Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Aquila wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:47 am
I had no idea you were speaking of humanism in this sense. It's like starting a discussion about christianity and then it turns out it was actually about the inquisition.
The former was only one single example of a humanism as an ideology taken to its logical extreme, as the throwing of people in the well was discussed as an example. There are also other ways I see the humanisti viewpoint flawed, as a principle it could be said as a reduction of the world into a human viewpoint only and the result of this is a diminution of reality.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Kenazis »

Isn’t humanism a viewpoint that focuses human and humanity as core-value? Is the logical outcome of this that humans, human life is of utmost value? I think this is the case. I see humanism automatically opposing the view that sees human life worthless. And I never quite got the idea behind the “endless life” being somehow more valuable than finite one life on here. I feel almost the opposite. If you see finite life being worthless, why it becomes valuable if it is continued endlessly? And it can be even said that if there’s some afterlife and karma/some punishment, then you can do whatever you want because you will eventually pay for your deeds. Now as I read earlier posts again, I see that these are mainly same things that Aquila already said, but…what the heck, these kind of questions rises from here.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Wyrmfang »

Boreas, at this point it has become evident that you have a quite specific and loaded meaning for humanism (seems to me close to so called new atheism, Dawkins, Harris etc.). In general terminology (in which there is no one meaning for humanism, but several, depending on the context and sometimes even within one context), Marx was a humanist only in certain period of his oeuvre and the totalitarian applications of his doctrine are basically never considered as humanistic even by the few people who advocate them in some form.

You have probably a dialectical argument in mind, similar to that of Adorno & Horkheimer in the Dialectic of the Enlightenment, according to which humanism in its Enlightenment form is too one-sidedly centered on the specific human talents such as reason and morality, and therefore, does not recognize its shadow (quite much in the Jungian sense), which gave rise to all forms of totalitarianism (the Frankfurt school takes also unbounded liberal capitalism to be totalitarian). This kind of argument, however, does not yet imply that all humanism in all instances is sort of hardwired to become totalitarianism. Moreover, Adorno & Horkheimer are highly critical to Nietzsche. In another more philosophical sense Nietzsche is a humanist, because he most definitely did not think that human beings are ultimately just lumps of meat (as reductive materialism would have it); he regarded scientific naturalism as form of slave morality, though he was a sort of naturalist himself (at least according to most interpretations).

The basic point is what Aquila said: in case of this kind of broad & unspecific conceptions which also evoke different emotional responses, carefulness is needed. It is not easy to find the "true meaning" of humanism, because it is different to different people.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Yes, when I started the divergence by saying nihilism destroys humanism I meant especially Niezsche's annulling critic of the forms of humanism nihilism conciders void of any meaning with convincing arguments. It is the "Human, all too Human" viewpoint and the worldview rising from that. There the discussion simply evolved to deal with other forms also. (It was also a chance for me to balance the views expressed above where I criticed national socialist and fascists as nihilists, as I don't consider the totalitarianism of the red fascists any better. I'll try to leave any other political considerations away in the future.)

Considering humanism more widely I'd like to add that as I see the Human realm as a mediatory realm of what is above and below humanity, if we try to sever the connection to what is above us in the spiritual and intellectual realms, it is when what is below us almost automatically take hold and calamities rise even if the intentions are seemingly good, and it is this way the different forms of humanism are still connected in their Core. This of course is not how Nietschean nihilism places its critic. It is a good thing people don't take many times their ideology to its logical conclusions with fervor, and humans are always More than the ideology they seem to profess, since if humanism has ethical ideals it means it is already idealisti and therefore more spiritual than it professes, hence other than pure humanists.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Kenazis »

Boreas wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:23 pm Considering humanism more widely I'd like to add that as I see the Human realm as a mediatory realm of what is above and below humanity, if we try to sever the connection to what is above us in the spiritual and intellectual realms, it is when what is below us almost automatically take hold and calamities rise even if the intentions are seemingly good, and it is this way the different forms of humanism are still connected in their Core. This of course is not how Nietschean nihilism places its critic. It is a good thing people don't take many times their ideology to its logical conclusions with fervor, and humans are always More than the ideology they seem to profess, since if humanism has ethical ideals it means it is already idealisti and therefore more spiritual than it professes, hence other than pure humanists.
But I think many doesn't see humanism this way (the ones who say that they are humanists). They include intellectual and ethical realms into humanistic world-view. And isn’t the core of human, to be able to think, imagine and to act ethically? My posts seem to be very heavily Nietzsche-lacking, sorry.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Aquila »

Just some random rambling and thoughts based on the ideas in this topic:

I think one thing that might obscure our discussion is the question: what is spiritual?

Our view on spirituality often includes the idea that there is something that is spiritual and something that is not. Often the line is drawn between believing into some higher power. But this is only a view that is based on our own history with christianity. My opinion is that we can't expect only religious thinking to be "spiritual" but all human thinking and reasoning is based on more or less believing into something. Then we can draw a line between materialism and spiritualism but it's still such thinking that is only based on our way of placing all different things into different categories instead of more holistic worldviews that have probably been lived in other kind of times where there was no differentiating between what is material and what is spiritual, etc.

Humanism today is something else than what it was in the times of Nietzsche. For example, posthumanism, as a more recent school of philosophy, that has arisen from the fields of humanism is addressing the problems of anthropocentrism and points out that there are other conscious beings living in this world, not only humans. Unfortunately I'm not an expert here but I just want to point out that humanism is pretty much a living philosophy that is still developing it's views all the time. It is how philosophical thinking is progressing.

