Monthly Archives: September 2021

Nihilism has many definitions, and thus can describe multiple arguably independent philosophical positions.

Metaphysical nihilism is thephilosophicaltheory that posits that concrete objects and physical constructs might not exist in thepossible world, or that even if there exist possible worlds that contain some concrete objects, there is at least one that contains onlyabstract objects.

Extreme metaphysical nihilism is commonly defined as the belief that nothing exists as a correspondent component of the self-efficient world.[6]The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines one form of nihilism as an extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.[7]A similar skepticism concerning the concrete world can be found insolipsism. However, despite the fact that both deny the certainty of objects true existence, the nihilist would deny the existence ofselfwhereas the solipsist would affirm it.[8]Both these positions are considered forms ofanti-realism.

Epistemological nihilism is a form ofskepticismin which all knowledge is accepted as being possibly untrue or as being impossible to confirm as true.

Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the position that objects with proper parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts), and only basic building blocks without parts exist, and thus the world we see and experience full of objects with parts is a product of human misperception (i.e., if we could see clearly, we would not perceive compositive objects).

This interpretation of existence must be based on resolution. The resolution with which humans see and perceive the improper parts of the world is not an objective fact of reality, but is rather an implicit trait that can only be qualitatively explored and expressed. Therefore, there is no arguable way to surmise or measure the validity of mereological nihilism. Example: An ant can get lost on a large cylindrical object because the circumference of the object is so large with respect to the ant that the ant effectively feels as though the object has no curvature. Thus, the resolution with which the ant views the world it exists within is a very important determining factor in how the ant experiences this within the world feeling.

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. The meaninglessness or meaning of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism.

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is themeta-ethicalview that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.

Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human construction and thus artificial, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, or bad independently from our moral beliefs, because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy. What is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are void of any truth value. An alternative scholarly perspective is that moral nihilism is a morality in itself. Cooper writes, In the widest sense of the word morality, moral nihilism is a morality.[9]

Political nihilism follows the characteristic nihilists rejection of non-rationalized or non-proven assertions; in this case the necessity of the most fundamental social and political structures, such asgovernment,family, andlaw. An influential analysis of political nihilism is presented byLeo Strauss.[10]

The Russian Nihilist movement was a Russian trend in the 1860s that rejected all authority.[11]After the assassination of TsarAlexander IIin 1881, the Nihilists gained a reputation throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence for political change.The Nihilists expressed anger at what they described as the abusive nature of theEastern Orthodox Churchand of the tsarist monarchy, and at the domination of the Russian economy by the aristocracy. Although the termNihilismwas coined by the German theologianFriedrich Heinrich Jacobi(17431818), its widespread usage began with the 1862 novelFathers and Sons by the Russian author Ivan Turgenev. The main character of the novel, Yevgeny Bazarov, who describes himself as a Nihilist, wants to educate the people. The go to the people be the people campaign reached its height in the 1870s, during which underground groups such as the Circle of Tchaikovsky, the Peoples Will, and Land and Liberty formed. It became known as the Narodnik movement, whose members believed that the newly freed serfs were merely being sold into wage slavery in the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and that the middle and upper classes had effectively replaced landowners. The Russian state attempted to suppress the nihilist movement. In actions described by the Nihilists as propaganda of the deed many government officials were assassinated. In 1881 Alexander II was killed on the very day he had approved a proposal to call a representative assembly to consider new reforms.

Medical nihilism is the view that we should have little confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions.[12]Jacob Stegenga proposed the term in the bookMedical Nihilism. It is a work inphilosophy of sciencethat deals with contextualizeddemarcationof medical research. Stegenga appliesBayes Theoremto medical research then argues for the premise that even when presented with evidence for a hypothesis regarding the effectiveness of a medical intervention , we ought to have low confidence in that hypothesis.[13][14]

The concept of nihilism was discussed by the Buddha (563 B.C. to 483 B.C.), as recorded in the Theravada and MahayanaTripiaka.[15]The Tripiaka, originally written in Pali, refers to nihilism as natthikavda and the nihilist view as micchdihi.[16][17]Various sutras within it describe a multiplicity of views held by different sects of ascetics while the Buddha was alive, some of which were viewed by him to be morally nihilistic. In the Doctrine of Nihilism in the Apannaka Sutta, the Buddha describes moral nihilists as holding the following views:[18][19]

The Buddha then states that those who hold these views will not see the danger in misconduct and the blessings in good conduct and will, therefore, avoid good bodily, verbal and mental conduct; practicing misconduct instead.[18]

The culmination of the path that the Buddha taught was Nirvana, a place of nothingness nonpossession and non-attachment [which is] the total end of death and decay.[20]In an article Ajahn Amaro, a practicing Buddhist monk of more than 30 years, observes that in English nothingness can sound like nihilism. However the word could be emphasised in a different way, so that it becomes no-thingness, indicating that Nirvana is not a thing you can find, but rather a state where you experience the reality of non-grasping.[20]

