Nihilism

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

How does one fall into Nhilism? There are many ways, vairous forms of sadness could lead to it. However this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the nature of Nhilism.

Nhilism basicy means "Nothing" + "ism". I think there are there are two types of Nhilism. Note that Nhilism allways, no matter what type it is, Absurdity and the absense of meaning applies. The first one is well known to Existentialists.

The first Nhilism is whens ones subjective stops giving feelings or Asthedics to the objects that surround them. This is what Sartre calls Nausea. The Nhilist just sees the thing exist with out feeling. This makes the ego unable to externalize itself, or lose it's self in the feeling. The ego will desire to touch somthing but it can't because it is mental, it is a thoguht, much like feelings are thoughts. This type of Nhilism is worser than the other because a feelingless, meaningless world is just not worth living in.

The second type of Nhilsim could be liked to Delusion. The Nhilist sees an object but he does not know if that object is real, or a creation of his mind. The world becomes dream-like. In this state ego does not know how to define itself because it now sees that it does not exist. However Buddhahood cannot be reached because one does not see any obejctive at all and therefore the self cannot become the whole that surrounds it. There are many ways to come out of this one becaus eit is subjective. However, it would require the use of reason and logic to know that the outer world can be reached. For both one must give meaning to their own life to get out. However it may reqiure more than that.

[scameter]

I think it is the same way that one falls into cynicism: either arrogance or fear. Arrogance if they wish to have something so negative, practical and obvious as nihilism and cynicism so as to say that their beliefs are entirely and absolutely correct, whilst everyone else's isn't. Fear because they know that there is more to life than what they can properly explain, but they wish to deny it, and so they fall into the negative portals of cynicism and nihilism, saying that everything means and is nothing and that it is only what you see is what you get, nothing more. And they refute everything else out of fear ultimately, but appearingly by pure logic and practicality, not willing to say that there may be something they can feel and know exists, and yet cannot explain or experience sensually.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

I think that would appy to cynicism only. Nhilism mainly comes from not having a meaning in life. However, it takes much more mental suffering to fall into Nhilism. But when you say "I have no meaning in life." That is when you have offically reached it. That and the Nausea or Delusion that accopanies it.
I think the Nausea one is worse, but I would guess that is subjective.

[Thomas Knierim]

Aren't you mixing up the philosophical notion of nihilism with the psychological condition of depression? It seems these are different things. Depression is a form of mental suffering that people fall into for a great variety of reasons. Philosophical nihilism, on the other hand, is a philosophical position which claims that existence (human existence in particular) is without purpose and therefore meaningless. It claims that truth, beauty, and goodness are unknowable, insubstantial, illusory and therefore likewise meaningless.

There are very few philosophers who call themselves nihilist. The term nihilist is most often used in a derogatory way to label unliked or uncomfortable world views. For example, the ancient Buddhists of India have been called nihilists by the Brahmans, because they denied the existence of soul and substance. Likewise, the ancient atomists of Greece have been called nihilists, because they characterised the world as random and denied the existence of divine order.

It seems there are two principal pathways to nihilism. One is the avenue of scepticism. The sceptic does neither believe in the substantiality of things nor that of concepts, therefore everything is questionable, unverifyable, and ultimately meaningless. Truth doesn't exist or if it does it cannot be known. The other pathway is existentialism where the philosopher attempts to analyse "being" usually by assuming himself to be "thrown" into existence and left with puzzling over the purpose of this "act". This approach is sort of foredoomed to nihilism.

Cheers, Thomas

[Smurf]

Aren't you mixing up the philosophical notion of nihilism with the psychological condition of depression? It seems these are different things. Depression is a form of mental suffering that people fall into for a great variety of reasons. Philosophical nihilism, on the other hand, claims that existence (human existence in particular) is without purpose and therefore meaningless. It claims that truth, beauty, and goodness are unknowable, insubstantial, illusory and therefore likewise meaningless.

Well one would think that thinking life is meaningless is reason enough for depression. As you say depression is a psychological disorder, it is not organic. This means that there is a mental reason for the depression - and not a physical. Nihilism could definately be a cause for depression?

[buzzlightyear1982]

"one would think that thinking life is meaningless is reason enough for depression"

Life always has a purpose if we can see it or not, if you are aware of it or not, and even if you ignolige it or not. But all life has a purpose to it B)

"This means that there is a mental reason for the depression - and not a physical"

The cause of depression has to do with an inbalance of chemicals, so there is no mental or physical reason for depression, it's all scientific :boxing:

[Smurf]

Ahh well you see that would be an organic - physical reason for depression...

[scameter]

I think that would appy to cynicism only. Nhilism mainly comes from not having a meaning in life. However, it takes much more mental suffering to fall into Nhilism. But when you say "I have no meaning in life." That is when you have offically reached it. That and the Nausea or Delusion that accopanies it.
I think the Nausea one is worse, but I would guess that is subjective.

Somewhat, but I don't think what I said applies to cynicism alone. Nihilism isn't just saying life has no meaning; it is saying that life and death are nothing. That everything is nothing. Cynicism is essentially pessimisim, saying that nothing really makes any difference and that life is just hard and painful then we die, essentially. I think the way that people approach them derive from the two things I described previously. But, I agree that nausea and delusion follow Nihilism, and I think this should tell people that it isn't good for them and that they shouldn't do it for at least that reason; but that doesn't stop people from doing other bad things for themselves.

