Nihilism is a net-neutral belief. It is not anti-belief. It does not assert or permit anything. If a nihilist doesn't believe suffering matters it does not give any license to behave anyway. This is what so many get wrong about nihilism. Nothing matters so any positive or negative behavior is equally meaningless.
very interesting point at the end about nihilism as sort of an improvement from pessimism. i wonder what a similar wager against pessimism would look like as well
I totally agree with your last point. Kahane doesn't critically evaluate his position that not being a nihilist is always leads to a 'better' life than being a nihilist. I think a good example is the many climate scientists who have committed suicide in recent years. They came to believe to that anthropogenic climate change is going to irreparably harm the earth and all life on it very seriously, and that this really matters and they (and we all) need to stop it as soon as possible. Over the years they came to feel more and more powerless to do anything, and noticed most people, even exposed to the facts and arguments and empirical evidence in their lives still wouldn't change their behaviour, so they became depressed, suffered greatly and eventually committed suicide. They, and humanity and the earth would've all benefited greatly if they could've come to believe in nihilism, lived a life of less suffering and continued their work. Who knows, they may have made a breakthrough, or lived to see an important social or technological change that changes the current trend.
adhering to kahane's conception of nihilism, if they believed continuing their work and improving the current situation was worthwhile, then they wouldn't be nihilists. if they were to become nihilists and acted in a way that was consistent with their beliefs, they would no longer do the work, i.e humanity wouldn't be able to benefit from their work/existence. it could potentially improve their own mental health, but that's about it.
@@Lin-rs9pw No, because it wouldn't matter. If you don't believe in anything, you don't have to act in accordance with anything; not even your belief that nothing matters. Might as well work and contribute to society
Great video as usual. Something I'd love to see from you would be a video about hedonism from an academic philosophical perspective. I'd be really interested on your thoughts about it
I discuss this in my video on Nozick's experience machine, one of the most famous challenges to hedonism: th-cam.com/video/YQgeUfDoAmA/w-d-xo.html But yeah, I'll consider making a video about hedonism more generally.
If nothing intrinsically has value, you're left to focus on the things you like/dislike due to the way your mind is put together and the consequences of actions with respect to that. There's less of a pressure to act in accordance to some abstract idea of what you "should" or "should not" be doing that's irrespective of your subjective experience because that's not a thing. Basically, whenever you believe something that's correct, that generally means you're better at creating the world you want to be in, so I reject the idea that nihilism either makes no difference or only has negative outcomes.
Fantastic video Kane, really clear overviews of a lot of arguments you can encounter in this topic. Unrelated question, where did you get your video thumbnail art? That's a really cool texture.
It’s uncomfortable to acknowledge that nothing matters in a cosmic sense, but maintaining that we all experience life similarly, seeking pleasure and pain avoidance, we should live as if these are things that matter. The way we experience life and experience the life of those around us matters.
I feel like this argument is just another datum one can make use of when making a reverse wager: living like a nihilist gives you what you want. If you live like a non-nihilist, your options might be constrained because the facts about what matters conflict with your desires. Unless egoism is true tho, so maybe it's not as straightforward as this.
On Kahane's view, most of my current concerns are based on my evaluative beliefs. I want to spend my time doing philosophy because I believe that philosophy is a worthwhile activity. So I think he would object that living like a nihilist will not give you what you want, at least by your current lights, because if you become a nihilist, what you want will be radically transformed. Imagine if there was a pill that would remove everything except very easily satisfied desires. So you'll be totally happy just sitting in a chair, occasionally eating food, and you won't want to do anything else with your life. Would you take this pill? If you take it, you'll find it very easy to get what you want, but that's only because your desires will change. I suspect that most people wouldn't take the pill. For Kahane, nihilism is like this pill.
@@KaneBnihilism exists because people's birthright, psilocybin mushrooms, are restricted from them. Cicero wrote about them, and Virgil. They would cultivate and use at Eleusis, Samothrace and Lemnos mushrooms, which they called tori, from the word torus. Torus means protuberances. Cicero said this was the greatest achievement of the Greeks, and I can provide my own translations of the Latin, which are indeed copywrited as it has been posted by myself all over the internet.
@@KaneBcapitalists also reinforce nihilism so materialism and working and consuming will control them. The basis of any sort of control is controlling how people get pleasure from life, but not merely pleasure... meaningful experiences. The reality of what would have been a homosexual in ancient greece is finding a companion that never leaves your side. This is impossible today because the society wants to strip everyone apart, reduce them to their id, not their ego, and reinforce narcissism.
@@KaneBbut if what you want is for nothing to matter so that your failures are not really failures, your evil deeds are not really evil, then nihilism is convenient I can’t imagine being a nihilist though… seems psychologically impossible, seems self refuting
@@KaneB Well I dunno about other peeps, but I don't really care if doing philosophy for instance is objectively worthwhile and also don't believe that it is. So I will do philosophy, if the evaluative facts floating out there like it or not, what they gonna do to stop me😼
"bUt OtHeR pEoPlE mAtTeR tOo" is not a defeater of egoism. its a straw man. (not that Kane B is arguing that point, great video btw!) anyone who has at least a handful of years of human experience recognizes that the quality of life of our friends, family, loved ones, even countrymen and fellow human beings, is not outside the scope of our self interest. As moral relativists the egoist is allowed to extend the scope of their self interest however they like, and to extend it to other people as ends within themselves is not beyond the egoist. To argue that "eGoIsT's DoN't CaRe AbOuT oThEr PeOpLe" is to shadow box a false premise.
Well further enlightenment and cultivation of virtue usually brings one along from Eros, to Philia to Agape and at that point Egoism makes no sense and breaks down. Society and all the things it provides for the Egoist only come from years of cultivation of humanity, agape, understanding between groups etc.. So I suppose you could maintain an Egoist position despite this but you will have to be okay with being called a parasite.
If nothing matters as an intrepid explorer ventures through an event horizon then what matters prior to crossing the horizon is to cross over from space-time which does not matter as a singularity entails the explorer hold strongly position 3 prior to the crossing given the need to steer the rocket but upon falling towards the singularity the belief would switch to position 2. However within the context of classical Indian metaphysics position 2 would hold firm in deep sleep and dreaming states of consciousness which then extends, according to which school of philosophy, to the walking state which renders spacetime as an illusion. The householder yoga schools tend to take towards position three, but for those who renounce family ties it is quite respectable to hold firmly position 2 and be excepted as a moral person.
I think the problem with no-difference view is that belief in objective values cannot be replaced with desires as desires are always changing depending on our physical health, mood etc. while objective values are mind independent. If one were to replace beliefs with desires, they'd be way more unlikely to pursue their long-term goals or duties.
seems like it can be that nothing matters, because we are the ultimate arbiter of things matter or not, so things are just the way they are, accept things being that way and it need not interfere with us nor us interfering with matters
I'm interested in the premise, but I strongly disagree with lumping evaluative nihilism (nothing is objectively good or bad) together with practical nihilism (there is no reason to do, want, or feel anything) as you do at the start. I am a layperson so I don't doubt your replies to other comments that perhaps there are nihilists who espouse the practical nihilist thesis, but also as a layperson that is not what I take nihilism to mean at all and I find the idea patently ridiculous. As I listened to the arguments I realized that the wager is not going to provide a proper response to the evaluative claims because it is so focused on the practical claims. I think what bothers me is the conflation of "nothing matters objectively" with "there is no reason to oppose suffering." I suppose when I think of nihilism I think of the uncaring nature of the universe and the lack of any objective purpose or meaning for existence and life. Also nihilism implies a fundamental inability to reconcile different ethical systems since they are inherently subjective. "Good" and "bad" are inherently relative terms by their nature. Indeed what would it even mean for things to "matter" outside of our subjective context? You say if we believe nothing matters, but some things do matter that could be disastrous. But what would it even mean for something like a philosophical concept to "matter"? The only way that would make sense is if there is an objective God judging us which I think we can dispense with as a possibility as it would really only move the same question one level higher. I feel like the word "matter" is being used in multiple contradictory ways here to portray a version of nihilism that is much weaker than another conception of it.
