That is also one one my favorite movies of all time.
I think that is a good parallel. The complete nihilist is a lot like the radical skeptic who is not even sure that she exists. Though any belief can be held in doubt and examined to see if there is a better belief to replace it, it is simply impossible to doubt all your beliefs at once. There always needs to be some background of belief against which to examine a belief held in doubt. The notion of the philosopher beginning with the maxim “question everything” is ridiculous. We can be wrong about any of our beliefs but we can’t doubt them all at once. For example, we can’t doubt our belief that we can be wrong about at least some of our beliefs.
So your interpretation of nilhilism is more like apathy rather than having no beliefs at all, religious or worldy. That seems like a more practical definition than “question everything”.
No, I should have made the connection of complete nihilism with radical skepticism explicit. I am saying that neither exists. It is just as impossible to deny all meaning as it is to doubt everything at once.
That’s what I meant in this whole thread, so we are at an agreement
what?
It is strictly an atheist phenomenon because the metaphysical consequence of saying that God does not exist is to say that there is no objective meaning. The Christian doesn’t reject objective meaning they reject objective meaninglessness.
Life has meaning in light of eternity. It is because of that which is eternity that life has meaning.
Well it is clear; no one believes in nothing; elsewise their claims to believe in nothing would have come from no congitive or intuitive desire (which they would reject). So even their negative claims are essentially espoused positively; a clear demonstration of the law of non-contradiction is in order to elicit their true perspectives. Avicenna clearly made the point that such a physical demonstration is apt in denouncing solipsists or nihilists in their self-contradictory terms.
I can’t think of anyone more nihilistic than the Islamic suicide bomber.
Well a suicide bomber is essentially the opposite of a nihilist. A nihilist rejects objective moral values; wheras a suicide bomber justifies condemnable activities for a higher moral function or purpose. A bomber may appear immoral to us; but to himself he is morally just. It is a clear example of relitivism combined with extremism.
Nihilism is the denial of aspects of the meaning of life. A suicide bomber denies the value of his very own life itself as well as that of those he murders and therefore in this sense represents a very extreme form of nihilism. You are correct that the suicide bomber does not reject objective moral obligations and is not a moral nihilist, but his sense of religious obligation is one where individual human lives have no value, so he is still a nihilist in the more general sense of the term which is about meaning rather than morals. Whether or not one takes a side on such a complex philosophical dispute about the existence of objective moral obligations exist–certainly not all nihilist are philosophers who are prepared to have an opinion on such matters–is not nearly so much of a concern as whether or not one thinks that life has meaning. That’s the sort of nihilism that we all need to worry about in others.
Alright Fonzie, enough with the thumbs up already. What the heck does this have to do with relativism. Suicide bombers are not relativists.A bomber may appear immoral to us; but to himself he is morally just. It is a clear example of relitivism combined with extremism.
Merely believing in Eternity is perhaps enough for some but not for all. If you don’t think that a suicide bomber fits the bill, then look no further than your Bible. Have you read Ecclesiastes? Anyone who thinks that the religious are immune to nihilism and that nihilism is only an atheist concern ought to read it. Solomon appears to have had a very pessimistic view of the human condition but by the end of the book resolves to endure and even triumphs in the manner of Sisyphus pushing the rock up the mountain again and again. Note that Solomon struggled no less for being a theist in getting to that point of triumph.
I am sorry for being to the point. Obviously suicide bombers are relitivists as they value the ends of their actions more than the absolute values of life; yet in normalacy they value life. Thus, the value they place on life is superceded by other values (afterlife etc.) and is consequently relative.
A suicide bomber does not deny the value of his own life (although he denies that of others) he in a sense confirms the value of life in his presentation of it as a sacrifice. For, if his life were worthless it would be insuited to sacrifice to some “greater end”; he does indeed recognise his life as the inferior of the pair with regards to the end; nonetheless his presentation as sacrifice reiterates its value. Howeve I must say here I am presuming a religious suicide bomber; or at least one who suicide bombs for some cause; religious or otherwise. Those who do it (I cannot think of any) for no cause might be nihilists.
Can’t agree with this at all.
You are missing an important step on the road to nihilism here. One first has to be convinced of the religious notion that meaning is something that comes from somewhere “out there.” It is only when when goes searching for purposes external to the world that one could ever fail to find such purposes and despair over the failure to find such purposes.
We have both dispensed with the notion of complete nihilism. My point is not that the suicide bomber has rejected *all *meaning in life. NIhilism is the rejection of at least some aspects of the value of life. The suicide bomber has certainly rejected much of the value of individual human life because he is willing to kill indiscriminately. He has placed some value on the lives he takes as fulfilling some religious purpose, but in doing so he is decidedly rejecting many other aspects of the value of individual human life. In Kantian language, he is treating others solely as means to an end rather than having worth as ends in themselves. He has denied an important aspect what is generally considered in our culture at least to be meaningful in completely denying the worth of individuals. That is a form of nihilism–a very religious form of nihilism. And there is no other kind. As I said previously and as Nietzsche pointed out, the road to nihilism begins with the first step of seeking justification for the world and one’s one life outside of the world and outside of one’s own life. Nihilism is then incompatible with a thorough-going atheism that has ceased to seek meaning “out there.”