Aren't you mixing up the philosophical notion of nihilism with the psychological condition of depression?

I am not. But, I will admit that I wasn't really talking about the validity or the potence of nihilism as a philosophy; I was talking about how and why it arises in people, alongside in similarity to cynicism.

One is the avenue of scepticism.

Hmm... I think that if a skeptic does come to nihilism from skepticism, they are in error, because to believe everything is nothing is too definite for skepticism. They are simply being negative, not skeptical.

The other pathway is existentialism where the philosopher attempts to analyse "being" usually by assuming himself to be "thrown" into existence and left with puzzling over the purpose of this "act". This approach is sort of foredoomed to nihilism.

I believe this is how Nietzsche arrived at nihilism?

As you say depression is a psychological disorder, it is not organic. This means that there is a mental reason for the depression - and not a physical. Nihilism could definately be a cause for depression?

Not necessarily. In fact, speaking mainly from experience, the actual mental disorder of depression can be caused initially by something, but after that it usually comes by it's self, without any particular cause. Depression as an emotion, however, does come from specific causes.

The cause of depression has to do with an inbalance of chemicals, so there is no mental or physical reason for depression, it's all scientific

Science isn't mental or physical? Wow, I knew people overvalued science, but not this much.

[mehta]

Nihilism is certainly different from state of depression.
Cause of depression may be lack of self confidence or negativity but
nihilism can be looked as something orthodox or out of league...
Present state of nihilism can be a great statement in future....like we know Buddhism as today. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[scameter]

True. Although the actual mental condition of depression can be caused initially, as I said, but it is not always activated, so to speak, afterwards.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

I would just say that a sad person would have an easier time entering Nhilism. Nhilism will then cause one to become even more misrible.
As for waht you said, about lack of meaning only being a part, not a cause, I actually(upon futher refelction) think you are right. However, finding a meaning in life could be a first step to steping away from Nhilism.

[Kether]

It seems there are two principal pathways to nihilism. One is the avenue of scepticism. The sceptic does neither believe in the substantiality of things nor that of concepts, therefore everything is questionable, unverifyable, and ultimately meaningless.
But how many sceptical philosophers translate their metaphysics into their everyday life, or even into their opinions - their real, practical opinions - on social and scientific matters? I get the impression that scepticism represents a divorce between philosophy and the experiential realities of life and society; scepticism isn't particularly 'meaningful', in that most sceptics would say that their process of questioning is not something that should be applied to the 'real world' - for example, in criminal trials, or chemistry, or political philosophy. The great 18th-century empiricists - Berkeley, Hulme, et al - were all socially minded individuals, and no doubt took care to distinguish their technical philosophy from 'real life'.
Cynicism is essentially pessimisim, saying that nothing really makes any difference and that life is just hard and painful then we die, essentially.
I wouldn't say so. Most cynics (in the lay, not philosophical, sense) would probably say that they were more in-touch with reality than people inspired by principles. It's particularly strong among politicians, especially on an international level: it is the driving force behind Realpolitik, which avoids values like the plague.

By the way, ObjectiveSubjective: may I ask why you've chosen Nietzsche as your avatar?

[scameter]

I wouldn't say so. Most cynics (in the lay, not philosophical, sense) would probably say that they were more in-touch with reality than people inspired by principles. It's particularly strong among politicians, especially on an international level: it is the driving force behind Realpolitik, which avoids values like the plague.

I meant the philosophical. :)

[sahyo]

what's to nihilate?

[scameter]

To nihilism, everything.

[sahyo]

"To nihilsim"?

[scameter]

Yep. No nihilism, there is everything to nihilate.

[scameter]

I've got a question regarding nihilistic views: is there any way that truth could be nothingness, that nothingness is truth?

[redraven]

I think the most disturbing form of nihilism is the nihilism of value. It sounds like the nausee you're talking about. You value nothing, not your life or the life of other humans, not your culture, (sadly our culture has little to value it seems) and so on.

When you stop valuing these things, even your culture, then you can no longer connect with people, because valuation is a requirement for participation in life, and then you get into big trouble. However, I think every intelligent person gets this way at times, because you see the emptiness of being, as Kierkegaard did.

This is a very Buddhist realization I think, but it must be moved beyond. We value at least because it is our place in the world to do so.

[scameter]

Indeed. I personally think that is the core of nihilism: nihilation of value/importance/meaning. I think it is a Buddhist realization, but honestly I think that another realization, one quite Taoist, that one should come to is that things are capable of having value beyond us. In Taoism, things in existence are important because they exist; if they were not important, in some way, they would not exist. Their existence it's self is important. I think once one accepts this truth, then one can truly begin to know their own human emotional importance placement and how deep it can penetrate. :)

[redraven]

Ah but if shunyatta is wisdom in Buddhism, then Buddha told us that we must not have wisdom without compassion, for that is dukkha. So Buddhism teaches us to see emptiness, but also that these empty things exist, and that we should love these empty things.

As for the Taoist view, with a little cognitive dissonance I can concur. Nothing would exist if it didn't have to. That is actually dependent origination. A thing exists because of a causal chain, and somewhere along there, it must exist. A little different but similar.

[scameter]

Quite different; that is not the Taoist view. That is the Buddhist view. To a Taoist, something's importance for existing isn't based on how it got there, or by what intent it was placed; those are conceptual, human things. Things exist because they do. Simply. And they are important in that they exist.