I believe there is truth behind reality and this truth is true whether anyone believes in it or not. But we can't start from "the truth" and begin testing various philosophies if they agree with our truth and in the case they don't, they must be false. That leads to fanaticism. We have to begin from the possibility that we do not know the truth and try to use all possible tools in our quest to find it. This gives our thinking and discussion a lot more freedom as well. We are not forced to be right or wrong by some dogma but we can take a look if our own thoughts are reasonable and seem truthful ----> they seem to describe the reality and what we know about it with some kind of credibility.

Although we can criticize some forms of humanism and their anthropocentrism, we have to be honest and admit that our views are based on our humanity, whether we like it or not. We can't "think outside of human". We can try but it's like fighting against the absolute - it's possible in a way but it's still only action and thoughts of the absolute itself.

Returning back to the first ideas: I think it would be beneficial to widen the perspective of what is "spiritual" and leave the demandment of faith behind. For example, if we believe that human is an image of god, we have to accept it to be true even in those cases where people don't believe in any higher powers. There is meaning that is not based on faith or belief. This also means that all human ideas and ideals are divine and godly. But God is also the source of evil in our world and thus any idea from the divine can be turned into good or evil. There must be things that are right and wrong and they can't be dependent only on what faith or ideology lies behind. And if by chance we happened to live in a sorrowful pit of random conscious existence, what else can we do but to try and reduce the suffering of such a pitiful meaningless place?

Does God believe in something? Maybe it's too stupid to even ask. Of course not. I don't know if that's a joke or not :lol:
User avatar
Insanus
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Insanus »

Aquila wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:49 pm We are not forced to be right or wrong by some dogma but we can take a look if our own thoughts are reasonable and seem truthful ----> they seem to describe the reality and what we know about it with some kind of credibility.
When Newton came up with invisible gravity, nobody liked the idea because the general consensus was that stuff needs to touch other stuff in order to have an effect, mechanistical philosophy and all that. Gravity seemed to describe phenomena excellently, but nobody really knew why. Is this gravity then "true" or not? It's a good description for sure, but it's not an explanation. The solution was to loosen the standards for what was accepted true. We don't need explanations, we don't need to know what is the cause, descriptions of the effects get the job done well enough. In other words: we don't try to understand the world anymore, creating theories that work is enough. Nowadays it's of course even worse with stuff like quantum mechanics. In what sense is it true if we can't understand it? But it works. Chomsky has a lecture on this called ghost, machine and the limits of understanding. It's on YouTube.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

Other side of the coin is that seeing reality as it is (whatever that means) offers no evolutionary advantage. It's better to filter information to see what mostly matters. If we are animals, it makes sense to assume that if there is a higher Truth, we are simply not fit to find it. We can of course disagree, but then the question of the value of truth arises again. To my understanding, Nietzsche thought this attempt to find Truth was not only beyond our capacity, but actually making us sick because it didn't increase our will to power. Maybe truth is not good for us, or the world. Why should we find that truth? What do we mean by truth? I think that's an example of a spiritual task, an inquiry behind reality like you said. We want it, seemingly for no reason but some strange passion that maybe even comes close to some religious devotion.

Old (lame) joke is of course that God believes Nietzsche is dead.
Jumalan synnit ovat kourallinen hiekkaa ihmisen valtameressä
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Defining spirituality and truth is an arduous task for sure and I think we can give only general theoretical outlines, after which one has to remain silent and accept with humility that ones conceptions and understanding might be biased and / or false.

One general definition of humanism is the limitation of the possibility of knowledge within the confines of natural reason and the resulting "abandoning Heaven under the pretext of conquering the Earth". Spirituality on the other hand is metaphysical intellectuality. Now natural reason taken in itself can take us far in the horizontal and historical order - and cause serious problems also when not informed 'from above' - but not beyond it which is the vertical, ascending task of spirituality. It is precisely because the integral human being is not limited to the merely individual capacities but has also faculties that can be awakened that transcend them that we are able to 'go beyond the merely human reasoning'.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Boreas wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:57 pmSpirituality on the other hand is metaphysical intellectuality.
For the record, I didn't mean this to be an exhaustive or all-comprehensive definition at all, for certainly spirituality is a far more wider concept.
k1a2r3m4a
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:39 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by k1a2r3m4a »

Maybe this is splitting hairs (and maybe someone already mentioned it in prior posts and I happened to just skip over it), but Nietzsche didn't consider himself a "nihilist." He saw nihilism important only as a tool for re-evaluating & destroying one's values, creating room for new ones. He more or less meant it to be used for a transition period, on the path to becoming the overman or whatever you prefer to call it.

It's been a really long time since I read Nietzsche, but wasn't much of his works actually a lamentation of "the death of God" and the abandonment of - I guess you could call them - "transcendent" values, even if he was very critical of Christianity? Therefore, I don't see how he can be a nihilist in its strict sense of the word.

Also, an earlier post referred to him as a proto-fascist; can you really make a solid argument for that? Fascism and fascists were definitely influenced by how they interpreted some of Nietzsche's ideas, but if you look at his ideas as a whole then it's difficult for me to get the impression he would've advocated for fascist systems. He was critical of nationalism (he saw it as a form of herd-mentality etc.), and was very much in favour of having one think for oneself, to define one's own values & meaning in life and to break societal norms. While he was something of an elitist, and definitely not a humanist/socialist/what have you, I just don't see him being compatible with fascism.
Locked