Talking to Nihilists

[kursau]

Hi,

Can anyone recommend good books/articles that offer counterpoints to a nihilists world view? I have an athiest friend who reads a lot of Nietzche and likes to argue so I would like to be able to keep pace when the time arises again.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t have any articles, but here is my advice:

There are no “counterpoints” to the nihilist’s “world-view.” Nihilism can mean a lot of things. Usually, a nihilist is someone who believes that morality doesn’t exist or that ethical claims possess no value. Personally, I believe that no one is a nihilist, since every sentient being has desires pertaining to how the world ought to be. Desires have whatever value one wants them to have, since value is subjective and is derived from emotion in the first place. Simply ask your friend, “Do you feel that your feelings have no value?” and watch their struggle begin. Your friend is quite sane if he doesn’t believe in “objective value,” since that is an oxymoronic phrase anyway. He can’t escape the fact that he feels the world should be a certain way, however, and that those desires are apparently valuable to him.

As for the former type of nihilist, one has to ask what they mean by “morality.” If they are speaking of an “objective morality” (again, an oxymoronic phrase) that’s fine, but they can’t escape the fact that they prefer things to be a certain way, and this is where morality originates from in the emotivist view, to which I subscribe.

Good luck.

 

[Langdell]

As Ore says, most people who describe themselves as “nihilists” are really just moral relativists. A true nihilist – someone who rejects all values – would almost have to be a madman.

If your friend doesn’t believe in God, then I think it’s practically impossible to have a good argument against moral relativism. For a non-theist, there’s no source for objective morals, unless you want to argue that morals exist independently of humans, out in the ether somewhere.

.

 

[RoncalliM]

He reads Nietzsche? Sounds like joke time:

Nietzsche: God is dead

God: Nietzsche is dead

Seriously though, introduce him to Thomas Aquinas. Or maybe Pascal’s Wager.

 

[liquidpele]

As Ore says, most people who describe themselves as “nihilists” are really just moral relativists. A true nihilist – someone who rejects all values – would almost have to be a madman.

If your friend doesn’t believe in God, then I think it’s practically impossible to have a good argument against moral relativism. For a non-theist, there’s no source for objective morals, unless you want to argue that morals exist independently of humans, out in the ether somewhere.

.

Right… out of nowhere… except, you know, genetics and social inheritance. I’ll say what I usually say when this comes up. You think the church built morality, I think morality built the church.

To answer the OP’s question though, a nihilist (using the definition that they think all morality is made up and is without basis) need only look at a wolf pack or any other social animal to see morality in action. The question is not whether morality exists, it is what is it’s nature.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to be a consistent nihilist because nihilism in the true sense of the term is belief in … nothing, regardless of value or anything else.So tell him to keep his mouth shut! By communicating his thoughts to you he demonstrates that he believes in communication - which implies a communicator, a communicatee and something to be communicated.
It also implies belief in the truth. Why bother to tell you he is a nihilist if he doesn’t believe it is true?
It also implies you and he (even if nothing else exists!) are capable of grasping the truth.
It also implies that the truth is valuable. If it isn’t why bother to tell you anything? Just to pass the time?
It also implies that he is acting purposefully. Why did he decide to tell you he is a nihilist? Because he wanted to express himself and see your reaction.

So already you have a basis for rejecting nihilism: the impossibility of living without believing you exist, without believing in the truth, your ability to grasp the truth and the value of the truth…

 

[Oreoracle]

Tony,

Nihilism only concerns itself with values; it makes no claims pertaining to knowledge or the attainment of such.

This kind of misunderstanding happens when someone only looks up the prefix of a term without looking up the definition. Again, the “nihil” (nothing) in the term applies only to values.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony,

Nihilism only concerns itself with values; it makes no claims pertaining to knowledge or the attainment of such.

This kind of misunderstanding happens when someone only looks up the prefix of a term without looking up the definition. Again, the “nihil” (nothing) in the term applies only to values.

I’ve been acquainted with nihilism for many years. Your interpretation is too restricted.
A brief search produced the following definitions:

“An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.”

“nihilistic delusion: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal.”

