Nhilism

[Art Delfo]

How does one fall into Nhilism? There are many ways, vairous forms of sadness could lead to it. However this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the nature of Nhilism.

Nhilism basicy means "Nothing" + "ism". I think there are there are two types of Nhilism. Note that Nhilism allways, no matter what type it is, Absurdity and the absense of meaning applies. The first one is well known to Existentialists.

The first Nhilism is whens ones subjective stops giving feelings or Asthedics to the objects that surround them. This is what Sartre calls Nausea. The Nhilist just sees the thing exist with out feeling. This makes the ego unable to externalize itself, or lose it's self in the feeling. The ego will desire to touch somthing but it can't because it is mental, it is a thoguht, much like feelings are thoughts. This type of Nhilism is worser than the other because a feelingless, meaningless world is just not worth living in.

The second type of Nhilsim could be liked to Delusion. The Nhilist sees an object but he does not know if that object is real, or a creation of his mind. The world becomes dream-like. In this state ego does not know how to define itself because it now sees that it does not exist. However Buddhahood cannot be reached because one does not see any obejctiive at all and therefore the self cannot become the whole that surrounds it. There are many ways to come out of this one becaus eit is subjective. However, it would require the use of reason and logic to know that the outer world can be reached. For both one must give meaning to their own life to get out. However it may reqiure more than that.

[Shane99X]

How does one fall into Nhilism? There are many ways, vairous forms of sadness could lead to it. However this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the nature of Nhilism.

Nhilism basicy means "Nothing" + "ism". I think there are there are two types of Nhilism. Note that Nhilism allways, no matter what type it is, Absurdity and the absense of meaning applies. The first one is well known to Existentialists.

The first Nhilism is whens ones subjective stops giving feelings or Asthedics to the objects that surround them. This is what Sartre calls Nausea. The Nhilist just sees the thing exist with out feeling. This makes the ego unable to externalize itself, or lose it's self in the feeling. The ego will desire to touch somthing but it can't because it is mental, it is a thoguht, much like feelings are thoughts. This type of Nhilism is worser than the other because a feelingless, meaningless world is just not worth living in.

The second type of Nhilsim could be liked to Delusion. The Nhilist sees an object but he does not know if that object is real, or a creation of his mind. The world becomes dream-like. In this state ego does not know how to define itself because it now sees that it does not exist. However Buddhahood cannot be reached because one does not see any obejctiive at all and therefore the self cannot become the whole that surrounds it. There are many ways to come out of this one becaus eit is subjective. However, it would require the use of reason and logic to know that the outer world can be reached. For both one must give meaning to their own life to get out. However it may reqiure more than that.Isn't that sort of circular logic?

If you believe nothing has objective meaning, how does giving meaning to anything (a subjective individual act) suddenly give it objective meaning?

"However, it would require the use of reason and logic to know that the outer world can be reached."

That's assuming that logic and reasoning have meaning. If you believe that nothing can be proved to exist or to not exist, how do we know that logic and reasoning exist or that they have any objective value? That they are not subjective as well?

In other words, i could say that it is impossible for me to truely know whether or not this computer exists in an objective reality.

Telling myself that logic and reasoning show that it does, requires me to assume that logic and reasoning exist in an objective reality and to place objective value on logic and reasoning. But i have no proof of that either.

Where exactly is the loophole in nihilism?

To me, it seems that once an individual accepts nihilism there really is no going back short of flat denial.

[JLPMGHRS]

"However, it would require the use of reason and logic to know that the outer world can be reached."

That's assuming that logic and reasoning have meaning. If you believe that nothing can be proved to exist or to not exist, how do we know that logic and reasoning exist or that they have any objective value? That they are not subjective as well?
everyone uses logic, even those who deny that they do. it's an inescapable concept. It's fundamentally necessary to thinking. Without it we have no communication, no thought, no language...

[Shane99X]

everyone uses logic, even those who deny that they do. it's an inescapable concept. It's fundamentally necessary to thinking. Without it we have no communication, no thought, no language...I didn't say there wasn't such a thing that we call logic, or that nobody uses logic.

