Talk:Nihilism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nihilism article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archive 2003 - 31 March 2006

Contents

[edit] Change to this

Nietzsche asserts that this nihilism is a result of valuing nonexistent or non-extant "higher", "heavenly", or "divine" things (such as God). The nihilist who began by holding these values, after rejecting them, retains a belief that all "lower", "earthly", or "human" ideas are valueless (or so little valuable as to be essentially valueless) because they were considered so in the previous belief system.

because...Nietzche dosent assert that anything divine is bad, rather a divine that asserts that the body/human/lower/base things are wrong is wrong, and nihilist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.143.211 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism vs Existentialism

I was just reading the absurdism article that seems to imply that Camus was a nihilist rather than an existentialist.... So I got thinking about my a:On the contrary. I am not an expert, but to me, existentialism seems to argue for the subjective creation of truth; whereas nihilism simply argues that there is no "objective" truth or meaning. A nihilist existentialist would argue that existentialism is the solution to nihilism. You could accept nihilism as a statement about objective truth, and existentialism as a statement about subjective truths. Where there is no ultimate meaning, you can create it. -Celebere 21:27, 07 November 2006 (UTC)

** San-J 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I quite agree. The philosophy of Camus, particularly as it appeared in [The Stranger] and [The Plague], shares a lot in common with nihilism. Indeed I, like you, consider myself an existential nihilist. They certainly are not mutually exclusive; nihilism is often misunderstood as a denial of existence, but it is in fact merely a denial of value and meaning in existence. I see it as an ecstatic transcendence of ambiguity, into a realm of absolutes, where things simply exist without value or meaning. Is this so different from existentialism, a la Camus or Sartre? I don't think it is, really. Existentialism really only builds on realizations associated with Nihilism. The nihilist sees a cloud of charged particles swimming around him without meaning, whereas the existentialist sees a cloud of charged particles swimming around him coming together as objects, unto which he is conscious of his own projection of meaning.

So does this mean that Friedrich Nietzche can be considered as an existential nihilist? Or is it necessary for us to adopt a new description? 155.69.5.234 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)K

Now that's a tough one. Nietzsche never actually considered himself a nihilist; rather, he argued that nihilism was something to overcome. There are many people who hold the same beliefs and consider themselves "nihilists", but that doesn't mean we should jump to classifying Nietzsche as one. -Celebere 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no great philosopher, but it seems to me that nihilism is the belief that there is no universal truth, that life inherently has no meaning - whereas seemingly existentialism argues that one must take meaning from life, but not let it be defined by society or religion - one must find one's own meaning in life, and that life has subjective meaning.

In Camus' [L'etranger], I think that Meursault does find meaning in life, he has a will to live, but this is meaning which does not correlate with society's views on life and truth. Rather Meursault takes pleasure in the physical sensation of things and takes things at face value; emotional reasoning does not feature in his evaluation of the world. He arguably has found meaning in his life, because at the end of the novel he wants to live, he wants to be with Marie; the conflict in the book is between Meursault's views on his life and society's view on it.

Thus I would call Camus' interpretation of life in l'Etranger an existentialist one, and not a nihilist one. Indeed, Existentialists placed great importance on finding meaning in life, rather than on adopting the meaning which society dictates. Nihilism on the other hand argues that life has no intrinsic meaning, and that it is pointless to search for any. Perhaps the two are not mutually exclusive, but they do place extremely different emphasis. Ecoelen2k 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But, Camus never believed in a Superior Being, which the "traditional-existentialists" (Kiekergaard) did. To me he is more of a Pagan than an Existentialist. - sandeep.ms@gmail.com

'Existentialism' is a rather broad term, that can be understood as relating to the question of existence (being), but not from a position of personal identity, but rather the problem for humans of existing in the world; called by Heidegger 'throwness'. Satre presents a variation of this. Nihilism can be seen as a existentialist concern, the position of nihilism is one that a existentialist would (hopefully) 'overcome'. In the case of Camus, he should be considered an existentialist philosopher, one that is concerned with issues of nihilism, i.e. in L'etranger; however, his thinking is more concerned with his notion of the Absurd, which is not a nihlism per se, but an existentialist issue with nihilist undertones. His question is how humans are to exist in a world that is alien (e.g., Satre's example of the tree in 'Nausea'), and absurd; thus he is primarily an existentialist.
Nietzsche should not be considered a nihilist; nihlism was for him a bêtê noir. In many ways, he is the founder of secular existentialism; Kierkegaard should rightfully be seen as the first existentialist philosopher. His concept of existence-'forhold', i.e. the condition of nman's existence, its relation to the external world, is the beginning of the existentialist tradition that finds perhaps its most thorough discussion in the analysis of existence (Dasein) in Heidegger's Being & Time. Tsop 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism vs Absurdism

Is there any real difference between nihilism and absurdism? ··gracefool |☺ 05:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personaly, I can see no real difference between these two philosophies.

There is a slight difference. Absurdism holds that reality is absurd and meaningless. Nihilism is somewhat more fundamental; it attempts to show logically that truth itself is an absurd concept.
The Absurdist Says: Reality is simply meaningless. (And thereby is opposed to Existentialism)
The Nihilist Says: The concept of truth itself is incoherent by definition. (And thereby is opposed to all Philosophy)
In Fundament: the Absurdist asserts that Bivalence is true; the Nihilist asserts that it is not. All Nihilists are Absurdists, but not vice versa. I hesitate even to call Nihilism a philosophy, as it is more like an anti-philosophy. - jove
Nihilism and Absurdism are quite different. Absurdism is a simple assertion that existence is without meaning. While Nihilism makes a similar -- though different -- assertion, it also goes on to assert that value, ethics and similar subjective matters are generally baseless. (or detrimental, in some views) You're probably confusing the two at face-value, and not taking a close enough look at what they individually stand for. grendale 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not the two above responses fail to differentiate between human existence within the traditional Cartesian concept of it, and the more 'holistic'/embedded nature of existence as expounded by Heiddeger in S&Z? Absurdism considers man in a world without meaning; true nihlism should be more properly be understood as a post-"death of Man" philosophy. (I call it a philosophy, but true nihlism is a silence). Thus absurdism is linked to Satre's conception of man as fundamentally free, in a world that is alien and uncaring. Absurdism is not compatible with structuralism and post-structuralism, unless it is an anti-humanism, which it cannot be. Nihilism, on the other hand, taken to its ultimate conclusion is an anti-humanism per se. Tsop 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be an abomination to the history of philosophy if nihilism and absurdism were to be considered synonymous. In Camus' conception of the Absurd, ethics having meaning on a subjective rather than objective basis. Nihilism, however, suggests that everything on both a subjective and objective level is meaningless. Please for the sake of history, integrity, and respect for the great individual thinkers of the past: do not merge these pages.

