Nihilism

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My initial question was in response to madnak who said nihilism is by it's nature compassionate. I dont understand this (I see that it is not mutually exclusive with compassion, I just dont see what it is about nihilism that is inherently compassionate).

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot speak for madnak, but perhaps he would strengthen my claims. Where I say that traditional morality can (and sometimes does) hinder compassion, perhaps he would say that traditional ethics always excludes compassion.

Scott

PS Though an extreme claim, it might actually be a valid one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Far too strong imo, although if you are now talking "traditional ethics" i'm not sure what you are referring to. The statement on nihilism I saw in this post was that it rejects all morality, not just the christian morality and not just traditional morality. It is certainly possible to construct a compassionate morality (trivially in fact - take the only moral dictum to be "act compassionately").

The reason I asked for clarification of madnak's statement is that I find myself in the peculiar position of disagreeing with most of madnak's philosophical positions, but agreeing with most of his reasons for adopting them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nihilism is compassionate by its nature. Especially when it's at its most brutal.

[/ QUOTE ]
If nihilism = rejection of all morals, how is it compassionate? (Or do you have a better definition?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nihilism is so much more than simply the rejection of all morals. You might call it a rejection of all values. But those kinds of definitions won't get you far.

I mentioned The Gay Science earlier - why do you think Nietzsche referred to nihilism that way?

I can give you some basic positions, but there's a lot of nuance to them that I can't express. So if you want to pursue me, that's fine, but I may appear to contradict myself as I clarify my positions.

Nihilism, like Taoism, leads to many apparent contradictions - but if you try to formally identify them, they dissolve. They aren't true contradictions, only language that seems contradictory when taken out of context. Kind of like the Bible, eh? I think it's important to make note of that, because there's an inherent reason and sometimes the "artistic" kinds of expression that Nietzsche, for example, was so fond of can give the impression of fluff and emotion rather than rigor and discipline. That's not an accurate impression.

So, compassion - systems of value inherently place certain people or things over other people or things. The sense of equality is compassionate in a way - the idea that the smallest insect is as important as the biggest god.

Then there's the question - which compassion is more genuine? The compassion that's drawn out through rules about how we should act and think, or the compassion that emerges without any kind of reason or justification? I'd say the latter.

Also I think compassion can be defined in a negative way as well as a positive way - specifically compassion can be the simple absence of ill-will. You probably wouldn't agree with that perspective, but a nihilist has little reason to hate.

And in a sense to follow your own nature and your own will is the only way to show compassion to yourself, isn't it?

Nihilism at its best gives meaning to everything - at its worst it takes meaning away from everything. The part where it gets tricky is that for the nihilist, there is no "better" and "worse."

[FortunaMaximus]

Or nihilism = amorality. not necessarily immorality. Clinical definition of psychopathy. Similiar?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So, compassion - systems of value inherently place certain people or things over other people or things. The sense of equality is compassionate in a way - the idea that the smallest insect is as important as the biggest god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do nihilists differentiate between objects worthy of moral consideration and those not? Would they categorise rocks (for example) as below or worse, in some sense, than living things?

[ QUOTE ]
Then there's the question - which compassion is more genuine? The compassion that's drawn out through rules about how we should act and think, or the compassion that emerges without any kind of reason or justification? I'd say the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Although I think a system of ethics can arise in response to compassion - one feels compassion and therefore realises you should act to minimise suffering of others.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I think compassion can be defined in a negative way as well as a positive way - specifically compassion can be the simple absence of ill-will. You probably wouldn't agree with that perspective, but a nihilist has little reason to hate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I would want to differentiate between indifference and compassion.

[ QUOTE ]
And in a sense to follow your own nature and your own will is the only way to show compassion to yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
This isnt my understanding of compassion - I think it is inherently about putting yourself in someone else's place and experiencing suffering "second-hand".

[ QUOTE ]
Nihilism at its best gives meaning to everything - at its worst it takes meaning away from everything. The part where it gets tricky is that for the nihilist, there is no "better" and "worse."

[/ QUOTE ]
Would a true nihilist be indifferent to how they themselves were treated? Or would they care personally but recognise that it didnt really matter?

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
This isnt my understanding of compassion - I think it is inherently about putting yourself in someone else's place and experiencing suffering "second-hand".