What i said was that we can't prove the ojective existence of anything by using logic and reasoning, because we can't prove that logic or reasoning exist in any objective sence without using logic and reasoning, which sort of defeats the point.

circular logic...

[JLPMGHRS]

I didn't say there wasn't such a thing that we call logic, or that nobody uses logic.

What i said was that we can't prove the ojective existence of anything by using logic and reasoning, because we can't prove that logic or reasoning exist in any objective sence without using logic and reasoning, which sort of defeats the point.

circular logic...logic does exist though, you used it to write this post. it's fundamentally necessary to thinking. and that applies to everyone.

I don't think it is logic that keeps us from proving the objective existence of something.

[Shane99X]

logic does exist though, you used it to write this post. it's fundamentally necessary to thinking. and that applies to everyone.

I don't think it is logic that keeps us from proving the objective existence of something.
I didn't say logic doesn't exist at all.

reread the post.

[Shane99X]

Think of it this way, guy.


You and i know what the color blue looks like.

Someone who is color blind or of another species might not, because their vision isn't tuned that way.

Now, knowing that, how can you prove that outside of human experience there is a color blue?

Or what we term beautiful or ugly?

Logic and reasoning are the same.

You and I use logic and reasoning, but a butterfly does not.

So, does that mean that a butterfly just doesnt recognize what we call logic and reasoning or that logic and reasoning do not exist outside of the realm of humanity and are an evolutionary result of a more complex mind trying to make sence of the world it experiences?

Is it subjective and only it applies to humanity, or is it objective and a universal truth?

[JLPMGHRS]

I didn't say logic doesn't exist at all.

reread the post.All I'm saying is that you can't get away from it. We can't prove logical laws without presupposing the logic to prove them and we can't deny logical laws without presupposing the logic to deny them.

That's what I'm saying when I say logic is an inescapable concept.

The use of logic is not optional.

[JLPMGHRS]

Is it subjective and only it applies to humanity, or is it objective and a universal truth?I believe this is a false dilemma. There are things that only human beings have which animals do not. Does the fact that the animals don't have them make them false or is it cause for there reality to be questioned? Of course not.

It's not either-or.

[Shane99X]

All I'm saying is that you can't get away from it. We can't prove logical laws without presupposing the logic to prove them and we can't deny logical laws without presupposing the logic to deny them.

That's what I'm saying when I say logic is an inescapable concept.

The use of logic is not optional.
Duh, guy.

That was the point of my original reply.

circular logic.

[Shane99X]

I believe this is a false dilemma. There are things that only human beings have which animals do not. Does the fact that the animals don't have them make them false or is it cause for there reality to be questioned? Of course not.

It's not either-or.
why not?

[Shane99X]

Maybe this piece from Wiki can explain it better than I:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
To logically deduce that one cannot realise objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity) (certain) truth as opposed to subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) (assumed) truth, one requires logic. Logic is an artefact of the human mind, which is a finite, subjective apparatus of observation and "experience". Thus, from within the confines of "human experience", it is possible to be convinced (by logical and therefore subjective means) that it is not possible to realise objective truth. The nihilist, then, cannot profess to know something objectively and without bias, but he can submit that he is subjectively convinced that he will never be certain in his knowledge of anything. Therefore, nihilism is a type of cosmic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos) agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) ( 'agnostic' meaning 'without knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis)' ) in which the nihilist merely admits that he can never be certain of anything, not for lack of evidence, but for the fallibility inherent to consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness).

[JLPMGHRS]

I didn't say logic doesn't exist at all.

reread the post.i'm not trying to put words in your mouth. i guess what it comes down to is, logic is part of our identity as human beings. it's who we are. we have to start with it to make sense of anything and i'm not sure we could get away from it even if we wanted to.

[JLPMGHRS]

Maybe this piece from Wiki can explain it better than I:but if logic is an unescapable reality for all human beings and the laws of logic universally apply, even if some deny that they do, then wouldn't that make it objective?

