Epistemological and Existential Nihilism
  • JacobPhilosophy
    99
    Aren't they mutually Exclusive? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from what I've researched, Epistemological Nihilism is the belief that nothing can be known objectively or with certainty. Existential Nihilism, however, is the claim and belief that life has no meaning. Surely these two premises are mutually exclusive, because if nothing can be known, it cannot be know that life has no meaning. Please correct my definitions of they are wrong. It might be that existential Nihilism is defined as "the belief that it cannot be known whether life has meaning or not".
    Side Note: Also from my knowledge, to be an epistemological nihilist, you have to be a moral nihilist, but you can be a moral nihilist without having to be an epistemological nihilst. This is because if nothing can be known, that includes what is and isn't moral, but you can think morality is subjective, whilst thinking other things are objective, therefore refuting epistemological nihilism.
    JacobPhilosophy Options
  • Echarmion
    2.5k
    I think the answer depends on whether you the claim "nothing can be known with certainty" is different from a regular negative claim like "I don't know X". Essentially, whether you think the statement is self-contradictory. If it isn't, then the two can be compatible, as denying any objectivity and certaint precludes any given meaning for "life" in general.
    Echarmion Options
  • JacobPhilosophy
    99
    ↪Echarmion
    but just because there is no way of KNOWING anything objectively, that doesn't mean that there can't be objectivity. Epistemological nihilism is the claim that nothing CAN BE KNOWN, not that nothing exists. Therefore, life could or could not have meaning, we just can't know for sure.
    JacobPhilosophy Options
  • Echarmion
    2.5k
    but just because there is no way of KNOWING anything objectively, that doesn't mean that there can't be objectivity. Epistemological nihilism is the claim that nothing CAN BE KNOWN, not that nothing exists. Therefore, life could or could not have meaning, we just can't know for sure. — JacobPhilosophy

    Well, but then what does it mean to say "life may have meaning, it just cannot be known"? If the meaning cannot be established objectively, that leaves everyone with their personal, subjective meaning of life (or lack thereof), which is just the same as if there was no meaning to life.
    Echarmion Options
  • JacobPhilosophy
    99
    ↪Echarmion
    Say there was one objective meaning that some superior being knew, like it was beyond our knowledge. This is unlikely but I can't say with certainty that it isn't the case. This would make like therefore not meaningless, but it would remain that there is no way of objectively proving meaning.
    JacobPhilosophy Options
  • Echarmion
    2.5k
    Say there was one objective meaning that some superior being knew, like it was beyond our knowledge. This is unlikely but I can't say with certainty that it isn't the case. This would make like therefore not meaningless, but it would remain that there is no way of objectively proving meaning. — JacobPhilosophy

    But does the concept of objective meaning make sense? I understand the distinction you make, but "meaning" is not an ordinary property. For a thing to have meaning, that meaning must be known. A text in a language no-one can speak contains abstract information, but it doesn't "mean" anything.

    It seems to me the same is true for life. Even if your life had meaning and purpose to some higher being, it would not make your life any different. There is nothing to predict or discover about your life that changes.
    Echarmion Options
  • JacobPhilosophy
    99
    ↪Echarmion
    just because nobody knows something is the case, that doesn't make it not the case. If a superior being placed that inscription, which was decipherable to them but not anyone in our realm, it would have meaning .
    JacobPhilosophy Options
  • jonjt
    6
    You can objectively argument that nothing can be known with 100% certainty by simply stating the fact that there are many things unknown, and if any of these things are related to it, you wouldn't know it 100%. So the only way to have certainty in your knowledge is omniscience.

    That said, there are so many facts evidentiating some things that you can treat them with a certain level of objectivity, but still aware of the fact that you don't fully know them.
    jonjt Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment