existentialism vs nihilism

[Rongi]

I know there is a difference, and i've had it explained to me before. Yet, I'm still not exactly sure where existentialism ends and nihilism begins. Is it just that nihilism is more destructive? I apologize in advance if this is a really, really dumb question.

From what I've read and researched, I do not particularly like either one of those schools of thought. After reading The Stranger, i got pretty turned off of existentialism. That could be that my english teacher is just an obnoxious existentialist who thinks he knows everything about everything

[Sethomas]

Well, they're two fundamentally different things, it's just that when the general population looks at certain forms of existentialism they see its manifestations as appearing too much like nihilism.

In short:
Nihilism is the principle that human endeavor is void of purpose and is generally incapable of creating purpose.
Existentialism is a manner of thinking centered around the idea that life contains no intrinsic or immutable purpose, but the experience of life affords us the opportunity to invest in it any significance of our liking.

When Existentialism was about a century old, Sartre produced a number of essays attacking the criticisms leveled against Existentialism. His thesis was that Existentialism is simply the assertion, "existence precedes essence", or more plainly, the only instruction books we have on how to live are the ones we write for ourselves. He even attempted to throw it back into their face with the idea that Existentialism in its more highly evolved form is closer to Humanism than Nihilism, but I don't remember how he did it because I wasn't particularly impressed with his logic.

One big problem causing the association between the two was the struggle WITHIN the existential movement, whereby its theistic camps leveled the charge of nihilism against the atheist variety spearheaded by Sartre. Sartre, by his efforts to unify Existentialism from a collective of meditations and observations into a systematic methodology of thought, eclipsed the rest of the movement in the public eye. The earliest Existential philosophers (excluding Nietzsche, whom I've never known to use the term and its applicability to him is something of a debate) most always approached the subject from a theistic context, especially the theodicy explored in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (he was a Lutheran advocate of the Christianity of idealism opposed to Christendom of reality) to Dostoyevsky's metaphors for humanity's relationship with God within Crime and Punishment.

By the end of WWI, there was a huge corpus of works by French Catholics dominating the Existential scene, but Sartre dismissed their methods of thinking as being immiscible with his own. Hence, the attacks against his camp for being nihilistic.

Oh, and for future reference, Camus (author of The Stranger) was often labeled as being in the atheist existentialist club, but he flatly rejected it a number of times. He preferred the term "absurdist". Oddly enough, wikipedia's entry on "absurdism" includes a chart outlining tenants of both existential camps, nihilism, and absurdism. I think it's actually well-made, fancy that!

[Rongi]

Hm, after reading that I feel pretty silly for thinking nihilism and existentialism were similiar.

I should probably read more on existentialism and nihilism. My only real frame of reference to existentialism is The Stranger. I actually thought it was an entertaining read. I have a copy of The Gay Science, but I think as of now it is a little above my reading level.

[sloth]

I found the easiest way into Nietzsche is the Geneology Of Morals - the Gay Science and Thus Spake Zarathustra are a bit flamboyant if you're looking to get a handle on his ideas. For existentialists he's existential, for post-modernists he's post-modern and for lacanians he embraces subjectivisation - a pretty amazing thinker and well worth the time.

[Jeanette X]

I can't wait for KK to come and crap up this thread.

[Miss Modular]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Well, they're two fundamentally different things, it's just that when the general population looks at certain forms of existentialism they see its manifestations as appearing too much like nihilism.

In short:
Nihilism is the principle that human endeavor is void of purpose and is generally incapable of creating purpose.
Existentialism is a manner of thinking centered around the idea that life contains no intrinsic or immutable purpose, but the experience of life affords us the opportunity to invest in it any significance of our liking.

Kulturkampf is a good example of nihilist.

[MLE]

I never thought he's be a good example of anything!

[Miss Modular]

I stand corrected.

[kahljorn]

"hom I've never known to use the term and its applicability to him is something of a debate)"

From what I understand Nietzche actually used something like the term nihilism to describe the state which christian ethics would put us in. I think it was something about attaching yourself to unattainable values and the chaos which proceeds recognizing that you cannot attain them.

I think he talks about it in Will to power in the first chapter.

I know the stranger is supposed to be about a person who thinks that everything is meaningless, but I'm not positive if that's actually what he thinks.

[Sleazeappeal]

Well, I'm no philosophy major, but as far as I can tell...

Nihilism states that there is no purpose, there never was a purpose and there shall never be a purpose.

Existentialism states that there is no purpose save that which we make for ourselves.

[23_]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

From what I understand Nietzche actually used something like the term nihilism to describe the state which christian ethics would put us in. I think it was something about attaching yourself to unattainable values and the chaos which proceeds recognizing that you cannot attain them.

I think he talks about it in Will to power in the first chapter.

This is true. He spoke about attaching yourself to "morals" that are immoral, and therefore unattainable and without purpose.

[Fat_Hippo]

Huh, by that definition I'm most definitley an existentialist. Don't believe in god or any pre-ordained purpose, but don't think that means I should just torment the shit out of everybody just for the fun of it.
Great, now I already know that I'm an atheist and an existentialist. Any more ways I could classify myself?

What are people called who don't believe in destiny but in decisions and luck?

[JediScum]

Originally Posted by Fat_Hippo

What are people called who don't believe in destiny but in decisions and luck?

"Crapshooters". "Serendipidists".

EDIT: That's prolly wrong. "Crapshooter" implies gambling, not knowing either way, just throwing it out there.

Serendipity would be a fortuitous accident. I've had many.

Though I used to "all about" nihilism as a teen, I think I'm closer to existentialism/absurdism now.

[Sethomas]

Actually, the word is "indeterminism", something that nobody's heard of except in being contrary to determinism.

In any instance, an atheist believing in destiny would be inchoate anyways (destiny supposes that a higher force posits future events), so atheists rarely have to articulate that point. A more biting question along those lines is the existence of free will. There are many atheists that argue for its existence, but they're typically the kind of people who argue for free will just to make themselves feel better. Supporters of free will are called libertarians (I hate that word because it means so many things, most of which are stupid), opponents are called determinists, and the "best of both worlds" camp call themselves compatibalists. Compatibalism is totally stupid because it draws the kind of compromise that would be like saying, "oh, your wife is somewhat pregnant, but somewhat not pregnant as well!"

[Sethomas]

Also, a fun word to throw around is "stochastic". I use it a lot when I'm trying to get laid.

[Emu]

Schrodinger's cat

[Sethomas]

Schrödinger's dick in a box

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Actually, the word is "indeterminism", something that nobody's heard of except in being contrary to determinism.

In any instance, an atheist believing in destiny would be inchoate anyways (destiny supposes that a higher force posits future events), so atheists rarely have to articulate that point. A more biting question along those lines is the existence of free will. There are many atheists that argue for its existence, but they're typically the kind of people who argue for free will just to make themselves feel better. Supporters of free will are called libertarians (I hate that word because it means so many things, most of which are stupid), opponents are called determinists, and the "best of both worlds" camp call themselves compatibalists. Compatibalism is totally stupid because it draws the kind of compromise that would be like saying, "oh, your wife is somewhat pregnant, but somewhat not pregnant as well!"

you dont think behaviorism is a cogent version of an atheistic "destiny"?

compatibilism may be stupid, but its the best i can do until a conclusive logical argument for determinism is formulated. its only right and natural.