Unpopular opinion: Nihilism still doesn't reflect reality. Philosophical pessimism is more honest.
I used to be a nihilist (and even still somewhat do sometimes, when necessary or required to be). But as the time goes by, and I get much older now (I'm almost 40), and seeing the reality of our world, society, life, & existence, I've now turned into a pessimist (not just a simple pessimist, but more into philosophical pessimism, you can google & look it up if you want).
Nowadays lately, I've noticed that a lot of people mostly got into what's called an "Optimistic Nihilism". But I strongly disagree. And here is my main argument:
Unless if you're lucky or fortunate, a lot of people or even most of us here usually won't live a so-called perfect life (eg: successful, rich, wealthy, famous, popular, living the dreams, have lots of friends, healthy, or even just to be completely happy). A lot of people still have to toil away just to survive everyday. Many of us have to live with a lot of problems, and have to go through pain & sufferings almost everyday (I'm not living in the first world country, but I assume there are perhaps quite many people here who live quite a comfortable & even a privileged life there, so that's also counted as being lucky/fortunate).
I've tried to adhere & practice nihilism (& even that so-called optimistic nihilism). But in reality, it's not that easy & simple in practice. When your life is far from perfect, and even somewhat can be considered a failure, with a lot of problems after problems almost everyday/on a daily basis, and when things are stressful, & even depressing, to be honest, I just can't simply just 'nihilist away' all those harsh reality. No, again, life is not that easy, simple, nor optimistic, in reality (unless again if you're lucky or fortunate as I've explained above).
I mean, sure, I know and I understand, & even agree, that in the grand scheme of things, everything is meaningless, so it's like we're "free to do anything we want", right? No. In reality, we are *NOT* free to do what we want/like, or hope, dream, expect, etc etc etc. Real life / real world / reality is very limiting in what we can do (or be). Let me ask you for example: How many of you are trapped everyday in a job or work that you don't like? And that's just one main example. I still even haven't mentioned about if you have chronic pain/disease/illness for example, it will obviously become a lot/much worse.
I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc).
Nowadays lately, I've noticed that a lot of people mostly got into what's called an "Optimistic Nihilism". But I strongly disagree. And here is my main argument:
Unless if you're lucky or fortunate, a lot of people or even most of us here usually won't live a so-called perfect life (eg: successful, rich, wealthy, famous, popular, living the dreams, have lots of friends, healthy, or even just to be completely happy). A lot of people still have to toil away just to survive everyday. Many of us have to live with a lot of problems, and have to go through pain & sufferings almost everyday (I'm not living in the first world country, but I assume there are perhaps quite many people here who live quite a comfortable & even a privileged life there, so that's also counted as being lucky/fortunate).
I've tried to adhere & practice nihilism (& even that so-called optimistic nihilism). But in reality, it's not that easy & simple in practice. When your life is far from perfect, and even somewhat can be considered a failure, with a lot of problems after problems almost everyday/on a daily basis, and when things are stressful, & even depressing, to be honest, I just can't simply just 'nihilist away' all those harsh reality. No, again, life is not that easy, simple, nor optimistic, in reality (unless again if you're lucky or fortunate as I've explained above).
I mean, sure, I know and I understand, & even agree, that in the grand scheme of things, everything is meaningless, so it's like we're "free to do anything we want", right? No. In reality, we are *NOT* free to do what we want/like, or hope, dream, expect, etc etc etc. Real life / real world / reality is very limiting in what we can do (or be). Let me ask you for example: How many of you are trapped everyday in a job or work that you don't like? And that's just one main example. I still even haven't mentioned about if you have chronic pain/disease/illness for example, it will obviously become a lot/much worse.
I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc).
Comments (52)
I think philosophical pessimism is a rational response to the horrors of reality.
Nihilism, the view that nothing matters, can't be correct if there are bad things (e.g. pain and suffering). Thus either nihilism is true, or philosophical pessimism, but not both.
Excellent distinction between the two ideas which most people mix up. Good for you for embracing the often misrepresented idea of philosophical pessimism. I too am a philosophical pessimist (see my profile). I am also an antinatalist and have several threads on the topic going on now if you would care to contribute. Suffering and dealing with are main parts of what happens when being born. Life is not a utopia, yet we are brought into it.. I have a thread about the "most people" defense. "Most people' people say, would have wanted to be born.. But can people misjudge life's negatives? Can they misjudge their own experiences? Can something be wrong and people not know it? That is being discussed in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1
Also there's this thread about never having the option for no option: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11540/is-never-having-the-option-for-no-option-just-what-are-the-implications
To add to the misery of the world, don't forget the ire misery of the miserable people you often find in philosophy forums! Get ready for that if you write too much philosophical pessimism on here for sure!
