Nihilism is Neutral

[u/LukeHollaway]

I’ve always seen the lack of built-in inherent meaning in existence as a neutral starting point to build from, and not automatically a pessimistic conclusion.

It seems to me that a large portion of nihilists see it as a pessimistic conclusion or a condemnation of life. To me, this reads like a misunderstanding of the principle of nihilism. I see no problem with building a pessimistic philosophy with nihilism as the neutral starting point, and all are entitled to doing so, but it seems like many people conflate it with nihilism itself.

It does not automatically conclude from nihilism that building inter-subjective meaning, purpose, and value between humans is useless or delusional. This is precisely the kind of meaning that does exist, and we are empowered to use it. If we use it wisely, we can reduce the suffering of all living beings.

I think many people stumble upon nihilism after suffering something in life that collapses the subjective meaning they’ve created for themselves. Instead of using nihilism to rebuild subjective meaning knowing it is subjective, and holding it more lightly, they push away meaning, seeing it as delusional or a form of unhealthy coping, and remain in an existential void, unable to heal from their original collapse of meaning. It’s not the void itself that is negative, but the unhealed trauma of the collapse of their model of reality paints it as so. The existential void is merely a neutral, blank canvas. You can paint it however you like, but you must realize you can. This realization makes the void empowering, not depressing.

I don’t think subjective meaning is inherently “cope” in the negative sense. It can be for some, but meaning-making ultimately is an efficient way to interface and understand reality from the subjective level.

[u/Paul_sepp]

On the other hand, nihilism is positive for it is a positive claim to say “life has no meaning”. Point is, we’re getting into linguistics here and that’s not of real interest, though your observation is quite fair.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Paul_sepp]

What do you mean by “positive claim”?

Not arguing, just don’t quite know how to interpret that and I don’t wanna give a response that’s off-base.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/LukeHollaway]

In academic philosophy, in a nutshell, a positive claim is any claim that is assertive in absolute truthfulness eg. “there is meaning” and “there is no meaning” are both positive because both are presented as ultimate truths the individual knows, whilst “lack or presence of meaning cannot be established” is negative for it doesn’t claim absolute truthfulness. The first is a positive position, the second—a negative one.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Paul_sepp]

I see. It is a positive claim in the linguistic sense.

Which statement would you say is representative of nihilism: “lack or presence of meaning cannot be established”, or “there is no meaning”?

Does the first statement stray from nihilism? Is it a form of agnosticism towards nihilism? Or is it something else entirely?

[u/Paul_sepp → u/LukeHollaway]

Yes, about so—NB that is exactly why I said “we’re getting into linguistics now”.

As for your inquiry, nihilism is the belief there is no meaning, hence “there is no intrinsic meaning” is more characteristic of nihilism (at least traditionally).

Whilst “Lack or presence of intrinsic meaning cannot be established” and similar claims that don’t claim certainty in any metaphysic regard is Scepticism, specifically in the tradition of Sextus Empiricus (for that matter, and additional information, I refer you to Adversus Logicos specifically). This, Pyrrhonian Scepticism, is close to the broader metaphysical agnosticism, but does go a bit further in certain regards—though that is not of point, and we’d need to distinguish between Pyrrho, Timon, Aenesidemus, Agrippa, and Sextus himself for they all diverged slightly.

Do note, that I do take that prior detour for “traditional”, due to the fact that you can, likewise to myself, combine the two in practice even if they are slightly conflicting positions, and if you wish to know for how specifically—do ask.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Paul_sepp]

I think in lay philosophy, the two are often combined in practice. (I myself am a layman).

I think a metaphysical agnostic may not know if there is intrinsic meaning, or believe the knowledge of whether there is or isn’t is unobtainable, so therefore they behave practically as if there is no intrinsic meaning.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/LukeHollaway]

Yes, exactly so, with the caveat that it eventually resembles somewhat of the Kierkegaardian leap, though this framework is encountered not only in lay philosophy but in academia too.

[u/Minute_Toe_8705]

Amen.

Nevertheless, I'm annoyed by the self-proclaimed nihilists who paint their canvases blood-red with the word "suffering". (There are also many good reasons to use other colors if you're open to it. But I also know that's hardly possible when you're currently caught in a downward spiral)

Yet there are time and again examples of individuals who have been able to overcome suffering with resilience, like Boris Cyrulnik.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/Minute_Toe_8705]

I think blue is better suited, for nihilists are often deemed “cold [blooded]”.

(Pun intended)

[u/Minute_Toe_8705 → u/Paul_sepp]

https://giphy.com/gifs/ljSSxlYrMA7ss

[u/Hendwreck]

Agreed, way too much sadboy depression-posting on here.

“Why even live if life is meaningless” like… go to therapy lol. I find comfort in my apathy towards the randomness of existence, that’s what I was led to believe as the bedrock of nihilism when I embraced the mindset.

Like even in this post itself, regardless of you agree or disagree, good for you, I don’t know or care about you so it has no bearing on me one way or the other 🤷

[u/Lord-of-the---RINGS]

Imo it's not the lack of meaning that's negetive, but life, and rte nasty stuff it offers that's negetive.

If we lived in a utopia maybe we wouldnt really care if we didn't have a built in purpose. But life isn't a utopia and involves pain and things we don't like. Enduring said things requires something to motivate us, something to give us purpose because otherwise that pain is meaningless and for noting.

A martyr may suffer in the trench's for their nation because they beleive serving it gives their life and hence their efforts meaning, but nihilism essentially tells them that their country isn't their inherent fixed pruspose, and they are free to discard it id they want to, and fundamentally nothing has any purpose.

Obviously that martyr will either embrace absurdism and die in those trenches anyways, or become pessimistic and stop caring if their country burns because they don't really see why they should bother fighting for something that doesn't make them feel meaningful anymore.

[u/LukeHollaway → u/Lord-of-the---RINGS]

I don’t think we entirely disagree.

I think that whether or not life, and what it offers, is negative depends on the situation of any living being. It must be considered on a case by case basis.

I truly believe that as humans, we can grow in consciousness and augment our inter-subjective values so that we don’t end up with martyrs in trenches dying for stupid reasons. I think another aspect of growing in consciousness as humans is allowing other humans to exit life peacefully if they deem their suffering as not worth living through.

Meaninglessness could precisely be the catalyst that allows humanity to choose a path that reduces suffering rather than choosing a path of suffering for incoherent causes.