This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The farce of Seth Mahoney

Wikipedia cannot claim to have a "neutral point of view" when people like Seth Mahoney keep acting out their ego-drama by deleting sites just because they disagree with them. He's a dilettante and he's denying the oldest net-based resource for nihilism because it offends his personal sensibilities. That's pathetic and a joke. Maybe Wikipedia needs to grow the fuck up? You've made it personal Seth, so now we've got to fight this out. www.anus.com 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Whats up with Seth and why does he get to arbitarily decide if anus' content gets to be posted? Sounds like everything Wikipedia was not supposed to be: elitist, abritary, POV. I read this entire talk page and I see no valid response from him that would justify his irrationally odd behavior towards these ends. List the anus site as they make well thought out arguments, whether they might be agreeable or not. Its obviously not some 16 year old retard's livejournal. After reading anus' stuff, I can only come to the conclusion that Seth has some kind of vendetta rather than a logical justification for his actions. 129.110.198.150 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice Seth's total lack of accountability here. He showed up, said, "I disagree with ANUS.com so I'll delete any link to it," and has kept smugly silent since. Maybe it's autism? www.anus.com 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth has taken the debate to User_talk:Prozak after I queried User_talk:Sethmahoney.

Seth, while I appreciate many of your contributions to the main article here, your behaviour in regards to the ANUS.com issue is, as far as I can see, wholly unjustified and transparently dishonest. Not being a subscriber to the policies you seem to have taken issue with on the ANUS page, yet having read the site for seven years and used it on occasion for post-graduate research, I am sure you can understand why I have added an attempt at a balanced incorporation of ANUS.com to the main article.-Nile577 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This debate is continued in the "www.anus.com" section below. -Nile577 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk about the older version

I'm surprised that this article hasn't generated much more discussion.

172

Want some? --Sigg3.net

Has anyone else wondered about the line, "Some contemporary music genres that seem to be about this type of nihilism include Gothic rock and Punk rock"? First off, it seems that the author of that line has neither had much exposure to either genre nor even read the entries for them, and second, voicing what is essentially an opinion about genres of modern music does not seem appropriate for this type of forum. Also, the definition in the opening sentence seems to contradict this statement about music - certainly, at the very worst, these genres express narcissism, the ideals of personal freedom over human life, and a sense of nihilism (of the sort defined in this paragraph) while still struggling to find the meaning of it all. Anyhow, I didn't want to just go around deleting other people's writing all pell mell, but it doesn't seem that this section was well thought out. ALSO, after rereading the article I would say that it is arguable at best that Nietzsche was actually a nihilist in any sense. -Seth Mahoney

"Nihilism" is a contentious term. Some idiots like to believe it can only mean those who disclaim any belief or preference at all, but let's grow up and be real instead. Many Christians referred to Nietzsche as a nihilist for his anti-dualism, but he was opposed to fatalistic nihilism because it was valueless; on the other hand, as his comments in TSZ and later works suggest, he was not against a re-evaluation of all values starting by removal of all objective value. Someday Wiki's editors will understand that and you'll be 3% of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. www.anus.com 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Nietzsche yet, but of what I know about him, he's supposed to have followed in the footsteps of Schopenhauer, just as Norwegian existentialist Peter Wessel Zapffe did. Of the discussions I've participated in, Nietzsche has been characterized as a nihilist. -Sigg3.net 09:34 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nietzsche argued against nihilism, which he saw as a nearly inevitable product of our society. His entire philosophy was aimed at derailing nihilism, not embracing, encouraging or even accepting it. While he certainly argued that traditional morals were destructive and even disgusting, this was because they led to the encroachment of absolute nihilism he saw in our future as they were, in his view, a gross subversion of basic human nature which could only lead, like a disease, to our destruction. In fact, if you go to the Nietzsche page of wikipedia.org and search for the word nihilism, you will not find it appearing anywhere on the page (although this is not so much the best discussion of him I have read). If you're interested, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is an excellent read, full of vibrant love for humanity's potential and beautiful language, and is readily available (in fact, its available online here: ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext99/spzar10.txt). Also, a brief discussion on Nietzsche's views on nihilism is available here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm

-Seth Mahoney

For what it's worth; Zapffe used three phases to categorize Nietzsche's philosophy/-ies, and clearly stated that this is common knowledge. Now, using terms as "His entire philosophy" would be wrong. Not that I've had the pleasure of diving into the depths of Nietzsche yet, but I will. It's beside the point, though. As said before, reasoning people that I've discussed with have called Nietzsche a nihilist. This doesn't mean that one of you are wrong; it simply means that reality can't be black or white. - Sigg3.net 19:52, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, using a phrase such as "His entire philosophy" would not be wrong when one speaks of its intent rather than its content. From Beyond Good and Evil: "In rare and isolate instances it may really be the case that such a will to truth, some extravagant and adventurous courage, a metaphysician's ambition to hold a hopeless position, may participate and ultimately prefer even a handful of "certainty" to a whole carload of beautiful possibilities; there may actually be puritanical fanatics of conscience who prefer even a certain nothing to an uncertain something to lie down on - and die. But this is nihilism and the sign of a despairing, mortally weary soul - however courageous the gestures of such a virtue may look. " - from The Antichrist: "Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will--that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names.", "This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme."

Further, basing a belief on something someone held in high esteem has said (for example, "reasoning people") is often referred to as an appeal to authority (the authority in question here being people who reason, it would seem) which is, also often, referred to in philosophy as a type of logical fallacy. It is also referred to in special cases (as applies here) as the bandwagon fallacy. Perhaps, considering that this isn't even an article on Nietzsche, the reference should be changed to "Some people have classified Nietzsche as a nihilist..." followed by reasons why this is so and reasons why others think it is not so, adding links to internet texts of his works and leaving it up to the reader to decide (an appropriate way of avoiding speaking of the truth or falsity of the statement, considering this is an article devoted to the belief that there is no knowable truth).

Also, I withdraw my statement that Nietzsche was not a nihilist in any sense (the possibility enters when nihilism is defined as a moral philosophy which disregards the morality of the past if the definition includes moral philosophies which are intended to replace the old morality), but maintain that he was not an existential nihilist.

-Seth Mahoney

Can someone who knows about it, add something more about the violent nihilism which is referred to? I find it interesting and worth a sub-article or something. Thanks. - Sigg3.net 09:25, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I also noticed that paragraph three states that there are two types of nihilism, while there are at least five types of nihilism mentioned in the article: moral nihilism, nihilism-as-insult, violent nihilism a.k.a. anarchism, existential nihilism and Malachi Martin's nihilism-as-belief-that-nothing-is-valuable. -Seth Mahoney

Is there a noteworthy difference between existential nihilism and existentialism? Just curious. - Sigg3.net 09:09, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Existentialism doesn't necessarily have the sort of absolute nihilism described under this section. To tell the truth though, I've never heard the term "existential nihilism" before - just nihilism, leaving you to interpret which variety you are talking about. -Seth Mahoney

I thought it sounded funny. Like Elvis Presley Presley :) Sigg3.net 17:40, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wrong, Right, Wrong, sortta-right, Wrong

I began to edit this entry on Nihilism by working on the last paragraph, which was useful for providing the actual historical source for the word (Nihilism) but flawed too. I also included the info on Pisarev.

It was flawed because the brand of Russian revolutionary for whom Turgenev coined the term “nihilist” were distinct from those who were Anarchists.

People may argue all they want on what the definition of the word is today, or should be, but history should not be confused in the process. Anarchism is associated with chaos is associated with nihilism in the popular mind and lexicon (and in this article before I edited it) but they aren’t historically related. Anarchism as a political movement grew out of a split in the First International between followers of Marx (State Communism) and those of Bakunin (Anarchism/Anarcho-Communism). Simple as that.

Until punk-rock co-opted the term, Anarchism it had nothing whatsoever to do with “chaos” or with Nihilism (Except perhaps in the mind of Kings as in: “Those dreadful nihilist anarchist libertarian Jacobites and their communistic demands for democracy! Did you hear? They blew up cousin Freddy yesterday. Ghastly business that. More tea?”)

“Without Authority” is the definition of Anarchism. To conclude that this means “without order” or “chaos” is a mistake and unsupported by any of the originators of the Anarchist Movement (See Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Peter Kroptkin, Malatesta). It’s also rather frightening since it suggests that we’ve been thoroughly conditioned to associate “order” with “authority.” More police anyone?

As to Chaos…While having some significance in modern physics, it can hardly be called a political ideology except, perhaps, when shouted by CRASS or stitched in patch form onto a black hoodie with dental floss.

Nihilist radicals in the first half of the 19th century may be likened to Anarchists on one count…their technique. Namely the use of violence as a means for social change. They were both fond of bombs. More generally though nihilism just pre-dated Anarchism as a political ideology. It also appealed to a smaller audience than did Anarchism after the 1850’s: Spoilt rich kids who wanted to break things (I say this with tongue in cheek… but it’s pretty accurate anyway).

NOW (Breath)…the later re-interpretations of Nihilism or Anarchism I won’t examine here. I am compelled to address one thing though (but I left it unchanged in the article)…the discussion on Nietzsche.

It is very important that if one is going to apply a late and questionable definition of nihilist or nihilism to a man living during a time when there was a very different understanding of Nihilism, one should make that very clear. Nietzsche may be called a Nihilist only in so far as one rejects the meaning(s) of the word during his own lifetime. Nietzsche was not in any way an advocate of violent or popular revolution, and as far as I know had no opinion at all on blowing up the Tsar of Russia. Translations from the German rendered “nihilism” in English are understandable, but contribute to this confusion of meaning. In a way Nietzsche advocated the annihilation of ideas, but only so that new ones could breath and grow.

It’s difficult to conform Nietzsche even to most of the modern, definitions of Nihilism. In short, he was far too Life-affirming. His philosophy renders morals only peripherally important, and therefore not even the focus of annihilation or re-invention. Life itself, willfully and powerfully lived was for Nietzsche the total of politics, philosophy, morals, and everything. If some of his statements about destroying old morals and etc make him a Nihilist, then Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi are Nihilists too! But…he simply wasn’t a Nihilist.

Anyway…nihilism as “belief in nothing”? What, is it the Seinfeld of ideologies? How does one advocate …”nothing.” Please explain in zero words or less.

And demonic possession ???…huh? What? Who in that whatnow? Where am I?

- Keith Spencer akspdx@msn.com

I get the point. Good answer, man:) Sigg3.net 09:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Although I agree with the point that anarchism and nihilism are not linked historically, they do share common ideas and audiences today. CrimethInc is a perfect example of anarchists blending in a good deal of nihilist thought. Of course, not all anarchists would consider themselves nihilists, but many do (or at least consider nihilism to have some good ideas, myself included). And what's up with Crass? I've never heard them calling for chaos, though I only have Christ the Album and can't say they never did. But they seem like pretty level-headed anarchists to me (they're pacifists for crying out loud!).

Nietzsche and Nihilism

This article seems to be a bit confused on this point. For reference, Nietzsche considered nihilism to be in fact roughly "belief in nothing," or perhaps a complete absense of belief -- not merely disbelief in thet traditional morals, which he took as a given. That is, to believe that there is nothing at all that compels you to act in any particular way, and similarly there is nothing at all that can let you judge an action in any meaningful way. Simply, that things are, or are not, and nothing matters at all. He saw this essentially as the outcome of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism. Nietzsche's philosophy, on the other hand, is stridely and very explicitly anti-nihilist (he uses this term himself numerous times). He holds the "traditional" morals and values to be unfounded, but nonetheless does not hold that it makes no difference what anyone does.

So in respect to Nietzsche at least, this article is quite wrong. As for the terminology, does anyone have a reference for considering nihilism to be less than the belief in no morals or values at all? I've never seen it defined merely as disbelief in traditional values, which would be more properly termed merely anti-conventionalism or anti-conservatism or something of that sort. --Delirium 00:17, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I've replaced the Nietzsche reference with one to Schopenhauer, so the article is at least a little less wrong on this point. Nonetheless I think it needs a major rewrite. Essentially we're talking about two largely unrelated concepts that unfortunately share the same name. There is a political nihilism, that opposes traditional values and is often violent, and there is a philosophical nihilism, that claims there are no values. The former has nothing whatever to do with Nietzsche, and the latter is sometimes misattributed to him, though it was in fact his deliberate goal to argue against it. I think we should have either two articles in these topics -- perhaps Nihilism (political movement) and Nihilism (philosophy) -- or else two sub-sections of the current article. --Delirium 00:22, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

We have to take to the fact that Nietzsche did indeed consider himself a Nihilist, althought he himself noted it's paradox, here quoted:

On the genesis of the nihilist. - It is only late that one musters the courage for what one really knows. That I have hitherto been a thorough-going nihilist, I have admitted to myself only recently: the energy and radicalism with which I advanced as a nihilist deceived me about this basic fact. When one moves toward a goal it seems impossible that "goallessness in itself" is the principle of our faith.

- Friedrich Wilheim Nietzsche (The Will to Power, p 25)

Nagelfar 00:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately (well, fortunately for me), I'm out of town at the moment, and away from my books, but I'll check out the quote when I get home. Just looking at what you posted though, this looks like self-criticism. Nietzsche said, "I have hitherto been a thorough-going nihilist", suggesting that he no longer is, and considering some of his other statements about nihilism, it looks like he has changed his mind about something and is now criticizing his previous philosophy, pointing out that it was toward nothing, and that perhaps now is toward something. Just a guess, though. -Seth Mahoney 18:52, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, It is interesting how he words it, because it continues also; "That I have hithero been a thorough-going nihilist, I have admitted to myself only recently. The comma only confuses matters. Because I take it as if he's come to terms with his Nihilism and all of the internal contradictions which come along with accepting that fact. Also, why is it then captioned 'on the genesis of a nihilist,' wouldn't it be otherwised captioned 'a dissolution to a Nihilist,' or some such? Nagelfar 04:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If he was talking about his past nihilism, I would expect him to title it something like he did - he strikes me as talking about his Genesis, his birth (as a philosopher) story. I've formed a view of him as talking about nihilism as something inevitable, a crisis that we will have to go through as individuals and as a society, so for him to say, essentially, "I've been there" wouldn't be too surprising. I could also definately see him making a genesis/Genesis pun. I'll hold off on coming to a decision until I get back home where I can pull out a stack of books, though. -Seth Mahoney 05:12, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, p. 259, it cites The Will to Power, p. 23 as him considering his Nihilism a "sign of a crucial and most essential growth, of the transition to new conditions of existence," ... "genuine nihilism." To state ones view of something as the 'genuine' quality of some such assignation in context of explanation is certainly considering oneself that beyond pun. Nagelfar 11:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

His considering his nihilism a "sign of crucial and most essential growth, of the transition to new conditions of existence" would be entirely consistent with the view that, for him, and he seems to hope for humanity as well, nihilism is a transition, not a philosophy to embrace and define one's life by. -Seth Mahoney 18:22, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

But I do believe he desired a humanity which would eventually have understanding enough to incorporate such Nihilism as a continual essence into a new fully subjective morality, not a one time transition to a 'right' or 'correct' philosophy, but a constant revaluation, a dislodging of absolutism in conviction for all time. A superman above all qualifications, nothingness as the infinite. Nagelfar 06:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think he hoped for a humanity which would eventually have understanding enough to embrace a sort of relativism, an understanding that "my beliefs are not final", but this is different from the nihilism he speaks of, which he seemed to hope humanity could survive, learn from, and move past. I totally agree that he didn't expect humanity to adopt a specific, correct, philosophy post-catastrophe, but neither did he expect humanity to embrace nihilism after its confrontation with it. From the preface to The Will to Power:

as the first perfect nihilist of Europe who, however, has even now lived through the whole of nihilism, to the end, leaving it behind, outside himself.

For one should make no mistake about the meaning of the title that this gospel of the future wants to bear. "The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values"--in this formulation a countermovement finds expression, regarding both principle and task; a movement that in some future will take the place of this perfect nihilism--but presupposes it, logically and psychologically, and certainly can come only after and out of it. For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had.--We require, sometime, new values.

Note in the first selection he describes himself as one that has "lived through the whole of nihilism, to the end, leaving it behind, outside himself" and he describes the impending crisis of nihilism as something to be lived through and moved beyond in the second selection: "a movement that in some future will take the place of this perfect nihilism" and "we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these 'values' really had." The more I look at this the more I'm convinced that Nietzsche was referring to his nihilism in the past tense - he has been there, and he is predicting it for at least Europe's, if not all of humanity's, future, and he is holding out hope that even this absolute destruction is something we can survive and learn and grow from.

I'm not sure, by the way, what you mean by "nothingness as the infinite". -Seth Mahoney 18:53, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

The old alchemist's idea that Zero is the endless circle, something with no definition has no limit, and because it cannot be enumerated as anything at all, it has absolute potentiality. I also see your point on Nietzsche's Nihilism on Nihilism, that it ultimately cannot yield anything of itself is obvious, but does this still make it more correct to say Nietzsche was not a Nihilist? Because he drew the Nihilistic conclusion that Nihilism has no future? This seems to make him more purely a Nihilist to me ;-) I mean; what did he definitely prescribe beyond that? Nagelfar 00:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wait, are you suggesting that Nietzsche thought the superman would be a nihilist? Considering that he characterized Christianity as nihilistic, I highly doubt that. -Seth Mahoney 06:06, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Does the Christian consider himself Nihilistic? Even by the doctrine of Christianity? Certainly not. Nihilism is like Egalitarianism, it preceived from one angle is antithetical & mutually exclusive to it's perception from another. It is Nihilism as a verb, noun, imperative? Maybe the Christian perceiving itself not as a Nihilist makes their traits Nihilistic in another fashion, whereas the Supermen perceiving themselves as Nihilistic is what makes exactly what isn't Nihilistic in this other fashion. If this is the case then he is espousing the accepting of oneself as such to sow the fruits of it rather than otherwise. A Buddhist is a Nihilist-Idealist, as in the concept of Nirvana, how outside of such a concept could Idealism & Nihilism be considered functionaries of one another? In Russian Nihilism, it was Mechanism, dialectical materialism, and the denial of Idealism that made it Nihilistic. Maybe it can be said that Nietzsche is a Vitalistic-Nihilist, it is not the result that is apathy, but it is the apathy toward convention, the root of his Nihilism, that made him Vitalistic. That the Idealistic Nihilism of a Buddhist could not share such vitalism, for such vitalism devalues the Ideal of the nothingism which leads to Nirvana for their religion. As Nietzsche said, the Buddhist religion was the most sensible of the "degenerate religions." They are connected, and all Nihilistic, but the path from 'what is,' which cannot be 'nothing' as it's certainly something, that path from living existing ideas to Nihilism can run in completely different directions from one another. Nietzsche said good & bad about Nihilism, but his philosophy works in the realms of these concepts and uses them as tools always, I do not think there could be any other form of Nihilist at all, if a Nihilist can exist. Nagelfar 01:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

5 points

This was a bit difficult to follow, but I'll take a stab:

If we're talking about nihilism as it relates to Nietzsche, we have to use his definition, which seemed to be any philosophy that devalues the world as it is now. In this sense, Nietzsche can only be considered nihilistic in that he demanded sacrifice now for something later, namely the superman.
Whether or not someone considers him or herself something is usually irrelevant. The only issue is whether, given a certain definition, they fit it.
I have no idea what you're trying to say about nihilism and egalitarianism, or nihilism-idealism(?) and buddhism.
Considering that dialectical materialism was a philosophy developed by the Soviet Russians, it is highly unlikely that it was a part of the Russian Nihilist political movement. I'm not quite sure what you mean by mechanism, but if you're suggesting a form of determinism, I totally agree that it is nihilistic - perhaps the most nihilistic of philosophies, though I'm not sure Nietzsche would agree.
You said, "Nietzsche said good and bad about Nihlism, but his philosophy works in the realms of these concepts and uses them as tools always" - are you saying that Nietzsche used 'good' and 'bad' as tools? How does this relate to Nihilism? What are you trying to say in the last part of the sentence - "...I do not think there could be any other form of Nihilist at all, if a Nihilist can exist"?