I'm not sure that the "uncaring nature of the universe and the lack of any objective purpose or meaning for existence and life" have much to do with Nihilism in these senses (although it might depend a bit on how broadly you define "purpose") I think that value is a product of our subjective experience, that we're here for no pre-ordained reason, and that our universe is a cold and desolate hellscape. I'm also a moral realist with a very strong belief in certain objective ethical propositions
Mattering in the real world is a function of the interests of sentient beings. Other uses of this word are unwarranted. The idea that "mattering" is something that could occur or exist untethered from animal brains or some analogous system is beyond ludicrous. It's not even wrong. It's not a proposition, either serious or otherwise. This is one sad example of the things allowed by human languages even though they make no sense, like a triangular house that has no walls or ceiling and is located nowhere, or the colour of jealousy. I wouldn't be surprised if this particular piece of BS was only possible in SOME languages, and not others. For instance, if the equivalent of "mattering" was always a transitive verb, and it was used like "It matters me" (meaning "it effects my interests"), and speakers of that language couldn't even conceive of making it intransitive, like "it rains".
@@connorperrett9559 , if you have some clear sensible concept of "mattering" as something outside of our heads, then go ahead and show it. If you can't, then can't be helped by saying "it's not rigid materialism". Because it looks like it's NOTHING.
Good video, especially near the end. 5th slot - Being wrong about something is a good thing, because eventually we can learn something new. Now, we could cause disastrous harm in the meantime, which isn't great. But I believe that someday the Marxists will come to realize they have been misguided. Truths that are bad to know. If Benetar is correct, then it would be better to know it and not have kids. But a better example might be Rokko's Basilisk, which is designed to be a truth that is better not to know. I would overcome it by saying that in the cases of truths better unknown, it is better to be a nihilist, but only in those cases.
I was thinking specifically of Benatar's pessimism, rather than his anti-natalism. In principle, an anti-natalist could have a cheery view of life: if Benatar's asymmetry argument works, for example, then we ought not to reproduce even if we could expect our offspring to experience only the slightest suffering. My point was just that holding the view that life is bad might, even if it's true, cause you to have a lower mood, which would make your life even worse.
I know some take nihilism seriously but doesn’t it deal with a self defeating proposition regarding all things lacking value? To make a proposition is to establish a range of values right? Or am I wrong?
I take it that I can assert a proposition without being committed to either (a) the view that some things are good or bad or (b) the view that there are reasons to do, want, or feel anything. For example, if I say, "snow is white," this doesn't prima facie commit me to the existence of values or reasons. Perhaps it could be argued that, if I say, "snow is white," this very action indicates that I take myself to have reasons for saying "snow is white." I guess the assumption would be that people can't do things without reasons. This doesn't strike me as very plausible, though, at least if we're understanding reasons as normative reasons. (Presumably, you will always be able to posit causal reasons why a person does something.)
You could also see that nihilism is inescapable nowadays because we don't have "the base level" anymore. Mickey Mouse is in news, Mickey Mouse has BLM pin, BLM protests on the streets, the news report on BLM, on that report Mickey Mouse comments on police brutality, alternative news comment on that new, and so on... You could embrace that (nihilism) or assert some kind of fixed meaning (melancholy). Philosophy is meaningless because ultimately it is superficial but you can consume the superficial level and after that you might find something else.
@@Siroitin In actuality the ancient Greek would have thrown out anyone even entertaining this level of foolishness. Philosophy literally meaning Love of Wisdom. If you participate in loving wisdom you're already going way beyond the capacity of nihilism (which is zero). Imagine an electronic capacitor that could hold nil(0) voltage. Any bit of voltage would go beyond its capacity. Nihilism as philosophy is like this impossibly weak capacitor.
@@off6848 Nihilism is not merely a weak capacitor incapable of holding meaning but rather an acknowledgment that the very notion of meaning is lost (everything refers to each other and there is no base level truth like bible). Even if the electronic capacitors holds nil voltage, they still hold superfluous content. "Electronic capacitor are hearth of the AI machines and they are like human brain cells" We can't escape meaning creation and conservative reaction to this is to assert eternal truth like nationality or religion.
@@Siroitin Well nihilism is an idea and it can be poisonous I’ve certainly escaped meaning creation in my life under this ethos nothing mattered It’s not obvious to me that meaning can be created this never feels robust enough to make up a meaning for myself it stinks of a lie
Wagering isn't the answer. Pascal's wager assumes you pick the "right answer" over many possible answers to prove one wrong. It's like that paradox about the prisoner that knows the day he'll be murdered when he's not supposed to know. It's all a matter of faith in choosing how to either refute or accept nihilism, but it's still a choice and one of faith.
I feel like if some Christian fundamentalist believed nothing mattered, it would be rather good, whereas if idk someone who was devoting their whole life to altruism decided, nothing mattered it would be rather bad.
Do you think that all wager arguments in metaethics count as the same argument? If so: Yes. Beyond that, however, there are significant differences between Benne's argument and this argument. For example, Benne's argument aims to establish moral realism specifically; Kahane's argument only aims to refute nihilism. Benne's argument appeals to probability assessments of a kind not involved in Kahane's argument. An important part of Benne's argument is the idea of seeking moral knowledge; this plays no role in Kahane's argument.
@@KaneB Oh ok now that I rewatched I think you are right. Kahane's and Bennes arguments are aimed at totally different groupes. Kahane's argument is aimed at non-nihilists, while Bennes argument is aimed at nihilists.
@@justus4684 Yeah, that's another important difference. Kahane wants to show that, if you are not a nihilist, you have good pragmatic reasons to continue resisting nihilism. Benne wants to show that, even if you are currently a moral skeptic, you can use pragmatic considerations to bootstrap your way to an objective normative truth.
Is there a video from you on nihilism in general, maybe an introduction? Re the first 2 propositions of the wager, i would have said that Nihilism as i feel it is more of a "Some thing matters (meaning or whatever) but this thing due to the structure of the world can never be "cashed in", so to say", which would then be desastrous in both cases, but at least in 2 you are living in accordance with epistemic virtues, which is at least something, and therefpre slightly better than 1.
the definition of nihilism used in the video is just completely wrong. nihilism dies not assert anything like what this argument proposes. if you're curious about it, i'd recommend reading some Novatore, Aragorn!, and maybe going back to nihilism's roots with Fathers and Children, and the commentary by Kropotkin on the real life struggles represented in that book. Baedan, Politics is Not a Banana, and Vörtext are all good nihilistic reads too
@@KaneB yes but the notion that there are people who believe that there's no reason to do or feel anything is just absurd. that's always been simply a strawman.
@@seratoxin3825 No it isn't. There are people who think that nihilism in this sense is true. Jonas Olson, Brendan Cline, and Bart Streumer have defended it. There are also plenty of people who have defended premises that jointly entail this position, even if different people endorse different premises in that set.
Kahane's argument feels much like Pascal's wager with the conclusion whether or not anything matters you are better off believing that there are things that matter, but this ignores that there is a very high probability that some of anyone's beliefs are mistaken. I am always sceptical where there appears to be a conflation between the objective and the subjective. Objectively it may well be true that we are a vanishingly insignificant blip in the 10 billion years of the existence of the Sun, I might understand this and believe that nothing can matter in this context, yet this understanding, or belief if you will, might have very little impact on what matters subjectively or objectively in the local context of my own life or the approximately 3 thousand years of recorded history, or even the roughly 300 thousand year life of our species. Whilst we can expect our understanding of objective realities to be a factor that affects our locally subjective apprehensions we cannot infer what this necessarily would be. Even from an objective perspective what matters in a local context might not matte at all in a universal context.
Everything is non-zero. You can't even imagine nothing much less show me an objective piece of nothing. Why should I bother contemplating nihilism or nothing when it comes to morals or matters? For me nihilism is referent or reifying the concept of nothing and applying it to morality which is something but as I said you can't even imagine nothing and so I say Nihilism doesn't exist and that is the only way it can be.
Thats an interesting point because I often see people say "If nothing matters that is actual great because we're free from stuffy moral systems" But if you take it far enough not even freedom matters.
@@off6848 People who say that are often saying it merely to justify abnormal sexual acts or acts of petty theft or fraud. Most of them will instantly become dedicated moralists if you argued for mass executions of politically undesirable populations or for the conquest and enslavement of another cultural group.
@@connorperrett9559 yeah when people tell me that I say “I agree that’s why the holocaust shouldn’t be a problem” and they go white. If they’re more right wing swap holocaust with holodomor and Stalins pograms and if they’re really dumb just use slavery
@off6848 "if you take it far enough not even freedom matter." The answer is, so what? 1.Who's freedom are you concerned for? And. 2. Who do you think it should matter to?
@@jaywyse7150 that will depend on the nihilist some will bite the bullet but most lose frame and get offended if you say the holocaust means nothing and was amoral or that slavery is a nothing burger. The point is that there are very few nihilists willing to take their ideology to its conclusions. As a nihilist one has to accept that there’s no inherent ethical value in freedom
This argument seems so absurd to me. Why should I think things only matter if they matter objectively? That's one of the only senses in which I think the notion of something mattering makes no sense at all. I think it only makes sense of things mattering in a way that has nothing to do with objectivism or stance-independence about values.
To be fair, the argument for nihilism that Kahane presents is only one way of arguing for the conclusion that nothing matters. He does point out that there might be other ways to get to this conclusion. As it happens though, there are lots of folks in contemporary philosophy who do claim that, if nothing matters objectively, then nothing matters tout court.
@@KaneB Yea, I grant that people in contemporary philosophy say that, which is why I think not only that the notion in question is absurd, but that many people in contemporary philosophy buy into absurd notions.
The core flaw of nihilism is putting a human being on a high pedestal where they get to judge if life has no meaning or nothing matters when they surely don't know everything about life or the universe, the only way to combat that idea is being humble and admiting how much we don't know and living our lives as we learn and discover more and more, most nihilists believe that there is no point in doing anything because it won't make a difference or it won't matter in the grand scheme of things, which is a really cowardly and individualistic point of view. We live in a amazing era of technological and scientific advancement where more and more people are getting opportunities of having quality education, nutrition, health care and so on, but none of those things would be possible if most people kept ruminating the idea that it had no meaning, what I want to get at here is telling everyone that life is worth living to its fullest as we pursue our goals and passions but also think in a collective way to help ourselves, every action counts, so let's try our best to work towards a future and a world we would want to live in.
I don't like the "Beliefs vs Concerns" response. It seems to concede that nihilism is false. If you draw a distinction between the 'philosopher's belief that nothing matters' and the 'ordinary "belief/concern" that nothing matters' in that way, you're arguing that ordinary normative judgments just are concerns. So, it seems to me that, if that's true, some form of non-cognitivism or subjectivism is true about ordinary normative judgments. That doesn't look like nihilism to me! Sure, you're not a robust realist if you hold this view about ordinary normative judgments, but that doesn't make you a nihilist. You might reply that the point of the "Beliefs vs Concerns" response is not to show that nihilism is true; after all, even a realist or a non-cognitivist could object to Kahane's wager. Instead, you might say, the point is just to show that concerns and (normative) beliefs might not be distinct. But I think Kahane would be happy to concede that this objection succeeds. After all, if you come to accept the "Beliefs vs Concerns" thing just to avoid his argument, you don't seem to be a nihilist anymore (you are either a non-cognitivist, or some kind of subjectivist about normativity), and Kahane's goal is clearly to make sure you are not a nihilist, so I still don't like the objection. A general worry I have about Kahane-style arguments is that they seem to rest on a complex empirical question, and the little empirical evidence I have seems to put his view into question. I think I've been a nihilist in the sense of the word described in the video for several years, but I haven't noticed any disastrous consequences yet. Although, I do concede that Kahane might still pull off his argument in a different way. I think becoming a nihilist is not dangerous (the no-difference view might well be true in this respect), but acquiring certain normative beliefs might make a difference. For example, if I came to believe voting for the Green Party at the next elections is morally obligatory, I would probably vote for them, so he might say there is nothing to gain if the other three options are correct, but there is something to gain if you believe certain moral judgments are true. I feel like this argument is much weaker (the disparity between nihilism and non-nihilism is much narrower), but maybe he could defend it.
>> So, it seems to me that, if that's true, some form of non-cognitivism or subjectivism is true about ordinary normative judgments. That doesn't look like nihilism to me! Sure, those ordinary people wouldn't be nihilists. The idea is that, in the context of philosophizing, I can draw technical distinctions that are not drawn in ordinary discourse. I can hold the belief that nothing matters, where (a) this can be a change from my previous belief state but also (b) I never held the belief that some things do matter. That is, I never held either belief prior to engaging with the philosophical arguments. >> After all, if you come to accept the "Beliefs vs Concerns" thing just to avoid his argument, you don't seem to be a nihilist anymore Kahane defines nihilism as the belief that nothing matters. The hypothetical person making this objection believes that nothing matters. So they seem to count as a nihilist per Kahane's definition, at least.
Here's one way we might put it: In many ordinary contexts, beliefs and concerns are not distinct. But then, as a result of philosophizing, beliefs and concerns can become distinct. As a result of thinking through philosophical arguments, I might well come to have more strictly differentiated psychological states in particular respects. If you claim that just in general, there is no distinction between beliefs and concerns, this does not seem to me to be a problem for Kahane, for exactly the reason you say. In that case, you're committed to something like non-cognitivism. If you say, "I believe nothing matters," that would be false, because what it is for something to matter is for you to be concerned about it, and you have plenty of concerns. But the objection I'm suggesting is different. It's rather that we start off with a bunch of vague, indeterminate psychological states, which can be expressed with sentences like "I believe X" or "I care about X". Then these states become differentiated as you learn more about philosophy. By the end of it, you may have a genuine, sincere belief that nothing matters: that nothing is good or bad, that there are no reasons for anything. But we wouldn't expect this belief to result in significant changes in subjective concerns.
@@KaneB Thanks for clarifying your view, I think I understand it and I like it a lot more now. I've thought about it and I want to provide a quick refutation of what I said in my original comment for anyone interested: MY ORIGINAL OBJECTION: The proponent of the Beliefs vs Concerns objection (call him Kane B) claims that there is a "host of complex psychological states (...) [like] inclinations, attitudes, feelings" ordinary people might be expressing when making a normative judgment. But inclinations, attitudes and feelings etc. are all non-cognitive mental states. So, despite what he might say, he is a non cognitivist about at least some ordinary moral judgments after all. But all non-cognitivists say there are some correct normative judgments and Kane B is a non-cognitivist about ordinary normative discourse, so he is not a nihilist after all! He believes some ordinary moral judgments are correct. Surely, Kahane won't mind if Kane B is forced to endorse a non-nihilistic position just to avoid his wager? ANSWER: This is very misleading. Sure, all non-cognitivists I know of have claimed that at least some moral judgments are correct, but this doesn't mean any non-cognitivist must think this. Non-cognitivists only say some moral judgments are correct because they themselves make moral judgments. For example, if you are a non-cognitivist who believes "is wrong" expresses an attitude of strong disapproval, then you think some moral judgments must be correct, but only because you know you strongly disapprove of some things, so if your view is correct, it would be impossible for you not to think some judgments are correct (i.e. you strongly disapprove of killing, so you DO think the judgment "killing is wrong" is correct). Now, consider Kane B instead. He thinks there is a distinction between sophisticated normative judgments and ordinary moral judgments. As a result of becoming familiar with metaethics, Kane B has cleared up his mind, and the mental states expressed by his normative judgments are no longer complex and messy (so he believes, at least). This means, on his view, he currently never makes any ordinary normative judgments, so he can think no ordinary normative judgments are correct even if he is a non-cognitivist (he doesn't even accept this label, but that's beside the point).
@@ScottMtc Why are you even worried about what is correct? If non-nihilism was proven correct to you would you become a non-nihilist? If so then you never were a nihilist.
@@off6848 I'm not sure makes it the case that I was never a nihilist. A nihilist, by Kahane's definition, is someone who currently believes there are no values. There could have still been a time when I believed there are no values even if I changed my mind later (even if I came to believe my view was proven wrong, I could still have been a nihilist at some point). Also, I didn't say *I* am "worried about what is correct". I said non-cognitivists think some moral judgments are correct (by correct I mean this: a judgment J is correct if it is the case that J. Normally, a non-cognitivist won't tell you "oh, yeah, non-cognitivism is true, so it is not the case that killing is wrong!". Instead, they will typically agree with non-nihilists that killing is wrong).