In the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha describes how some individuals feared his teaching because they believe that their self would be destroyed if they followed it. He describes this as an anxiety caused by the false belief in an unchanging, everlasting self. All things are subject to change and taking any impermanent phenomena to be a self causes suffering. Nonetheless, his critics called him a nihilist who teaches the annihilation and extermination of an existing being. The Buddhas response was that he only teaches the cessation of suffering. When an individual has given up craving and the conceit of I am their mind is liberated, they no longer come into any state of being and are no longer born again.[21]

The Aggivacchagotta Sutta records a conversation between the Buddha and an individual named Vaccha that further elaborates on this. In it Vaccha asks the Buddha to confirm one of the following, with respect to the existence of the Buddha after death:[22]

To all four questions, the Buddha answers that the terms appear, not appear, does and does not reappear and neither does nor does not reappear do not apply. When Vaccha expresses puzzlement, the Buddha asks Vaccha a counter question to the effect of: if a fire were to go out and someone were to ask you whether the fire went north, south east or west how would you reply? Vaccha replies that the question does not apply and that a fire gone out can only be classified as out.[22]

Thanissaro Bikkhu elaborates on the classification problem around the words reappear etc. with respect to the Buddha and Nirvana by stating that a person who has attained the goal [Nirvana] is thus indescribable because [they have] abandoned all things by which [they] could be described.[23]The Suttas themselves describe the liberated mind as untraceable or as consciousness without feature, making no distinction between the mind of a liberated being that is alive and the mind of one that is no longer alive.[21][24]

Despite the Buddhas explanations to the contrary, Buddhist practitioners may, at times, still approach Buddhism in a nihilistic manner. Ajahn Amaro illustrates this by retelling the story of a Buddhist monk, Ajahn Sumedho, who in his early years took a nihilistic approach to Nirvana. A distinct feature of Nirvana in Buddhism is that an individual attaining it is no longer subject to rebirth. Ajahn Sumedho, during a conversation with his teacher Ajahn Chah comments that he is determined above all things to fully realize Nirvna in this lifetime deeply weary of the human condition and [is] determined not to be born again. To this Ajahn Chah replies what about the rest of us, Sumedho? Dont you care about those wholl be left behind?. Ajahn Amaro comments that Ajahn Chah could detect that his student had a nihilistic aversion to life rather than true detachment. With his response, Ajahn Chah chided Ajahn Sumedho about the latters narrowness and opened his eyes to this attitude of self centred nihilism.[25]

The novelist Ivan S. Turgenev made the term nihilism popular.

The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (17431819). Jacobi used the term to characterize rationalism[26] and in particular Immanuel Kants critical philosophy to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilismand thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation. Bret W. Davis writes, for example, The first philosophical development of the idea of nihilism is generally ascribed to Friedrich Jacobi, who in a famous letter criticized Fichtes idealism as falling into nihilism. According to Jacobi, Fichtes absolutization of the ego (the absolute I that posits the not-I) is an inflation of subjectivity that denies the absolute transcendence of God.[27]A related but oppositional concept isfideism, which sees reason as hostile and inferior to faith.

With the popularizing of the wordnihilismbyIvan Turgenev, a new Russian political movement called theNihilist movementadopted the term. They supposedly called themselves nihilists because nothing that then existed found favor in their eyes.[28]This movement was significant enough that, even in the English speaking world, at the turn of the 20th century the word nihilism without qualification was almost exclusively associated with this Russian revolutionary sociopolitical movement.[29]

unfinished sketchc.1840 ofSren Kierkegaardby his cousinNiels Christian Kierkegaard

Levelling at its maximum is like the stillness of death, where one can hear ones own heartbeat, a stillness like death, into which nothing can penetrate, in which everything sinks, powerless. One person can head a rebellion, but one person cannot head this levelling process, for that would make him a leader and he would avoid being levelled. Each individual can in his little circle participate in this levelling, but it is an abstract process, and levelling is abstraction conquering individuality.

Kierkegaard, an advocate of aphilosophy of life, generally argued against levelling and its nihilistic consequences, although he believed it would be genuinely educative to live in the age of levelling [because] people will be forced to face the judgement of [levelling] alone.[31]George Cotkin asserts Kierkegaard was against the standardization and levelling of belief, both spiritual and political, in the nineteenth century, and that Kierkegaard opposed tendencies inmass cultureto reduce the individual to a cipher of conformity and deference to the dominant opinion.[32]In his day,tabloids(like the Danish magazineCorsaren) and apostate Christianity were instruments of levelling and contributed to the reflective apathetic age of 19th century Europe.[33]Kierkegaard argues that individuals who can overcome the levelling process are stronger for it, and that it represents a step in the right direction towards becoming a true self.[31][34]As we must overcome levelling,[35]Hubert Dreyfusand Jane Rubin argue that Kierkegaards interest, in an increasingly nihilistic age, is inhowwe can recover the sense that our lives are meaningful.[36]