-Seth Mahoney 08:32, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Does not your no. 1 & no. 2 point contradict each other? Nihilism isn't a stand that devalues the world because it is as a belief held already at a certain nonvalue from one's own perspective, it may be an action that does, but that couldn't make a philosophical position a person has as such. Rather, Nihilism finds inherent lack of value which can even exalt that fact, or alternately, it sees any infinite amount of value but entirely neglects & defies that fact (two potentially opposing Nihilisms). Nietzsche saw the latter in that he gave to any sweeping stand against some point a utility of worth in & of itself, and saw the former in that he was much in favor of setting the ultimate basis of view-points in eternal self-destandardization. Therefore he was in the bounds of being a Nihilist in both philosophic senses, but at the same time pushing the envelope of what he could believe while still staying within those bounds on either end. Check egalitarianism here at wikipedia for your no. 3, Buddhism idealizes the state of nothingness (Nirvana) as the state to be sought beyond all else as the supreme ideal of non-definiton, free from all convolution confusion and therefore pain or conception as against non-conception, that is why I say it's Idealistic Nihilism, as for no. 4 The Soviets considered the Mechanists, as opposed to the left 'Menshevizing Idealism' of Deborin, to be "right deviationists" in line with Nihilist Materialist thought, Mechanism denies all philosophical negativism (and is therefore psychologically negativist, i.e. unaccepting) in which there is idealism, something beyond what is apparent to the senses, it is positivist in opposition to all ideals. no. 5, I mean if a Nihilist can be said to have any stance, it must take a root from some point, which Nietzsche did. Nagelfar 03:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. 1 and two do not contradict one-another. Both Nietzsche and Simone de Beauvoir would, I think, disagree with you about what nihilism is and is not. I have no idea, however, what you mean by "but that could not make a philosophical position a person as such" - of course a philosophical position could never be made a person. I presume in the next sentence you mean that a nihilist can exalt their lack of value, which is true, but in exalting devaluation they would be valuing it, meaning there is value in the world. While this would definately be in line with the nihilist pseudo-political movement in Russia, it is impossible to value a total lack of value. I agree that Nietzsche seemed to perceive nihilism as the latter option - a universe full of potential value and philosophies that ignore or devalue that potential value, but throughout most of his writing it is fairly clear that he saw this as a threat. I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'self-destandardization', but if you mean what I'm thinking, I doubt that Nietzsche recommended that route.
Covered under 1.
My lack of understanding about what you are referring to when you talk about egalitarianism isn't from a lack of understanding about egalitarianism, but due to your seemingly intentionally obfuscated language.
If you have references to back your talk of 'nihilist materialists' and whatnot up, by all means write a section on it, though I've never heard the term and the whole Buddhists on one end of the nihilist spectrum and mechanists on the other is starting to sound a bit like original research.
Fine.

-Seth Mahoney 16:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I said "a person has as such" not 'a person as such.'

My bad.

Within 'egalitarianism' here at wikipedia it mentions how egalitarian percieved in one sense is totally in mutual exclusion to egalitarianism percieved in another, it was stated well enough in that article to not bother rewriting, and I drew that comparison to nihilism, it has nothing to do with understanding it in a definitional sense.

Actually, it doesn't. It says, and I quote:

Different kinds of egalitarianism can sometimes conflict, while in other situations they may be indispensable to each other.

What do you mean by "original research?"

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research for discussions on original research specifically and style, convention, and inclusion rules in general.

Neither the nihilist connotations of Buddhism or Mechanism were drawn by my own postulations, and just about any examination or analysis of either (the Mechanists of Soviet Russia, and Buddhism in relation to philosophy on a whole) will mention the association.

I for one have never read a discussion of Buddhism that labels it nihilistic, discusses its nihilistic tendencies (as nihilistic), or even uses the words 'nihilism', 'nihilistic', or 'nihilist' (except Nietzsche's). Regardless, if this is true, it should be easy to back up with sources and book references, in which case you are welcome to write about it.

I still disagree Nietzsche demanded 'sacrifice now for something later,' his was a philosophy of this 'sacrifice' as a basis for ideals. Nagelfar 06:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you have sources, feel free to make the appropriate changes. -Seth Mahoney 21:00, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Return to Nietzsche and nihilism

Looks like he's saying that nihilism is a stepping stone, like a phase, to something higher. I think he was trying to avoid nihilism. It's what we must experience before we will realize that the old value system didn't suffice, and therefore it is a ground out of which a new "revaluated" system of values can grow. I don't think he meant for nihilism to be the end, just a means or a phase. Perhaps even something one could use as a tool or fall back to when one's present system needed an outside revaluation. But I don't think he saw it as an end in any way. --DanielCD 01:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, nihilism as a stepping stone, though Nietzsche may have at one time believed it could be avoided - the paragraph quoted by Nagelfar almost reads like a confession of sorts. But yeah, he's definately saying here that it is a necessary step to achieve the radical change in morality he prescribes. -Seth Mahoney 06:06, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yay! Rewrote the article, though its more or less just a skeleton now. Will hopefully be fleshing it out over the next few days, and am hoping you all will contribute! Seth Mahoney 07:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the editing fiasco, Populous - was working on the article in Word, then did the old cut-and-paste! Seth Mahoney 19:15, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Return to Nietzsche and nihilism

Looks like he's saying that nihilism is a stepping stone, like a phase, to something higher. I think he was trying to avoid nihilism. It's what we must experience before we will realize that the old value system didn't suffice, and therefore it is a ground out of which a new "revaluated" system of values can grow. I don't think he meant for nihilism to be the end, just a means or a phase. Perhaps even something one could use as a tool or fall back to when one's present system needed an outside revaluation. But I don't think he saw it as an end in any way. --DanielCD 01:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, nihilism as a stepping stone, though Nietzsche may have at one time believed it could be avoided - the paragraph quoted by Nagelfar almost reads like a confession of sorts. But yeah, he's definately saying here that it is a necessary step to achieve the radical change in morality he prescribes. -Seth Mahoney 06:06, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yay! Rewrote the article, though its more or less just a skeleton now. Will hopefully be fleshing it out over the next few days, and am hoping you all will contribute! Seth Mahoney 07:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the editing fiasco, Populous - was working on the article in Word, then did the old cut-and-paste! Seth Mahoney 19:15, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Talk about the newer version

Nietzsche wasn't really a nihilst, why would you write philosophy or do anything if you thought that the universe (and thus your actions in it) was pointless / useless. What Nietzsche did do was describe and explore the trend away from a religious society towards scientific one (God is dead and *we* [the thinkers of the time] have killed him).

Very good Nietzsche part, I thought you had taken it out but its still there. I think it excellent, please fix the intro to be the same :).--ShaunMacPherson 13:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also the introduction to this article goes on and on about where the word comes from but not what it means. I think it should be rewritten.--ShaunMacPherson 13:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that for a while - thing is, its a pretty difficult word to just define. I mean, it doesn't exactly mean "belief in nothing", and it doesn't exactly mean "everything is pointless" and several different groups of people have used it several different ways. The idea behind the current format is to use the intro to discuss where the word came from, then pretty much spend the rest of the article defining it by explaining the different ways that it is used. Do you have any specific ideas on how the intro (or anything else) could be improved? -- Seth Mahoney 19:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anus section should be removed

Um... maybe it's just me, but the self-made nihilist philosophy of A.N.U.S. does not really sound all that nihilistic. I have NEVER heard a nihilist say things like "the only reality is the one that we make for ourselves." This literally has nothing to do with nihilism, and it sounds more like humanism or the power of positive thinking. Nihilists are destroyers of structure, or merely passive to having concern for life. So somebody has to explain to me why the anus stuff is on this nihilism page. -64.12.116.7 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote used was "Nihilism is at first fatalism, then realism, and finally, a heroic form of idealism in which we accept that our lives "mean" nothing except as we make them to be." You've subtly misrepresented the views of ANUS by equating "meaning" with "reality". 'Reality' is not solely self-constructed; it is defined by what is inherent. Nihilism here is used as a gateway devaluing, leading to a revelation of what is 'inherent.' Your comment, "nihilists are merely passive to having concern for life," resolves in broken logic, since being 'passive' itself implies a value judgement. ANUS brilliantly circumvents issues regarding the impossibility of being a 'nihilist' by proposing that nihilism is not an endpoint philosophy. Regardless of how ANUS' completed worldview differs from your interpretation of nihilism, or even the nature of what is 'inherent,' it must surely be included for this cutting and incisive analysis of nihilistic methodology. -Nile577 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not address what came before the mention of 'passivity'. First, why is the passive comment 'broken logic'? (Don't most nihlilists reject logic, except under very unusual cases of nihilism?) Also, why MUST 'passivity' imply value judgment, as you demand? If I am sleeping, and thus passive, I am making value judgments? It seems to me what anus is doing is attempting to redifine 'nihilism' (where redefine means not equal to). So doesn't it seem that anus is not appropirate to this page? Or, maybe there could be an earnest attempt on the part of the anus people clearly point out--more clearly than has been done--the differences between traditional views of nihilism (e.g., reality is to be destroyed, not constructed [Nietzsche]), and state a simple case why the short-lived anus is a serious philosophy that should be put on this page with the likes of long-lived traditions, like the tradition of Nietzsche and others. -[[[User:64.12.116.7|64.12.116.7]] 07:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)]

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I hadn't noticed that part. Its removed now. Remember, though, you're welcome to edit articles if you notice mistakes or inappropriate content, or if you just happen to know something about the subject (though edits with references, especially regarding controversial claims, are preferred). -Seth Mahoney 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism is the foundation of ANUS philosophy. It is used as an 'epistemological sandblaster.' This methodological examination of nihilism as a gateway philosophy incorporates post-nihilistic constructions of the self within the foundation of what is revealed (i.e. the inherent) by such a nihilistic evaluation. Regardless of the end result, the methodology alone warrants inclusion in any worthwhile examination of nihilism. I find such brazen deletion from an article disappointing to say the least, especially when a balanced view was incorporated to voice the objections regarding definition of the term. The methodology is apolitical; it is used as a starting block for the views you find so dubious. It is in this facet, as a gateway to further philosophical endpoints, that ANUS should be mentioned in regards to this article. -Nile577 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If this discussion continues as follows, then there will be no choice but to list this at Requests for Arbitration. Meanwhile, I encourage that people keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a battleground, that civility should be maintained, and that unilateral behavior is hardly appropriate here, meaning that overruling common consensus is hardly appropriate. I would like to emphasize that Arbitration is meant to be a last resort and, considering how the Request for Mediation failed, this is headed there. Also, considering the precedent set in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute, there will likely be a ruling against Seth Mahoney should this have to go to Arbitration. Personally, I believe that ANUS.com deserves to be linked. In plain English: Stop being pricks. Seth Mahoney appears to be in the wrong to me but being pricks doesn't help anything. -Caudax 07:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism?