*that's simply not what nihilism is tho.* any argument hinges entirely on the definitions of the words it uses, and that definition of "nihilism" is just completely wrong, and totally misses the point of nihilism, and mischaracterizes it. the "wager" argument is nothing but a strawman in the first place. Renzo Novatore literally died in a shoot-out with police after writing poetry about his passionate lust for life...are you going to tell him "there's no reason to want, do, or feel anything", or that there's no reason to oppose oppression? hell, Kropotkin - one of the first people to identify as a nihilist - defined the philosophy in his memoirs as opposition to all oppression. nihilists tend to be the most passionate about not only opposing oppression, but enjoying the fun parts of life. fuck sake, CrimethInc. even proposed a new term; "passionism" in Vörtext, one of their publications that's primarily focused on nihilism and nihilistic analyses. if you want to argue against a philosophy, you have to first make sure you're familiar with the philosophy you're attempting to argue against. EDIT: and you were wrong in your assessment that if nothing is better or worse than anything else, we have no reason to prefer one thing to another. that's a mistake that's typical of moralists attempting to argue against nihilism, and it simply doesn't make sense. whether i like or dislike something is a completely separate concept from whether something is objectively "good" or "bad". is cilantro good or bad? no. because "good" and "bad" are nonsensical concepts when applied to objective truth. i don't *like* cilantro tho, as a separate fact, unrelated to its non-existent goodness or badness.
There are people who hold the belief that there are no values or reasons. It has become a convention in contemporary philosophy to use the term "nihilism" to refer to this belief. The term "nihilism" may be used in other ways, and that's fine. We can use terms differently in different contexts, and this should not be a problem provided we are clear about how a term is being used. Kahane is perfectly about the way he's using the term. If Novatore, Kropotkin, and CrimethInc do not believe that there are no values or reasons, then they are not nihilists as the term is being used by Kahane.
@@KaneB "no values or reasons"? no reasons...for what? they don't believe in causality? i think opposition to *objective* values (i.e. morality) is an inherent component to modern nihilism (not Kropotkin's) but that still allows for people to value things subjectively. i don't think anyone has ever argued that there's no reason to do anything. if they believed that, why would they argue it? there's no reason to, right?
@@seratoxin3825 No normative reasons. There are people who defend the view that there are no normative reasons. (As it happens, there are also people who defend the view that there is no causality. But that's not relevant to nihilism in Kahane's sense.)
@@KaneB i'm aware that there are people who don't believe in causality, i mean half of quantum mechanics us built on non-deterministic theories... my understanding of 'normative reasons' is that that's essentially another way of saying morality tho, right? i would agree those sorts of reasons don't exist. that's a completely different claim than what you laid out in the video.
The word believe here is quite misleading. It's not possible to believe in nihilism and justify it since it presupposes everything that nihilism stands against and cannot be consistently adopted anyway. The correct phrasing would be "to pretend to adopt nihilism"
Nihilism etymologically means nothing right? Well I've never seen nothing and no one can imagine nothing. So whether morality comes from God or just material relations and the objective world nihilism cannot be true because it cannot be imagined nor can it be found in the world and so therefore applying it to morality is impossible.
I'm pretty unsympathetic to most forms of Nihilism, but I don't think your argument coheres. Are you arguing that everything that is conceivable also exists since nonexistence is impossible?
@@jamesbellamy9328 Not everything conceivable has to exist no. We can conceive of amalgamations and composites and anything we conceive of is just things we’ve seen reordered in a non probable way. I think that’s very coherent I mean it seems to be the case but I’m also open minded to the idea that maybe everything conceived does exist too, although that’s a lot less intuitive
If western theism is true, then God is the only thing that matters, and we can neither harm nor improve God and nihilism is true. If theism is false, then humanity, human knowledge, and individual people are the most rare and priceless things that we know of, and it is objectively tragic and morally wrong to devalue or jeopardize the well being of people and their knowledge in the interest of anything less valuable. Theism is morally wrong unless there is some rational reason to be absolutely certain that it is true.
If Theism is true then humanity is even more priceless and rare because a God can say so. If nihilism + atheism is true then it's just your opinion that humans are priceless or rare I can believe theres to many of us right now.
@off6848 All of the evidence shows that humanity is rare. Nothing else on this planet nor any other creates knowledge. It's objectively rare and uniquely purposeful. The value is immeasurable if not priceless. If we are manufactured products, created to not actually improve anything that matters and human knowledge is already known by God. There is nothing of any objective value, and God can't change that by insisting that it's true. Proceeding as if humans are infinitely available and helpless to actually do any real good or harm is heedless of moral consideration. If I am determined to do no harm, I must proceed as if I'm in a world where that is actually possible, and book burnings and witch burning is objectively morally wrong.
@off6848 There is no other animal that creates, preserves, shares, and uses knowledge on earth or any other planet in this region of the galaxy as far as we have discovered. There might be one somewhere, but it is still rarer than anything else we've discovered. You can't get more rare than unique, except extinct or nonexistent, which would change the value of its purpose. It is objectively rare as are its potential purposes.
I don't know why you emphasize a lot on objectivity in your videos (in this one too). There is no such thing as objectivity or objective fact etc. Objectivity means, acc to me, something to exist outside or independent of mind. So, by default, objectivity is also subjective as it is dependent on mind. Everything is subjective. Everything exists in mind. When you seek objective properties of anything, I don't see a point in seeking that. Or maybe you can explain what do you mean by objectivity? Sun exists - Is it objectively true statement? I assume you would say "yes". Now can you prove to me that sun exists. Obviously not because no matter what you do - even if you kill me - i won't agree that it exists. So, you would say I can see sun and still does not think it exists meaning I am outright lying to you. But now, the question is whether you can prove to me if I am lying or not. Now you might wanna say something like it's obvious that I am lying or I am just a troll. But look, here is the catch, I can similarly use the same words and use them against you like this, "Sun does not exist. And it's obvious and you are lying or just a troll". You see! Now you have left one option only and that is that sun exists in your views/experience. Hence, existing of sun is your subjective experience - not objective one. I would love it, however, if I can get knock down on this by your response.
-Honestly I have no Idea towards what you a referring if you talk about „minds“. -I have no Idea what minds are, I may understand what my own conscious mind is but I can’t extrapolate the concept of „minds“ from a single example. -And otherwise I have only access to other peoples behavior. So „subjectivity as it is dependent on mind“ appears like a meaningless sentence to me.
@@Opposite271 The term "mind" refers to the intellectual and cognitive faculties of a person, encompassing the processes of thought, consciousness, perception, reasoning, memory, and emotion. It is the seat of a person's mental and emotional activities, allowing them to process information, form beliefs, make decisions, and experience a wide range of feelings and emotions.
>> I don't know why you emphasize a lot on objectivity in your videos (in this one too) Because most of my videos aim to introduce people to contemporary debates in philosophy, and many contemporary philosophers are concerned about objectivity in one sense or another.
@@KaneB I am somehow starting to believe that philosophers of our modern era are just sophisticated well-suited buddhist-style calm educated-looking reporters with zero influence on the world. The pioneers and early legends of philosophy must be very angry in their graves looking at these modern philosophers. Sorry!
Nihilism is a net-neutral belief. It is not anti-belief.
It does not assert or permit anything. If a nihilist doesn't believe suffering matters it does not give any license to behave anyway. This is what so many get wrong about nihilism. Nothing matters so any positive or negative behavior is equally meaningless.
Thank you, was great to listen to when I went on a walk.
I'm now hooked on your channel!
Excellent!
It is the best philosophy channel on TH-cam so no surprise there
@@TrynottoblinkIs everything he is saying right?
very interesting point at the end about nihilism as sort of an improvement from pessimism. i wonder what a similar wager against pessimism would look like as well
Very thought provoking and engagingly presented. Thank you.
I totally agree with your last point. Kahane doesn't critically evaluate his position that not being a nihilist is always leads to a 'better' life than being a nihilist.
I think a good example is the many climate scientists who have committed suicide in recent years. They came to believe to that anthropogenic climate change is going to irreparably harm the earth and all life on it very seriously, and that this really matters and they (and we all) need to stop it as soon as possible. Over the years they came to feel more and more powerless to do anything, and noticed most people, even exposed to the facts and arguments and empirical evidence in their lives still wouldn't change their behaviour, so they became depressed, suffered greatly and eventually committed suicide. They, and humanity and the earth would've all benefited greatly if they could've come to believe in nihilism, lived a life of less suffering and continued their work. Who knows, they may have made a breakthrough, or lived to see an important social or technological change that changes the current trend.
adhering to kahane's conception of nihilism, if they believed continuing their work and improving the current situation was worthwhile, then they wouldn't be nihilists. if they were to become nihilists and acted in a way that was consistent with their beliefs, they would no longer do the work, i.e humanity wouldn't be able to benefit from their work/existence. it could potentially improve their own mental health, but that's about it.
@@Lin-rs9pw No, because it wouldn't matter. If you don't believe in anything, you don't have to act in accordance with anything; not even your belief that nothing matters. Might as well work and contribute to society
@@captainzork6109 Might as well work on destroying society as well
Great video as usual. Something I'd love to see from you would be a video about hedonism from an academic philosophical perspective. I'd be really interested on your thoughts about it
I discuss this in my video on Nozick's experience machine, one of the most famous challenges to hedonism: th-cam.com/video/YQgeUfDoAmA/w-d-xo.html
But yeah, I'll consider making a video about hedonism more generally.
@KaneB Ooooooo very cool! I'll check that one out! Would love to see a more general video about hedonism as well!
@@KaneB Super cool! Im eager to watch it too
I would also suggest Kanes video on De Sade
If nothing intrinsically has value, you're left to focus on the things you like/dislike due to the way your mind is put together and the consequences of actions with respect to that. There's less of a pressure to act in accordance to some abstract idea of what you "should" or "should not" be doing that's irrespective of your subjective experience because that's not a thing. Basically, whenever you believe something that's correct, that generally means you're better at creating the world you want to be in, so I reject the idea that nihilism either makes no difference or only has negative outcomes.
Fantastic video Kane, really clear overviews of a lot of arguments you can encounter in this topic. Unrelated question, where did you get your video thumbnail art? That's a really cool texture.
Thanks! It's from a photograph by Henry Holmes Smith.
I am glad I was not the only one who got interested in the thumbnail art lol
It’s uncomfortable to acknowledge that nothing matters in a cosmic sense, but maintaining that we all experience life similarly, seeking pleasure and pain avoidance, we should live as if these are things that matter. The way we experience life and experience the life of those around us matters.
I feel like this argument is just another datum one can make use of when making a reverse wager: living like a nihilist gives you what you want. If you live like a non-nihilist, your options might be constrained because the facts about what matters conflict with your desires. Unless egoism is true tho, so maybe it's not as straightforward as this.
On Kahane's view, most of my current concerns are based on my evaluative beliefs. I want to spend my time doing philosophy because I believe that philosophy is a worthwhile activity. So I think he would object that living like a nihilist will not give you what you want, at least by your current lights, because if you become a nihilist, what you want will be radically transformed.
Imagine if there was a pill that would remove everything except very easily satisfied desires. So you'll be totally happy just sitting in a chair, occasionally eating food, and you won't want to do anything else with your life. Would you take this pill? If you take it, you'll find it very easy to get what you want, but that's only because your desires will change. I suspect that most people wouldn't take the pill. For Kahane, nihilism is like this pill.
@@KaneBnihilism exists because people's birthright, psilocybin mushrooms, are restricted from them. Cicero wrote about them, and Virgil. They would cultivate and use at Eleusis, Samothrace and Lemnos mushrooms, which they called tori, from the word torus. Torus means protuberances. Cicero said this was the greatest achievement of the Greeks, and I can provide my own translations of the Latin, which are indeed copywrited as it has been posted by myself all over the internet.
@@KaneBcapitalists also reinforce nihilism so materialism and working and consuming will control them. The basis of any sort of control is controlling how people get pleasure from life, but not merely pleasure... meaningful experiences. The reality of what would have been a homosexual in ancient greece is finding a companion that never leaves your side. This is impossible today because the society wants to strip everyone apart, reduce them to their id, not their ego, and reinforce narcissism.
@@KaneBbut if what you want is for nothing to matter so that your failures are not really failures, your evil deeds are not really evil, then nihilism is convenient
I can’t imagine being a nihilist though… seems psychologically impossible, seems self refuting
@@KaneB Well I dunno about other peeps, but I don't really care if doing philosophy for instance is objectively worthwhile and also don't believe that it is. So I will do philosophy, if the evaluative facts floating out there like it or not, what they gonna do to stop me😼
"bUt OtHeR pEoPlE mAtTeR tOo" is not a defeater of egoism. its a straw man. (not that Kane B is arguing that point, great video btw!) anyone who has at least a handful of years of human experience recognizes that the quality of life of our friends, family, loved ones, even countrymen and fellow human beings, is not outside the scope of our self interest. As moral relativists the egoist is allowed to extend the scope of their self interest however they like, and to extend it to other people as ends within themselves is not beyond the egoist. To argue that "eGoIsT's DoN't CaRe AbOuT oThEr PeOpLe" is to shadow box a false premise.
Well further enlightenment and cultivation of virtue usually brings one along from Eros, to Philia to Agape and at that point Egoism makes no sense and breaks down.
Society and all the things it provides for the Egoist only come from years of cultivation of humanity, agape, understanding between groups etc..
So I suppose you could maintain an Egoist position despite this but you will have to be okay with being called a parasite.
If nothing matters as an intrepid explorer ventures through an event horizon then what matters prior to crossing the horizon is to cross over from space-time which does not matter as a singularity entails the explorer hold strongly position 3 prior to the crossing given the need to steer the rocket but upon falling towards the singularity the belief would switch to position 2. However within the context of classical Indian metaphysics position 2 would hold firm in deep sleep and dreaming states of consciousness which then extends, according to which school of philosophy, to the walking state which renders spacetime as an illusion. The householder yoga schools tend to take towards position three, but for those who renounce family ties it is quite respectable to hold firmly position 2 and be excepted as a moral person.
I think the problem with no-difference view is that belief in objective values cannot be replaced with desires as desires are always changing depending on our physical health, mood etc. while objective values are mind independent. If one were to replace beliefs with desires, they'd be way more unlikely to pursue their long-term goals or duties.
I can refrain from engaging with nihilist arguments, but I don't want to. I can't really choose my wants. Or can I?...
seems like it can be that nothing matters, because we are the ultimate arbiter of things matter or not, so things are just the way they are, accept things being that way and it need not interfere with us nor us interfering with matters
I'm interested in the premise, but I strongly disagree with lumping evaluative nihilism (nothing is objectively good or bad) together with practical nihilism (there is no reason to do, want, or feel anything) as you do at the start. I am a layperson so I don't doubt your replies to other comments that perhaps there are nihilists who espouse the practical nihilist thesis, but also as a layperson that is not what I take nihilism to mean at all and I find the idea patently ridiculous. As I listened to the arguments I realized that the wager is not going to provide a proper response to the evaluative claims because it is so focused on the practical claims. I think what bothers me is the conflation of "nothing matters objectively" with "there is no reason to oppose suffering." I suppose when I think of nihilism I think of the uncaring nature of the universe and the lack of any objective purpose or meaning for existence and life.
Also nihilism implies a fundamental inability to reconcile different ethical systems since they are inherently subjective. "Good" and "bad" are inherently relative terms by their nature. Indeed what would it even mean for things to "matter" outside of our subjective context? You say if we believe nothing matters, but some things do matter that could be disastrous. But what would it even mean for something like a philosophical concept to "matter"? The only way that would make sense is if there is an objective God judging us which I think we can dispense with as a possibility as it would really only move the same question one level higher. I feel like the word "matter" is being used in multiple contradictory ways here to portray a version of nihilism that is much weaker than another conception of it.
I'm not sure that the "uncaring nature of the universe and the lack of any objective purpose or meaning for existence and life" have much to do with Nihilism in these senses (although it might depend a bit on how broadly you define "purpose")
I think that value is a product of our subjective experience, that we're here for no pre-ordained reason, and that our universe is a cold and desolate hellscape. I'm also a moral realist with a very strong belief in certain objective ethical propositions
Mattering in the real world is a function of the interests of sentient beings.
Other uses of this word are unwarranted.
The idea that "mattering" is something that could occur or exist untethered from animal brains or some analogous system is beyond ludicrous. It's not even wrong.
It's not a proposition, either serious or otherwise.
This is one sad example of the things allowed by human languages even though they make no sense, like a triangular house that has no walls or ceiling and is located nowhere, or the colour of jealousy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this particular piece of BS was only possible in SOME languages, and not others. For instance, if the equivalent of "mattering" was always a transitive verb, and it was used like "It matters me" (meaning "it effects my interests"), and speakers of that language couldn't even conceive of making it intransitive, like "it rains".
Nah, mattering is when something lives in a world of matter quite literally materializing = mattering
Why is it sad that human languages allow for concepts which do not correlate to rigid materialism? Why does that matter?
@@connorperrett9559 I never said "rigid materialism", whatever that means.
I said "MAKE SENSE".
@@connorperrett9559 , if you have some clear sensible concept of "mattering" as something outside of our heads, then go ahead and show it.
If you can't, then can't be helped by saying "it's not rigid materialism". Because it looks like it's NOTHING.
Good video, especially near the end.
5th slot - Being wrong about something is a good thing, because eventually we can learn something new. Now, we could cause disastrous harm in the meantime, which isn't great. But I believe that someday the Marxists will come to realize they have been misguided.
Truths that are bad to know. If Benetar is correct, then it would be better to know it and not have kids. But a better example might be Rokko's Basilisk, which is designed to be a truth that is better not to know. I would overcome it by saying that in the cases of truths better unknown, it is better to be a nihilist, but only in those cases.
I was thinking specifically of Benatar's pessimism, rather than his anti-natalism. In principle, an anti-natalist could have a cheery view of life: if Benatar's asymmetry argument works, for example, then we ought not to reproduce even if we could expect our offspring to experience only the slightest suffering. My point was just that holding the view that life is bad might, even if it's true, cause you to have a lower mood, which would make your life even worse.
@@KaneB checks out
I have multiple sclerosis
A horrible condition that is very black pill if you let it but ultimately white pill if you can find it
If nothing matters, that means reasons don’t matter. Would that mean I have no reason to believe in nihilism?
I am not misunderstanding no?
I know some take nihilism seriously but doesn’t it deal with a self defeating proposition regarding all things lacking value? To make a proposition is to establish a range of values right? Or am I wrong?
I take it that I can assert a proposition without being committed to either (a) the view that some things are good or bad or (b) the view that there are reasons to do, want, or feel anything. For example, if I say, "snow is white," this doesn't prima facie commit me to the existence of values or reasons. Perhaps it could be argued that, if I say, "snow is white," this very action indicates that I take myself to have reasons for saying "snow is white." I guess the assumption would be that people can't do things without reasons. This doesn't strike me as very plausible, though, at least if we're understanding reasons as normative reasons. (Presumably, you will always be able to posit causal reasons why a person does something.)
You could also see that nihilism is inescapable nowadays because we don't have "the base level" anymore. Mickey Mouse is in news, Mickey Mouse has BLM pin, BLM protests on the streets, the news report on BLM, on that report Mickey Mouse comments on police brutality, alternative news comment on that new, and so on...
You could embrace that (nihilism) or assert some kind of fixed meaning (melancholy). Philosophy is meaningless because ultimately it is superficial but you can consume the superficial level and after that you might find something else.
@@Siroitin In actuality the ancient Greek would have thrown out anyone even entertaining this level of foolishness.
Philosophy literally meaning Love of Wisdom. If you participate in loving wisdom you're already going way beyond the capacity of nihilism (which is zero).
Imagine an electronic capacitor that could hold nil(0) voltage. Any bit of voltage would go beyond its capacity. Nihilism as philosophy is like this impossibly weak capacitor.
@@off6848 Nihilism is not merely a weak capacitor incapable of holding meaning but rather an acknowledgment that the very notion of meaning is lost (everything refers to each other and there is no base level truth like bible).
Even if the electronic capacitors holds nil voltage, they still hold superfluous content. "Electronic capacitor are hearth of the AI machines and they are like human brain cells"
We can't escape meaning creation and conservative reaction to this is to assert eternal truth like nationality or religion.
@@Siroitin Well nihilism is an idea and it can be poisonous I’ve certainly escaped meaning creation in my life under this ethos nothing mattered
It’s not obvious to me that meaning can be created this never feels robust enough to make up a meaning for myself it stinks of a lie
Wagering isn't the answer. Pascal's wager assumes you pick the "right answer" over many possible answers to prove one wrong. It's like that paradox about the prisoner that knows the day he'll be murdered when he's not supposed to know.
It's all a matter of faith in choosing how to either refute or accept nihilism, but it's still a choice and one of faith.
I feel like if some Christian fundamentalist believed nothing mattered, it would be rather good, whereas if idk someone who was devoting their whole life to altruism decided, nothing mattered it would be rather bad.
What about the Christian fundamentalist that has devoted their life to altruism.
Isn't this kinda the same argument that Benne used in his discussion with you about moral realism?
Do you think that all wager arguments in metaethics count as the same argument? If so: Yes. Beyond that, however, there are significant differences between Benne's argument and this argument. For example, Benne's argument aims to establish moral realism specifically; Kahane's argument only aims to refute nihilism. Benne's argument appeals to probability assessments of a kind not involved in Kahane's argument. An important part of Benne's argument is the idea of seeking moral knowledge; this plays no role in Kahane's argument.
@@KaneB Oh ok now that I rewatched I think you are right. Kahane's and Bennes arguments are aimed at totally different groupes. Kahane's argument is aimed at non-nihilists, while Bennes argument is aimed at nihilists.
@@justus4684 Yeah, that's another important difference. Kahane wants to show that, if you are not a nihilist, you have good pragmatic reasons to continue resisting nihilism. Benne wants to show that, even if you are currently a moral skeptic, you can use pragmatic considerations to bootstrap your way to an objective normative truth.
@@KaneB hello, could you provide the source for "Benne's argument?"
@@Martin-xr1py th-cam.com/video/ftZpdgVrVrQ/w-d-xo.html
Is there a video from you on nihilism in general, maybe an introduction? Re the first 2 propositions of the wager, i would have said that Nihilism as i feel it is more of a "Some thing matters (meaning or whatever) but this thing due to the structure of the world can never be "cashed in", so to say", which would then be desastrous in both cases, but at least in 2 you are living in accordance with epistemic virtues, which is at least something, and therefpre slightly better than 1.
the definition of nihilism used in the video is just completely wrong. nihilism dies not assert anything like what this argument proposes.
if you're curious about it, i'd recommend reading some Novatore, Aragorn!, and maybe going back to nihilism's roots with Fathers and Children, and the commentary by Kropotkin on the real life struggles represented in that book. Baedan, Politics is Not a Banana, and Vörtext are all good nihilistic reads too
See my videos on moral error theory:
th-cam.com/video/MbTcXDMyFrA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7HHBNU_gXP0/w-d-xo.html
@@seratoxin3825 Words are sometimes used to refer to different things in different contexts. Shocking, I know.
@@KaneB yes but the notion that there are people who believe that there's no reason to do or feel anything is just absurd. that's always been simply a strawman.
@@seratoxin3825 No it isn't. There are people who think that nihilism in this sense is true. Jonas Olson, Brendan Cline, and Bart Streumer have defended it. There are also plenty of people who have defended premises that jointly entail this position, even if different people endorse different premises in that set.
🤘cool
Kahane's argument feels much like Pascal's wager with the conclusion whether or not anything matters you are better off believing that there are things that matter, but this ignores that there is a very high probability that some of anyone's beliefs are mistaken.
I am always sceptical where there appears to be a conflation between the objective and the subjective. Objectively it may well be true that we are a vanishingly insignificant blip in the 10 billion years of the existence of the Sun, I might understand this and believe that nothing can matter in this context, yet this understanding, or belief if you will, might have very little impact on what matters subjectively or objectively in the local context of my own life or the approximately 3 thousand years of recorded history, or even the roughly 300 thousand year life of our species.
Whilst we can expect our understanding of objective realities to be a factor that affects our locally subjective apprehensions we cannot infer what this necessarily would be. Even from an objective perspective what matters in a local context might not matte at all in a universal context.
Everything is non-zero. You can't even imagine nothing much less show me an objective piece of nothing. Why should I bother contemplating nihilism or nothing when it comes to morals or matters? For me nihilism is referent or reifying the concept of nothing and applying it to morality which is something but as I said you can't even imagine nothing and so I say Nihilism doesn't exist and that is the only way it can be.
Im pretty sure the wager can be as simple as this: if nothing matters then it doesn't matter that nothing matters.
Thats an interesting point because I often see people say "If nothing matters that is actual great because we're free from stuffy moral systems"
But if you take it far enough not even freedom matters.
@@off6848 People who say that are often saying it merely to justify abnormal sexual acts or acts of petty theft or fraud. Most of them will instantly become dedicated moralists if you argued for mass executions of politically undesirable populations or for the conquest and enslavement of another cultural group.
@@connorperrett9559 yeah when people tell me that I say “I agree that’s why the holocaust shouldn’t be a problem” and they go white. If they’re more right wing swap holocaust with holodomor and Stalins pograms and if they’re really dumb just use slavery
@off6848 "if you take it far enough not even freedom matter." The answer is, so what?
1.Who's freedom are you concerned for? And.
2. Who do you think it should matter to?
@@jaywyse7150 that will depend on the nihilist some will bite the bullet but most lose frame and get offended if you say the holocaust means nothing and was amoral or that slavery is a nothing burger.
The point is that there are very few nihilists willing to take their ideology to its conclusions.
As a nihilist one has to accept that there’s no inherent ethical value in freedom
This argument seems so absurd to me. Why should I think things only matter if they matter objectively? That's one of the only senses in which I think the notion of something mattering makes no sense at all. I think it only makes sense of things mattering in a way that has nothing to do with objectivism or stance-independence about values.
To be fair, the argument for nihilism that Kahane presents is only one way of arguing for the conclusion that nothing matters. He does point out that there might be other ways to get to this conclusion. As it happens though, there are lots of folks in contemporary philosophy who do claim that, if nothing matters objectively, then nothing matters tout court.
@@KaneB Yea, I grant that people in contemporary philosophy say that, which is why I think not only that the notion in question is absurd, but that many people in contemporary philosophy buy into absurd notions.
The core flaw of nihilism is putting a human being on a high pedestal where they get to judge if life has no meaning or nothing matters when they surely don't know everything about life or the universe, the only way to combat that idea is being humble and admiting how much we don't know and living our lives as we learn and discover more and more, most nihilists believe that there is no point in doing anything because it won't make a difference or it won't matter in the grand scheme of things, which is a really cowardly and individualistic point of view. We live in a amazing era of technological and scientific advancement where more and more people are getting opportunities of having quality education, nutrition, health care and so on, but none of those things would be possible if most people kept ruminating the idea that it had no meaning, what I want to get at here is telling everyone that life is worth living to its fullest as we pursue our goals and passions but also think in a collective way to help ourselves, every action counts, so let's try our best to work towards a future and a world we would want to live in.
I don't like the "Beliefs vs Concerns" response. It seems to concede that nihilism is false.
If you draw a distinction between the 'philosopher's belief that nothing matters' and the 'ordinary "belief/concern" that nothing matters' in that way, you're arguing that ordinary normative judgments just are concerns. So, it seems to me that, if that's true, some form of non-cognitivism or subjectivism is true about ordinary normative judgments. That doesn't look like nihilism to me! Sure, you're not a robust realist if you hold this view about ordinary normative judgments, but that doesn't make you a nihilist.
You might reply that the point of the "Beliefs vs Concerns" response is not to show that nihilism is true; after all, even a realist or a non-cognitivist could object to Kahane's wager. Instead, you might say, the point is just to show that concerns and (normative) beliefs might not be distinct. But I think Kahane would be happy to concede that this objection succeeds. After all, if you come to accept the "Beliefs vs Concerns" thing just to avoid his argument, you don't seem to be a nihilist anymore (you are either a non-cognitivist, or some kind of subjectivist about normativity), and Kahane's goal is clearly to make sure you are not a nihilist, so I still don't like the objection.
A general worry I have about Kahane-style arguments is that they seem to rest on a complex empirical question, and the little empirical evidence I have seems to put his view into question. I think I've been a nihilist in the sense of the word described in the video for several years, but I haven't noticed any disastrous consequences yet.
Although, I do concede that Kahane might still pull off his argument in a different way. I think becoming a nihilist is not dangerous (the no-difference view might well be true in this respect), but acquiring certain normative beliefs might make a difference. For example, if I came to believe voting for the Green Party at the next elections is morally obligatory, I would probably vote for them, so he might say there is nothing to gain if the other three options are correct, but there is something to gain if you believe certain moral judgments are true. I feel like this argument is much weaker (the disparity between nihilism and non-nihilism is much narrower), but maybe he could defend it.
>> So, it seems to me that, if that's true, some form of non-cognitivism or subjectivism is true about ordinary normative judgments. That doesn't look like nihilism to me!
Sure, those ordinary people wouldn't be nihilists. The idea is that, in the context of philosophizing, I can draw technical distinctions that are not drawn in ordinary discourse. I can hold the belief that nothing matters, where (a) this can be a change from my previous belief state but also (b) I never held the belief that some things do matter. That is, I never held either belief prior to engaging with the philosophical arguments.
>> After all, if you come to accept the "Beliefs vs Concerns" thing just to avoid his argument, you don't seem to be a nihilist anymore
Kahane defines nihilism as the belief that nothing matters. The hypothetical person making this objection believes that nothing matters. So they seem to count as a nihilist per Kahane's definition, at least.
Here's one way we might put it: In many ordinary contexts, beliefs and concerns are not distinct. But then, as a result of philosophizing, beliefs and concerns can become distinct. As a result of thinking through philosophical arguments, I might well come to have more strictly differentiated psychological states in particular respects.
If you claim that just in general, there is no distinction between beliefs and concerns, this does not seem to me to be a problem for Kahane, for exactly the reason you say. In that case, you're committed to something like non-cognitivism. If you say, "I believe nothing matters," that would be false, because what it is for something to matter is for you to be concerned about it, and you have plenty of concerns. But the objection I'm suggesting is different. It's rather that we start off with a bunch of vague, indeterminate psychological states, which can be expressed with sentences like "I believe X" or "I care about X". Then these states become differentiated as you learn more about philosophy. By the end of it, you may have a genuine, sincere belief that nothing matters: that nothing is good or bad, that there are no reasons for anything. But we wouldn't expect this belief to result in significant changes in subjective concerns.
@@KaneB Thanks for clarifying your view, I think I understand it and I like it a lot more now.
I've thought about it and I want to provide a quick refutation of what I said in my original comment for anyone interested:
MY ORIGINAL OBJECTION: The proponent of the Beliefs vs Concerns objection (call him Kane B) claims that there is a "host of complex psychological states (...) [like] inclinations, attitudes, feelings" ordinary people might be expressing when making a normative judgment. But inclinations, attitudes and feelings etc. are all non-cognitive mental states. So, despite what he might say, he is a non cognitivist about at least some ordinary moral judgments after all. But all non-cognitivists say there are some correct normative judgments and Kane B is a non-cognitivist about ordinary normative discourse, so he is not a nihilist after all! He believes some ordinary moral judgments are correct. Surely, Kahane won't mind if Kane B is forced to endorse a non-nihilistic position just to avoid his wager?
ANSWER: This is very misleading. Sure, all non-cognitivists I know of have claimed that at least some moral judgments are correct, but this doesn't mean any non-cognitivist must think this.
Non-cognitivists only say some moral judgments are correct because they themselves make moral judgments. For example, if you are a non-cognitivist who believes "is wrong" expresses an attitude of strong disapproval, then you think some moral judgments must be correct, but only because you know you strongly disapprove of some things, so if your view is correct, it would be impossible for you not to think some judgments are correct (i.e. you strongly disapprove of killing, so you DO think the judgment "killing is wrong" is correct).
Now, consider Kane B instead. He thinks there is a distinction between sophisticated normative judgments and ordinary moral judgments. As a result of becoming familiar with metaethics, Kane B has cleared up his mind, and the mental states expressed by his normative judgments are no longer complex and messy (so he believes, at least). This means, on his view, he currently never makes any ordinary normative judgments, so he can think no ordinary normative judgments are correct even if he is a non-cognitivist (he doesn't even accept this label, but that's beside the point).
@@ScottMtc Why are you even worried about what is correct? If non-nihilism was proven correct to you would you become a non-nihilist? If so then you never were a nihilist.
@@off6848 I'm not sure makes it the case that I was never a nihilist. A nihilist, by Kahane's definition, is someone who currently believes there are no values. There could have still been a time when I believed there are no values even if I changed my mind later (even if I came to believe my view was proven wrong, I could still have been a nihilist at some point).
Also, I didn't say *I* am "worried about what is correct". I said non-cognitivists think some moral judgments are correct (by correct I mean this: a judgment J is correct if it is the case that J. Normally, a non-cognitivist won't tell you "oh, yeah, non-cognitivism is true, so it is not the case that killing is wrong!". Instead, they will typically agree with non-nihilists that killing is wrong).
*that's simply not what nihilism is tho.*
any argument hinges entirely on the definitions of the words it uses, and that definition of "nihilism" is just completely wrong, and totally misses the point of nihilism, and mischaracterizes it. the "wager" argument is nothing but a strawman in the first place.
Renzo Novatore literally died in a shoot-out with police after writing poetry about his passionate lust for life...are you going to tell him "there's no reason to want, do, or feel anything", or that there's no reason to oppose oppression? hell, Kropotkin - one of the first people to identify as a nihilist - defined the philosophy in his memoirs as opposition to all oppression. nihilists tend to be the most passionate about not only opposing oppression, but enjoying the fun parts of life. fuck sake, CrimethInc. even proposed a new term; "passionism" in Vörtext, one of their publications that's primarily focused on nihilism and nihilistic analyses.
if you want to argue against a philosophy, you have to first make sure you're familiar with the philosophy you're attempting to argue against.
EDIT: and you were wrong in your assessment that if nothing is better or worse than anything else, we have no reason to prefer one thing to another. that's a mistake that's typical of moralists attempting to argue against nihilism, and it simply doesn't make sense. whether i like or dislike something is a completely separate concept from whether something is objectively "good" or "bad". is cilantro good or bad? no. because "good" and "bad" are nonsensical concepts when applied to objective truth. i don't *like* cilantro tho, as a separate fact, unrelated to its non-existent goodness or badness.
There are people who hold the belief that there are no values or reasons. It has become a convention in contemporary philosophy to use the term "nihilism" to refer to this belief. The term "nihilism" may be used in other ways, and that's fine. We can use terms differently in different contexts, and this should not be a problem provided we are clear about how a term is being used. Kahane is perfectly about the way he's using the term. If Novatore, Kropotkin, and CrimethInc do not believe that there are no values or reasons, then they are not nihilists as the term is being used by Kahane.
@@KaneB "no values or reasons"? no reasons...for what? they don't believe in causality? i think opposition to *objective* values (i.e. morality) is an inherent component to modern nihilism (not Kropotkin's) but that still allows for people to value things subjectively. i don't think anyone has ever argued that there's no reason to do anything. if they believed that, why would they argue it? there's no reason to, right?
@@seratoxin3825 No normative reasons. There are people who defend the view that there are no normative reasons. (As it happens, there are also people who defend the view that there is no causality. But that's not relevant to nihilism in Kahane's sense.)
@@KaneB i'm aware that there are people who don't believe in causality, i mean half of quantum mechanics us built on non-deterministic theories...
my understanding of 'normative reasons' is that that's essentially another way of saying morality tho, right? i would agree those sorts of reasons don't exist. that's a completely different claim than what you laid out in the video.
@@seratoxin3825 No, normative reasons include prudential reasons for action and also reasons for belief.
The wager itself seems like an exercise in motivated reasoning.
Are you still a moral nihilist?
Subjective Theory of Value.
The word believe here is quite misleading. It's not possible to believe in nihilism and justify it since it presupposes everything that nihilism stands against and cannot be consistently adopted anyway. The correct phrasing would be "to pretend to adopt nihilism"
Nihilism etymologically means nothing right?
Well I've never seen nothing and no one can imagine nothing. So whether morality comes from God or just material relations and the objective world nihilism cannot be true because it cannot be imagined nor can it be found in the world and so therefore applying it to morality is impossible.
I'm pretty unsympathetic to most forms of Nihilism, but I don't think your argument coheres. Are you arguing that everything that is conceivable also exists since nonexistence is impossible?
@@jamesbellamy9328 Not everything conceivable has to exist no. We can conceive of amalgamations and composites and anything we conceive of is just things we’ve seen reordered in a non probable way.
I think that’s very coherent I mean it seems to be the case but I’m also open minded to the idea that maybe everything conceived does exist too, although that’s a lot less intuitive
If western theism is true, then God is the only thing that matters, and we can neither harm nor improve God and nihilism is true. If theism is false, then humanity, human knowledge, and individual people are the most rare and priceless things that we know of, and it is objectively tragic and morally wrong to devalue or jeopardize the well being of people and their knowledge in the interest of anything less valuable. Theism is morally wrong unless there is some rational reason to be absolutely certain that it is true.
If Theism is true then humanity is even more priceless and rare because a God can say so. If nihilism + atheism is true then it's just your opinion that humans are priceless or rare I can believe theres to many of us right now.
@off6848 All of the evidence shows that humanity is rare. Nothing else on this planet nor any other creates knowledge. It's objectively rare and uniquely purposeful. The value is immeasurable if not priceless. If we are manufactured products, created to not actually improve anything that matters and human knowledge is already known by God. There is nothing of any objective value, and God can't change that by insisting that it's true. Proceeding as if humans are infinitely available and helpless to actually do any real good or harm is heedless of moral consideration. If I am determined to do no harm, I must proceed as if I'm in a world where that is actually possible, and book burnings and witch burning is objectively morally wrong.
@off6848 humanity is objectively, factually rare and human knowledge is objectively factually unique to humanity, unless theism is true.
@@ohrobert65 Demonstrate the objectivity of humanities rareness.
@off6848 There is no other animal that creates, preserves, shares, and uses knowledge on earth or any other planet in this region of the galaxy as far as we have discovered. There might be one somewhere, but it is still rarer than anything else we've discovered. You can't get more rare than unique, except extinct or nonexistent, which would change the value of its purpose. It is objectively rare as are its potential purposes.
Nihilism is a logical fallacy and a subjective idea by a subjective being, probably a mentally ill one.
I don't know why you emphasize a lot on objectivity in your videos (in this one too). There is no such thing as objectivity or objective fact etc. Objectivity means, acc to me, something to exist outside or independent of mind. So, by default, objectivity is also subjective as it is dependent on mind. Everything is subjective. Everything exists in mind. When you seek objective properties of anything, I don't see a point in seeking that. Or maybe you can explain what do you mean by objectivity?
Sun exists - Is it objectively true statement? I assume you would say "yes". Now can you prove to me that sun exists. Obviously not because no matter what you do - even if you kill me - i won't agree that it exists. So, you would say I can see sun and still does not think it exists meaning I am outright lying to you. But now, the question is whether you can prove to me if I am lying or not. Now you might wanna say something like it's obvious that I am lying or I am just a troll. But look, here is the catch, I can similarly use the same words and use them against you like this, "Sun does not exist. And it's obvious and you are lying or just a troll". You see!
Now you have left one option only and that is that sun exists in your views/experience. Hence, existing of sun is your subjective experience - not objective one.
I would love it, however, if I can get knock down on this by your response.
-Honestly I have no Idea towards what you a referring if you talk about „minds“.
-I have no Idea what minds are, I may understand what my own conscious mind is but I can’t extrapolate the concept of „minds“ from a single example.
-And otherwise I have only access to other peoples behavior.
So „subjectivity as it is dependent on mind“ appears like a meaningless sentence to me.
@@Opposite271
The term "mind" refers to the intellectual and cognitive faculties of a person, encompassing the processes of thought, consciousness, perception, reasoning, memory, and emotion. It is the seat of a person's mental and emotional activities, allowing them to process information, form beliefs, make decisions, and experience a wide range of feelings and emotions.
>> I don't know why you emphasize a lot on objectivity in your videos (in this one too)
Because most of my videos aim to introduce people to contemporary debates in philosophy, and many contemporary philosophers are concerned about objectivity in one sense or another.
@@KaneB I am somehow starting to believe that philosophers of our modern era are just sophisticated well-suited buddhist-style calm educated-looking reporters with zero influence on the world. The pioneers and early legends of philosophy must be very angry in their graves looking at these modern philosophers. Sorry!
@@Shah-vy4gw That's good. I like things that are useless, pointless, and that have no influence on the world.