https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/rv9f0w/against_moral_nihilism/

https://www.quora.com/If-there-is-no-objective-meaning-to-anything-what-should-one-believe-in-and-is-there-such-a-thing-as-epistemic-absurdism/answer/David-Moore-408

Thou nihilism is seemed a lot of times as only saying "we're gonna die, therefore nothing matters" i still think i wider range of thought can be trace but still Almost in the same of nothing matters, society is the best example, by my findings i think nothing explains so well Nietzsche "Herd Mentality" as seeing in Zarathustra than the Modern world, and consumerism is nihilism in it's core, people will buy for the sake of it there is no inheret meaning to nothing, not following the "we're gonna die anyway" but rather a "if everyone's doing..." type of deal, it is meaningless also trying to stand out just for the sake of saying "hey i'm diferent" maybe we can see this in the stereotype of "i'm not like other girls" or in the "gamer" meme. I also fall into this category, will i gain something form this? maybe but in the end i made this to satisfy my ego and there isn't nothing new to wich i can possibly help to change.

Nihilism is silly, change my mind

xo

I don't have anything to start a debate with and I'm honestly feeling lonely so I'm hoping this fixes that problem and gives me a better insight to the nihilism of others... Cuz I think everyone has a different view of it in my opinion

https://www.reddit.com/r/nihilism/comments/bmcrmq/i_matter_to_my_friends_and_family_therefore_i/

https://www.reddit.com/r/nihilism/comments/bmfpvp/if_your_parents_gave_birth_to_you_to_do_something/

So the reason I am a Nihilist is because I feel that meaning can't exist because it is dependent upon something with meaning giving out meaning. This would create a problem in which meaning can not have an origin, and thus not exist.

My main problems with this are, if there is no meaning, than there is no cause and effect.

Alternatively, there are no standards of truth, so it can't be true, or how can this not be applied to science or other things.

The infinite is the negation of the finite. It is nothing positive or hidden, nothing more than the finite gathered into a unity and annihilated as the source of or the authority upon the self's value and dignity.

Oversimplifying to get the point across, the self is structured by or is the "incarnation" of a Cause. This cause is its "avatar" on the world stage, its public self, or what it separates from its one thousand idiosyncrasies as its righteous essence. This cause is the self's worth or substantial being in its own eyes.

Religion is still just politics to the degree that this Cause is a finite or particular protagonist on the world stage, opposed to other finite and particular causes. It is implicitly or explicitly the imposition of a universal duty toward and reverence for the particularity of its avatar, which is to say its own idiosyncratic specifications of the good and the authoritative.

A non-political or infinite "religion," which might be call "nihilism" (and which happily negates its attachment to these very terms) self-consciously relinquishes any identification with a determinate or particular avatar in opposition to some opposite avatar.

It identifies instead with the negation of identity itself. It comprehends the clash of finite avatars or identifications as a unity, which is to say that it recognizes a general structure therein and thereby makes what was apparently necessary merely optional. "Negative" philosophy corrodes the apparently necessary to reveal its contingency. It therefore subjects whatever it can cognize to its freedom. "I am no longer X as soon as I can say that I am X."

Negation is only possible once these chaotic particulars are grasped as a unity. To negate one particular in isolation is merely to affirm its opposite. Transcendence (the absolute/emptied "I") is above the endless and noisy clash of Causes. It is "in-the-name-of" nothing. The "I" of the infinite personality is pure negation. (Hegel's master)

You can read the rest here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fichte/comments/6a8vmm/a_brief_sketch_of_a_posthegelian_resuscitation_of/

So, I'm not a philosophy major. The philosophical works I've read are limited, so I'm open to new ideas. That being said, I've had this issue with the concept of nihilism for a few years now, and I'm convinced that it's a misinterpretation of the works existentialist philosophers.

The problem I have is that saying "life has no meaning" is a paradox within itself, because in that statement you're placing a meaning on life. It's impossible to say that life has no meaning, because you're implying that the meaning of life is that it has no meaning.

Existentialism, as I understand it, follows a similar structure, but the fundamental difference is that a lot of existentialist philosophers (most notably Sartre, in my opinion) recognize a problem with that statement. Instead, they prefer to say that life has no objective meaning. Everyone's life must have some meaning, but that meaning differs between individuals, and the meaning in your life is evidenced by the choices you make. Life cannot be without meaning, otherwise you would never act on anything.

