02 February 2017 | by Patrick West | Comments: 0

The Evenings GERARD REVE, translated by Sam Garrett

Gerard Reve, who died in 2006, is considered one of the greatest post-war Dutch authors and his debut novel, The Evenings, published in 1947, is regarded as a masterpiece in his native land and continues to be taught in schools. The existential tale has been called his countrys equivalent to Nausea or The Outsider, yet it is only now that it has it been translated into English.

Its protagonist, Frits, is an aimless and neurotic 23-year-old nihilist with an unhealthy taste for black humour. He lives with his parents, whom he resents: Im only waiting for them to hang themselves or beat each other to death. Or set the house on fire.

New Subscribers click here New users wishing to Register to read this article click here Existing Subscribers and Registered users can login here

Previous Issues

Previous issues... 4 February 2017 28 January 2017 21 January 2017 14 January 2017 7 January 2017 17-31 December 2016 10 December 2016 3 December 2016 26 November 2016 19 November 2016 12 November 2016 5 November 2016 29 October 2016 22 October 2016 15 October 2016 8 October 2016 1 October 2016 24 September 2016 17 September 2016 10 September 2016 3 September 2016 20-27 August 2016 13 August 2016 06 August 2016 30 July 2016 23 July 2016 16 July 2016 9 July 2016 2 July 2016 25 June 2016 18 June 2016 11 June 2016 4 June 2016 28 May 2016 21 May 2016 14 May 2016 7 May 2016 30 April 2016 23 April 2016 16 April 2016 9 April 2016 2 April 2016 26 March 2016 19 March 2016 12 March 2016 5 March 2016 27 February 2016 20 February 2016 13 February 2016 6 February 2016 30 January 2016 23 January 2016 16 January 2016 9 January 2016 2 January 2016 19-26 December 2015 12 December 2015 5 December 2015 28 November 2015 21 November 2015 14 November 2015 7 November 2015 31 October 2015 24 October 2015 17 October 2015 10 October 2015 3 October 2015 26 September 2015 19 September 2015 12 September 2015 5 September 2015 29 August 2015 22 August 2015 15 August 2015 8 August 2015 1 August 2015 25 July 2015 18 July 2015 11 July 2015 4 July 2015 27 June 2015 20 June 2015 13 June 2015 6 June 2015 30 May 2015 23 May 2015 16 May 2015 9 May 2015 2 May 2015 25 April 2015 18 April 2015 11 April 2015 4 April 2015 28 March 2015 21 March 2015 14 March 2015 7 March 2015 28 February 2015 21 February 2015 14 February 2015 7 February 2015 31 January 2015 24 January 2015 17 January 2015 10 January 2015 3 January 2015 20-27 December 2014 13 December 2014 6 December 2014 29 November 2014 22 November 2014 15 November 2014 8 November 2014 1 November 2014 25 October 2014 18 October 2014 11 October 2014 4 October 2014 27 September 2014 20 September 2014 13 September 2014 6 September 2014 30 August 2014 23 August 2014 16 August 2014 9 August 2014

Tablet Subscription

Manage my subcription here

Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter

Go here to read the rest:

The boredom of nihilism - The Tablet

Why Nihilism, A Practical Definition

As research probes further into the complexities of the human mind, it becomes clear that the mind is far from being a composite thing which is an actor upon its world through thoughts; rather, thoughts compose the mind, in the form of connections and associations wired into the tissue of the brain, creating circuitry for future associations of like stimulus. The schematic of this intellectual machine builds separate routing for situations it is likely to encounter, based on grouped similarities in events or objects. In this view of our computing resources, it is foolish to allow pre-processing to intervene, as it creates vast amounts of wiring which serve extremely similar purposes, thus restricting the range of passive association (broad-mindedness) or active association (creativity) possible within the switching mechanism of the brain as a whole. As here we are devout materialists, the brain and mind are seen as equatable terms.

The positive effects of nihilism on the mind of a human being are many. Like the quieting of distraction and distortion within the mind brought about by meditative focus, nihilism pushes aside preconception and brings the mind to focus within the time of the present. Influences which could radically skew our perceptions emotions, nervousness, paranoia, or upset, to name a few fade into the background and the mind becomes more open to the task at hand without becoming spread across contemplations of potential actions occurring at different levels of scale regarding the current task. Many human errors originate in perceiving an event to be either more important than it is, or to be symbolically indicative of relevance on a greater scale than the localized context which it affects, usually because of a conditioned preference for the scale of eventiture existing before the symbolic event.