You may also find my thread on why it is that humans suffer more than other animals interesting too
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11441/why-humans-and-possibly-higher-cognition-animals-have-it-especially-bad
And this one about why it's bad to make someone have to work to survive in the first place (by procreating them):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11387/making-someone-work-or-feel-stress-unnecessarily-is-wrong
If you read through my threads, most of the themes are philosophical pessimism and antinatalism.
I remember debating nihilism inside this forum some months ago. I still defending the same which is so similar to you: Nihilism is a period of life. When you are having a bad moment with depression or sadness you tend to feel nihilistic and not believe in what the future holds. Tobe honest is a very negative period of time because when we are living it we do not have the motivation to do something and it is horrible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then here we have the important issue: pessimism or at least understand life is very difficult and painful. Kierkegaard helped me out a lot in this context. I recommend to you his book the concept of anxiety" is very helpful to clarify the ideas.
In this point, yes, I am agree with you, pessimism and pessimistic thoughts are completely valid and logic
Please don't take this as criticism. I think that the underlying basis of our philosophies reflect our temperament as much as our intellect or circumstances. I am often the Pollyanna in these discussions. I think the world is a wonderful place and I feel like I belong here. The world and I, all of us, were made for each other. Oddly, this does not make me a particularly happy person in general. I recognize my responsibility for my reaction to the world.
I do live a privileged life and I have no reason to complain about what I have been given. I'm not sure how many happy privileged people there are, but freedom from fear is a good thing.
Forgot to say - A well-written and clear post with good ideas. With which I don't agree.
I'm not quite so sure that I see a clear distinction. Nihilism and philosophical pessimism both posit that the human experience, for the most part, is ultimately negative. Perhaps I'm confusing what people call philosophical pessimism with what they do "nihilism" however?
Possibly? Nihilism means one has no values. Nothing is right, nothing is wrong except perhaps one's own interests and will to power. I think of The Big Lebowski's depiction, though that's obviously a caricature.
Philosophical pessimists are very rooted in traditional value systems. Existence itself is seen as having a generally negative quality. Suffering is inherent in being human, or being born, or perhaps existence itself (pace Schopenhauer's Will). Thus, the elimination of suffering would be akin to never being born or some type of ascetic practice or de-individuation where one can extirpate the suffering to some extent (pace Buddhism).
Excellent. Hats off to this good argument :100:
I feel so related to this. Not only with the fact of not being born I secure not suffer at all but not hurting others. If I never were born, then I would not be able to hurt, punch, rape, steal, disappoint, kill or betray you.
Not existing can produce benefits for both parts: the "persons" who never been born and all the people he never will met.
Because even if it is hard now, people can try to make it better for the future. That is hope and potential to be good and meaningful.
But no matter how successful one is, having a fantastic perfect life right now, it will not be forever. It will not last. He / she is getting older every day, heading towards old age and inevitable death. All the billionaires will leave the billions behind, all the powerful figures in politics and nations will have to come down from the throne, all the celebrities with fame, beauty and mega money will fade into old age, and all have to die one day. That is why life is viewed as tragic, therefore nihilism is realism.
I guess there seems to be a difference between what nihilists say that nihilism is and what it more often than not turns out to be. It usually turns out to be a philosophy of despair and somehow ultimate within philosophical pessimism, generally connoting something like that existence is suffering. Perhaps, it's just because of that so many philosophical pessimists also happen to be existential nihilists that I feel confused.
I think the tragedy of death is great fodder for mental
masturbarion, but fear of kicking the bucket isn’t what makes people into miserable nihilists or pessimists. It’s their failed relationships with others and their inability to be comfortable with themselves. I guarantee you that a person who does not see the world as an ugly place, who empathizes with others , even those who we are told to despise, who delights in their friendships and in their solitary enjoyments , such a person will have no use for nihilism.
Nothing, especially if it matters, is safe or will ever get better or will not make you suffer. (pessimism)
:100: :up:
Most famous philosophers in history enjoyed solitary living for their thinking and writing. Human relations come and go, and it is something of a contingent affair for most grownups.
I still think nihilism is based on the nature of life, that it has a short finite time, hence no matter how successful or happy one has been, it will not last. The end is coming very soon, and after the end, nothingness will last for good. So, there is no meaning in trying to achieve anything. No meaning to worry or feel pain. They are all meaningless.
