nihilism

[iambiguous]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism
from the Ethics Center

In media, this kind of pessimistic nihilism is sometimes embodied by characters who then act on it in a destructive way. For example, the antagonist, Jobu Topaki in Everything Everywhere All At Once comes to this realisation through her multi-dimensional awareness, which convinces her that because of the infinite nature of reality, none of her choices matter and so she attempts to destroy herself to escape the insignificance and meaninglessness she feels.

Sure, that's one way to "resolve" this conundrum: let Hollywood script it. And, let's face it, what prompts all too many of us to embrace free will emphatically is that we "just know" that we must have autonomy because the alternative is just too much to bear. That it is all "beyond our control". On the other hand, as some determinists argue, even her attempt to destroy herself because she believes what she does about it is no less all that she was ever able to believe about it.

Active nihilists instead see nihilism as a freeing condition, revealing a world where they are emboldened to create something new on top of the destruction of the old values and ways of thinking.

Yes -- click -- that's my point as well. If you convince yourself that human interactions are essentially meaningless...and it turns out that in fact they are essentially meaningless...then you are confronted with so many, many more options. And not all moral nihilists here will choose to take this so far as to embrace a sociopathic lifestyle.

Nietzsche’s idea of the active nihilist is the Übermensch (“superman”), a person who overcomes the struggle of nihilism by working to create their own meaning in the face of meaninglessness. They see the absurdity of life as something to be embraced, giving them the ability to live in a way that enforces their own values and “levels the playing field” of past values.

Of course, here that will depend on where historically, culturally and personally/experientially, you find yourself "thrown" at birth into a particular community. As though mere mortals, while not being Gods themselves, can still manage to sustain rules of behavior that further the truly superior interests of the Übermensch in dominating the many, many feckless flocks of sheep.

At least on this side of the grave. As for immortality and salvation...? Forget about it.

[iambiguous]

Ethics explainer: Nihilism
from the Ethics Center

Moral nihilism

Existential nihilism often gives way to moral nihilism, the idea that morality doesn’t exist, that no moral choices are preferable in comparison to others. Because, if our lives don’t have intrinsic meaning, if objective values don’t exist, then by what standard can we call actions right or wrong? We normally see this kind of nihilism embodied by anarchic characters in media.

Again, this moral nihilist would never argue that morality doesn't exist. Of course it does. It's just that in the absence of God, there does not appear to be a way to align "rules of behavior" in any particular community to the conclusions that those like Plato and Aristotle and Decartes and Kant propounded. Besides, all of them, one way or another, brought good and evil around to God.

No God? Then no omniscient and omnipotent "transcending font" from which to derive moral commandments. Instead, the secular proponents of moral objectivism here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...are, in turn, all up and down the political spectrum, just as the religious fanatics here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are.

An infamous example is the [anarchic character] Joker from the Batman franchise. Especially in renditions like The Dark Knight (2008) and Joker (2019), the Joker is portrayed as someone whose expectations of the world have failed him, whose tortuous existence has led him to believe that nothing matters, the world doesn’t care, and that in the face of that, we shouldn’t care about anything or anyone either. In his words, “everything burns” in the end, so he sees no problem in hastening that destruction and ultimately the destruction of himself.

As with most movie characters, however, we take out of them what we first put into them: our own rooted existentially in dasein understanding of the world around us. Or, perhaps, is there the one and the only "most rational" manner in which to understand them?

And what might that be?

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(ch ... m%20insane.

"The Joker has undergone many revisions since his 1940 debut. The most common interpretation of the character is that of a man who, while disguised as the criminal Red Hood, is pursued by Batman and falls into a vat of chemicals that bleaches his skin, colors his hair green and his lips red, and drives him insane."

On the other hand, to the extent he really is insane, how are his behaviors not basically "beyond his control"?

[iambiguous]

Nihilism

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.

Raul Gonzalez

There is a misconception with the interpretation of nihilism. A laymen will interpret the popular definition of nihilism; "Life is meaningless", to mean that there is no point in believing anything. This is incorrect.

Life can be taken as my own personal life, or Life can be understood as everything, the universe.

Of course, when I come upon something like this, my first inclination is to suggest that, in regard to the "meaning of life", who among us can actually demonstrate what is in fact correct or incorrect? Such that all rational men and women would be inclined -- obligated? -- to agree.

This goes back to 3 assumptions I make.

1] that "somehow" when biological matter evolved into us, we acquired free will.

2] that any speculations about the "meaning of life" has to take into account both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". In other words, what we simply do not grasp at all about the ontological/teleological relationship between the human condition and the existence of existence itself.

3] the distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world. For example, "what does it mean when the state executes a prisoner?" What objective faxts can we all agree on? As opposed to, "what does it mean to be right about the morality of capital punishment?" Is there a deontological assessment -- a moral imperative -- that all rational men and women are duty-bound to accept if they wish to be thought of as reasonable and virtuous?

Nihilism does not propose that the individual life has no meaning, rather that the universe has no meaning. The world does not posit a morality or a value system. The world does not have a religion or a political position.

Most philosophers will always be driven to explore questions like this even if a part of them recognizes that they are likely to go to the grave taking only their own "rooted existentially in dasein" moral, political and philosophical prejudices with them.

Still, why these "big questions" are utterly fascinating to some and utterly irrelevant to others is no less the embodiment of dasein, in my view. Again, however, to assert things about "the world" that you believe "in your head", is often nowhere near the same as being able to prove it. Back to how, in some important respects, philosophy simply does not possess the equivalent of the scientific method.

It is erroneous to say, "I am a nihilist, therefore nothing matters." A nihilist believes that value statements are not true or false with respect to life, universe, and everything. Value statements are human statements, posited by humans, and enforced by humans.

On the contrary, if you reach a point in your life where you genuinely do believe that nothing matters, that human interactions are essentially meaningless and purposeless, how is that really any different from what someone else believes "in their head" about religion or politics or genes and memes?

For me, you can either reconfigure your words such that they are shown to be applicable to human social, political and economic interactions, or you can't. Or, as is often the case with many conflicting goods, many all up and down the moral and political spectrum insist that you are either "one of us" [right] or "one of them" [wrong].

Nihilists do not say that there should not be value and meaning in life. Nihilists just believe that value and meaning are enforced by human will, and not intrinsic truths of the world, like gravity.

Yes, that seems reasonable to me. Meaning is everywhere in our lives. But this doesn't make the distinction between existential and essential meaning go away.