Existential Nihilism

[mymamamary]

Hey everyone

I realised something. For those who hold a Nihilistic Extentionalsitic view on life, for those who believe life has no meaning, as perhaps we see this best in Macbeths soliloquy on “tommorrow, tommorrow, tommorow” as at that point in the play he is acting from a nihilistc extenstialism perspective, i would make the point to them “well as rational human beings, if our life has no meaning at all or no value, why did we ask what is the meaning of life in the first place” as in my reasoning, if we have to ask " what is the meaning of life" there has to be a meaning, a meaning that we can find only in JESUS CHRIST. As something inside of us forces us to ask that question, so there has to be a meaning for and in life correct? would this be a good point or is it a fallible arguement. Or otherwise, if there is no meaning and we are forever doomed to walking and groping in the shadows and the darkness, in a grey fog, in a tragic depression, then would we have ever asked if life has a meaning?? as this kind of philsoophy is a very faulty one. It is a philsoophy in which my opinon can lead to a free-for-all. Suicide, Murder, Hitler, Stalin-these folks apllied “life has no meaning or instritic value”

I would appreciate any weighs-ins or opinions on my arguement/assertion

 

[losh14]

I think you’re conflating a number of topics, but an existential nihilism (or a non-existential one, for that matter) would contradict a Christ-centered mindset. If we say “I am nothing, Christ is everything” we are not being nihilistic, but rather self-emptying, and even there perhaps to a fault. It is more accurate to say “I am nothing on my own, Christ is everything, and in Christ I can accomplish all things”. In other words, there is nothing outside of Christ, but when we cleave to Christ we find the meaning in ourselves that brings us to Christ. Think of the difference between being an empty wine skin waiting to be filled, and being a lamp waiting to be lit.

Hitler and Stalin held to a very different philosophy that led to nefarious results. Both were state-centered, both sought an ideal above themselves but that ideal was destructive at the outset (the superiority of one group over another and the necessary re-ordering of the world to recognize that superiority). A favorite line from a song by the project Faithless posits “If you place something at the center of your life that lacks the power to nourish, it will eventually overwhelm and destroy you.” Stalin and Hitler (and others) placed themselves at the center of the State, and the State at the center of the lives of those living within the nation, and the poison of the individual devoured the life in the State and in its people.

 

[NonNobisDomine]

To say that life is meaningless is that which itself brings meaning for that particular person.

 

[WillP]

Hey everyone

I realised something. For those who hold a Nihilistic Extentionalsitic view on life, for those who believe life has no meaning, as perhaps we see this best in Macbeths soliloquy on “tommorrow, tommorrow, tommorow” as at that point in the play he is acting from a nihilistc extenstialism perspective, i would make the point to them “well as rational human beings, if our life has no meaning at all or no value, why did we ask what is the meaning of life in the first place” as in my reasoning, if we have to ask " what is the meaning of life" there has to be a meaning, a meaning that we can find only in JESUS CHRIST. As something inside of us forces us to ask that question, so there has to be a meaning for and in life correct? would this be a good point or is it a fallible arguement. Or otherwise, if there is no meaning and we are forever doomed to walking and groping in the shadows and the darkness, in a grey fog, in a tragic depression, then would we have ever asked if life has a meaning?? as this kind of philsoophy is a very faulty one. It is a philsoophy "in "which my opinon can lead to a free-for-all. Suicide, Murder, Hitler, Stalin-these folks apllied “life has no meaning or instritic value”

I would appreciate any weighs-ins or opinions on my arguement/assertion

If you would like the views from the perspective of a skeptic, may I offer mine?

Existentialism, at least in the tradition of Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, is a “worldview” in which we all have choices. We choose who we are and what we are. It is, in a sense, a philosophy of individualism. In making choices we define for ourselves what meaning there is. We are completely and unconditionally free with no “guideposts” by which we can determine a right or wrong course. In this sense, it is a philosophy which offers no excuses or passes. This causes a good deal of frustration and anguish and thus meaning must and should be ascribed by the individual with full recognition that he or she is responsible for his life and his values.

Friedrich Nietsche, another philosopher and who predates Sartre by about a century seemed to have dealt with this problem of a “free existence” by advocating a human spirit (Der Ubermensch) which is energized by this freedom (casting it in terms of unfettered opportunity, rather than simply rudderless freedom). I personally think that this concept was derived by Nietsche through his studies of classical Greek philosophy. The Greeks believed, for example, that true happiness was achieved by means of the full use of one’s powers along lines of excellence. I think this is an underlying theme running Nietsche’s concept of the Ubermensch. Accordingly, I also think curbstone philosophy students and ill informed academics do great injustice to Nietsche by associating his teachings with the Nazi movement and its concepts of a master race. None of this is consistent with Nietsche’s views of the Ubermensch.

