Talk:Nihilism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nihilism in Film section

"The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism as a central theme is arguably Fight Club, as best expressed by the antagonist's credo "It is only after we have lost everything that we are free to do anything." The film describes the unnamed narrator's disillusionment with the search for meaning in consumerist emasculated society, and his subsequent Nietzschean reaction."

This quote should really be really be refering to the novel Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk as the ideas where originally stated in the text rather than the film. It should be in a "Nihilism on literature" section I suppose.

Chuck Palaniuk has stated in a interview that he is NOT a nihilist but rather follows the philosophy of romanticism. There is NO where written that Fight club was intended to be nihilistic. --92.3.38.84 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism in the Prozakhian sense is Romantic; in the other senses, it is basically anarchism and as such is a moral rejection of life itself. It makes more sense to call that fatalism, although Nietzsche uses the term nihilism for it. death metal maniac (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that the film makers, and the actors (particularly Edward Norton), found and played upon Nihilistic tendencies in the characters' philosophies. While "Jack" may ultimately opt for an Existentialist solution, one hinted at by Tyler himself, this does not diminish the borderline Nihilism of the early parts of the film. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism in the teen rocker sense, maybe, but not nihilism as a philosophy. More likely the words you are looking for are ennui and rebellion. death metal maniac (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So are we to allow that "borderline Nihilism of the early parts of the film" constitute "The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism as a central theme?" I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.42.74 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"The defining contemporary portrayal of Nihilism" is an accurate description given that Fight Club is (a) contemporary, and (b) often pointed to as definitive. Nihilism is also a "central theme" in that the struggle between Nihilism and Existentialism is an overarching theme (one which Palahniuk, as a talented writer, can depict without personally adhering to either philosophy). But apparently you failed to notice that concurrent with my above comment, I rewrote the section on Fight Club, replacing that sentence with the far tamer claim that, "Perhaps the most commonly referenced portrayal of Nihilism in contemporary film is the 1999 film Fight Club." And it has stayed that way since (although I plan on editing out some of the redundancy momentarily). It is quite unnecessary to complain about something that has already been changed. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section about Fight Club.Thprfssnl (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a place for a nihilism in film section and if there is, The Big Lebowski should be mentioned. In this movie, nihilists are parodied.--67.86.120.246 (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Famous nihilists

Come on, what about Andy Warhol and Trent Reznor even the Sex "excuse me" Pistols?. They are famous Nihilists, why not put them down?--Nightingale12 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just make sure you include the reliable sources where you got this information from. Skomorokh 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Camus isn't mentioned here. He's the one who started separating nihilism from existentialism. ForestAngel (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While Camus isn't strictly a nihilist, it is important to note that there is no mention in the article on reactions to nihilism, such as absurdism and existentialism, who take the basic ideas of nihilist theory and elaborate on them. Camus, especially in the Myth of Sisyphus, is a prime example of such a reaction.Koffiemok (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

This whole article reads like an essay, and smacks of OR. In addition, the attempt to relate nihilism to pop culture is blatantly OR. There is no reference claiming that Warhol was a nihilist, or that I heart Huckabees is nihilist. This is the opinion of the author, and can't be considered for an encyclopedia entry. This page needs to be flagged and edited profusely.72.92.17.135 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that few people have pointed out how nihilism can be a philosophy separate from fatalism. Fatalism is big in popular culture because it affirms a lack of accountability. death metal maniac (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several elements that need to be refined about Nihilism within this article. I agree that there is a lack of sufficient citation, and that this article needs to move away from criticism. The forms of Nihilism section should be expanded upon as it is essentially what should be the bulk of the article. There is also an excessive amount of information on Nietzsche. I am reordering the sections to more accurately reflect the importance of each segment as it pertains to the subject. Further work would be most productively used in expanding upon the under developed sections and finding additional citations. veggie151 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think this deserves to be called a B Class article. If you made an entire page entitled "Criticism of Nihilism", cut and pasted the bulk of this article (opinions of other philosophers on nihilism), the original would be just long enough not to be classified as a stub. 86.12.7.205 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement "There are no known sources that disprove this claim" which bookended the overview's first paragraph. The wording made it sound as if the article was asserting that all the claims nihilists make about the absence of a higher power and an objective morality were true, which is a blatant violation of the NPOV standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.219.60 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

First off let me say that I don't know anything about Nihilism per se, however is it truly nihilist thought to go from "there is no objective reality" to (therefore) "no action is logically preferable to another"? To me that seems completely illogical. I can deny the existence of absolute morality and still not choose to eat dog food for logical cause (bad taste) or not wear my underwear on the outside. I would argue it would be better to say "no action is logically preferable to another in a moral context." Or no ethically related action, or something along those lines. I don't see an article about any school of thought being well to open with such a bad case of logic :x --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that is implied since the full line you quoted is "Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other."

To answer your argument about eating dog food: Nihilism makes no claims about pleasurable things being preferable to unpleasurable things. Possibly you are confusing Nihilism with Hedonism. Of course a nihilist can make the (arguably rational) choice to live a Hedonistic life, and subsequently act in a logical, or illogical manner to experience as much pleasure as possible. --Zero g (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has changed it in any case :x —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleDantarin (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that making a statement about moral reality does not imply preferences about all possible actions. Some moral-neutral actions might still be preferable to others as in the examples above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleDantarin (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Self-consistency and Paradox" section

This section is horrible:

1. It contains no source about who claims what: clearly not all nihilist say that nihilism is unjustifiable. It seems to imply that nihilism is defined as something incoherent, which is false.

2. It makes claims that do not seem impartial. Such a text would more appropriately fit in a "criticism" section/page, but not in the description of nihilism.

3. It repeats the common misconception against the denial of truth that "there is no truth" has to be true in the same way as that which it denies. "There is no truth" generally concerns some precise philosophical theories of truth, generally the correspondance theory of truth, and let the possibility of making correct statements that are not corresponding to anything in reality perfectly possible.

4. It is written as an argument, pushing nihilism by assuming replies in a way that leaves nihilism in a gradually more undefendable corner: not only is this unfit for an encyclopedia article, but it is also a quite bad rhetoric in which few nihilists would fall.

I think this section should be deleted or re-written into a criticism section. 24.202.69.222 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add a Richard Rorty quote that answers the 'paradox.' The section might need a rewrite, but presenting the other side more strongly is all that I'm in the mood for now.

Meviin (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Rorty may be friendly towards nihilism [or not], but are there any nihilist philosophers? is it a live research area in philosophy? are discredited scientific beliefs, old wives tales etc., kept NPOV on wikipedia? if one of these nihilists can provide a list of nihilist philosophers, that would be GREAT, absolutely fantastic, it can be included in the article. but see I read "not all nihilist say that nihilism is unjustifiable. It seems to imply that nihilism is defined as something incoherent, which is false", and I think that a nihilist can't "define" anything; and then I laughed at your use of 'false'. i want wikipedia's nihilism article to be somewhere people can go to learn about 'nihilism', and when i say i think nihilism has nothing or next to nothing to do with professional philosophy, i am not lying. are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.75.253 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This section is ridiculous. It redefines nihilism as the belief that there is no such thing as truth, and then proceeds to argue against that point. But this definition of nihilism isn't supported by citations or by reference to any philosophers who might have defined it as such. It's also at complete odds with the definition of nihilism outlined in the rest of the article -- that nihilism is a disbelief in absolute values, not truth. For this reason I'm going to delete the section -- it's just not relevant to the article, because despite claiming to be about nihilism, it isn't. Reidlophile (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Section "See Also"

Hi there. The section "See Also" should be prosified, so that some comment of each link and its relation to Nihilism is given, instead of just being a list. The section "External Links" should also be cleaned. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Grounding!

