Yes, affirming life as good is a deliberate act of engagement, just as asserting the meaninglessness of life is a deliberate act of engagement.

I didn't read "life is inherently good" in a tweet from the universe. The universe doesn't hand out meaning or meaninglessness. That's our business.

Yes, affirming life as good is a deliberate act of engagement, just as asserting the meaninglessness of life is a deliberate act of engagement. — Bitter Crank

I'm not following the point of this as is stands within the larger context of your argument. My point is that despite the title of the thread being (in part), Against All Nihilism, stating that life may have no meaning, no pattern, or no purpose is in-itself a Nihilistic statement.

My point is that despite the title of the thread being (in part), Against All Nihilism, stating that life may have no meaning, no pattern, or no purpose is in-itself a Nihilistic statement. — Maw

Not at all. Nihilism is inherent in, finds it very inception in, the demand that life must have a ready-made, imposed-from-above meaning; as Nietzsche showed us so eloquently.

My point is that despite the title of the thread being (in part), Against All Nihilism, stating that life may have no meaning, no pattern, or no purpose is in-itself a Nihilistic statement. — Maw

An excerpt from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).

The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity:

What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . . (Will to Power)

Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.

In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.

That, incidentally, is a pretty accurate account of the reasons I bailed out on 'Western Culture'.

That is a distortion of Nietzsche's ideas. Nihilism does not consist in a claim, but in a disposition.

You’re typing this from your hermit cave or monastery cot?

I live in a nice home for the time being, and grateful for it.

Point being, how true is it actually, that you’ve bailed out of Weatern culture?

I’d love the option to bail as well, now that I’m convinced we have the potential for so much better, but I’m completely saturated in my culture as it is. Funnily, it strikes me as somewhat ironically nihilistic to think that we are not saturated in our respective cultures.

It's hard to see what's so good about a configuration of stuff that's "kind, loving, etc." and what's so bad about a configuration of stuff that's "vicious, murderous, etc." in a Godless, simply material universe.

I mean sure, you can give an evolutionary explanation (behaviours that lead to human survival/flourishing, etc.), but that just passes the buck (that's a viable explanation for why we've evolved with those preferences, and why religions reflect them, but what's so great about human survival/flourishing?).

It seems to me that the real problem of our civilization and culture now is that we're running on moral fumes, the remnants of moral conditioning left over from Christianity. The last remnant of that seems to be the obsession of the PC cult with egalitarianism and "social justice" - but what's so great about equality in a material universe?

And what happens when even that fades? A machine civilization? A "paperclip maximizing" AI dedicated to solving a socialist economy that eliminates the organic middle man and just creates a pretty egalitiarian pattern out of pure silicon?

Point being, how true is it actually, that you’ve bailed out of Western culture? — praxis

Well, it was a throw- away line, as they say in comedy, but it has a grain of truth. As I'm a Boomer, who grew up in the 60's, I identified with the Counter Culture. This didn't really yield a lot, as I soon learned that by *not* following my appointed middle-class path that surviving turned out to involve fairly large amounts of drudgery. But I did conscientiously try and follow the path of alternative philosophy by the choice of subjects I studied at University, when I finally got around to going there (as a so-called 'mature age student', all of about 25).

And I indeed found that Western philosophy, the way it was being taught in those days (1970's) was a wasteland with post-modernism and the New Left cultural Marxism at one pole, and Oxbridge scientific materialism on the other. So after two years of philosophy I decamped to Comparative Religion, and also studied anthropology, history, psychology. Eventually - only a few years' ago - I also did a Master's in Buddhist Studies from the same Uni.

Now, as I say, it hasn't yielded any obvious fruits, in that I've never had a publishing or academic career, although it has helped indirectly in the living I've cobbled together (as a technical writer). But it has borne fruit in other ways and certainly as an antidote to nihilism. (Actually one of the influential books I read along the way was called Where the Wasteland Ends by Theodore Roszak. That was the kind of material I studied and still am.)

