What are some arguments for Nihilism? Why would anyone support such a philosophy?
>>7716409
Because there is no tangible evidence to support any other position on the nature of the universe.
>>7716414
>Philosophy
>Evidence involved
pick one and only one
>>7716409
It's sort of like agnostic atheism in the sense that it doesn't assume things exist until there is plausible evidence.
Like how you don't subscribe to the existence of blue swans on the moon until you've got reason to do so.
Its more of a tendancy toward skepticism than a rigid beleif system. It can't categorically BE a beleif system.
>>7716409
What are arguments against nihilism?
>muhfeels.jpeg
>god
>lolkek
>penis
Because it seems self evident, a point you eventually reach organically with enough thought in a particular direction. I'm sure something comes after it, as I'll be informed in some reply saying I'm an edgy teen.
determinism made me nihilistic.
>>7716409
Consider the following:
As the history of science and technology have progressed, incremental developments and observations of reality have served to gainsay various claims and narratives associated with religion, or even a spiritual understanding of things:
-The Copernican model shattered the firmament,
-Galileo helped it along by de-centralizing humans (being convicted of heresy for his efforts),
-Darwin de-centralized humans, again,
-Wöhler debunked vitalism by synthesizing urea from inorganics,
-and Miller-Urey explained abiogenesis.
Every single time that this happens, religionists are very grudgingly obliged to cede territory, regroup, and reset. Even now, someone somewhere is rolling their eyes at the above, not actually wanting to engage the content of the argument, or narrative, but instead upset that a fedora-man is referring to "meme" science which is fairly common knowledge. At least among us educated first-world types.
Of course, one can point out things like the measurable health benefits of prayer (to an above poster's point), that the universe is really really really ridiculously big, or that we don't yet understand consciousness. These seem to me to be details, however, next to what the above have managed: that is, to blow a large hole in the side of every religious narrative, putting in its place a plausible "random" explanation of things. Mix in whatever holocaust you like, to give yourself the emotional factor which is essential to decision making, and you may be able to reject god.
So, the first step is to arrive at atheism. This puts us in a position to address OP's question.
>>7716409
>shit picture
>shit post
Please go back to /mu/, you philistine.
>>7716609
>>>/mu/
>>7716409
If by nihilism you mean, not believing that there is an over-arching source of value outside of ourselves, then that's honestly just emotional maturity and resilience as expressed in someone without a religious predisposition.
>>7716414
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Nihilism isn't a form of "existential skeptcism", it's first and foremost a denial of life having a purpose.
>>7716609
Pretty much how most of them are.
>>7716702
>Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
Sure, but some people would rather not structure their lives around everything that can't be proven to not exist.
>>7716669
Now, if you have had the good fortune to receive a first-world education, which should have exposed you to some or all of the above, then it may happen that you conclude on atheism. This attitude might even persist well into your twenties, and possibly for the rest of your life, as it regularly does in individuals.
We have all experienced in personal life, and read news articles where a lie snowballed, until it grew and ultimately burst. Sometimes a cover-up is involved, which tends to make things worse as it shows breach of trust and active deception, later discovered. The takeaway, in modern terms, is that (in general), the truth must be known to entail appropriate action or decision making. However unpleasant.
It seems to me that the above entails a provisional conclusion of truths that 1) God does not exist, 2) There is nothing so intrinsically special about humanity, and 3) as a result, let's unironically invoke the high-school phrase, ahem, "nothing really matters."
From atheism, we have logically deduced nihilism, and on the grounds that that we should value the truth, however unpleasant. But of course this has a few paradoxes. One is that if nothing really matters, then it doesn't matter what we value. Like, say, the truth, and so our conclusion defeats our premises, our value system. On the other hand, humans like other animals have an instinct to stay alive and healthy, and one could argue that nihilism ought to be rejected /even and especially in the case that it is actually true/, if we value human life.
I would reject the latter proposal, and instead propose a seemingly contradictory synthesis by way of existentialism: since it is true that nothing matters in the long view, let's instead arbitrarily choose to continue to value both human life and the truth, while acknowledging, in the interest of intellectual honesty, that these are arbitrary, subjective, and personally convenient choices. Let's then hold next to these our new existential nihilism, as the best available truth, which we won't (and shouldn't) shake.