I too am very unhappy with this article, but lack the energy and skill to right it. My biggest objection is that the conceptual framework of "grounding" and "ungroundedness" is entirely lacking. Serious nihilists claim that the world we inhabit is ungrounded by any overarching or totalizing firmament. That stance is easily defensible and challenges just about everything we think or know - the article must do a better job of explaining both sides. To the nihilist, if we are in a room, the room has no floor - the furniture (us and our toys) are floating, not standing. I find this word picture helpful - it means that however we might arrange the furniture, it cannot, and therefore will not, reach a floor. If we lay out items of furniture, they must merely connect to each other, or not, but they have no requirement to connect via gravity to the floor, because in our most scientific efforts, we have failed to find one. Thus, while we may speak of truth or morality, we cannot treat them like a floor, and stand things on them as if there were no other way to do it. With this insight, we sharpen up the real underlying debate: either we find the floor that is missing (by scientifically discovering either the Ultimate Theory of Everything, or God, or something from which all this arises) or we get used to living in houses we build, but cannot in any way adequately ground against our own over-developed sense of doubt. KTyson (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism and Atheism

Why is this page listed as under Wikiproject Atheism? I can't think of any reason why nihilism would have anything to do with atheism, why would a deity existing have any more 'meaning' than anything else existing? 79.78.128.43 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, there is plenty wrong here. 'and many aspects of modernity[3] represent the rejection of God, and therefore are nihilistic' That statement needs serious review. Many nihilists suggest that even the existence of god would not imply meaning or negate meaninglessness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.102.79 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs work. I mean, really. We should start a Nihilist Task force. Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think nihilists care about this article to fix it? There's a piece of thought for you.Annihilatron (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't, all I know is that I care about this article to fix it. Zazaban (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i do think it is a philossophy only any athiest could adopt and im both an athiest anda nilhist the reason why is it isnt jjust a god or messiah or titan or what ever you wanna can them that religon gives you it is purpose and a moral code thats what the 10 commandments are also just because becase you are nihlist doesnt mean you are completely dark and consantly depressed or a suicidal state this article make it sound extremely bleak i belive nature didn't evolve us a porpose so ther isnt one same thing with morals 204.186.26.213 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism on TV

I am sure some shows on TV other than House pose the concept of nihilism. House is accused of being nihilist in one episode ("97 Seconds"), but a doctor comments that "[House's] nihilism must have caught up with him" after a doctor is paged to a room where House had deliberately electrocuted himself.

BANZ111 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have true belief that all nihilists believe in absolutely nothing, including god and all its fallacies. A true nihilist knows that when it is born, it has to die, and everything in between life and death means nothing and has a minimal impact of the process of life or being in general. Death is the constant, and that is the only thing to expect, the way our race has evolved enough to understand these things, and our galactic data should be enough to prove, that there is no meaning in life, and that we are all in this situation by a big fucking coincident. Deal with it, and take what theyve created as a grain of sand. In all actuality, we are free men, and free beings, forced into a situation created by our race hundreds of years ago, because we cannot evolve passed them

Art section

Nihilism is a complicated subject, it clashes with many people's personal views - no need to go further than this article's edit history -. Quite frankly, a Wikipedia article is not the right place to 'fight' over the way we see things. It's a place where a lot of us share information so that others, as well as ourselves, can have quick access to reliable information on the net.

Please, do not post your personal interpretations of books, movies, art movements, songs. This is not needed, let people enjoy art and reach unbiased interpretation of masterpieces - or any work of art - by themselves.

Honestly, this article looks a tad bit like a high school essay. We'd all get an F. Try to keep your opinions to yourselves. LombrizFeliz (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I tagged some of the examples as needing cites, pending removal, as some look to be OR. Overall the section looks too listy to me, with little discussion as to the aims or influence of any of the works. Without such a discusion, adding examples to this sections really does nothing to expand on the subject of nihilism in art, which i'm sure must have a lot written about in scholarly books. Pop culture references are fun, and can help connect to general readers, but should only be used to illuminate points about the general subject. This is not a List of nihilist themed art article.Yobmod (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dada

There are lots of sources about dada in this article. but it seems not a single one called it nihilism. It looks like synthesis to me, to compare the descriptions of the two, and announce they must mean the same thing. If the source said Dada is nihilist, why is there a paragrpah long quote instead, that doesn't use the word?Yobmod (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That is because I can't find a single source that openly claims DADA is a 'nihilistic movement'. All the sources I find suggest that it has certain tendencies, but none of them directly call it nihilistic. However, I was reluctant to remove the whole section. What I did when editing it was soften the harsh and biased vocabulary. Calling DADA nihilistic, seems like OR. ¿Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with this section? Thx. LombrizFeliz (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these:

"If, on the other hand, efforts to destroy, regardless of ultimate intention, are nihilist by definition, then and only then may the Dadaists justly be so considered" from Artists and Revolution: Dada and the Bauhaus, 1917-1925 by Allan Carl Greenberg, p.115 UMI Research Press, 1979, ISBN 0835710807.

"Although the artists in this group were really advocates of Data nihilism, the...." The Visual Arts in Germany 1890-1937: Utopia and Despair by Shearer West, p.102 Manchester University Press, 2000, ISBN 0719052793.

Hope these help, seems to be more than one opinion about whether Nihilist is a good label - there are lots of Googlebooks hits, some of which allow search inside.Yobmod (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've searched Google books and found a couple of great sources. It is very divided, but I've now found a book that talks about DADA's "destructive and constructive" aspects. As well as two that link DADA and Nietzsche, though, so far, they do not mention nihilism per se, I will continue reading and work on something. LombrizFeliz (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links

it seems strange to have two of the links be to polemics against nihilism by christians. one link maybe, but as it is it seems like an odd way of presenting things.

Since you had counter-order and Elisha Shapiro, I've added a link to the original nihilists on the net at Nihil.org. death metal maniac (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism is a denial of OBJECTIVE values

Nihilism is not a denial of the existence of values altogether, but only a denial of OBJECTIVE values. It is fully compatible with a belief in nihilism for one to hold subjective values of their own. The idea that values are somehow part of the fabric of the world is one that nihilism rejects.

I have made this change before, but it was reverted for some reason. Please be aware that nihilists are NOT valueless, otherwise they would go around raping, killing, pillaging, etc as much as they could. This is not the case.

The objective v subjective values distinction is a vital one to the idea of Nihilism.

Hikingkyle393 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"reverted for some reason" A specific reason actually was given. I'll give you another: WP:CITE --76.247.105.43 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In art

I removed the following from the "cultural manifestations" section and bring it here for discussion:

In art, there have been movements criticized for being nihilistic. Indeed, there are certain movements, like Dada and Situationism, in which certain nihilistic tendencies may be found. Literature and music, at times, deal with nihilism.

The Situationist International (1957-1972) could be considered an example of a political, social, and artistic movement rooted in nihilistic views and ideas. The Situationists attempted to abolish the earlier concepts established by Dadaism and Surrealism in deconstructing the notion of "art" as a separate form, subject or entity.