It seems to me this subject, and that of ANUS.com nihilism having validity, lies in the difference between fatalistic and mereological (or, "idealistic") nihilism. www.anus.com 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I know where the confusion about this subject lies. The idea being presented is "A statement can only be true or false. Nihilism claims they are all false." This is a contradiction because of the first part, not the second. I think Nihilism claims no statements are "true", but doesn't claim that untrue statements are strictly "false" in a mathematical sense. It claims that untrue statements are either unknowable, irrelevant, meaningless, paradoxical, false, or something else besides "true". I think Nihilists are taking the position of answering Mu to every question, INCLUDING the question about statements about truth. Are there any Nihilists out there who can confirm or deny some kind of relationship between Nihilism and Buddhism? -- Crag 19:58, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are few, if any, philosophers who would claim to be nihilists - the term is pretty much used derisively. I think you're right though - the nihilist wouldn't say "all statements are false" but that we can't know the truth or falsity of any statement, and it doesn't matter anyway. As far as the connection to Buddhism goes, Nihilism isn't a coherent movement in philosophy, but a problem predicted by Friedrich Nietzsche and discussed by others - but almost always (if not always) as a problem to be avoided or overcome. That said, Nietzsche did think that Buddhism was a nihilistic philosophy, not because certain variants of it took a somewhat nihilistic approach to truth but because it is, as he saw it, a poisoning of the human soul as it rejects (as he saw it) the physical world, the body, etc. and has as its goal freedom from the will, the will being a force Nietzsche saw as inextricably tied to life. -Seth Mahoney 06:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it would be easy linking zen buddhism with ethic relativism a.k.a Nihilism (that is, not the Russian Nihilism). I have not read Nietzsche yet, so I won't argue for him, but from what I've read of Zen it has only one point of origin in the existentialistic universe, and that is Zen. Zen's nature is only Zen and henceforth similar to the term 'nihil', because a term including everything (..etc.) has no substance if honouring the principles set by Ludwig Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It begins with: 1. The world is everything that is. Still this is a matter of discussion and should not be part of an encyclopedic article as this one because it is far from describing. - Sigg3.net 09:36, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I sort of agree. I mean, there are lots of points that you could take off from with Buddhism and say "this points toward nihilism". Hrm, the way you talk about Zen's nature being only Zen reminds me a bit of Dada for some reason...

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...similar to the term 'nihil', because a term including everything has no substance" - I would say that 'nihil' doesn't include anything - its meaning is literally "not anything". I'd actually go so far as to say that 'nihil' dis-includes everything - that is, you could go down the list of all things saying "not this, not this, not this..." and then you'd have nihil, which actually leads me to an interesting connection I'm just going to write about here so as not to forget it: to be a nihilist is to do the same thing - to go down the list of all things saying "not this, not this, not this...", only with respect to value, meaning, and truth.

Anyhow, which principles of Wittgenstein's do you think render the term 'nihil' substanceless? -Seth Mahoney 19:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I see your point. I'm playing around with "the old" understanding of nihil as in 'nothing' (derived from nil=0?). I'm not quite able to understand what you're saying, though. A word that dis-includes everything? Semantically thinking, what kind of reference does it have? A negative reference, i.e. "-Everthing"? Wittgenstein said you cannot speak about what you know nothing of. Then, if following him (leaving common sense for a while:), how is the human mind capable of grasping the infinity of nihil? Just a thought. - Sigg3.net 11:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Zen Buddhism has any relationship to nihilism. If anything, Zen is an extreme affirmation of life. It puts it's energy into living though, that's why they don't ask questions and talk a lot. The Koans, e.g. 'Mu' and 'not this...', are designed to teach the inherent contradictions of life and the limits of intellectual understanding. Still, what it really is is lost in words, because the emphasis is on experience and intutions ('natural knowledge' - my term). It really isn't nihilism at all. It certainly has no relation to ethical relativism. --DanielCD 13:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, Zen Buddhism is definately not related to nihilism ethically (though my understanding is that generally in Buddhism there is no strict ethical code by which one can derive a fixed way of behavior - ethical judgments are almost supposed to be intuitive) because there is something there. I don't think there are a lot of Buddhists who actually don't believe in anything (then again, I don't think there is anyone who actually doesn't believe in anything, or have any moral code or ethical sense). That said, Nietzsche did define Buddhism as nihilistic, but for the same reason as Christianity - it favors something other than the present world, and therefore devalues actual experience.

I wasn't referring to ethics, no. I totally agree with you that Zen has nothing to do with ethical relativism, even though Nietzsche may have perceived it that way. What I am saying is that zen itself, zen nature, is (in my little mind:) similar or even identical to 'nihil'. It's nothing and everything. (See further down) But I've also understood as much that zen is understood highly individual. I'm merely "following my master". - Sigg3.net 19:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigg: when I said "dis-includes everything" above I'm just trying to think of a way of talking about nothing. I think, semantically, there is a reference, but its not the same sort of reference that 'my printer' or 'fire hydrant' would have. Its a reference via negativa - rather than referring to any object, it refers to no object - we can look at any object we like and say, "nope, not this one". So yeah, the almost meaningless '-everything' would be its only semantic property. I think that Wittgenstein's "we must pass over in silence..." is a little overly simplistic in this one case, because, and this is what I was getting at in my note to myself, we can talk of 'nihil' - but only in the negative. Its meaning, and its reference, grows with our experience, as every new thing and every new experience is figured into its definition, by noting "not this". While we have no direct experience of 'nothing', we can imagine the nonexistence of things by reference to those things. -Seth Mahoney 17:16, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

re: -everything

The reference via negation is technically a predominantly introverted intuitive one (in the Jungian sense of the term. By calling things not this, and consequently trying to posit an alternative explanation/etc... you're avoiding the issue of nihilism (in the epistemological sense -- maybe, I'm really not sure what I'm talking about -- the reference to negation is avoiding things by "consistently" referencing to a value-trait, the Boolean "NOT" (as somewhat differentiated from a temporary model/concept-system, the value-trait usually being a defined (or approximating near definition) lexical symbol). Assuming he's being psychologically typed right by most people, Nietzsche did technically have an introverted intuitive component (though was dominantly an introverted thinker), so it may very well be (and probably was to a significant extent) what he was talking about when refering to nihilistic problems needed to overcome.

A temporary concept/model/value system is a potential counter to "the nihilistic dilemma". From what I gather, this is what N. was positing. 24.22.227.53 03:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Semantics of 'nihil'

Still, I can't understand that you don't agree. (And I do mean that I don't understand:) Let's take the word 'griff' in example. We all know it's a mythological beast with wings, really cool, and this even though - and I'm merely guessing here - no one has ever seen one. It has a reference even though it doesn't exist. If 'nihil' had fallen into this category, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but in my opinion it doesn't. Let's say that 'nihil' is a negative of everything (-everything). It doesn't fit into "the system" at all. Words like everything and nothing have no substance at all, the reference is always pointed AT something in particular decided by the situation. The same way 'they' always are someone in particular. Maybe I'm falling off the thread here, I don't know, but I find this discussion highly interesting. - Sigg3.net 19:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe off-thread, but I'm all about semantics conversations, so here goes: normal words have a reference in that they point to a thing, or to a class of things. They have semantic properties that classify them according to their properties. Words like 'everything' don't work the same way, but they clearly still have meaning: the phrase "everything is red" can be judged false by finding one thing that is not red. Similarly, the phrase "nothing is red" can be judged false by finding one thing that is red. That each of these phrases can be judged false means that there is some content in each of the words, especially in the specifiers 'everything' and 'nothing'. You're right, though, when you say they don't fit into the system. There's something different about these two words. Unlike statements like "this flower is red", neither above statement can be judged true. Because the reference for 'everything' points to all things, which we can never actually experience, we can never judge a proposition including the statement 'everything' to be true unless we can discover something that is definitionally true of all things. Similarly, because the reference for 'nothing' excludes all things, and we can never experience all things, we can never judge a proposition including the statement 'nothing' to be true unless we can discover something that is definitionally false of all things. Deciding on what is true or false of all things has been one of the big tasks of metaphysics (and, insofar as we believe the physical to be all there is to the universe, a task taken up by physics), but, and this I think is one of the things Wittgenstein was getting at with the big finale to the Tractatus, for each of the terms 'everything' and 'nothing', there is only one semantic property, that of full inclusion or exclusion, respectively, and that doesn't really give us anything to work with definitionally, especially considering that omni-inclusion and omni-exclusion (I love inventing new terms) are both absolutely outside of our experience. SO, contrary to claims by the scientifically minded skeptic and contrary to the claims of the religiously rational, metaphysically speaking we can never make claims about the nature of all things (or, conversely nothing/no things) including what can and cannot exist - we must be silent about them. -Seth Mahoney 19:27, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good reply. But what about non-existing references then? We all know what a unicorn is, even though it is likely that they've never existed. But we don't know for sure. We can't say that it is or it isn't, but we all know what a unicorn is. I'm tempted to say that the nature of 'everything' and 'nothing' is of the same "category". I'd like to hear your thoughts. - Sigg3.net 19:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Words that refer to nonexistent things like unicorns still refer to things (most more properly refer to categories of things) - its just that the things don't actually exist in the world. Like a whole host of other things they do exist as mental constructs, myths, and so on. 'Everything', I think, refers in the same way - it refers to all things, a collection of objects that we can never know and never verify, but which may well exist. 'Nothing', I think, refers in nearly the same way as 'everything' - that is, even though it refers negatively, it is subject to the same limitations for the same reasons. But! Words that refer to things that don't exist and to concepts that can't be fully realized still refer! You're right that they're similar - they all refer to things that, as far as our experience is concerned, don't properly exist, which was one of the problems with the claim of logical positivism that the only meaningful statements are those that can be proven or disproven by reference to the world. At least, that's my two cents. -Seth Mahoney 02:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think I'll keep 'em:) - Sigg3.net 11:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to the nihilist paradox

This passage was recently added. I'd like to work out a few kinks before its reinclusion:

Similiar to the liar paradox is Russell's paradox. The responses to Russell's paradox offer conditions that validate statements that would otherwise be self-refuting. Nihilism makes the claim that there is no truth in both the logical and illogical worlds. Given that in all possible worlds there is no truth, nihilism becomes the only constant. So, when the nihilist says, "there is no truth," he implies "there is no truth other than nihilism."