“An extreme form of metaphysical nihilism is commonly defined as the belief that existence itself does not exist.”

Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy,

“The doctrine that nothing, or nothing of a specified and very general class, exists, or is knowable, or is valuable. Thus Gorgias held that

1. 
   *] Nothing exists;
   *] Even if something did exist it could not be known;
   *] Even if it were known this knowledge could not be communicated.”

 

[Langdell]

Right… out of nowhere… except, you know, genetics and social inheritance. I’ll say what I usually say when this comes up. You think the church built morality, I think morality built the church.

To answer the OP’s question though, a nihilist (using the definition that they think all morality is made up and is without basis) need only look at a wolf pack or any other social animal to see morality in action. The question is not whether morality exists, it is what is it’s nature.

Sarcasm is not called for.

Genetics and “social inheritance” are not objective sources of morality unless one equates morality with “what works for carrying on the genetic line,” narrowly or broadly speaking. That may be your belief; I don’t know. But I think most people look for something more than “what works” when seeking a basis for morality.

.

 

[tonyrey]

You think the church built morality, I think morality built the church.

The Church was not built by morality but by Christ:
“Thou art Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church”…

To answer the OP’s question though, a nihilist (using the definition that they think all morality is made up and is without basis) need only look at a wolf pack or any other social animal to see morality in action. The question is not whether morality exists, it is what is it’s nature.

To compare human morality with the behaviour of a wolf pack is absurd. Wolves always act according to instinct whereas human beings can control their instincts and choose how to act. Wolves are not innocent or guilty because they do not have a conscience. We can distinguish what is right and wrong; otherwise we wouldn’t finish up in court if we commit a crime. We don’t put wolves on trial for larceny or murder…

 

[Oreoracle]

I’ve been acquainted with nihilism for many years. Your interpretation is too restricted.
A brief search produced the following definitions:

Well, well…I stand corrected. I guess that’s what I get for trusting Wikipedia.

However, most nihilists seem to subscribe to nihilism in the ethical sense. I’ve met one such nihilist on a forum. You seem to have had experience with more of them, though, as you say.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, well…I stand corrected. I guess that’s what I get for trusting Wikipedia.

I’ve also been deceived.

However, most nihilists seem to subscribe to nihilism in the ethical sense. I’ve met one such nihilist on a forum. You seem to have had experience with more of them, though, as you say.

They claim to be nihilists but in fact they’re not. Why would they bother to state they’re nihilists if they don’t attach any value to what they do (or think)?! I suppose they could argue that they have no choice because everything we do is beyond our control, that we are just robots who act automatically. But then the problem is how they reach that conclusion. Surely it implies that they trust their reasoning power even though they are programmed to trust their reasoning power! And to trust implies to value, I should think… It depends on how we define value…

 

[Bluegoat]

I’ve also been deceived.
They claim to be nihilists but in fact they’re not. Why would they bother to state they’re nihilists if they don’t attach any value to what they do (or think)?! I suppose they could argue that they have no choice because everything we do is beyond our control, that we are just robots who act automatically. But then the problem is how they reach that conclusion. Surely it implies that they trust their reasoning power even though they are programmed to trust their reasoning power! And to trust implies to value, I should think… It depends on how we define value…

It seems to me that a really serious nihilist would live in a barrel and keep his mouth shut. I suppose some may, and we just don’t realize they are nihilists? But for some reason, many try to argue their position.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to me that a really serious nihilist would live in a barrel and keep his mouth shut. I suppose some may, and we just don’t realize they are nihilists?

I’m sure quite a few people who commit suicide are nihilists. What is the point of living if one has nothing to live for?

But for some reason, many try to argue their position.

Probably they’re not entirely convinced and searching for a reason to go on living. Or perhaps to see if anyone is cares about them. Life can seem empty and meaningless if one is living on one’s own with no particular occupation or interests…

 

[PoliSciProf]

The well-known philosopher Stanley Rosen published a very good book some years entitled Nihilism. It well-argued claim is one of the key issues is the reasonableness of reason. Rosen takes on Heideggar, Nietzsche and others. It is not for beginners.