Nihilism as a philosophical doctrine must not be confused with a political doctrine such as anarchism; political doctrines (as religions are) remain fundamentally teleological in their natures and thus deal with conclusions derived from evidence, where nihilism as a deontological process functions at the level of the start of perception, causing less of a focus on abstracting a token ruleset defining the implications of events than a rigorous concentration on the significance of the events as they are immediately effecting the situation surrounding them. For example, a nihilistic fighter does not bother to assess whether his opponent is a better fighter or not that the perceiving agency, but fights to his best ability (something evolution would reward, as the best fighter does not win every fight, only most of them). As a result of this conditioning, nihilism separates the incidence of events/perceptions from causal understanding by removing expectations of causal origins and implications to ongoing eventiture.

Understanding nihilism requires one drop the pretense of nihilistic philosophy being an endpoint, and acceptance of it being a doorway. Nihilism self-reduces; the instant one proclaims There is no value! a value has been created. Nihilism strips away conditiong at the unconscious and anticipatory levels of structure in the mind, allowing for a greater range of possiblity and quicker action. Further, it creates a powerful tool to use against depression or anxiety, neurosis and social stigma. Since it is a concept necessarily in flux, as it provides a starting point for analysis in any situation but no preconditioned conclusions, it is post-deconstructive in that it both removes the unnecessary and creates new space for intellectual development at the same time.

Text quoted from S.R. Prozaks Nihilism at the American Nihilist Underground Society.

Visit link:

Nihilism Nihilism

Home Site Map Nihilism nihilism, n. 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE- (1817) 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths 2 a (1) : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility (2) capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination b : TERRORISM [source]

A Bit of Metaphor

Lightning cracks across the night sky and reveals a mottled rock face towering above you, surrounding you on three sides over the space of several hundred acres. Rain lashes against you, wetting your eyes and drenching your clothing, as the wind flings you against the rock mottled with dirt, overgrowth and the strange distortions of time. You know there is a cave which takes you through this rock, to a space where the storm will be less baffling and perhaps you can weather it, but you cannot find the door. Using your eyes, you search time and time again until finally, in desperation, you run your fingers along the rock, trying to find a grip of any kind. After you struggle for some time, your brain becomes numb at the prospect of your imminent death, and thus you relax, and walk the path at the base of the mountain at random. On a whim, you think, you catch a hand on a seemingly flat surface and realize it curves inward. You've found your entrace.

Nihilism remains one of the most controversial topics of the modern era, for a good reason: science has supported a form of nihilism by steadily revealing more of the underpinning behind natural processes, making things that once seemed to be unique objects appear as a collaboration of different effects. Slowly the post-animist ideas of the things we refer to with nouns being unique and of a consistent content are being exposed as structures of granular objects intersecting according to natural laws and constraints. This process threatens many of the social and emotional constructs used commonly in human society with a destabilization based not in the threat to the concept in question, but to the concept archetype from which those concepts emerge.

Despite this recent condition, nihilism is an eternal question in the human experience. As the definition above illustrates, there is a split in the meaning of the word. The most common meaning in our current society is a conflation of the lack of inherent value with a fatalism and aimlessness in intellectual choice-making; the second meaning is one in which an epistemological sandblaster is applied to all new input to remove social, mental, moral, emotional and political conditioning from the meaning, perception and differentiation of objects. It is the second meaning in which the word is used here, since fatalism and passivity are so well known as separate phenomena there is no need to confuse them with what can be revealed as a separate phenomena.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we are products of our time and the inherent preconceptions its culture and social requirements place upon objects and events, through mechanisms as diverse as language, symbolism in art, and nostalgic associations of feelings and configurations. The simplest example of this is the good/pleasurable - bad/hurtful axis with which we communicate the nature of events to children from their earliest days; it arises from a pragmatism of identifying behavioral constraints, but leaves impressions lasting in the mind of the individual. Another common example is sexual conditioning, by which early objects of reproductive stimulus can be used to condition an individual throughout his or her life. Since much of the human intellectual faculty is designed to classify objects and quickly respond to them, meta-classification ("good"/"evil" and the like) afflicts perception at the level of pre-processing of stimulus, before information is tokenized into language and conclusions, usually in a visual or verbal form representing a sentential structure in which causality or coincidence are expressed.

As research probes further into the complexities of the human mind, it becomes clear that the mind is far from being a composite thing which is an actor upon its world through thoughts; rather, thoughts compose the mind, in the form of connections and associations wired into the tissue of the brain, creating circuitry for future associations of like stimulus. The schematic of this intellectual machine builds separate routing for situations it is likely to encounter, based on grouped similarities in events or objects. In this view of our computing resources, it is foolish to allow pre-processing to intervene, as it creates vast amounts of wiring which serve extremely similar purposes, thus restricting the range of passive association (broad-mindedness) or active association (creativity) possible within the switching mechanism of the brain as a whole. As here we are devout materialists, the brain and mind are seen as equatable terms.