In the end, my understanding of existentialism is that it is not nihilistic It is rather life affirming in many respects, it fully comports with individualism and, in fact, the existential views expressed by Kirkegaard, a Danish philosopher (also predating Sartre and Camus), were rather similar to yours. He found existential “meaning” from christianity. His belief required a “leap of faith” without which he felt one would dispair like a sickness unto death, the same concept as what was referred to by Sartre as man being “condemned to be free”.

I respectfully suggest that you have been misled in forming your views on existentialsm

 

[tonyrey]

1. There are degrees of nihilism and scepticism - all of which are illogical because they stop short of the full implications of nihilism and scepticism.
2. A consistent nihilist/sceptic would assert that everything is absurd - as Camus and Sartre were tempted to do.
3. To assert that everything is absurd is obviously a self-contradiction because then the assertion itself would be absurd!
4. Camus and Sartre realised that such a position is untenable and became humanists in an ocean of absurdity!
5. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting reason as a basis for decisions in an irrational universe.
6. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting humanity as their basis for values in a valueless universe.
7. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting freedom as their basis for action in a deterministic universe.
8. Above all they overlooked the absurdity of getting everything for nothing!

 

[Qoeleth]

I am probably an existentialist nihilist- but also a Christian.

“The world is vanity and a chasing of the wind,” as Scripture says. Humanity occupies our lives in the pursuit of passing things- for some it is wealth, pleasure, etc. But, in fact, these are all illusions, since they bring no real happiness. At a deeper level, reality itself is a deception, a passing shadow, a bubble, a nothing. The highest form of life is to empty ourselves, to alleviate the sufferings of others- this I see as a saying “No” to the world, and its ways, its pain, its injustice.

Like Camus’ image of Sisypus- to push the stone up the hill, knowing it will roll down again.

Yet, I am a Christian. Jesus Himself looked into the heart of existence and its futility, and indeed drank the cup of life, which is the cup of pain.

“Everything is nothing.” The only things which are substantially real are love and pain, and these reach their apotheosis in the Cross, and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The blood and tears which Christ, and every human being, offers on the altar of life- who knows where they flow? To Heaven, or to the void of nothingness, non-meaning? Is there a difference in the final analysis?

Is this contradicting the nihilism stance? Possibly. Nihilism, as practised by Buddha, Schopenhauer, Camus, Satre, E.M. Cioran (and, to an extent, Derrida) naturally de-constructs. If nothing means anything, why write? But perhaps the fact that it de-constructs is the greatest proof of its veracity.

And perhaps it is to the nihilists to praise God in an eternal psalm of lamentation.

 

[WillP]

1. There are degrees of nihilism and scepticism - all of which are illogical because they stop short of the full implications of nihilism and scepticism.
2. A consistent nihilist/sceptic would assert that everything is absurd - as Camus and Sartre were tempted to do.
3. To assert that everything is absurd is obviously a self-contradiction because then the assertion itself would be absurd!
4. Camus and Sartre realised that such a position is untenable and became humanists in an ocean of absurdity!
5. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting reason as a basis for decisions in an irrational universe.
6. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting humanity as their basis for values in a valueless universe.
7. They overlooked the absurdity of selecting freedom as their basis for action in a deterministic universe.
8. Above all they overlooked the absurdity of getting everything for nothing!

Existential absurdity is understood to be the condition which requires us to define meaning or values for ourselves. I truly believe that it is a process you should recognize as your own as you certainly ascribe to it, albeit under a much different paridigm. Suppose a close friend is stricken with a horrible disease and lies in a vegatative state. Meaning is ascribed to this sorrowful state— within your own world construct— simply by contexting it as redemptive suffering. This horrible status for this close friend then becomes an antedote to an otherwise burdensome (absurd) existence.

Perhaps you are familiar with Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; and, of course, Camus is an existential writer. The point of this particular work is that the meaningless task of Sisyphus can be converted into meaning or significance. A professor of mine when I was in school, once explainedthe concept in terms of the spook character in the Wizard of ID strip. This poor man, you recall, is hung upside down in a prison cell without hope of rescue. His life, his being, his existence—what meaning? Yet, he can ascribe meaning. It comes from within. His suffering can be seen, perhaps, in aid of the cause for which he was arrested; or, in defiance of tyranny–or, if he is a Christian, like Kirkegaard, perhaps it is something like redemptive suffering.

Existentialism is poorly understood by most of us. To large extent it has become viewed as some dark and negative set of beliefs. Perhaps this is because Sartre (who gave the so called movement its name) was an athiest. Nonetheless, I submit, people of faith often find themselves adopting many of its themes (redemptive suffering, for example).

The overarching premise of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This is a way of saying that we are who we choose to be. We exist by our choices and then become the product of those choices. We are the sum of our choices. I can be a thief, robber, begger, professor, father or I can be all or none of these simply by my choices; but, whatever I am, it is because I choose to behave and act in this or that way. Sartre also said that if one asserts that he can’t do it. He just can’t be this or that person or do this or that thing, he was guilty of “bad faith”. Why? Because we always can choose. I would think this also would be consistent with the worldview of Christians. A Christian would say, that one can always turn away from a course of action and accept a Christian’s outlook or view.