My issues with it are as follows:

It is, essentially, original research, at least with respect to nihilism.
Nihilism doesn't exactly make the claim that there is no truth in the logical and illogical worlds, but devalues the concept of thinking in terms of logic, really of thinking in terms of anything.
The current section regarding the nihilist paragraph is a bit misleading in this respect. I don't think that, were a nihilist philosopher to exist, he or she would say, "truth does not exist", but would make extremely relativist statements regarding truth, devaluing it rather than denying it: "that may be true for you".
The problem of nihlism (usually when it is written about, it is as a problem) is that, in devaluing everything, it is self-devaluing. It literally leads a person to not believe in or value anything, including nihilism. That is, a nihilist wouldn't believe in nihilism, wouldn't march under a banner of nihilism, but rather wouldn't be motivated to do anything at all, other than rot.

By the way, if you aren't a registered user of Wikipedia, you should register. It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp of logic and we could definately use some editors for the logic-related (and philosophy in general) articles. -Seth Mahoney 22:14, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who added it. I'm new to Wikipedia. I read it, but never edit anything. I only signed up so I wouldn't leave you hanging.

As for the response to the nihilist paradox. Well, I felt there needed to be one. Nihilism is a major dillema that hasn't been solved by even our best philosophers. When there is only a paradox presented and no response to it, someone who is surfed Wikipedia and ran across the article would get the impression that nihilism was "solved" because it is a blatant contradiction. Hah, if only nihilism could be solved with the liar's paradox. I'd be a lot happier; unfortunately, that's not the case. -Ramzi

Welcome to the world of editing!

You're absolutely right that the problem of nihilism isn't solved. I wrote the original bit about the paradox, and I'm thinking about removing it, or at least softening it a bit. Maybe something about how it resembles the liar's paradox or doesn't pass the test of self-consistency or something along those lines. I'd like to include the bit about the claim "there is no truth" essentially being the same as "there is no truth except the truth that there is no truth". -Seth Mahoney 16:54, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is truth even the appropriate concept? 24.22.227.53 01:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate concept for what? -Seth Mahoney 01:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

For referencing to nihilistic claims. Does nihilism (in this sense) make claims in relation to a truth (in the conceptual usage of "truth")? 24.22.227.53 03:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. -Seth Mahoney 03:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed you seem to indicate no in your second bullet point. 24.22.227.53 03:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The nihilist paradox

Is this section necessary, it looks like a Reductio ad absurdum to me. Hydroksyde 12:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about necessary. Its not so much an example of the reductio as the test of self-consistency. Its a fairly common argument against truth claims like "nothing is true", etc. -Seth Mahoney 18:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

BTW: repositioned this section closer to a relevant section. --jove

Thoughts on "the paradox" from a Nihilist

Actually, this is quite interesting to me, because I'm a bit of a lay-philosopher and I find the more I think about it, that I am in fact a Nihilist. I'm not claiming to be "all knowledged up" on the subject, as in, I've never taken a philosophy course, or been educated in it at all, but I love to read about various concepts and ponder things incessantly for my own intellectual amusement. Essentially, I've been pondering various formulations of the liar “paradox” since I was about twelve or thirteen years old. The first incarnation of this “paradox” I had ever encountered was in the form of a proposition which defines itself as such:

"This statement is false."

At the time, this astounded me, and I literally spent many years thinking about it. I tried repeatedly, over and over in my mind to reconcile the statement with itself and its own existence. After a while, I began to notice that other, seemingly unrelated statements seemed to have related underlying properties. For instance, the infamous "Set Which Contains All Sets Which Are Not Members of Themselves". Another proposition, or rather, a question, which has the same properties is the God “paradox”:

Assuming that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipresent (all-pervasive), is it possible for God to create a rock so massive that even He, Himself could not lift it?

I'm sure it is fairly self-evident to you the logical similarities which exist between the three of these so-called "paradoxes", so instead of wasting time elaborating on it, I'll cut right to the chase and explain how I can consider myself a Nihilist while at the same time avoiding such unpleasantness as sudden cranial combustion or spontaneous massive existence failure. Here is what I noticed:

The liar “paradox”, in all of its various formulations, appears to be internally logically irreconcilable. A simple way of pondering the truth value of these propositions would naturally result in the creation of a causal thought-loop which may go something like this: "Proposition A states that Proposition A must be false, therefore, A must be true, which makes it false, which makes it true, which makes it false, and so on, and so forth, Ad Infinitum" The part which is in fact most imperative to our understanding of the nature of Proposition A is, in fact, not the nature of Proposition A at all. It is the Ad Infinitum. The simple reason for this is that, naturally, Proposition A is a vacuous statement. In other words, it has no meaning, because it makes claims only about itself. Ad Infinitum is the logical consequence of vacuousness, simply because vacuousness implies infinity. For a clearer perception of what I mean, keep in mind that infinity comes from the root of 'fin', which means "to end". We can see this in such words as "finish", "finale", and the French word "fin". However, we must also understand the concept of 'fin' in that the lack of an end implies unendingness, or, in other words, the lack of boundaries. In essence, infinite means "without parameter", and conversely, "define", "definite", "definitive", "definitely", and "finite" mean, more-or-less respectively, "to apply parameters to", "to have parameters", "a converse causal relationship with a thing's own parameters", and so on. As such, the problem with such so-called "paradoxes" as our definitive Proposition A is not that they are logically irreconcilable, but that they defy logic. To understand how, it is mandatory that we understand the basis of logic. All of logic is based on the assumption of Bivalence, that is, that 'a thing and something which it is not cannot both be true in the same instance'. From Bivalence, all of existence can be inferred, because if a thing and something which it is not cannot both be true in the same instance, this is a fundamental parameter, that is, it means that something is defined, and can have meaning. As it is, meaning is assigned according to distinction; something cannot be distinguished from itself, except by contrast to something which it is not, as such, meaning is contingent on Bivalence. The nature of awareness is the distinction of one thing from another thing, and what we called self-awareness is in fact the distinction of ones self from that which ones self is not. As such, the evolution of thought has been contingent upon bivalence, which is mathematically reducible to binary computation or the distinction of something from nothing. Since anything can be described in binary terms, the nature of all awareness is thusly binary in definition, and Logic, as the deliberate application of awareness to develop complex and coherent sensory-cognitive structures in which the world can be understood as a complex series of binary distinction, or otherwise, as definition. Therefore, the utility of logic is definition, and as we all know, the nature of knowledge and wisdom is coherent, applicable definition. Awareness and higher thought are evolutionary survival mechanisms. As such, unawareness is the lack of distinction; otherwise the lack of definition, which by definition makes it vacuous, or definitive vacuousness. Being vacuous in nature, unawareness is thusly indefinite and infinite, generalized and must be assumed. Contrariwise, awareness is definite, finite, localized and cannot be assumed. “Paradox” is therefore the inability of awareness to encompass or otherwise define unawareness. To define unawareness is to bring it into awareness.

Nihilism is thusly the assumption of nothingness, or the lack of truth and distinction (real or imagined (false or true)). Being localized, awareness is encompassed by generalized unawareness. Consciousness is limited to the brain, the rest of existence is unconscious, and we cannot conceive of it outside of our own assumed experiences. Our experiences are assumed as consciousness is assumed, considering the fact that the only thing we can really be certain of is that the nature of existence is uncertain, because consciousness is limited. Our own conception of this fact is a logical proof that this is the nature of our own minds, as in reality, the mind is only a transient, passing thing. For example, how can I be certain that I existed before I woke up this morning? My memories from before that time may be falsified; how can I be certain that I will continue to exist after I fall asleep? I cannot. If I lose my memory of an event, did it happen to me subjectively? Objectivity is thusly an illusion, as even if all life on earth were to be annihilated, if there is no conscious being remaining to recall it, did it ever subjectively exist? Or, to put it more simply, what is more fundamental: subjectivity or objectivity? True objectivity is impossible, as it is impossible to have a point of view outside of ones own subjective realm of experience. To do so would put it within ones own subjective realm of experience. The closest which may be come is universalism; the idea that common threads of logic may be statistically extracted from all recalled experience, and being logical, are by definition statistically most likely to apply to an assumed objective reality. Logic is the foundation of universalism, a compromise between utter subjectivity and utter unawareness. All truth is assumed in universalism, as a statistical constant, as awareness itself is statistical. A binary differentiation of 1 or 0 may no more be aware than a single atom may be a life form, but enough atoms in enough combinations may make for a life form, as enough binary distinctions in a sufficiently varied configuration makes for an increasingly statistically probable state of awareness to arise. Universalism is statistical, and the nature of objectivity is no concern of ours, as it itself is by nature vacuous to us. Q.E.D.

