Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Insanus wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:49 pm
Boreas wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:49 am
Insanus wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:47 pmNietzsche has inspired my thinking too also by challenging the value of truth. It's not that things are not true or false, but rather what does it matter and why? Does it have to be true in order to have real value and why is truth valuable?
Do you consider yourself as an utilitarian?
Not exactly. Why?
Just thinking that do you consider truth as something that's "useful".
Wyrmfang wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:07 pm Humanism can be defended from its own standpoint...
I think nihilist criticism completely destroys humanism. For example - and relating to the Problem of the superman - if humans are nothing but chunks of Meat without a soul, what basis is therefore for humanistic values in the end, and why would it be wrong to kill someone for example, if it's just basic matter (with Consciousness as an epiphenomenon at Best) without any higher purpose, soul or spirit? The humanistic logic and the basis of morality completely falls away if this question is taken to its end with nihilistic discourse. (This is by the way why it is wrong to consider Jesus as a humanist like some/many have done.)
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Aquila »

Boreas wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:56 pm
Wyrmfang wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:07 pm Humanism can be defended from its own standpoint...
I think nihilist criticism completely destroys humanism. For example - and relating to the Problem of the superman - if humans are nothing but chunks of Meat without a soul, what basis is therefore for humanistic values in the end, and why would it be wrong to kill someone for example, if it's just basic matter (with Consciousness as an epiphenomenon at Best) without any higher purpose, soul or spirit? The humanistic logic and the basis of morality completely falls away if this question is taken to its end with nihilistic discourse. (This is by the way why it is wrong to consider Jesus as a humanist like some/many have done.)
The only problem is that humanism includes ethical viewpoints and does not really state that humans are only pieces of meat (of course there are extreme materialists but I don't think that equals to humanism in general). I think we could say that the will to lessen the suffering of the world is quite a humanist point of view. Humanism is often looked at through a strawman argument, especially by satanists, traditionalists, black metallers, far-right, far-left etc. Another question could be this: if it would not be wrong to cause more suffering in a world with no higher purpose, how would it be more wrong in a world that has a higher purpose? Wouldn't it be more "ok" in a purposeful world where you acknowledge that you will also face the consequences? If there is some kind of afterlife, wouldn't it be less criminal to murder someone knowing they will continue existence in another form than in the world where there is no other purpose than this once experienced material existence? I think ethics (compassion, truthfulness etc.) have to be found valuable whether we believe in certain other higher purpose or not. It's not simply an issue of what the meaning of life is and it's differences in various ideologies.

The criticism I have toward humanism is the humancetricism that might not include other sentient beings but only views the world through human eyes and human needs. But I think this has been changing lately as the consciousness of animals and other beings have been studied more closely. But humanism in general is too vast to criticize with single arguments. The object of criticism has to be pointed at more clearly and not just humanism in general. Naturally there are other points of view in humanist thinking that I might disagree with but I wouldn't say that humanism can be destroyed by nihilism.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

You're right that I was aiming the argument for a certain branch of humanism and not in toto. Maybe it's just me who needs these higher reference points, meaning, teleology etc. Dostoyevsky said it nicely though: If God doesn't exist, Everything is allowed.

I'm a little tired right now after being awake for the whole night, I'll get back to your post after resting for a while.
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Aquila »

Boreas wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:51 pm You're right that I was aiming the argument for a certain branch of humanism and not in toto. Maybe it's just me who needs these higher reference points, meaning, teleology etc.

I'm a little tired right now after being awake for the whole night, I'll get back to your post after resting for a while.
No problem :) it's very interesting even when it's mostly about thinking the ethics and how they fair in various "ideological simulations", whatever the reality and truth behind existence is. It wouldn't be as interesting if we only looked at things from our chosen point of view or our own faith. It's not so much about being right or wrong. I was pretty much into some kind of antihumanist thinking and somewhat still am but it easily gets so deep into details that it only represents some specialized situation or point of view where the idea works while most of the humanism might not even deal with the ideas that I find important.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pmThe only problem is that humanism includes ethical viewpoints and does not really state that humans are only pieces of meat (of course there are extreme materialists but I don't think that equals to humanism in general).
I may have a quite limited understand in of humanism but I have always thought that no form of humanism believed in anything Else than corporeal existence. Maybe in a mind also but as a phantasm in the sense of cartesian bifurcation and dualism.

Yet I think the nihilist criticism holds: On what ground do the ethics stand? I don't think you can say they stand on their own without making of them anything other than empty moralism.
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pm I think we could say that the will to lessen the suffering of the world is quite a humanist point of view..
I maybe dabbling with semantics here, but I'd say humane, yes, not necessarily humanistic.
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pmAnother question could be this: if it would not be wrong to cause more suffering in a world with no higher purpose, how would it be more wrong in a world that has a higher purpose?.
This boils down to the idea(lism) of Love which is already a transcendent principle. It can indeed be said that without it the higher purpose can indeed be seen to justify suffering in the name of some greater ideal.
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pmWouldn't it be more "ok" in a purposeful world where you acknowledge that you will also face the consequences?.
This is the logic of the downward path I think.
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pm If there is some kind of afterlife, wouldn't it be less criminal to murder someone knowing they will continue existence in another form than in the world where there is no other purpose than this once experienced material existence?
Not if the material existence is seen to reflect and embody some important part of the whole being. But there are some erring souls who would say and have said (and acted accordingly also) that to save someone's soul the body must be killed.
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pmI think ethics (compassion, truthfulness etc.) have to be found valuable whether we believe in certain other higher purpose or not.
In an ideal utopia this would be True. The Problem is that we don't live in an ideal world and ethics don't Come naturally to many, which is why it is important to teach the doctrine of Meaning, truth etc. to people. Why would it be wrong to lie and cheat one's way to personally happiness if there's no meaning at all?

