From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Feb 25 2005 - 07:26:21 GMT
Marsha and all,
On 2/24 Marsha asked:
> If I say there is no absolute God to guide or save me, no absolute
morality, and no
> absolute truth, am I a nihilist? I think the answer would be yes. If
life is a process, > a series of events, how could it be otherwise?
>
> Or to explore it differently, what would the opposite of nihilism require?
Purpose?
These are good questions, and they indicate a genuine quest for
philosophical "enlightenment" (despite the move by some here to debase the
word as characteristic of subject/object metaphysics. Of what use is
philosophy if not to enlighten us?)
Marsha, it's obvious to me that you think you are a nihilist and don't even
like admitting this to yourself. The fact that you view life as a process,
as we all do, does not make you a nihilist. The "opposite" of nihilism is
belief in something. What do you believe in? If you die tomorrow, will
your life have had a purpose? Is Quality a vital part of your life that
links you to a reality beyond finitude? If you can answer yes to these
questions, you're not a nihilist.
I know that you've rejected my ideas in the past, and I apologize for coming
to this thread so late. But since I believe nihilism to be the central
issue of philosophy today, you've touched a sensitive nerve, and your line
of questioning has brought me back to this forum with what I hope is a more
complete answer than you've received thus far. Nihilism stems from the fact
that for man to be a free creature he or she must be denied absolute
knowledge, which leads (or should lead) one to question his existence.
Thus, for life to be a meaningful experience, one is free to put his faith
in religious doctrine (spirituality), become a believer in technology and
science (empiricism), or find some personal (authentic) way to placate this
lack of complete understanding.
Nihilism is the viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded
and that existence is senseless and useless. Encarta defines nihilism as a
"designation applied to various radical philosophies, usually by their
opponents, the implication being that adherents of these philosophies reject
all positive values and believe in nothing.". Inasmuch as nihilism is the
logical conclusion of postmodern humanism, it has become much more typical
than "radical" in philosophy's development.
Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth. In
its most extreme form, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it
contains a variation on the 'liar paradox': i.e., if it is true that truth
does not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" is in itself not a
truth, thereby proving itself false. The philosophy of nihilism has found
its place in modern literature, and art movements such as "surrealism",
"cubism" and "dadaism" embrace it openly. In music it has taken the form
of "punk rock" whose chaotic song patterns and morbid or obscene lyrics
depict life's meaninglessness and amorality. And because it is compatible
with scientific objectivism and an alternative to the mythos of religion and
supernaturalism, many have bought into the idea that philosophical nihilism
represents an intellectual advancement.
I think the whole thrust of philosophy today is a futile effort to make
nihilism credible. Because a supernatural reality is disallowed, the
nihilist must identify and support a 'ground of being' within the natural
world. He may choose matter, energy, or quality for his ultimate reality,
but not spirit, deus, or soul. There is no extension of consciousness
beyond death, except in the "collective" or socio-biological sense, and the
nihilist may not posit a primary cause save for natural causation in
accordance with the laws of physics.
To come up with a meaningful ontology by these ground rules would be a
spectacular feat, and one that only sleight-of-hand rhetoric can conspire.
It is an effort whose objective I believe is doomed to failure. I say this
because 1) the public at large -- indeed every individual -- intuitively dem
ands a supernatural reality, 2) the rejection of alternatives is depressing
and foreboding, and 3) nihilism is no more rational than the theism,
vitalism or spiritualism it seeks to replace. While sociologically nihilism
is a culture without values, fundamentally it is a life without soul.
The anonymous author of the LifeNotes website suggests that, since true
nihilists "believe in nothing", the modern philosopher's argument that one
may find or create "value" in a world without life after death is
questionable:
> "I would suggest that if we embrace a modern secular philosophy, or no
> philosophy/religion at all, we must embrace nihilism. . If you believe
that your
> existence may end at physical death, you are accepting the idea that
'nothing' may
> follow death, and you are by definition accepting the possibility that
'nihilism' is
> correct. Once we realize that the acceptance of nihilism is a necessary
consequence > of our humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs, we will be able to
decide for ourselves if
> what we currently believe to be true, is what we really want to believe is
true. Until
> we understand the nature of 'nothing', we may well have difficulty
appreciating
> 'anything'. Most people who believe that humans are physical beings whose
> consciousness is a product of, and constrained by, the physical laws of
the
> universe, exhibit a conscious or subconscious determination to avoid the
logical
> conclusions that follow from such a belief. Most human beings find it
difficult to
> think about the possibility that their existence may end at death, an
event they feel
> somehow protected from by the fact that it lies in the 'future'. Almost
all humans
> refuse to visualize, let alone accept, the logical consequences that may
follow death > without life after death. . If we cease to exist at our
death the logical conclusion is > that the void that follows death
'consumes' and 'annihilates' not just our future, but > our entire lives,
past, present, and future. It is extremely difficult, perhaps
> impossible, for human beings to comprehend a void that replaces all that
is, a true
> 'nothing'. The very nature of human existence cries out against a
conclusion that life > itself may be 'meaningless'."
The inference is that only objects that exist can have a past and future
associated with them. Once the individual ceases to exist, he or she is
reverts to nothing and has no past except as an object of history. This is
the rationale for existential philosophy based on the "European Nihilism" of
Nietzsche and popularized by Sartre in the last century.
I think LifeNotes' author has posed a profoundly significant challenge to
the philosophical community, one that raises serious questions about the
value of any non-subjective philosophy -- and that includes Mr. Pirsig's
MOQ -- as a source of moral or intellectual enlightenment. Quality or Value
has meaning for mankind only if the individual can identify in some
transcendent way with it; that is, if Quality/Value leads to a primary
(essential) source. Otherwise it is no more than a passing attribute of
sensory experience. This, it seems to me, is the point of philosophical
enlightenment -- a point that seems to have been ignored in the metaphysics
of Quality.
I realize that you won't be happy with these answers, Marsha, and neither
will this group. But until the issues of individual consciousness,
transcendence, and an uncreated primary source are addressed clearly and
unambiguously for the MoQ, outsiders like me will continue to regard this
philosophy as essentially nihilistic.
Anyway, I hope I've added to your understanding of nihilism.
Best wishes,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 25 2005 - 07:30:52 GMT