Nihilism

The MIT Press Essential Knowledge

by Nolen Gertz

An examination of the meaning of meaninglessness: why it matters that nothing matters.

When someone is labeled a nihilist, it's not usually meant as a compliment. Most of us associate nihilism with destructiveness and violence. Nihilism means, literally, “an ideology of nothing. “ Is nihilism, then, believing in nothing? Or is it the belief that life is nothing? Or the belief that the beliefs we have amount to nothing? If we can learn to recognize the many varieties of nihilism, Nolen Gertz writes, then we can learn to distinguish what is meaningful from what is meaningless. In this addition to the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series, Gertz traces the history of nihilism in Western philosophy from Socrates through Hannah Arendt and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Although the term “nihilism” was first used by Friedrich Jacobi to criticize the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, Gertz shows that the concept can illuminate the thinking of Socrates, Descartes, and others. It is Nietzsche, however, who is most associated with nihilism, and Gertz focuses on Nietzsche's thought. Gertz goes on to consider what is not nihilism—pessimism, cynicism, and apathy—and why; he explores theories of nihilism, including those associated with Existentialism and Postmodernism; he considers nihilism as a way of understanding aspects of everyday life, calling on Adorno, Arendt, Marx, and prestige television, among other sources; and he reflects on the future of nihilism. We need to understand nihilism not only from an individual perspective, Gertz tells us, but also from a political one.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Essays, Audiobook, Psychology, Technology

224 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 10, 2019

About the author

Nolen Gertz is Associate Professor of Applied Philosophy at the University of Twente, and the author of Nihilism (MIT Press, 2019), Nihilism and Technology (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018), and The Philosophy of War and Exile: From the Humanity of War to the Inhumanity of Peace (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2014).

He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from The New School for Social Research in 2012. His research interests include applied ethics, social and political philosophy, phenomenology, existentialism, and aesthetics. He has written for the media analyses of military robots, humanitarian drones, and Facebook. His work has appeared in The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and on the ABC Australia website. He has been interviewed by the BBC World Service, Austrian Public Radio, Ireland’s National Independent Radio, and France’s Philosophie Magazine.

He is the Coordinator of the 4TU Task Force on Risk, Safety and Security, and a Research Associate in Military Ethics at the Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence at Case Western Reserve University. He is on the Editorial Review Board for Rowman & Littlefield International’s book series Off the Fence: Morality, Politics and Society.

Reviews

[Very · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short, interesting and easily digestible for the lay reader. The author presents an idiosyncratic view of the everyday understanding of nihilism. Nihilism, on this view, isn’t what your average edgy teenager feels when their hormones kick in. It does not entail an extreme pessimism about life, that life is meaningless and purposeless. Neither is it a philosophical stance about there being no truth-values, whether in ethics or epistemology. Rather, nihilism is roughly construed as the deliberate ignorance of discomforting facts. Choosing to believe in things—be it in relation to God, nature, scientific principles or whatever—simply in order to escape the necessity of confronting the chaos and absurdity of existence; wilful ignorance in the name of comfort. Basically almost what the existentialists were preaching all along.

The author then makes a normative claim that, on his unique interpretation of nihilism, nihilism is something undesirable. But he fails to clarify why this is so; why 'comfort', for example, shouldn't be a justifiable reason for holding a belief. Why is his implicit commitment to a scientific realist epistemology superior to other epistemologies that value wilful ignorance? For a pragmatist, or anyone familiar with William James' views on religion, comfort may well serve as a sufficient basis for belief. The book leaves this tension unresolved.

Not sure about the last chapter on technologies either. Fun, quick read though.

[Hossein · Rating 3 out of 5]

به نظرم کتابی که رنگ‌وبوی فلسفی دارد نیاز به مترجمی دارد که با ادبیاتِ خاصِ آن موضوع آشنا باشد، اما ترجمه‌ی این کتاب (که انگلیسی‌اش هم بسیار روان است) به شکل باورنکردنی بد است. خواندنِ همان سه-چهار صفحه‌ی اول کتاب کافی بود که ببینم نمی‌توانم حتی معنای جملات ساده را درک کنم. با مراجعه به متن انگلیسی معلوم می‌شود که مترجم معنای ساده‌ترین جمله‌هایی که حتی نیاز به تاملِ خاصی ندارند را هم نفهمیده و واقعا ناهماهنگ و بد ترجمه کرده است.
بعد از آن چهار صفحه‌ی اول، از متن انگلیسی‌اش ادامه دادم. در کل کتاب مقدمه‌ی ساده‌ای است بر موضوع نیهیلیسم و چندان به اعماق نمی‌رود. اما کار آدم را تا جایی راه می‌اندازد.

[Nils · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing — the book consists of a series of almost perverse inversions of common understandings of nihilism, and is afflicted by a meander “oh-and-another-thing” mode or argumentation that oscillates between tendentious readings of mostly continental philosopher and random examples from American pop culture. Nietzsche is rightly given his due as the intellectual lodestar of nihilism, but ultimately Hannah Arendt is wheeled in to provide the argument that a properly political life is the antidote to nihilism. But why we need an antidote is not made clear.