Although this may seem like Reductio ad absurdum, it is important to note that this is exactly what Nihilism is. One must keep in mind what it is we are dealing with; philosophy is the speculative study of existence, beyond what we would consider science, because science only deals with the falsifiable, in other words, 'that which can be proven wrong'. Reductio ad absurdum is the reduction of proofs beyond the point of absurdity, which is what philosophy routinely engages in. God is non-falsifiable, and yet He has His own segment of philosophy called Theology. Nihilism is merely the continuation of that trend into the reduction of the nature of philosophy beyond the point of conception; i.e. it is the universalistic take on truth, while any philosophical position which is not at heart Nihilistic is by definition subjectivist, because it neglects to concentrate on points which are that absurdly meaningless. Nihilism is merely the realization of the meaninglessness of it all, rather than the completely subjectivist assumption that it isn't meaningless if we don't think about it. Meaninglessness is, in fact, the nature of the philosophical movement known as Absurdism, so much so that the two often bleed into one another to the point that it becomes difficult to determine the difference between them. The difference is largely that Absurdism assumes a fundamental pointlessness to life, while Nihilism attempts to justify this logically.

If anyone has any thoughts or comments, I would love to hear them. This is a topic I’ve been fascinated with since I was old enough to be able to think on such things. --jove

Wisdom from the internet, the answer to the Nihilism Paradox(this was taken from a forum on an unknown website with an unknown author):

As far as I can tell, Nihilism only has it half right.

Let's say I'm a Nihilist. I believe that nothing has value. That depresses me and I'm basically negative.

Problem is, that negativity and depression comes from me valuing value itself. The lack of value leaves me negative. But that's not nihilism any more, that's ordinary value-based thinking reacting to nihilism.

If I'm properly nihilistic, then it's inherantly meaningless to me that life is meaningless. At which point I'm totally free.

And, as long as I remember that it's just me assigning meanings to things (as I'm wired to do, as a human being), I can invent specific meanings for things that empower me. I can create and fulfill goals for myself--not because fulfilling those goals is "better" than not fulfilling them, but because I chose to make a goal and fulfill it! I'm now able to do stuff and produce results without a shred of burden or obligation about it.

That's a good point about the Nihilist himself; as I said above, I'm a Nihilist, and that's pretty much how I feel. As I said below (see: "Am I a Nihiist?"), ignorance of meaninglessness should not equate with the existence of meaning. If you can be happy with meaninglessness without knowing it, then suddenly knowing it ought not to change that. Happiness is mostly subjective, as the mind is a place in itself; arguably, it is the most important place, as it's where each of us spends all of our time. The mind can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell, read Paradise Lost. Ignorance is not bliss. --jove

www.anus.com

Some funny words from Seth Mahoney: "I gave several reasons, and I never gave my view of the philosophy on your site, other than saying that it contradicts known facts and accepted definitions. I'm not at all sure where you got the idea that I disagree with anything said there, other perhaps, than that I keep deleting your link." source What, is he deluded, or what? This person is iNsAnE. www.anus.com 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth, I read this entire talk page and you have not listed any compelling reason why ANUS cannot be listed. The only thing I see from you are the typical arguments that come about when someone disagrees with a philosophical ideology (which you are entitled to disagree with, this is not in question). You have no business getting to arbitarily decide what makes or doesn't make the cut based on your agreement with the content on the site. Wikipedia is not the PhD review board of a university nor should it try to be one given its nature. The site should be listed and people should use the talk pages and present the content in such a way that fairly represents any concerns/comments/criticisms people have over it. Anything less is a disgrace to the Wikipedia concept and reflects poorly on your character. 129.110.198.150 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

People keep removing the link, but if CounterOrder.com and Elisha Shapiro belong here, clearly ANUS - which predates both - does as well, so I'm adding it again and will continue to do so. www.anus.com 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, my only problem with the site is that its content is sub-par. It isn't well written, it spins a new, not commonly accepted, set of meanings into nihilism, and its writers need some education in the history of philosophy. Its age is irrelevant, only its content is important. Not every site deserves to be linked to, and not every old site or organization deserves to be linked to. If you have good arguments why it should be here, by all means present them. If you want to request arbitration, by all means do so. If you just want to start a pointless edit war, by all means get lost. -Seth Mahoney 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have said why the site deserves to be here: it's a good site with lots of writing on nihilism that may not conform to your narrow definition of "nihilism," but is philosophically consistent. If you have proof otherwise, post it. If not, then YOU are the one starting the edit war, and it is YOUR lack of maturity that continues it. ANUS.com is the oldest nihilist page on the internet and you've failed to give any reasons against it other than that you don't like its content. Grow the fuck up. www.anus.com 05:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you read anything here, try This.

I used to think that Seth would be the aggressive type to give my rump a good pounding. Now I realize he is a meek and passive homosexual. The feminine kind. That isn't the kind I want inside me. Seth, I'm still willing to participate in anal sex with you, but you gotta be bottom now. Sorry. --Iconoclast 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link because I don't think it is a good representation of nihilism - the information contained on it is neither factual, nor represents the POV it claims to represent. An example of a non-factual statement:

As a philosophy, existentialism is designated historically as a certain movement around the time of F.W. Nietzsche

The POV the website claims to represent:

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has inherent value other than what it actually is.

An example of it not actually representing this POV:

Every human problem could be solved with rigorous eugenics.

-Seth Mahoney 03:50, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

You're projecting personal opinion that is not accurate here, Seth. DNA is what "reality actually is." I think you're afraid of the ideas on this site and thus keep censoring it. What a loser! www.anus.com 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is why [Jason Scott http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000100.html] wrote what he did. 67.10.73.69 01:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, b. Oct. 15, 1844, d. Aug. 25, 1900, was a German philosopher who, together with Soren Kierkegaard, shares the distinction of being a precursor of Existentialism." [Existentialism:Nietzsche http://www.dividingline.com/private/Philosophy/Philosophers/Nietz/nietz.shtml] 67.10.73.69 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have the community decide, Seth, instead of you taking control. This is very reminiscent of the evils of fascism, and I am saddened a fellow Marxist such as yourself would flirt with such evil. --Iconoclast 04:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: eugenics solves mind-body dualism by acknowledging that we are, indeed, products of our bodies, including our minds. You can't get more pure nihilist than that, even if it offends or dismays you. 67.10.73.69 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with you there, Seth. You failed to provide a reason why what "you think" should be authoritative, or show an actual conflict in ANUS.com's reasoning. I wonder what kind of bad psychology is going on here. Prozak 05:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, disagreeing is fine, but you'd do better to actually show what you disagree with. Existentialism is generally thought of as beginning with Sartre, not contemporary with Nietzsche (or maybe, and this is highly debatable, with Kierkegaard, who died ten years after Nietzsche was born), and a belief that every human problem can be solved by employing eugenics is contrary to a belief that nothing has any inherent value other than what it actually is, as it expresses a faith in eugenics that goes beyond the facts of what eugenics is. -Seth Mahoney 01:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

That's extremely mediocre philosophy there. Eugenics, as a naturalist/materialist proposition, is by nature a contrast to "faith".67.10.73.69 04:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, I think your distinction between "naturalist/materialist" and "faith" is arbitrary (and thus suggestive of "extremely mediocre philosphy"). Had I been more specific and said, "religious faith" or "faith in God" or something ridiculous like that, you might have a point, but I didn't. Not to mention, eugenics isn't a proposition, "naturalist/materialist" or otherwise, it has no intrinsic nature, in contrast to faith or otherwise, and name-calling isn't the same as showing that something is incorrect. I await your extremely mediocre response with bated breath. -Seth Mahoney 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Seth, that's a cop-out. "Faith" as you used it refers to a belief in anything. Nihilism itself is a faith in that view, and hence self-contradicting. Our version does not have that inherent contradiction, is fully explicated on the site, and we're the oldest net site dealing with the topic. What is your bias and why are you having such trouble including an obviously credible resource? Is it that the name offends you? Or that some of are views are so nihilistic - like our acceptance of eugenics - that they hit your PC hot buttons? I'd suggest some maturity, young man, because so far you're doing nothing but proving the newspapers right about WikiPedia - "a giant vanity site." 67.10.73.69 05:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, 'faith', as I've used it, refers to an unjustified belief in anything. As for why I'd rather not see that site linked to, it has everything to do with its quality, and nothing to do with its name, my "PC hot buttons", my bias, its being "too nihilistic" (if anything, the opposite), etc. But then, I've already said all of that, so I guess if you really wanted to know you could have already read it. -Seth Mahoney 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Same way I'm using faith above. My point was that you're not linking the site because it approves of something you're afraid of, e.g. eugenics. Not mature, not encyclopedic, in fact downright disappointing. 67.10.73.69 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Try The Nihilist Manifesto - perhaps nihilism, like many terms, is under analysis. I don't see where your data is authoritative, and why people seem to desire to portray nihilism as fatalism. 67.10.73.69 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't an issue of having authoritative data, but of having data that isn't self-contradictory or otherwise flawed. Not every page gets linked to from a wikipedia article - that's just the way it is. If anus.com has significantly changed, and has improved its information, it can be reconsidered (it would also have to meet other requirements, such as being a notable source, etc.). But I haven't seen any evidence that it has. Please don't re-add the link until such a time as anus.com provides accurate and non-self-contradictory information. -Seth Mahoney 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you're dodging the issue, Seth. ANUS is the oldest source of nihilism-related material on the internet, and just because you disagree with it and don't consider it authoritative has little to do with its merit. Can we get an opinion from an unbiased moderator, plz? 67.10.73.69 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should democratically decide whether or not we should remove ANUS's link. This is a pluralistic, democratic encyclopedia and we should make sure the community decides. --Iconoclast 04:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That I happen to be the only one participating on the talk page doesn't mean that I've co-opted the article toward my own ends. Be a little more careful next time you throw around the word 'fascist'. As far as letting the community decide, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is an anon user periodically adding a link to a page that has a history of being sub-par. -Seth Mahoney 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So you say - others (300,000 of them per month) disagree. Why do you assume you are an absolute source? 67.10.73.69 02:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I don't. If you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, add it. Otherwise, don't bother with the typing. -Seth Mahoney 18:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so we've fallen into ad hominem already, Seth, as if you really wanted to discredit yourself further. Please stick to the argument at hand: why are refusing to include the net's oldest nihilism resource simply because its stance on eugenics offends you? That's not professional. I really don't see why you're doing this, unless you want to further wreck WikiPedia's already tarnished reputation for biased, inaccurate, incomplete content. 67.10.73.69 05:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, that wasn't an ad hominem, since it referred to what you said, and not to you as a person. Anyway, we were already down that road - I've been called a fascist, a user of "extremely mediocre philosophy", etc. Let's not pull the "I'm a big baby and can't tolerate a little abuse" act, especially when you've been dishing as much if not more than me, eh?