Historically, they are two different things. They should not be merged. Scott5834 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certainty Series

What on earth is the "Certainty Series" supposed to mean? I have only a basic understanding of this philosophy/belief and i can't find any page that explains what the certainty series means. Also, the pages it links to don't all also reference the box. Archtemplar 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Certainy Series Part completely ruins this article! It comes way too early and is 100%, 1000% out of place!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. it doesn't make sense. can anything be done? I found Procrastinating@talk2me seems to have taken over the box, but i still see no reason for it. --Tsinoyboi 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. The "Certaincy Series" links articles about philosophies about the certainty of knowledge and truth. Which articles are included seems rather arbitrary, however. Determinism doesn't seem to relate to the certainty of truths as much as the others in the series. --Celebere 21:44, 07 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism in film section

I'm moving this here for now. It could be useful, with a more detailed introductory paragraph which explains what nihilism in film might look like. I'd also wonder about including, specifically, Blade Runner (it has a specific ideology with specific ideas about truth and falsehood working in it), SLC Punk (if, indeed, it contains mostly punk and anarchist ideology), and A Clockwork Orange (for mostly the same reasons as Blade Runner. So here's the steps I'd like to see before it returns to the article page:

1. More detailed introduction, including a description of what "nihilism in film" means.
2. Either an explanation for each film (best) or a more restrictive list or both.
Although there are numerous films that contain nihilist qualities (mostly horror films and action films with high levels of ::exploitation) only a few films contatin the philisophical aspects of nihilsm.

-Seth Mahoney 16:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Clockwork Orange is at all nihilistic, to think it is is too assume all artsy-anarchic movies are. I would say it has more to do with moral philosophy rather then the philosophy of nothing. Not saying it isn't my favourite movie but it has nothing to do with Nihilism in that sense. It's more solipsism --Raddicks 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 17:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rossberry 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I believe Clockwork Orange is in fact a very nihilistic film in the respect that there are no definite truths. The film is saturated with a perspectivism regarding moral truth. [Rogert Ebert] wrote, "We're now supposed to cheer because he's been cured of the anti-rape, anti-violence programming forced upon him by society during a prison "rehabilitation" process." Alex is a morally bad person within the context of the film; however by the end of the film Kubrick makes you wish he could be his old murdering self again. While Nietzsche may or may not have actually been a nihilist, he still felt that truth is a subjective quality defined by interpretation. He said, "Every belief, every considering something-true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world"(Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]).

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what someone notable thinks. -Smahoney 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross Berry 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I don't see any sources citated for your comment.

Its hard to cite a source saying "no one thinks X is a Y", and even if it were possible, that would be an obviously difficult statement for whoever was cited to prove. There's no argument to be made here, and no way of getting around this: Sources must be cited. -Smahoney 20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross Berry 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I have gone back and cited sources for what I said; you have yet to cite anything.

The source you've cited doesn't make the same claim you're making (if you wanted to make the claim that Roger Ebert says that "we're now supposed to cheer...", that's fine, but that doesn't relate to the topic at all - if he said, "In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrik explores themes of nihilism" or something, that would be an acceptable source). That said, look, I apologize if I came off as a bit harsh at first, but I'm really not interested in a pissing contest; you need sources (that actually make the claim you want them to make) if the film is to be relisted, while I expressed my opinion above, and even if it is inaccurate, the fact still remains that you need sources if the film is to be relisted. Saying "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" doesn't change any of that. Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea of what sorts of sources work for what sorts of claims.
As for your claims about the film exploring themes of perspectivism, that belongs in perspectivism, not nihilism. -Smahoney 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross Berry 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC) I know how to use citations to add validity to an argument. The quote I used from Rogert Ebert was meant to support my claim that Kubrick made the film morally ambiguous. I then explained how this this ambiguity related to views Nietzsche expression on nihilism and how it relates to "truth." Even though in this case I cited a few sources, it is impossible to consistently do that when discussing themes within film. The themes I am suggesting are not perspectivism at all, and they are definately not solipsism. A more accurate description would be relativism regarding truth, which Nietzsche saw as a nihilistic. If you want to argue against that claim, you should do some citing of your own.

Ross Berry 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC) I would also like to suggest that [Apocalypse Now] be added to the list of films

I'm just going to throw a couple points out here, and then I'm done:
1. It isn't at all impossible to come up with citations regarding films. In fact, its extremely easy. That said, it can be difficult to come up with good citations regarding films. But its still necessary.
2. There is a suggestion immediately above this that every film appearing on the list be given an explanation. I'd like to make it a requirement. For a film (or music or lit or whatever) to appear in the article, some explanation must be given, and there must be citations. I don't think that's out of line as a request.
-Smahoney 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Anarchist Cookbook" is a film about nihilism, and probably should be mentioned.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
See #2 above. If you can come up with valid references for adding The Anarchist Cookbook to the film section, and want to write a little thing explaining its presence, you're welcome to do it. -Smahoney 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The Anarchist Cookbook is a crappy movie that doesn't deal with any major ideas at all. I guess since it deals with nothing, it's nihilistic, but it's about nihilism as much as it's about anarchism--not at all. Any movie that shows anarchists dating young republicans and working with neo-nazis can't be serious. The Ungovernable Force 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:My thoughts the point of arguing on the appearance of nihlism in A Clockwork Orange in a bit off target once one reads what stanly kubrik did not and that is the final chapter of the book (but he did hint at it) it is not a question of nihlism but of comming of age. alex sees that the only way out of trouble was being forced to have everything he enjoyed taken away from him.... by him conceeding that he admitted that something was wrong with what he was doing... and came to the decision on how to be a part of society. it was then deemed wrong to take away a persons free will, and alex's conditioning was removed. in the final chapter our friend alex is once again back to his old evil ways, and then decides on his own to follow the moral path. Kubrik follows this path... but it does end leaving the viewer wondering what alex would do... but he knew all along that there were right and wrong... because he played roles for people. He acted how they wanted him to act.

For most people, acting how others want them to act has little or nothing to do with philosophy or judgment about reality. That is not useful as a measure of knowledge of right and wrong. It is simply a social adaptation: "If I do not act this way, I may suffer consequences." There is no moral value attached to it; it is just practical self-defense. Not everyone is motivated to stand up in City Hall and yell "You people are idiots!", even if that is what they really feel. Even if that were correct and morally justified, there are many who are not willing to incur the associated social cost.
There are a lot of value judgments in A Clockwork Orange, from beginning to end, in both the book and the movie... and a very large moral statement at the end of each. So I do not see how this is relevant to nihilism at all, except in the original sense: Not rejecting all meaning and value, but questioning same. -- Jane Q. Public 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that the character of Alex is a Moral Nihilist. He doesn't have any sembelance of a moral code he acts without thought to consequence. He has no respect for any form of authority. He acts with a will to nothing. Also the novel seems to reflect some of nietzsches opinion of what nihlism will do to western society. as nietzsche often says mass nihilism will lead to the decay of a scoiety. And the christian (slave) moral system will lead to nihilism. Clockwork Orange seems to agree with this as the depiction of the future is greatly pessimistic with gangs grown in greater abundance. Society collapsing. this somes to reflect a vision of a world where nihilism has taken hold. I will add sources whne I have acess to the texts I wish to site, at the moment I have put this down so as I do not forget the point I try to make. Thescumfiend 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any thoughts on the nihilism present within the Sergio Leone film "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"? I've heard several people attempt to label this film as existentialist, and I disagree with this entirely; there is no attempt made by any of the characters to create meaning or truth. Despite the moral dichotomies presented within the title, there is a complete absence of "good" or "bad" and in addition, an implicit acceptance of this is made by the characters. "The Man With No Name" is labelled as "the Good", but there is little difference between him and the other miscreants he is joined to in his quest for gold. It is interesting to me, and indicative of the godless environment they are a part of, that their thirst for gold has no apparent logic behind it. It seems that they greedily strive for it in the absence of anything else. While the concept of treasure is used repeatedly in film as a kind of MacGuffin, it was new to the Western, a genre of film in which the motivation of the protagonist had previously been based on something wholesome, or at least morally acceptable, rather than just empty greed. Nihilism in the form of a knowledge, and open acceptance, of the nothingness resultant of the rejection of truth and objective morality is clear to me in this film. I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on this. Thanks. Nerdlinger 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral POV