It seems to me that the real problem of our civilization and culture now is that we're running on moral fumes, the remnants of moral conditioning left over from Christianity. — gurugeorge

Pretty well as per what Nietzsche said, although he was part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Surely I'm not following you correctly...Nihilism demands that life must have a ready-made meaning?

I'm not reading multiple paragraphs from the IEP. Sum up whatever it is you are attempting to say.

‘Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism.’

Surely I'm not following you correctly...Nihilism demands that life must have a ready-made meaning? — Maw

No, nihilism results in those who demand that life must have a ready-made meaning and who are no longer able to believe the master narratives that supplied that purportedly ready-made meaning.

Nietzsche was not himself a nihilist, but saw nihilism as being inherent in the Christianity of his day.

As I said earlier nihilism is not a claim, but a disposition.

Are these people engaged in self reflection? Anything but. Naked apes addicted to the latest distraction. — Bitter Crank

It's our culture that promotes this kind of way of life.

‘Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism.’ — Wayfarer

I disagree, since Nietzsche set it up as his task to find a way to overcome nihilism.

If you watch people in silence, they don't seem all that self-reflective a good share of the time, either.

Are these people engaged in self reflection? Anything but. Naked apes addicted to the latest distraction. — Bitter Crank

Sure, here is an example of why we need to create more people at all though. Our brains need to be occupied, lest the mind gets bored. Take away all distractions, you contend with your pure striving willful nature. An animal's being is the churning of its willful nature. If it can't churn towards something it turns in on itself. More willful beings should be expanded? This is structural. How about the harms of contingent suffering? What if someone has a pervasive mental illness? This has to be overcome or dealt with right? Why put more people into those circumstances? How about disease, disaster, circumstances, etc. etc. etc.

Is human reproduction a self-reflective decision? One can hope, but clearly it is not always the result of self-reflection, or reflection on the goodness of the species' prospects, or the prospects of a specific child. — Bitter Crank

No, but we are discussing philosophy and ethics. Is your descriptive measures going to be your normative measures? Is the "is" going to be an "ought" because people tend to not reflect much? It's not totally out of their control. We are not talking about preventing someone from eating or going to the bathroom here. We are not even talking about refraining from sex.

I have more for you, but I have to go.. I'll try to reply to rest of post. Thanks for thoughtful response!

I disagree, since Nietzsche set it up as his task to find a way to overcome nihilism. — Agustino

Yeah, that ought to be the concern of every really serious thinking person. If thinking about this stuff doesn't put you into a cold sweat, then you're probably not thinking very clearly.

The last outpost, the last fading tatter of Christian morality in the West, is the unquestioning, hysterical attachment to egalitarianism über alles that characterizes modern liberalism. But that's already starting to fade. It's becoming nothing more than just another tool to kafkatrap those you disagree with.

Everything is devolving to "might makes right," everything is coming to be understood as a pure power struggle, with things like morality being masks and rhetorical tricks to mobilize the masses to serve one's agenda - and nobody's agenda has any more moral legitimacy than anyone else's. It's like the last bit of the stern of the Titanic poking above the water - the last few survivors trying to keep their head above water, scrabbling over each other, pushing each other down, to get just an extra little bit of time.

But there doesn't seem to be any solution. It's impossible for a sceptical, materialist-minded person to go back to a religious point of view, and yet it's also psychologically impossible to face nihilism naked and unadorned.

last fading tatter of Christian morality in the West — gurugeorge

egalitarianism über alles that characterizes modern liberalism — gurugeorge

Everything is devolving to "might makes right," — gurugeorge

Christian morality is intact (it's a system; it's based on certain documents and models; these sorts of things, whether it be Christian or Égalité über allies (to mix language and slogans) isn't that tied to Christian morality. There is a connection, sure. "Might makes right" is hardly a new idea.