[Ranma]

Nihilism = emptyness? Emptyness = enlightenment?

[scameter]

Interesting thought. However, nihilism is having the objective to make everything nothing, but emptiness is being without anything... Sounds the same, but if looked at closely they are different.

[namtso]

Nihilism = emptyness? Emptyness = enlightenment?

According to Tibetan Buddhism, Emptiness is not the same as nihilism. Emptiness or sunyata means that all things and phenomenon are "empty" of intrinsic existence. Meaning that they did not come into being on their own accord without relying on other causes and conditions. If you analyze any object, entity or phenomenon you can see this is true. For instance wind. What is wind and what causes it? Air currents are created due to temperature differentials on the planet and by the rotation of the earth etc. Your own body is dependent on countless causes and conditions for it's coming into being and for it's continuing to exist. Your parents conceived you and took care of you. You rely on air to breathe, food to eat, clothes and shelter to protect you. That all sounds like a lot of substance, not empty at all, but it also is the proof for the Buddhist concept of emptiness in the sense that all of those things are dependent on other causes and conditions in order for them to exist. You most likely didn't will yourself into existence, independent of all other causes and conditions. This then leads to the two truths in Buddhism. The conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The conventional truth being that you feel real. You have identity that you accept as being separate from another person's identity. You have a body that you accept as your own. You experience pleasure, pain, thoughts, emotions and it all seems pretty real, pretty personal. You sit in a chair and it seems solid. It supports you. That's conventional truth. Ultimate truth is the knowledge (or concept) that all things you can conceive of, your body, the chair, the air you breath, the food you eat, your parents etc. are all dependent upon other causes and conditions to exist. According to Buddhism, things do exist in the conventional sense and they are also empty of intrinsic existence. The two truths. As far as nihilism, I have heard both the Dalai Lama and Prof. Robert Thurman say that sometimes emptiness is interpreted as nihilism but it is not correct.

[______]

:lol: I see namsto wrote his own post while I was writing mine! Anywho, this is short and sweet, though I believe his is a lot more detailed. Enjoy! :D

Emptiness is not nothingness. Emptiness is very much apart of everything. Even nothingness. It refers to the emptiness of all things' inherent existance.

Ultimately, Emptiness is not equal to nihilism.

[namtso]

I'm a blabber mouth. I just hope I got it right! I don't want to get poked in my third eye by a testy Bodhisattva! (as if ...)

[Ranma]

What makes it difference?

[scameter]

Hey, that's what I said! :D

[Ranma]

opsh......so sorry......I use ur words.........
anyhow.....to my understanding.........emptyness doesnt means is emptyness or nothing. Is depends on that person situation and condition to apply on the empytness.
In some yoga teaching, the master will ask the follow to visualized empytness while meditating, but does this visuallization means emptyness while your are visualizing emptyness?

[namtso]

What makes it difference?

I just remembered that nihilism pretty much was a negative view of life and about not believing in anything really. I'm not sure how close that is to the formal definitions below. Please be aware that I'm not trying to be insulting here by quoting definitions. I really wasn't sure myself so I had to look it up in order to make a decent attempt at answering your question. I'll put the definitions in this post and then I'll do my best to understand the differences myself and attempt an answer. I'm not sure if quoting stuff in this manner goes against the rules of Bigview forums, if so I apologize in advance.


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines nihilism this way -
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nihilism

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths


2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination - ni·hil·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- ni·hil·is·tic /"nI-(h)&-'lis-tik, "nE-/ adjective

__________________________________________________ ____________

Here's a bunch more about nihilism at Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/nihilism


This particularly caught my eye on that page:
(from: "nihilism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 20 Sep. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/nihilism )

ni·hil·ism
n.
Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
[Latin nihil, nothing + –ISM.]

nihilist ni'hil·ist n.
nihilistic ni'hil·is'tic adj.
nihilistically ni'hil·is'ti·cal·ly adv.

[namtso]

What makes it difference?
Ranma,
After reading the definitions it seems that nihilism is a system of beliefs that at least in my opinion is negative in several ways. The first that seems the most obvious to me is the apparent belief that it's ok to use terrorism and assassination. And it seems that is the case at least in part because another element of nihilism is a rejection of any form of morality. What that means is the the "end will always justify the means". Think Mad Max, Thunderdome, Maximum Security Prison or living in any country where there are warlords that rule through intimidation, violence, and terror. According to nihilism, that's ok because it is a "doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths". So if you are to accept that premise, then pretty much "anything goes" as long as it gets you your desired result.

So that's pretty much what nihilism is. I personally don't like it. The next challenge is to compare nihilism to "emptiness". That's a problem because it depends on your definition of emptiness and you mentioned the same thing when you said - Is depends on that person situation and condition to apply on the empytness.
That's exactly the problem right there. The definition of "emptiness" in Buddhist terms is very different than the common definition of emptiness. The common definition can be found here - http://www.answers.com/topic/emptiness-5 . Essentially "absence of contents; void space". If that definition of emptiness were to be applied to any system of morality, it would seem that it could lead to nihilism I guess. Again, it depends on what definition of emptiness a person chooses to discuss. That still does not mean that it would lead to any kind of wisdom though.

