many brains have been sucked out through the vortex of motherhood to even consider engaging in such a conversation...>>

Heh...I doubt it. I think this points more to a failure of jargon in communication.

>>This sounds correct, so why bother discussing it?>>

Case closed then. :)

ebola

If Nihilism entails that one shed all that is taken on faith, how can nihilism embrace the rational (or in turn the scientific)? How does nihilism embrace (on its own grounds) the presupposition needed to get any sort of investigation off the ground?

I presume that it's because taking something on faith implies that you have faith in what someone presents you with, not what you discover yourself. How many people do you suppose would be religious now if they had to discover it for themselves?

"The individual, tired of oppression, rose in all his pride and power, breaking the chains of ancient tradition, and recognizing no other guidance but his individual mind. Such were the true nihilists, the destroyers, who did not trouble themselves about what was to be built after them. They did not exactly deny everything, for they believed firmly, fanatically, in science and in the power of the individual mind. But they thought nothing else worth the slightest respect, and they attacked and sneered at family, religion, art, and social institutions, with all the more vehemence the higher they were held in the opinion of their countrymen."

Conversely, why is emotion discarded? Does it not have a sort of immediacy for us that does not rely on faith?

Not all emotion is pointless and extraneous. Or at least I don't think so.

But efficacy towards what?? This sounds to me like the reintroduction of the telos against which this writer argued in the prior sections.

Whatever you choose, I imagine.

But they thought nothing else worth the slightest respect, and they attacked and sneered at family, religion, art, and social institutions, with all the more vehemence the higher they were held in the opinion of their countrymen.

OK, religion and some social institutions make sense in a way, but why family and art? I don't see the harm in these, so why "sneer" at them.

recognizing no other guidance but his individual mind

Do you believe in learning from the point of view of others? For example, recently I have been talking with a small group about starting a business together. We came to a major decission. A friend of mine that I respect gave me his opinion on what to do, but indicated he didn't have facts (just experience/instinct). Would you have listened to that opinion, given there was some limited evidence pointing in the other direction?

If Nihilism entails that one shed all that is taken on faith, how can nihilism embrace the rational (or in turn the scientific)? How does nihilism embrace (on its own grounds) the presupposition needed to get any sort of investigation off the ground?

:yes: I thought the same thing.

OK, religion and some social institutions make sense in a way, but why family and art? I don't see the harm in these, so why "sneer" at them.

I do tend to find that both are usually related to their respective society, so that may have had something to do with it.

Do you believe in learning from the point of view of others? For example, recently I have been talking with a small group about starting a business together. We came to a major decission. A friend of mine that I respect gave me his opinion on what to do, but indicated he didn't have facts (just experience/instinct). Would you have listened to that opinion, given there was some limited evidence pointing in the other direction?

When you say 'listening' do you mean considering his idea or obeying it? Nihilism isn't about ignoring what other people say just because you're guided by your own mind. Learning in order to make a better decision is a good thing, and it's still your decision . . .

OK, religion and some social institutions make sense in a way, but why family and art? I don't see the harm in these, so why "sneer" at them.
Are they not, from the standpoint of the individual, external forces (apart from e.g. the fact that family partly constitutes an individual's identity) that often actively try to push various values? And of course, there is an ideology attached to both of them: for example, the art-world is laden with values relating to the purpose of art ("to improve our understanding of the world"), authority of "experts", the separation of "high" and popular art, etc.

But if that's the case, then why the acceptance of science?

"They did not exactly deny everything, for they believed firmly, fanatically, in science and in the power of the individual mind. But they thought nothing else worth the slightest respect, and they attacked and sneered at family, religion, art, and social institutions, with all the more vehemence the higher they were held in the opinion of their countrymen."

Nobody is born understanding the scientific method and the logical principles of deduction/induction, let alone whether those principles are to be regarded as infallible. These are ideas that came to be gradually through centuries of cultural development. And even if one could have an "innate" scientific method, nobody in their lifetime would ever be able to amass enough scientific knowledge through experience to make much of a difference with anything. If what Scratch posted is a description of nihilism, then I guess I know even less about nihilism than I thought.

But if that's the case, then why the acceptance of science?Yes, that would make little sense.

Which might have something to do with the fact that if you read the Wikipedia definition of Nihilism, it says nothing about any belief in science or materialism and says that Nihilism denies there being any "comprehensible truth" in the world.

I do tend to find that both are usually related to their respective society, so that may have had something to do with it.

... fair enough

When you say 'listening' do you mean considering his idea or obeying it? Nihilism isn't about ignoring what other people say just because you're guided by your own mind. Learning in order to make a better decision is a good thing, and it's still your decision . . .

I mean giving it respect beyond the evidence provided. I definitely don't obey him, but I value his statement at face value more than someone else who has a moderately convincing argument. So, I would say the question is about trust. Does Nihilism acknowledge value in trust, or should you question everything even if someone has "never let you down".

Well, it looks like there are some burning debates within nihilism....this is likely a good thing...