Existentialism and Nihilism

[Childe Harold]

In fact if I have my response to omaha saved, why not paste in here.

Omhaha this is long overdue but let me point out your phrase "totalitarian belief in reason" is meaningless. How can a belief be totalitarian? It can't. You really mean "absolute belief in reason" or "total belief". Instead you use totalitarian to refer to the form of government that you think reason engenders. Well then yes,The Soviet Union was based on communism, which is in turn grounded in reason. Well done. But giving me one instance of a reason-based government going awry doesn't prove anything. Remember the Enlightenment? That was kind of based on reason too. And yes, it produced Jacobinism, but it also produced the American Constitution and laid the ground for liberal democracy. Are you telling me the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the idea of the social contract aren't based on reason omaha? They are and they are the pillars of civil society. Without them, in other words if we had stuck to the clericalism and religious absolutism of the Dark Ages (called dark because unreason=ignorance), where would we be? Oh and to use your confused phrase, would you say National Socialism held a totalitarian belief in reason? Of course it didn't. It held the opposite: contempt for reason and rationality. Just like contemporary jihadism does. Is this your preference? It's somewhat of a trite point, but more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause.

You have poor logic for someone with faith in reason.

Childe, you are just being pedantic because your arguments suck. You  haven't refuted my point one bit. D was writing against the  revolutionary ideas of the time that became the basis for the Soviet  communist state. Totalitarianism sets itself up on reason that  excludes any atagonism. Hence a totalitarian belief in reason.

Reason itself is not totalitarian. You put  those words in my mouth. You invoking the enlightenment is just empty  sophistry.
 

What you describe as totalitarianism is actually authoritarianism--the disallawonce of opposition. Totalitarianism refers to the complete control of the government over the individual, as in the society of Big Brother. Your application of this term to Soviet Union under Stalin is not then entirely appropriate. But nevermind that, you say that totalitarianism "sets itself up on reason that excludes any antagonism." The exclusion of antagonism isn't a corrolary of reason, but expedience or self-interest. Democratic rule, natural soveriegnty, social contract--these are all outcomes of the use of reason for the improvement of society. No Dostoevsky probably wasn't in favor of all of these things--being the conservative that he was--but you have to admi that he was a bit of a reactionary in this regard. Prescient about the demise of his country? Sure. But, sorry to tell you, Russia, and the world, has outlived his prescience. Or maybe it hasn't. What do you think would have concerned Dostoevsky most about our times? Nihilism yes, but not the nihilism of the jihadists, not the socialists or utilitarians. I think it's safe to say he would have sided with reason in this case don't you?

As for my bringing up the Enlightenment, I was merely pointing out that most of what reason has given us has been for the better. From what you write, it seems you think totalitarianism coming from reason is the rule, when I say it's really just the exception. If you agree with me in this, which I think you do, don't use totalitarian as a modifier for reason, because it will be ambiguous just how generally you associate both concepts.

P.S I said above that self-interest doesn't come from reason, when at times it may be said to do so. In this case it should be called however "enlightened self-interest" as applied by John Stuart Mill in his conception of the general happiness theory, or by Adam Smith in the idea of invisible hand. In the first reason dictates that one's own happiness is dependant on the happiness of others, and the second, that the selfish pursuit of desires will create the most competitive and profitable market. Yes, reason might also say do whatever it takes to get what you want, but then there is Hobbesian idea of punishment and the abdication of certain personal freedoms to the state. I've begun to ramble here i know, but hope I'm making it clear that the use of reason is not as simple as you or Dostoevsky makes out. His attitude towards it was understandable given the movement's infancy and crudeness, but it has matured and refined itself.

[underworld men]

Good question. I had this big response written out--among other things, to omahaha fatuous talk about the totalitarian belief in reason (which doesn't even make sense)--but couldn't post it becuase I couldn't connect to the site. (I thought underworld had finally blocked me!)