As for the actual content of your question, my view on the validity of this web page has nothing to do with any imagined offense at its stand on eugenics. Read more carefully. -Seth Mahoney 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I read between the lines, and your only "reason" is that you think our stance on eugenics is illogical. Other than that, you've contributed nothing of content. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying as an attack; my point is that your actions are ludicrous and you have a chance to rectify this. You have no reason for not including the anus.com site except that you're afraid of our stance on eugenics, and you've chosen to dress this up by calling the site "illogical" and "poor quality." If the site is a participant, that's ad hom, not argument. I wonder if people with your bigoted, paranoid view of the world would get hired at a real encyclopedia. 67.10.73.69 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, if you have something to say regarding why www.anus.com should be linked to that has to do with its content, and not the age of the site, or the number of visitors it gets, by all means throw it out, because the last time I looked the content was very much sub-par. If things have changed, maybe the link should be added. If you don't have anything to say, I have better things to do than argue about this. -Seth Mahoney 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That's very reasonable of you, if you mean it. Try the new Nihilist Manifesto or Love and Nihilism.67.10.73.69 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My, Seth, I'm impressed on how you took control. You seem like a guy who knows what he wants and gets it. Where do you live? You could stop by my apartment and show me just how forceful you are. I'm not too old for a wild night ;). --Iconoclast 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Iconoclast: Yuck. Seth: I notice that Gene Ray's Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube site has its own Wikipedia page, yet you are arguing that the ANUS.com site doesn't deserve even an ancillary article on the merit of its content being sub-par.

While perhaps amusing, I'm not a fan of the above post from Iconoclast. That said, Seth your behaviour here is, as far as I can see, wholly unjustified and transparently dishonest. Not being a subscriber to the policies you seem to have taken issue with on the ANUS page, yet having read the site for seven years and used it on occasion for post-graduate research, I am sure you can understand why I have added an attempt at a balanced incorporation of ANUS.com to the main article. -Nile577 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Nile577

Not anything vs. nothing

Originally, this page used to say that "nihil" means "nothing," and as a regular Latin word that is what it means. It has since been changed to say "nihil" means "not anything," so I was wondering if that is a special sense of the word used in this context. I think it would be much clearer if it just said "nothing," but I thought I would ask before changing it. Adam Bishop 14:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall whether I made the change or someone else did, but I did at least verify the "not anything" from several sources, which I assume (I'm not particularly familiar with the structure of Latin, beyond its use in English) was defined that way because the word consists of two morphemes, one meaning "not" and one meaning "anything", which would make "not anything" the literal translation. As far as any English speaker is concerned, the two are virtually the same (though "not anything" is more likely to make one stop and think about it for a minute, as you did), so I don't particularly care either way. -Seth Mahoney 17:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Try The Nihilist Manifesto

re: Aryans (not Greeks) represent Nietzsche's Master Morality

I'm new to the whole wiki thing, but i nevertheless do *not* appreciate your [Seth's] characterization of my edit as "spamming". Your "commonly accepted view" that Nietzche's Master Morality is embodied in the ancient greeks is certainly a result of you (and your peers) seeing the numerous ancient greek references throughout his works (apollonian, et al), *however* when Nietzsche traces the degeneration of Morality (from master -> slave), it goes: aryan -> jew -> christan. Also, if it wasn't an obvious hint, the preacher of the Uebermensch (and the corresponding master morality) in "Also Sprach.." is none other than *TADA!!* Zurathustra/Zoroaster-- the Zoroastrian prophet. Yes, *ZOROASTRIANISM*-- bka, the old Aryan/Persian faith.

Summary: Nietzsch makes a rather cohesive timeline of "morality".. [master/original morality] ARYANS -> [slave morality, eg: 'du darfst nicht'/'thou shalt not'] JEWS -> [slave morality^x - 'blessed are the ugly/stupid/pathetic/weak..] CHRISTIANITY -> [nihilism] -> [Uebermensch - "I will!"]. I assume he used extensive greek allusions due to the fact that most/all "educated" folk (who, btw, he ridicules as *ahem* only being able to parrot "commonly accepted views") were/are very familiar with these tales and the lessons therein.

Oh, Nietzsche's works aren't to be picked through for 'study' by children and/or people pushing an agenda. I won't spend my time paging through text files trying to find excerpts to argue against your silly assertions. That sort of thing is the reason why "educated" people to this day refer to Nietzsche as a Nihilist. Anyone with a proper understanding of Nietzsche's world would understand that the "nihilist" is the one who's eyes have been opened and despair the loss of commonly accepted morality. The Uebermensch, however, sees that as a liberation and is described as anything but a Nihilist (in the russian/philos. sense). Calling Nietzsche a 'nihilist' is a weak-attempt to discredit the ideal of overcoming Man-- it's the slave (the sniveling 'flies' that buzz and stung at Zura.) trying [apparently successfully] to undermine the ideals and initiatives of the Master.

Also, if you didn't get it, Nietzsche's "new" morality is a continuation of the ancient morality of the Aryans. I know it's hard for Western minds to accept, but there was something before the 1st Plundering of Palestine and the decadence of the Greeks. It's incorrect to refer to it as something new or hypothetical.

--> I appologize for being 'un academic' and, at times, harsh, but as someone who has read Nietzsche independantly and holisticly, I'm a bit taken aback by all of the modern misinformatin concerning his teachings. To understand Nietzsche, one has to a have a fairly independant understanding of the Bible, Church, History, etc which most modern types don't. His writings should be explored and understood in context w/ no presuppostion of 'political correctness'. One great example is how people refuse to discuss/acknowledge who N. refers to as 'Tarantulas' in 'Also Sprach..' (hint: gives fuel to the "nietzsche is a big, bad, meany anti-semite" side of the debate).

If 'modern sensitivities' are what's preventing the academic community (which i'm assuming you're a part of) from acknowledging or even mentioning Aryans and their role in [Nietzsche's view of] history, that's your personal bias. If it makes you feel better, 'Aryan' is (quite obviously) an alternate transliteration of 'Iranian'-- we'll use that instead. See, now everyone can be happy!

I'll leave your wiki page alone now-- that just had to be said.

-AAG (edit 19.2.2005)

Nietzsche is dead. He's irrelevant. 24.22.227.53 16:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) As a corrolary: My interpretation is what matters now (where my is the person stating it, and their ability to handle the consequences).

Merge out to Nihilism movement

I took the liberty of moving the material on the Russian Nihilism movement to a separate article, and merging material on the subject from some other articles, mainly because it's not clear to me that it's strongly related to the philosophy of nihilism — at least not enough to share the same article. I added a disambiguation message to the top. The new article discusses historical aspects of Russian Nihilism and compares it to anarchy and the philosophy of nihilism. I hope this is a positive change. Deco 06:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think some mention should be made here of Russian nihilism, because it figures into the general idea, but I also think you're right - it warrants its own article. The title, however, should be Nihilist movement or Russian nihilism. I'd change it now, but I don't want to be all authoritarian. Let's have a vote - which would you prefer? -Seth Mahoney 05:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, this title is no good. I think I'd prefer Nihilist movement, because Russian nihilism seems to suggest that it only affected and was only practiced in Russia. My only concern is that neither of these seem to clearly separate it from nihilism. Perhaps we'll just rely on the disambiguation message at the top for that. Deco 18:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it and I think I took care of all the links. -Seth Mahoney 21:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Am I a nihilist?

I would like one of you wise people’s opinion on whether or not a belief that there is no purpose to life and hence there is nothing we live for, can be considered nihilistic? If not surely there is some school of philosophy that propagates such a notion. Could someone point me in their direction please?

doesitreallymatter

Not sure if I count as a wise person or not, but here's my two cents: Nihilism or existentialism could go that route. Existentialism especially if you mean there is nothing that all human beings live for, but that each person lives for whatever he or she chooses. Nihilism probably more if you're talking anything that might replace X in the sentence "I live for X" is illusory, false, or a flat out lie. Another way to put the question: There's no purpose to life, granted. So do we give up? If the answer is "not necessarily", you get existentialism; if the answer is "yes", you get nihilism; if the answer is "no, we rejoice!" you might get some version of postmodernism. -Seth Mahoney 23:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers Seth, your final example illustrated your point wonderfully. Forgive me if I am trespassing into what you might hold as cofidential - but do you really believe that there is actually any purpose to life? The way I see it, the fact that we can never have a perfect society to satisfy all of our needs, leads to the conclusion that there is nothing solid that we can aim for as a species. Ofcourse, the very concept is based on what appears rather blatant to me: each of us, or literally all of us are too induvidualistic to be able live in complete harmony under a fixed system for, possibly, eternity. If you agree that there is no system, or multitude of systems that can ever keep people, as they are today, living (not even going to venture into living happily!) together, it eliminates the one goal I believe man has been trying to achieve all through his existance. What says you of this line of thought? the existentialist!