Adherence to Christian morality, or Confucianism, or Sufism or socialism or democracy--pick an ism, any ism--is what makes it vital, Neglect it, and it is the practitioners morality that is in tatters. Practice it, and it is as solid as ever.

There is a lot about any moral system to which one can object, certainly, but billions--not just millions--of people, including people in the West--are practicing workable moral systems that serve them well. There is, most likely, a strata of people within the 7.3 billion humans, who have lapsed into nihilistic, dead-end a-morality. My guess is that a lot of them are occupying corporate suites and high government positions and social elites. These people's influence is outsized. They have real power, but they also have symbolic power, and it is possible to get confused and suppose that everybody is like them.

The ordinary folk that I rub shoulders with every day don't seem to have lapsed into a nihilistic funk (not that they are all happy, robustly and athletically moral, or anything like that).

It's impossible for a sceptical, materialist-minded person to go back to a religious point of view, and yet it's also psychologically impossible to face nihilism naked and unadorned. — gurugeorge

It isn't necessary to face nihilism stark naked and "unadorned". (Did you mistype "unarmored" but auto-correction decided it liked "unadorned" better?)

First, it isn't impossible for a skeptical materialist-minded person to go back to a religious point of view. I'm not suggesting that a skeptical materialist should, but it clearly isn't impossible. Difficult yes -- very conflictual, for sure.

All you need is the willingness to affirm some basic humanist principles, like #8 of the Humanist Manifesto:

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

The Humanists strive to be "good without god". ADVOCATING PROGRESSIVE VALUES AND EQUALITY FOR HUMANISTS, ATHEISTS, AND FREETHINKERS is their motto.

Secular Humanist has the same kind of chilly quality that Unitarianism has, as far as I am concerned, but that's just me. It could do with a little smoke and bells. Check it out.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/137842

You are wrong because Christianity is both the cause and the solution to nihilism. Only a false Christianity was displaced. Refer to the post linked.

I think, in such a case, one should first 'define' [goodness]. My idea is that there are different experiences and lots of challenges. What makes you happy may make another person sad.. It's just about the feelings and life goal. And in comparison with this, one comes to define everything as "good" or "bad". Nothing is essentially and definitely good or bad.

But there doesn't seem to be any solution. It's impossible for a sceptical, materialist-minded person to go back to a religious point of view, and yet it's also psychologically impossible to face nihilism naked and unadorned. — gurugeorge

Nihilism is just a phase of development, don't be so dramatic.

Meaning comes in many forms. It doesn't necessarily need to come in a tidy religious package and from an authority figure.

Rationalisation is a problem with no solution in sight, as far as I know, but that doesn't mean no solution is possible.

The last outpost, the last fading tatter of Christian morality in the West, is the unquestioning, hysterical attachment to egalitarianism über alles that characterizes modern liberalism. — gurugeorge

One of the interesting essays of 2017, The Strange Persistence of Guilt, Wilfred McClay, touches on this.

I think it originates with the Christian principle of the sanctity of the individual. This became elevated in Protestantism to the supremacy of the individual conscience ‘before God’. But with the fading of religion, the individual is retained, but without the relationship with the Divine. So the individual conscience is now the de facto source of moral authority. (This is the subject of McIntyre’s book, After Virtue.)

individual conscience does not operate in a vaccuum; it consists in responding to others fairly and reasonably. Those who have been adequately socialised have a conscience. We don't need any threat of divine punishment for that.

We don't need any threat of divine punishment for that. — Janus

Spiritual principles don’t have to rely on ‘threats of divine punishment’.

The Humanists strive to be "good without god". ADVOCATING PROGRESSIVE VALUES AND EQUALITY FOR HUMANISTS, ATHEISTS, AND FREETHINKERS is their motto — Bitter Crank

The Renaissance humanists, whom the term ‘humanism’ was named after, were indeed free-thinkers, but none of them were materialists. They were Platonists or theistic humanists. who skirted heresy but had a universalist outlook - indeed I think it was amongst them that the idea of the ‘perennial philosophy’ took root.

