Nihilism and Meaning
John Perry

29 December 2011

'Nihilism’ is based on the Latin word for `nothing’: nihil. Nihilism is used for a lot of positions in philosophy… that there is nothing at all; that we know nothing at all; that there are no moral principles at all, and virtually any other position that could be framed with the word `nothing’. But the most common use, and what we'll explore today, is nihilism as the view that nothing we do, nothing we create, nothing we love, has any meaning or value whatsoever.

Nihilism not only captures a philosophical point of view, but a certain mood, a certain melancholy: isthisall there is? Is all of humanity just a paltry few years of events on an insignificant planet, about which the universe cares nothing? Doesanythingmatter? For most people it isn’t a problem posed by reading philosophy, but by absorbing the modern point of view… the miniscule place in the world that humans have - according to science.

Nihilism first came into the philosophical vocabulary as an accusation. It didn’t start off with philosophers saying: `Iam a nihilist’ but `You是一个虚无主义者”。Some Philosophers felt that if what certainotherphilosophers said was true, then everythingwould bemeaningless.

In particular a fellow named Friedrich Jacobi said that Kantian Philosophy – particularly as developed by Johann Fichte – led to nihilism, the view that nothing mattered. That's because Fichte's philosophy didn’t rest on faith and revelation but on a limited conception of reason. He emphasized the self as the beginning of philosophy.

Jacobi – the accuser - put his finger on the fundamental issue of nihilism. Most religions, many philosophies, and the common beliefs of many people suppose that the source of value is something beyond the individual, beyond humans, beyond the physical world, beyond the natural world. If not God, perhaps a transcendent realm of forms, as Plato thought. Nihilism as an accusation is a challenge: if you don’t believe in God, or something else transcendent and eternal, why does anything matter?

And by the time we come to Nietzsche, we have a philosopher embracing nihilism, in a way. He says, God is dead, everything is permitted, and hurray for that.

不过我觉得这里有点模棱两可。把雅可比的基本点当作一个论点。第一:一切意义和价值都有超越性的根源。但是，如果我们没有上帝、信仰和启示，那么就没有超然的源头。结论:在你不信神的观点上(不管你承认与否)，没有任何意义。我不认为尼采真的接受了，没有任何意义的结论。他接受了这不是雅可比想要的那种意义。But not that there wasnomeaning.

I think Nietzsche would qualify the first premise: some kinds of meaning and valueneeda transcendent source. So with the second premise -- there is no transcendent source -- you get amodifiedconclusion: There are no meanings and values ofthatkind. But Nietzsche thought thereweremeanings and values, and life was meaningful.

So in one sense, he is a nihilist: there is no transcendent meaning to ground the meaning that comes out of human projects and commitments. But in another sense he’s not: human projects and commitments are themselves a valid source of meaning.

In those broad strokes, maybe our very eminent guest is a Nietzschean. That's Hubert Dreyfus, Professor emeritus at Berkeley, author of many influential books, and co-author of a recent book right on our topic,All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age.

Comments(9)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, December 30, 2011 -- 4:00 PM

See: Graham Martin's book:

See: Graham Martin's book: Does it Matter? I have advocated such views before, without concerning myself with possible altenatives. As I have opined : Nietzsche was a sufferer. as was the Dane, Soren K. I find it maudlin that we still attend these thinkers who had so many problems of their own, yet tried to conceive and postulate theories and suppositions which would apply to humanity, generally. A bit like the enigmas of Christianity; Islam; Judism and other systems that cannot agree with themselves, let alone with each other.
我想知道。有人敢想过吗?当然，有无神论者、不可知论者和其他人——他们都有自己的议程;位置;来回游移。“历史性”造成了严重破坏——悄无声息，没有人确切知道正在发生什么。这就是关键所在:有效性只存在于人类经验领域。当然。森林里那棵倒下的树被?——不是什么人——而是能听见的东西，它的意识比我们落后几千年。 If one believes in evolution, that is. I do.

