almost certainly, yes. There's a reason why the question most associated with philosophy is "what's the meaning of life?" It's also the reason why so many religious people are (perhaps rightly) scared to let go of their pre-packaged meanings.

Moreover it is interesting that there are people that don't mind not knowing the meaning of life, some that constantly crave knowing and those that believe they already do with such determination they're willing to die to uphold their belief.

I do wonder what it is that divides them, fundamentally.

there's probably a few different types of people who don't even bother thinking about it, and here's two such groups:

1. People having such a good time in their life that the question hasn't had any need to arise, or 2. they're finding it quite natural to engage themselves in projects they find meaningful without even trying

There are two types of people; those who think people are always one type or another, and the rest of us. :wink:

In contradiction to the thesis of the op, I present the witness, Kurt Vonnegut.

And I’ve had a hell of a good time. I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you any different.

https://richardswsmith.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/we-are-here-on-earth-to-fart-around-and-dont-let-anybody-tell-you-any-different/

But on reflection, he's not a moral nihilist at all, but an anti-authoritarian.

There are two types of people; those who think people are always one type or another, and the rest of us. :wink: — unenlightened

I didn't say there are two types of people. I think you read too hastily perhaps.

I didn't say there are two types of people — flannel jesus

No, I said it, but i was only joking. Sorry if I offended. But in general, I think it is an always a mistake to psychologise philosophies and philosophers, and particularly so in the case of terms of mental health diagnostics. Nihilism can be a joyous liberation just as well as an oppressive vacuous prison.

is that what you think I was doing? Do you think I said something incorrect?

Psychologism is unwarranted. There are plenty of non-depressed, even happy, nihilists pessimists cynics & fatalists. Besides, if "nothing matters", then that statement also doesn't matter (just as "all is meaningless" is meaningless too).

When I think depression ...I think "what's the point?" or "I have no self worth". For me the philosophical school of thought and the state of mind are very much overlapped. — Benj96

I worked for many years closely with people practicing in the Catholic Church. If you want an example of depressives, try there. Of all the folk I've known, these were amongst the most miserable I've ever seen.

When I think Nihilism ...I think "nothing matters" or "everything is meaningless". — Benj96

I think it you already tend to look at life negatively, this might be your conclusion. For me, as a nihilist, I find the idea that there is no transcendent meaning rather joyous and exciting and one full of possibilities. I am unencumbered by dogma and doctrine and need not concern myself with following any preordained path.

For me, as a nihilist, I find the idea that there is no transcendent meaning rather joyous and exciting and one full of possibilities. I am unencumbered by dogma and doctrine and need not concern myself with following any preordained path. — Tom Storm

:cool: :up:

I am unencumbered by dogma — Tom Storm

isn't the reflexive association of 'dogma' with 'transcendence' itself a kind of dogma, or at least a stereotype?

I think nihilism is endemic in today's culture. It doesn't necessarily manifest in dramatic ways, it might just be a shrug, a whatever, a 'makes no difference'. It might manifest as anomie or ennui or in other ways, but it's an afflictive state, as it saps the sense of relatedness to the Cosmos and any real sense that actions are meaningful.

isn't the reflexive association of 'dogma' with 'transcendence' itself a kind of dogma, or at least a stereotype? — Wayfarer

Could be. But that wasn't my intended point. The idea of being free of dogma and doctrine was a separate point and benefit of nihilism - from my perspective.

It doesn't necessarily manifest in dramatic ways, it might just be a shrug, a whatever, a 'makes no difference'. I — Wayfarer

I can see this argument but I would probably call this apathy which isn't necessarily the byproduct of nihilism, given how many apathetic Christians and Hindus I have known through work.

Solipsism is intellectually interesting, but as Borges pointed out, it admits of no reply but produces no conviction (echoing Hume's remarks on Berkeley.)

Nevertheless, I do think there is a connection between nihilism and depression and nihilism and anti-natalism too. The latter group especially are adamant that personal psychology has no bearing on the truth of the argument. Literally true, but misleading. If a person has a (decently) happy life, feels fulfilled and engaged, then that person would rather have life than not have it, if everyone had this view, who would think to come up with these "negative" argument in the first place?

This applies to nihilism too, while psychological states do not tell us if an argument is right or wrong, it does tell us about the motivation for such an argument. If one has not felt profound moments of meaninglessness for long stretches of time, or if one has not felt that life is just one damn sludge of pain, boredom and suffering, then who could imagine framing this argument?