I think (I don't care what the bloody Wiki says), nihilism is about the death and post death, which is eternal nothingness therefore it even affects life at present into something meaningless.
Pessimism is about looking at not just life and death, but even birth as a tragic event, because when one is born, one has to go through suffering, get old, and then must face death.
Pessimists such as Schopenhauer would say, the best thing in life is not to be born. Once born, the next best thing is to die as soon as possible. The irony is that he didn't die soon. He tried to live as long as possible.
I don't know why anyone would think wealth and fame make us happy, given the history of fame in the 20th and 21st century. That's a very teenage, mainstream media view of success. I think a simple life with a little toil and suffering is a better path to comparative happiness.
Quoting Corvus
I can't see how 'eternal nothingness' (such a deliberately dramatic term) matters two fucks. We are all familiar with nothingness - it is quite beautiful in its way. Just think back across the billions of years before you were born. Death's just like that.
Quoting Corvus
That's an amusing outlook and seems such a cultivated position. The opposite also holds. Life is long and full of adventure and what matters is the moment and the sparks of light and adventure along the way. A party doesn't have to last for eternity to be a good party. God forbid. If a person truly can't find joy then perhaps they are clinically depressed; or maybe are that very common phenomenon, a morose teenager.
Nihilism is not all that miserable and horrible position for one to be in, as some tries or seems making out. Many are actually quite content and happy being nihilist.
What if your "knowledge" or ingrained belief is meaningless? Oh wait, apparently it isn't. Logic fail. So, why not build on your own knowledge if it's so intrinsically excluded from "everything". Not ego, but knowledge. This is confused many a time.
Quoting niki wonoto
Yeah things can be pretty sh*tty. You should think of life as a sandbox. You can build a castle or you can piss in it. Naturally, you being one person can't change the choices of others.. as an individual. But. You can shape a better tomorrow if you so chose to, at least you could try. Yet you don't. Understandably because this is unrealistic. You could shout good tidings from the rooftops and depending on the crowd may even be shot at. This is discouraging. But there are other ways.
What joy is there to succumb to negativity and be at peace with it compared to resisting it, even in your own way, and succeeding to bring joy to others thus bringing meaning to your own? These are the questions only you can answer. And I hope you do.
Quoting 180 Proof
addenda:
Whether one lives or dies does not matter. (nihilism)
Only death matters; that the living necessarily feed on the dead and will in turn be fed upon as we decay and then die; that existence is a cycling, insatiable, cosmic and terrestrial abattoir. Life is just food playing with its food. If life can have a goal it is to die soon and quickly, but most sentients learn to cling to their suffering and thereby fail even to reach this readily available life goal. (pessimism)
I, myself, prefer the absurd.
[quote=The Unnameable]Where I am, I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on. You’re on earth. There’s no cure for that.[/quote]
:death::flower:
Nihilism, for me, is just knowledge and mental attitude about life, with the prospect of all life of human being being finite and limited, therefore nothing is really meaningful to feel distressed or desirable, so take it easy, calm and cool. That's all. Nothing more or less.
Human relations are the background condition for everything we do, whether alone or with others. It may be true that philosophers spend much time physically alone, as do novelists ( there’s a happy bunch) , but whether they do so happily or not is a function of how they perceive their status with respect to others in their lives. If you haven’t found a way to feel a sense of belonging, mutual understanding and connection with others, then this failure will define the quality of your solitary experience as well.
If you have managed to find rewarding meaning in your relationships, such value doesn’t vanish simply because of death. This wasnt Schopenhauer’s argument, it was that the course of life itself, within itself was arbitrary and thus without value.
Nietzsche turned this thinking on it’s head. He argues that pessimists were still mourning the loss of the grand old metaphysical absolutes (God,Truth, Goodness) and hadn't figured out a way to replace them with existential values of change and becoming. So they concocted a solution (death and nothingness) which was itself a metaphysical notion. But pure nothingness is no more coherent than absolute truth or an eternal God. Nietzsche recognized that the fundamental basis of life was Will to value. We are always in a state of desire, and even the desire for nothingness is still a valuing and willing. That’s why psychologists say that suicide is a life affirming act.
:up:
I think it boils down to one's view on life. It then becomes personal value. It is not a matter of truth or falsity. You value human relations and belonging in the group you care for as the utmost criteria for your meaning of life. No one can argue with that, or deny it.
