Nihilism, Existentialism and Morality
by Michael Robin Cooke on May.08, 2009, under Kitschchaos
The economic crisis we’re in is bringing the notion of Nihilism back into vogue. And certainly as greater numbers of people find themselves unable to participate in an aboveground economy, the underground economy grows in prominence and the rule of law is threatened as never before.
The catch phrase of Chaos Magic, “Nothing is true, Everything is permitted” may suggest to some a Nihilistic point of view which would suggest Life is without purpose or intrinsic value. But Nihilism is something else, because holding life as being without purpose and having no intrinsic worth in fact doesn’t permit ‘everything’.
The enlightenment of Buddhism can also be confused for Nihilism, in that the content of the enlightenment can be pointed to in terms of understanding ‘emptiness’.
Buddhist ‘emptiness’ is the opposite of nihilism for in emptiness is limitless possibility and interconnectedness with all life, that which Nihilism denies.
The Existentialist insight is what “Nothing is true, Everything is permitted” may be pointing to. The content of an Existential insight is that great truths relating to culture and spirituality – they become stripped from you as you understand their foundation is truly nothing, nothing real.
Now what you do with the insight is what distinguishes an existential Christian like Kierkegaard (the absurdity of reality demands the artifice of clarity provided by faith in God and religion) and a Nihilist (If reality isn’t true as I imagined, nothing is true, life is without purpose or intrinsic worth!).
The most conservative reality based stance in the face of existential insight – is to not know. Because you can’t know. The idea of morality and ethics does hold up!-makes sense in a secular fashion, and we may have brain chemicals demanding ‘morality’ anyway – so let’s keep that.
Don’t pretend ethics aren’t real anymore because they have become inconvenient.
Related Posts - Psychic Powers, Edgar Cayce and the last words of Hassan-i Sabbah In my post relating to the 'Psychic' fortune telling industry,...
- Are all Great sorcerers RICH? Very often someone wanting a spell will not do it...
- LOA and gnosis I'm working on stuff for this site. This site will...
- Watchmen movie and invocation I've not seen the Watchmen movie yet, and somewhat doubt...
- Using magic in business The magic in theory and practice thing has been overwhelming...
- When Are You Not Curious? The topic is curiosity, and you were all curious. But...
- Deep in the Heart of Texas I'm back from the great state of Texas; my visit with family...
- For Love Or Lust? Have you ever wondered if you've done 'it' for love...
- An Artist Portrait (Part One) This is a fantastic article written exclusively for my Weblog...
- The Weekend of Nothing (and Personal Finance Links) With the wife out town for what seems to be...
May 24th, 2009 on 2:38 pm
Hi, discriminative posts there
thank’s concerning the gripping word
July 15th, 2009 on 10:45 am
Isn’t it just human nature to be intrinsically “good”? I think the average person wants to do good for his fellow man or woman. I think most people want to be accepted and therefore tend to be good people by nature.
Charlie´s last blog ..How to solve inflation
July 19th, 2009 on 10:57 pm
Actually that’s wrong, and simply because the very idea of ‘good’ is elusive and cannot be nailed down. What is human nature is to believe of themselves that they are good, but realize this includes the likes of Adolph Hitler, President George W. Bush, Mother Theresa and President Barack Obama.
August 3rd, 2009 on 7:20 pm
Ever heard of the ‘Milgram experiment’?
August 3rd, 2009 on 7:25 pm
I must have overlooked something. I don’t see the connection here. How can you know that “The idea of morality and ethics does hold up!” if “you can’t know”?
August 4th, 2009 on 12:58 am
Knowing nothing yields humanism, because you are a human, as are the other humans sharing the world with you. Ethics and morality follow naturally if optionally. There is choice. Nihilism demands an article of faith (in nothing), distinct from knowing nothing.
August 4th, 2009 on 4:19 pm
Ethics and morality follow naturally from all of us being the same species together, certainly, but only because rules keep society together and norms yield morality. If it exists only as ideas inside people’s minds, then it’s fantasy. Like unicorns.
“Nihilism demands an article of faith (in nothing)”. Are you saying that nihilism
And… I really hate the way you have phrased yourself here
- demands faith,
or
-that it demands faith in nothing, that is, it doesn’t demand faith.
…?
The latter doesn’t really make any sense in its sentence, so I’m presuming the former.
And I fail to see how nihilism demands any form of faith. Is nihilism not the complete rejection of dogmas like faith? Are you saying that, if nothing can be known, then one cannot know if existence has no purpose?
I sincerely hope you will find time to explain this further.
August 5th, 2009 on 3:25 am
Ha ha. Okay, understand this is a bit bullshitty so I’m finding humour in this exchange, the post and these responses.
