Does nihilism represent a true threat to humankind?

jln; quite so, but;
"problems" can be solved (they even form the challenges that keep intellect fit to function); however, the complete and utter disaster of complete irrationality, that we currently labour against, is a bit more of a "load" to deal with.

Nihilism in its extreme form requires us to accomplish a sweep. and JLNobody is right in saying that problems will continue to arise even after a clean sweep gets done. it is only due to lack of imagination that one says problems vanish completely after everything is examined and reestablished.

hence, we better take nihilism as a incessant process where we are confronted with, and then devoted to the resolution, of those constantly-arising problems. make the "better" replace the "best" and that is the only judicious expection we could have of ourselves.

truth
Perception, interesting observation by Spengler (whom I've never read), that nihilism is a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. We must ask, however: which way did the arrow of causation point? Did the observed civilizations collapse because of nihilism, or did nihilism emerge as a result of their process of collapse?

JLNobody, as some philosophers of science said, problems always precede scientific knowledge. Nihilism, as a term given to some specific notion which can be further explained in some complicated way, is itself the abstraction of a collection of certain phenomena. It is the clarification of what is already at work in the reality without being noticed.

However, the remarks above do not mean the arrow of causation points to only one end. Rather, the theorization of what the term "Nihilism" denotes is central to the interplay of theroy and reality. Once theorized in a systematic way, Nihilism does have some impacts upon the perception of the existent cultures. Just as preditions can never be proved affirmative in an absolute sense because predictions thermselves impact upon what is going to be predicted, nor can we say that theorization of some trends will be independent of what the trends are going to be. By the same token, the theorization of Nihilism might well precipitate the process of the collapse and there is no telling that the collapse will continue without that collapse being consciously theorized.

Therefore - forgive me for introducing a digression - the question JLNodoy posed in the last post will direct us to another question which is of more importance and inescapable from metaphysical abstraction, that is, whether we as mankind do have some influence on the development of history.

In this discussion of a "clean sweep" and the destruction of foundations, i think that there is an unintentional effect of fear mongering for those who feel threatened by such a concept as nihilism. I've always frankly seen nihilsm as an idea which appeals to the adolescent and the post-adolescent, a category into which i would place ol' Freddy Neitzsche. For whatever great value one places upon the philosophical statements he produced from the study and teaching of philology, his personal biography shows a lonely man who was unable to make ordinary social connections to the people around him. I see him as remaining profoundly immature throughout his life, until he collapses on the street in Jena and is subsequently institutionalized.

Adolescent and post-adolescent people are often suicidal, and usually hide-bound in their beliefs, and they cherish the conviction that they have had a false, decaying and corrupt society foisted upon them. But all discussions of nihilsm and "the clean sweep" ignore that the contemporary basis for "democratic" (yeah, maybe) societies is a social contract, the which can be constructed without reference to the ancient foundations. What is problematic is that the "In God we trust" mentality persists, and for those who fear and resist change, a threat to "morality" and religious "values" entails a threat to the very existence of the human race. Although this is absurd, working from the pragmatic view that we can sustain society with the formulation of, and adherence to (using socially-sponsored enforcement if necessary) a social contract, it would behoove us not to unnecessarily alarm those who cling to religion and concepts of morality. For all that we often revile politicians, they are the brokers without whom we could not effect the compromises which are at the heart of negotiating the social contract. A successful politician is someone who can be easily ridiculed for a lack of adherence to principle, but a successful politician is also someone who effects change, or sustains useful institutions, through negotiation and compromise, and someone who attempts to include divergent groups in a whole which is the society of which i write. It is to be expected that the "conservative," by definition someone who believes things are fine the way they are, and therefore feels threatened by both change and the pace of change, would overrate the effect of nihilism and the threat posed by the concept.

This is, in my view, a discussion of the details of the appearance of a red herring. Personally, i was never that fond of herring.

truth
Acepoly, thanks for the insights; I particularly appreciated your first paragraph.
Setanta, thanks for a very sophisticated description of the function of the effective politician. You may want to read the political anthropologist, F. G. Bailey (assuming you havn't already) for elaboration and affirmation of your perspective.
By the way, gentlemen, I don't advocate the destruction of "foundations," only the realization of their nature: they are man-made, not God made. And I do accept the fact that most societies have rested their social order on forms of absolutism, i.e., the believe that their core values were "given" to them by Divine revelation of some sort, from spirits, Gods, benevolent ancestors, totems, etc. It's just that we, the aspiring cognoscenti, should be willing to put up with the insecurity of facing life as it is.