After all, we could happen on some new information. We could be mistaken.
>>7716717
And these people have a right to do that, what they don't have is the right to think they are "superior free-thinking people" because they choose a strictly material worldview. They're just being childish because no one else is jumping on their fundamental nihilist bandwagon.
>>7716657
???
>>7716669
Thank you.
>>7716748
>people don't have the right to think that they're right and I'm wrong
Did a fedora hurt your feelings?
>>7716748
On the contrary, in happier societies, private life (mercifully), and for lack of a better word, most people have a perfect "right" to think of themselves however they please. The difference among societies is whether particular edgelord /speech/ is protected or not. None of us would last very long soapboxing atheistic nihilism in Mecca, for example.
You should instead be honest with yourself. You just don't like the mental image of ugly edgelords and fedoras having variant/edgy/"adolescent" opinions. This is so unpleasant to you that it has ironically caused you to be the one to behave childishly, emotionally blurting out that Pugsley in the New Balances doesn't have the "right" to think that his edgy views, so hateful to you, are superior (generally speaking, he does).
>>7716657
>Determinism changed me.
Okay bro.
>>7716719
I don't understand you. Let me explain:
On what standards can someone reject religion? I would argue a standard of truth (consistent theory and emprical results).
Then you argue "nothing matters", well, if you rely on a methodology for determining truth from falsehood, you cannot reject objectivism because that would mean you just used that for rejecting religion.
If you accept nihilism, conseequently there is literally no difference between being religious or atheist. However, if you reject religion because of some standard, this standard cannot be nihilism.
>>7716785
Well determinism made me stop giving fucks about anything, you can't blame child abusers because they had no free will etc.
Everything happens because it simply had to happen
>>7716794
>variant opinions make me pic related!
The Wow, Just Wow repetition in lieu of argumentation is variously suggestive of emotion when cornered, a female poster, possibly a leftist value system (they tend to do this when cornered).
Is the real point somewhere above, maybe something about nihilists, or god or something? If it is, you've opened the door onto something else for which you have been immediately and correctly called out by multiple poster, and along the same lines. And you can't stand it, so you have to plug your ears and NUH-UH it away (twice!), showing yourself a second time to be the childish one.
>>7716832
I don't argue with retards. Both previous posts and this one are either bait or unrelated to what has been said. Likely both.
>>7716828
>determinism
>made me
You still doesn't understand.
You said something very clear (causal) changed you but then you say it is impossible to change (no free will).
>>7716852
*don't
Fuck
>>7716841
That makes three plus an extra-spicy ad-hom this time, getting salty now. Salty-spicy.
I'm glad you've accepted both that I am not mentally challenged, and that I'm right.
>>7716860
And for the third time you're posting something that is either bait or unrelated to what has been said, likely both.
>intelligent people
A true nihilistic society would be the opposite of a society. In fact the only reason why there is a society per si is because there are rules onto which the society has been built. The general disobedience of those rules would impede any society from forming. Which would be awful for 200 pounds atheist edgelords on Reddit calling themselves nihilistis while still thinking Nietzsche was a nihilist.
Best arguement against nihilism is the nihilist. Morals exist for a reason.
>>7716852
Wow, is this b8? Guys?
Is this retard or just b8?
I can't tell.
You were BTFO here >>7716766 and here, >>7716784 in re: your stupid idea which you posted here >>7716748 . You don't even seem to have registered your own hypocrisy about repeating yourself via copypasta (a childish activity).
Go on, embarrass yourself a fifth time, or try this instead: /construct a supporting argument as to why certain people do not have the right to have opinions/.
>>7716873
Still doesn't understand nihilism.
It's not because something is subjectively useful that it has intrinsic value.
/thread
>>7716416
can you explain your position a bit?
>>7716880
Explain to me how you changed if people have no free will.
>>7716901
If I shoot you in the face from behind, you will have changed without "doing" something.
Things change in a deterministic system.
You are one of those things.
FUCK. This is elementary grade stuff people, come on.
>>7716416
not him but demostrate this. Give me an alternative
ITT: trying to use scientific method to philosophy
That's why you always gonna be stupid.
>>7716609
>normal people
Literally 99.99% of people are muh feelings, muh ideologies and especially MUH GOD.
>>7716911
Killing someone is not the same as accepting a completely different set of belief.
