Paradox of nihilism
 | This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (October 2020) |
| Part of a series on |
| Nihilism |
|---|
| This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation. |
The paradox of nihilism is a family of paradoxes regarding the philosophical implications of nihilism, particularly situations contesting nihilist perspectives on the nature and extent of subjectivity within a nihilist framework. There are a number of variations of this paradox.
Overview
[edit]While there are several derivative examples of the paradox of nihilism, they generally fall on the lines that nihilism itself has drawn to demarcate different sections of the philosophy. The two basic paradoxes are reflective of the philosophies of nihilism that created them; metaphysical nihilism and existential nihilism. Both paradoxes originate from the same conceptual difficulty of whether, as Paul Hegarty writes in his study of noise music, "the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning".[1]
Metaphysical nihilism
[edit]Metaphysical nihilism is based around skepticism that concrete objects, and the self which perceives them, actually exist as concrete objects rather than as abstract objects. It is not a far stretch, in the framework of this theory, to assume that these objects do not exist at all. The philosophy can most concisely be summed up using the model proposed by British philosopher Thomas Baldwin in his 1996 paper[2] on the subject which is referred to as subtraction theory. It holds that for a possible world with finite objects, any one or more of those objects may not have existed, and their non-existence does not mean that something equivalent exists in their place. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a world with no objects exists.
The paradox arises from the logical assertion that if no concrete or abstract objects exist, even the self, then that very concept itself would be untrue because it itself exists. Critics often point to the ambiguity of Baldwin's premises[3] as proof both of the paradox and of the flaws within metaphysical nihilism itself. The main point made argues that a world is itself a concrete object, and whether it exists or does not exist is irrelevant because in both instances it would disprove subtraction theory. In the case of its existence, subtraction theory fails because there is still a concrete object; if the world does not exist, subtraction theory fails because the truth of the world is revealed via subtraction theory, which itself exists, and therefore negates Baldwin's conclusion that a world with no objects can exist.
Existential nihilism
[edit]Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no inherent meaning whatsoever, and that humanity, both in an individual sense and in a collective sense, has no purpose. That is to say: while objects have the capacity for purpose or meaning, there is no universal truth that guides this individual purpose. Thus, without a universal purpose, all meaning that objects could have does not exist, and the idea of any purpose or meaning attributed to something is untrue. If this is taken as a given, then existential nihilism holds that humans are compelled to make up meaning for themselves and others in the absence of a universal, unilateral meaning in order to spare themselves from the negativity surrounding the inevitability of death.[according to whom?] Existential nihilism explores both the nature of this invention and the effectiveness of creating meaning for oneself and others, as well as whether the latter is even possible. It has received the most attention out of all forms of nihilism in both literary and popular media.[citation needed]
Ethical nihilism
[edit]According to Jonna Bornemark, "the paradox of nihilism is the choice to continue one's own life while at the same time stating that it is not worth more than any other life".[4] Richard Ian Wright sees relativism as the root of the paradox.[clarification needed][5][better source needed]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Hegarty, Paul (2006). "Noise Music" (PDF). The Semiotic Review of Books. 16 (1–2). 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 5E1: Department of Sociology, Lakehead University: 2. ISSN 0847-1622. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
Failure/impossibility: noise is only ever defined against something else, operating in the absence of meaning, but caught in the paradox of nihilism – that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Baldwin, Thomas (1996). "There Might Be Nothing". Analysis. 56 (4): 231–238. doi:10.1093/analys/56.4.231. ISSN 0003-2638. JSTOR 3328513.
- ^ Efird, David; Stoneham, Tom (2005). "The Subtraction Argument for Metaphysical Nihilism". The Journal of Philosophy. 102 (6): 303–325. doi:10.5840/jphil2005102614. ISSN 0022-362X. JSTOR 3655532.
- ^ Bornemark, Jonna (2006). "Limit-situation: Antinomies and Transcendence in Karl Jaspers' Philosophy". Sats - Nordic Journal of Philosophy. 7 (2): 64. doi:10.1515/SATS.2006.63. ISSN 1600-1974. S2CID 143217075. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
- ^ Wright, Richard Ian (April 1994). The Dream of Enlightenment: An Essay on the Promise of Reason and Freedom in Modernity (Thesis). University of British Columbia. p. 97. doi:10.14288/1.0089007. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
But essentially these values can be negated by extending the same critical methods which Marx uses to negate earlier philosophical idealism and liberal bourgeois ideology. In other words, from a Nietzschean perspective, Marx's foundational principles are not sufficient to defend his humanistic values. Thus it can be argued that they still maintain the residue of the Christian ethics and Platonic metaphysics which have permeated western thought for several thousand years and which continue to provide modem thinkers with many of their illusory presuppositions. Nevertheless, one is justified in asking: Without such presuppositions, does not the critique of law, politics, or "this earth" lose its ultimate justification or meaning? How can one critique laws without holding on to a sense of justice? And herein lies the crux of the paradox of nihilism. If nihilism is the basis of human existence then all values are relative, and as such, particular values can only be maintained through a "will to power."