It wouldn't occur to anybody to say these things. Still, I do think nihilism is more merits more respect than anti-natalism, because I do believe that most people have felt periods of meaninglessness, without going all the way to claiming that the whole of life is meaningless.

Still, I do think nihilism is more merits more respect than anti-natalism, because I do believe that most people have felt periods of meaninglessness, without going all the way to claiming that the whole of life is meaningless. — Manuel

Yes. I often think it's useful to differentiate the idea of 'feeling meaninglessness' from the phenomenon of believing there is no transcendent meaning (nihilism). The latter doesn't necessitate the former.

I know what depression feels like. How do nihilists feel? Are there happy, productive nihilists who bounce out of bed in the morning, glad to be alive, despite the absence of meaning?

Are there happy, productive nihilists who bounce out of bed in the morning, glad to be alive, despite the absence of meaning? — BC

it's useful to differentiate the idea of 'feeling meaninglessness' from the phenomenon of believing there is no transcendent meaning (nihilism). The latter doesn't necessitate the former. — Tom Storm

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning. Perhaps it's because I've had practice? I've been a nihilist for close to 50 years. Of course, as meaning making creatures, we can't help but find or make meaning wherever we go. Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits.

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning — Tom Storm

So joy is not meaningful? :chin:

It’s not intrinsically meaningful.

But it is intrinsically qualitative. If it were really nothing then it would not be experienced as joy. So, no, I don't think you qualify ;-)

I take nihilism to be a lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose - a lack of transcendent meaning. I will concede however that people view nihilism variously.

Surely this has no bearing upon what I love and enjoy or whether it’s worth getting up in the morning?

There's a difference between Meaning and meaning if you catch my drift. My joy matters to me and some of the folk I know, but it matters not a jot to the universe. It is of no importance.

Surely this has no bearing upon what I love and enjoy or whether it’s worth getting up in the morning? — Tom Storm

I take nihilism to imply apathy and ennui. You may not have an articulated 'philosophy of meaning' but the fact you find your life meaningful would indicate to me that you’re not nihilist in the sense I understand it. But they're obviously difficult subjects to gauge.

This is territory you understand very well. Maybe you can help me tweak my position here. Camus insists on seeing Sisyphus happy. Is this something approaching my position? Am I, perhaps, an absurdist too?

Well, I suppose that's why I didn't bold "nihilist" in your quote. Free of "transcendence", like me you're more of an absurdist or Spinozist, Nietzschean or freethinker, Epicurean or Pyrrhonian. :smirk:

:up:

Yeah, I think so. My feeling is that we are by default Meaning Giving creatures, it's just what we do, we find it everywhere. So, to go on to say that such a thing is completely absent goes against our nature, in some respects.



At least a Pyrrhonian can be a big nuisance to other philosophers, which is always fun. :cool:

I've encountered different senses of 'nihilism'. It's a while since I read Nietzsche, but I seem to recall that he classed Christianity and other beliefs in transcendent meaning given "from above" as (at least) potentially nihilistic because such authoritarian systems annihilate the possibility of the individual human creation of meaning. The human creation of meaning is always individual because we, like all organisms are each unique.

Life is replete with meaning for all creatures, because all creatures have their own concerns, but there is no single overarching meaning, and any attempt to pursue such a chimera would seem to be potentially nihilistic. Think of Buddhism and its universalized notion that all life is suffering and is something to be escaped rather than embraced.

This is not to say that religions always make people miserable, though. Some people prefer to have their meanings spoon-fed to them and might be miserable without that assistance. I think it is also true that some find their creativity within religious systems. The essence of nihilism is to universalize and tar everyone with the same brush.

perhaps other philosophies reflect other mindstates? — Benj96

While I'm not prepared to complete such an exercise, it would be interesting if philosophies are "reactive" formations (in the psychoanalytic tradition).

An ideological anarchist is a psychological submissive (wishing to break free);
Deontologist / Morally loose
Existentialist / Emotionally hopeless
and so on,

but...meh. I don't think such a hypothesis can be supported. And yet, to me, your question above is almost inevitably answered in the affirmative. Whether "consciously" or "unconsciously" how can a mindstate not leach into an ideology or (at least a precriptive) philosophy? Just as current culture, a philosopher's locus in History, cannot but influence her constructions/projections into that same History.

Is it not fair to suggest that any given "philosophy" is necessarily constructed using the "words" floating around in the philosopher's individual Mind applied to and combined with the words input from others' minds. What else is there?

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning. — Tom Storm

Perhaps 'nihilism' [the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence; the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order] is a contradiction in terms.