Note, however, that Kierkegaards meaning of nihilism differs from the modern definition, in the sense that, for Kierkegaard, levelling led to a life lacking meaning, purpose or value,[33]whereas the modern interpretation of nihilism posits that there was never any meaning, purpose or value to begin with.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who provided a detailed diagnosis of nihilism as a widespread phenomenon of Western culture. Though the notion appears frequently throughout Nietzsches work, he uses the term in a variety of ways, with different meanings and connotations. Karen L. Carr describes Nietzsches characterization of nihilism as a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate.[37]When we find out that the world does not possess the objective value or meaning that we want it to have or have long since believed it to have, we find ourselves in a crisis.[38]Nietzsche asserts that with the decline of Christianity and the rise of physiological decadence,nihilism is in fact characteristic of the modern age,[39]though he implies that the rise of nihilism is still incomplete and that it has yet to be overcome.[40]Though the problem of nihilism becomes especially explicit in Nietzschesnotebooks(published posthumously), it is mentioned repeatedly in his published works and is closely connected to many of the problems mentioned there.

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. This observation stems in part from Nietzschesperspectivism, or his notion that knowledge is always by someone of some thing: it is always bound by perspective, and it is never mere fact.[41]Rather, there are interpretations through which we understand the world and give it meaning. Interpreting is something we can not go without; in fact, it is something weneed. One way of interpreting the world is through morality, as one of the fundamental ways that people make sense of the world, especially in regard to their own thoughts and actions. Nietzsche distinguishes a morality that is strong or healthy, meaning that the person in question is aware that he constructs it himself, from weak morality, where the interpretation is projected on to something external.

Nietzsche discusses Christianity, one of the major topics in his work, at length in the context of the problem of nihilism in his notebooks, in a chapter entitled European Nihilism.[42]Here he states that the Christian moral doctrine provides people withintrinsic value, belief in God (whichjustifiesthe evil in the world) and a basis forobjective knowledge. In this sense, in constructing a world where objective knowledge is possible, Christianity is an antidote against a primal form of nihilism, against the despair of meaninglessness. However, it is exactly the element of truthfulness in Christian doctrine that is its undoing: in its drive towards truth, Christianity eventually finds itself to be a construct, which leads to its own dissolution. It is therefore that Nietzsche states that we have outgrown Christianity not because we lived too far from it, rather because we lived too close.[43] As such, the self-dissolution of Christianity constitutes yet another form of nihilism. Because Christianity was an interpretation that posited itself as the interpretation, Nietzsche states that this dissolution leads beyond skepticism to a distrust ofallmeaning.[44][45]

Stanley Rosenidentifies Nietzsches concept of nihilism with a situation of meaninglessness, in which everything is permitted. According to him, the loss of higher metaphysical values that exist in contrast to the base reality of the world, or merely human ideas, gives rise to the idea that all human ideas are therefore valueless. Rejecting idealism thus results in nihilism, because only similarly transcendent ideals live up to the previous standards that the nihilist still implicitly holds.[46] The inability for Christianity to serve as a source of valuating the world is reflected in Nietzsches famous aphorism of the madman inThe Gay Science.[47]The death of God, in particular the statement that we killed him, is similar to theself-dissolution of Christian doctrine: due to the advances of the sciences, which for Nietzsche show that man is the product ofevolution, that Earth has nospecial placeamong the stars and thathistoryis notprogressive, the Christian notion of God can no longer serve as a basis for a morality.

One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche callspassive nihilism, which he recognises in thepessimisticphilosophy ofSchopenhauer. Schopenhauers doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to asWestern Buddhism, advocates separating oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterises thisasceticattitude as a will tonothingness, whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent:[48]

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it oughtnotto be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of in vain is the nihilists pathos at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

Friedrich Nietzsche, KSA 12:9 [60], taken fromThe Will to Power,section 585, translated byWalter Kaufmann

Nietzsches relation to the problem of nihilism is a complex one. He approaches the problem of nihilism as deeply personal, stating that this predicament of the modern world is a problem that has become conscious in him.[49]According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism isovercomethat a culture can have a true foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.[39]

He states that there is at least the possibility of another type of nihilist in the wake of Christianitys self-dissolution, one that doesnotstop after the destruction of all value and meaning and succumb to the following nothingness. This alternate, active nihilism on the other hand destroys to level the field for constructing something new. This form of nihilism is characterized by Nietzsche as a sign of strength,[50]a willful destruction of the old values to wipe the slate clean and lay down ones own beliefs and interpretations, contrary to the passive nihilism that resigns itself with the decomposition of the old values. This willful destruction of values and the overcoming of the condition of nihilism by the constructing of new meaning, this active nihilism, could be related to what Nietzsche elsewhere calls a free spirit[51]or thebermenschfromThus Spoke ZarathustraandThe Antichrist, the model of the strong individual who posits his own values and lives his life as if it were his own work of art. It may be questioned, though, whether active nihilism is indeed the correct term for this stance, and some question whether Nietzsche takes the problems nihilism poses seriously enough.[52]

Martin Heideggers interpretation of Nietzsche influenced many postmodern thinkers who investigated the problem of nihilism as put forward by Nietzsche. Only recently has Heideggers influence on Nietzschean nihilism research faded.[53]As early as the 1930s, Heidegger was giving lectures on Nietzsches thought.[54]Given the importance of Nietzsches contribution to the topic of nihilism, Heideggers influential interpretation of Nietzsche is important for the historical development of the termnihilism.