Back to more paranoid delusions. Why the hate? There were no masturbatory comments so why the worry Harry? You just keep running all over the place but home base. Oh you poor poor soul being hounded and hunted. Let me tell you you have not a clue. So your a fan of the Psikhushkas. Lock away the religious or spiritual in mental wards. I know you are not going to explicitly say it, but.. Youve lend yourself to it.

[Childe Harold]

Everything but an argument underworld. The shame is yours, I'm terribly sorry.

And mental wards? No no that's far too kind a penalty for Belief. I think death chambers and charnel houses would do nicely. Line 'em up and shoot 'em down. That's what I say.

[underworld men]

What you describe as totalitarianism is actually authoritarianism--the disallawonce of opposition.

You just have to keep trying to split hairs yourself. There was no reason for this above. Except to waste time.


Totalitarianism refers to the complete control of the government over the individual, as in the society of Big Brother. Your application of this term to Soviet Union under Stalin is not then entirely appropriate. But nevermind that, you say that totalitarianism "sets itself up on reason that excludes any antagonism."


No Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, Julius Margolin state this, OM is not alone. And let tell you OM I am quite fond of your company.

 The exclusion of antagonism isn't a corrolary of reason, but expedience or self-interest. Democratic rule, natural soveriegnty, social contract--these are all outcomes of the use of reason for the improvement of society. No Dostoevsky probably wasn't in favor of all of these things--being the conservative that he was--but you have to admi that he was a bit of a reactionary in this regard. Prescient about the demise of his country? Sure. But, sorry to tell you, Russia, and the world, has outlived his prescience. Or maybe it hasn't. What do you think would have concerned Dostoevsky most about our times? Nihilism yes, but not the nihilism of the jihadists, not the socialists or utilitarians. I think it's safe to say he would have sided with reason in this case don't you?

Conjecture, blowing smoke.


As for my bringing up the Enlightenment, I was merely pointing out that most of what reason has given us has been for the better. From what you write, it seems you think totalitarianism coming from reason is the rule, when I say it's really just the exception. If you agree with me in this, which I think you do, don't use totalitarian as a modifier for reason, because it will be ambiguous just how generally you associate both concepts.

I'd say you missed the message of the underground man. Man is not rational nor is reality. So at best you have a fragmented view of what is now. A very tiny piece. Your also creeping up on arguing for determinism just like I said you would (of course out of spite).

P.S I said above that self-interest doesn't come from reason, when at times it may be said to do so. In this case it should be called however "enlightened self-interest" as applied by John Stuart Mill in his conception of the general happiness theory, or by Adam Smith in the idea of invisible hand.

Ignorant. Adam Smith was stating that not all prices are set by rational means. He used rubies as an example aka the invisible hand is not and was not greed. Smith is night and day to the theory of JS Mill as much as gnosis is to episteme. Philosophy is theory. Smith was just writing about the market place and how it worked at that time. JS Mill was all about what should be rather then what really is.

In the first reason dictates that one's own happiness is dependant on the happiness of others, and the second, that the selfish pursuit of desires will create the most competitive and profitable market.

No, hard work and success should be the determining factory for who has wealth and who doesn't, not data retention or creative theory about what might be.

Yes, reason might also say do whatever it takes to get what you want, but then there is Hobbesian idea of punishment and the abdication of certain personal freedoms to the state.

Oh so now you are just outright arguing for state abuse justified by what is needed to protect the society as a whole. You argue to justify the beast?

I've begun to ramble here i know, but hope I'm making it clear that the use of reason is not as simple as you or Dostoevsky makes out. His attitude towards it was understandable given the movement's infancy and crudeness, but it has matured and refined itself.

No sir, I disagree, you have done nothing to convince me, you and your position is truer or righter or greater then the beauty of Dostoevsky, of the slav, the brother to all. No sir, individually or collectively no one has showed the depth of human and truth better then orthodoxy.

[underworld men]

Everything but an argument underworld. The shame is yours, I'm terribly sorry.