To declare that life is meaningless is to take a position on the meaning of life. It's unavoidable. A very generously defined "normal person" can not exist without some sort of self-guidance that will amount to a moral system; he can not exist without some sort of 'meaning' developing.

Perhaps the Russian-style nihilist is possible: "I do not approve of the established social order." There is a lot for even non-nihilists to disapprove of.

Maybe you mean, "There is no external source of meaning in the world." No imagined deity, no disembodied mind, no cosmic force provides meaning. Human minds are the sole source of meaning".

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. I used to associate with a particular group of socialists who were something like the Russian nihilists. They had reached the point where they approved of NOTHING in capitalist society. They were not good socialists, they were bitter old men.

A problem with the term nihilist is that it is absolute and without nuance. It's like "anarchist" in that way -- when used by adolescents it has an extreme, unmodified meaning.

Whether nihilism is a good term or not, carry on with your program of joy.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. I used to associate with a particular group of socialists who were something like the Russian nihilists. They had reached the point where they approved of NOTHING in capitalist society. They were not good socialists, they were bitter old men.

A problem with the term nihilist is that it is absolute and without nuance. It's like "anarchist" in that way -- when used by adolescents it has an extreme, unmodified meaning.

Whether nihilism is a good term or not, carry on with your program of joy. — BC

You raise some good points. I don't want to create the impression that I live in a Panglossian or Disneyesque place of happiness and tap dancing. But most days have some joy in them.

Bitterness, as you describe it so well, is something which corrodes many peoples lives.

From Wiki:

Nihilism (pronounced: /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) refers to sets of beliefs which negate one or more apparently meaningful aspects of Reality. Some are forms of existential nihilism, which argue that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

I think what bugs me most about people's reaction to nihilism (at least as I have understood it) is this idea - 'If you think there no inherent meaning to life then you must be marooned in meaninglessness." This echoes the OP wherein depression and nihilism were connected.

Sure, many depressed people appear nihilistic in the common usage of the word. But more accurately they are likely to be experiencing anhedonia.

I consider myself a nihilist, if by this expression we believe that there is no meaning to human life and no transcendent meaning to reality (whatever that is). I can't be certain, but I recall that this is the conclusion I came to as a boy. It just seemed to fit my sense making process and was not the product of any trauma. Perhaps this makes me an antifoundationalist.

But as a romantic and perhaps an absurdist, a la Camus, I find that meaning is something we make as individuals and as families, or friends or communities. We can't help ourselves. All any of us have is the exercise of personal preferences, which creates our worlds. Even the religious can't escape this process. Their understanding of god's will is also the exercise of individual preferences and interpretations of what they think god is and wants.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. — BC

Yes, it sounds like Monty Python by way of Nietzsche. The Joyous Nihilist.

I think nihilism is endemic in today's culture...

It's also held as a dogmatic position itself, which you point out. In existentialism, it's generally held out as freeing people from a "tyranny of ideas," but it is itself something that be dogmatically enforced. E.g. the largest controversy ongoing in biology seems to largely center around concerns that "teleology" or something like it, cannot be allowed to gain a foothold — and telology is considered a non-starter for largely philosophical reasons.

I would say a blend of existentialism and scientism is the dominant religion of the academy today, and it certainly tries to defend itself in the same way the Church tried to defend Aristotlean metaphysics during the early modern period. They might not be putting people on trial, but people were certainly threatened with having their careers ruined for dabbling in quantum foundations through the 1990s, largely because such work challenged the dominant "anti-metaphysical" paradigm, which was considered to be "anti-scientific."

Positivist definitions of objectivity and in-itselfness are held out as the gold standard of existence, of thing's being not "mere illusion." But then evidence that this definition of objectivity is broken is rolled out as somehow being definitive on questions of meaning, rather than simply showing that the definition is flawed.

But the view that "freedom from ideas" itself enhances freedom assumes a lot. In general, we don't think of people blundering around through ignorance as a model of freedom. Yet, if knowledge of "what the world is," actually enhances our freedom, rather than limiting it, (and the huge number of things we are "free to do" thanks to the development of arts and sciences suggests this is the case) then Derrida and Foucault's idea that avoiding ontology is a way to become "freer" is simply misguided. Likewise, if in an important sense it is true that we "discover" ontology and metaphysical truths more than we "create" them, then Deleuze's point about creativity doesn't end up making a whole lot of sense. The person who achieves freedom from reality is only free until reality comes crashing back into their life, and the person who thinks they are creating when they are only creating their own delusions is in a sad state. Positions seemingly born of skepticism often tend to have to assume that quite a lot is true.