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, January 1, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

There are two distinct views

There are two distinct views on nihilism, one that sees existential meaning in an ubermensch, another that sees nihilism as a total void. For over twenty years our website has discussed these views -www.ws5.com

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 2, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

The "suffering philosophers",

The "suffering philosophers", the German, the Dane and others, have not added so much to our cultural milieu. And all the differing schools of explanation, along with subsets, offer little in the way of understanding, as I am fairly sure Locke and others would observe, were they alive today. Why is it, exactly, that we revere these ancients? Because they laid foundations? Just so, many of those foundations have crumbled and we are teetering upon the sand below. As an aside, I recall, many years ago, a cartoon regarding NOTHING. It may have appeared in the Saturday Review or some other such periodical: there was an edifice which consisted of the word NOTHING. Round about it, there were supplicants kneeling, presumably in prayer. An onlooker asked another: Is NOTHING sacred? Well, it was sarcasm, or high irony, I suppose. But, in retrospect, was it either or was it an introduction to the later vogue idea of nihilism? Everything changes while nothing stays the same?
或者真的是反过来的吗?或者,嗯……我们刚才在说什么?没有什么?或者什么都没有……
Heh. Was Russell right: Science=study of those things known; philosophy=study of those things not known? Given the track record of both, I'd say, yeah---Bertie hit it pretty well. Everyone has their own OEOs to rely upon.

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 2, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

If this IS all there is, why

If this IS all there is, why isn't it enough? We are only unique in the sense that we see ourselves as unique, ergo, we have invented the resurrection mythology. To make ourselves feel better about our mortality. How vain. And, how patently human. Of course, it has contributed greatly to economic progress and all of those things human, that we value as humans---as evolution progresses, we just don't get it because we are but a flyspeck on the windshield of billions of years. Sagan might have said that---but I have not read it. RIP Dr. Gould. Goodnight Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Wilson...

Fred Griswold's picture

Fred Griswold

Wednesday, January 4, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

Taking God out of the picture

Taking God out of the picture isn't necessarily the end of the story. If you substitute physics for God, that does make certain explanations easier. Take evolution, for instance. If you start with physics and the things that follow from it (chemistry, biology etc.), then you can explain how all those creatures evolved. If you say that God created them all in separate acts of creation, that's a violation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is the principle in science that explanations shouldn't be made any more complicated than they need to be to account for the facts. So the scientific explanation is better. It simplifies life.
Ken was bemoaning the 20th century and all the brutality that happened in it. But that's not the whole story. There were 12 democracies in the world at the end of WW II, and now there are about 120. If freedom and democracy are what you care about, then that was the century for you. But all of it, in my view, the good, the bad, and the ugly, was possible only because of technology. And technology is one more consequence of the evolutionary process.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Thursday, January 5, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

Well, in response to Fred, we

好吧，作为对弗雷德的回应，我们设法弄清楚了物理(无论如何大部分)和化学，等等。在某种程度上。关于我们如何和/或为什么做这些事情，有单数和复数的争论。其中包括关于进步的神圣和世俗观念，以及这是神的干预的结果，还是人类的智慧，进化的增加，加上母亲的需要。事实上，任何合理的解释我都无所谓。但是，到目前为止，通过上帝的手和行动来证明进化的进展，对我原始的头脑来说是值得怀疑的。

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, January 9, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

Having read the comments, and

Having read the comments, and listened through the program, it is clear enough that nihilism leads directly not only to a lack of purpose to life, but a lack of standards - moral relativism. And I think this is the much bigger problem. One of the questioners pointed out that we can just follow "nature" and from that, what is "good for society" or "for the race" or "for humanity" to restore meaning and purpose. Great! One of the longest-lasting societies out there, and one highly regarded throughout most of history since, was the Roman Empire - which was based on conquest, slavery, and mindless violence. And all the best minds of Rome were convinced that this was not only good, but good for all of humanity. And this is only one example.
Human beings are basically selfish (myself included), and so are human societies. Nihilism removes any cause not to act on that selfishness. Oh, there is "reason" - but reason is a tool, not a standard. Given our nature, we can and will bend reason to suit any rationalization we feel we need - and give us a new one tomorrow, if we feel like it.
Once you peel it all back, I think Mr. Dreyfus' suggestion to "call back the gods" by responding to things that "draw" us is just another way of saying "do whatever you want" dressed up in philosophical jargon. He seems to assume, as I think Nietzche's "active nihilism" assumed, that people are basically good, so if we follow what "draws" us, good will result at least most of the time. The assumption, though, is false.

Guest's picture

Guest

2012年1月10日，星期二——下午4点

This episode is very

这一集很有趣。
Does the 60sec philosophy talk section contains a quote from E.M.Cioran (I'm not sure if I got it right)? Where does the quote come from?

Guest's picture

Guest

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 -- 4:00 PM

好吧。Let's see where

好吧。让我们看看我们在哪里。虚无主义是关于无，或虚无。意义是什么?人类对使命感的追求?相信某种存在，而不是毫无价值?所有这些词——平克会像野餐一样，从哲学上的空洞中分离出意义。就这样。(肯，你在听吗?)在我看来，虚无主义和意义之间的差距是什么?——善与恶? Nihilism vs, Meaning? Apples and oranges---seems to me.