How do we define existential nihilism?
Almost a decade back, I had a crucial moment in my life where I drew a lot of conclusions about what it is I believe in and why, and what I found was the definition of existential nihilism.
So help me define myself. What I've noticed, spending a lot of time in the middle of the political road and on divisive issues in general, is that value is subjective. Not that a position cannot be argued better than another, but rather, the suffering of one can always be looked at as the benefit of another, even if one or the other is in the minority. That, from the observation of an invader, the conquest of the local population is a great thing, and from the standpoint of the conquered, a terrible thing. Or, from a more neutral standpoint, that people can still be "meh" about the movie Avatar, even though it was a whopping success. Or that a $200 expense is practically nothing to the rich, yet immense to the poor. These values are, apparently, subjective.
Also, that life is not inherently meaningful. That's not to say that it cannot have meaning, which is what I love about what I think is the openness of the definition of nihilism. It just means that there's not a large man in the sky determining your true worth. Instead, you have the ability to find value for yourself in life, and do not need it dictated to you if you don't wish it so.
My problem lies in this: all of the definitions I find online impart an emotional burden upon nihilism that the nihilists themselves would reject, i.e, that without a predefined meaning, life is depressing and dark.
Buuuuut....the perspective of it being depressing and dark is itself subjective, and would therefore be useless when attempting to define nihilism, sort of like telling an atheist they worship the devil and you'll pray for them.
As you can probably tell, I place great value (subjectively!) on being able to choose my own path in life, and take great solace not fearing a pair of eyes on me at all time, judging me for not living someone else's life. Thus, I find nihilism to be overwhelmingly positive and freeing.
I do not believe that "nothing can be known or communicated", or that
"All existence itself -- actions, suffering, feelings -- is senseless, nothingness." To be frank, that strikes me as ridiculous, and I'm not sure how existence can simply be declared as "nothingness" simply by not having inherent value. Obviously, I exist to myself. As I write this, I am communicating my standpoint to you. At this point, I start to wonder if the true meaning of the definition was lost, and is now butchered by feelsy idealists.
So am I not a nihilist? Can someone more well-read than I help me out with this?
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.yep you're not a nihilist. does the label matter? there might not be an existing label for your beliefs. does that negate them? i think not. by the way, "feelsy idealists" are not who butchered the meaning of nihilism, if indeed it was butchered. maybe it wasn't butchered but you just found out it didn't fit you.
g
p.s. only you can define yourself. it is dangerous to let others define you. what you want help with is labeling yourself, not defining yourself.
genessa
Level 8
Dec 18, 2018
0
Someone said something similar, except on certain points. You're right, maybe it wasn't butchered by feelsy idealists, which is why i left myself open to that possibility.
As for your p.s. statement, only people with high emotional intelligence can accurately define themselves. Most people typically lie to themselves so they can feel good, and some go the other way and convince themselves that they're incapable of being loved, etc. Since most people do not try to rein in their emotions or be self-aware, they're bad at forming constructive conclusions about themselves.
Yes, the label is important. I'd like to do more research, and entering the entire definition into a Google search, for example, is not turning up anything relevant. I was hoping maybe joining agnostic.com and asking people on here might also be useful, but I won't deny I'm worried people are going to get judgy on me.
@Cuberon_Blocket well, on the one hand it could be considered judgy to disagree with you on anything, and on the other hand, if you find that judgy you could always just buy a mirror. there is no harm in asking, but on the other hand, when you ask, you have to expect answers that you didn't expect lol. as for most people typically lying to themselves about what they believe (in order to accurately define themselves) -- seriously? that is a pretty big (and judgy) statement to make without (i assume) your having conducted a study of the subject. and not to be judgy, but it's rein, not reign.
g
@genessa I'm not sure what you're going for with any of your responses. I'm not looking for you to be clever or edgy, I'm asking for help. It's not judgy to disagree with someone. That seemed like a very indignant response. I'm asking for intellectual insight; it doesn't mean everything you say is equal to what everyone else has to say, so yes, you and I are allowed to disagree with one another, and what you or I say can be wrong.
@genessa By the way, I'm not suggesting that I'M never emotional. Just that it's important to recognize it. Some of the things you're saying definitely come off as aggressive. So I'm just going to offer up that if you feel that way about my original post, please let me know. You put "feelsy idealists" in quotes, but I figured in the context of the post, I wouldn't have to extrapolate. I'm not looking to verbally duke it out with you, I was genuinely looking for a reponse more like Dietl's, below, from people who are very familiar with the terminology.
@Cuberon_Blocket i appreciate that, but i have spoken honestly and from the heart. if that comes off as aggressive, so be it; it is what it is. people interpret as they will, but i am not trying to be edgy or trying to BE anything, in fact. all i am doing is reacting honestly to your post, and to your subsequent comments.
g
Nihilism is a word that has many different uses. Concerning morality there is moral nihilism, which means that there are no moral rights and wrongs even on an individual level. It seems to me that you are more of a moral relativist but it is only a tiny distinction. I would check out different moral categories like moral cognitivism/noncognitivism and the distinction between descriptive ethics, normative ethics and meta-ethics.
Existential nihilism is about values in general not only morality and the outlook of human existence in the world. You can check out existentialism to see which philosopher shares your views. You're right that it is often considered to be bleak but mostly from the outside I would say.
There are many more forms of nihilism some of which are nonsense in my view like metaphysical nihilism which say there might be no things at all. Also there is political nihilism, epistemological nihilism and so on. If you read Dostoyevsky you will also come across nihilism by which he means a specific political movement in Russia at his time.
You see, it's a bit complicated. I would definitely consider myself a nihilist of some form but not of others. When someone brings up nihilism I always want to make sure what exactly they mean. Very often they confuse it with some form of relativism, so read carefully.
Dietl
Level 7
Dec 18, 2018
1
That is exceptionally helpful! Thanks!
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.