This ends short for my buss Ride ends. I'll get back!
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Aquila »

I can't discuss each of the points but I agree with most of them in some sense or in whole.
Boreas wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:34 pm
Aquila wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:38 pmI think ethics (compassion, truthfulness etc.) have to be found valuable whether we believe in certain other higher purpose or not.
In an ideal utopia this would be True. The Problem is that we don't live in an ideal world and ethics don't Come naturally to many, which is why it is important to teach the doctrine of Meaning, truth etc. to people. Why would it be wrong to lie and cheat one's way to personally happiness if there's no meaning at all?
I think this comes down to the idea sometimes shared on the forums already (maybe by fra Nefastos?) that ethical thinking already equals to some kind of activation of the higher aspects of humanity (= Manas, Buddhi, Atma). In this sense I would think that it doesn't demand much faith in any religious sense. It's equally utopistic to expect people would become religious or believe in something to be ethical or that it would be needed. If the ethics are awoken by humanism, I think it's enough although it might not be the 100% Truth. If there is more to it, I'm completely ok with that as well. I don't really care whether people start to believe in something, or if they agree with my faith or if they disagree with it completely. The totality of God/Satan includes all possible faiths, views and existence.

After all I think that to believe in any kind of higher purpose, this purpose must also be found on all levels or aspects of humanity. This means that for example thinking that follows kama manasic reasoning can be ethical and affected by the higher aspects although the person in question would not "believe" in anything. Of course what I'm saying here already follows a faith that I have and it might be quite usual way of thinking among members of SoA.
obnoxion
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by obnoxion »

Boreas wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:34 pm Aquila kirjoitti: ↑I think ethics (compassion, truthfulness etc.) have to be found valuable whether we believe in certain other higher purpose or not.
In an ideal utopia this would be True. The Problem is that we don't live in an ideal world and ethics don't Come naturally to many, which is why it is important to teach the doctrine of Meaning, truth etc. to people. Why would it be wrong to lie and cheat one's way to personally happiness if there's no meaning at all?
There are virtues that are self-luminous. If I drop a small child into a deep well, people are upset. And if I instantly tell a lie that there was no child and I never droped anything in the well in the first place, people are upset. And it doesn't matter much what those people believe in, when they hear the cries of help from the deep well. I mean, who would start to drop babies into deep wells even if she beleived they are essentialy just lumps of meat? And then again, high ethics or belief in vengeful god do not prevent people from doing unethical choices. We know that ethical convictions do not stop one from killing a child and then lying about it. There are virtues that are self-luminous, but they are not compelling in all instances. Yet people who commit themselves to these virtues are happier in the long run. It doesnt't need to be more complex than that.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Wyrmfang »

To discuss the meaning and possible problems of humanism is huge topic, in which people easily talk aside each other. But when it comes to Nietzsche and his critique of humanism, in my view it was this: virtues or duties or whatever one thinks is the correct moral vocabulary do not necessarily lose anything as such in the death of God, but what is lost is the hope that virtue and happiness, or maybe more importantly, justice, will ever meet in the large scale. I think Nietzsche was correct here, but didn´t consider that God might be something much wider than the Judeo-Christian conception.

I think the most important philosophical work in justifying the ground of humanism (or more exactly the view that it does not deed a ground) is Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (can be found in Finnish in Siveysopilliset pääteokset). However, Kant just basically systematizes philosophically in different ways the point already addressed above by obnoxion.
Angolmois

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Angolmois »

Aquila: Yes, I agree. I'm not against the practical consequences, but as this is a philosophical discussion I'm interested about the truth and have a tendency to try to find flaws in reasoning and in the underlying worldview. I'm not advocating a return to religion or the propping up of beliefs out of nothing as the answer although it might lead there also. For example the likes of myself could be in a very bad place if not for scientific humanism and its advances both in medicine and ethics (although I do venture now and then into the thought that I could be better off in an archaic shamanistic culture where mental illness is seen as a calling to be a shaman).

Obnoxion: Very beautifully put and I agree mostly, although I would say there could be people willing to throw the baby into the well because of their worldview. For example, communists saw themselves as true humanists and marxist escathology justified anything done for the sake of the future of humanity in its name, and we can see how good that turned out. The tree is known for its fruits.

Wyrmfang: Also agree. Nietzsche's Death of God implies the Death of the object of theistic devotion and morality, not the God of metaphysics that he himself intuited in some cases. "May God throw of his moral garb and He shall appear naked beyond good and evil."
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism

Post by Aquila »

Boreas wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:40 am Aquila: Yes, I agree. I'm not against the practical consequences, but as this is a philosophical discussion I'm interested about the truth and have a tendency to try to find flaws in reasoning and in the underlying worldview. I'm not advocating a return to religion or the propping up of beliefs out of nothing as the answer although it might lead there also.
I think I have somewhat similar interest and I was trying to find flaws in the reasoning as much as you were but they didn't seem to follow the lines of discussion you were following. We should give the used terms more exact definitions.

For example:
Boreas wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:40 am I would say there could be people willing to throw the baby into the well because of their worldview. For example, communists saw themselves as true humanists and marxist escathology justified anything done for the sake of the future of humanity in its name, and we can see how good that turned out. The tree is known for its fruits.
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.
Locked