Personal Meaning According to a Nihilist

[TheOldNihilist]

My personal belief or "meaning" is that nihilism is an "attitude" vs personal meaning which is a belief.Look up nihilism in the dictionary the only definition that comes close to "personal belief" is "philosophy" which regarding nihilism can be true or false.

[maksiiiskam2]

I can't remember how I put it in this video, but I'm sure what I meant is better phrased this way: one cannot justify (rationally, logically... whatever) a meaning in one's life, but that does not prevent one to have irrational unjustified psychological elements effecting their world-view in manners that can be translated into folk psychology in terms of meaning and value. These elements are injustifiable, but injustification is not an argument for inexistence.

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

Evolution, for one, is a factor that is likely to select for elements of value when they yield reproductive success. Upbringing is another: every one is trained to value things to the point of some values being almost reflexes: I "value" education because of this, but I know that there is nothing inherently preferable in education.

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

In other words, I believe that people can and may have values, but that they have no reason for it.

Concerning the statement "If you're a true Nihilist,then you have no real personal meaning in your life", I refer you to my other video about my apathy, in which I explain that even though nihilism compels me to be apathetic, I see as a major part of apathy the fact of not fighting against these unconscious factors: there is no reason to go out of my bed in the morning,

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

but I would do myself more violence resisting eating, peeing, walking and all than otherwise.

What I call apathy is probably the nearest I get to your nihilism viewed as an attitude, for I really treat nihilism as an epistemological position about value and meaning: a belief.

[TheOldNihilist]

If you're a true Nihilist,then you have no real personal meaning in your life.But we know this cannot be true.For everyone must have some personal meaning in their lives.Otherwise they would have no reason to live,no reason to be a nihilist.

[FatGermanBastard]

I have a question: How can one be a nihilist ?

I mean what does nihilism claim ?

I.e. you may say "nihilism claims that knowledge does not exist". But that is not true. Nihilism does not claim that. Nihilism says it may be this way.

For every statement x nihilism says it is either true or false including this statement itself.

So what does nihilism claim ? Nothing ! Nihilism is not a theory/claim/belief etc. Nihilism makes no claim and is a non theory.

What do you think ?

[maksiiiskam2]

Nihilism normally claims that meaning, truth, and morality do not exist. I take step toward existentialism by claiming that personal meanings do exist.

Are you sure you are not talking about skepticism when you say it claims nothing? because nihilism is a clear negation of many things, which is a claim.

Concerning how can one become a nihilist, I'll adress that in further videos, but it concerns mostly noticing how supposing meaning and al is unecessary and unseless.

[FatGermanBastard]

No as far as I understand it there is a difference between moral, ethical nihilism and epistemic nihilism. I am a moral nihilist. That means I have specific axioms I consider as true based on which I claim that morality does not exist.

But as far as I understand you are an epistemic nihilist or skepticist. Is that not the case ? So does that mean you do not question *ALL* axioms but only some of them ?

[maksiiiskam2]

yes there are more precise forms of nihilism, but used alone "nihilism" generally entails all of them: mereological nihilism, moral nihilism, metaphysical nihilism... I never heard the term "epistemic nihilist" and I do not see why to use it if it means skepticism, but my nihilism is also skeptical so it includes it too. So I am an all-nihilist.

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

As expressed in this video, I reject any objective standard of justification, which therefore neglects knowledge.

concerning axioms, I call them all arbitrary and meaningless and it is better covered in my other videos about nihilism.

[FatGermanBastard]

So as I understand you are questioning all axioms. Is that right ? What you are saying is that all of them are either right or wrong but we are not able to tell ?

> As expressed in this video, I reject any

> objective standard of justification, which

> therefore neglects knowledge.

Do you say that you know this or is it a belief...something you think is true without knowing for certain that it is true ?

[maksiiiskam2]

I do not believe in axioms if you mean "true axioms", but one can sure choose any axioms he wants and build a metaphysics with them, but I deny an objective foundation.

It is not something I know, it is mostly by eliminating all the beliefs, I remain with nihilism. Let there be one undiscartable axiom and I would be forced to believe it, but no axiom, as we conceive of them, can force itself, hence my finding it unbelievable.

[FatGermanBastard]

> It is not something I know

So you are not claiming that it is that way, right ? Rather that it MAY be this way, right ?

[maksiiiskam2]

I deny Truth, Knowledge, and the objective world, so I do not see what you want me to say to that. It might be otherwise in some objective world to which we have no epistemic access, but it does not change much.

[FatGermanBastard]

> I deny Truth, Knowledge

Well but you do not say knowledge does not exist but you say knowledge may not exist, do you ? Or is this an exception from your rule...i.e. do you say knowledge does not exist apart from the knowledge that knowledge does not exist.

[maksiiiskam2]

It depends on what you mean by knowledge...

If you are talking some kind of metaphysical Knowledge, I deny it as part of my nihilism.