The "positive" effects of nihilism on the mind of a human being are many. Like the quieting of distraction and distortion within the mind brought about by meditative focus, nihilism pushes aside preconception and brings the mind to focus within the time of the present. Influences which could radically skew our perceptions - emotions, nervousness, paranoia, or upset, to name a few - fade into the background and the mind becomes more open to the task at hand without becoming spread across contemplations of potential actions occurring at different levels of scale regarding the current task. Many human errors originate in perceiving an event to be either more important than it is, or to be "symbolically" indicative of relevance on a greater scale than the localized context which it affects, usually because of a conditioned preference for the scale of eventiture existing before the symbolic event.

Nihilism as a philosophical doctrine must not be confused with a political doctrine such as anarchism; political doctrines (as religions are) remain fundamentally teleological in their natures and thus deal with conclusions derived from evidence, where nihilism as a deontological process functions at the level of the start of perception, causing less of a focus on abstracting a token ruleset defining the implications of events than a rigorous concentration on the significance of the events as they are immediately effecting the situation surrounding them. For example, a nihilistic fighter does not bother to assess whether his opponent is a better fighter or not that the perceiving agency, but fights to his best ability (something evolution would reward, as the best fighter does not win every fight, only most of them). As a result of this conditioning, nihilism separates the incidence of events/perceptions from causal understanding by removing expectations of causal origins and implications to ongoing eventiture.

This may seem like a minor detail; it is. However, it remains a detail overlooked by the Judeo-Christian "Western" nations, and as a result, our cognitive systems are bound up in conditioned preconception and moral preprocessing, separating us all too often from a pragmatic recognition of the course of change brought about by events, and thus hamstringing our ability to give these events context in processing. Consequently, forms of social and political manipulation remain unchecked because to people conditioned in this form of perceptual preprocessing, the error of this poor mental hygiene is not only invisible but essential for cognitive process. From this error, many more flow, including the heads of the hydra that we are mostly likely to desire fighting when we consider our views as a linear set of political decisions, a.k.a. a "platform."

Understanding nihilism requires one drop the pretense of nihilistic philosophy being an endpoint, and acceptance of it being a doorway. Nihilism self-reduces; the instant one proclaims "There is no value!" a value has been created. Nihilism strips away conditiong at the unconscious and anticipatory levels of structure in the mind, allowing for a greater range of possiblity and quicker action. Further, it creates a powerful tool to use against depression or anxiety, neurosis and social stigma. Since it is a concept necessarily in flux, as it provides a starting point for analysis in any situation but no preconditioned conclusions, it is post-deconstructive in that it both removes the unnecessary and creates new space for intellectual development at the same time.

While thinkers like F.W. Nietzsche railed against the "nihilism" of older times, this nihilism existed before social thinking made humans as neurotic as they are now, and thus was used to refer to feelings of futility, fatalism and meaninglessness found in people who had rejected the static objectivist framework of "God" but who retained the imprint of that expectation from life, namely the desire to find some absolutist view upon which all else hinges. Nihilism does not refute objectivism but it does refute certain forms of symbolic categorization, including "God," which provide a static organizational system upon which people are supposed to base their lives and value systems. While for many the idea of "God" is comforting, it is an insidious virus in that its users presuppose a common causality to any existential events, thus by finding any eventiture they attribute it to "God" and from it prove the existence of God. These closed-circuit mental processes contribute to confusion and sentimental attitudes toward mortality, programming people for intellectual failure before they're even aware of their mental potential.

Read the rest here:

Nihilism @ American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS)

This article is about the meta-ethical position. For a more general discussion of amoralism, see Amorality.

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for actions to be right or wrong relative to a particular culture or individual, and moral universalism, which holds actions to be right or wrong in the same way for everyone everywhere. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.

According to Sinnott-Armstrong (2006a), the basic thesis of moral nihilism is that "nothing is morally wrong" (3.4). There are, however, several forms that this thesis can take (see Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006b, pp.3237 and Russ Shafer-Landau, 2003, pp.813). There are two important forms of moral nihilism: error theory and expressivism[1] p.292.

One form of moral nihilism is expressivism. Expressivism denies the principle that our moral judgments try and fail to describe the moral features, because expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."[1] p.293.

This makes expressivism a form of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral statements lack truth-value and do not assert genuine propositions. This involves a rejection of the cognitivist claim, shared by other moral philosophies, that moral statements seek to "describe some feature of the world" (Garner 1967, 219-220). This position on its own is logically compatible with realism about moral values themselves. That is, one could reasonably hold that there are objective moral values but that we cannot know them and that our moral language does not seek to refer to them. This would amount to an endorsement of a type of moral skepticism, rather than nihilism.