Heideggers method of researching and teaching Nietzsche is explicitly his own. He does not specifically try to present NietzscheasNietzsche. He rather tries to incorporate Nietzsches thoughts into his own philosophical system ofBeing, Time andDasein.[55]In hisNihilism as Determined by the History of Being(194446),[56]Heidegger tries to understand Nietzsches nihilism as trying to achieve a victory through the devaluation of the, until then, highest values. The principle of this devaluation is, according to Heidegger, theWill to Power. The Will to Power is also the principle of every earliervaluationof values.[57]How does this devaluation occur and why is this nihilistic? One of Heideggers main critiques on philosophy is that philosophy, and more specifically metaphysics, has forgotten to discriminate between investigating the notion ofabeing (Seiende) andBeing(Sein). According to Heidegger, the history of Western thought can be seen as the history of metaphysics. And because metaphysics has forgotten to ask about the notion of Being (what Heidegger callsSeinsvergessenheit), it is a history about the destruction of Being. That is why Heidegger calls metaphysics nihilistic.[58]This makes Nietzsches metaphysics not a victory over nihilism, but a perfection of it.[59]

Heidegger, in his interpretation of Nietzsche, has been inspired byErnst Jnger. Many references to Jnger can be found in Heideggers lectures on Nietzsche. For example, in a letter to the rector of Freiburg University of November 4, 1945, Heidegger, inspired by Jnger, tries to explain the notion of God is dead as the reality of the Will to Power. Heidegger also praises Jnger for defending Nietzsche against a too biological or anthropological reading during theNazi era.[60]

Heideggers interpretation of Nietzsche influenced a number of important postmodernist thinkers.Gianni Vattimopoints at a back-and-forth movement in European thought, between Nietzsche and Heidegger. During the 1960s, a Nietzschean renaissance began, culminating in the work ofMazzino MontinariandGiorgio Colli. They began work on a new and complete edition of Nietzsches collected works, making Nietzsche more accessible for scholarly research. Vattimo explains that with this new edition of Colli and Montinari, a critical reception of Heideggers interpretation of Nietzsche began to take shape. Like other contemporary French and Italian philosophers, Vattimo does not want, or only partially wants, to rely on Heidegger for understanding Nietzsche. On the other hand, Vattimo judges Heideggers intentions authentic enough to keep pursuing them.[61]Philosophers who Vattimo exemplifies as a part of this back and forth movement are French philosophersDeleuze,FoucaultandDerrida. Italian philosophers of this same movement areCacciari,Severinoand himself.[62]Jrgen Habermas,Jean-Franois LyotardandRichard Rortyare also philosophers who are influenced by Heideggers interpretation of Nietzsche.[63]

Gilles Deleuzes interpretation of Nietzsches concept of nihilism is different in some sense diametrically opposed to the usual definition (as outlined in the rest of this article). Nihilism is one of the main topics of Deleuzes early bookNietzsche and Philosophy(1962).[64]There, Deleuze repeatedly interprets Nietzsches nihilism as the enterprise of denying life and depreciating existence.[65]Nihilism thus defined is therefore not the denial of higher values, or the denial of meaning, but rather the depreciation of life in the name of such higher values or meaning. Deleuze therefore (with, he claims, Nietzsche) says that Christianity and Platonism, and with them the whole of metaphysics, are intrinsically nihilist.

Postmodernandpoststructuralistthought has questioned the very grounds on whichWestern cultureshave based their truths: absolute knowledge and meaning, a decentralization of authorship, the accumulation of positive knowledge, historical progress, and certain ideals and practices ofhumanismandthe Enlightenment.

Jacques Derrida, whosedeconstructionis perhaps most commonly labeled nihilistic, did not himself make the nihilistic move that others have claimed. Derridean deconstructionists argue that this approach rather frees texts, individuals or organizations from a restrictive truth, and that deconstruction opens up the possibility of other ways of being.[66]Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, for example, uses deconstruction to create an ethics of opening up Western scholarship to the voice of thesubalternand to philosophies outside of the canon of western texts.[67]Derrida himself built a philosophy based upon a responsibility to the other.[68]Deconstruction can thus be seen not as a denial of truth, but as a denial of our ability to know truth. That is to say, it makes anepistemologicalclaim, compared to nihilismsontologicalclaim.