Being free to walk away or to remain in a position is, according to Sartre, a terryifying prospect. Hence, man is condemned to be free. It requires coursge to accept this huge range of freedom.Again this is according to Sartre.

I personally think that you are likely more of an existentialist than you think you are. I am perhaps less so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hey everyone

I realised something. For those who hold a Nihilistic Extentionalsitic view on life, for those who believe life has no meaning, as perhaps we see this best in Macbeths soliloquy on “tommorrow, tommorrow, tommorow” as at that point in the play he is acting from a nihilistc extenstialism perspective, i would make the point to them “well as rational human beings, if our life has no meaning at all or no value, why did we ask what is the meaning of life in the first place” as in my reasoning, if we have to ask " what is the meaning of life" there has to be a meaning, a meaning that we can find only in JESUS CHRIST. As something inside of us forces us to ask that question, so there has to be a meaning for and in life correct? would this be a good point or is it a fallible arguement. Or otherwise, if there is no meaning and we are forever doomed to walking and groping in the shadows and the darkness, in a grey fog, in a tragic depression, then would we have ever asked if life has a meaning?? as this kind of philsoophy is a very faulty one. It is a philsoophy in which my opinon can lead to a free-for-all. Suicide, Murder, Hitler, Stalin-these folks apllied “life has no meaning or instritic value”

I would appreciate any weighs-ins or opinions on my arguement/assertion

Don’t let bother you, you can’t reach everyone and I don’t think God wants you beating your head against a wall. Do like St. Paul, “…from now on I will preach Christ and Him cruxcified…”

 

[empther]

“…worse than death is the life of a fool.”
---- Sirach 22; 10

In the Book of Sirach, a fool is one that does not love wisdom, which is the love of God and learning about his truth.

A fool must end up being miserable. He has nothing to look forward too.

Somebody mentioned Macbeth’s “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” soliliquy. Shakespeare was aware of melancholy, which is depression from thinking there is nothing good to look forward to. Earlier in the play, Macbeth says, “mine eternal jewel given to the common enemy of man” so he did have some religious belief to start with. It’s hard to say whether he had any by the “tomorrow” soliliquy, but in any case he saw nothing good ahead of him.

Nihilists must share this feeling in one way or another. They are to be pitied. But they are also to blame. Paul said God’s works are self-evident. ( Somebody give me the exact quote? )

 

[levinas12]

The overarching premise of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This is a way of saying that we are who we choose to be. We exist by our choices and then become the product of those choices. We are the sum of our choices. I can be a thief, robber, begger, professor, father or I can be all or none of these simply by my choices; but, whatever I am, it is because I choose to behave and act in this or that way.

The irony is that existentialism is the ultimate consequence of a consumer society - or is it the other way around?

 

[Actaeon]

Hey everyone

I realised something. For those who hold a Nihilistic Extentionalsitic view on life, for those who believe life has no meaning, as perhaps we see this best in Macbeths soliloquy on “tommorrow, tommorrow, tommorow” as at that point in the play he is acting from a nihilistc extenstialism perspective, i would make the point to them “well as rational human beings, if our life has no meaning at all or no value, why did we ask what is the meaning of life in the first place” as in my reasoning, if we have to ask " what is the meaning of life" there has to be a meaning, a meaning that we can find only in JESUS CHRIST. As something inside of us forces us to ask that question, so there has to be a meaning for and in life correct? would this be a good point or is it a fallible arguement. Or otherwise, if there is no meaning and we are forever doomed to walking and groping in the shadows and the darkness, in a grey fog, in a tragic depression, then would we have ever asked if life has a meaning?? as this kind of philsoophy is a very faulty one. It is a philsoophy in which my opinon can lead to a free-for-all. Suicide, Murder, Hitler, Stalin-these folks apllied “life has no meaning or instritic value”

I would appreciate any weighs-ins or opinions on my arguement/assertion

I think the main counter-argument would be that you don’t have a logical syllogism (or, that if you do, one of its premises can be denied). This, so far, is your argument:

p1) Human being search for meaning in life
C) Therefore a meaning in life exists

Even if we reformulate that to an actual syllogism, we get:

p1) Human beings search for the meaning of life
p2) If a human being conceives of and searches for something, it must exist
C) There must exist a meaning of life.

However, we still have a problem, in that one of your premises can be denied, namely, if we say that human beings also conceived of and searched for ether (a scientific idea of an invisible substance that surrounds us all), therefore ether exists, we can quickly see that the second premise (that just because someone searches for something means that that something must exist) is false.

So the answer you’re going to get from an existentialist is simply “Just because human beings want to find a meaning of life does not mean that there is ACTUALLY a meaning of life. Human beings search for non-existant things all the time, like bigfoot, or dragons, or ether, or faster than light travel”