Typically, however, the rejection of the cognitivist thesis is combined with the thesis that there are, in fact, no moral facts (van Roojen, 2004). But if moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, non-cognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible (Garner 1967, 219-220).

Not all forms of non-cognitivism are forms of moral nihilism, however: notably, the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism, which holds that judgements about morality may be correct or not in a consistent, universal way, but do not attempt to describe features of reality and so are not, strictly speaking, truth-apt.

Error theory is built on three principles:

Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely chimerical.[1]

Error theorists combine the cognitivist thesis that moral language consists of truth-apt statements with the nihilist thesis that there are no moral facts. Like moral nihilism itself, however, error theory comes in more than one form: Global falsity and Presupposition failure.

The first, which one might call the global falsity form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are false in that they claim that certain moral facts exist that in fact do not exist. J. L. Mackie (1977) argues for this form of moral nihilism. Mackie argues that moral assertions are only true if there are moral properties that are intrinsically motivating, but there is good reason to believe that there are no such intrinsically motivating properties (see the argument from queerness and motivational internalism).

The second form, which one might call the presupposition failure form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are not true because they are neither true nor false. This is not a form of non-cognitivism, for moral assertions are still thought to be truth-apt. Rather, this form of moral nihilism claims that moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist. This is analogous to presupposition failure in cases of non-moral assertions. Take, for example, the claim that the present king of France is bald. Some argue[who?] that this claim is truth-apt in that it has the logical form of an assertion, but it is neither true nor false because it presupposes that there is currently a king of France, but there is not. The claim suffers from "presupposition failure." Richard Joyce (2001) argues for this form of moral nihilism under the name "fictionalism."

The philosophy of Niccol Machiavelli is sometimes presented as a model of moral nihilism, but this is at best ambiguous. His book Il Principe (The Prince) praised many acts of violence and deception, which shocked a European tradition that throughout the Middle Ages had inculcated moral lessons in its political philosophies. Machiavelli does say that the Prince must override traditional moral rules in favor of power-maintaining reasons of State, but he also says, particularly in his other works, that the successful ruler should be guided by Pagan rather than Christian virtues. Hence, Machiavelli presents an alternative to the ethical theories of his day, rather than an all-out rejection of all morality.

Closer to being an example of moral nihilism is Thrasymachus, as portrayed in Plato's Republic. Thrasymachus argues, for example, that rules of justice are structured to benefit those who are able to dominate political and social institutions. Thrasymachus can, however, be interpreted as offering a revisionary account of justice, rather than a total rejection of morality and normative discourse.

Glover has cited realist views of amoralism held by early Athenians, and in some ethical positions affirmed by Joseph Stalin.[2]

Criticisms of moral nihilism come primarily from moral realists,[citation needed] who argue that there are positive moral truths. Still, criticisms do arise out of the other anti-realist camps (i.e. subjectivists and relativists). Not only that, but each school of moral nihilism has its own criticisms of one another (e.g. the non-cognitivists' critique of error theory for accepting the semantic thesis of moral realism).[citation needed]

Still other detractors deny that the basis of moral objectivity need be metaphysical. The moral naturalist, though a form of moral realist, agrees with the nihilists' critique of metaphysical justifications for right and wrong. Moral naturalists prefer to define "morality" in terms of observables, some even appealing to a science of morality.[citation needed]

See original here:

Moral nihilism - Wikipedia

by Vered Arnon

In the notebook(1) excerpts published as The Will to Power Nietzsche describes nihilism as ambiguous in that it can be symptomatic of either strength or weakness. Nietzsche claims that nihilism is a necessary step in the transition to a revaluation of all values. Passive nihilism is characterised by a weak will, and active nihilism by a strong will. Nietzsche emphasises that nihilism is merely a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the most extreme form of pessimism. Put simply, it is the belief that everything is meaningless, but this oversimplifies the concept. Nihilism is a transitional stage that accompanies human development. It arises from weariness. When people feel alienated from values, and have lost the foundation of their value system but have not replaced it with anything, then they become nihilists. They become disappointed with the egoistic nature of truth and morality and so on, but at the same time recognise that what is egoistic is necessary. The notion of free will seems contradictory. Values, though originating from the ego, have been placed in a sphere so far outside and above that they are untouchable. Any attempt to really figure out the truth or posit a true reality has become impossible, thus the world appears meaningless and valueless. The nihilist realises that all criteria by which the real world have been measured are categories that refer to a fictitious, constructed world. This sense of alienation results in exhaustion.