I took out the POV tag because there is nothing in the talk page that justifies it, which just makes the tag misleading. dr.alf 10:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

komodo9mm, 1/16/07 0203am CST

I challenge that Fight Club was not Nihilist... the phrase "Only when we've lost everything are we free do do anything" is more buddhist in philosphy. Buddhism states that we need to give up all material and immaterial things, from our Ikea coffee tables to our thoughts about existence. Additionally in the commentary for the movie, Chuck Palahniuk stated that he got the idea of having the "applicants" for project mayhem wait outside for a number of days from the buddhist practice of leaving new monk disciples alone at the front doorstep of their monastery for 3 days before they are allowed to begin training to be a monk. Because of this I nominate Fight Club to be taken off of the list of "nihilism" movies.

And what makes you think that such notions can be exclusive to only one particular line of thinking? Are you claiming that thinking a certain way cannot both be ascribed to Buddhism AND Nihilism (aside from numerous other philosophies)? ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"Only when we've lost everything are we free do do anything" is in no way a Buddhist ideal, especially in the context it is used, Buddhism not only teaches freedom from material things, but more importantly inner focus and self control, and further Buddhist teachings go against the concept of causing harm to other living things, if you can justify claiming any part of Fight Club with anything in Buddhism, aside from freedom from material things (which is in many philosophies and religions), then your request might make even a little sense. ~ Poison[BLX] 157.182.42.140 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Order.com

Why was the link to this taken down? Is there any particular reason? It's a page about nihilism, why should it not be included?

Because the internet hates nihilism (no joke).
As a nihilist on the internet, i resent that :P - Cherryeater987 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As do I. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As a nihilist on the internet, you should EXPECT that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.36.180 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Nihilism

Could we work on implementing a section dedicated to a Nihilistic interpretation of politics? I'm trying to research this subject myself, though most presentments of the theory usually don't branch off into politics or go into specific details. (And, perhaps Nihilism simply doesn't touch down on politics very often?) grendale 05:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The closest you're probably going to find is the sort of information at nihilist movement. But its certainly not contemporary, if that's what you're looking for. -Smahoney 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly what I was looking for, but this works. Thanks. Would it be okay if I added a link to this article in See Also? Grendel 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


You could also look into the connection between Heidegger's thinking on nihilism as definitive of modern Western capitalist Society and how his support for Hitler and the NAZI party can largely be explained by his view that they were going to change the world and prevent the destruction of western society by moving it out beyond itself into what he saw as its only possible future. (see especially his Neitzsche volumes)

[edit] Re Nihilism & Buddhism

please note that Nihilism was rejected by Buddha: "'Two ideas'. A reference to the two philosophical positions that are rejected in Buddhism: Eternalism and nihilism. These were refuted by the Buddha using emptiness to establish the temporary nature of existence. Because things are empty of any eternal essense, they are free to be created and destroyed. Because emptiness is only a description of things themselves as they exist temporarily, nihilism is refuted." [1] Peter morrell 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

further to the above, Buddha explains the nature of the world in the opening lines of the Heart Sutra thus: "form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form,"

[2] which arguably reveals a paradox that in no sense can be reduced to nihilism. Peter morrell 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To which I would reply: "Contradiction is a useful tool for resolving paradoxes, but not creating them." The above is not a paradox in any sense of the term; it is merely self-contradiction. -- Jane Q. Public 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism not just an ad hominem

Nihilism is not just an ad hominem and this should not be implied in the definition. Nihilism is a valid worldview and, in my (correct) opinion, it is the logical end of atheistic philosophies (see the Discussion in Atheism where it is proven conclusively and without serious refutation).

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
Your change was again reverted (keep in mind WP:3RR) because it was unsourced, and therefore counts as Wikipedia:Original research. -Smahoney 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a certain paradoxical situation that will be encountered while following these lines of thought: Why would a believer of the Nihilistic philosophies put any value whatsoever in external sources or the word of others? Leave no sources and it violates Wikipedia's code, but cite them and it effectively contradicts the beliefs expressed. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, but just because someone claims to "believe" in Nihilism doesn't mean they actually do, the term has a relatively widely accepted definition, and this page hopes to make it accessible. How are those who only wish to learn of it, rather than embrace it's ideals supposed to trust the definition if they have no source cited to determine if it actually represents what it says it does? As well, why is a Nihilist interested in Wikipedia, which stands to show at least some form of truth (and as accurately as possible, hence the strict rule set)? ~ Poison[BLX] 157.182.42.140 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Care to link to that specific section? --68.163.70.14 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


The word "nihilism" does not even appear, anywhere on that page. Not only that, but the opening statement above has no basis except the assumption that morality cannot exist without religious faith... and that assumption is highly questionable. Personally, I believe it to be completely unfounded. -- Jane Q. Public 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mereological nihilism

I'm concerned about the following section, for reasons given below

In a very different vein than just given, contemporary analytic philosophers have been engaged in a very active discussion over the past few years about what is called Mereological Nihilism (but it is nowadays usually just called nihilism). This is the position that objects with parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts, and thus only exist in the present moment), and only basic building blocks without parts exist (e.g., electrons, quarks), and thus the world we see and experience full of objects with parts is a product of human misperception (if we could see clearly, we'd not see compositive objects). Most contemporary analytic philosophers, such as Hud Hudson of Western Washington University [1], who is a leading critic of mereological nihilism, reject this position due to the conflict with empirical knowledge involved (that is, while we claim a chair does not "exist," we are misled by the fact that "chair" is a description and not a thing in and of itself). But many other philosophers accept partial or complete nihilism, and the position seems to be gaining popularity for a variety of reasons. What would be called the partial nihilists include Trenton Merricks of the University of Virginia, and Peter van Inwagen of Notre Dame--both of whom argue that the only objects that exist are basic building blocks (which they call simples) and persons. According to them, things like chairs do not exist. At least one philosopher, Jeffrey Grupp of Purdue University [2], argues for a doctrine of mereological nihilism, maintaining that there are no objects whatsoever which have parts. He mainly relies on experimental quantum physics and a few philosophical arguments he has developed to support his position. Grupp argues that nihilism is the standard position of many ancient atomists, such as Democritus of ancient Greece, Dharmakirti of ancient India, and that it is the position held by Kant in his transcendental idealism, and that it is the position actually found in quantum observational physics.[3]

1. It seems an awfully long section for something that already has its own page - really, it should be summarized into a much shorter article.

