• _db
    3.6k
    I have been thoroughly confused about this for a while now. I thought nihilism was the position that rejects traditional values, oftentimes saying there are no values, purpose, teleology, etc.

    Many folks call nihilism absurd, incoherent, or self-refuting. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

    I think nihilism could be said to be self-refuting, i.e. "there is no truth" is a truth statement. Also, saying there is no purpose or meaning begs the question of what a purposeful or meaningful universe looks like. One can only be agnostic about the purpose of the universe, not committed to a position.

    I also would like to know why nihilism is considered inherently destructive.
  • Postmodern Beatnik
    69
    One problem here is that there are many things that go by the name "nihilism." On the one hand, there are specific or thesis nihilisms (that is, nihilisms with respect to a particular concept or claim). One might be a nihilist about morality and claim that there are no moral truths. Alternatively, one might be a nihilist about truth and argue that there are no objective and/or absolute truths (or perhaps even no truths at all). There is also existential nihilism, which is the view that life has no intrinsic meaning. This list is not exhaustive.

    Then there is what might be called movement or ideological nihilism, which is a broader worldview that embraces several (and, in more radical strains, all) of the specific nihilisms mentioned above and draws pessimistic conclusions about life, the universe, and everything from them. To hold one of the specific nihilisms, or even more than one, does not automatically make one an ideological nihilist. It all depends on how one reacts to the specific nihilisms one embraces. One need not be a pessimist just because one embraces a specific nihilism or two.

    For example, a moral nihilist rejects the idea that there are moral truths but may yet think that we can nonetheless invent a replacement that functions as well or better than the traditional moral edifice. Similarly, one might accept the existential nihilism but reject the pessimistic conclusions that ideological nihilists typically draw from it (this being the characteristic feature of existentialism). Thus it would be a mistake to conflate the specific nihilisms with the broader ideological nihilism that some see as the logical consequence of those views.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    The "destructive" part may derive from the political influence of nihilism, first in Russia in the 19th century and then elsewhere. Political nihilism seems to have involved the rejection of all authority. Bakunin is usually considered a nihilist from the political perspective. It seems to have become common to brand as nihilist--and so bomb-throwers and assassins--anybody radical or who violently objected to government or private property, whether they were or not, and especially if they were foreign (here in the U.S.). So, Sacco and Vanzetti were called nihilists, though it seems they were, if anything, men with anarchist leanings.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.