All appeals to objectivity seen from the perspective of epistemological nihilism are illusory. We create the impression of knowledge to hide the fact that there are no facts.
If something is claimed to be true based on past experience, then the problem of induction arises: just because something has happened does not entail that it must happen again. If something is claimed to be true based on scientific evidence, then there arises the problem of appealing to authority.
In logic, such appeals are seen as committing a fallacy, as the claims of others, even the claims of experts, are not seen as grounds for truth. In other words, even experts can be biased and can make mistakes. Furthermore, as scientists make claims based on the work of previous scientists, then they too can be seen as making appeals to authority. This leads to another problem, the problem of infinite regress.
Any claim to knowledge based on some foundation inevitably leads to questions about the foundation of that foundation, and then the foundation of that foundation, and so on, and so on, and so on. In trivialising doubts about knowledge, the passive nihilist trivialises the pursuit of knowledge. For the skeptic likewise questions the foundations upon which knowledge claims are taken to rest, and doubts the possibility of knowledge ever finding any sure ground.
Whereas the active nihilist would be similar to the radical skeptic, the passive nihilist would not be. The passive nihilist is aware that skeptical questions can be raised about knowledge. But rather than doubt knowledge, the passive nihilist continues to believe in knowledge.
Consequently, for the passive nihilist, knowledge exists, but it exists on the basis of faith. Nihilism is therefore not only to be found in the person who rejects knowledge claims for lacking an indubitable foundation. Scientific theories can be based on appeals to other theories, which are based on appeals to other theories, any one of which could be based on a mistake.
But so long as scientific theories continue to produce results — especially results in the form of technological advances — then doubts about the ultimate truth of those theories can be seen as trivial. And in trivialising doubts about knowledge, the passive nihilist trivialises the pursuit of knowledge. Or the phone might turn out to be wrong, in which case we are likely to blame not the phone but the train.
Since the phone has become our primary guarantor of knowledge, to admit that the phone could be wrong is to risk having to admit that not only could our phone-based knowledge claims be baseless, but that all of our knowledge claims could be.
After all, just like with the phone, we tend not to ask why we think we know what we think we know. I n moral philosophy, nihilism is seen as the denial that morality exists. As Donald A Crosby argues in The Specter of the Absurd , moral nihilism can be seen as a consequence of epistemological nihilism. If there exist no grounds for making objective claims about knowledge and truth, then there exist no grounds for making objective claims about right and wrong.
In other words, what we take to be morality is a matter of what is believed to be right — whether that belief is relative to each historical period, to each culture or to each individual — rather than a matter of what is right.
To claim that something is right has been done historically by basing these claims on a foundation such as God, or happiness, or reason. Because these foundations are seen as applying universally — as applying to all people, in all places, in all times — they are seen as necessary to make morality apply universally.
The 18th-century moral philosopher Immanuel Kant recognised the danger of grounding morality on God or on happiness as leading to moral skepticism. The belief in God can motivate people to act morally, but only as a means to the end of ending up in heaven rather than hell.
So, in response, Kant argued for a reason-based morality instead. According to him, if a universal foundation is what morality needs, then we should simply make decisions in accordance with the logic of universalisability.
Nihilism has existed in one form or another for hundreds of years, but is usually associated with Friedrich Nietzsche , the 19th century German philosopher and pessimist of choice for high school kids with undercuts who proposed that existence is meaningless , moral codes worthless, and God is dead.
Entendiendo a las nuevas generaciones pic. Modern nihilism has been honed through memes and Twitter jokes. It manifests as teenagers eating Tide pods , fans begging celebrities to run them down with their cars , and a lot of weird TV shows. Turns out the descent into nothingness can be pretty funny. Are we witnessing a new, sunnier, generation of nihilists emerge? If meaning and purpose are overrated illusions, then so is any sense that you are special or destined for greater things.
This article includes content provided by Instagram. So, one active nihilist might conclude that the purpose of her life is to combat poverty across the globe. Another might commit himself to protecting the environment. Active nihilists have tremendous freedom in determining the best way to live their own lives. Finding the meaning of your life is not easy. It requires walking a fine line between rigidity and flexibility. Thus, I recommend taking time to reflect on your skills, interests, and personal ethical code.
You may also find guidance in the teachings of religion, as I have. Obviously, the concept of active nihilism is not without faults, and leads to important questions on how we can hold each other accountable for our actions if we truly believe that the meaning of life is subjective. He ridicules moral codes and rules as groundless, and sees order itself as an illusion created in a desperate bid for an arbitrary happiness.
To the movie's audience, these beliefs seem tied to the Joker's penchant for chaos, crime and sociopathy. Tartaglia said that figures such as the Joker might correctly be described as nihilists to the extent that they reject the idea of an overall meaning for their actions coming from some non-human source. Although such associations continue to influence perceptions of those willing to call life ultimately meaningless, the merely trivial nihilist is perhaps the more common caricature now.
An especially well-known example is the squad of cartoonish German-accented antagonists to Jeff Bridges' character, the Dude, in the film, The Big Lebowski.
These self-announced nihilists seem to embody both major ingredients of the philosophy's poor image: violence and foolishness. Llanera finds no compelling logical connection between nihilism and antisocial behaviour or a choice to waste one's life on trivial, unrewarding obsessions. And while a lack of ultimate sources for the meaning of one's life cannot directly justify good behaviour either, it can release people from harmful mistaken beliefs and damaging mindsets.
Llanera hears often from students that they consider themselves "not religious, but spiritual," a description she finds potentially concerning.
I think [that's] being used to fight against this threat that life will become meaningless," Llanera said. She criticizes some non-nihilist philosophers for spreading the message that the best way to respond to a sense of meaninglessness is to tap into non-human sources, such as a sacred entity or magical realm.
In her view, this amounts to misdiagnosing the problem. Despite her passion for defending nihilism, Llanera considers the central point about life's meaninglessness to be neutral, rather than good news or bad news for humankind. She hopes that more people will simply outgrow their sense that the cosmic meaninglessness of their lives poses a threat. In her view, life does not need a larger context of meaning to add weight to a private or social sense of morality or joie de vivre.
All of those things are part of the human condition," said Llanera. But this kind of meaning doesn't extend beyond our human context.
0コメント