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call that empathy, not compassion. To me, compassion is caring about the feelings of others, sympathy is being aware of those feelings, and empathy is actually feeling yourself what they feel.

Scott

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Do nihilists differentiate between objects worthy of moral consideration and those not? Would they categorise rocks (for example) as below or worse, in some sense, than living things?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some sense? Sure. But not in a moral sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Although I think a system of ethics can arise in response to compassion - one feels compassion and therefore realises you should act to minimise suffering of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a jump. You're adding the moral ingredient on the sly, here.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would want to differentiate between indifference and compassion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that indifference is really possible in the first place. Isn't it strange though, that the idea of an indifferent universe is typically seen as bleak and cold? When in reality it's only neutral. There's nothing cruel about it - at least, no more than there's anything compassionate about it.

[ QUOTE ]
This isnt my understanding of compassion - I think it is inherently about putting yourself in someone else's place and experiencing suffering "second-hand".

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can't feel compassion for yourself? To me compassion is just the opposite of cruelty. Do you agree with me that a person can be cruel to himself?

[ QUOTE ]
Would a true nihilist be indifferent to how they themselves were treated? Or would they care personally but recognise that it didnt really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there's such a thing as a "true" nihilist. I don't personally know of anyone who's indifferent to how they're treated. I doubt it's possible.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there's such a thing as a "true" nihilist. I don't personally know of anyone who's indifferent to how they're treated. I doubt it's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one believes in Jesus Christ or the Buddha, I would argue that they were true nihilists.

scott

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I think a system of ethics can arise in response to compassion - one feels compassion and therefore realises you should act to minimise suffering of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a jump. You're adding the moral ingredient on the sly, here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly adding a moral ingredient, I didnt mean it to be sly though. What I was suggesting that the moral rules follow because of compassion, not that compassion somehow arises from the rules (If the compassion comes in response to the imposed rules then I agree with you that it is a lessor form of compassion).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I would want to differentiate between indifference and compassion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that indifference is really possible in the first place. Isn't it strange though, that the idea of an indifferent universe is typically seen as bleak and cold? When in reality it's only neutral. There's nothing cruel about it - at least, no more than there's anything compassionate about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is strange and I agree that it is neutral (from my rather rudimentary knowledge of nihilism (ie what I get from 5 or 6 posts on the subject)) - but to me it is not compassionate, nor cruel/cold.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isnt my understanding of compassion - I think it is inherently about putting yourself in someone else's place and experiencing suffering "second-hand".

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can't feel compassion for yourself? To me compassion is just the opposite of cruelty. Do you agree with me that a person can be cruel to himself?

[/ QUOTE ]
No not really. I dont understand this (and am surprised that a praxeologist (?) could think this).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a true nihilist be indifferent to how they themselves were treated? Or would they care personally but recognise that it didnt really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there's such a thing as a "true" nihilist. I don't personally know of anyone who's indifferent to how they're treated. I doubt it's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I dont think it's practically possible, unless you were insane or perhaps ridiculously enlightened. But is this what the "ideal nihilist" would think?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there's such a thing as a "true" nihilist. I don't personally know of anyone who's indifferent to how they're treated. I doubt it's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one believes in Jesus Christ or the Buddha, I would argue that they were true nihilists.

scott

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Didnt we agree a nihilist was one who rejects christian morality (at the least though probably they reject more than this)? How can a christian be a nihilist?

[Nincompoop]

Nihilism is the belief that existence has no fundamental value and all actions are meaningless. It's a pretty immature viewpoint imo. It can be a good way to break out of the belief system you're born into, but eventually turns into self-pitying narcissism. That existence has meaning is self-evident from a subjective viewpoint (which is all we have). The simple truth that you desire to live (proven by the fact that you are alive) lends meaning to your experience and thus to your existence.

Compassionate nihilism I see as a logical contradiction. If you don't believe in value, there's no way you can make a case that compassion is better than cruelty. You can't make a case than anything is better than anything else. The real model for "compassionate nihilism" is Buddhism, but it's not true nihilism.

By the way, when Nietzsche speaks of nihilism he uses it almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. Nietzsche, if he truly was a nihilist, wasn't at all happy to be one. He saw it as a deplorable state of affairs.