0

From Wikipedia:

[Nihilism]... rejects general or fundamental aspects of human existence, such as objective truth, knowledge [...]

Rejecting something means to me, claiming that something is not true (here we could go into a long discussion about whether this interpretation of rejection is true). Saying that the existence of truth is not true however requires the existence of truth. Further I would say that reasoning about something is basically just assigning truth values. So reasoning about anything would require the belief in the existence of truth. Therefore reasoning about nihilism would require the existence of truth. A nihilist would claim the idea of nihilism to be true. But the fact that the nihilist is reasoning would be a contradiction. So being a nihilist is paradoxical - no one can be a nihilist, right?

Also a nihilist would not be able to discuss the idea of nihilism, since there is no truth and thus any statement about nihilism would be meaningless in the sense that it has no truth. Actually a nihilist would not be able to argue about anything.

I have read this similar question, but I am not satisfied with any of the answers and the question is not exactly the same. So back to my question; can there be any nihilists?

timtam
  • 114
  • 7
  • I would say, given the definition above, that one could not live up to the concept but that does not stop one from engaging in reason with others as to whether or not they would be able to. However, if an axiom of such a position is that there could be no objective reality or knowledge thereof they would have to explain why their proposition would be an exception to same that they wish to establish as a rule for others to accept and adopt. Good luck! – Somnis Jan 11 '22 at 22:27
  • Obviously, what matters is not what rejecting something means to you but what it means to a nihilist, so they do not claim what you assigned to them to claim. And reasoning does not mean assigning truth values even to most non-nihilists, there is plenty of valid reasoning with false premises and conclusions, and even reasoning about matters that are not truth-apt at all, like ethics or aesthetics. Since is or was implies can, yes, there can be nihilists, see e.g. [IEP](https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/). – Conifold Jan 12 '22 at 00:39
  • @Conifold Yet a nihilist would have to give the word "rejecting" some other meaning, if it's not the one I have given. However for a nihilist everything is meaningless. Nihilism is an idea but nihilists reject the idea of ideas. Thus it is paradoxical. And if reasoning is not assigning truth values, reasoning still requires the existence of truth. What would reasoning be without a truth? "There is plenty of valid reasoning with false premises" - well yes, but valid reasoning still requires the existence of truth, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) – timtam Jan 12 '22 at 10:29
  • 1
    I argue here there are philosophers *of nihilism*, those who address or focus on nihilism as an issue, but not *nihilists*, advocates for nihilism or a school of thinkers defined by adhering to nihilism: 'What sort of thought is nihilism?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/86501/what-sort-of-thought-is-nihilism/86507#86507 See the history of nihilist thought for why confusion arises: 'How come nihilism is so popular today?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/48995/how-come-nihilism-is-so-popular-today/49012#49012 – CriglCragl Jan 12 '22 at 11:21
  • Truth and meaning are two different things, that knowledge and values are all baseless does not exclude that some statements can be meaningful. And on the usual meaning, "rejecting X" does not amount to asserting not X, or asserting anything at all, only suspending judgment. All skeptics and agnostics make this point, so it is not so paradoxical. And no, valid reasoning does not require truth on many conceptions, proof-theoretic validity is independent of it, for example. An argument only needs to comply with prescribed rules of inference to be valid. – Conifold Jan 12 '22 at 12:22
  • Well you'd have to provide another meaning for reasoning to claim that no truth is required. "All skeptics and agnostics make this point, so it is not so paradoxical" is a common fallacy in informal logic, hence it is not a valid argument. I am not familiar with proof-theoretic validity, but if it's true what you say that validity may be independent of truth, that still does not mean that validity can exist without the existence of truth. And it also does not mean that reasoning can exist without the existence of truth. Independent of what validity is, a nihilist would reject it anyways. – timtam Jan 12 '22 at 12:49
  • At this point it is up to *you* to justify that rejection and validity require truth, not up to nihilists to justify the opposite. You will not find many philosophers that see the task as promising. – Conifold Jan 12 '22 at 15:24
  • The proper definition of nihilism is the rejection of all ***moral*** truths and precepts. You seem to be confusing nihilism with radical skepticism, which is understandable. Which are you actually asking about? – Ted Wrigley Jan 12 '22 at 20:24
  • "Nihilism is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects general or fundamental aspects of human existence, such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values or meaning." [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) is from Wikipedia. Whether this is the proper definition of nihilism is debatable, but I am asking about this definition. Or in other words I am asking about the definition of nihilism that would imply radical skepticism, unless I misunderstood the definition given by Wikipedia. – timtam Jan 12 '22 at 20:42

0 Answers0