This is what I was originally interested in answering -
Nihilism = emptyness? Emptyness = enlightenment?
When I read this question, "nihilism = emptiness? emptiness = enlightenment?", it seems to imply that the "emptiness" in the middle of this question remains the same. So the question then becomes "does nihilism = enlightenment?" My answer would immediately be no. And since part of that question was "emptiness = enlightenment?", I chose to talk about the Buddhist concept of emptiness. Strictly in the Buddhist sense, a good understanding of the Buddhist definition of emptiness is in fact necessary before a person can attain enlightmenment. The Dalai Lama and Prof. Robert Thurman have stated often that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is not the same as nihilism. I am fairly certain they have also stated that nihilism is to be avoided.

In some yoga teaching, the master will ask the follow to visualized empytness while meditating, but does this visuallization means emptyness while your are visualizing emptyness?
Unfortunately the only person who can truly answer that would be the yoga master him/herself.

Hope this helps some. If not, hit me with another question and I'll see what I can come up with.

[Ranma]

Dear Master Namtso,

You really did alot of homework and i truely amuse by to explanation and sample that you have writen. But all this is writen by somebody and is from the book. Does anyone here really knows what is emptyness is? That is what I am actually looking for. Not facts that are writen down some where some how. What kind of emptyness that we are looking for to move on the middle path.

Is this emptyness is somewhere we should go, or things we should do or not do? Where is this emptyness?

I remember from some Guru's said, once you found emptyness, you were found you enlightenment. Is it true?

Does outer space means emptyness? B'cos in space, there is no weight, no sight, no depth, no smell? Is there a linkage between human life with space?

Human life = Outer Space?

[namtso]

Dear Master Namtso,

You really did alot of homework and i truely amuse by to explanation and sample that you have writen. But all this is writen by somebody and is from the book. Does anyone here really knows what is emptyness is? That is what I am actually looking for. Not facts that are writen down some where some how. What kind of emptyness that we are looking for to move on the middle path.

Is this emptyness is somewhere we should go, or things we should do or not do? Where is this emptyness?

I remember from some Guru's said, once you found emptyness, you were found you enlightenment. Is it true?

Does outer space means emptyness? B'cos in space, there is no weight, no sight, no depth, no smell? Is there a linkage between human life with space?

Human life = Outer Space?


I have to get ready for work but I did want to respond before I bugged out. First, I'm no master! No worries though, I would just request that you don't address me as master, and it's an insult to the true masters, ha ha! I am long winded and spend a lot of time on answers but that helps me learn the subject and if anyone else gets anything out of then that's a plus. This is is good practice for me because I wanted to have a better grasp of what nihilism was myself.

Anyhow, emptiness is a concept according to HHDL and Prof. Thurman. If you don't accept their explanation of emptiness, then whose definition would you accept?

And again, it fully depends on what form of emptiness you are talking about. So the question must by necessity turn back to you. You need to at least set some guidelines on what type of emptiness you are trying to understand. If you stay committed to so many vagueries then there can be no satisfactory answer. That's what I think anyway. It does spark conversation but it serves to confuse, not clarify. It leaves me guessing as to what to answer. Maybe other folks want to take a shot at this? Hellllppp!!!


Not facts that are writen down some where some how. What kind of emptyness that we are looking for to move on the middle path.

I did want to respond to this part though before I fly out of here. If you don't accept the explanation of the Dalai Lama, who would you accept as being able to deliver a satisfactory answer? This may sound like I'm coming to the defense of HHDL or getting a little too attached to the Tibetan Buddhism teaching. Fair enough, and maybe that's true since that's primarily what I focus on. It just has a real resonance with my sense of what's authentic. Who knows, I could be way off in left field, but it doesn't seem that way. Anyhow, what is the difference between a person's direct experience of emptiness and what that same person writes down in a book? The only one I can see is that you may not accept the legitimacy of what that person wrote down in that book because you think they are after money, fame, pushing a cultural doctrine or dogma? Also a fair concern. Trust me, I am all to aware of those traps. Do I remain concerned that I'm just falling into one of those traps by focusing on Tibetan Buddhism? You bet. Great thing about Buddhism is that one of the most important messages spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha (if you accept that as true) is that you should not accept his teachings on blind faith but must test them on your own to see if they give you benefit. Ok, gotta run. Peace to you.

[Ranma]

Dear Brother Namtso,

Does that sound better? Anyhow is just only an address for addressing you for your billiant and cheerful mind and for not selfish to share you knowledge and teaching. Please dont get me wrong in here for bugging you guys. Is just that I am searching for something very difference from what you guys are looking at.

Please dont ask me what is it yet. Just let me get more information between us all in here before I can come to such a solutions. And hopefully I can attain to that level.

ok.......lets recap....

my Q is Nihilism = emptyness = enlightment = space?

Or shall I add in to a new point of view as:-

Nihilism = emptyness = enlightment = space = Nihiliam?

Can actually this be concluded and true in some way. I think is worth examine and to have a new concept of open mind.

Hope I dont give you guys too much confusion here.

Cheers.......

[scameter]

:D Actually I meant namsto did, and ____. :P

[______]

:lol: So you did! :lol: I must not have caught it the first time through.

[namtso]

Dear Brother Namtso,
Does that sound better?
Now you're speaking to my surfer nature, braddah. Do you live close to the ocean? What's the surf like?

In regard to your idea about emptiness, I'm really not following your stream of thought there. If you have an idea or concept in mind you may want to just state it. I really don't think you are going to be able to lead us to your same conclusion in this way. I'm thinking that even if someone did sort of come up with an answer that resembles the one you already have in mind, it would likely only be due to chance. I think I'll sit this one out for a bit and see what else develops here.