JLN, i've not read the author in question, can you provide a citation?

politicians
Yes, Setanta:
Stratagems and Spoils. Oxford: Blackwell
Debate and Compromise. Oxford: Blackwell
Humbuggery and Manipulation: the Art of Leadership. Cornell Universit Press.
These are the most relevant. He's published over a dozen books and is perhaps the most prominent political anthropologist.

truth
Two quotes which are not arguments but mere expressions of the values inherent in non-absolutist thinking.
1. (I don't recall the source): "The world needs less certainty about what should be, not more."
2. (Nietzsche, paraphrased): Convictions are more dangerous than doubts. (I would add that the former merely feel better).

While this discussion is chugging along very nicely, I wish to add a couple of points;
To setanta; you should try "kippered" herring, a Scotish specialty where the herring is sun dryed in salt, and when resurected with a little melted butter has a wonderful flavour, and is actually reddish brown in colour.

Secondly, and perhaps a little more to the point, we should look at the foundations of our institutions, most of which came from the distant vestiges of instinct which kept our extreme semihuman ancestors alive, but have virtually no value in the cybersociety of today. We must discard the missguided notion that only our traditions can keep us safe, before we sink into them as into quicksand and slowly suffocate.

Setanta,

While trying to get out of the rain, I somehow stumbled into this thread and your post quoted above.
As a dually diagnosed, recovering philosophy major, AND recovering political junkie, I have been trying my best to avoid the lure of threads such as these. (And anyway, I have little appetite or patience nowadays for abstract intellectualism or for egotism clothed in 'concept' or 'principle')
Nevertheless Sir, I must tell you (brace yourself for a little flattery here) I greatly admire your posts, your impressive intellect, and your wit.

Did I say all that? Well, I guess I did......and, to borrow from the immortal Gabby Hayes:

"That's my story and I'm stickin' to it."

You are very kind, Jorge, thank you for your remarks.

Is that a supernova?

No, it's just Setanta's head!

Way to go, jjorge!

How very unjustified of you, BGW.

Aw, I kinda like yer head (for what's in it)! :wink:

truth
Jjorge, I agree with your assessment of Setanta. Except for his occasional junior moments (e.g., 'ol Freddy Nietzsche), his intellect is formdible and therefore a wonderful source of challenging entertainment for the rest of us, most of whom suffer more from senior moments.

Being straightforward I would say that nihilism would create chaos. To Milton, chaos was evil. Nihilists do not believe in the attainment of knowledge. I ask them where this IDEA rests upon. If nothing is constant or can be known, then how can one of thought of chaos?

Nihilism wouldn't be the end of mankind, unless we were to apply it to our daily lives (thankfully, no one applies their philosophy to their daily lives), but it would certainly be the end of philosophy, and probably education and learning as well. Postmodernism is kind of pushing it too.

truth
Every time the subject of nihilism is raised in A2K everyone runs for the hills. Nihilism is not, according to MY understanding, a synonym for chaos and destruction of all human systems of meaning. It is merely the assertion that ALL our philosophical constructions are OUR constructions. Nothing is given, absolute or objective. There is no objective or external FOUNDATION for our understanding of reality. WE are the foundation for our meanings, all of which is man-made, relative and subjective and/or inter-subjective. Nietzsche felt it was essential to free us from the absolutism of objectivism and the metaphysics and psychology of Chistrianity. Once freed (as I understand Nietzsche), we are more capable of living as noble creatures, in charge of, and responsible for, our destinies and lives. If we merely rested with the notion that all was meaningless that would be, according to Nietzsche, disastrous. It would prove us to be impotent weaklings. But to use the freedom of nihilism to create our human-centered world and ourselves requires a TEMPORARY nihilism, the opportunity to create our lives in freedom and responsibility. Metaphorically, nihilism cleans the junk out of our house. But it leaves us with the freedom and responsibility to furnish it with pragmatic and realisitic meanings.

But if nothing is real, and it's all a contruction, what's left? Funny how you say no one here likes nihilism, because you all seem pretty happy with postmodernism...