I guess, I'm thinking (and my thoughts about this are pretty ill-formed): Do we need a single, species-wide goal? Is that even a good thing? (And what do we mean by 'species' here?) Wouldn't it be better to have lots of different goals? I mean, I don't believe in God, and certainly not an omniscient God. I also don't think people are omniscient. So, granted that, isn't it possible that any particular goal could be a bad idea? And granted that, isn't it better to have lots of different, sometimes competing, sure, goals in the hope that at least one of them ends up making things better for us? -Seth Mahoney 02:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry got caught up in some other work, the last couple of days. You are trying to concieve what's best for the species (or humanity if you like) but what my arguement leads to is that without a purpose/ideal scenario, there is no good or bad. Without the perfection to aim for, there is nothing to help define whether something is wrong or right (whether it leads to the goal or not). So it leads to a situation where there is absolutely no aim or direction to human existance, or for that matter - to the universe; it just and we just, keep doing what we were doing till..... the existentialist

This might be where we have to agree to disagree, though I always hate to see things come to that. I don't think that you have to have perfection as an absolute goal to realize that a given situation is better than another. One way to look at that is to note that 'better' can mean "better with respect to some stated goal". So, for example, clam chowder is a better chowder than chicken noodle soup because clam chowder is creamy and all the things a chowder should be. Though perhaps not a better person in a larger sense, someone who has trained as a runner is a better runner than I am. Likewise, I think, I can say "this is a better situation with respect to X", where X can be replaced with "human freedom", "starvation", "poverty", and so on. The way I would tend to take a statement like "this society is better than this other society" is to say that the speaker has a cluster of things he or she means the first society is better than the second with respect to, and they think that those things are important. So I can work on my projects and they can work on theirs and we can still improve society even though we don't agree on what makes for a better society. -Seth Mahoney 21:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you attach any special emotive meaning to this, you'd be talking about solipsistic pessimism (or pessimism more generally). Any particular reason for the inclusion of "society"? 24.22.227.53 03:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have said above already, Absurdism is the movement which claims life is fundamentally pointless. Nihilism simply seeks to justify this view by reducing meaning to meaninglessness logically. As to whether or not a meaningless existence is reason to give up, I do not think so at all. Certainly we should not give up as a species just because we can't create Utopia, a name, by the way, which means "no place" in Greek. If we realize that life is pointless, what is so different about life aside from the fact that we have realized its pointlessness? Unless you were terribly unhappy and on the verge of giving up before you realized the pointlessness of it all, why should suddenly knowing this change your mood? Life is just as enjoyable and nothing about it has fundamentally changed, and the notion that we ought to give up because it's pointless is like saying we should give up eating when we learn that our brains are electro-chemically designed to make us feel hungry so that we will, in fact, eat. As is obvious to every Nihilist and should be obvious to those of you who have already read my other contribution to "the paradox" section above, ignorance does and should not equate to meaning. --jove

Out of the blue, but related question

I fell into a discussion tonight about a topic I think is related, but am not sure. I appeal to any and all out there who might have an idea or opinion...Is the belief that there is nothing after death, that is, when you die, that you/your consciousness is just gone, is that a part of nihilism? Not that there is no point to this human life on earth, but that there is just "nothing" after the last brain wave dies out, is that a part of nihilism? Is there a different "ism" for the idea that when the switch is flipped, there is complete darkness? I appreciate all responses to this, as I have limited time at this point in my life to actually go out and research philosophy, but this topic is on my mind. Any thoughts?

Not necessarily. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that death is the end, as it were. Ludwig Wittgenstein believed that the afterlife doesn't do "what its supposed to" - that is, it doesn't provide us with any sort of meaningful continued "life" after death. I also don't think most athiests believe in a life after death. None of these people would likely call themselves nihilists. Another way to look at it: Nietzsche thought Christianity was nihilistic, and one of the reasons he thought that was because of Christians' belief in the afterlife. -Seth Mahoney 14:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fight Club - from Nihilist movement page

The following test was on the Nihilism movement page, but is probably more appropriate on the Nihilism page. I don't want to add it directly, though because it looks like there's already a healthy section on art and culture:

===Popular culture===

Nihilism is presently referred to as synonym to blind destruction as a means to political change. As such, it has become a theme in a number of contemporary cultural works, such as Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel Fight Club, in which the ultimate goal of the book's 'project mayhem' is the destruction of society in order to rebuild humanity.

It was originally on this page and I moved it. I honestly don't see how it has anything to do with the philosophy, which has nothing to do with destruction. Deco 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I I don't see what it has to do with a russian political movement either. I moved it here because it was about nihilism in culture (which is ably represented here already) Let's leave it out altogether. An An 05:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This page already has a reference to Fight Club in the literature section. We should just leave the text here. -Seth Mahoney 06:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Non-controversial page change

As it is standard with Wikipedia pages, there is no reason the table of contents should be to the right of the article, it should come before the body of the article, right after the introduction. It simply looks ugly like this (before the change I am making right now). Thank you!

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Sounds good to me, thanks for noticing and making that change! -Seth Mahoney 01:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you generally don't have to explain when you make a noncontroversial change, unless you really want to, or it might not really be all that noncontroversial. Deco 07:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed minor definition of Nihilism

In this context, there's no framework. 24.22.227.53 08:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why recently?

See the section "# 3.3 Nihilism in Music". Why is it that nihilism in music is more noticable? Yes, information does tend to travel quickly these days, however, that does not explain why people are attaching to any of these nihilistic ideals through music. If we can attach Pink Floyd to the bare begginnings of this pattern of nihilism in music, we can say it starts near the 1970s and obviously continues from there. But, why? What was going on then besides the Cold War? Perhaps, such shift in ideals can be attributed to the quote on the page for the 1970s: "The nuclear family rose to prominence in the third world and the role of women in nuclear families took radical shift from those of earlier generation" -- implying that the work force consisting of nuclear families had their children without the same motherly influence as before. Is this of any relevance? Insert psychology article link here. -- 66.68.138.69 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Section moved here

Moved this from the article page:

Some persons have associated anarchism with nihilism, reasoning that if political science is the study of improving the design of government, then anarchy would be anti-political theoretically, thus nihilistic. It has been claimed that during the Red Scare, the U.S. government spread propaganda equating anarchism with nihilism.

What persons have associated anarchism with nihilism using such reasoning? Who claimed that about the U.S. Government?

-Seth Mahoney 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism in music section

Punk rock has often been regarded as taking a nihilistic and anarchistic view of the world around it. Another approach to nihilism has been taken by black metal and death metal, whose intentionally bizarre composition and morbid lyrics depict life's meaninglessness and a lack of absolute morals. Gothic Rock, Deathrock and No wave are closely related genres that have all been known to raise Nihilistic issues.

However, the subcultures that have sprung up around these genres contain some unique social norms and mores. An example would be so-called Pit Etiquette. These are the rules of common courtesy that dictate behavior in mosh pits at concerts. The existence of these mores suggests that although lyrically and artistically a philosophy of nihilism may permeate these genres, the draw to their normally younger fan base may be based more on an illusion of rebellion than any real nihilistic beliefs.

Some of Pink Floyd's music, especially that on the album The Wall, bears many nihilistic lyrics. The song "Comfortably Numb" bears many nihilistic phrases in it, especially in the chorus.

Gangsta rap arose from Too Short, Schoolly D, and Ice T telling tales of their experiences on the street and was distilled in the words of N.W.A. who elevated the sub-genre to the point of nihilism. For example, in "Straight Outta Compton" Eazy-E states, "I don't give a fuck, that's the problem." As their success eclipsed other rappers, the repuation of all gangsta rap was marked by its nihlist tone.

The music of Nine Inch Nails has often been described as nihilistic, particularly the album The Downward Spiral, featuring lyrics such as "God is dead, and no-one cares."

I think this could be a valuable section, but not as it is now, for one reason: It isn't sourced at all. Who has often described Nine Inch Nails' or Pink Floyd's or N.W.A.'s music as nihilistic? Who says punk takes a nihilistic attitude? Your friends? Not good enough. Someone who figures in music theory? A prominent church leader? The Canadian Prime Minister? Much better. -Seth Mahoney 19:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would start with the death metal band named NIHILIST. www.anus.com 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Names aren't good enough. For all I or most other readers of this page know, NIHILIST is some Europop band that performs songs about wanting their boyfriends to be more like Vladimir Putin (except that I happen to know the name of that particular band). There has to be some sort of recognized authority to work with here, or this section becomes just so much angsty teenage trash. -Seth Mahoney 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we've already established you're a power abusive individual. The term "nihilism" was widely used to cover punk hardcore (not punk rock), but I can also tell you that death metal bands idealized nihilism enough to take on the name and use it in song titles. Beyond that, it's up to you. I am against this section entirely, as the people here including you do not understand nihilism and are petty dilettantes. www.anus.com 00:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That I abuse power or not (I'm wondering where you get the idea that I do abuse power, considering that I have none - or at least, have the same as everyone else - here) is completely irrelevant to whether or not this or that band belongs in this section. Regardless, I totally agree that there are bands and movements in music that have embraced aspects of nihilism. That's why the section was there, and why I'd eventually like to see it restored. The problem is in determining which bands should be included and which bands shouldn't. And what I'm saying is not only that your thinking a band should be included doesn't really count for much, but also that my thinking a band should be included doesn't count for much. There should be reference to some third party here which has some authority on the subject. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you have taken lessons in misreading people. -Seth Mahoney 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Observations

This article still doesn't make clear that Nietzsche was an anti-nihilist (I suggest the antonym of Nihilist to be existentialist; as in: anti-existence/life versus pro-existence) and that he reacted to Schopenhauer's nihilism. The key, seminal and unsurpassed philosopher of Nihilism is Schopenhauer, who is only given a cursory gloss. It's as if the main writer is biased against Nihilism instead of giving an objective account of it. It's obvious from his astute quoting in this forum that he is a Nietzschean, which should exclude him from being able to give a proper objective account of Nihilism. This is akin to an atheist writing the article on Christianity. Schopenhauer (and perhaps a few minor lights such as Leopardi) should be the focus here, with Nietzsche as a reactionary foil who was influenced by Schopenhauer (there is a quote about him, while still a student, finding Schopenhauer's main work in a used bookstore somewhere). If this is true, perhaps the writer should work on the Nietzsche & Existentialism articles and leave this one to those who are pro-Nihilism (or at least neutral). Also, while Shakespeare and "Macbeth" are mentioned as seminal, "Hamlet" (which addresses the issue in a revelatory way) is completely neglected. - Nemo Senki

It is preferred that you sign your talk page contributions by adding -~~~~ at the end, rather than doing so manually. By all means, add information on Schopenhauer and Hamlet if you're interested. Your contributions are welcome. -Seth Mahoney 19:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)