difference between Nihilism and Existentialism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » difference between Nihilism and Existentialism » difference between Nihilism and Existentialism

difference between Nihilism and Existentialism

Page: 1 2

difference between Nihilism and Existentialism

birdiestremph
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 30

Posted 03/30/04 - 09:32 PM:	#1
Nihilism: The understanding that all values and judgements are arbitrary and nonsensicle. Everything has no meaning, and no purpose. Existentialism: A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Grabbed these off the board, not sure how correct they are. I can't see much of a difference between the two. Nihilism is stating that both the universe, and our minds are arbitrary. They are basically just atoms or the product of atoms with no meaning? The only reason we think pain is bad is because we have placed that value on it, through evolution and upbringing? Ok, and Existentialism also emphasizes that the universe is indifferent, that there is no meaning to things? Is the only difference the freedom of choice that existentialism states? If this seems like a totally stupid question to you i'm sorry. I've never read any books on philosophy and these forums are my first introduction. Thanks anyone who can help answer.

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/08/08 - 01:57 PM:	#2
We generally answer posts within 5 years of the asking, and your post is no exception. Your definition of Nihilism is essentially correct. One can find no firm metaphysical footing from which can be constructed a system of values. Existentialism holds the same view, but provides an exception for the limited sphere of human existence and experience. A system a values can be constructed which is applicable to the sphere of human being, but is not applicable to the universe as a whole.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

The Wizard of Oz
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 31

Posted 08/09/08 - 11:19 AM:	#3
or, in other words, "Life is what you make of it."
I am not bound to please thee with my answers - William Shakespeare

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1442

Posted 08/10/08 - 12:07 PM:	#4
The existential nihilism is the following thesis: life/existence has no intrinsic meaning/purpose. Nihilists then take this to mean that life/existence has no meaning whatsoever; it is utterly pointless because only intrinsic meaning could validate life/existence. Existentialists argue that we can give life extrinsic meaning and that this validates living as much as it needs to be validated. So one way to characterize the difference between Nihilism and Existentialism is the attitude each takes towards a shared premise: agony or acceptance. One gains, one loses.
It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else. --Anthony Weston

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/10/08 - 03:47 PM:	#5
I would say that holding philosophical nihilism could result in agony, but need not. The extent of agony that one would experience is measured by the gap between one's psychological needs and meaningless reality, which does not meet those needs. The gap between one's needs and indifferent reality is also the measure of the degree of absurdity in one's life. But if one sees reality with a fully nihilistic view, then even one's own needs and desires are seen as meaningless. They are not essential but are mere conditioning which can be seen through and dispensed with. Living without needs, one expects only meaninglessness and sees only that, so there is no gap to generate feelings of agony or absurdity. The nihilistic view is a comfortable philosophy, a place of rest, because there is nothing which needs to be done: no needs for which one must strive, no transcendence or enlightenment to achieve, no psychological goals to actualize, no commandments to obey, no self-deceptions to construct and defend,...just living in reality as it is, without needs and expectations which contradict that reality.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1442

Posted 08/12/08 - 04:32 AM:	#6
Crow wrote: ...just living in reality as it is, without needs and expectations which contradict that reality. That sounds like a perfect explanation of Existentialism to me.
It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else. --Anthony Weston

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1592

Posted 08/12/08 - 06:03 AM:	#7
Crow wrote: Your definition of Nihilism is essentially correct. One can find no firm metaphysical footing from which can be constructed a system of values. Fortunately, this means that there is no good systematic reason to value firm metaphysical footings, and one can go gaily about, valuing things like ice cream and logic simply on a whim, or as a matter of mere fact.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/12/08 - 03:40 PM:	#8
Crow wrote: ...just living in reality as it is, without needs and expectations which contradict that reality. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: That sounds like a perfect explanation of Existentialism to me. Not really. Sartre would have your free choices not just accrue to your own account, but have your choices accrue to all mankind, to the burden of creating of human essence. With other existential writers you need to worry about your extent of "authenticity". To the extent an existentialist writer gives you something over and above straight philosophical nihilism, he gives you an expectation you need to consider and even to worry about. Have you paid sufficient attention to "Being" today?
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/12/08 - 04:06 PM:	#9
Crow wrote: Your definition of Nihilism is essentially correct. One can find no firm metaphysical footing from which can be constructed a system of values. unenlightened wrote: Fortunately, this means that there is no good systematic reason to value firm metaphysical footings, and one can go gaily about, valuing things like ice cream and logic simply on a whim, or as a matter of mere fact. If that were only true. But as each metaphysical footing falls away under one's feet, one after the other, until all philosophy is bunk, one does not become a free-floating agent with unfettered free choice. On the contrary, the final metaphysical footing, Nihilism itself gives away, and one finds himself for the first time with firm footing, grounded upon this Earth, a footing more of a biological nature than a philosophical nature. From this nonphilosophical footing, one finds a value system already in place. Suffering and pain are negative, so have negative value. Pleasure is positive, so has a positive value.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1442

Posted 08/12/08 - 06:26 PM:	#10
Crow wrote: ...just living in reality as it is, without needs and expectations which contradict that reality. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: That sounds like a perfect explanation of Existentialism to me. Not really. I beg to differ. You mention Sartre and free will as well as authenticity (a la Nietzsche), but if we are going to talk about Existentialism -- and not particular iterations thereof -- we must focus on what they share. One thing that Existentialists share (contra Pessimists and Nihilists) is a project of affirming life in spite of truths that would, at first blush, seem to undermine it (or even lead us to deny life). To do this, one must accept reality as-is and not need or expect it to be different. Even Nietzsche, who reminds us it is not a forgone conclusion that knowing the truth will be to our benefit, would not have us fight our reality.
It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else. --Anthony Weston

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.