Modern art is sometimes said to be nihilistic in its lack of any deeper meaning than aesthetics. The Nazi party's Degenerate art exhibit is a specific instance in history in which modern art has been strongly publicly criticized.

This is written in such a simplistic manner that, even if we took most of its unreferenced assertions at face value, we would still have to question their encyclopædic merit. This reads like a junior high essay on a topic the author does not fully grasp. That there have been fact tags all over this for 6 months only makes the matter worse. The Dadaism subsection is also very problematic, but at least it is sourced. Truth be told, we could lose the entire "cultural manifestations" section and it would not be a terrible loss. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the apparent arbitrarity of the cultural manifestations presented here, I would concur. Besides, the label of nihilism can be easily placed on a wide variety of cultural phenomena, so if such a section were to exist, at least make it cover more (and more poignant) elements. For example: where are the 19th century Russian writers? Turgenyev is mentioned in the introduction, but a heavyweight like Dostoyevsky is missing. Koffiemok (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On the section about Nietzsche

This is the point of view of a visitor to the site looking for a general background and some references to the 'Nihilism': I don't think the section on Nietzsche's take on Nihilism works. I think it is necessary to incorporate, or to at least indicate, the wide diversity of how Nietzsche's take on nihilism is interpreted. Simply extracting quotes from his texts and either inferring conclusions from it or using a single point of view (which, in this case, falls within the 'analytical' school's point of view), which is quite narrow and restrictive is, in all senses of the term, counter-productive. This is especially the case when contentious and critical philosophical concepts are being explicated. Thanks. Quadruped (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with the section on Nietzsche as well. The idea that christianity is the opposite of nihilism seems a bit strange. I don't think it is appropriate to turn this totally unrelated article into a propaganda site for one religion. This section needs to be rephrased.

I don't know what you mean with your criticism on the section on Nietzsche. You say it falls within the analytical school, which is quite narrow and restrictive, but you don't say what you mean with that.Daanschr (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

CounterOrder Link

Removed. Non-notable. death metal maniac (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit as the guideline you cite, Wikipedia:Notability, has no bearing on the inclusion of external links. Notable topics relevant to the article are placed in the See also section; the External links section is reserved for useful links with information that could not be accommodated into the article for space and reliability concerns. Please read the Wikipedia:External links guideline before making further edits to the section. Regards, Skomorokh 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Can someone include the IPA pronunciation in the article? WilliamTheaker (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity is not the opposite of nihilism

I like to have a discussion on this issue. It is debatable whether Nietzsche is right with his remark that christianity is similar to nihilism. What can be said is that christians dissagree with this. But the present statement is too much propaganda for christianity.Daanschr (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity is completely opposed to nihilism. This is a matter of history not opinion. As can be seen in the works of Dostoevsky and his Orthodox Christian opposition to the very much so Russian movement all the way to Dostoevsky's friend Turgenev. Nihilism denies the transcendence of God as apodictic. Orthodox Christianity does not teach the nihilism of Western Christianity that Nietsche spoke of. This is at the very conflict between East and West. I repeat the East teaches that one can see and experience God in this life in the here and now. It does not teach that God can never be known or experience. Only that God is unknownable in his being or essence not in his existences which are immanent. [1] V Lossky states quote clearly it is not natural, good or healthy for a person to suffer though the Dark night of the soul to have doubt so sever that one suffers a spirtual crisis of the meaning of life. Maybe Western Christianity, but Eastern Christianity (as Dostoevsky and the Slavophils argued) did not spawn nihilism it is a transplant to the East that then mutates and parasitically sustaines itself off of a completely incorrect depiction of apophaticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The point made by Nietzsche and other atheists, is that there isn't a god. So, believing in a god or heaven is seen as nihilistic. Nietzsche refers to christianity in general, which includes eastern christianity. A compromise would be to say that it is debatable whether christianity is nihilistic and that some christians might say that christianity is the opposite of nihilism.Daanschr (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did Nietzche say he was an atheist? No- where. You are engaging in WP:OR. You are taking your opinion of Nietzche as fact. Because if Neitzche took such a position he would have been engaging in pseudo. Meaning he was supporting a position he could not validate. Since a belief that this life is given value by having an eternal afterlife is not a belief in nihil or nothing. Since it is not up to you or him (what appears to be your position) that nihilism now is not, a belief in the meaninglessness of life, existence period, here or in an afterlife. Quote me the anti-christ passages so that each comment can be addressed. That is of course if you have them.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether christianity is the opposite of nihilism or not. Nietzsche's texts are anachronistic. But there are atheists who disagree that christianity is the opposite of nihilism. I could get quotes from Feuerbach, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris.

The WP:OR rule only applies for the text in the article, not for the texts in the talk pages. I don't intend to say in this article that Nietzsche is an atheist, only that the text stating that christianity is the opposite of atheism should be changed. The atheistic aspect of Nietzsche is my idea. Nietzsche himself is clearly anti-christian, which can be seen from the quotes in this article. This quote might imply the naturalist (in my view atheist) nature of Nietzsche's philosophy:

From Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft:

"Vom "Genius der Gattung"

"354.