2. It is, despite the "references", almost entirely unsourced. There is one actual document that appears in a source - the rest are links to home pages. I guess the major complaint here is that the "citations" don't actually back up what the sentence claims, which is the entire point of having citations in the first place. -Smahoney 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and shortened it, but the references are still a problem. -Smahoney 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does Grupp's name keep coming up in wiki articles about nihilism? Should he be mentioned here? He's been removed from the main article on Merelogical Nihilism. Why is he mentioned here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.38.218 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I think he keeps showing up because he's very popular with students, and has a huge student following (he teaches at three schools as an adjunct).

If you read the discussion page of the mereological nihilism article lots of the reasons for Grupp's removal are ad hominem in nature.DivisionByZer0 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the arguments against Grupp's inclusion are ad hominem. But there are also very good reasons against his inclusion, such as, his articles are unknown and are not published in leading journals, his work goes uncited by others who work in the field, and his work in the field therefore seems to have remained uninfluential. If, in the future, his work becomes more influential, it would be appropriate to include him in an encyclopedia article at that time. But the time is not now.

Note: Anybody who says that METAPHYSICA, DIALOGUE, AND JICPR are unknown, not leading journals, just simply is unfamiliar with how the field of philosophy works. JICPR is the top journal in India, and METAPHYSICA a top one in metaphysics. I think people just don't like the conclusions Grupp comes to, and that he's a graduate student that has some publications.

I don't think the issue is whether the journals in which Grupp's publications appear are "top" or not. Nor is the issue whether Grupp's positions are popular, or whether Grupp himself is well-liked. David Lewis's modal realism is an unpopular but influential view, and I can think of a number of philosophers who aren't very nice. The issue is whether a graduate student whose work hasn't been noticed should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article should mention only those figures who have been particularly influential in the topic. Grupp hasn't been. Even if you think that he deserves to be noticed or influential, he shouldn't be mentioned here until he *actually is*. Seriously. I don't see why this is even an issue.

Like I said, I think people just don't like what Grupp concludes. I have read the first half of his article in Axiomathes he has it on line (link to mereological nihilsm by Grupp http://www.abstractatom.com/mereological_nihilism_and_quantum_atomism_article_by_jeffrey_grupp.htm), and it is good. I only see that what people on this page are trying to do is a character assassination of Grupp, rather than show why his research is not to be included. People are wanting to say, he's a grad. student, and therefore, he does not have things that should be in this article. That is like saying that since Einstein was in the patent office when he did all his revolutionary work, because he had an unimpressive position, then nobody should look at his research? The point is not that Grupp is like Einstein, which of course he is not, the point is that this on this page, nobody will dare show that Grupp's recent Axiomathes article is not new and original and not worthy of consideration BECAUSE he's a graduate student. I find this to be merely what our critical thinking classes in philosophy tell us is a fallacy: it is ad hominem. I actually know Grupp, and he doesn't care that he's not on this page (he knows that his students put him on it too), and he said that it is inevitable that his work will be castigated and banished form Wikipedia.org because it is scientific in nature, and it is anti-metaphysical, which American philosophers are going to attack. He said that his work will be accepted in scientific circles and in India (where Indian Buddhism has similar considerations as mereological nihilism), but not by modern philosophers who are obsessed with metaphysics, and all too often ignore quantum physics (and when they do follow quantum physics, they merely follow the interpretations of it not the real data, as Grupp discussed in his article).

When Einstein was in the patent office, his work did not belong in the encyclopedia. Whether his work is worth of consideration is not relevant. Whether his work has recieved consideration *is*. It hasn't. The work of Van Inwagen and Merricks has been, and should be mentioned and described in greater detail. But Grupp, since he's just an unknown grad student should not be referenced here. Inclusion in an encyclopedia article should happen only after one's accomplishments have been recognized and gained a percieved importance.
And by the way, Van Inwagen's view is extremely unpopular. No one likes it. He's the only one who holds it. But since his work has been influential--it was his book that started the recent resurgence of the topic--he deserves to be included. Grupp doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.38.218 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone know who included him in the first place?

So, anyway, about Grupp. It's pretty weird that he's in here at all. It's really, really weird that his view gets a relatively detailed explanation, while the views of Peter van Inwagen, who is *preeminent* in the field, and Trenton Merricks get mere mentions. I think the sentences dealing with Grupp should be removed. The attention he recieves in this encyclopedia is incommensurate with the recognition his work has recieved.

This is all interesting, but why does anybody really care about Grupp? An aweful lot of energy is going into talking about this person that supposedly knows nothing and can't write. Is there some reason there is so much energy to show he's not credible? Also, people are not really showing that, they are just name-calling.

[edit] "Nihilism" as Critique

i'm not really a philosopher, so i can't contribute -- but i'd like the article to develop and explain the phenomenon of scholars using "nihilist" as a dirty word, as in (i'm paraphrasing) "critics of postmodernism label it nihilist" Streamless 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You might check out the article on Derrida, which (I believe) talks about a letter from Quine, et al, which calls Derrida, among other things, a nihilist. -Smahoney 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of critique, I added a section about Baudrillard's interpretations of nihilism, of which he uses it in a completely dialectic methodology at times. Removing the very meaning from all things merely by analyzing them. It is a bit of a useful critique on nihilism in contemporary culture, instead of a constant academic critique that brings Marx and Nietzsche into it. Not sure if Baudy will help with that kind of understanding of why it's a dirty word in academia, but he tends to break down the issue beyond any sort of conventional critiquing. Dyrwen 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Does it really need explanation? How many shallow people would not consider it a dirty word, when it is a philosophy that challenges every value they hold dear? -- Jane Q. Public 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism as critiscism in intro?

"Nihilism is often more a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group, than it is an actual philosophical position to which someone overtly subscribes. Movements such as Dadaism[2] and deconstructionism,[3] among others, have been described by commentators as "nihilist" at various times in various contexts. Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more substantial or truthful, whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to nothing."

Should that be in the introduction? Is it used in that context often enough?

--Iusenospace 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In academic philosophy, I've almost exclusively seen it used in this way. -Smahoney 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm an advocate of nihilism myself, but I'd have to agree that it is used often enough in this context to justify being in the introduction. -Celebere 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For the hell of it, I'd like to express that said statement is discriminatory against Nihilists as a minority and as such is offensive and should be removed immediately. Thats not to say the previous statement actually represents my beliefs in the slightest but I felt like putting in a personal satire of common public behaviour regarding similar commentary levelled at other beliefs, and to demonstrate I really don't give a monkeys what I'm typing. Despite that, the previous statement that I don't necessarily believe it to be necessary does not mean that the opposite is true and that it shouldn't be removed... but rather that it would be contradictory for me to make such claims together. . . If you can follow what I just typed, you're smarter than the average bear. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
SotiCoto, your beginning statement presupposes that such discrimination has significant meaning and would somehow important to yourself and others. How could that be? If you were actually a nihilist, you would be arguing against yourself.
All in the spirit of fun, of course. -- Jane Q. Public 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mereological Nihilism

This article says many people refer to nihilism as mereological nihilism, but I've seen nothing of this. Mereological Nihilism seems to be an extremely small minority position held by some philosophers and in some case physicists. It's very similar to an ancient form of Buddhist thought, where some Buddhist Atomists used it to justify a radical rejection of materialism. Basically saying "If no composite objects exist, why fixate so much on materialism?" I haven't known anyone who, despite reading extensively on philosophy, has ever heard of mereological nihilism. Not even people I've known that read theoretical physics. I think mereological nihilism should only get a minor mention because of how obscure it is. It also seems to be some fringe scientific theory. I've talked with Jeffrey Grupp, a proponent of it, and he basically believes that we live in some sort of Blob Reality- where nothing material exists, and everything is free floating- and that only our conscious really exists, as in some sort of immaterial soul that interfaces with an aspect of the blob reality to create what we see. It's completely inane, it's nothing more than trying to get science to fit with a fundamentalist buddhist philosophy, like Human De-Evolution, the controversial book put out by two guys who tried to get evolution to fit with their adherence to Hinduism.

So uh yeah, I'd say someone should make the tidbit on MN smaller.

--This is not correct. Mereological nihilism a really old form of nihilism, endorsed by the ancient Greek atomists, for example. So I think the people writing that MN is not known just have not done enough reading, or their teachers forgot to teach them ancient philosophy or quantum physics. I think the analogy between Cremo (De-Evolution) and Grupp is not a reasonable one (one involves Buddhism, the other evolutionary theory).

[edit] Re: citations needed

I've noticed that, upon re-reading this article, that the 'citation needed' blurb is attached to many more statements than were there before. Is some'one' (at Wikipedia?) adding these? It's hard to believe that a computer (?) could do such a thing; it's arbitrary and subjective. If you're 'just' an amateur, 'armchair philosopher' without any 'academic credentials', (i.e., a Ph.D. from an Ivy League school), is one not allowed to make a personal observation from years of focusing on a subject? It seems assumed that no thought is original, and must be cribbed from somewhere. I had this happen to me in college, a prof spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove I had plagerized someone. I guess she felt that I wasn't capable of my own original thoughts. This article will start looking like a high school term paper if every line is from someone else. - Nemo Senki 9-28-06

This is not about whether you are an expert or a layman, and not about having academic credentials. Wikipedia is a project with the goal to produce an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays. The "Verifiability" policy actually goes so far to say that "any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." The "No original research" policy starts with "Wikipedia is not the place for original research". Some wikipedians are apparently more strict with their adherence to these policies than others. — Tobias Bergemann 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Case in point, I'm not sure about stating that Vonnegut deals with Nihilist themes. Vonnegut is an admitted Humanist. I'd say there's very little similarity between Humanism and Nilihism at their core, although they can appear similar. I would highly encourage removing that line. Any thoughts?
Perhaps, since citations are as meaningless as anything else, Nihilistically speaking, and certainly superfluous, (and I'm comma-splicing,) maybe there shouldn't be an article on Nihilism at all. Silence expresses it far better than any number of words ever could. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I know seriously... who keeps putting text on the article, don't you people know that nihilism SHOULD be blank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.16.52 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

now who vandalizes a talk page? --Tsinoyboi 05:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably your mom. --EightyOne 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed. Definitely your mother. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently read this wikipedia article and an article by Frederick Nietzsche called, The Geneology of Morals. (Please excuse me for my spelling mistakes. As well, the information in this article is somewhat factual and perhaps I am just reading it from a different point of view.) From that article I think I took a different take to what Nietzche was saying, and please allow me to explain.

The term used in this article is "nihilism" and I am lead to believe that some are led astray when left to the content of this article. What (I believe) Nietzche was trying to say was this, there are no INHERENT morals instilled in us since birth. He was not leading people around saying that there was no God, or that there is no purpose or truth to life. He was stating the fact that, if there was even a God, that he did not give man a higher law (know to some as natural law) and that he did not give us a set rule or pinnacle of moral values from which we can derive our morality.

The term for the ideas of Frederick Nietzsche was more along the lines of existentalism. For those of us that do not want to go back to wikipedia or answers.com should know that existentalism is the belief that your existence precedes your essence (Now allow me to explain this further). Existentalism is, the way of suimming up in one word, this belief: (yea, that was weird grammar right there) when every human being is born, they are born with a wiped state of morality. They are given no rules or no innate guide to how their morals are developed. The morals of humans are derived from their experiance. That means, when we are born with our clean slate, the trials and experiances we go through all during our childhood, adolescence (sp?), (and even some during adulthood) are what shape our moral values. Existentalism is the belief that our morals are determined by our upbringing and actions, not by a higher power, or from an innate natural law.

Existentalism sheds some light as to evidence that there are people in this world that will commit such acts as columbine, or that maniac on the news several weeks ago that took that assault rifle to an amish school to kill those innocent girls. Existentalism leads us to believe that these people had not gotten their morals destroyed by an outside action, but rather shaped this skewed morality from (I am speculating at this point) a poor background, bad parenting, or perhaps a high school bully that pushed too far.

Please, don't get me wrong. I agree that the term nihilism can be synonymous with existentalism, in fact I was taught that they were quite recently. However, I do not agree that this description of the term accuratly describes the full meaning of the word. Nihilism is not the term we should be looking for here. The term nihlism is really torn quite out of context for its real meaning. Nilhism, being synonymous with existentalism, should really have this article replaced with somthing more factual, which is actually more in line with what Nietzsche was trying to accomplish with his writings. As a more personal response to whomever is reading this post, (esp. the author) I can see how different perspectives of Nietzsche's writings could lead to different takes on his message to his readers, and I would love to discuss it more indepth than can be allowed on such a site as wikipedia, but as everyone does have their own opinion, I am giving mine. I do respect this opinion on wikipedia, as philosiphies are made for people to take different perspectives of them, though I do disagree on this aspect, that nihilism is not the abondonment of morals or that the world is without any truth or purpose. However, I do believe that that nihilism is the belief that the world has no higher truth, and that our morals are shaped by our experiances throughout our lives.

Thank you (if you read this) for reading my opinions.

-Patrick R. Garretson 7:19 EST 10/25/06

[edit] Nihilism and Nietzsche

I don't think that Nietzsche was against Nihilism. As far as my understanding goes, he viewed Nihilism as a necessary stage that one must take (and that society must take) before they can get out of the Christian morality that is plaguing this world. Christian morality, in part, "prevented man from despising himself as man, from taking sides against life; from despairing of knowledge: it was a means of preservation. In sum: morality was the great antidote against practical and theoretical nihilism" (The Will to Power)

As many people notice: Nietzsche hates Christianity and it's resulting morality, and so there isn't much of a reason for him to be partially defending it against Nihilism.

He views Christianity's supreme value of truthfulness as inadvertently causing its own downfall by forcing people to search for "truth", whatever it may be. So, some people will end up taking an extremely skeptical stance in regard to the world around them, and they will come to a conclusion that we live in a world shaped and interpreted by Christian morality.

Nihilism, he says is a state of mind in which one recognizes that they have been deceiving themselves for their entire life, and that everything that they thought had value was merely based on this morality, and is fictitious. Thus not having any real value at all. (The Will to Power) With the discovery of the fact that the world doesn't have the meaning that one that it did - they are free to break free from those and live for their own perceived values.

It's not really a belief in nothing, but the rejection of meaningless meanings and barriers that have no use.

Sorry if the flow isn't quite there.

edit: 65.94.125.201 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which again raises what this article initially states: that originally, nihilism did not mean the utter rejection of meaning or value, but rather the questioning (examination?) of same. -- Jane Q. Public 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Nietzsche was trying to reimpose a master morality over the slave morality, he wanted to rid the world of them both.

Kyle 65.94.124.55 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

... For what's it's worth, I understood Nietzsche's view of nihilism was that it is a neccessary stage of thinking that the uebermensch would have to pass through in order to arrive at the truth, but he didn't believe that there was, or even necessarily would be, an actual uebermensch. I think that Nietzsche would have viewed later existentialist thought as a 'turning back at the gate' of nihilism, rather than the move through that can lead to the uebermensch. Whether what Sartre called the 'anguish' and 'despair' is what got the better of Nietszche or not at the end of his life or not, I don't know, but in my own experience, it can become very difficult to act, and maybe he did discover what is on the other side of nihilism before he died, but did not write it down. OJL 14/2/7

[edit] External links

Summarisation and links to all types of nihilism - literary, music, etc.

I consider in the upper part that we add links wich when after be discusted to be published in the article. Indeed, external links section is missing, and perhaps, we can share some effords to make it. --SofieElisBexter 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I found the section in article. it is just not placed as usual in the end. Ok. --SofieElisBexter 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian nihilism

I propose section about Russian nihilism with a broad revue even linking to a separate article on Russian nihilism to be added. I really think it is not needed to explain the importance of this. --SofieElisBexter 10:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources of informations for Russian nihilism include:

[edit] Walter Kaufmann Will to Power

The Nietzsche portion of the article includes a quote from Walter Kaufmann's translation of Will to Power. In the book Kaufmann states that the entire book was published post mortem by Nietzche's sister and was based off his unfinished notes. In alot of ways the book is not representative of Nietzche's beliefs. This should either be noted in the article or the quote from Will to Power removed.


I agree that this should be noted. However, the note should include that there is debate about Kaufmann's assertion. Robert C. Holub, a German Studies professor at UC Berkeley, argues in his essay, "The Elisabeth Legend: The Cleansing of Nietzsche and the Sullying of His Sister," that Elisabeth has been unfairly blamed for misinterpreting, misappropriating, and liberally editing Nietzsche's work including The Will to Power. While Holub concedes that Elisabeth did edit, falsify, and omit some of Nietzsche's prose during her editing, he argues that these changes were mostly about mundane matters such as the weather and his loneliness and not about his philosophy. Holub's essay may be found in Jacob Golumb and Robert Wistrich, eds. Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

In regard to the validity of Kaufmann's assertion that The Will to Power is not representative of Nietzsche's work, it may be useful to note Kaufmann's place in the historiography on Nietzsche. Kaufmann is often seen as the scholar who "rescued" Nietzsche from his connection with fascism and Nazism by presenting him as a proto-existentialist. Indeed, the introduction to his biography of Nietzsche is almost entirely devoted to the Nietzsche legacy and how it came about. This being said, Kaufmann's assertions should be seen in the context of his "project." Don't get me wrong, I use Kaufmann's translations and commentary in understanding Nietzsche, but in general I think we need to be critical of sources. Please see the following books for views on Kaufmann in Nietzsche's heritage: Steven Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); Seth Taylor, Left-Wing Nietzscheans: The Politics of German Expressionism, 1910-1920 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990).Sjaquesross 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General rejection of "Moral Values".

I really hate this part in the article. Nihilism, if I am not mistaken, is a rejection of any objective moral value system. They believe (or as any self-respecting nihilist would like to say, "observe") that morals change over time, and vary from situation to situation. The way the article is worded suggests that nihilists are immoral or pagan, and I would love to see this cleaned up.

Locafoca 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of "morality itself" might be a better way of saying it. Personally I'm not just "amoral" or "immoral"; I'm "antimoral". Morality represents shortcuts of judgement, opposed to the act of actually reasoning out a matter based on its own individual circumstances. As you imply, the statement as given could well be interpreted to mean a rejection of very particular moral notions as upheld by particular belief-lines, which is incorrect in context. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would add to that this comment: A thoughtful person who accepts the concept of morality at all, does not assert that morals "vary from situation to situation". Rather that is a statement regarding "situational ethics", which is not truly practiced by sane people. The common usage of recent years, wherein "situational ethics" is taken to mean different behavior in different circumstances, is simply incorrect (much as common use of the word "paranoia" bears little resemblance to its actual meaning).
In fact, different behavior in different circumstances can easily be encompassed by even a rigid set of morals. Stating that morals can readily change in different circumstances reflects a misunderstanding of the word. On the other hand, it is certainly true that some people who consider themselves moral are incapable of following their own rules for more than a few minutes at a time. But that is a different matter reflecting a weakness in the person, not a change of the rules.
And having stated all that, I will now go back and say that I might have misunderstood your statement in the first place. If you meant that morals can be different in different places and times, and even from one individual to another, of course I must agree. -- Jane Q. Public 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How come Lao Tzu, Aleister Crowley and Austin Spare are not mentioned in this article let alone Taoists?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism expressed through math

1+-1=0Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure but Phi might be as well since both numbers are the same number except one is positive the other negative thus nihilist. 1.618, .618Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecclesiastes as example of nihilism in literature

Seems fairly straitforward to me: Ecc. 1.2 ""Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless"" (NIV)

The book doesn't really stray far from this theme, so I should think this warrants a mention in the Nihilism article.

[edit] Nihilism beyond Europe (India, China; Buddhism, Taoism)

I don't wish to directly contribute to re-writing the article, but the use (and misuse) of "Nihilism" as a category also applies to an interesting range of philosophies outside of Europe.

While I generally agree that the origin of the term must be related in terms of the russian narrative (and Turgenev in particular, etc.) it is significant that Nihilism has been both applied by non-Europeans to various schools of non-European philosophy --and also that Europeans have chosen to brand various asian philosophies as "Nihilist".

I see that there was some former dispute over Buddhism in this regard (?) --but the points both for and against the Nihilistic interpretation of earliest Buddhism could be briefly noted.

This involves certain difficulties, as so many translators assign the word Nihilism to various Pali and Sanskrit sources so liberally.

However, e.g., it is not at all clear to me that the Buddha's argument that "actions have consequences" and that the repudiation of rival views in India that murder was ethically neutral (viz., did not have consequences) constitutes a rejection of "Nihilism" in the sense defined.

More likely, Nihilism is wholly spurious to the debate in question; but it remains quite meaningful to point out that Europeans have eagerly appropriated aspects of Buddhism as nihilistic --and have (sometimes as a kind of re-valourization) tried to claim Buddhism as a form of Nihilism (with positive connotations).

Of course, as with various Chinese philosophies, there is also quite a bit of material in which "Nihilism" is applied simply in the same sense as "Heathenism" and "Paganism" used to be --viz., to denigrate strange views as foreign, godless, incomprehensible, and "therefore" worthless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.62.101.48 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Its just a label really. Things splurge together quite conveniently all over the place, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the labels in question need be liberally splashed all over anything that might hold to the same ideas. Then again, it doesn't mean the opposite either. For what its worth, I consider myself a Nihilist-Taoist... or a Taoist-Nihilist if you prefer. The two complement each other quite nicely if you think about it, though they're not the same thing by a long shot. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism Regarding Nihilism

I believe this entire article should be struck, as being completely without any kind of merit, value, or genuine meaning. -- Jane Q. Public 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think it meets any of the the deletion criteria here you can take it here. But IMHO you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting it deleted, it's a serious philosophical topic. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that that comment was particularly meant to be taken seriously. --86.7.145.144 21:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, c'mon, Squiddy. Remember, philosophy without a sense of humor is merely theology. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism in Music section

I'm removing the following until their notability to the topic can be demonstrated:

"Punk Rock group, Rancid, wrote a song titled nihlism which appears on their 1994 release Let's Go.
Marilyn Manson's songs can be taken to have nihilistic themes to them. "The Fight Song" is an example, although not the only such Manson piece, that touches on nihilistic themes, with a chorus that states "I'm not a slave to a God that doesn't exist. I'm not a slave to a world that doesn't give a shit."
The Pink Floyd Album The Wall details the life of Pink, a man who builds a mental wall to separate himself from the world's problems. In one track he states, "don't think I need anything at all."
The work of Welsh band Manic Street Preachers has an overall Nihilistic current[citation needed], especially their early work and in particular their third album The Holy Bible, the culmination of which is the track 'Faster' in which they proclaim "I know I believe in nothing, but it is my nothing".
Showbread recorded a cd entitled No Sir, Nihilism Is Not Practical.
Evergreen Terrace has a song called "No Donnie These Men Are Nihilist" on their album Burned Alive By Time, a reference to the movie The Big Lebowski."

Skomorokh 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nihilism in Film section

"The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism as a central theme is arguably Fight Club, as best expressed by the antagonist's credo "It is only after we have lost everything that we are free to do anything." The film describes the unnamed narrator's disillusionment with the search for meaning in consumerist emasculated society, and his subsequent Nietzschean reaction."

This quote should really be really be refering to the novel Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk as the ideas where originally stated in the text rather than the film. It should be in a "Nihilism on literature" section I suppose.

Chuck Palaniuk has stated in a interview that he is NOT a nihilist but rather follows the philosophy of romanticism. There is NO where written that Fight club was intended to be nihilistic. --92.3.38.84 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the film makers, and the actors (particularly Edward Norton), found and played upon Nihilistic tendencies in the characters' philosophies. While "Jack" may ultimately opt for an Existentialist solution, one hinted at by Tyler himself, this does not diminish the borderline Nihilism of the early parts of the film. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So are we to allow that "borderline Nihilism of the early parts of the film" constitute "The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism as a central theme?" I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.42.74 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism" is an accurate description given that Fight Club is (a) contemporary, and (b) often pointed to as definitive. Nihilism is also a "central theme" in that the struggle between Nihilism and Existentialism is an overarching theme (one which Palahniuk, as a talented writer, can depict without personally adhering to either philosophy). But apparently you failed to notice that concurrent with my above comment, I rewrote the section on Fight Club, replacing that sentence with the far tamer claim that, "Perhaps the most commonly referenced portrayal of Nihilism in contemporary film is the 1999 film Fight Club." And it has stayed that way since (although I plan on editing out some of the redundancy momentarily). It is quite unnecessary to complain about something that has already been changed. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

I think a null search should redirect to this page. If someone clicks go or presses enter without entering anything into the search bar, they should be sent to nihilism.

This is the best suggestion I've heard on this whole page. What a hillarious idea. -spozmo (not logged in)

[edit] Egotistic project...

...i haven't visited this site in a while, however on this latest visit, i notice that ALL of the contributions that i have made have been deleted, and as far as i know, are permanently gone...i guess that the contributions of someone who has researched, studied (since 1984) this subject and made original entries don't matter, only the work of the person whose egotistic project this seems to be...i was under the impression that wikipedia was a compendium of worldwide thought...why doesn't that person just write and publish a book and let other people have a say here?... i don't think that person understands the concept - not of wikipedia nor of nihilism - as i've said earlier, the person 'controlling' this entry is really sympathetic to 'existentialism' (the Nietzschean variety)...this is proven by the of the focus on Nietzsche and not Schopenhauer and other minor Nihilist/Pessimists such as Leopardi...every philosophic and cultural (music & movies) reference i've made has been removed...what's the point being made? - only that the person 'running' this entry doesn't 'agree' with other points of view...

Nemo Senki66.213.21.16 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, so I don't have an axe to grind here. Going through the history to see what your contributions were, I couldn't find any from your exact IP address. Your comment that you 'studied this subject and made original entries' may be the problem - if your research has not been published elsewhere, or you didn't cite those publications, it might well have been removed as original research. WRT 'cultural (music & movies) references', these tend to get culled - I do it myself on some Nietzsche-related articles, because every crap punk band that says anything with 'god' and 'dead' or 'death' gets put in a trivia section, which is widely felt to be unnecessary to articles on philosophy.
I emphasize that these are general comments, made without knowing what you wrote, or who removed it and why. I'm pointing out what sort of stuff gets deleted, and how you can make contributions which last - basically by citing a relevant reliable source. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: Ad hominem attack follows..."crap punk band"? What do you listen to? Toto? Huey Lewis & the News? Loverboy? REO Speedwagon? Just kiddin'... Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


...i don't think that i should have to have a Ph.D. ( or cite anyone else) to make an observation in this forum such as entering "Waiting for Godot" as coming from a nihilist viewpoint...this is just one of the things i've added that you've removed...my IP address may change from entry to entry...but i don't contribute here anymore because i always get edited...once again, Schopenhauer is the arch-nihilist, anti-nihilists such as Nietzsche (who i have the utmost respect for) and you should be in another article...

N.S. 66.213.21.16 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you don't want what you write to mercilessly edited, do not submit it. (You may notice that it says the same thing at the bottom of the every edit page. Everyone receives fair warning around here.) Postmodern Beatnik 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does it matter anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.176 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. I have to apologize; after taking the time to read the rules/parameters, I see that what I've been trying to do is exactly wrong. How absurd. I'm the one who should 'blog or write something for publication. P.S. -- Hey, Jane Q. Public, are you single? Wanna not get married and not have children?