[Brahmanyan]

Even after reading all that is written here I could not catch the substance of the word "Nihilism". If it means just "Nothing", the the query raises--nothing of what? Is it material, spiritual or something else? Getting confused.

[scameter]

It means nothing of everything, making everything that currently exists that is not nothing into nothing and thus making everything nothing. Complicated, but if you read that slowly it's pretty simple. :D

[namtso]

uh .... mmmm ... uh .... I think it's ice cream time, yes in fact it is, I'm going to get some ice cream now, Starbucks, hmmm hmm hmm, ice cream, ice cream, hum hum hum ice cream time °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°º¤

[scameter]

:think: :D

[namtso]

Here's a little tip about eating pizza and wings. Don't lay down for a nap fifteen minutes after eating three slices of pizza and about a dozen wings. Later on you feel like you swallowed a live wombat, take my word for it. It's not pleasant, have you seen a wombat? Seriously man, don't do it. Just trying to save other human beings from unnecessary suffering. It's my job.

And before anyone tries to remind me, yeah I know this is a thread on nihilism. Please carry on my bigviewer friends.

[______]

Later on you feel like you swallowed a live wombat, take my word for it. It's not pleasant, have you seen a wombat?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :goodlaugh:
Sounds like something my best friend from high school would say!

[namtso]

You know, eating one in small bites might not be too bad ...
http://www.desertimages.com.au/alastair/im...ombat_2_426.jpg (http://www.desertimages.com.au/alastair/images/post_wombat_2_426.jpg)

Then again, why risk it when there's a Burger King right around the corner.
http://www.alvesta.nu/p1390/files/wombat.jpg

[______]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :goodlaugh:

[Ranma]

So sorry to maky you guys confuse. My applogy to all.

Does anybody here knows what is the opposite of Nihilism?

[scameter]

Everythingism? :D Perhaps materialism, or optimism, or even spiritualism; anything disliking toward negation, especially negation in extreme amounts.

[______]

Does anybody here knows what is the opposite of Nihilism?
I would think that life as a whole is the opposite of nihilism. :)

[Ranma]

Fulism??? hhahaha... :lol: What kind of person do you think would fall into this catagory??

[______]

Fulism??? hhahaha... What kind of person do you think would fall into this catagory??
Hmm.... Perhaps it would be best to define "Fullism" before we catergorize people into it.

[millipodium]

Pro-life, the alleged right wing abomination.

[Ranma]

Fullism is nice......lets get started...... :lol:

[namtso]

I experience Fullism after I make a trip to Papa John's Pizza. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[scameter]

*as if I was older and had a wife* My wife feels full after our weekly night of passion. B)

[Ranma]

anylink???????? :think: <_<

[______]

I experience Fullism after I make a trip to Papa John's Pizza. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I thought about posting something smart like that, but thought better of it. :D :lol: :lol:

[namtso]

I thought about posting something smart like that, but thought better of it.
Probably the wiser choice. I'm not personally above cheap humor although I'd think some folks at work wish I was. Actually probably not so much, only the managers. The humor on the shop floor normally ranges from average crudeness to "oh my god I'm going to have to scrub out my brain with a brillo pad now" and "why isn't that person in prison?" Ok, I might be exaggerating ... a little.



Does anybody here knows what is the opposite of Nihilism?
Sure, I'll take another crack at it ==~~~~>
nihilism
Antonyms: belief, faith, obedience, optimism
I might also add Humanism ( http://www.answers.com/topic/humanism-3 )


__________________________________________________ ________

This is a cool toy - http://www.onelook.com/reverse-dictionary.shtml

[Starry_Canopy]

Try this 'Nihilism' for a 'Fullism' in disguise :) :

Nirvaanashtakam (by Adi Shankaracharya)

Mano Buddhyahankaara Chittaani Naaham, Nacha Shothrajihve Nacha Ghraananetre
Nacha Vyomabhumirnatejo Navaayu, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

Mind, intellect, ego or things made by the mind (eg. memories, imagination) not I
Nor am I hearing, tongue, nostrils or eyes (sensory perceptions)
Nor am I space, earth, fire or air (condensation of the senses)
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Nacha Praanasangyo Navai Panchavaayuh, Navaa Saptadaatuh Navaa Panchakoshah
Na Vaakpaaniopaadam Na Chopastapaayu, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

Not the combination of five breaths (life), nor the five vital currents (interacting with environment, ejecting, distributing, assimilating, evolutionary)
Not the seven substances (bone marrow, bone, flesh, fat, blood, inner skins of organs, outer skin)
Nor the five coverings (physical body, body of life currents/ breaths, body of the mind, body of intelligence, body of happiness)
Not speech, grasping or locomotion, nor the things obtained by these
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Na Me Dvesharaago Na Me Lobhamohav, Madhonaiva Me Naiva Matsaryabhaavah
Na Dharmo Nachaartho Na Kaamo Na Mokshah, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

Not for me aversion or enjoyment, not for me greed or infatuation born of delusion
Nor for me status/ superiority, nor envy/ feeling the lack of what someone else has
Not the motivations of role, wealth, pleasure or liberation
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Na Punyam Na Paapam Na Sowkhyam Na Dukkham, Na Mantro Na Theertho Na Vedaa Na Yagya
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