Nihilism would be a good sign, Nietzsche writes in his notebooks. It is a necessary transitional phase, cleansing and clearing away outdated value systems so that something new can rise in their place. He writes about two different forms of nihilism, active nihilism and passive nihilism. Passive nihilism is more the traditional belief that all is meaningless, while active nihilism goes beyond judgement to deed, and destroys values where they seem apparent. Passive nihilism signifies the end of an era, while active nihilism ushers in something new. Nietzsche considers nihilism not as an end, but as a means ultimately to the revaluation of values. He stresses repeatedly that nihilism is a transitional stage.

Passive nihilism is symptomatic of decreased, declined, receded power of the spirit(2). One recognises that all external values are empty and have no true authority. This renders the internal values, the conscience, meaningless as well, resulting in the loss of personal authority. All authority gone, the spirit in hopelessness and with a sense of fatalism strives to rid itself of all responsibility. All trust in society is gone, and the will is weakened. Aims, motives, and goals are gone. The spirit wants something to depend on, but has absolutely nothing that isnt arbitrary. Disintegration of the structured system of values leads one to seek escape in anything that still maintains an outward semblance of authority. These things are hollow escapes though, what Nietzsche calls self-narcotization. The spirit attempts to escape, or at least forget about the emptiness. The weakened will strives to intoxicate itself in resignation, generalisations, petty things, debauchery and fanaticism. The will is weak and seeks escape rather than action. But any attempt to escape nihilism without revaluating values only makes the problem more acute.

Active nihilism is symptomatic of an increased power of the spirit. The will is strengthened and rebellious. This is the form of nihilism that does not stop at judgement, but goes on in action to be destructive towards the remaining vestiges of empty value systems. The strength of the will is tested by whether or not it can recognise all value systems as empty and meaningless, yet admit that these lies arise out of us and serve a purpose. This denial of a truthful world, Nietzsche says, may be a divine way of thinking. The active nihilist recognises that simplification and lies are necessary for life. The value of values becomes their emptiness. Where rationality and reason have clearly failed, the nihilist embraces irrationality and freedom from logic. The will now has an opportunity to assert its strength and power to deny all authority and deny goals and faith to deny the constraints of existence. Nietzsche describes this state as both destructive and ironic.

Active nihilism obviously is not an end, however. It merely opens the stage for the beginning of a revaluation of values. It opens the stage for the will to take power and assert itself. Nihilism is the precursor to revaluation, it does not replace values, it only tears them away. It functions as an essential transition, and must be understood as a means and not an end.

1 This paper is an analysis of notebook passages in an attempt to piece together and summarise Nietzsches ideas on a very small specific topic (His notebook entries often deal with nihilism, morality, pessimism, etc all at once. I am attempting to put together coherently what his views are on nihilism, sorting it out from the rest and leaving the rest alone). For the ease of reading, I will not employ internal citation. All of these ideas and propositions belong to Nietzsche alone, and come from Book One: European Nihilism from The Will To Power, translated and edited by Walter Kaufmann in 1967. 2 Spirit refers to a persons will. Nietzsche does not posit the existence of souls. This word is not used in a religious sense.

More:

Nietzsches Analysis of Nihilism | The World Is On Fire

Therapeutic nihilism is a contention that curing people, or societies, of their ills by treatment is impossible.

In medicine, it was connected to the idea that many "cures" do more harm than good, and that one should instead encourage the body to heal itself. Michel de Montaigne espoused this view in his Essais in 1580. This position was later popular, among other places, in France in the 1820s and 1830s, but has mostly faded away in the modern era due to the development of provably effective medicines such as antibiotics, starting with the release of sulfonamide in 1936.

In relation to society, therapeutic nihilism was an idea, with origins in early 20th-century Germany, that nothing can be done to cure society of the problems facing it. Its main proponent was the novelist Joseph Conrad, whose writings reflect its tenets.

In politics, therapeutic nihilism is a defining principle of modern conservatism. The so-called "Father of Conservatism" Edmund Burke's imputation of "unintended consequences" the implicitly inevitable and undesirable results of political engineering, and Peter Viereck's assertion in "But I'm A Conservative!",[1] his also-definitive essay in the April 1940 issue of the Atlantic magazine, that socialists are nave to believe that society can be improved, are two prime examples of conservative arguments for therapeutic nihilism.

The phrase therapeutic nihilism is also included in a modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by physicians upon graduation. The statement is "I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

The rest is here:

Therapeutic nihilism - Wikipedia

The Nihilist movement was a Russian movement in the 1860s which rejected all authorities.[1] It is derived from the Latin nihil, meaning "nothing". After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence in order to bring about political change.