If you talk about classical knowledge as a justified true belief, I deny it as part of my scepticism.

If you talk about knowledge as certainty of not being wrong, then I do believe in it for I do not believe in being "wrong" in an ultimate sense.

[maksiiiskam2]

Basically, if you talk about personal meaning I probably believe in it, but if you give to it some metaphysical significance I don't.

[FatGermanBastard]

My friend I hope I am not annoying you too much but I think we are talking at cross purposes.

What I mean is this: When you say "I deny knowledge". Do you make a truth claim "I know that knowledge does not exist" or do you make an assumption: "I assume that knowledge does not exist".

So if you have the choice between these two:

"I know that knowledge does not exist"

"I assume that knowledge does not exist"

which one describes your opinion best ?

[maksiiiskam2]

If I had to summarise my opinion like this I would say "These arguments convince me that knowledge do not exist", under a weak definition of knowledge the "I know" version could work, and I do assume that knowledge does not exist, but only resulting from the last two when I inspect this claim.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 1:

So you are basically saying if you define knowledge in an absolute sense then you are not certain. That means knowledge may exist or not exist.

And I think this is what nihilism says:

Any statement X is either true or false but this statement is either true or false which is also true or false which is also true or false etc. etc. or in other words nihilism makes no claim whatsoever... There is not a statement you can make that nihilism is not compatible with.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 2:

I.e. the claim that God exists and it is a known fact is fully compatible with nihilism. The claim that nihilism is false and we have god-like knowledge is also fully compatible with nihilism. No statement that you can make would be a denial of nihilism since nihilism considers any statement as possibly true or false. Can you come up with a statement that is not compatible with nihilism ? I.e. where a consequent nihilist would say: This is a false statement ?

[maksiiiskam2]

I doubt that a nihilist denying Truth would say that "Any statement X is either true or false", considering that even the hardest positivist logicians do not.

What I claim is not that metaphysical claims are true or false, but that they are meaningless. If you equate meaninglessness with falsehood, it is your belief.

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

I think that statements that are not compatible with nihilism would include assertions of existence, not of truth. "There is an objective morality" or "there is a God", for example. These statements would not be called "false" but "inconsistant".

I obviously imagine here a nihilism as I mean it, not a nihilism defined as something toatally different.

(cont)

[maksiiiskam2]

Though, again, consistance is also a matter of personnal meaning, there is not ultimate value to consistency, so as a nihilist, I would not refrain an alleged nihilist to say anything, for I do not consider my claim "right" or the importance of being a "real nihilist".

[FatGermanBastard]

> I think that statements that are not

> compatible with nihilism would include

> assertions of existence, not of

> truth. "There is an objective morality"

> or "there is a God", for example.

But a part of the nihilistic theory is the possibility of it's own wrongness. The idea that nihilism may be false is part of nihilism and therefore no statement can be incompatible with nihilism. Not even "God exists and I know it for sure".

[maksiiiskam2]

I do not consider possibilities of wrongness: I do not believe in wrongness. If something happens to be True or False, it is not my concern: I give it no importance.

In a sense, one can say that everything is compatible with nihilism; I would rather say that nothing is compatible with nihilism, not even the claim of nihilism. In the end it is impossible to claim nihilism, as it is impossible to write against language or to reason against reason, I can only attempt to communicate a feeling.

[FatGermanBastard]

Wouldn't you say that nihilism is uncertain regarding itself ?

[maksiiiskam2]

When I do not believe in certainty or knowledge, how can this question apply?

I am not certain, because I do not believe in being right. I am not uncertain neither, because I am personally certain of it.

The best I can say is: Questions concerning the Truth of Nihilism are meaningless and talking accuratly about nihilism is impossible anyway, I would have to assign some meaning to my words.

The most formal I could get, I did in my other videos.

[thinkmorepink]

oh, and the ending of your video made me laugh. I love your personality, especially the goofy side, when you decide to show it : )

[maksiiiskam2]

Are you talking about the little song? I thought it would add to the plain text.

I have a goofy side, but it mostly only shows when I'm drunk.

[thinkmorepink]

Hey maksiii, I've been waiting for this video. So essentially, are you saying, for personal truths and meanings, the opposed to any given stance isn't 'wrong' per se, they are simply 'unconvinced?' and vise-versa?

[maksiiiskam2]

yeah, basically thats it. Mostly I say that looking further than your finding it meaningful is unimportant.

[thinkmorepink]

Ok, so (forgive my ignorance, I'm trying to understand) are you unconvinced of personal meanings such as 'love' then?

[maksiiiskam2]

Ultimately, as some huge force in the universe, yes. But I would not go and tell lovers that they are wrong because it is only chemicals or something, I have been in love and know the feeling and if the feeling is enough to convince someone of the existence of Love, then they are convinced. But the felling could let someone unconvinced and this person would be as much right.

[thinkmorepink]

That's fascinating...thanks for explaining this to me maksiii