But today’s secular humanism is vastly different, because it lacks what used to be known as ‘sapience’, and after which the species is supposedly named.

it isn't impossible for a skeptical materialist-minded person to go back to a religious point of view. I'm not suggesting that a skeptical materialist should, but it clearly isn't impossible. Difficult yes -- very conflictual, for sure. — Bitter Crank

There’s a quote from E F Schumacher which I think is relevant here. As you may recall, Schumacher was a British economist whose book Small is Beautiful became a classic of alternative economics. He spoke of how he was affected by his encounters with what he called ‘Buddhist economics’ in SE Asia which became formative for his book.

Anyway Schumacher gave a BBC radio interview in which he reflected critically on a then well-known book about liberal economics, The Case for Modern Man, by Charles Frankel. The talk was called ‘the insufficiency of liberalism’ in which he spoke about ‘the three stages of development’.

The first great leap, he said, was made when man moved from stage one of primitive religiosity to stage two of scientific realism. This was the stage modern man tended to be at. Then, he said, some people become dissatisfied with scientific realism, perceiving its deficiencies, and realize that there is something beyond fact and science. Such people progress to a higher plane of development which he called stage three. The problem, he explained, was that stage one and stage three looked exactly the same to those in stage two [i.e. most people ]. Consequently, those in stage three are seen as having had some sort of relapse into childish nonsense. Only those in stage three, who have been through stage two, can understand the difference between stage one and stage three, This strange blend of mysticism empirically explained in the language of an economist was an early example of the winning formula which was to make Small is Beautiful such a huge success.

In point of fact, Schumacher eventually converted to Catholicism, but I think his ‘stage three’ idea anticipates the kind of universalist spirituality that characterises the counterculture and New Age movements. As David Brooks said, in a prescient column called The Neural Buddhists:

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

Which pretty well describes many who see themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’, who feel it imperative to transcend the inevitable nihilism that flows from the ‘death of God’ but who refuse the dogmas of ecclesiastical religion. (No hard feelings to any Catholics reading ;-) ).

Spiritual principles don’t have to rely on ‘threats of divine punishment’. — Wayfarer

What need for the supernatural or an afterlife then?

Spiritual principles don’t have to rely on ‘threats of divine punishment’. — Wayfarer

What need for the supernatural or an afterlife then? — Janus

What's wrong with threats of divine punishment? Threats of divine punishment are useful for those who cannot see the negative effects of immoral actions.

Ever the authoritarian, eh?

It seems to me you so readily associate anything about spiritual values with 'the supernatural and the afterlife'. Here's my diagnosis of what is behind this, and I really do hope you're open to it.

The point of spiritual philosophies - of the kind that Nietzsche declared dead or 'the barest and thinnest', or whatever phrase he used - is precisely that they concern 'realising an identity which is not subject to death'. That belief is presented in mythological form as 'belief in heaven' and made subject to particular, dogmatic ways of understanding. And those you either accept/believe, or reject/disbelieve.

My feeling is that there is a shadow in Western culture which is the consequence of the development of Western philosophy and religion. It has to do with the development and the imposition of orthodoxy, meaning 'right belief'. For much of history 'right belief' was strictly imposed- you had to believe particular things in particular ways. There were centuries of conflict and turmoil in Western history around these questions.

As I mentioned to @Praxis earlier in this thread, my approach is countercultural. I mention all of this, because the point of the counterculture was to escape from the Western dichotomy of belief versus unbelief. I really don't know if I am succeeding - I am probably much nearer a believer. But 'a believer' is not what I wanted to be - I wanted to know, to understand. That’s what drew me to philosophy although I’m quite ready to acknowledge I’m no good at it.

'realising an identity which is not subject to death' — Wayfarer

Why is this of relevance? This cannot be the core of spiritual practice since it is not valuable in and of itself. It seems quite self-concerned in many ways.