Not virtue (that which takes one towards self realization), Not vice (opposite of virtue)
Not comfort (of having got what one needs), Not pain (of being deprived)
Not the energies of creation (mantras), not pilgrimages, not scriptures, not rites using fire
I am not the experiencing process, that which is experienced nor the experiencer
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Na Me Mrityushankaa Na Me Jaatibhedah, Pitaa Naiva Maataa Naiva Na Janmah
Na Bandhurnamitram Gururnaivashishyah, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

Not for me anxiety about death (ceasing to be), not for me categorisation (or change, because of that)
Neither father nor mother (originators of my being) have I, nor birth (process of coming into being)
Not relatives, not friends, nor a guide nor a follower have I
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaararupo, Vibhutvaacha Sarvatra Sarvendriyaanaam
Nachaasangata Naiva Muktirnameyah, Chidaanandarupah Shivoham Shivoham.

I am without the flux of thought, of the form of formlessness
The witness of everyone’s every sensory perception
Not together with/ part of (anything manifest), nor free from (anything manifest)
Not measurable (beyond relativity)
Of the form of consciousness and bliss, I am Shiva (auspiciousness), I am Shiva.

Love.

[namtso]

Try this 'Nihilism' for a 'Fullism' in disguisePseudo-Nihilism by way of all-inclusiveness? Omniscience? Creative!

[______]

:mellow: like it.... :lol:

[Starry_Canopy]

"Truth is a pathless land" - J Krishnamurti

Hi Nam, nice meeting you!

[Starry_Canopy]

That's why I have a horse, lol

[namtso]

"Truth is a pathless land" - J Krishnamurti
Hi Nam, nice meeting you!
Hiya. That Adi Shankaracharya quote kind of left my head spinning a little bit too. Did I come anywhere close to extracting the point you were making - "'Nihilism' for a 'Fullism' in disguise" or was I way off?

[Starry_Canopy]

Yes, you were correct, it was about omniscience and the idea that each person's 'soul' or essence is actually one and the same thing or 'consciousness' which is also 'God'.

Since 'consciousness', understood this way, is a 'being' ('state of being'), it does not allow of a situation where there are two things, by which we can say "I am that" or "I am not that". So whatever we can identify or name as something other than "I" is not "I", or does not intrinsically exist permanently.

[MidnightSun]

Yes, you were correct, it was about omniscience and the idea that each person's 'soul' or essence is actually one and the same thing or 'consciousness' which is also 'God'

I so agree with that, something very common to my views.

[Ranma]

God???? I tought tis is Nihilism channel??? Does Nihilism believe in God???? Fullism on the other hard would believe of God existance. Confusing.........???? :huh:

[______]

Nihilism is void of all. "Fullism" is filled of all. One cannot exist without the other. Therefore, one cannot be entirely nihilistic, nor "fullistic". :)

[Ranma]

This means we all should be neither Nihilism or Fullism and also be Nihilism and Fullism??

[Starry_Canopy]

This means we all should be neither Nihilism or Fullism and also be Nihilism and Fullism??

How about just being? :) Instead of being this thing or that thing? Or, is that too much to ask of ourselves?

[______]

:thumbsup: :D

[Starry_Canopy]

:D

[namtso]

The surfers say "flow with it brah".

[______]

So do Buddhists--just without the "brah" :lol:

[Ranma]

Then, just be ourself. Neither this or that. hahaha.... :lol:

<_< then what happen to this topic???????

[namtso]

Then, just be ourself. Neither this or that. hahaha....

then what happen to this topic???????


Ahhhh, but you've already suggested the new direction of this thread by bringing up a very good point. To be yourself.

What does it mean to "be yourself"?

Let the games begin!

[______]

To be who you are naturally without judgement of thoughts. To separate who you are with the myth of "me". This is what it means to truly be ourselves.

[namtso]

To be who you are naturally without judgement of thoughts. To separate who you are with the myth of "me". This is what it means to truly be ourselves.
Man, that was quick SFT! I like it though, and I try to practice it myself. To just allow yourself to be genuine and not even think about trying to conform to any identity that will be "accepted" by others. "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." Of course if you include the Buddhist perspective (different thread?) then it might go deeper than that? However I do purposely dress in dark T-shirts and jeans so I'll be left alone. It does work and it works for me. What can I say, guilty of being anti-social to a degree.


P.S. Besides Soldier for Truth, SFT also stands for Students for a Free Tibet. Did you know that? (http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org)

[Starry_Canopy]

To just allow yourself to be genuine and not even think about trying to conform to any identity that will be "accepted" by others

Were Hitler and Stalin true to being who they were? If so, did it help the rest of us that they were? :)

[namtso]

Were Hitler and Stalin true to being who they were? - Starry_Canopy
Great point. The short answer to the first question is "how could we possibly know?" It could very well be that they were absolutely being true to their own identity. Now that brings into question the meaning of "identity" and what that encompasses. Is identity necessarily the same as adhering to the laws of the land and current standards of morality and ethics? I'd say no to that. And was Hitler in fact acting within the confines of what was acceptable behavior in Germany at the time he was leader there? In a way allowing an identity like his to flourish? If a person is identified as having the personality traits of a Hitler, is the correct thing to jail them and prevent them from moving into a position of power and authority at all? It might also be argued that if a person is acting like a "Hitler" is it not just as valid and acceptable for someone else to act like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman to defeat him while also remaining true to their own identities as well? Of course another good question might be can we hope to have a society that does not create the environment that produces a Stalin or Hitler in the first place or one that at least does not allow them to come to power? I think this raises another very important issue, the possibility of the conflicting goals of what is acceptable in regard to a person expressing their own identity versus the responsibility a society has to restrain that type of person, and even to discourage certain types of identity. This then even starts to bring into question American ideals of freedom. Like the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Self determination and if that is something that should be allowed and encouraged by a group or society. I could go on a great deal here but I think the issue you raise is the question of what is more important, a single individual's freedom to express their own identity or what is good for the rest of humanity as a whole? It get's much more complicated from there because then you are bringing in all the issues of governments, laws, standards of ethics and morality, accepted social practices in any given area etc. etc. So I'll stop here and let someone else have a crack at this.

