Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Thanks justaman. I appreciate your comments. Could you expand on a few points for me?. Why must we take everything to it's "logical" conclusion? What's wrong with "I pursue it because I pursue it" or "I value it because I value it" or even, my POV "I live because I am alive"?
|
Nothing at all wrong with any of that. And it's all perfectly consistent with "taking things to their logical conclusions". Logic in itself doesn't tell you whether you've got a good theory of what values are, after all! It just tells you what would entail that theory, and what it would entail in turn.
Neither nihilism nor existentialism has a very precise definition. Wade's are as good as any for these purposes. A general existential attitude towards life might be this: There's no general principles of fairness or meaning or significance to life, beyond those we construct in one way or another. Nihilism is far less well-defined; it probably makes most sense as a topic-specific sort of thing. Eg., one can be a nihilist about art, about morality, and so forth. As to being a nihilist across the board, it's hard to know quite what that amounts to. Presumably anyone who says they are has managed find some value or meaning in the project of
telling you, f'r instance. And what
argument can be given for such a view, that doesn't presuppose the normativity of reasoning? I.e., the idea that you
ought to believe the conclusions of sound arguments, etc?
There's a large and generally unreadable literature on existentialism. (Two large wars in France in 20 years but Sartre survives? Sheesh.) But the very readable bits in the literature include Dostoevsky's
Notes from Underground (great literature the way I like it: short and funny), Kierkegaard's
Fear and Trembling (neither very short nor very funny, but flaming dogdish the man could write) and Adams'
Hitchhiker's Guide five-part trilogy (as keen a limning of absurdity as anything Sartre ever imagined, but without the leaden prose and narcoleptic effect).