Laurentius

The Neo Nihilist Core

At this stage of human development, Neo Nihilism holds the following propositions as self evident:

1. Never has the spirit proved itself “real” outside a material system of reference;
2. Despite its overwhelming presence, material reality lacks the final foundation on which to undeniably ground;
3. Similarly, yet because of its very plethora, it is not possible that truth take any ultimate form;
4. Given both material and spiritual limitations, Man is inherently refused the absolute of any sort;
5. Values base on spatially and temporally relative principles belonging to ephemeral cultures.

Therefore:

Neither the spirit nor the matter enjoys a meaningful individual existence.
or
Nothingness and reality merge.

MrLoverLover

Maybe the Neo-Nihilist shouldn't find certain things self evident. (You know, like everything you list.)

tronvillain

Perhaps you'd also care to explain the "therefore" step, since it looks remarkably like "and then a miracle occurs."

Laurentius

AVE.
First, the Neo Nihilist here thanks you for the interest you take in his approach.
Second, one should mind that this Neo Nihilist is a secular humanist one, and therefore everything related to the fundamental principles of Secular Humanism will be considered as self-evident.

However,

I admit that, in principle:
1. Everything Neo Nihilism holds – either self-evident or inferred – is doomed to fail in absolute terms (i.e. final truth, valid argumentation, etc.);
2. Moreover, no principle should be held as self-evident without a minimum clarification which to eliminate confusions and settle common grounds;
3. Furthermore, since Neo Nihilism is trying to assert itself here, leaps and jumps to conclusions will from now on be avoided – in fact, it is for the careful demonstration that this discussion has been started, and now that there has been some response, I shall make myself clear.

N.B. Neo Nihilism is at this moment my own secular humanist philosophy. I have initiated its exposure in order to test its strength and validity.

Having made these clarifications, I will pursue in drafting my first argument, related to the old problem Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.

b@rtleby

tronvillain,
your insistence on logical neccessity presupposes an ultimate truth that neo-nihilism appears to deny but in fact just renders meaningless except as part of a contingent discourse masquerading as a metanarrative. the structualism of the 'syllogism' and the 'list' are used above both within the context of the current ideological paradigm and also external to it as an ironic critique of post-enlightement pseudo-thought that forms the ando-euro-centric 'reality'.
of course the failings of neo-nihilsim, and they are writ large above for all to see, is that as a reaction against the aforementioned rationalism the logocentric base of both sides of the dichotomy deconstruct themselves by their priveleging and suppression of binaries such as "spirit/matter" and in doing so actually neccessitates the concept that it seeks to deny, namely 'ultimate truth', as being outside the normal processes of 'differance' and so rests on exactly the presupposition it seeks to invalidate therefore contradicting itself both as a meta narrative and even as discourse under it's own terms.
obviously the correct position is as wittgenstein showed, but didn't say, and therefore cannot be reduced to the status of this dialectical approach...

more importantly, however, and despite my wonderful ability to write pretentious philosophical nonsense, but has anyone other than me noticed that the majority of new metaphysical positions this century have really just been pompous rewording of the pre-socratics?
bb

NialScorva

Or perhaps you're not nearly as philosophical as you are pretentious? You statement is obvious nonsense, and isn't even a mediocre mockery of modern philosophy (except the most banal of psuedo-intellectual postmodernism, maybe). But there's plenty of quality stuff out there. For every philosopher that's a rehash of socratic or pre-socratic philosophy, there's another that argues against him.

If you think it's nonsense, then don't read it, or argue against it. Undirected sarcasm doesn't really contribute anything.

NialScorva

Or how about these self-evidents (waves hands magically):

6. I feel. I have emotions. Some I like, some I don't.
7. I want to experience the emotions I like, and not experience the ones I don't.
8. Because of this, *I* choose to assign positive value to actions that make me feel good, and negative value to those that make me feel bad. Intrinsic value is completely irrelavent, personal subjective value is more than sufficient for me to make an evaluation.
9. Nihilism as you describe it is a rejection of one's subjective perception and emotions of events, a rejection that is non-rational.

Lack of spirit, foundation, universal truth, and absolutes are complete straw men. They are a means by which to set up a hypothetical and unobtainable goals, and declare victory in the inability to acheive them. Subjective perception is more than sufficient to establish valuations and form a system of intersubjective truth.