If so, did it help the rest of us that they were? - Starry_Canopy
Not according to any true adherence to what I myself would consider to be morally or ethically acceptable behavior. I think that if I were born during that time, if I were following my own true identity, I would have very likely joined the U.S. Military to help fight and defeat Stalin and Hitler. Taking it even further, what if Hitler did succeed in his endeavors and was not defeated? Would the world be a better place for all human beings in general to live in? That of course being a world where you could be enslaved or exterminated like any sort of animal just due to the fact of your genetic heritage or your choice in religion. That would create a global environment of fear and violence. I would of course answer no to this question, there is no way even in the long term would their existence have been a help to the rest of us unless our goal was to create a human race of amoral killers where the most brutal and savage succeeds while only escaping assassination themselves by virtue of their own calculating cleverness. Not a world I'd want to live in.

[Ranma]

To be who you are naturally without judgement of thoughts. To separate who you are with the myth of "me". This is what it means to truly be ourselves.

Nice way to put it.......n total agreed!

Were Hitler and Stalin true to being who they were?

This I would says is gret of Power. Do you all agreed? is not truly himself.

[JamesH]

I regard myself as a spiritual nihilist, whom is also a "material fullist", and whom desires to be an "emotional centerist".

Spiritual Nilihism

I do not believe in anything spiritual, or in anything that places any form of objective meaning on human actions. I don't believe in any form of creator God, though lesser gods who may be significantly superior to humans, as a result of more advanced evolution, may exist.

If one developes a good grasp of reality, then an understanding of human delusions will arise, the biggest such delusion seems to be in creating and then believing in objectivity. Everything spiritual and religious stems from this delusion, and it creates emotional desires that lead to suffering.

Material Fullism

I am a material fullist as I know that total emptiness is an insane concept. There is never any emptiness at all, anywhere, but there is both degrees of fullness (things) and absolute fullness (the cause of all things).

Of course the word fullness does not really apply to what I am talking about, as it insinuates relative emptiness. When I use this word I am really referring to the fullness or thingness that is created whenever fundamental dualistic reality merges, and continues to add layers of fullness Things are overlapping infinities - the more mass an object has the more layers of intertwined infinity are contained within whatever object name has been associated with the particular area of the totality.

There can be no absolute emptiness because everything is caused, and emptiness cannot be caused, as there is nothing there to either be a cause or an effect - so there is no way the emptiness could have been formed in the first place. Causes cannot take anything fundamental away from the totality - they can only give the appearance of taking something away by dispersing observed-thingness from an object, ie heated water appears to disappear by turning into steam - but of course we know that only the structure of the water has been destroyed not the water atoms themselves. The world is one of equal and opposite reactions.

There is however an infinity that we perceive of as being a form of emptiness, and that is the action of contracting.

Thingness is observed structure. Things are empty only in the sense of them not having any fundamental solidity, however delve down into an object deep enough and you will find not nothingness, but a merged dualistic causal-infinity, which I just refer to as the fundamental Expansionary and Contractive forces. Expansion and contraction are the most fundamental concepts that can be applied across ALL things, including space and time - in fact they are only general descriptive terms that can be applied so. Whenever the forces of Expansion and Contraction interact, they must form some spatial areas that are primarily balanced, where the two opposites have been equalised. What occurs then is that there is a lessening of causal action external to that balanced area, which forms a kind of time stasis and these stasises can be layered upon each other - the more such stasis layers the more properties or mass or solidity or fullness will form. These points of stasis allow us to observe, though what we are observing is trillions of these points including the less balanced domain that surrounds each point of existence. We call what we observe effects. Light and things on the electromagnetic spectrum contain balances that have expansionary force emanating from the balanced spatial area, while matter like gold or black holes contain balance where the spatial area extrudes more of the contracting force, which is where gravity makes an appearance. Infinite, timeless, non-dissipating, constant Gravity is the contracting force.

It is these forces, that are empty of any solidness, empty of material. Being empty of same then they can only be infinite - if something is not finite then it must be infinite. Being infinite forces they create the physical totality, the universe or multiverse if you prefer. Being infinite forces they supply the causal power for change and movement - as they are most fundamental then the physical universe requires no power supply, as things themselves ARE precisely and only that power source.

Emotional Centrism

I was taught by the QRS, electronically (their net stuff, never met them), but feel I have moved beyond their teachings. They are not nihilists because they have given themsleves meaning and purpose - which is a love of truth and a desire to teach others about reality. It is just another variant on the buddhists love of compassion - Buddhists escape nihilism by making compassion meaningful, and also by such delusions as reincarnation.

