Re: Nihilism vs. Existentialism
I stay away from both terms, probably because the common definitions rather miss the point.
For instance, look at this:
"...but nihilism starts with relativism, the idea that there are no objective values, truths etc... and uses that to draw the conclusion that life is meaningless and valueless."
Let's look at values for a moment. Let's say there are no objective values. Fair enough.
It then goes on to draw the conclusion that life is valueless. But saying 'life is valuless' is looking at it from an objective standpoint. It's like saying, 'there is no objective beauty' and then drawing the conclusion 'the Mona Lisa is not beautiful'.
The problem comes from trying to look at subjective terms using an objective lens. Is the Mona Lisa objectively beautiful? No. Why? Because beauty is a subjective property. Saying it's objectively beautiful is ascribing some property, beauty, to the painting, which is denied by relativism.
What can instead be said is that the painting is beautiful-to-me. This is a property, not of the painting, but of me. Perhaps it should instead be said that while there is no such thing as objective beauty, there is such a thing as perceptions of beauty. Or it could be rephrased as 'I have the property of finding this painting beautiful'.
This confusion - I think Zoot has referred to it before as a period where a part of one's thinking has failed to catch up with the rest - is why the conclusions of nihlism (e.g. there is no such thing as beauty) are valid, but completely miss the point of relativism.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
|