Russian nihilism (rus. "") can be dissected into two periods. The foundational period (1860-1869) where the 'counter-cultural' aspects of nihilism scandalized Russia, where even the smallest of indiscretions resulted in nihilists being sent to Siberia or imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, and where the philosophy of nihilism was formed.[2] The other period would be the revolutionary period of Nihilism (1870-1881) when the pamphlet The Catechism of a Revolutionist transformed the movement, which was waiting and only striking mild propaganda, into a movement-with-teeth and a will to wage war against the tsarist regime, with dozens of actions against the Russian state. The revolutionary period ends with the assassination of the Tsar Alexander II (March 13, 1881), by a series of bombs, and the consequential crushing of the nihilist movement.[3]

Mikhail Bakunin's (1814-1876) "Reaction in Germany" (1842) included a famous dictum, "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!"[4] This piece of literature anticipated and instigated the ideas of the nihilists. In Russia, Bakunin was considered a Westernizer because of his influences that spread the ideology of anarchism outside of his nation to the rest of Europe and Russia.[5] While he is inexorably linked to both the foundational and revolutionary periods of nihilism, Bakunin was a product of the earlier generation whose vision, ultimately, was not the same as the nihilist view. He stated this best as "I am a free man only so far as I recognize the humanity and liberty of all men around me. In respecting their humanity, I respect my own." This general humanitarian instinct is in contrast to the nihilist proclamations of having a "hate with a great and holy hatred" or calling for the "annihilation of aesthetics".[6]

Nikolay Chernyshevsky was the first to incorporate nihilism in the socialist agenda. The nihilist contribution to socialism in general was the concept that the peasant was an agent of social change (Chernyshevsky, A Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices Against the Obshchina (1858)),[7] and not just the bourgeois reformers of the revolutions of 1848, or the proletariat of Marx (a concept that wouldn't reach Russia until later). Agitation for this position landed Chernyshevsky in prison and exile in Siberia for the next 25 years (although the specific accusations with which he was convicted were a concoction) in 1864.[8] The first group inspired by nihilist ideas to form and work towards social change did so as a secret society, and were called Land and Liberty. This group's name was also taken by another, entirely separate group, during the Revolutionary Nihilist period, with the first Land and Freedom conspiring to support the Polish independence movement and to agitate the peasants who were burdened with debt as a result of the crippling redemption payments required by the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Polish independence was not of particular interest to the nihilists, and after a plot to incite Kazan peasants to revolt failed, Land and Freedom folded (1863).[9]

After the failure, the Russian government began to actively hunt nihilist revolutionaries, so the first secret nihilist societies were created. One of the first to act in secrecy was called The Organization, and they created a boys' school in a Moscow slum in order to train revolutionaries. In addition they had a secret sub-group called Hell whose purpose was political terrorism, with the assassination of the Tsar as their ultimate goal. This resulted in the failed attempt by Dmitry Karakozov on the 4th of April 1866. Dmitry was tried and hanged at Smolensk Field in St Petersburg. The leader of The Organization, Nicholas Ishutin, was also tried and was to be executed before being exiled to Siberia for life.[10] Thus ended The Organization and began the White Terror of the rest of the 1860s.

The White Terror began by the Tsar putting Count Michael Muravyov (otherwise known as 'Hanger Muravyov' due to his treatment of Polish rebels in prior years) in charge of the suppression of the nihilists. The two leading radical journals (The Contemporary and Russian Word) were banned, liberal reforms were minimized in fear of reaction from the public, and the educational system was reformed to stifle the existing revolutionary spirit.[11] This action by the Russian state marks the end of the foundational period of nihilism.

The entrance on the scene of Sergei Nechayev symbolizes the transformation from the foundational period to the revolutionary period. Sergei Nechaev, the son of a serf, which was unusual as most nihilists came from a slightly higher social class, what we would call lower middle class, desired an escalation of the discourse on social transformation. Nechaev argued that just as the European monarchies used the ideas of Machiavelli, and the Catholic Jesuits practiced absolute immorality to achieve their ends, there was no action that could not be also used for the sake of the people's revolution.[12] A scholar noted that "His apparent immorality [more an amorality] derived from the cold realization that both Church and State are ruthlessly immoral in their pursuit of total control. The struggle against such powers must therefore be carried out by any means necessary."[13] Nechaev's social cache was greatly increased by his association with Bakunin in 1869 and extraction of funds from the Bakhmetiev Fund for Russian revolutionary propaganda.

The image of Nechaev is as much a result of his Catechism of a Revolutionist (1869) as any actions he actually took. The Catechism is an important document as it establishes the clear break between the formation of nihilism as a political philosophy and what it becomes as a practice of revolutionary action. It documents the revolutionary as a much transformed figure from the nihilist of the past decade. Whereas the nihilist may have practiced asceticism, they argued for an uninhibited hedonism. Nechaev assessed that the Revolutionary, by definition, must live devoted to one aim and not allow to be distracted by emotions or attachments.[14] Friendship was contingent on revolutionary fervor, relationships with strangers were quantified in terms of what resources they offered revolution, and everyone had a role during the revolutionary moment that boiled down to how soon they would be lined up against the wall or when they would accept that they had to do the shooting. The uncompromising tone and content of the Catechism was influential far beyond just the mere character Nechaev personified in the minds of the revolutionaries.[15] Part of the reason for this is because of the way in which it extended nihilist principles into a revolutionary program. The rest of the reason was that the catechism gave the revolutionary project a form of constitution and weight that the men `of the sixties' did not.