You figured it out for yourself of course. To believe in nothing is itself a positive assertion. Knowing nothing means yes, the purpose or lack thereof of existence is unknowable as well.
To me Nihilism is like a brat throwing a temper tantrum, insisting nothing can be real because their pet ideas, those they cherished to and made an identity out of -have been revealed untrue to them. There’s too much possibility to discount everything known and unknown wholesale.
August 5th, 2009 on 3:33 am
There was a story in the New York Times about the true nature of morality. There’s evidence to suggests it’s a primal instinct as much as a product of society. We don’t kill our neighbours without provocation because because we’d not want them to kill us and this moral instinct may exist deep in our brain subconsciously, not even consciously.
August 5th, 2009 on 11:50 am
On the subject of ‘what can be known’: I figure the only truth in the universe that can be known with absolute certainty is: ‘I think, there is something.’ I can’t know if I dream of Zhuangzi’s butterfly or if it dreams of me.
Please let’s not get into the truthfulness of mathematics, my head is spinning enough as it is.
And while I would hope that you enjoy this exchange, if we can continue it with a little more respect than simple condescending amusement, I won’t behave as a brat.
August 5th, 2009 on 11:52 am
Ups, typo: “I think, *therefore* there is something”.
August 5th, 2009 on 11:30 am
Even if there is a moral instinct (and I’m not saying there is… Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments…) it is only an instinct. Instincts are hard-wired commands instilled in us through hit-and-miss evolution – because society (or packs/clans/groups) yields fitness for survival. Instinct are nothing more. I repeat and modify: If it exists only in people’s brains, it is fantasy. Or brain fluids.
What I am looking for in a basis for morality is an objective basic unit for ‘good’ that can be realised as such a priori. I thought happiness might be it, and based my morality on Bentham’s speculations.
But what connects happiness to ‘goodness’? Happiness, that we all *instinctively* yearn for, is something as supremely subjective as a feeling, and only a chemical condition in the brain. And then I considered this: if we had a tank-full of living brains (or just the “happy-parts”) in the chemical condition of happiness, would it be a tank-full of ‘goodness’? If 90% of all humans died so the rest could be fed and happy, would that be ‘good’? And if I can buy happiness for a buck from a sufficiently suspicious street-vendor, is it ‘goodness’?
August 5th, 2009 on 12:30 pm
First, thank you for making this thread the most interesting on this blog.
Second, I stand firmly in not knowing, so answers won’t be forthcoming.
Elemental morality being instinctive and hard-wired automatically generates ideas about ethics and law because that’s what a human being does – we make stuff mean something. Fundamentally ‘morality’ is a self serving concept as agreed upon rules for yourself and others help YOU survive.
Dammit, you’re better educated than I.
The brain in a vat – your only access to appreciating what is real is your subjective consciousness, so it’s not falsifiable the idea that you are a brain in a vat being fed ‘experiences’ artificially.
Good and evil are not real beyond the limit of your self interest. Sure it exists, Global Corporations poisoning the environment many would agree is evil. But those that are part of the corporations don’t own that they personally are evil, indeed almost certainly they imagine themselves to be good and can defend that claim! Evil becomes vague and indistinct outside of your subjective experience.
Happiness describes 3 very different things. If you win a lottery prize, most likely you would experience the most common form of ‘happiness’, and it passes quickly. The interpersonal sexual/passionate response between lovers delivers a brain chemical delivered form of happiness. And lastly, and most rarely, happiness can describe a life lived in self aware satisfaction.
All but the third form of happiness can become their opposite – suffering. The lottery winnings wasted, what remains is regret, even shame. The joy in finding love can become jealousy or suicide inducing emotional pain if there is rejection.
So I generally find a lot of wisdom in Buddhism. Buddha concentrated on the problem of ‘evil’ which he distinguished as the suffering in the world. Buddha’s distinction in relation to suffering is the foundation of all Buddhism: Suffering is a function of attachment.
So where there is attachment to a lover, there can be suffering in the form of jealousy and wounding in the circumstance of a separation. Where there is attachment to money, suffering becomes possible over the loss of money.
Billionaires that became poor with the crash of the economy, many of them have considered if not committed suicide. How many of America’s poor committed suicide in response to the economic downturn?
So thinking in terms of good and evil, I don’t believe it’s necessary or helpful. Good and evil are concepts that are projected upon reality and are not really of reality in my opinion.
And, of course, the life led in happiness. Such a person will accept what they have in life and aren’t attached to living in any way they are not. The rare Christian or religious person has accomplished this. The key is, naturally – accepting things as they are. Then suffering isn’t possible and happin ess, I suppose it’s a choice.