Funny I'm terribly doubtful. Stop projecting on people and take responsibly for your comments. Saying I finally banned you.

And mental wards? No no that's far too kind a penalty for Belief. I think death chambers and charnel houses would do nicely. Line 'em up and shoot 'em down. That's what I say.

I'll let that comment stand, considering it would affect Dostoevsky as well. And yes its sick to use concentration camp imagery. Try to disown ownership of your hatred by claiming your dig was just a joke. Once again why the spiteful bitterness why the hate?

[Childe Harold]

No sir, I disagree, you have done nothing to convince me, you and your position is truer or righter or greater then the beauty of Dostoevsky, of the slav, the brother to all. No sir, individually or collectively no one has showed the depth of human and truth better then orthodoxy.

Hear! Hear! Sir. How delightfully 18th Century of you. If we keep up this up, we shall each be the Boswell to the other's Johnson. Except the jury is still out on who is who!!

[underworld men]

And mental wards? No no that's far too kind a penalty for Belief. I think death chambers and charnel houses would do nicely. Line 'em up and shoot 'em down. That's what I say.

Here, here how 20th -the most bloodiest mass murdering- century of you. I'll skip the Stalin and St Tikhon comparisons.

[Childe Harold]

Ignorant. Adam Smith was stating that not all prices are set by rational means. He used rubies as an example aka the invisible hand is not and was not greed. Smith is night and day to the theory of JS Mill as much as gnosis is to episteme. Philosophy is theory. Smith was just writing about the market place and how it worked at that time. JS Mill was all about what should be rather then what really is.

Absurd. The price in Smith's system is set by rational means--the rational, predictable laws of supply and demand. If they weren't rational, how could he explain them? Smith and Mill were secular rationalists. The selfishness that conduced for Smith to market efficiency was based on the same channeled self-interest that for Mill conduced to general happiness.

Conjecture, blowing smoke.----In response to my saying that Russia has outlived Dostoevsky's prescience.

Underworld, again, you are substituting an inane remark for an argument. "Blowing smoke. Plain jane silly. Ignorant"--the scoffs of a child. I've heard quite enough of them. Sorry but you'll have to do better than this puerile stuff with me. (And you wonder at my incivility.)

The distinction I made between totaliarianism and authoritianism was perfectly accurate. The names you give me tell me nothing.

Oh so now you are just outright arguing for state abuse justified by what is needed to protect the society as a whole. You argue to justify the beast?

No of course I don't. I was mentioning Hobbes in connection with Smith and Mill, to show the diversity of ideas that modern secular society derives its foundation from.

No, hard work and success should be the determining factory for who has wealth and who doesn't, not data retention or creative theory about what might be.

Who is saying any different? Unfortunately success depends on selfishness and ambition, which can be cynical things.

I'd say you missed the message of the underground man. Man is not rational nor is reality. So at best you have a fragmented view of what is now. A very tiny piece. Your also creeping up on arguing for determinism just like I said you would (of course out of spite).

Or maybe I rejected the message of the Underground Man--or at least what you consider to be its message. I also don't accept your idea that man and his world are rational. Man may have his irrationality in him, but for this he turns to philosophy and literature, where his self and the world around is, if not perfectly, then adequately explained.  

[slicingbike]

Reading the last page of this topic, I think this is really getting out of hand and going way to far.  
We should be able to discuss things, without getting personal or nasty at each other - and accept differences of opinions.
I'm not mixing in discussing who is right or not in this topic, and I think it's best to simply leave this matter where it is, and go on to other things.

That's just my 2 cents.

I'm just guessing, but I think that the fox guy was talking about every topic, considering that where this topic has gone has absolutely no relevance to my original question.

[underworld men]

Absurd. The price in Smith's system is set by rational means--the rational, predictable laws of supply and demand. If they weren't rational, how could he explain them?