"Vom "Genius der Gattung". — Das Problem des Bewusstseins (richtiger: des Sich-Bewusst-Werdens) tritt erst dann vor uns hin, wenn wir zu begreifen anfangen, inwiefern wir seiner entraten könnten: und an diesen Anfang des Begreifens stellt uns jetzt Physiologie und Tiergeschichte (welche also zwei Jahrhunderte nötig gehabt haben, um den vorausfliegenden Argwohn Leibnitzens einzuholen). Wir könnten nämlich denken, fühlen, wollen, uns erinnern, wir könnten ebenfalls "handeln" in jedem Sinne des Wortes: und trotzdem brauchte das Alles nicht uns "in's Bewusstsein zu treten" (wie man im Bilde sagt). Das ganze Leben wäre möglich, ohne dass es sich gleichsam im Spiegel sähe: wie ja tatsächlich auch jetzt noch bei uns der bei weitem überwiegende Teil dieses Lebens sich ohne diese Spiegelung abspielt —, und zwar auch unsres denkenden, fühlenden, wollenden Lebens, so beleidigend dies einem älteren Philosophen klingen mag. Wozu überhaupt Bewusstsein, wenn es in der Hauptsache überflüssig ist? — Nun scheint mir, wenn man meiner Antwort auf diese Frage und ihrer vielleicht ausschweifenden Vermutung Gehör geben will, die Feinheit und Stärke des Bewusstseins immer im Verhältnis zur Mitteilungs-Fähigkeit eines Menschen (oder Tiers) zu stehen, die Mitteilungs-Fähigkeit wiederum im Verhältnis zur Mitteilungs-Bedürftigkeit: letzteres nicht so verstanden, als ob gerade der einzelne Mensch selbst, welcher gerade Meister in der Mitteilung und Verständlichmachung seiner Bedürfnisse ist, zugleich auch mit seinen Bedürfnissen am meisten auf die Andern angewiesen sein müsste. Wohl aber scheint es mir so in Bezug auf ganze Rassen und Geschlechter-Ketten zu stehen: wo das Bedürfnis,die Not die Menschen lange gezwungen hat, sich mitzuteilen, sich gegenseitig rasch und fein zu verstehen, da ist endlich ein Überschuss dieser Kraft und Kunst der Mitteilung da, gleichsam ein Vermögen, das sich allmählich aufgehäuft hat und nun eines Erben wartet, der es verschwenderisch ausgibt ( — die sogenannten Künstler sind diese Erben, insgleichen die Redner, Prediger, Schriftsteller, Alles Menschen, welche immer am Ende einer langen Kette kommen, "Spätgeborne" jedes Mal, im besten Verstande des Wortes, und, wie gesagt, ihrem Wesen nach Verschwender). Gesetzt, diese Beobachtung ist richtig, so darf ich zu der Vermutung weitergehen, dass Bewusstsein überhaupt sich nur unter dem Druck des Mitteilungs-Bedürfnisses entwickelt hat, — dass es von vornherein nur zwischen Mensch und Mensch (zwischen Befehlenden und Gehorchenden in Sonderheit) nötig war, nützlich war, und auch nur im Verhältnis zum Grade dieser Nützlichkeit sich entwickelt hat. Bewusstsein ist eigentlich nur ein Verbindungsnetz zwischen Mensch und Mensch, — nur als solches hat es sich entwickeln müssen: der einsiedlerische und raubtierhafte Mensch hätte seiner nicht bedurft. Dass uns unsre Handlungen, Gedanken, Gefühle, Bewegungen selbst in's Bewusstsein kommen — wenigstens ein Teil derselben —, das ist die Folge eines furchtbaren langen über dem Menschen waltenden "Muss": er brauchte, als das gefährdetste Tier, Hilfe, Schutz, er brauchte Seines-Gleichen, er musste seine Not auszudrücken, sich verständlich zu machen wissen — und zu dem Allen hatte er zuerst "Bewusstsein" nötig, also selbst zu "wissen" was ihm fehlt, zu "wissen", wie es ihm zu Mute ist, zu "wissen", was er denkt. Denn nochmals gesagt: der Mensch, wie jedes lebende Geschöpf, denkt immerfort, aber weiß es nicht; das bewusst werdende Denken ist nur der kleinste Teil davon, sagen wir: der oberflächlichste, der schlechteste Teil: — denn allein dieses bewusste Denken geschieht in Worten, das heißt in Mitteilungszeichen, womit sich die Herkunft des Bewusstseins selber aufdeckt. Kurz gesagt, die Entwicklung der Sprache und die Entwicklung des Bewusstseins (nicht der Vernunft, sondern allein des Sichbewusst-werdens der Vernunft) gehen Hand in Hand. Man nehme hinzu, dass nicht nur die Sprache zur Brücke zwischen Mensch und Mensch dient, sondern auch der Blick, der Druck, die Gebärde; das Bewusstwerden unserer Sinneseindrücke bei uns selbst, die Kraft, sie fixieren zu können und gleichsam außer uns zu stellen, hat in dem Maße zugenommen, als die Nötigung wuchs, sie Andern durch Zeichen zu übermitteln. Der Zeichen-erfindende Mensch ist zugleich der immer schärfer seiner selbst bewusste Mensch; erst als soziales Tier lernte der Mensch seiner selbst bewusst werden, — er tut es noch, er tut es immer mehr. — Mein Gedanke ist, wie man sieht: dass das Bewusstsein nicht eigentlich zur Individual-Existenz des Menschen gehört, vielmehr zu dem, was an ihm Gemeinschafts- und Herden-Natur ist; dass es, wie daraus folgt, auch nur in Bezug auf Gemeinschafts- und Herden-Nützlichkeit fein entwickelt ist, und dass folglich Jeder von uns, beim besten Willen, sich selbst so individuell wie möglich zu verstehen, "sich selbst zu kennen", doch immer nur gerade das Nicht-Individuelle an sich zum Bewusstsein bringen wird, sein "Durchschnittliches", — dass unser Gedanke selbst fortwährend durch den Charakter des Bewusstseins — durch den in ihm gebietenden "Genius der Gattung" — gleichsam majorisiert und in die Herden-Perspektive zurück-übersetzt wird. Unsre Handlungen sind im Grunde allesamt auf eine unvergleichliche Weise persönlich, einzig, unbegrenzt-individuell, es ist kein Zweifel; aber sobald wir sie in's Bewusstsein übersetzen, scheinen sie es nicht mehr ... Dies ist der eigentliche Phänomenalismus und Perspektivismus, wie ich ihn verstehe: die Natur des tierischen Bewusstseins bringt es mit sich, dass die Welt, deren wir bewusst werden können, nur eine Oberflächen- und Zeichenwelt ist, eine verallgemeinerte, eine vergemeinerte Welt, — dass Alles, was bewusst wird, ebendamit flach, dünn, relativ-dumm, generell, Zeichen, Herden-Merkzeichen wird, dass mit allem Bewusstwerden eine große gründliche Verderbnis, Fälschung, Veroberflächlichung und Generalisation verbunden ist. Zuletzt ist das wachsende Bewusstsein eine Gefahr; und wer unter den bewusstesten Europäern lebt, weiß sogar, dass es eine Krankheit ist. Es ist, wie man errät, nicht der Gegensatz von Subjekt und Objekt, der mich hier angeht: diese Unterscheidung überlasse ich den Erkenntnistheoretikern, welche in den Schlingen der Grammatik (der Volks-Metaphysik) hängen geblieben sind. Es ist erst recht nicht der Gegensatz von "Ding an sich" und Erscheinung: denn wir "erkennen" bei weitem nicht genug, um auch nur so scheiden zu dürfen. Wir haben eben gar kein Organ für das Erkennen, für die "Wahrheit": wir "wissen" (oder glauben oder bilden uns ein) gerade so viel als es im Interesse der Menschen-Herde, der Gattung, nützlich sein mag: und selbst, was hier "Nützlichkeit" genannt wird, ist zuletzt auch nur ein Glaube, eine Einbildung und vielleicht gerade jene verhängnisvollste Dummheit, an der wir einst zu Grunde gehen."

End of the quote.Daanschr (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Christianity belief in something (Christ), nihilism is belief in nothing = not the same thing. Very simple..LoveMonkey (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche apparantly dissagrees with you, so and i agree with Nietzsche on this. Are you trying to come to a compromise, or should i ask for arbitration?Daanschr (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bring it to arb. As for Nietzsche so what...He takes boths sides of the argument since he is Mr Duplicitous which doesn't make this whole thing wiki worthy. Since the article now properly reflects the issues I have with your blanket statement. I object to what you seem to imply in wanting to change it further from where it is right now. Forgive my lack of good faith but much of that lack would dry up if you'd post from the anti-christ (and any of Nietzche's other works). Where he stated that all of Christianity is nihilistic at heart. Quote the passages. Please pretty please. Since this takes us down the road of including how Nietzche blames the Jews for all of this in the Geneology of Morality.[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche wasn't the issue here. You wanted a quote from Nietzsche and i was so kind to deliver it to you. I am not much of a fan of Nietzsche and have more feeling for other writers, but i do like some of Nietzsche's observations.