Bakunin, an admirer of Nechayev's zeal and stories of his organization's success, provided contacts and resources to send Nechayev back to Russia as his representative of the Russian Section of the World Revolutionary Alliance, which was also an imaginary organization.[citation needed] Upon his return to Russia, Nechayev formed the secret, cell based organization, People's Vengeance.[citation needed] One student member of the organization Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov[citation needed] questioned the very existence of the Secret Revolutionary Committee that Nechayev claimed to be the representative of.[citation needed] This suspicion of Nechayev's modus operandi required action. Author Ronald Hingley, wrote "On the evening of 21 November 1869 the victim [Ivanov] was accordingly lured to the premises of the Moscow School of Agriculture, a hotbed of revolutionary sentiment, where Nechayev killed him by shooting and strangulation, assisted without great enthusiasm by three dupes Nechayev's accomplices were arrested and tried."[16] Upon his return from Russia to Switzerland, Nechayev was rejected by Bakunin, for his taking of militant actions, and was eventually extradited back to Russia where he spent the remainder of his life at the Peter and Paul Fortress.[17] He did, due to his charisma and force of will, continue to influence events, maintaining a relationship to People's Will and weaving even his jailers into his plots.[citation needed] He was found dead in his cell in 1882.[citation needed]

Original post:

Nihilist movement - Wikipedia

Nihilism holds that there is no meaning or value anywhere. Questions about purpose, ethics, and sacredness are unanswerable because they are meaningless. You might as well ask about the sleep habits of colorless green ideas as about the meaning of life.

Nihilism is a mirror image of eternalismthe stance that everything is meaningful. (For an introduction, see Preview: eternalism and nihilism.) However, the two stances are not simply opposites; they share fundamental metaphysical assumptions.

Eternalism and nihilism both fail to recognize that nebulosity and pattern are inseparable. Therefore they suppose that real meaning would be absolutely patterned: perfectly definite and certain, unchanging and objective. This is their shared metaphysical error.

Eternalism insists that meaning really is like that. That is its second metaphysical error. Nihilism observes, accurately, that no such meaning is possible. This corrects the second error. However, because nihilism shares the first error, it concludes that meaning is impossible, period. This is also wrong; nebulous meanings are real, for any reasonable definition of real.

Nihilism is attractive to those who have explicitly recognized, understood, and rejected eternalisms second error: belief in ultimate meaning. That is not easy. Nihilism is, therefore, the more intelligent stance. Or, at least, its a stance that tends to be adopted more often by more intelligent people. (Its even more dysfunctional than eternalism, so we could also call it less intelligent.)

While most people are committed, however waveringly, to eternalism, only a few commit to nihilism. In denying all meaning, nihilism is wildly implausible. Only a few sociopaths, intellectuals, and depressives try to maintain it.

Well see, though, that almost everyone adopts the nihilistic stance at times, without noticing. When the complete stance is unknown, nihilism seems like the only possible defense against the harmful lies of eternalism. (Just as eternalism seems like the only possible salvation from the harmful lies of nihilism.)

Even if you are relatively immune to nihilism, its important to understand as a prototype. Many other confused stances are modified or limited forms of nihilism. They reject particular types of meanings, rather than rejecting all meaningfulness. That makes their distortions, harms, and emotional dynamics similar to nihilisms.

The first page in this section discusses several obstacles you must overcome to even get to nihilism. The main one is the obviousness of meaning. Even before that, you have to let go of the hope that eternalism can somehow be made to work. There are also strong social and cultural taboos against nihilism. Finally, nihilism has nasty psychological side-effects that make you miserable.

The second page explains briefly what it would mean to accomplish nihilism: a state of total apathy. This would, theoretically, end suffering (which is one reason nihilism is attractive). Its probably impossible, although some religious systems seem to advocate it.

Most of my discussion of nihilism concerns its emotional dynamics. I begin with an analogy: eternalism is like one of those email scams that promises you millions of dollars in exchange for help getting money out of Nigeria. If you fall for that, catastrophic financial loss ensues.

Nihilism entails a similar catastrophic loss: the loss of meaning. The next page gives an overview of our psychological reactions to that loss: rage, intellectual argument, depression, and anxiety. Each gets its own, more detailed page.