Laurentius

Ave NialScorva,
Thank you for your specifications.
Indeed, I nearly agree with everything you have argued. That is, Man is a subjective receiver of reality (downright self-evident).
Two important consequences follow: (a) reality is not quite reality because of the imperfect reception; (b) reality is further altered by the receiver’s idiosyncrasies.
Neo Nihilism does not reject subjective experience as a foundation of what reality is, on the contrary. Moreover, its goal is not to seek for absolutes. Neo Nihilism aims to mirror the existence deprived of its delusions and pretense. At the same time, it deplores the fact that “subjective perception is more than sufficient to establish valuations and form a system of intersubjective truth” because such state of affairs can easily lead to actions similar to those that caused the carnage on Sept. 11. Humanist Nihilism intends to find solutions whose validity should not be affected by the imperfections mentioned above. (I’m still calling them imperfections because Man naturally yearns for the absolute and perceives its un-attainability as painful).

Laurentius

AVE
The Humanist Nihilist does not differ from everyone else. Every morning he wakes up in the same old bed whose existence he automatically takes for granted and heads for the window from beyond the pane of which reality pours. The sun is rising red from behind the buildings gradually turned into a golden blaze. But for a plane, a couple of birds, and several stray dogs, all is still – yet not inert. Once he window has been opened the sounds of the world start praising its existence. The wind gently whistles in carrying the hum of the birds teeming in the green below, remote car traffic, sporadic voices. By now the sun is up, the sky azure has changed into white blue and in a few minutes the metropolis will be bustling with dizzying human activity that will swallow everyone up in the city, including the Humanist Nihilist.

And this sort of daily experience is what reality is all about. Massive, overwhelming, undeniable experience. Marooned in the whirl of the compulsive natural and social existence the nihilist is doomed to make no sense to billions of people for whom the actual existence of nothingness is inconceivable. How does one most likely tend to envisage nothingness? Simple. One will look around and say to oneself: “Nothingness is when all this is not.” Take, for instance, the wind whistle, the bird hum, the distant traffic roar, the voices – take these, switch them off, and that will be the nothing. Do the same to the all the other elements: to the plane, the birds, the dogs, the sun, the city. To the window, to yourself. Switch them all off, and what you will obtain is perfect nothingness. Well, it does not really exist, but if nothingness were to be, this is what it should actually be like, right?

Wrong. If this superb fallacy be the nothing the nihilist points at, then he should indeed be derided, since such a thing is nonsense. However, if he uncovers a deeper level of reality on which human comprehension can take better ground, then his nihilism should be accepted as a valid contribution to the understanding of the world whose existence the Humanist Nihilist himself praises to the same extent the emphasizes its non-existence, for his roots firmly feed from the rich soil of existentialism. The Humanist Nihilist holds non-existence as a fundamental component of natural & social existence, and, therefore, of his philosophy. By doing so, he contravenes the religious believer’s key commandments because his creationism can equal non-existence only with deity (see the dogma of the world emerging out of nothing). The existential fraction (secular, that is) of the Humanist Nihilist will remind the reader the anecdote of the psychiatrist who enters the asylum bathroom, finds a patient fishing in the bathtub and says congenially: “Oh, this is where you are! Did you catch anything?” “Are you nuts, doc?” the patient replies. “Can’t you see there’s no fish in here?” Seeking for the eternal realm of the inalterable spirit(s) that may justify the manifestation of the material world would be like intentionally fishing where there is no fish.

Two reductions are common to Man’s mind: one conceives existence as being essentially either ideal (spiritual) or material. Ideal eternity and inalterability are ambitious creations of the human wishful thinking. However, the human mind plays a crucial role in shaping the reality to which so radically opposes. In fact, although thoroughly different, reality and the mind influence each other so pervasively that it will always be impossible to decisively distinguish between existence and non-existence. The material reduction, on the other hand, is equally deceiving: the macrocosmic reality consists of hollow light years whereas the microcosmic quantum/wave duality shows the same chronic inconsistency, which ultimately proves to be essence of reality.

Thus:
1. Existence and non-existence are each other’s companions, not reverse images.
2. Objective existence is a function of subjective projection, which blurs the border between existence and non-existence.
3. When materially analyzed, reality breaks down to uncertainty & inconsistency; that is, existence represents the way non-existence manifests itself.
Therefore, reality and nothingness merge.

Laurentius

AVE

Having talked about non-existence, it seems to me that a definition of existence is necessary.

Ontologically speaking, the Neo Nihilist is a dualist. Monists uphold that there is only one principle underlying this world; some think it is a material principle, others – a spiritual one. Claiming no originality, the Neo Nihilist considers that reality equally grounds on the two principles.

REALITY = matter & mind
1. MATTER: (a) ATOMIC > (b) ORGANIC > (c) PSYCHE
2. MIND: (a) UNCONSCIOUS > (b) EGO > (c) SUPRAEGO

The material and spiritual principles make two different tenets on which reality, as we know it, is based:
(a) They are distinct in their nature.
(b) They develop in different ways.
(c) They interact and influence each other.
(d) Neither of the two prevails in relation with the other.