Nihilism vIdealism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Nihilism vIdealism » Nihilism vIdealism

Nihilism vIdealism

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 09/01/08 - 03:49 PM: Subject: Nihilism vIdealism	#1
More conceptual war waging from the guy with Maniac in his name: I wish to compare Idealism and Nihilism as philosophical doctrines that incorporate bottom-up reasoning, or deduction. So, Iâ€™ve laid out some terms and wish everyone to see the metaphysical implications in using such though processes that have been accorded to Western Philosophy. Eastern thought processes may serve as some backdrop but I will try not to make any reference to them, outside this singular sentence. Now, Iâ€™m not sure as to what I am referencing when I speak of these two terms, and they surely have some rather ambiguous connotations as they are abstract terms. For the sake of argumentation, Iâ€™ll define Ethical Idealism and Ethical Nihilism, but first: Bottom-Up Reasoning is Deductive Reasoning: They are conceptually the same, even if the terms therein these words would suggest otherwise [Deductive sounds like it heads downward and should therefore be top-down, however, this is not the case]. Both begin with a claim [verified or not, it is prioritized] and then logically deduce; or, both begin with a claim [verified or not, it is prioritized] and then build an argumentation with the claim at center. This doesnâ€™t mean that the claim is true or false, but that Causality is built around such a claim to the extent that one might see Prime Moverâ€™s as a necessity to Reality, whereas Reality offers no Direct Evidence, it is deduced nonetheless. Or, as found on some site: BOTTOM-UP REASONING: Begins with judgments about particular actual and hypothetical cases and uses them to support the principles or generalizations that best explain those particular judgments. Bottom-Up reasoning supports principles or generalizations that explain our particular judgments and undermines moral principles that do not. DEDUCTIVE IMPLICATION. Suppose you are given a set of premises and a conclusion. Whenever the logical form of the premises and the conclusion is such that it is not possible for the premises all to be true and the conclusion to be false, we will say that the premises deductively imply the conclusion. Whenever a group of premises deductively imply a given conclusion, we will say that the combination of premises and conclusion is a valid deduction. So, each begins with a claim/value/assertion, and then everything else is just implied there upon such a notion. Iâ€™m sure this definition looks familiar to some of you. IDEALISM is too often confused with REALISM, and although I do not wish to discuss the latter, I do need to separate the two. This may be impossible as I have a feeling that our Western Culture is Idealistic- and thus we all think of Reality in an Ideal Sense[that there is only what we know]. I point to Philosophers from Plato to Kant that have been referred to as idealistic [WIKI lists nearly all western philosophers under Idealism], as well as Christianity which often claims to know perfection in the Form of Jesus or God or whatever. Descartes Believed in Himself, and that was it [though he called it certain knowledge]; I call this Idealistic, in that it propagates this truth over all others, and from this premise makes all other claims; he deduces all of reality on the basis that all he knows is himself. Idealists tend to support objectivity as Morality; Nihilists say there is no Morality. That is, the prior suggests that the way things are is the way they should be [â€œthatâ€™s the way it isâ€], while the latter supports that it doesnâ€™t matter how things are [â€œthatâ€™s the way it isâ€]. I wish to reiterate the last lines of bottom up reasoningâ€™s definition: Bottom-Up reasoning supports principles or generalizations that explain our particular judgments and undermines moral principles that do not. Now, both Idealism and Nihilism make claims that support their own set of claims/ethics/whatnot. An Idealist thinks he knows best, a nihilist thinks no one knows best- and thus both will often disregard others assertions and agree with what is already in place [â€¦maybe that was a step too far?] So, a step back: One claims that current values are correct and another claims that No values can be correct. Indeed, this may appear as the only two options, but Both Deny Internal Progress. Neither cares what else is out there that would contradict with the Self. Both make claims in absolutes: Ethical Idealism is absolute [see: Godâ€™s Wrath] and Ethical Nihilism is Absolutely Nothing. They are, in a sense, circular. Iâ€™m not entirely convinced I have defined these terms appropriately for everyone. However, I did hope to convey some sort of opposing yet similar relationship between two terms, of which I propose these two terms in light of the fact that I cannot think of anything better to represent the ideas associated with this contrast. I tend to see Inductive as the Creative Reasoning that leads to inventions and expansions of knowledge [like Einstein]. I am aware there are two other terms: Circular Reasoning and Abduction that may or may not change the interpretations of the terms I used; If you have some discontent, voice it please. Whenever I find suitable terms for the other Pole of thought I wish to analyze, Iâ€™ll post again. Soâ€¦ In light of all that, is the characterization here accurate?
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/28/09 - 01:27 PM:	#2
Cogito Ergo Sum .
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.