[Tijmen Lansdaal · Rating 3 out of 5]

A refreshing take on nihilism that's insightful at times, but not exactly cutting edge philosophy. Lots of unnecessary name-dropping. It relies mostly on Nietzsche's work, and I just don't like Nietzsche's methodologically sketchy approach of designating anything that's destructive to what he considers human nature to be nihilism. Nothingness and its implications are, imho, definitely not taken seriously enough here, and neither is there enough attention devoted to the justification of the book's normative claims.

[Mohammed Ridha · Rating 4 out of 5]

من نوع الكتب الي يحتاجله قراءة ثانية وممكن ثالثة وإطلاع مسبق على أفكار بعض الفلاسفة حتى تفهمه زين، وأكيد تلخص بورقة وقلم والا تضيع وتكره نفسك

[Sebastian Gebski · Rating 4 out of 5]

More amusing than I've expected.
I like its structure - very logical and helps prevent unnecessary repetitions.
Some interesting (and not commonly known facts), e.g. about how Nazis "hijacked" Nietzsche.

What didn't I like?
- in some cases, I had a feeling the author would like to give far more "deeper" meaning to nihilism than its followers have meant ...
- I've expected a bit more on the link between the nihilists and futurists
- the author's perspective on nihilism feels sometimes very 'sterile' - it felt like it completely misses the 'street' aspect of 'no-future', which appears also like a form of nihilism

In the end, it's a good source of information on the topics. Feels objective enough and definitely is informative enough.

[Steven R. Kraaijeveld · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Our faith in scientific progress has culminated in our having lost faith in humanity, and precisely for this reason our faith in scientific progress has grown only stronger as it is scientific progress that is supposed to fix all that is flawed in humanity. Consequently, the more we suffer from scientific progress, the more we turn to scientific progress to cure our suffering. Like someone lost in a desert, we cling desperately to any guide who claims to know the way out, even if that guide was the one who led us into the desert in the first place." (155)

[Evan Kanigara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buku mengenai nihilisme yang menarik. “Nihilism” merupakan usaha Gertz untuk ‘membersihkan’ pemaknaan nihilisme dari distorsi budaya populer. Pada bab 3 ‘What is (not) Nihilism?’ Gertz memulainya dengan membedakan nihilisme dengan pesimisme, sinisme, serta apatisme. “Pessimists are not nihilists because pessimists embrace rather than evade despair. Cynics are not nihilists because cynics embrace rather than evade mendacity” (hal 45). Bagi Gertz, sikap nihilis berawal dari sikap penyangkalan lalu berlanjut pada sebuah ketidakpedulian. “Discovering life is meaningless is not nihilism for Nietzsche; rather discovering life is meaningless and yet going on with our lives anyway is nihilism” (hal 55). Selama ini saya membayangkan seorang nihilis sebagai seorang pesimis-edgy yang kebetulan membaca sedikit Nietzsche, dan di setiap pembicaraan selalu berkata ‘buat apa sih dipikir berat-berat, kita semua bakal mati kok pada akhirnya.” Ternyata tidak sesederhana itu. Gertz menunjukkan bahwa sikap nihilis justru dekat dengan kebalikan dari sikap-sikap semacam itu (pesimisme, sinisme, dan apatisme). Baginya sikap itu malahan ada pada orang-orang yang terlihat bahagia, hidup untuk hari ini, optimis dan lain-lain. Sikap itu ada pada orang-orang yang “do not care about the consequences of their actions”.

“Nihilism” jelas bukanlah sebuah karya filsafat yang penuh terobosan. Ia hanya memaparkan benang merah tradisi pemikiran yang berkaitan dengan nihilisme dan relevansinya sekarang. Meskipun begitu, saya belajar banyak hal. Kekuatan karya Gertz ini bukanlah pada kedalamannya, melainkan metode penulisannya. Gertz seolah memberikan kail-kail yang memancing saya untuk terus menerus ingin tahu, dan ia melakukannya dengan sangat baik. Jika ditanya bagaimana buku filsafat populer yang bagus, mungkin saya akan sering merujuk karya-karya Gertz.

(3.75)

[Dan Lofts · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable read on what I imagine is a very complex and interesting topic.

My understanding of Gertz’s argument is that life should be meaningful, and to be meaningful is to be human (feel emotions/be creative/be expressive and share experience/etc.). So dehumanising habits/activities/acts/thoughts are essentially adherence to things which reduce life’s meaning. That is nihilistic.

He goes further to argue that it is not an individual issue but that nihilism is brought about by society and its structure (from education to work culture and technology), which is an eye opening perspective.

Definitely recommend if you want a different perspective on the philosophy of life and how it affects society.

[Anuraag Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not nihilist yet!