The main issue that i liked to discuss had nothing to do with Nietzsche, it was the remark that christianity is the opposite of nihilism. This is where i disagree and according to the NPOV-rule, which is forms the heart of Wikipedia, we need to come to an agreement we can both live with. If you don't want to change anything to this article, than you are breaking the NPOV-rule. I don't mind if your view is included in this article, but my view that christianity doesn't necessarily be the opposite of nihilism should be included as well, and else the NPOV-rule is not observed.Daanschr (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would pardon the intrusion, I would agree that the section on Nietzsche is up for some revisions. Primarily this is beacuse the article makes it seem like Nietzsche has a single, coherent notion of what nihilism is or entails. Especially in the Nachlass, which contains the majority of explicit references to the concept of nihilism, there are surpisingly coherent sections on how nihilism is both the basic state of meaninglessness that moral codes (Christianity) are supposed to cover up (because man is unable to live properly without meaning) and the consequence of Christianity's own truthfulness (the discovery of Christianity's falseness from its own regard for truth). And even then, nihilism can be both a positive force (destruction in preparation of building something else) and a negative force. Like User:LoveMonkey mentioned, Nietzsche is Mr. Duplicitious on a lot of issues, and he fails to straighten out his terminology in an academically proper fashion (which might just be part of the point he's trying to make). But isn't the article concerning Nietzsche supposed to make note of such ambiguity? One final thing: the final section on Nietzsche (after the Also Sprach Zarathustra-quote lacks any and all references, while presenting an aweful lot of interpretation on Nietzsche. Seems like a bit of a problem to me.Koffiemok (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Something I would like to add to the discussion on Christianity and (some forms of) nihilism is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. In the wake of the First World War, branches of Christianity, like the dialectical theology espoused by Karl Barth, run with a lot of the basic notions of nihilism. Notions like the meaninglessness life in general and that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in God and the consequent leap of faith that one must make to even attempt such an absurdity are compatible with many forms of nihilism. It is an interesting theory and, while I am no theologian, it might even be interesting to include it (or a short reference) in this article. More orthodox branches of Christianity might clash violently with nihilism (or withwhat they believe to be nihilism), but the existence of variants of christian thought as mentioned above (and variants in forms of nihilism, for that matter) make it impossible to categorically state that the two are in opposition.Koffiemok (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Vijay Prozak's Idiotic Essay shouldnt be Included

"Vijay Prozak" (S.R. Prozak) is an open NeoNazi Saboteur, Columbine-supporting Pothead, and associate of ex-metalhead-turned-Al-Qaida-murderer, Adam Gadahn; his views on Nihilism deserve no respect! Wikipedia is all about Socially-humanistic Democracy, why twist our goals for these types of fruitcakes?

Evidentiary Proof of Al-Qaida-terrorist link:

http://www.anus.com/etc/adam_yahiye_gadahn/

"Prozak" and A.N.U.S. also own and promote a website called...

amerika DOT org "Al-Qaeda Appreciation Society of North America" (apparently they have grown more deceptive over time--here is the original website):

http://web.archive.org/web/20050124212040/http://amerika.org/

Moreoever--Pro-Columbine, Pro-School-Massacre Propaganda:

http://www.anus.com/etc/highschool/

A.N.U.S. and Prozak were also friends and celebrators of Jeff Weise, the Indian teenage mass-killer. Prozak lives to spread crime, subversion, and antidemocratic terrorism--Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with these psychopaths.

In addition, ANUS and Prozak adore the terrorist Unabomber; here is convicted criminal, the Unabomber, hand-written note to Vijay Prozak:

http://www.anus.com/zine/db/unabomber/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.191.25 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about presenting the viewpoint of social-humanist democracy, it is simply to present information. I understand A.N.U.S. is fairly well-known on the internet, so I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. I for one hate the website, but that's no reason to censor it. Zazaban (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not one NOTABLE, REPUTABLE source that considers ANUS and guru-terrorist-leader Prozak as either 1) news-worthy or 2) scholarly. It is only through the activist fanaticism of ANUS-cultist-hackers that any prominence is given whatsoever to their idiotic pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of fascism and terrorism. As indicated above, Prozak (and the ANUS staff) are clearly psychopathic/sociopathic mental nutcases posing as intellectuals utilizing disaffected youth to offset their own neurosis. And BTW, Wikipedia IS about Democracy, with a capital D. Wikipedia is a democratic experiment in digital knowledge sharing, and no antidemocratic fruitcakes can possibly argue otherwise.

If Wikipedia voluntarily chooses to support clearly deviant-sociopathic, pro-terrorist organizations, Wikipedia will no longer exist in its reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.148.2 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV vs Nihilism

How can you folks even claim to write an NPOV about Nihilism when the entire point is that there IS NO SUCH THING AS NPOV? Sigh. Yes, that's a rhetorical question. This article should just be deleted. I'd try to fix this pile of **** but I'm an actual nihilist who understands the futility of NPOV. 75.88.234.224 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written in NPOV, even when writing about people or movements who might not believe in it. It would be possible to write in French about a group of people who believe that there is no such thing as the French language. --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving article in following weeks (September 2009)

Even though there has been made a start at making this a worthy encyclopediatic article, much still has to be done. Together with a fellow student of philosophy, I want to improve this article in the following weeks. We're both studying philosophy at the master's level and are following a master's course on "Nihilism and morals", by Nietzsche-expert Paul van Tongeren. We would appreciate it if persons interested in doing so, regularly check back on this article to see how we are progressing and to give us feedback. We may be studying philosophy but that doesn't make us omniscient, so would welcome any constructive tips and comments.

Thanks.

Caedus (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's sourced. Zazaban (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will be. Talking about sources: those Will to Power quotations should be removed. That isn't Nietzsche book but the combination of scraps and pieces that his sister choose herself from his works. Caedus (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Outright removal might be a bit harsh. The fragments themselves are by Nietzsche, but the work that is referred to is not. While I agree with my colleague that references to the Will to Power are problematic and should probably be replaced with references to the Nachlass, problems concerning the 'authenticity' of the manuscript should be resolved here.

Nihilism and Buddhism

Given that Buddhism was a major influence on the philosophy of Schopenhauer and that Nietzsche mentions it in relation to Western nihilism, do you think it might be a good idea to include a bit about Buddhism in this article? The negation of the self and (to an extent) the world is a central concept in Buddhism and as such constitute at least some form of nihilism. I'can't say I know too much about Buddhism or its direct influence on the philosophers mentioned in the article, but this might be an interesting and valid element. Any thoughts?Koffiemok (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revised structure

Due to the rather chaotic nature of the current structure of the article, I would like to propose a revised structure (with the help of Caedus). One of the major problems in the current article is the distinction between the history of the concept of nihilism and the thematic distinction between different uses of the term. As such, despite his promonent discussions on the notion, the part on Nietzsche would fall under the historical discussion. So the only real difference is the placing of "Nietzsche" and "Postmodernism" under "History".

1. History
   1. 19th-century
   2. Nietzsche
   3. Heidegger (1)
   4. Postmodernism
2. Forms of Nihilism
   1. Moral
   2. Existential
   3. Epistemological
   4. Metaphysical
   5. Mereological
   6. Political
3. Reactions to nihilism (2)
   1. Absurdism
   2. Existentialism
   3. Criticism
4. In culture (3)
   1. Literature
   2. Etc.

(1): Heidegger is to be included here because of his specific interpretation of Nietzsches work and subsequent influence on how nihilism was treated during the 20th century.

(2): Reactionary movements such as absurdism and existentialism are important here because they take basic notions espoused in nihilism and elaborate on that (i.e. "what to do when the world is a meaningless place?"), while criticism of nihilism in general should be made explicit in the article. Nihilism is a term which has been used as an insult since it was coined, so at least some reference should be made to this.

(3): Nihilism and culture can be a bit of a tricky coupling, because nihilism has become a bit of a stereotype. References to work such as Turgenyev's and Dostoyevski's should at least be included here.

Thoughts? Suggestions? General threats? Without andy feedback these changes will be implemented throughtout next week.

Koffiemok (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will all agree that this will make the article a bit more comprehensive. Small comment on the Heidegger part: I will be adding that in the following weeks. Caedus (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger's Nietzsche interpretation added

As announced earlier, I added a paragraph on Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche's thoughts on nihilism. Comments and corrections of typos welcome. Caedus (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Credible source to cite...

"The Matrix and Philosophy" by William Irwin...see chapter 13...(how appropriate)...

nemo senki

Lede

Dictionaries commonly define nihilism as rejecting the basis or foundation for a variety of ideas: the basis for moral beliefs, religious values, political ideals, etc. "Aspects of existence" is needlessly vague and broad. What exactly is an aspect of existence? Nihilists reject things like meaning, knowledge, and morality. The category there is something like "values" or "abtract concepts that human cultures emphasize as fundamnetal." Meanwhile, "aspects of existence" can mean nearly anything from physics to biology to ecology to anthropology to culture: evolution, reproduction, energy transfer, entropy, etc. Let's please find a way to be more precise. Wolfdog (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Wolfdog and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. You are right that the expression "aspects of existence" is vague and broad. I'm not sure that this is a disadvantage: different forms of nihilism do not have much in common except for denying something. The missing precision in the first sentence is given right in the next sentence, which lists several denied aspects. A simple solution to your concern would be to merge the two sentences into one: "... certain aspects of existence, such as ...". However, MOS:FIRST states "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." I prefer the current version since it is more accessible, going from general to specific. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your collegiality. We can certainly try to avoid overloading the sentence. What do you think of my possible tweaks to the "aspects of existence" phrasing though? I think words like "basis" or "values" seem a bit more precise, while understanding that nihilism is certainly an umbrella. Wolfdog (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with the specific phrase either but haven't yet found good alternatives. One could say "certain fundamental principles" or "the basis of certain ideas", but I'm not sure that they are improvements. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy with "the basis of certain fundamental ideas". I think even better would be "the basis of certain fundamental moral, political, or religious ideas". (I said "philosophical" in my original edit to cover moral, epistemic, metaphysical, etc.) Here's some dictionaries I looked at: MerrWeb includes that "traditional values and beliefs are unfounded" and "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truth", so to me here the key words are something like values, foundation, (objective) ground. Collins talks of "all political and religious authority"; "denial of all established authority and institutions"; and " rejects all values", so authority and values. Cambridge doesn't seem to discuss one common noun (it says "all political and religious organization are bad" which makes me laugh). American Heritage says negativity "suggesting an absence of values or beliefs". So the major abstract nouns are values (the top one), foundation, ground (basis is the synonym we seem to be moving towards), and authority. Perhaps then the best-case sentence is: "the basis of certain fundamental moral, political, or religious values"? Wolfdog (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I went with "the basis of certain ideas", a modification of your first suggestion: Given we already have the term "basis", adding the term "fundamental" introduces redundancy. I'm not convinced that the change is an improvement, but it should work. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I still think an adjective would be great. Me randomly imagining a pink elephant is an "idea." But we're talking about ideas that are fundamental to learning, morality, culture, and human understandings of the universe. That's why I used "fundamental". Is there something better? ("Philosophical"?) Wolfdog (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To include the term "fundamental", we could say "reject certain fundamental ideas" without the expression "basis of". Either way avoids the pleonasm. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll just drop it. Wolfdog (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for omitting to check the talk page. Thoughts on this?

>Nihilism, defined narrowly, is a family of philosophical positions that deny the existence of inherent meaning, value, or purpose in life, morality, or the universe. Defined more broadly, nihilism can refer to any viewpoint that rejects or denies the existence of something commonly believed by others to exist (eg mereological nihilism). [rest of intro] --krimin_killr21(talk) 03:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello krimin_killr21 and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The position you describe seems to be existential nihilism. This is already discussed in the second paragraph. Since there are also other forms of nihilism, I think the current first sentence is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How would you feel about keeping the two sentence broad and narrow intro, but replacing the first sentence as:

Nihilism, defined narrowly, is a family of philosophical views arguing that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, or that knowledge is impossible. --krimin_killr21(talk) 13:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The current first sentence already covers the most important types of nihilism, so characterizing it as a narrow definition is misleading. We should also be careful about the broad claim that nihilism covers "any viewpoint that rejects or denies the existence of something commonly believed by others to exist". For example, materialism is commonly believed today, but that doesn't mean that idealism is a form of nihilism. To implement something similar to your idea, we could keep the first sentence as it is and use a modified version of the second sentence: Nihilism is a family of philosophical views arguing that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, or that knowledge is impossible. In a broad sense, it encompasses viewpoints that reject the basis of certain ideas. Nihilistic views span several branches... Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually quite like your "family of philosophical positions that deny the existence of inherent meaning, value," etc. followed by a broader second defintion. Though I don't love the "believed by others to exist" bit. We should narrow that, as it tends to be core, fundamental, almost pan-human, widely-held views that are rejected. Otherwise, while I admit the page's current definition is quite narrow (a definition by examples), a definition like "rejects aspects of existence" or "certain ideas" seems excessively vague to me. However, I could be persuaded by your current take but with some tweaks, along the lines of a family of philosophical positions that deny the existence of inherent meaning, value, purpose in life, morality, the universe, or other fundamental aspects of existence (or maybe, widely held views?). Wolfdog (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I thinking keeping at as two sentences serves two important purposes.

One, it helps to distinguish that nihilism is used in two pretty distinct ways. There's Nihilism™, which is existential or even just total nihilism about the value of anything. And then there's little-n nihilism, which only denies specific ideas.

Two, it prevents a run on sentence and gives us the opportunity to describe this second kind of nihilism more fully.

Could we agree to a revision of the second sentence along the lines of:

Defined more broadly, nihilism can refer to any viewpoint that rejects or denies the existence of [something, some philosophical concept] widely held [by human beings, by others] to exist [(eg mereological nihilism)]. --krimin_killr21(talk) 13:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly approve of a basic usual (narrow) vs broad distinction. I think we still need some tweaks on the second sentence to incorporate Phlsph7's idealism concern. To me, the broader type is something like "an active rejection of a belief/s without usually any offer of a positive replacement belief." But still unsure of the wording. Wolfdog (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Bias?

I suppose most of it is historical and supported by reliable sources, but the basic idea of nihilism seems not to be treated from a neutral point of view here. Sure, "it can lead to indifference, lack of motivation, and existential crises", but isn't this equally true of the concerns of opposing views? Believing in truths and meaning can at least as logically lead to "indifference, lack of motivation, and existential crises", although this arguably much more affects the attitude towards others: a believer becomes indifferent to other views, lacks motivation to investigate other options, and is vulnerable to existential crises or overly defensive against it when the slightest doubt about a belief is raised. Especially that latter aspect causes the bias towards nihilism, but we seem to possess very little notion of "truth" at birth and freeing oneself of later obtained values or ideas of meaning can be more liberating than depressing if welcomed without the fear of what may get lost. What gets lost is usually not a widely acknowledged fact or a scientific theory, but more often a very shaky and irrational belief in something that contradicts fact and scientific theories. A "detachment from worldly concerns" thus seems to be a very positive aspect of nihilism, supported in dominant world views to some extent, but not a "response" to nihilism as the article now seems to suggest (the alternative interpretation that this is a response to the potential negative issues being raised seems less logical).

Arguments like this are not rare and can probably easily be supported by reliable sources. Plenty already pop up in the article. Perhap it's just a few lines that make the text appear to be written from a predominantly dismissive point of view rather than a neutral encyclopedic view, so adjusting these would improve much. Besides some lines already quoted, phrases like "different forms of nihilism deny different features of reality" do not take the reality of nihilistic objections to misguided ideas of reality into account, and the association with "disillusioned attitudes" may be historically correct, but objections like "nihilists deny that it has any positive or negative meaning" seem too scarce. Despite my emphasis on a more positive notion of nihilism here, I don't see myself as a nihilist and don't advocate an overly positive approach, but I hope others see my point and can make the tone of this article more neutral. Joortje1 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

As the article already hints at, the general dismissive portrayal of nihilism seems to have mostly come from western philosophers influenced by over a thousand years of christianity, who were struggling to find alternatives for the apparent certainty of that outlook, especially since atheism rose during modernism. It can easily be argued that the certainty about meaningfulness of whatever topic tends to be arrogant and misguided. Many may prefer Descartes "cogito, ergo sum" as it suggests positvism, but his refined "dubito, ergo sum" can be explained as a paradox comparable to Multatuli's "Maybe nothing is completely true, and not even that”, which is more obviously utterly nihilistic. Epistemic humility and rigorous skepticism seem very important when it comes to conceptualising any potential truth, as opposed to emotionally driven ideas of value and meaning (dominantly suffered from in virtually every philosophy or religion). This is widely acknowledged in science and logic, and much of the resistance to it is irrational and subjective. Does most of the literature perhaps focus on resistance from these subjective notions of certainty and of reality (by unconvinced or struggling authors), rather than on convincing nihilistic argumentation? Joortje1 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Joortje1 and thanks for your comment. The article covers various forms of nihilism and all the subsections of the main forms explain arguments both for and against to ensure WP:NPV. For example, see the paragraphs Arguments for and against existential nihilism..., One argument for moral nihilism...Moral realists have raised objections to moral nihilism..., and Proponents of relativism emphasize... An influential criticism argues that relativism.... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Phlsph7, thanks for your reply, but I don't really see how it engages with my point and the given examples. I already acknowledged that plenty of arguments pop up in the article, but also gave examples for sentences that make the whole article seem written from a dismissive POV. One of the best arguments is hidden away in note b: "Others propose nihilism as one way to resolve [existential crises] by learning to accept meaninglessness rather than finding a source of meaning." That notion is hardly made clear in the main text; and as far as it's hinted at, it's drowned out by for instance associations with depression and apathy. It's as if even the arguments for nihilism are written by someone like Camus, whose suicidal thoughts seem illustrative of my point that the struggle against nihilism can lead to depression rather than nihilism itself. Was any source written by somebody who identified as a nihilist, who promoted nihilism wholeheartedly, or who at least understood the view at least as well as any opposing view? Joortje1 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I reformulated the sentence on Camus to give it a more positive spin. The point about resolving existential crises through nihilism is only mentioned in a footnote because this is not a common view. I added a sentence on Nietzsche about liberating effects, which is hopefully in the spirit of your point.

Regarding your more specific points above about "opposing views", it is true that there are counterarguments against the criticisms of the different forms of nihilism. However, there are also counterarguments against the arguments in favor of the different forms of nihilism. The treatment in this overview article needs to be concise, so we cannot pursue complex chains of arguments and counterarguments. This would fit better into child articles on more specific topics.

Generally speaking, the article is based on a broad range of high-quality overview sources, which seek to give a balanced overview. For example, the following is the first paragraph of the section "Existential Nihilism" of the Nihilism entry of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I think its general outlook is similar to what our article says.

Existential nihilists contend that human existence has no purpose, value, or justification. There is no reason to live, and yet we persist in living. The human situation is therefore absurd. The philosophical position of existential nihilism is not just that this or that person may fail to find meaning in life; it is rather that a genuinely meaningful life is impossible. In the face of this conclusion, Schopenhauer counsels us to quench the flame of affirmation and desire, to resign ourselves to the span of our days without hope of respite and calmly await an annihilating death, the last sure sign of the utter futility of our existence. Sartre too hammers at the absurdity of existence but counsels us in Being and Nothingness (1943) to invent meanings for our lives through sheer acts of freedom, creating those meanings - in the manner of the God of traditional religion - out of nothing. Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, finds the absurdity of the human situation to lie in our restless, futile search for comprehensive meaning in a universe that has no discoverable significance or value. He advises us not to commit suicide when we realize that our lives have no point - that would be the coward’s way out. Instead, we should heroically rebel against the abyss of meaninglessness and in that very act of defiance find some semblance of a reason for being (see Existentialism).

Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits you made in reponse. Especially the new Nietzsche line seems to capture the idea of nihilism much better than Schopenhauer's pessimism and Camus' anti-nihilism. Even Nietzsche ultimately rejected nihilism, but was at least able to relatively neutrally consider its pros and cons (if I understand correctly from what wikipedia tells me).

"resolving existential crises through nihilism [is] not a common view": how not? Note b cites 4 sources. Although he gave it a pessimistic framework, Schopenhauer basically advised it in his ascetism, an essentially nihilistic principle promoted in many religions and philosophies. Nietzsche's relatively popular idea of 'active' nihilism clearly aligns. Punk ideologies seem to say more or less the same, although more as political protest rather than cosmological or personal introspection. Much of this already was in the article (except the mention of punk), but seemed drowned out by several biased sentences, like the one that was in the lead. I believe your new version is a great improvement! Joortje1 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The footnote cites four sources for the whole passage. If I remember correctly, only Yalom 2020 explicitly supports the part about resolving existential crises through nihilism, discussing nihilism only as one of several competing responses. Existential crisis is a technical term and many sources on nihilism may address related issues without mentioning the term in this context. As far as I'm aware, the more common view is that the inability to find meaning causes existential crises and that one typically resolves them by finding new sources of meaning rather accepting meaninglessness. By the way, I added a see-also link to punk ideologies. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Argument about atheism

Isn't the very notion "that, without a God, there is no source of higher values that transcend the natural world" an utterly theistic view? Our article now frames it as "an atheistic view". Most atheists would "typically construe atheism as more moral than religion" (see Atheism#Atheism and ethics). Aren't there plenty metaphysical notions of moral values, other than atttributing them to a god? Which "atheistic view" of the innumerable total actually denies all "source[s] of higher values that transcend the natural world"? Shouldn't we specify that in the article rather than keep the current problematic statement? Once again, I don't want to advocate nihilistic or atheistic views here; I'm just trying to point out that the tone of this article often doesn't seem very neutral (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Joortje1 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Atheism is standardly construed as a view about the existence of God, see the IEP entry Atheism: "Atheism is the view that there is no God". Our sentence does not say that all atheists are nihilists. It says that this form of nihilism includes atheist views. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, did I somehow inadvertently imply that atheism meant something else than the view that there are no gods? Atheism doesn't really exclude ideas like Ietsism or other beliefs in supernatural forces that may inspire moralistic values, and certainly doesn't reject metaphysical humanism as a source for morality. The current line thus seems totally counterfactual. And it obviously is an utterly theistic belief that associates morality with one or more gods. Many theists therefore believe in the strawman notion that atheism rejects morality.

