"Nihilism: Objections and Answers"

Stone Island

Graduate Poster
Stone Island
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,003
Full disclosure: I have a deep and abiding affection and respect for Dr. Harry Neumann.

From The Claremont Institute--Vintage CRB--Vol. IV, No. 3--Letters to the Editor:

Neumann's definition of nihilism:
Nihilism means that nothing-and only nothing!-has an identity or nature, a being not subject to radical change at any moment. No natural or divine support exists to reinforce the common-sense faith that anything is more than nothing. Nothing is more than what it experiences or what is experienced about it. Nothing is more than empty experiences (thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc.), impressions as Hume called them.

Nihilism is not solipsism nor does it make man the measure of all things. The nihilist "self" or "man" which experiences its "world" is itself no more than empty impressions. It too is nothing.
Click to expand...
When asked whether by saying that nihilism is "true" one proves it "false", Neumann writes:
...Any faith in anything's being something rather than nothing, any desire to live rather than die, is self-contradictory. The self that it contradicts-anything's true self!-is reality's nothingness. Life in all its manifestations is, and must be, self-contradictory. Refusal to acknowledge its self-contradictory character is at the heart of all mankind's self-delusions or prejudices, especially of all moral-political passions ("values"). Bigotry is unavoidable for men (or beasts) determined to be something, rather than nothing!
Click to expand...
Link to full exchange, including responses by Dr. Thomas West, and others.
 
Last edited:
3 quotes from the response by Dr. Thomas West:

Why then has he been greeted with resounding silence in these circles, with regard to the stark dichotomy between political philosophy and nihilist science that he proposes?

In his essay on Max Beckmann (Do nihilists always grimace like stormtroopers?), Neumann asserts that only nihilist science deserves to be taught to the young-that any other quest for wisdom is defective or intellectually dishonest.

In an age where our polity is seriously challenged by forces threatening to tear it apart, nihilism's "nothing-is-forbidden, all-is-permitted" doctrine seems almost perverse.

CP here:
Why is this greeted with resounding silence? Because someone is asserting that only nihilist science deserves to be taught, which seems more than perverse.
 
I believe that I exist, and that I am experiencing a real universe. These essential axioms are what makes discourse possible. Remove them, and you have nihilism.

Of course, belief in one's own existence is a long way from faith in a deity.
 
Solipsizm, nihilizim. I still wind up with "so what".

Yea, us, all our thoughts and beliefs are nothing or no more important than the next guy's.

But no amount of nihilistic denial is going silence the grumbling in my belly nor the need for resources to feed that belly.

And that is what it all comes down to. Quieting that belly, wether it be curiosity, filling the void, or feeling happy and secure. The conflicts come when the other guy is also trying to quiet his belly.

It still seems silly to me to be belaboring the point. It really is a meanless point.

The only point I see vaild in his argument is to teach oursleves that one individuals view is no more important than any other's. The only "correct" approach is the one that tries to fill as many bellies as possible with fewest amount of conflict.
 
As Lifegazer used to say - there is no such thing as nothing.
 
uruk said:
The only point I see vaild in his argument is to teach oursleves that one individuals view is no more important than any other's. The only "correct" approach is the one that tries to fill as many bellies as possible with fewest amount of conflict.
Click to expand...

Define 'important.' I make a claim that George W. Bush's opinion on a subject is FAR more important than yours. Or mine, for that matter. For most definitions of the word 'important' I imagine this is correct.
 
GreyICE said:
Define 'important.' I make a claim that George W. Bush's opinion on a subject is FAR more important than yours. Or mine, for that matter. For most definitions of the word 'important' I imagine this is correct.
Click to expand...

"Important" in the grand, nihilist scheme of things.

But I see your point concerning our "forced experiance".
 
Last edited:
Nihilus said:
That view must also come from illusory attributions of value.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But but in the practical, everyday experiance in which we are forced to exist (wether it is nothing or illusionary is pretty much irrelavent to our experiance) It seems the best way to go with least amount of conflict. And it, of course, was my personal opinion.

Unless conflict is your thing, then, never mind.
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
Agreed. But but in the practical, everyday experiance in which we are forced to exist (wether it is nothing or illusionary is pretty much irrelavent to our experiance) It seems the best way to go with least amount of conflict. And it, of course, was my personal opinion.

Unless conflict is your thing, then, never mind.
Click to expand...

Ah, hedonism. Not necessarily my favorite worldview, but one that does pop up.
 
GreyICE said:
Ah, hedonism. Not necessarily my favorite worldview, but one that does pop up.
Click to expand...

I didn't meant to imply hedonisim. Just that we have no choice but to deal with this percieved experiance. Wether it actually exists or not is kind of irrelevent.

Unless you know another way.
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
I didn't meant to imply hedonisim. Just that we have no choice but to deal with this percieved experiance. Wether it actually exists or not is kind of irrelevent.

Unless you know another way.
Click to expand...

The valuing of pleasure and the minimization of suffering is the goal of the hedonist philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

Your goal of filling bellies while minimizing conflict sounds similar. Hedonism, btw, has nothing to do with orgies.
 
Save us some time, Stone. Is this going to be another thread where you argue by proxy, or will you state your own opinion about the OP?
 
The article cited in the OP is the type of writing that gives philosophy a bad name.

A set of meaningless statements about an incoherent and grammatically ambiguous definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom