Talk:Nihilism

Archive 2003 - 31 March 2006

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 personal beliefs, which I guess could be described as nihilistic or existential (or apathetic ;)) So, would you say that existentialism and nihilism aren't mutually exclusive? See, I reckon that Sartre's "there's no value to life but what we ascribe" doesn't contradict nihilism becouse it does conciet that, if one doesn't ascribe value to life, there is none.

Well existentialism says there is meaning, and although we may not be able to find it, meaning is very important. Nihilism and absurdism say there is no meaning - which leads to my question in the next section: ··gracefool |☺ 05:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Fight Club (film)
• The Big Lebowski
• Taxi Driver
• A Clockwork Orange (film)
• Blade Runner
• SLC Punk (mostly punk and anarchist ideology)

-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)

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.

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)

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)

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) \

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)

Care to link to that specific section? --68.163.70.14 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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 , 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 , 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.

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).

"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)

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)

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.

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?

Vandalism

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

Probably your mom. --EightyOne 07:01, 25 October 2006 (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

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)

  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)

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)

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:

• Catholic Encyclopedia, Nihilism, section on Theoretical nihilsm
• Political nihilism at about.com

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)

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)