Perhaps the passage in the article tries to say that a certain atheistic view embraces nihilism and thus rejects morality along with a lack of belief in gods, but if so, it's phrased very imprecise and comes with many problematic implications. (I have no idea how you instead interpreted my point as a presumed misinterpretation that the article would suggest that "all atheists are nihilists")

There may be many 'reliable' sources written from such (predominantly christian) biases, but that's no reason to do the same on Wikipedia. For instance https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ emphatically explains "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods", before explicitly addressing this problem: "Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God". Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions." Wikipedia's page on Atheism seems to have taken such arguments into account, so why not the article on Nihilism? Joortje1 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I restored a reformulated version of the sentence on atheism since the connection to atheism should be mentioned in some form. I hope the new formulation makes the relation clearer. It does not define atheism, addressing your concerns about the precise definition. The sentence is directly supported by Crosby 1988: A world without God must lack the intelligible structures and purposive goals of a creative mind ... A second argument tying atheism to nihilism yields two interconnected conclusions. The first is that no objective ground for values can exist apart from belief in God as the source and standard of all value. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Citing a 1980s source by a US theologian might explain the bias, but let's see what Crosby actually argues. He's interested in "arguments that purport to show that loss of belief in God leads necessarily to nihilism." The "loss of belief in God" actually underlines my arguments that it's not nihilism as much as the struggle with losing a previous belief in a certainty that leads to distress, and "purport to show" hints at the dubious status of the argument. Crosby ultimately identfies it as a defense of theism by citing theologian Hans Küng. That's precisely what I said: "an utterly theistic view" and heavily biased "strawman notion" of atheism and nihilsm, not a cosmological argument "sometimes combined with atheism to form the argument that there is no God". I changed the line to better reflect Crosby's ultimate explanation. Joortje1 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Our passage in question is about arguments for nihilism. An argument along the lines "there is no god, therefore there is no objective meaning or value" fits the topic. This is why Crosby discusses the argument in the section "Arguments for Nihilism". As Crosby mentions, you can reverse the logic and transform this into an argument for theism, as you did in the sentence you added. The problem is that an argument for theism does not fit into a passage about arguments for nihilism.

The point we have to make is relatively simple. There are various arguments in the academic literature about how the non-existence of God leads to nihilism. This idea is already found in Nietzsche. We need one sentence to summarize this line of thought, even if we do not agree with it. If you feel strongly about the term "atheism", we can try to look for a formulation that does not use that term. What about A different line of argument asserts that there is no God and that there can be no inherent purpose or objective foundation for values without a God.

As a sidenote: I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss high-quality sources as biased because they define atheism differently than you or because they are written by US theologians. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

When there are contradicting views, they typically need proper attribution to not conflate opponent's opinions with the view itself. My remark on Crosby's theological background and the related edit mainly take that aspect into account, rather than dismissing a source that happens to support my own arguments. I'm not defining atheism and don't feel strongly about the term itself, but I prefer to look at the logic implied, how experts explain it, but preferably not from an opposing view. Similarly, I wouldn't just claim that Christians must be miserable because they believe in hell and in a jealous vengeful god, while Christian sources generally maintain that their faith offers love and happiness instead, even if I would have some source by an expert atheist positing the argument.

"Our passage in question is about arguments for nihilism": then why does the paragraph start with "Arguments for and against existential nihilism are discussed in the academic discourse."? And why are the better arguments are hidden in footnotes. Note C's difference between passive and active nihilsm seems particularly illuminating.

"A different line of argument asserts that there is no God and that there can be no inherent purpose or objective foundation for values without a God": I do like the paradox that the first part implies atheism and the second part theism, which illustrates the problem in Küng's strawman argument. I'm less sure whether anybody actually ever argued something like your sentence suggests, but it may resemble the struggles of people losing their christian faith? Crosby descriptions of the 'Godless cosmos indifferent to human concerns' of Nietzsche and co seem to reflect some of it, but not entirely (especially given their responses as stated in the article). It's ultimately Küng's defense of theism that best fits the bill. Joortje1 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Crosby source actually preached the approach I advocated above and called it the "lifeblood of higher education": "trying to grasp from within and in their own terms outlooks different from one's own". And he does so in response to a Christian's "safeguard of faith" against nihilism and atheism, which he describes as an ironic "sand castle molded from the very stuff of the absurd". Joortje1 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole paragraph lists arguments for nihilism, which is why I said that an argument for theism does not really fit (the following paragraph lists arguments against nihilism). For a more detailed discussion of this and similar arguments, see Garcia & King 2009 Is Goodness without God Good Enough? and Tooley 2025 Is Ethics Without God Possible?. There would be many other sources if you still have serious doubts about anyone proposing similar arguments. I implemented a variation of my suggestion, and I moved a reformulated version of your point to a footnote. If this or something similar does not work for you, the next step would probably be to restore the original text and to ask for a third opinion to get some external feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

"At one end of the spectrum are those who think that unless God exists, ethics is unfounded and the moral life is unmotivated. At the other end are those who think that religious belief is unnecessary for and even a threat to ethical knowledge and the moral life." (publisher description for Garcia & King 2009) That sums it up quite clearly, without attributing the theistic view to the atheistic view. The current line is an insanely paradoxical and stressful midway view that surely represent the stuggles of people losing previously held beliefs. That particualr aspect seems not very well described throughout the article; much is presented as a problem inherent to nihilism rather than to the original beliefs (or to the loss thereof). Joortje1 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that much in the article is written from that 1st perspective, not necessarily religiously, but from unwilling considerations of the challenges to certain 'knowledge', 'truth', morals or other valued constructs.

It might help to put epistomology first throughout the article, because it describes logic and doesn't immeditately load the basic concepts with emotional values associated with existence, morals, religion, et cetera. The new order should make it easier to understand the implications of the logic for the associated values. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that the paradox you encounter originates primarily in your interpretation rather than in the text itself. Existential nihilism is presented first because reliable sources give more weight to it and usually present it first as well. For example, from Gemes & Sykes 2013: The most influential version of nihilism is existential nihilism. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Really? You don't see any tension between "there can be no objective foundation for values without a God"—an assumption that only very convinced theists would posit as argument in respone to nihilism—and phrasing this as an argument that first asserts that "there is no God"? Joortje1 (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

How the page on Existential nihilsm phrases the view in this regard: "both religion and metaphysics are simply results of the fear of death and the endeavor to find meaning in a meaningless universe." How about importing that to replace your interpretation? Joortje1 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that only "very convinced theists" would see a connection is probably the source of your difficulties. If an argument is frequently presented in reliable sources, we have to summarize it, even if we don't agree with it. As Wikipedians, we can't reject arguments based on personal opinions. For a few more quotes: from Garcia & King 2009: ... the consistent atheist is forced toward the view that moral values are ultimately illusory ... If theism is false, we do not have a sound foundation for morality ... if theism is false, then it's very hard to see what basis remains for the affirmation of objective moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability. In short, it's hard to see why nihilism would not be true. In that case, goodness without God is not good enough.

I restored the sentence and adjusted the passage you added to fit the discussion. Existential nihilists do not generally reject metaphysics (some even see metaphysics as the source of nihilism) so we have to be careful about overgeneralizing. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, "only very convinced theists" was a bit overstated to emphasise the tension in your line. That has little to with my personal opinion, which is merely that your line is a confusing summary of various ideas that can be interpreted in different ways, some of them highly controversial. You seem to want to say something that's clear and neutrally expressed in the sources, but it looks like I'm wasting my time asking for that kind of quality here. Joortje1 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)