In one case it is reflexive but in another case it is not (the proper term is praxeological, I think).
If an argument changed you (if words can change someone), you can't argue that free will does not exist. Otherwise, the notion is unfalsifiable.
>>7716930
You mean the scientific method which usually begins with observations about the natural world?
Hmm, how come people would use that to philosophize?
>>7716952
Literally everything is nothing but a reaction.
>>7716808
Not who you're arguing against but I think the OP was essentially saying that when you initially go through a theistic->atheistic change in your view of the world, through your standard of truth, one seems to tend to fall into nihilism: suddenly one is faced with a reality not tied to a higher purpose, so, feeling empty (the nothing REALLY matters) one turns to nihilism in despair.
Now you can either find meaning through your reality--like Nietzsche tried to do, live by Camus' philosophy of learning to love the struggle, you can live is a pessimist clinging to life only because of human instinct or you can commit suicide. Don't think the OP was really arguing for pure nihilism but rather showing how nihilism tends to be a stepping stone between theism and existential nihilism, in which one finds either happiness or creates a subjective meaning to love without trying to find a higher purpose.
>>7716891
You argue like an absolute fag. I repeated it a few times just in case you didn't get it right the first time, but you keep circling around and getting nowhere.
I won't deny they don't have the legal precedent necessary to claim whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they have the right to say it without being mocked or ridiculed, nor do they have the moral right to insult everyone else and claim superiority based on their pseudo-rational nihilist fundamentalism.
>>7716959
LOL
>>7716959
You have a pop, generalized understanding of what philosophy and science are.
The details make all the difference.
Scientific method is more than observing, it has to test, experiment, produce repeatable evidence etc.
Observation is just part of the scientific method.
Philosophy includes the SM but it also includes tons of other shit.
For a young naive person it might sound similar but it means absolutely everything if you care about reality.
>>7716972
> your standard of truth
That's what I don't understand, if you're using a standard of truth (like logic, the scientific method, etc...), you cannot be a nihilist.
A standard of truth is by definition objective (or at least tries to be), thus you accepting that religion is incorrect, you accept it objectively. That's directly opposed to nihilism.
>>7716852
Are you retarded?
Yes ofc it made me change. and the change was predetermined, but how does that change the fact that the knowledge of determinsm made me a different person???
I can also change my believes without free will, even if it was predetermined.
literally what are you even talking
>>7716959
Star from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Someday you'll understand more.
Till then, the best of luck newguy.
Nihilism is the logical conclusion of skepticism. As the skeptical challenge can never be adequately met, nihilism presents itself as seemingly the only tenable position, which it very broadly is. But to take this position is either to ignore or fail to realize the irreducible element of commitment required for any other position. Ultimately you are going to be forced, when confronted by the skeptic, to either shrug your shoulders or dug your heels in regarding your beliefs. Those that do neither become nihilists.
>>7717007
The way you argue about determinism makes it an unfalsifiable concept. You should not accept unfalsifiable concepts as valid.
>>7717007
You keep smuggling in these notions of 'you' (and even 'knowledge'!) as motivators that suggest the changes you mention are sui generis.
>>7717000
Hey, hey, let me give you some advice.
When you talk about science and philosophy it's better to know what you're talking about.
You do realize that science is a subset of philosophy right?
Ergo the scientific method is a part of both science and philosophy.
I could give you the etymological meaning of the word philosophy, and then the one of science. I could then go on to describe ontology and teleology.
But I feel like I'm teaching basic shit to freshmen and I'm not getting paid for it.
>>7717004
Good point, I don't think I clarified this. It's not quite that on a level you believe to be purely objective you reject religion, or anything else for that matter. You accept that your reality is subjective, but you don't find any reason to believe in god. There is no force compelling you to do so. Now, even if your reality and your opinions live within the realm of only your world, you're still allowed to argue with people around you. I may try to convince you of my point, not because I think I've discovered the aboslute truth of the universe but simply because I think that there is no point to believing in god, besides feeling good about yourself.
>>7717029
>When you talk about science and philosophy it's better to know what you're talking about.
See what I wrote:
"Philosophy includes the SM but it also includes tons of other shit."
SM= scientific method
Other shit = if you're not autistic and can think in context and subtext, it means virtually any kind of thinking
Did you know what just happened?