In addition, I address the content of nihilistic intellectualization. This is a collection of reasons for rejecting obvious meanings as not really meaningful. They are supposedly the wrong kind of meaning; not ultimate, not objective, not eternal, not inherent, or not higher. So what? These arguments are bogus and nonsensical. They usually conceal a hidden motivation: the issue is not qualitative (the wrong kind of meaning) but quantitative (available meanings seem inadequately compelling). This is a psychological and practical problem, not a philosophical one, so psychological and practical methods may help.

The antidotes to nihilism are partly intellectual: realizing why its incorrect and harmful. Mainly, though, antidotes restore meaningfulness, by making it more powerful, more obvious, more compelling, more enjoyable.

Read the original:

Nihilism | Meaningness

Nihilism (frn latinets nihil; ingenting) r en filosofisk position som argumenterar fr att existensen r utan objektiv mening eller intrinsikalt vrde (egenvrde, inneboende vrde). Nihilister anser generellt att moral inte existerar, allts finns inga moraliska vrden med vilka man kan upprtthlla en regel eller logiskt fredra en handling framfr en annan. Nihilister som argumenterar fr att det inte finns ngon objektiv moral kan hvda att existensen inte har ngon intrinsikal (inneboende) hgre mening eller ml. De kan ocks hvda att det inte finns ngot rationellt bevis eller argument fr att en hgre makt eller skapare skulle existera, samt att om en hgre makt skulle existera s har mnskligheten nd ingen moralisk skyldighet att avguda den.

Termen nihilism anvnds ibland synonymt med anomi fr att beskriva en generell knsla av hopplshet och meningslshet i existensen.[1] Rrelser ssom futurism och dekonstruktion,[2] bland andra, har identifierats av kommentatorer som "nihilistiska" i olika tidsperioder med olika kontext. Ofta betyder detta att den som anklagar en annan vill f sina egna sikter att framst som mer substantiella eller sanningsenliga, medan motstndarpartens sikter framhvs som nihilistiska, drmed jmfrbara med "inget" (eller helt enkelt destruktivt amoralistiska).

Nihilism r ocks ett karaktrsdrag som har satts p olika tidsperioder, till exempel har Jean Baudrillard och andra kallat postmodernismen fr en nihilistisk epok,[3] och vissa kristna teologer och personer med religis auktoritet har hvdat att postmodernismen[4] och mnga aspekter av moderniteten[2] representerar frnsttandet av Gud, och drfr r nihilistiska.

Nihilism (ryska nigilizm) r ven en frldrad, godtyckligt vald beteckning fr de politiska ytterlighetsrrelserna i Ryssland, srskilt p 1860- och 1870-talen. I den ryska litteraturen anvndes ordet frsta gngen av kritikern Nikolaj Nadezjdin[5] i betydelsen skeptiskt frnekande, men fick sin egentliga ryktbarhet genom Bazarov, den mot all auktoritetstro och allt bestende hnsynslst opponerande studenten i Ivan Turgenjevs roman Fder och sner. P 1880-talet frsvann detta p konservativt litterrt hll brukade slagord ur den ryska litteraturen, men fanns lnge kvar i den europeiska pressen och folkuppfattningen som gemensam benmning p ryska revolutionra rrelser och den ryska anarkistiska emigrantlitteraturen i allmnhet.[6][7]

Uttrycket lr i sin moderna anvndning komma frn rysk litteratur och d i betydelsen "om Gud inte existerar s r allt tilltet" (ofta felaktigt tillskrivet Dostojevskijs roman "Brderna Karamazov", men egentligen hrstammar detta uttalande frn Jean-Paul Sartre). Den ryska bonderrelsens narodniker och attentatsmn kallades ocks fr nihilister, men d i en verfrd betydelse.

Den svenska frfattaren Anne Charlotte Leffler skrev 1879 tragedin Nihilisterna, men kom av oknd anledning aldrig att fullborda detta verk.[8]

Framstende filosofer som tagit upp mnet r bland andra Friedrich Nietzsche och Martin Heidegger. Nietzsche beskrev kristendomen som en nihilistisk religion eftersom den konstant undviker utmaningen att hitta en mening med jordelivet och som i stllet har skapat en andlig projektion (himmelriket) dr moral och lidande inte existerar. Han ansg att nihilism var resultatet av Guds dd. Heidegger beskrev nihilism som det tillstnd dr "det inte finns ngot existerande kvar".

Nihilismen finns som skolastisk term, som ftt sitt namn av att Petrus Lombardus framstllde satsen att Guds sons mnniskoblivande inte varit ett egentligt ingende i mnskligheten, utan bara ett antagande av mnsklig gestalt, och att han fljaktligen vid intrdet i mnskligheten intet blivit. sikten frkastades p flera synoder (1163 och 1179).

See the original post:

Nihilism Wikipedia