Lyotardargues that, rather than relying on anobjectivetruth or method to prove their claims, philosophers legitimize their truths by reference to a story about the world that cant be separated from the age and system the stories belong toreferred to by Lyotard asmeta-narratives.He then goes on to define thepostmodern conditionas characterized by a rejection both of these meta-narratives and of the process oflegitimationby meta-narratives.

In lieu of meta-narratives we have created newlanguage-gamesin order to legitimize our claims which rely on changing relationships and mutable truths, none of which is privileged over the other to speak to ultimate truth.

This concept of the instability of truth and meaning leads in the direction of nihilism, though Lyotard stops short of embracing the latter.

Postmodern theoristJean Baudrillardwrote briefly of nihilism from the postmodern viewpoint inSimulacra and Simulation. He stuck mainly to topics of interpretations of the real world over the simulations of which the real world is composed. The uses of meaning were an important subject in Baudrillards discussion of nihilism:

Theapocalypseis finished, today it is the precession of the neutral, of forms of the neutral and of indifferenceall that remains, is the fascination for desertlike and indifferent forms, for the very operation of the system that annihilates us. Now, fascination (in contrast to seduction, which was attached to appearances, and to dialectical reason, which was attached to meaning) is a nihilistic passion par excellence, it is the passion proper to the mode of disappearance. We are fascinated by all forms of disappearance, of our disappearance. Melancholic and fascinated, such is our general situation in an era of involuntary transparency.

Jean Baudrillard,Simulacra and Simulation, On Nihilism, trans. 1995

InNihil Unbound: Extinction and Enlightenment,Ray Brassiermaintains that philosophy has avoided the traumatic idea ofextinction, instead attempting to find meaning in a world conditioned by the very idea of its own annihilation. Thus Brassier critiques both the phenomenological and hermeneutic strands of Continental philosophy as well as the vitality of thinkers likeGilles Deleuze, who work to ingrain meaning in the world and stave off the threat of nihilism. Instead, drawing on thinkers such asAlain Badiou,Franois Laruelle,Paul Churchland, andThomas Metzinger, Brassier defends a view of the world as inherently devoid of meaning. That is, rather than avoiding nihilism, Brassier embraces it as the truth of reality. Brassier concludes from his readings of Badiou and Laruelle that the universe is founded on the nothing,[69]but also that philosophy is the organon of extinction, that it is only because life is conditioned by its own extinction that there is thought at all.[70] Brassier then defends a radically anti-correlationist philosophy proposing that Thought is conjoined not with Being, but with Non-Being.

The rest is here:

Nihilism - The Spiritual Life

The idea that meaning and values are without foundation is a form of nihilism, and the existential response to that idea is noting that meaning is not 'a matter of contemplative theory,' but instead, 'a consequence of engagement and commitment.'

In his essay Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote "What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself." Here it is made clear what is meant by Existentialists when they say meaning is "a consequence of engagement and commitment".

The theory purports to describe the human situation to create a life outlook and create meaning, which has been summarized as, "Strut, fret, and delude ourselves as we may, our lives are of no significance, and it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found."[3] Existential nihilists claim that, to be honest, one must face the absurdity of existence, that they will eventually die, and that both religion and metaphysics are simply results of the fear of death.[2]

According to Donald A. Crosby, "There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situations".[3]

Existential nihilism has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition since the Cyrenaics, such as Hegesias of Cyrene.[citation needed] During the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarised the existential nihilist's perspective through Macbeth's mindset in the end of the eponymous play.[4] Arthur Schopenhauer, Sren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche further expanded on these ideas, and Nietzsche, particularly, has become a major figure in existential nihilism.

The atheistic existentialist movement spread in 1940s France. Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness and Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus discussed the topic.[5] Camus wrote further works, such as The Stranger, Caligula, The Plague, The Fall and The Rebel.[6] Other figures include Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. In addition, Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning life's work The Denial of Death is a collection of thoughts on existential nihilism.

The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism.

Continued here:

Existential nihilism - Wikipedia

An exclusive excerpt on the wonders of a meaningless life from Wendy Syfrets book,The Sunny Nihilist.

The search for meaning, in theory, is a noble pursuit. One that asks us to interrogate our choices, the treatment of others, what we value and prize, what we condemn and dismiss. Many people seek meaning through the service of others, the creation of art, the protection of nature. Most religions preach humility, poverty, taking responsibility for your fellow human. But glancing around, how often do we truly see those values in practice?

If were truly honest, more commonly the pursuit of meaning is selfish. Its an opportunity to obsess over ourselves, to reroute the whole world directly to us and become the absolute centre of the universe.

A belief in our own specialness allows us to welcome a reality where our needs and feelings are the supreme priority. Where agonising over your appearance, purpose, moods, sleep patterns and diet isnt obnoxious or self-obsessed. Instead, all this anointing and fawning over our minds, bodies, lives and habits is elevated to a near-religious act.