Me? I have an infinite size of universe in my mind that I am happy with, to ponder about anytime I would like. I am also too busy with various hobbies that I enjoy, and it makes life interesting. Friends come and go, and I don't lose sleep over relationship fallouts. Nihilism is still a useful view of life from time to time to get into, because it tells what the world is facing, and where all the people including me are heading to. Nihilism is realism.
I’ve never been much of a realist. Too conforming . I’m more of a constructivist. If you dont like your reality, construct a new one. And keep in mind , it is likely that medical science will eventually figure out how to outfox death (As you know , there are plenty of living things that don’t age).
I know I was nihilist for many years and I always found it absurdly life affirming.
I accept the reality as it is. Sure, where I can reconstruct, if it looks reasonable and possible without my loss and looks like it will make it better than the status quo, then I would reconstruct it. (not Derridian reconstruction)
Eternal life without death will bring all sorts of problems. What would be the point if medical science succeeded in making people live forever without death, but millions are killing themselves out of boredom, because they are keep living forever and ever? Don't get excited. It wouldn't happen in our lifetime anyway. I will stick to realism for the time being.
I am a part time nihilist myself.
That's the way. I recommend life affirming Zoroastrianism on weekends.
That rings true. Must be wrong. :joke:
:fire: :up:
Never accept reality as it is. There is no way that things ‘really really are’ in themselves , outside of all construction of them. The universe is amenable to an infinity of alternative constructions, some more useful than others. Even if youre relatively satisfied with the way you’re construing your world, you should never allow yourself to become complacent and assume that it is THE one reality. Be audacious.
Some things must be accepted as a priori, whether you like or not. You cannot change or reject transcendentally certain things such as time and space, living, doubting, ageing and death, feeling nihilistic at times. Many things in life are a priori reals that one has to accept as precondition of existence. Sure you can change your dwellings, your friends, your jobs and plans ... but how can one reject time or death when it passes by and comes to him for instance?
I accept the way of old thinking, that the Sun revolves around the Earth and anyone who thinks otherwise is really just a heretical loon and needs to be put away somewhere cold and dark where they can corrupt the children nevermore.
By changing the way you understand these things, you change the things themselves. Time and space, in the way they are commonly understood , are constructs going back to the Greeks. But there are alternative easy of interpreting these notions. And that is certainly true of concepts like death, nihilism, doubt. Just look at the diversity of views on this forum.
Broadly, nihilism is the negation or denial of objective truths; I suppose all other specific types of nihilism (moral nihilism, logical nihilism, etc.) branch out from this.
Quoting niki wonoto
The worldview that centers around the dark side of nature and humans and thus, recommends lowering one's expectations to match the world's modus operandi - indifference bordering on malice.
Prima facie, philosophical pessimism appears to follow directly from nihilism at least when it comes to matters human; after all if nihilism is true, moral nihilism follows and that should, in the rational person, elicit extreme pessimism.
Dig a little deeper though and this causal connection vanishes because nihilism rejects those very ideas that underpin pessimism - ideas like good & evil, happiness & suffering, to name a few.
Good point !! :up: :fire:
Thank you!
Exactly.. Didn't Julio Cabrera bring this idea up? By being born, we not only suffer, but we are bound to be unethical and cause others suffering in our very existing. Thus structurally it's messed up to just to exist, and exist in relation to others by almost necessity.
Perhaps, I think it is just a lot of confusion that people have around the term "nihilism".. It is more of a negation form than it is about content. It is denying the existence of "something" (ethics, meaning, knowledge, etc.). There is no judgement of content attached to a nihilist thought usually, as there is with philosophical pessimism. So a nihilist might think there is no ground to ethics or meaning in the world, but a true "nihilist" just leaves it at that. A Philosophical Pessimist sees a lot of implications in the world having suffering and judges it so through usually something akin to intuition or a moral sense (I'm being very broad here). Thus there is a sort of general aesthetic view from the pessimist philosophy. There are ethical implications for philosophical pessimists too (compassion and alleviation for fellow-sufferers, extirpation of one's own source of suffering, not putting more people into the world to suffer, etc.).
Well, I don't know if it's just the breeding part. By existing at all as humans, we are bound to disappoint, transgress ethically other people, etc. It's the inevitability of humans capacity to transgress and perhaps a necessity in order to live with other people. I think Cabrera's point might be that just because it is a feature, doesn't mean it's a good feature. Clearly we get by through it, but "my oh my how we get by" sort of thing.
But with the idea of "thrownness", we have all but lost already. Work work work, grind grind grind away.. Die die die away.
Just as a reference or some talking points, here is a Wiki article on Cabrera:
Quoting 180 Proof
I understand the distinctions in an abstract philosophical sense. I guess it just seems that what most nihilists tend to accept is a philosophical pessimist position, despite only ever referring to themselves as "nihilists".
Generally speaking, a distinction between existentialism and nihilism is within the response to the inexistence of God or some kind of divine order in the universe. Most existentialists think something along the lines of that it is then up to humanity to create meaning within the world and cultivate its own values, whereas most nihilists will reject the notion of meaning altogether and negate any ethical value judgements. Nihilists will often claim that the liberation from an instilled guilt, usually involving a rather nuanced and viciously eloquent critique of the Catholic Church, is liberating, but, I would argue that, when confronted by something the scope and scale of human atrocities to have occurred within the Twentieth Century, they, in order to withhold judgement, can only come to a set of postulates concerning human nature that, contrary to their claim, I would argue, are somewhat pathological and ultimately pessimistic. Another distinction is between the response to the philosophical pessimist postulate that the human experience is ultimately negative, characterized by Albert Camus as "the Absurd", which existentialists either suggest should be somehow overcome, as if it were somehow alterable, or revolted against, kind of for its own sake, which, in a political context, the dread nihilists whom I personally have qualms with take as an effective sanction for adventurist terrorism, but, as, up until around three years ago, there were probably a grand total of seven of them in the world, I think, we can dismiss their recent popularity within the Anarchist fringe as a passing trend, and which, outside of the cult pathology of political nihilism, a few nihilists also agree with, but, without being able to invoke their iconoclast, meaning, more often than not ultimates within a defeatist pessimism. What the more common response among nihilists is is to suggest that you should just simply accept the human condition for what it is, namely that the human experience is ultimately negative, and to vaguely offer some form of non-Western spirituality so as to cope with this, which doesn't differ too much from the philosophy of the seminal philosophical pessimist, Arthur Schopenhauer.
What I am saying is that what nihilists say that nihilism is is distinct from philosophical pessimism, but that, when it comes to what it actually turns out to be, the distinction becomes blurred.
Moment to moment 'who I am' transcends the oblivion of 'what we are' by creating, or choosing for, oneself. (existentialism)
To live defiantly without consolation (absurdity) of either "hopes" for meaning (nostalgia) or "fears" of meaninglessness (futility) in an ineluctably contingent world which cannot be comprehended – totalized – by any individual mind and can only be laughed at affirmatively. (absurdism)
Can it then be that your "nihilist" friends are confused as to what "nihilism" is? People mislabel themselves all the time. I don't think it's a matter of the definition being blurred, but how people label themselves. There is also the case one can be a "nihilist" and a "pessimist" but one does not entail the other and hence why good conceptual analysis can work out which falls under what and what is being unknowingly blurred.
It can and very well might be that, but I think that you would then have to include that most nihilists have done so, which would be somewhat absurd.
I'm not sure that we can purely go off of the given definition of any particular philosophy or worldview. For instance, in this Wikipedia talk page, Pavane7 argues that the Order of Nine Angels are anarchistic and nihilistic, citing a text that they wrote that is no longer online, expressing a desire to go beyond anarchism and nihilism. If you take the Order of Nine Angels at their explicit word, then there only seems to be some justification for that they are a terroristic Neo-Fascist esoteric cult, which, though there are grains of truth to more or less any given perspective, is more or less just simply the case.
That's kind of an all too particular example, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between a definitional denotation of a particular philosophy and what said philosophy effectively turns out to be.
I'm not sure that there exists this pure abstract nihilism, devoid of the various weltanschauungs of the people who call themselves "nihilists".
I don't know, I don't know "many" nihilists. I know more of real life "anarchists" perhaps or "punks" but except in The Big Lebowski have never seen an actual "nihilist" :D.
Quoting thewonder
That phrase "turns out to be" is where you are sidetracking. Unless you want to make a pragmatist case that the definition of a philosophy is only how a majority of people are using it, then it still holds, people are simply wrong about their label.
Quoting thewonder
Possibly. I would simply say that "nihilism" in its most basic form is a denial of something, not a "positive" belief other than the positive belief that something "does not" exist.
If you want to cite Nietzsche as a classic "nihilist" you must realize that after proposing nihilism, he proposed to go "beyond" it by having a post-nihilist ethics (Beyond Good and Evil). That part though, I don't see as being nihilist, but a post-nihilist answer to nihilism.