I called out your shit.
And told you that:
"Hey, 1+1 =2 "
Because you said 1+dick =2
And now you turn around say:
Hey you're wrong "Hey 1+1 = 2"
That's how stupid you are.
>>7717035
I understand your explanation. Thanks for the clarification.
Still, I would argue that the acceptance of a purely subjective reality is a dead end (for instance, we see colors differently but their wavelength can be objectively measured).
>>7717052
>You have a pop, generalized understanding of what philosophy and science are.
>Links to wikipedia
>>7717070
Yes.
Popular, not actual, as in you don't even know the proper definition of philosophy or science.
Wikipedia to get you started.
>>7717081
Don't use the scientific method to philosophize though. You might end up with facts. And we wouldn't want that, right?
(let me remind you that you called people who use the scientific method to philosophize stupid)
Yea, I think we know who's the stupid one here.
>>7717099
Want to srs this up?
Because I know you and me both assume that we know more than eachother and just show a peak of our understanding because again we assume the other is retarded.
Aside from shitposting and namecalling, if we srsly dig deeper you'll see you're in the wrong.
>>7717069
It's a fair argument, but the point tends to be more along the lines of: "everything around you is subjective, so you will never definitively be able to call something objective." You can derive things through science which seem to work and do work to you, but you are ultimately limited to hypotheses based off of subjective observations, you may always be wrong with any hypothesis. Any theory in science is precisely just a theory. That doesn't discount science at all, it's super super helpful for day to day things. It's just you can't say you've proved something because there may always be another explanation which you don't get, due to your limitations as a human being.
>>7716416
>inb4 god is obvious
the only way out of nihilism is existentialism. OP
>>7717116
Look dude, you're original post, saying:
"ITT: trying to use scientific method to philosophy
That's why you always gonna be stupid."
shows that either you didn't know that the scientific method was a part of philosophy or that you weren't clear enough in what you actually meant.
Even if I assume the latter, you still come off like a retard.
>>7716719
>From atheism, we have logically deduced nihilism, and on the grounds that that we should value the truth, however unpleasant. But of course this has a few paradoxes. One is that if nothing really matters, then it doesn't matter what we value. Like, say, the truth, and so our conclusion defeats our premises, our value system.
this last line is false. valuing the truth in no way takes away from its verity. concluding nothing matters is not to say that there is no concrete state of existence (though, I'd advise against arguing this anyhow), it simply means that whatever significance an individual existing within said existence must be derived from within that individual; it does not exist independently of that individual. what you're confusing, i believe, is relativism--the idea that truth is relative. that is the argument wherein your conclusion defeats your argument, for if all truth is relative, so too is the one just uttered, and thus truth is not relative. -><-
>>7717140
>inb4 *your
>>7717143
whatever significance an individual existing within said existence may be seen to have ascribed to a select thing* -- sorry, got ahead of myself lol
>>7717012
this guy was quoting aristotle fuckboi
>>7716609
except "life is what you make of it" is built on a foundation of nihilism. We assign meaning to points in the void. There is no universal truth, there are no ideal forms.
Being apathetic and being nihilistic are two different things.
>>7717140
Man, listen up.
OP asked about arguments for/against nihilism and some posts said that there were no "evidence" to back nihilism up.
If that is not fucked up I don't know what is.
Do you seriously believe there can be evidence for nihilism?
This is what I was referring in my original post about the scientific method.
Science is a discipline of philosophy, philosophy is wide and huge.
Scientific method is about testing hypothesis with testable evidence empirically proven something you observe in nature, something that doesn't apply to Nihilism, IN ANY FUCKING CONCEIVABLE WAY.
Please correct me how am wrong.
>>7717147
implying I would ever get into that kind of stuff to prove any kind of point, I'm not a woman.
>>7717206
This, Jesus Christ. Nihilism is just the belief that you have the freedom to make life what you want it to be without crossing some all-encompassing source of value or power.
>>7716609
>thinking normal people actually think life is what you make it
you know that like the majority of the world is in some way religious or obsessed with notions of love or family being reason to live or exist right?
>>7717215
If people can use the bible as evidence of their beliefs, why wouldn't people be able to call for evidence in order to be nihilistic?
Or are you the kind of person that believes evidence is solely found by scientific method?