[Shane99X]

but if logic is an unescapable reality for all human beings and the laws of logic universally apply, even if some deny that they do, then wouldn't that make it objective?
That's the point, it's impossible to prove that the laws of logic universally apply outside of human experience. So how can you say with certainty that it is objective?

[JLPMGHRS]

That's the point, it's impossible to prove that the laws of logic universally apply outside of human experience. So how can you say with certainty that it is objective?why would they need to in order to be reality? if it is just part of who we are, which I think it is, then why would it need to apply to an animal or a rock to be reality.

It's the reality of who and what human beings are.

I do think God is logical but that's another thread.

[Shane99X]

why would they need to in order to be reality? if it is just part of who we are, which I think it is, then why would it need to apply to an animal or a rock to be reality.

It's the reality of who and what human beings are.

So you believe that it is possible that logic and reasoning only apply to the human race and as such would not be universal, absolute or objective reality, but instead, a part of a limited, relative, and subjective reality?

How is that different from my POV?

[JLPMGHRS]

So you believe that it is possible that logic and reasoning only apply to the human race and as such would not be universal, absolute or objective reality, but instead, a part of a limited, relative, and subjective reality?

How is that different from my POV?but i don't understand why because it is unique in human beings why that would not allow it to be absolute, universal, and an objective reality. The laws of logic are absolute. they're not whatever you want them to be. they apply to everyone the same.

By the way, I believe God is logical too, not just man. He made man in His image.

[Shane99X]

but i don't understand why because it is unique in human beings why that would not allow it to be absolute, universal, and an objective reality.
I'm not sure if you are being serious or if you are just messing with me...

If it is unique and only applies to human beings then it is relative not absolute.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be objective reality, but that is no way to prove that it is objective reality.

[JLPMGHRS]

I'm not sure if you are being serious or if you are just messing with me...

If it is unique and only applies to human beings then it is relative not absolute.you don't think there are things that are true of us as humans but not true of a tree. maybe we need to define terms.

[Shane99X]

maybe we need to define terms.
Yes, i think we do, because as far as i can tell you are making zero sense.

[Shane99X]

Terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org

Main article: Objectivity (philosophy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29)
Objectivity, as a concept of philosophy, is dependent upon the presupposition distinguishing references in the field of epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) regarding the ontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) status of a possible objective reality, and the state of being objective in regard to references towards whatever is considered as objective reality. Inherent to the distinction is a paradoxical notion that despite the various meanings or definitions assigned to the concept by various disciplines, schools of thought, or individual philosophers, there is ultimately a body of knowledge representative of a single reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality)

In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), subjectivity refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) that are only available to that person's consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness). Though certain parts of experience are objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength) of a specific beam of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light)), others are only available to the person experiencing them (the quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality) of the color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color) itself).

[Columbo]

The first Nhilism is whens ones subjective stops giving feelings or Asthedics to the objects that surround them. This is what Sartre calls Nausea No he doesnt ! What Sartre calls Nausea is the feeling a person will experience when for a moment they realise that they are free and at that point it will become like staring into a void like abyss, at this point one realise that ones choices are open and that the person is indeed living an authentic existence. This becomes too much and one recoils from the abyss and prefers an inauthentic existence. The difference between authenticity and inauthenticity you must read for yourself as it requires an understanding not suited to a forum- So its,er.. very little to do with Nihilism actually.
The Nhilist just sees the thing exist with out feeling. This makes the ego unable to externalize itself, or lose it's self in the feeling. The ego will desire to touch somthing but it can't because it is mental, it is a thoguht, much like feelings are thoughts. This type of Nhilism is worser than the other because a feelingless, meaningless world is just not worth living in
according to whom?
However this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the nature of NhilismNo it isnt, clearly your last sentences are about some Bhuddist text that you havent properly understood.
Can I suggest that you read Sartre for beginners. Also there is a very good book called Existentialism for beginners. If you want to dive straight in to sartre I would not start with his novel called "Nausea", but his academic papers called "Freedom and Responsibility" a collection of essays about freedom and authenticity and responsibility