Once again ignorant. Smith very clearly uses the ruby analogy to show the limitations of his system via the value of Diamonds and water. You are speaking in absolutes Smith defined the limits of rational means. Hence the chaos factor-invisible hand. You seem to have missed his paradox of value. Also Smith likes to attach that hand TO GOD.


 Smith and Mill were secular rationalists. The selfishness that conduced for Smith to market efficiency was based on the same channeled self-interest that for Mill conduced to general happiness.

No, Smith was a teacher of Morals or Ethics who believed that the markets should be free of state interference. Mills was a historian philosopher who believed in socialism as a blend of egalitarianism and utilitarianism. Neither was anti-religious. And yes I know Smith stated the richer the church the poorer the state. This criticism did not keep him from being a believer in God. Also invisible hand can also mean being patriotic which would throw the selfish thing right out the window. You know maximum profits over all else.




Underworld, again, you are substituting an inane remark for an argument. "Blowing smoke. Plain jane silly. Ignorant"--the scoffs of a child.

You mean to a child yes childe harold.


 I've heard quite enough of them. Sorry but you'll have to do better than this puerile stuff with me. (And you wonder at my incivility.)

Your hatred is your choice I lay the blame for you with you. If you really wish to make a point I suggest you rise above. You worry about you.

The distinction I made between totaliarianism and authoritianism was perfectly accurate. The names you give me tell me nothing.

You even yourself stated in the same post it was needless but did it anyway.

No of course I don't. I was mentioning Hobbes in connection with Smith and Mill, to show the diversity of ideas that modern secular society derives its foundation from.

But Smith was writing Wealth of nations in part to refute Hobbes so your clumping of them together is inappropriate. It implies a unity that is not valid in reflection of Smiths own words. Hobbes was for a powerful state at the expense of the individual and the market. Quote-
Hobbes states that wealth equates to power but this is not true because many very wealth people have never obtained political power. Chapter 5 Wealth of Nations.

Who is saying any different? Unfortunately success depends on selfishness and ambition, which can be cynical things.

So much for luck.

Or maybe I rejected the message of the Underground Man--or at least what you consider to be its message.

Well not just me. I was quoting the novel almost literally.
".  In short, one may say anything about the history
of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination.
The only thing one can't say is that it's rational.  The very word sticks
in one's throat.  And, indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually
happening: there are continually turning up in life moral and rational
persons, sages and lovers of humanity who make it their object to live all
their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light
to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live
morally and rationally in this world.  And yet we all know that those very
people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer
trick, often a most unseemly one.  Now I ask you: what can be expected of
man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities?  Shower upon
him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that
nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him
economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but
sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and
even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some
nasty trick.  He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire
the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to
introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element.  It is
just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain,
simply in order to prove to himself--as though that were so necessary--
that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of
nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to
desire nothing but by the calendar.  And that is not all: even if man really
were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural
science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable,
but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude,
simply to gain his point. "
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9805/mckenna.html

http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com/etexts/notes_from_underground.txt

I also don't accept your idea that man and his world are rational.

Where did I say that rational and logic are all encompassing?

Man may have his irrationality in him, but for this he turns to philosophy and literature, where his self and the world around is, if not perfectly, then adequately explained.

Really, -tisk again how romantic of you

"The characteristics of our
romantic are to understand everything, TO SEE EVERYTHING AND TO SEE IT
OFTEN INCOMPARABLY MORE CLEARLY THAN OUR MOST REALISTIC MINDS SEE IT; to
refuse to accept anyone or anything, but at the same time not to despise
anything; to give way, to yield, from policy; never to lose sight of a useful
practical object (such as rent-free quarters at the government expense,
pensions, decorations), to keep their eye on that object through all the
enthusiasms and volumes of lyrical poems, and at the same time to preserve
"the sublime and the beautiful" inviolate within them to the hour of
their death, and to preserve themselves also, incidentally, like some precious
jewel wrapped in cotton wool if only for the benefit of "the sublime
and the beautiful."  Our "romantic" is a man of great breadth and the
greatest rogue of all our rogues, I assure you ....  I can assure you from
experience, indeed.  Of course, that is, if he is intelligent.  But what am I
saying!  The romantic is always intelligent, and I only meant to observe
that although we have had foolish romantics they don't count, and they
were only so because in the flower of their youth they degenerated into
Germans, and to preserve their precious jewel more comfortably, settled
somewhere out there--by preference in Weimar or the Black Forest."