If I say, most sheep are white. I don't need no scientific method. I can just use inductive reasoning as evidence.
If OP meant evidence found by scientific evidence, then what the fuck is he doing on 4chan on the /lit/ board?
Also, claiming anyone here has used the scientific method, as you described it, to philosophize, isn't just wrong. It's hilarious.
Nobody here is experimenting. Literally, nobody.
Nobody here is using the scientific method the way you described it. At best some people may have referred to it.
Asking for evidence =/= using the scientific method.
>People actually claiming to be nihilists ITT
I thought you had to be 18 or older to post here.
Nihilism is childish. It's like refusing to vote because "my vote doesn't matter" and then telling everyone else why they shouldn't vote either. If you don't believe in morality, why haven't you gone and raped someone yet?
>>7717310
>implies you have to be younger than 18 to be a nihilist
>has a childish understanding of nihilism
You do understand that subjective value and inherent value can differ right?
Something with subjective value (let's say morality) can have no inherent value (nihilistic).
Retard.
>>7716409
>>7717327
Except you're human, so everything has inherent value to you. Everything in the world has both a means and an end because everything affects you as a human being, be it positively or negatively.
Unless you're a slab of stone and posting this using erosion, you can't argue that nothing in the world has inherent value just because it isn't pure happiness in raw form. Because in the end, what fucking difference does it make? Just be happy with the things that make you happy, make yourself a better human being, or just off yourself already because your existence is meaningless and you're "just here for the ride xD"
>>7716409
>Does it matter? We're all gonna die.
>>7717399
Wow, you're dense.
Can't even tell the difference between inherent value and subjective value.
If something has value to me, it has subjective value. Not inherent value.
If you like spaghetti that's your subjective value. Spaghetti in itself has no inherent value.
Proof for this is that there are people who don't like spaghetti. (freaks, I know)
>>7717294
>Also, claiming anyone here has used the scientific method, as you described it, to philosophize, isn't just wrong. It's hilarious.
Exactly the reason why I thought it was stupid.
Yes I really think there are people itt that are dumb enough to think we can empirically prove or disprove nihilism.
But here's the kicker.
Lets assume that everyone itt, was indeed asking for "thought evidence" not empirical and I misunderstood those people.
Even in that case, the replies to my post (>>7716930) are wrong.
If you were the one who replied this (>>7716959) then you're wrong.
Because you assumed that we can scientifically prove/disprove nihilism, but now you state it's hilarious, flipflop.
Again, assuming the latter is indeed your reply.
>>7717572
Those are some pretty impressive mental gymnastics.
>>7716930
Here you literally say people are using the scientific method.
Where? Show me in this thread where anyone is using the scientific method. Do it.
>Because you assumed that we can scientifically prove/disprove nihilism, but now you state it's hilarious, flipflop.
Again, assuming the latter is indeed your reply.
I made 2 different claims:
1. You can use the scientific method to philosophize: it's called science.
2. Nobody is using the scientific method in this thread.
Where the fuck do you see a flipflop?
I made 2 different but equally valid arguments against your stupid post.
>>7717399
>I like sex a lot
>Therefore sex has intrinsic value that has nothing to do with just me liking it and this probably implies the existence of a personal deity who is at the very least interested in my penis, and is likely omnipotent.
Literally you right now.
>>7717758
>I like sex a lot
>the only thing keeping me from raping every woman I see is societal laws
>but society is meaningless and so by association so are its laws
>morality is subjective, I just choose to follow it
>look at how smart I am for contemplating this
Literally caveman tier
>>7717972
>the only thing keeping me from raping every woman I see is societal laws
Nice inference. That's totally how nihilists think.
It's not like they can assign subjective value to life (including women) while at the same time realizing that they have no inherent value.
Literally zygote tier
>>7716409
If someone says life has meaning it is their job to prove it.
I could claim that there are invisible horses floating around in space. Would we accept this as a fact since no one can prove it to be untrue?
Likewise if someone says there is meaning to life I'll wait for them to prove it to me rather than accept until it's disproved.
>>7716675
>not liking madvillainy
>he probably listens to lil wayne
>>7718065
Why should one be forced to satisfy your criteria for what is 'meaningful'? Why should one care about your position on the matter, period?
