If there is no immortality, the Liberal believes, one can still lead a civilized life; "if there is no immortality"-is the far profounder logic of Ivan Karamazov in Dostoyevsky's novel-"all things are lawful." Humanist stoicism is possible for certain individuals for a certain time: until, that is, the full implications of the denial of immortality strike home. The Liberal lives in a fool's paradise which must collapse before the truth of things. If death is, as the Liberal and Nihilist both believe, the extinction of the individual, then this world and everything in it-love, goodness, sanctity, everything-are as nothing, nothing man may do is of any ultimate consequence and the full horror of life is hidden from man only by the strength of their will to deceive themselves; and "all things are lawful," no otherworldly hope or fear restrains men from monstrous experiments and suicidal dreams.
Still not sure about ANY of this.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Nihilism by Eugene Rose
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I've never read your blog before so I don't know the basis of your statement "not sure about any of this".
Are you saying that you're not sure that nihilism is the ultimate result of liberalism and atheism? If so, I agree.
But I'm not sure it's wrong either. Being interested in the question, I started doing a blog search to see what others were saying.
o.0 lol...So, i think i understand what your saying...I agree in ways...sure, both liberalism and nihilism share the value of individualism...but the main philosphy of nihilism is "to be nothing" or "distruction". that includes government, and liberalism isn's destructive twords itself, is it? But I do agree about atheism and nihilism...they just go hand in hand.
Thanks for the comments guys. The original article is from one Eugene Rosen who eventually became a priest. The original article is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
Like most religious people, Mr Rosen is only interested in pushing his agenda in the article... or should I call it sermon?
I agree with some of what he's saying, in the sense that a life without purpose, with no values or ideals, a nihilistic life in short, is untenable for anyone who doesn't want to partake humanity's default mode of narcissism, hedonism and, nowadays, consumerism. Is that all we're left with? Believe in something which cannot be felt, cannot be seen, cannot be communicated with or otherwise have lifes wrapped in our own basest fears and desires? Surely there must be a third way. Surely...
I think you're right, Carlos.
It seems to me that we have to start with a default understanding of meaning based on existence - we accept that fact that we are here and others are too, so given that fact regardless of an existence ending death OR an afterlife (in whatever form religious minds have concocted) we are still left with dealing with this existence. That being the case, even without gods, there is no necessity to embrace complete nihilism. That's one option. It's not an inevitable consequence of a deeper understanding of our ultimate demise.
Carlos,
Rose is no more "pushing his agenda" than was Nietzsche. Will you therefore abandon Nietzsche?
Indeed what Rose is in fact "pushing" is the revealed religion of Christianity, and he freely admits as such. Thus it is not (in Rose's mind) his "personal" agenda. Though obviously to the "faithful ;-) Nihilist", Rose is deluded.
Either there is a God known via revealed religion or Nihilism is "correct" and all (*EVERYTHING*) is ultimately relative and there is no absolute truth. And that is in fact what Nihilism and everything Nietzsche said reduces to -- the self-referential statement that "there is no absolute truth". About as meaningful and "provable" as stating "This statement is false". Even from within pure logic (mathematics) an honest logician can see that. For as even Kurt Gödel said, "Materialism is false".
See, "A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy", by Hao Wang.
www.amazon.com/Logical-Journey-G%C3%B6del-Philosophy/dp/0262231891
Even the absurdity of current-day physics and the search for a "theory of everything" via "many universes" theory, string theory and the like ultimately falls prey to the false belief that one can make reliable statement about origin of "the system" while being confined within it, as this only slightly tongue-in-cheek article points out...
www.sparkchamber.co.uk/elegant_corpse
Even Douglas Hofstadter (in "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid") was at able to say, agreeing with Gödel, that "Provability is a weaker notion than truth, no mater what axiomatic system is involved".
Carlos said: Either there is a God known via revealed religion or Nihilism is "correct"
You talk about "logic" and use false dichotomies. Interesting.
For as even Kurt Gödel said, "Materialism is false".
And appeal to authority. In a single paragraph.
Actually Carlos has long left this discussion and hasn't said anything in a while, but you guys carry on, please.
Actually it was KJ I was directing my complaint at. I accidentally showed Carlos as saying something that was KJ, talking *to* Carlos.
John Evo wrote>"Actually it was KJ I was directing my complaint at."
In fact I agree with your observation on Godel's opinion and my own.
Any argument must start from some axioms, including the limits one places on his own epistemology.
Making a definitive statement on anything thus results in cries of "foul" from either side, does it not?
My largest complaint was not in quoting Godel. It was in carving out a false dichotomy. It is not "either/or" - or at least there is no apparent reason for it to be other than your assertion that it is such.
Is it possible that god/s exist which have been speculated on accurately by individuals or groups, and yet no one considers this as "revealed truth"?
Is it possible that god/s exist in form never yet accurately speculated on?
Is it possible that no god/s exist and yet as a strictly materialistic function of the emergent properties of life, a nihilistic position would not be optimal?
Is it possible that no god exists and yet one could feel absolutely tickled pink at the idea that out of trillions of trillions of possible organisms in design space, that an organism (homo sapiens) arose and that (again) out of trillions of trillions of possible genetic combinations in the design space of all possible Homo sapiens that "one" person was born and will be able to spend time alive? - with not a nihilistic thought about it?
It seems to me that *any* of these could conceivably be so, invalidating your premise. No?
Is it possible that you only speak for the thoughts in the mind of one of these organisms that we will identify as JK?
I find it increasingly interesting that the truest of all nihilists, seem to be the religious or spiritual. When faced with even the proposition "there is no god" (especially *their* god), they immediately turn to nihilism - some even declaring that everyone would be raping and killing without (their) god/s. I think they speak for themselves.
Evo>I find it increasingly interesting that the truest of all nihilists, seem to be the religious or spiritual. When faced with even the proposition "there is no god" (especially *their* god), they immediately turn to nihilism
Or at least in Rose's case, he took the reverse path.
Regarding false dichotomies, I guess there is always the fall-back of proposing an infinite number of possibilities, anyone of which could be somebody's preferred scenario (which of course must happen in an assumed infinite number of universes spawning from the subatomic chaos), such that it might produce self-replicating organisms who become self-aware and can discuss such things. No doubt just another consequence of Hoftstadter's "strange loops." But no gods, please.
Post a Comment