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unclear explanation of Baudrillard

Thanks to all for the article. I copyedited a little, then made bold to remove and paste here the paragraph after the Baudrillard quote, which feels way too unclear (to this student of philosophy) for a general-purpose encyclopedia:

"The role of fascination over seduction removed the need for a moral high-ground over the issue of meaning. By being reduced to an observation of dialectics, or the appearance of the indifferent forms of the world, the presence of meaning disappears from the context of Baudrillard's philosophy in favor of one which may cover all the transparencies of meaning that a concept can contain."

Sorry i don't know enough Baudrillard to fix it myself. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia: Nihilism

Not sure how appropriate it is compared to the genuine academia here, but I feel that Uncyclopedia's Nihilism article deserves some merit. Hence, the exlink. —Nahum Reduta 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A blank page? How postmodern of you. ;) Brandoid (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down. There is an ad for Buffy. I'm not sure Arthur would approve. P.S. -- wouldn't a blank page be Deconstuctionist? Just sayin'...

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of reference to Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia article "Being and Becoming..." which directly relates to 'nihilism'

I just added a one sentence reference to Steven Savitt's article on Being and Becoming - I am of the opinion that articles on Nihilism are typically devoid of the wealth of modern research into the physical support for or against nihilism. Savitt's article lays the foundation for the overall questions regarding human existence - with an excellent bibliography. If the Wiki Community thinks it is an appropriate reference keep it, if not feel free to delete the sentence and reference.PSSnyder 16:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the addition I think I am going to do the strange thing of deleting it. I am convinced that modern physics says more about the relality or fantasy of nihilism than any of the early philosophers who did not have the full benefit of quantum mechanics and relativity. In fact, I think that the the acceptance or rejection of nihilism rests on an understanding of the issue of being and becoming. Nonetheless, I think the reference to and connection between Savitt's article and nihilism is not self evident, and therefore would only leave a reader wondering how nihilism and being and becoming are related? So on scond thought, I am deleting my own sentence. 67.140.142.22 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold text==ANUS doesn't belong in here== ANUS does not even hold the very value of nihilism, so why are they liked from this page?

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism Listen to the pronunciation of nihilism Listen to the pronunciation of nihilism Pronunciation: \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\ Function: noun Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing — more at nil Date: circa 1817 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ANUS is really a mixture between nihilism, neo-nazism, and Evola and Guenon type traditionalism. Supposedly, one would arrive to their neo-nazi/tradionalist philosophy when using nihilism as a starting point. This is obviously wrong and due to philosophical changes in the site owners over time. It's really not a nihilist website anymore, considering their completely for "traditional" values. --Korey Kaczynski (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


There is a gap here, I'm thinking. This article is sketchy on more modern manifestations of nihilism and organizations gathering under a banner of nihilism (although I never really checked out American Nihilist Underground Society) and seems to talk more about older dealings with it (although glad to see the effort has been taken to clear up the mess with Neitzche and nihilism to some extent). What about modern political nihilism as differentiated from the historical russian dissidents it's often mentioned with? It rates a mention, at least a link in my book. On that note I think I'll go create a stub. Heh, I also find it ironic that an article on nihilism rates at medium importance. Couldn't help myself but say that. Wselfwulf (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Nihilism should be high-importance/A-Class, across the board. From Shakespeare in 'Hamlet' to Camus in 'The Myth of Sisyphus', being is the philosophical question of all time. By the way, relating to the above discussion, Camus is the Absurdist; he denied being an existentialist repeatedly, and had a falling out on this and other political issues with Sartre. (His precursor was Kierkegaard, who first "identified" Absurdism.) Relating to the above questions, anyone having trouble differentiating Nihilism, Theistic/Atheistic Existentialism and Absurdism could benefit from consulting the chart after the contents in the Wikipedia article at Absurdism. Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk)

I would love to help develop material on modern political nihilism if you have reliable sources on it. Skomorokh 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous nihilists

Come on, what about Andy Warhol and Trent Reznor even the Sex "excuse me" Pistols?. They are famous Nihilists, why not put them down?--Nightingale12 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just make sure you include the reliable sources where you got this information from. Skomorokh 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This whole article reads like an essay, and smacks of OR. In addition, the attempt to relate nihilism to pop culture is blatantly OR. There is no reference claiming that Warhol was a nihilist, or that I heart Huckabees is nihilist. This is the opinion of the author, and can't be considered for an encyclopedia entry. This page needs to be flagged and edited profusely.72.92.17.135 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What if?...

This one is for all "lovers of wisdom": If the five relationship questions on the chart below the contents at Absurdism were "answered" in a less/non-dogmatic way, what "philosophy" would that be? Example: 1. There is such a thing as "meaning" or "value" to be found in life PERHAPS/MAYBE(?) 2. There is inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God) PERHAPS/MAYBE(?), BUT HUMANS MAY NEVER KNOW IT 3. Individuals can create meaning in life themselves PERHAPS/MAYBE(?), BUT IT MAY NOT BE ESSENTIAL 4. The pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe is a futile gesture PERHAPS/MAYBE(?), BUT THE PURSUIT ITSELF MAY HAVE MEANING 5. The pursuit of constructed meaning is a futile gesture PERHAPS/MAYBE(?)

Absurdism = solution to the "problem" of Nihilism: Life-affirmation, life as the only true value/necessary good, positivity in a philosophical (not mathematical, of course) sense,optimism, appreciation for happiness, nobly striving to succeed, positive side(s) of Surrealism/Existentialism, anti-negativity/nihilism/pessimism/skepticism.

1) Nihilism = suicide/mass murder (Nietzsche) -- [Skepticism + Pessimism] 2) Existentialism = "philosophical suicide" (Camus) 3) Absurdism = absurdity (Kierkegaard) -- [acceptance/embracing absurdity + rebellion/revolt] 4) ?ism = "non-dogmatic" expression/development of Absurdism?

Is anyone out there working on an "evolution" of Camus' thought? A new 'system'? As he said in the first chapter of 'The Myth of Sisyphus', this is the philosophical question of life. Perhaps a thesis/dissertation/book (a la 'The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism" by Bernard Reginster... (Please don't offer Optimism/Liebniz/Godwin)...

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole section seems really bad. "Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism allows for the possibility of religion, but demands empirical evidence for religious claims.[citation needed] Additionally, skepticism does not necessarily come to any conclusions about the reality of moral concepts nor does it deal so intimately with questions about the meaning of an existence without knowable truth.". Afaik, moral skeptics don't believe in real morality, they say e.g. that morality is ridiculous because there is no god. I don't know the difference between skepticism and nihilism. I have it on good authority that the nihilist believes in nothing, and some skeptics remain simply unsure. But I am sure that skeptics can take a cognitive attitude of "we cannot know x" or "y does not exist". So like I say I can't separate out the two. It's a shame that wikipedia's philosophy articles are so bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.51.242 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC) oh i see that was my mistake now. but it remains unclear if nihilists believe that we can justify belief in anything [say the size of the earth, or what time it is now, or if i am male or female]. and i would guess that the skeptic would settle for any kind of good evidence for god. finally, is nihilism a type of skepticism? oh and i think that many people would deny objective meaning to existence but not call themselves or be called nihilists.