>>7718065
are you 12 years old? nihilism is an active rejection for meaning, not a passive fedora-tier "cynicism" of all beliefs.
>>7716808
You are correct in the sense that nihilism "flattens" everything and renders inquiry void. I simply sketched a way of arriving at the paradox.
>>7716972
This person seems to be mostly-fairly characterizing what I wrote in >>7716669 and >>7716719 , and so I appreciate the post, but I wish to stress that I am not the OP (of the thread). However I would push back on this post by saying that I /am/ arguing for some flavor of "pure nihilism" as /being the case/, or that everything we have that we can properly interpret is pushing us in that direction. Should God part the heavens tomorrow and say "nuh-uh", that's a different story. This is why I used the word "provisional" about my conclusions. There's always an asterisk, a caveat, but I'm content to move past that and draw the conclusions.
But of course, since I would rather have a pleasant existence, I end up at "existential" (pick some convenient, subjective principles) nihilism. Strictly speaking, the people who regularly snark "Viper: Kill Urself My Man" are quite right to do so in the sense that it doesn't matter. We'll all be nothing again in a few decades, after all. Or so it would appear with the best available information, which goes back to my "provisionals".
>>7717143
This is an all right post, but you've misinterpreted my conclusion about the truth-value paradox of nihilism that I sketched. I did not conclude that "true things are untrue" or similar. What I said was that the paradox entails that /valuing/, caring about, assigning goodness to truth becomes moot or irrelevant if you accept some version of "nothing really matters". So it's not about truth itself, but about how we value truth. Your thing sounds like you also conceive of truth as having external content (versus subjective opinions of it), and so if we were to continue on this point I suspect we'd end up agreeing.
>>7716409
you don't support it, it just is
there's no god, no after life, we're just a bunch of sensory organs collating data, you don't even exist and you've never had an original thought
>>7720374
proofs?
>>7718048
>while realizing that things have no inherent value
So what does that do for you?
>>7721130
>So what does that do for you?
Why does it have to do something for me? It's just a position. To use a cliche, I could believe fervently that there is a teacup in low-earth orbit, whether that does anything for me or not.
>>7721130
It liberates me.
Only nihilists know how liberating nihilism is.
It's the first step to creating your own value system. Break down traditional systems, build your own. Never feel like shit again.
>>7716417
Found the continental.
Because it makes me sound like an intellectual.
>>7721616
Wtf is going on in this pic?
>>7718065
You do realise that you need to also prove that there is no meaning, right? Someone not being able to prove something doesn't make the opposite true.
In a court situation (I know you don't actually have to prove innocence, but bear with me), if someone is not able to prove that their client is innocent of the crime, that doesn't make them guilty. It's why we have to prove guilt, instead of innocence.
The argument of "if you can't prove what you're saying is right, that means I'm right" is the same one that actual fedora atheists use, and it's really not a good one at all.
>>7721582
Just let them frolic in the dung, they have given up on reality and commit themselves, mind and body (sans soul, on the grounds of that not being an actual thing) to ideological posturing and wishful thinking.
>>7721631
they burned a 10 tons of weed now the whole town is high
>>7718106
Not him, but while it's fine to like old rappers, many people look down upon that thing. It completely goes against hip hop and black culture in general to not be with the times. You can acknowledge old rappers as classics, but pretty much nobody except white people listen to old rap regularly and display their opinions on it. You can do it but people will smirk at you.
>>7716409
i consider myself an optimistic nihilist. therefor i hate camus
thats all i have to add
>>7716417
How archaic.
>>7722503
>You do realise that you need to also prove that there is no meaning, right?
The proof is that different people think differently about phenomena. X might mean something to me but nothing to you; and Y might mean a lot to you and nothing to me. All value is subjectively derived from phenomena which are in themselves meaningless.
>>7722842
it's because wiggas ruined the whole listening to the "classics" thing by swarming youtube with "you say lil wayne i say tupac" to demonstrate their individuality. a terrible subculture that no one wants to associate themselves with.
>>7716409
>Nothing has inherent value, so to "believe" in something is to give it inherent value and therefore is wrong
>A belief that all other beliefs are wrong
>Nihilists are physically incapable of using the words "faith", "belief", and "hope"
Nihilists are where the phrase "you must be fun at parties" came from.