So, am I wrong to suggest that there is an issue in the suggestion that life has no meaning, or is this a misinterpretation of my own?

I'm curious as to whether Nihilism is only generally followed by those in already comfortable positions.

For example, (and I'm not trying to get political here), if you perceive Trump as a catalyst for racism, and you happen to be black and nihilist, it would be important to you that his movement is defeated or opposed at every step, no? But if you are white and identify as nihilist, you might not care. This not caring is somewhat a privileged position, isn't it?

Following this, if you set out to stop Trump's movement in order to protect yourself, you now have a purpose and a goal. You may see this as the right thing to do, the proper thing to do, to protect yourself. No longer does it not matter, it does matter, or you might get hurt?

When I read about nihilism, I actually don't see much conflict with looking to protect yourself and being a nihilist, but when I read comments from supposed nihilists, none of them ever seem to care. It seems to be "pfft, whatever." or "ha, it's entertaining". So is this lack of caring a part of nihilism that I don't get, or is nihilism really only for the comfortable and safe?

No one is really in charge.

What are the problems with this definition?

In my experience, nihilists have a tendency to regard nihilism as being obviously true, while anti-nihilists have a tendency to regard nihilism as being obviously false. I have seldom heard well-formulated arguments on either side. In your opinion, what is the most convincing argument for (or against) nihilism?

I'm fairly new to Nietzsche, Stirner and moral nihilism and was just curious on everyone's thoughts on slavery.

1. Do you find it acceptable to use slaves to serve your own purposes?

2. Would you try to stop someone else from owning slaves?

3. What brought you to oppose/ignore/endorse slavery?

4. Feel free to add any other thoughts!

Moral nihilism is the view that moral statements are either (1) all false, or (2) have no truth value (neither true nor false). Feel free to discuss below whether you prefer definition (1) or definition (2), but for my purposes either definition will suffice.

Moral nihilism and moral relativism have the following "problem": if all moral statements are objectively equal (equally false or equally meaningless), then there is no objective basis for preferring one system of morals over another. In particular, there is no such thing as moral authority. If a person commits an act which in your opinion is a moral transgression, you have no authority to tell them that their action was wrong. Your judgment is merely a matter of opinion, and your opinion is no more valuable than theirs (i.e., not valuable at all). Given that this is the case, on what basis can we reprimand and punish others? An even more difficult question (IMO) is, how can we convince other people to abide by our standard of morality if we have no moral authority?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts about this, whatever your opinion on the matter happens to be.

The sidebar says we need a "meaningful epistemological" discussion, so we begin simply. Is there a valid argument against the Law of Identity aside from saying that 'truth' itself holds no ubiquitous value? Does such a claim apply to a substantive existence (reality)? If reality is an illusion, then that illusion is still occurring, and that would in turn be the 'truth' of what is reality. If experiencing a real reality is impossible, then how do you separate one from the other? What is missing from one that isn't in the other? A false reality is in turn a true reality.

Now I sway a bit from epistemology, and question meaning/morality. Why is mind-dependance a negative? Although these things don't exist without a mind to conceptualize them, how are they any less valid? For instance: If I create meaning in my life, then meaning exists, because I created it. What is the alternative? How does/could meaning/morality exist in a universe not inhabited by life? The mind is the receptor and conceptualization of existence.

I am an Epistemic Nihilist looking for discussion from others. If you feel I'm being fallacious, then I already beat you to the punch, but tell me why. Can this sub produce stimulating content or is this just a few people from /r/Nihilism who like to end every other comment with, "but it doesn't matter", in an attempt to reassert that they are a Nihilist?

I feel like this is as good of question as any to ask, particularly since the sub is so young.

If one is just getting into nihilism, what books should they pick up first?

I recently created this subreddit in an attempt to make space for meaningful discussions about nihilism. If anyone has suggestions about links that should be added to the sidebar, or any other suggestions, I would absolutely love to hear from you.

What I mean by this is, for example, do you think that asserting that morals are baseless self-reference necessitates the same assertion about other phenomenon?

If you embrace existential nihilism, do you believe moral nihilism follows?

If one embraces the assertion that knowledge is not objective, epistemological nihilism, then what is the division that stops you from embracing mereological nihilism?

I would basically like to hear what whoever shows up here thinks of different nihilisms and what they mean to you, as well as what them mean to other nihilisms.