Truth does not satisfy me - while it does make one less an animal (literally), it does not make me feel more human. I cannot find sufficient meaning in Truth. I think the reason is that I know that human life is the experience of experiencing emotions. Therefore I desire to learn to experience emotions, just for the thrill of being alive, while not being markedly attached to whatever it is that creates the emotion. I want to learn the skill of remaining close to an emotional centre, by taking out of my life all extreme highs and lows and all emotions that lead to a lack of the discipline of rationality. I don't intend to seek relationship love.

While this may not be possible, and may lead to unneccessary suffering (as most emotions do), it does aleviate the negative emotional flows that a lack of any purpose at all creates in oneself.

[bito]

To question the nature of existence and the nature of meaning is to eventually dissolve the question, for the questioner is existence and meaning. Seeking objective meaning brings you to this realization, and this realization sets you free from seeking objective meaning.

Meaning happens. What is there to do but be this meaning that is happening?

:)

[______]

"Spiritual Nihilist"..... <_<

You are still true to yourself, no? This is a very good thing. :D

[JamesH]

_______ "Spiritual Nihilist".....

In a sense it has been uplifting for the bulk of my life to know there is no god. Most freeing.

Becoming a materialist, of a type anyway, I find it pretty easy to link empirical or causal relationships together, particularly as I don’t care that much if I get some of the links wrong, as long as the general drift is on track I'm happy.

A knowledge of Cause and Effect has taken away the expectation that there is something spiritual "out there" and "in here" or "will be".

I only know what my mind knows does not compute, Will Robinson :). To me this whole idea that something spiritual exists has been proven irrational from many different angles.

(now I know no-one will grok what I say next, but I like writing it for myself)

The idea that there is something spiritual partly comes from our inability to properly see physical duality. To our animal natures, the spiritual feeling is the magical awe we see that something different can come from the accumulation of parts. Synergies and apparent chaos make us think something extra has been added to make the thing the thing it is.

I view our desires as being akin to gravity. We wish to achieve attributes and love newness, we wish to expand ourselves and we expand ourselves by taking in, and we leave behind what is no use to our growth or no longer suits it. This is the process of evolution, and of evolving generally.
We desire growth because we have an excess of the opposite of growth, we have an excess of the power of contraction. The power of contraction emanates from all matter in the form of gravity.

Logically, only in this manner could we take in and expand. Growth is addition and the only way for addition to come in being is for something to move into the dominant causal pattern of existence and then to form a synergy with that pattern, it has to merge into the dominant flow of the thing. The key here is that only opposites can merge, and as I mentioned in that earlier post, I personally believe the most fundamental form of merging of opposites is for the two forces to merge, by the act of cancelling out the would be affect of the other. The reason that only opposites can merge is that we live in a world where equal and opposite physical reactions are quite evident. This is perhaps the most fundamental truism of physics. The complex five dimensional structure of things contain series of interrelated balances. The sheer complexity of the chain reactions is immense and makes it very difficult to see that at all times the parts exist and hold together in a pattern only because of the merging of two opposites. Between each part, what is opposite is only that portion of each part that is that is not in balance, it is the part of the two infinities that is free to do what each infinity must do - either expand or contract, resulting in movement, and also to form new balances with its opposite.

In essense what I am saying is that the dominant feature of us, beyond all the complexities of empirical causes, beyond or underneath matter, lies, not spirit, but power, the power to attract/take in some of that which is not you.

You are still true to yourself, no? This is a very good thing.

Yes, but I feel like a nutcase. Still far too aggressive on occasions. No surprise really , as in being true to myself I am being true to my ego, my habitual ego from before I discovered philosophy, the ego that still demonstratably prompts my actions, and thus continues to bar me from the present. I have insufficient courage to put my whole life effort into becoming as wise as I can, and remain wholly fixated on not being bored - I don't like spending time in the now, without thought.

Yes, I know I should at least try meditation but I'm most likely not going to. Apparently going to Thailand in Dec so I might do it then, if so inclined.

bito To question the nature of existence and the nature of meaning is to eventually dissolve the question, for the questioner is existence and meaning.

Seeking objective meaning brings you to this realization, and this realization sets you free from seeking objective meaning.

I find it hard to disagree, what you say all sounds correct, but I have my doubts. While as you say, the questioner is existence and meaning, I am not satisfied that it fully resolves the question. As far I can see we retain the desire for objective meaning. I am still seeking answers for objective existence. You see if there is subjective existence, existence felt by the one with awareness, that automatically means there is objective existence. The subjective existence must be caused, therefore its cause must be objective existence.

Meaning happens. What is there to do but be this meaning that is happening?

Yes we cannot be other than what we have been caused to be, but as part of this determined total meaning, we are still constantly caused to question and evaluate our meaning.

[bito]

As far I can see we retain the desire for objective meaning. I am still seeking answers for objective existence. You see if there is subjective existence, existence felt by the one with awareness, that automatically means there is objective existence. The subjective existence must be caused, therefore its cause must be objective existence.

Would not your standing apart from this presentation of objective meaning (you being the subject) in order to see it or comprehend it not influence its objectivity?

As for cause and effect, what caused the cause? And what caused the cause that caused the cause? We could go on ad infinitum, but you get the picture.

Yes we cannot be other than what we have been caused to be, but as part of this determined total meaning, we are still constantly caused to question and evaluate our meaning.

So we live our life looking in the rear view mirror?

Is it our meaning we are questioning or our very nature?

:unsure: