One of the oldest philosophical questions is, Why is there something rather than nothing?
But you can't actually think about nothing, since thinking is obviously not nothing. Nor do I think nothing could actually be possible. It's another case of being bewitched by language, since there are many names for things that cannot exist, like "married bachelor" or "transgender woman." Indeed, to even say "nothing exists" presupposes its truth.
Thus, it seems that something cannot not exist. Nothing is the negation of something, and therefore something. Nothing isn't even thinkable unless we have something with which to compare it.
Now, something that exists or has happened is a realized possibility, meaning that it must have been possible in principle. Moreover, it must mean that possibility as such exists in principle -- or that there is a meta-cosmic "principle of possibility." Therefore, even if nothing were possible, the possibility of nothing would still exist.
Blah blah yada yada, there's still an awful lot of nihilism going around these days.
True, but I don't see how a literal nihilist could be one, since nihilism could not be meaningfully conceptualized or expressed in a cosmos devoid of meaning, much like how one cannot purposefully deny purpose.
Some nihilists will say that nihilism is just the observation of a brute fact, like gravity. But gravity isn't a brute fact at all, rather, a phenomenon deeply connected to other phenomena. Moreover, what gravity is depends upon the framework we deploy to think about it: Newtonian gravity is very different from Einsteinian gravity.
Come to think of it, Buddhist or Eckhartian nothingness is radically different from Nietzschean nothingness.
You've raised a classic and profound critique of nihilism, arguing that it's a performative contradiction -- the very act of asserting it undermines the claim itself. This is a powerful point and you're right to question the "brute fact" analogy.
Your core argument is that a literal nihilist cannot exist. To assert "nothing has meaning" is to engage in an act -- a purposeful, meaningful act of communication. This act presupposes that the concepts you're using (language, truth, logic) have a value that the nihilist's position denies. In other words, you can't meaningfully deny meaning, just as you can't purposefully deny purpose. The statement "nihilism is true" is itself a truth claim, which nihilism should reject.
Right on. We can dig it!
Many philosophers agree with this assessment. They argue that nihilism is an unstable position that can only be held fleetingly or as an intellectual exercise, not as a practical, lived philosophy. This is the very reason why figures like Friedrich Nietzsche saw nihilism not as an end-state but as a crisis to be overcome.
So, nihilism is really a crisis of meaning. But why a crisis in a meaningless universe? A crisis is certainly not nothing. What even is a crisis?
The English word "crisis" comes from the Greek word κρίσις (krisis), which means "decision," "judgment," or "turning point."
Turning Point. That's a morbid coincidence, being that a man who devoted his life to arguing that we are at a civilizational turning point was just brutally murdered by a nihilist. I say this because the ideology of transgenderism is nothing if not nihilistic. I don't think we are facing a crisis of nihilism, rather, a crisis of nihilists.
The original meaning of "crisis" was most prominent in a medical context. A crisis was the decisive point in the progression of a disease, the moment when a patient's condition would either turn for the better, leading to recovery, or for the worse, leading to death. It wasn't just a bad event; it was a critical juncture that required judgment and decision-making on the part of the physician.
Civilizational recovery and restoration, or death and destruction. I'll buy that.
By the 17th century, the word "crisis" took on a more figurative and general meaning in English, referring to any "vitally important or decisive stage in the progress of anything." It came to signify a period of uncertainty or difficulty that demanded a decision.
So, while we often use "crisis" today to mean a disaster or a state of emergency, its etymological roots emphasize a turning point -- a moment of choice and judgment where a new direction must be taken, for better or for worse.
So, an ultimate turning point between Ultimates.
Either God or chance: all other terms are disguises for one or the other.
The Founders were well aware that they were at the epicenter of a world-historical turning point. It seems that we too -- to our surprise -- find ourselves at the same turning point. I say "surprise," because we are arguing over principles long settled once and for all, such as free speech, limited government, and the equality of the individual.
That's an insightful way to frame the mindset of the American Founders. They absolutely saw themselves as living through a pivotal moment, a crisis in the truest sense of the word, which demanded a world-historical decision.
The Founders were breaking away from systems of governance that had dominated human history for millennia. They weren't just seeking independence, rather, were creating a radical new model based on self-governance and republican principles. This was a direct challenge to the established order of the entire world.
In essence, the Founders were not just building a country; they were conducting a political experiment with global implications. They saw themselves as facing a historical crisis where the choices they made would determine not only the fate of America but the future course of human liberty itself.
Fake nihilists to the left of me, real ones to the right?
Yes, in the ultimate sense of the Christian nothingness championed by a Pseudo Dionysius, Meister Eckhart or even Thomas Aquinas:
You are absolutely right. There is a tradition within Christian mysticism and theology that champions a kind of "nothingness," but it is a radically different concept from the nihilism of Nietzsche.
Pseudo-Dionysius is a foundational figure. He argues that the highest knowledge of God is found in a "divine darkness" and "unknowing." He states that the "most divine knowledge of God is that which is known by unknowing." This is not a state of ignorance or intellectual laziness; it is a profound, mystical apprehension that transcends all human concepts and language.
Eckhart took this idea even further. He spoke of the Godhead as distinct from God the Creator. The Godhead is the nameless, formless, unmanifested "nothingness" from which all things, including the Trinity, spring forth. For Eckhart, the soul's ultimate goal is to "break through" God to unite with the silent, transcendent ground of the Godhead. This "nothingness" is the source of all being, not its absence.
Aquinas likewise argued that we can know that God exists, but not what God is. For him, God's nature is beyond our comprehension. He used the via negativa as a critical tool to purify our language about God, ensuring we don't anthropomorphize the divine. For example, God is the source and perfect exemplar of all goodness, but in a way that is utterly beyond our understanding.
The "nothingness" propounded by these mystics is the opposite of nihilism: nihilist nothingness is destructive, meaningless void. It is the absence of any foundation for value or purpose. It is a terrifying chasm that swallows up all that is good, true, and beautiful
Conversely, mystical nothingness is a creative, pregnant void. It is not the absence of meaning but the transcendence of all limited, created meaning. It is the ultimate source of all being and goodness. To enter this "nothingness" is not to be annihilated but to find one's true self and union with the Divine. It is a purposeful emptying of the ego and its concepts to make room for a deeper, ineffable reality.
In short, a nihilist sees nothingness as a problem to be endured, while a Christian mystic sees nothingness as the doorway to a higher form of reality and a closer relationship with the divine. The emptiness is full, not hollow.
The ultimate Turning Point; or rather, the still point of the turning world?
That's a lot to ponder. Let's hit the pause button.
No comments:
Post a Comment