Youd hope that all this self-obsession would at least result in a level of pleasure. But the kicker is that the search for meaning through the endless examination and worship of ourselves is only making us feel worse.

As Richard Layard observes in Can We Be Happier?, the result of all this interminable self-care isnt self- satisfaction. He notes, We have told our young people that their chief duty is to themselves to get on. What a terrible responsibility. No wonder that anxiety and depression are rising among the young. Instead, people need to get out of themselves to escape the misery of self-absorption.

Which brings us to one of the central challenges to any sunny nihilist. To ask: what if Im not special? To gaze at a world carefully engineered by advertising, technology, religion, love, jobs and our parents to make us feel central and unique, and admit we are, just like everything else, meaningless.

After a lifetime spent in a strange diorama of self-obsession, youd think that facing your own pointlessness would be an existentially traumatising process. But it doesnt have to be. Ironically, in a reality constructed to make us feel significant, but which more often leaves us anxious and miserable, this reminder of our own insignificance offers a strange sense of peace.

Admitting that in the reach of all time our presence is meaningless eases fixations on legacy, ego and purpose. Allowing us to shift focus from one day to the immediate moment, and take pleasure in the random existence we were wildly lucky to be gifted at all. But beyond offering a mindful break, or a check-in with our chronic self-obsession, this reduction of self leads to other deliberations. Namely, what do you do with the part of your brain that was formerly so singularly occupied with yourself?

Unfortunately the belief that nothing matters doesnt free you from the need to participate in the exchanges of time, money and energy that make a society a society and not just a scramble of philosophers walking around wondering who is going to make lunch.

So when pondering how to spend said time, money and energy, sunny nihilism leads you to ask: if I dont matter, and am therefore not the centre of everything and the priority, then what is? If I will be forgotten and lost to time, what will be remembered, at least for a little while?

The American poet Walt Whitman asked something similar in his 1882 collection Specimen Days & Collect, written during, and in the aftermath of, the Civil War. He posed the question: After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, love, and so on have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear what remains?

For Whitman, the answer was nature. He recognised it as something so much larger than himself that deserved the love and attention he might otherwise pour into more insular pursuits.

For each person, the answer is different. Personally, Im with Whitman. Like many people of my generation, accepting the futility of my small life led me to deepen my commitment to environmentalism. Understanding that the only constant (at least until its absorbed by the sun in a few billion years) is the Earth itself, its protection becomes more important than any singular interests of mine.

Id encourage you to try the exercise for yourself. If you accept that you dont matter, your name, ego, reputation, family, friends and loves will soon be gone, how does the way you understand your own time, money and energy change? Maybe the process reframes your attention to things you hope will last for a little longer than yourself: nature, art, culture, institutions and causes you believe will benefit generations whove long forgotten your name. Or perhaps the question draws you back to that present moment: the small pleasures you can access today, the people you love, their right to feel safe, respected, well, heard.

This is an edited extract from The Sunny Nihilist by Wendy Syfret (Profile Books) RRP $34.99

You can buy your copy of The Sunny Nihilist here and learn more about Wendy here.

Read more here:

An extract from Wendy Syfret's book, The Sunny Nihilist - Fashion Journal

This is Part II in our series The Longest War.

The U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is officially over.

But for the more than 800,000 men and women who served there not a day goes by that they dont think about it.

Some feel a measure of success:

"The genie is out of the bottle in Afghanistan, the Taliban may try to turn back the clock, but they can't," Bajun Mavalwallasays. "We have moved that country forward and it's irreversible. I'm actually slightly optimistic for the long haul."

Others feel no optimism at all:

"It felt awful to be involved in a conflict that was pointless because every every bad thing that happens didn't have to," Laura Jedeed says. "The feeling that it was for nothing ... there's a nihilism to it. ... It rots the soul."

In the second installment of our series 'The Longest War,' veterans talk about how U.S. soldiers may have left Afghanistan, but the war has not left them.

Bajun Mavalwalla, retired intelligence officer with the California National Guard. He served with the Armys 19th Special Forces Group from 2002-2003. He now runs a small defense training and security company with his son, but theyve put their business on hold and are working to help Afghans leave their country. (@BajunMavalwalla)

Baji Mavalwalla, former sergeant with the California National Guard as an electronic warfare voice intercept operator. He deployed to Afghanistan from March 2012 until December 2012.

Laura Jedeed, former sergeant with the Armys 82nd Airborne, she served as an intelligence analyst. She deployed to Afghanistan twice for three months in 2008 and a year in 2010. (@LauraJedeed)

Tim Kudo, former marine captain with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2009 and 2011. (@KudoTim)

There's the me before war and the me after war, and they exist simultaneously. And yet they have very little to do with each other. And so part of me tries to live in one version of myself most of the time, the current version, the person that has gone on to graduate school, and used the GI Bill and has a relatively kind of normal life. And the part of me that existed at war and before war.

