You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Epistemological and Existential Nihilism

JacobPhilosophy July 15, 2020 at 17:50 3675 views 7 comments
Aren't they mutually Exclusive? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from what I've researched, Epistemological Nihilism is the belief that nothing can be known objectively or with certainty. Existential Nihilism, however, is the claim and belief that life has no meaning. Surely these two premises are mutually exclusive, because if nothing can be known, it cannot be know that life has no meaning. Please correct my definitions of they are wrong. It might be that existential Nihilism is defined as "the belief that it cannot be known whether life has meaning or not".
Side Note: Also from my knowledge, to be an epistemological nihilist, you have to be a moral nihilist, but you can be a moral nihilist without having to be an epistemological nihilst. This is because if nothing can be known, that includes what is and isn't moral, but you can think morality is subjective, whilst thinking other things are objective, therefore refuting epistemological nihilism.

Comments (7)

Echarmion July 15, 2020 at 19:10 #434720
I think the answer depends on whether you the claim "nothing can be known with certainty" is different from a regular negative claim like "I don't know X". Essentially, whether you think the statement is self-contradictory. If it isn't, then the two can be compatible, as denying any objectivity and certaint precludes any given meaning for "life" in general.
JacobPhilosophy July 15, 2020 at 19:36 #434727
Reply to Echarmion but just because there is no way of KNOWING anything objectively, that doesn't mean that there can't be objectivity. Epistemological nihilism is the claim that nothing CAN BE KNOWN, not that nothing exists. Therefore, life could or could not have meaning, we just can't know for sure.
Echarmion July 15, 2020 at 20:24 #434741
Quoting JacobPhilosophy
but just because there is no way of KNOWING anything objectively, that doesn't mean that there can't be objectivity. Epistemological nihilism is the claim that nothing CAN BE KNOWN, not that nothing exists. Therefore, life could or could not have meaning, we just can't know for sure.


Well, but then what does it mean to say "life may have meaning, it just cannot be known"? If the meaning cannot be established objectively, that leaves everyone with their personal, subjective meaning of life (or lack thereof), which is just the same as if there was no meaning to life.
JacobPhilosophy July 15, 2020 at 20:30 #434743
Reply to Echarmion Say there was one objective meaning that some superior being knew, like it was beyond our knowledge. This is unlikely but I can't say with certainty that it isn't the case. This would make like therefore not meaningless, but it would remain that there is no way of objectively proving meaning.
Echarmion July 15, 2020 at 20:43 #434747
Quoting JacobPhilosophy
Say there was one objective meaning that some superior being knew, like it was beyond our knowledge. This is unlikely but I can't say with certainty that it isn't the case. This would make like therefore not meaningless, but it would remain that there is no way of objectively proving meaning.


But does the concept of objective meaning make sense? I understand the distinction you make, but "meaning" is not an ordinary property. For a thing to have meaning, that meaning must be known. A text in a language no-one can speak contains abstract information, but it doesn't "mean" anything.

It seems to me the same is true for life. Even if your life had meaning and purpose to some higher being, it would not make your life any different. There is nothing to predict or discover about your life that changes.
JacobPhilosophy July 15, 2020 at 21:00 #434752
Reply to Echarmion just because nobody knows something is the case, that doesn't make it not the case. If a superior being placed that inscription, which was decipherable to them but not anyone in our realm, it would have meaning .
jonjt July 15, 2020 at 23:09 #434803
You can objectively argument that nothing can be known with 100% certainty by simply stating the fact that there are many things unknown, and if any of these things are related to it, you wouldn't know it 100%. So the only way to have certainty in your knowledge is omniscience.

That said, there are so many facts evidentiating some things that you can treat them with a certain level of objectivity, but still aware of the fact that you don't fully know them.