[underworld men]

Reading the last page of this topic, I think this is really getting out of hand and going way to far.  
We should be able to discuss things, without getting personal or nasty at each other - and accept differences of opinions.
I'm not mixing in discussing who is right or not in this topic, and I think it's best to simply leave this matter where it is, and go on to other things.

That's just my 2 cents.

I'm just guessing, but I think that the fox guy was talking about every topic, considering that where this topic has gone has absolutely no relevance to my original question.

 
Either notes from the underground is the defacto piece of existential fiction or many many person are beyond mistaken.

So slicingbike is notes not Dostoevsky's primary existential work or not? If it is why the interruption?

As for foxy I am communicating with him (though he needs to reply back to my last message).

[slicingbike]

Because if you look at the first post you'll see that this was about the difference between existentialism and Nihilism, but I guess I should have made that clearer in the title. I was confused about what was the difference between the two.

[underworld men]

Because if you look at the first post you'll see that this was about the difference between existentialism and Nihilism, but I guess I should have made that clearer in the title. I was confused about what was the difference between the two.

Well it seems you are rather impatient. My point being one must come to an understanding of Notes from the underground first. Since I really can't think of any other work of Dostovesky's which is so explicitly existentialist.

Then (as I have stated before) you must approach apophaticism. From notes from the underground. Once you approach that as Kierkegaard put it- God is not an object like a rock no, God is a subject.

You see Dostoevsky was arguing that science and or nihilism/atheism reduces man to a machine. Rational or irrational machine is really only operative.

Dostoevsky was stating that rationalism was the root of determinism. And he was doing so in light of the fact that people have decided that the only truth is sensory perception (positivism).

You see capitalism and socialism to Dostoevsky where really just individual and collective (moral) forms of materialism management.

They both claim an amount of control and understanding over reality that is, shall we say, over confident.

There is allot of high end site in what they say.

They also create certain unsubjective truths called axioms.

But their axioms really are just acts of faith.

[underworld men]

Existentialism is a set of examinations into what is existence and the phenomenon of existence.

As for nihilism I will spare you the long winded Heidegger take on Nietzsche.

Nihilism is an absolute and pure dedication to the belief of and in NOTHING.

So as Camus points out it is absurd because in order to remain a nihilist one must not believe in anything, including their own existence.

Hence the fallacy of nihilism.

Oh and to cut to the chase.

Dostoevsky argued that existence could not be "rationalized'.

Heidegger stated that it could be explained vaguely.

Heidegger explained existence as "being in time".

Heidegger also explained agnosticism as the logical conclusion that nihilism is wrong because

"Why are their beings at all instead of nothingness if all springs from nothingness".

PS Ignore the pomp and ostentatious postings of Childe Harold
he is here for therapy.

[Childe Harold]

PS Ignore the pomp and ostentatious postings of Childe Harold he is here for therapy.

I don't know about you slicing,  but I would be much more prepared to hear out underworld's views if they were organized into paragraphs, instead of series of ejaculations like the ones above. I really have never met anyone so adept at wielding the instruments of religious apology as he. Couple this with his complete want of form, and you end up with these kind of meaningless ejaculations : "They both claim an amount of control and understanding over reality that is, shall we say, over confident....They also create certain unsubject truths called axioms....But their axioms really are just acts of faith." The ellipsis here are the gaps between his understanding and his propogandistic intents. In saying that rational axioms are just like acts of faith, he is really saying: 'see, there's just like us but they won't admit it!' PIFFLE. And so yes I'd ignore him if I were you.