I return to those moments before the war when I was a different person, and I kind of mourned whoever that was.

We lost five Marines when we were over there with my company. And there were missions that I sent them on often, and I think about could we have done things differently? You know, did we need to go into the wadi in the middle of the valley to set up an outpost that was only later to be taken over by the Taliban? Did we need to go on a patrol a particular day where we ended up getting in a firefight, where we ended up killing two Afghan civilians by accident?

We got in a firefight and there were these two men who came up over a hill on the high ground on a motorcycle. And as we were getting shot at and trying to figure out who was shooting at us and, you know, shooting back. And they just kind of stopped there right above us. Great position if they wanted to start shooting at us. And so we wave at them to go away, yell at them. And they just come closer. And so even then, the Marines didn't fire. They still were very disciplined about it. And they were just disciplined to the end.

But ultimately, one of them saw what looked like a muzzle flash. And so the Marines opened up fire. The people on the motorcycle immediately fell over dead. We rushed to the two men on the motorcycle, and they are dead. They were trying to get home. The home was a building that we were kind of crouched in front of.

And at that moment, the family of these two men who had seen all this happen in front of them comes rushing out of the building.

The women are screaming, the men are screaming, crying. And they surround us to get the bodies, to just take the bodies, to be buried. They were just two kids, basically. Maybe one was about 16 years old, the other a little bit older. And they're just trying to get home. And you kind of realize in that momentthose two dead young men ultimately lost that battle for us. Not just the battle of the firefight, but the battle for that village.

Because how can you kill two people that are everyone's cousins, uncles and nephews and expect them to support you in any way?

I made a decision. People are dead because of that. I could have made a different decision, and I'm responsible for that. And I have no right to forgive myself, because I'm not the person who was wronged. They were. The family could forgive me all they want, but the only people who can truly forgive me are dead. And so that can never happen. And that will always be something that I have to live with.

It's very difficult to recognize that the most important thing that I've done in my life, those seven months that I spent there, was ultimately a failure.

And so I go back to that regularly to wonder, is there something I could have done differently? Should I have done something differently? I think that for many veterans, there is a desire for either understanding, or acceptance or validation from civilians who simply are unable to give it. Because they don't understand that experience that you've been through.

And the paradox of it ultimately is that the reason that you went over there to fight and undergo those experiences is so the people back home could retain that innocence. And so part of the challenge is coming to grips with that. That that is inherently what the sacrifice is. ... That you will never be understood by these people who live innocent lives because of the things that you've done at war.

I'm not hopeful, I think at this point, that we will be able to prevent the next war. But I think about what we can tell ... the next generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, the Marines who are thinking about joining right now, to help them come to understand what it means to go to war.

And what it means to join as one person, serve and come back as a completely different person.

And I think a lot of those kids, they hope that when they come back, they're just going to restart their lives just like they left them. And the reality is that when you join the military, if there is a war and you go and fight in it, that will kill that person that joined.

Laura Jedeed's Medium: "Afghanistan Meant Nothing" "By the time you read this, the Taliban may already be in Kabul. If not now, then soon. Nixon wanted and got his decent interval between the United States pullout of Vietnam and the inevitable North Vietnamese takeover."

Washington Post: "I killed people in Afghanistan. Was I right or wrong?" "When I joined the Marine Corps, I knew I would kill people. I was trained to do it in a number of ways, from pulling a trigger to ordering a bomb strike to beating someone to death with a rock. As I got closer to deploying to war in 2009, my lethal abilities were refined, but my ethical understanding of killing was not."

Read more:

The Longest War: Veterans Reflect On 20 Years Of Conflict In Afghanistan - WBUR

Christopher Lloyd as Rick (left) and Jaeden Martell (right) as Morty.

Eight years after their animated 2013 debut, Rick and Morty have finally emerged into the live action world for 14 seconds, as can be seen by following this link.

None other than Christopher Lloyd appears as Rick, a riff on the shows original 2006 Justin Roiland debut, The Real Animated Adventures of Doc and Mharti. What has evolved as a captivating yet crude exploration of family, free will, absurdist nihilism, and bleak existentialism, began as a vulgar protest.

In a hilarious response to cease and desist letters for his House of Cosbys series, Roiland created a bawdy Back to the Future parody. Three other shorts were later created, the first to promote the comic Scud: The Disposable Assassin, the second to promote creative freedom for Dan Harmon and Rob Schraubs Channel 101, and the last as a satiric Gatorade ad.

Related Guides

Though the show has strayed far from its roots over the last eight years, subtle references remain scattered throughout. In Big Trouble In Little Sanchez, a Tiny Rick drawing of his adult self screaming for help resembles Doc Smith. And in season fives opener, Mort Dinner Rick Andre, a scene from the short flashes on a crystal in the cold opening.

Titled C-132, the Tweeted teaser video is simple. Beginning with Rick and Morty theme music in a sparse garage, a green portal appears and brown pants and black loafers materialize. Panning up, the man who played Doc Brown (Lloyd) arrives as Rick in all his burping glory.

Jaeden Martells casting as the yellow-shirted, anxious Morty is equally on point. Martells most recognizable role to date, as a prepubescent boy battling an actual demon in It, parallels his fate as Morty.

Eagle-eyed fans will notice that the C-132 reality designation included in Adult Swims tweet is a reference not to the main C-137 Rick and Morty, but rather to characters from the first two volumes of Oni Press Rick and Morty comic. The Rick and Morty of the C-132 are generally similar to their C-137 counterparts save for certain details like Morty C-132 not having a son and Rick C-132s lack of faith in time travel.

Given Rick and Mortys penchant for dimension-hopping stories, its not hard to envision Adult Swim playing around with the idea of a C-132 universe in a live-action special or series of shorts. Considering already long production times for the main show, however, chances are probably slim.

Well keep an eye out, but for now, this will remain a fun, one-off teaser celebrating Adult Swims 20th anniversary and the Rick and Morty Sept. 5 season finale.

Read More: DeLoreans Legendary DMC-12 Will Rise From the Ashes

The rest is here:

Rick and Morty Goes Live (and Meta) with Christopher Lloyd and Jaeden Martell - The Manual

A short two weeks ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. This is a monumental scientific achievement, from development to approval and mass vaccination in less than two years. It is further important, as the Delta variant surges across the United States and the world, that more people get vaccinated. Fortunately, people can take comfort in knowing that at least one vaccine has gone through the gauntlet of experimentation and study to reach full FDA approval. Despite this incredible advancement, misinformation and denialism are to an extent where incentives like gun giveaways, as is the case in West Virginia, just wont cut it.

COVID-19 vaccine skepticism is prominent across the United States increasingly an outlier on the world stage according to Morning Consult polling (6). Despite the enormous amount of evidence of vaccine effectiveness and unanimous agreement between national health institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and institutions beyond the United States like the United Kingdoms National Health Service (NHS) and global World Health Organization (WHO), many people still refuse to get the vaccine. Survey data gathered by Axios show that those who refuse vaccination also tend to hold numerous incorrect beliefs about COVID-19. Polling data from The Economist and YouGov show a whopping 17 percent of the 1500 adults polled either definitely or somewhat believe that vaccines cause autism, and 20 percent believe the U.S. government is using the COVID-19 vaccines to microchip the population both completely debunked conspiracy theories.

Now, this is a lot of doom and gloom, but dont let that plunge you into nihilism. Vaccination, masks, social distancing and other safety measures can easily help protect you and your community. Remember: those most opposed to mitigation efforts, the most rambunctious anti-vaxxers, represent a minority of the country. The reality is a majority of Americans support policies such as mask mandates in schools and vaccine requirements for public venues, restaurants or workplaces.

There are some people who arent in favor of these mitigation measures but still vaguely believe one should get vaccinated and be responsible. These people tend to give arguments like, I got vaccinated, but its my personal choice if I want to or not. Its not the governments job to influence me. This is often invoked to argue against mask or vaccine mandates. As someone who strongly believes in protecting and expanding civil liberties and rights, I take these concerns seriously, but I think they are misguided. Allow me to make my case.

You and I both want personal freedom. And it is your choice to not wear a mask or get vaccinated, but your choice has effects on everyone around you. Imagine if I said its my choice to drive drunk, so laws preventing me are unjust because of my personal freedom to drive while intoxicated. I think all of us would rationally respond with the idea that my choice, in that case, puts others at risk without giving them any say in my decision to drive irresponsibly. Further, my choice would force everyone else to drive more carefully and be in constant fear that the next driver they see will crash into them. The drunk drivers personal freedom defense really doesnt stand up to scrutiny when we look at how it puts others at risk and curtails the freedom of other people to drive on the road. There are countless examples like this driving tests, car inspections, security at airports, vaccination requirements for attending public schools and many more. Yes, COVID-19 mitigation efforts do curtail your freedom in one respect, but they do so just like these other policies we all accept in our everyday lives. Its not radical, nor is it tyranny. Its society.

There are proven methods of preventing the spread of COVID-19, the newest of these being a vaccine fully approved by the FDA. There are people who are reachable, convincible, who just want to protect their family, but unintentionally put themselves and others at risk. Lets engage with these people to explain how and why mitigation efforts are effective. We should understand that there are costs to everyones freedom for inaction, particularly if you need to go to an overcrowded hospital. As long as COVID-19 is a large threat to everyones lives, we cant take mitigation efforts like mandates off the table. And the faster everyone gets vaccinated, both here and across the globe, the faster we can all get back to life as normal.

Eleanor Gully is a senior triple-majoring in economics, French and philosophy, politics and law.

See more here:

FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine can curtail misinformation - Binghamton University Pipe Dream