[Teo · Rating 2 out of 5]

2020.09.28–2020.09.28

Contents

Gertz N (2019) (04:36) Nihilism

Series Foreword

1. Why Does It Matter That Nothing Matters?
• “I Honor Nihilism”
• “Doing Nothing”

2. What Is the History of Nihilism?
• Socrates and the Cave
• Descartes and Dualism
• Hume and Backgammon
• Kant and Crisis
• Nietzsche and Diagnosis

3. What Is (Not) Nihilism?
• Nihilism versus Pessimism
• Nihilism versus Cynicism
• Nihilism versus Apathy

4. What Is Nihilism?
• Nihilism as Denial
• Nihilism as the Denial of Death
• Nihilism as the Denial of the Death of Meaning
• Nihilism as the Denial of the Death of the Meaning of Childhood

5. Where Is Nihilism?
• Nihilism at Home
• Nihilism at School
• Nihilism at Work
• Nihilism at City Hall

6. What Is the Future of Nihilism?
• The Land of the Free and the Home of the Nihilist
• Technology and Nihilism
• Fighting Nihilism with Nihilism

Glossary
Notes
Bibliography
Further Reading
Index

[opal · Rating 5 out of 5]

«تحيرني كل هذه الاسئلة؛ حتى إنني بدأت أرى نفسي في أبلغ حالات البؤس التي يمكن تخيّلها، يلفني ظلام دامس، ومحروم تماماً من استخدام اعضائي أو مَلكاتي.» — هيوم

في أحوال الكآبة التي تمرني -أمر ليس يدي-؛ اسمي نفسي فيها أحياناً «عدمية» وفي أحوال أخر انحو إلى الفكر «العدمي» لأن سؤال الجدوى أكثر سؤال اطرحه على الإطلاق.

ثم وقفت لحظة أفكر.. عن دقة هذا الوصف؟ من هو العدمي؟ وهل أنا عدمية حقاً؟ هذا ما رجوت أن يناقشه الكتاب وقد فعل وافاد وسخر!!! :)

لا أخفيكم أنه اعطاني تصور جديد عن هذه الكلمة وابعادها! والذي يجعلني أرفع من تقييمه أنه قدم تقدمة لافكار الفلاسفة؛ ولاني سبق ودرست بعضها؛ فرأيته اصاب فيها.

فضلاً أن نفس الكاتب فيه شيء من الفكاهة، ولأني أول مرة أعرفه: بحثت عنه ووجدت حسابه على تويتر ويظهر لي ظنًا أنه ذا خلفية يهودية «لانه ذكر زيارته لاسرائيل» وكذلك وجدت موقعه وعرفت أنه مهتم بالفلسفة السياسية وهذا ما عقد له بكتابه صفحات بل وقد كانت رسالته للدكتوراه بذلك العنوان، والحق افدت منه كثيراً.

وهذه مناقشة -جلسة عادية- فيها تعليق عام عن افكار الكتاب مع الكاتب:

‏https://youtu.be/URBSwhVrOXQ?si=0PbiH...
(Age of nihilism: How avoiding reality has become the new states qua.)

ذكر فيها امرين مهمين لعلها تلخص غاية الكتاب وافكاره:
“What we need to realize is that we call peace is what a lot of these philosophers meant by nihilism!”

"ما نسميه السلام، هو ما يسميه الفلاسفة العدمية!"

وقال في موضع آخر من هذه المناقشة:
“Nietzsche was worried about what he said: God is dead, but we're just gonna keep laying to God after God after God!!”

«ما اسماه نيتشه موت الاله، يعني إنا سنبحث عن اله وبعده اله وبعده اله! وهو ما كان قلقا منه»

وله محاضرة طريفة بنفس هذه التقدمة التاريخية سمعت أول ربع ساعة منها:

‏https://youtu.be/kHRuHgy37Lo?si=_Rjdd...

قبل أن اقف عند الكاتب تعمدت أن ابعد قليلا، فاستمعت لمناقشة بين ملحدين عربيين وهما دايفيد السوري ومن معه في هذا المفهوم، واستمعت لشرح الفاضل أحمد دعدوش للعدمية فضلاً عن بقية المقاطع الشارحة بالإنگليزية، الموجهة للعامة والتي لا تنفك عن التقسيمة (عدمية ايجابية، سلبية.. وكيف تتعامل معها) وكلها لا ترقى لمستوى هذه الكتابة.. تعطي نتائج من مفهوم عام.

نولان هنا يرتقي وجاد في فهم نيتشه نفسه، ولأنه اكاديمي فطبيعة الدراسة تجبره على شيء من «الموضوعية» -اتحفظ عن هذا الكلمة-

نقاط مهمة:

• تحليل المصطلح: إيدولوجيا اللاشيء LOL
— وبتفصيل أدق: «اعتبار ما نؤمن فيه لا يساوي شيئا»
• «أغلب الناس لا يرون مثل تلك الإجابة: (لا شيء) مثالاً على العدمية. فالمفترض أن العدمية شيء كئيب وهدام.»

• التشابه بين العدمية والتعصب للرأي = أن كليهما هدام!

• «حولت المسلسلات والافلام العدميون إلى ايقونات، وحولت انعدام المعنى إلى الآت لصنع المآل»

• تعود كلمة العدمية إلى القرن الـ١٨ في المناظرات بين الفلاسفة الألمان بشأن ميتافزيقيا التنوير.

في التسلسل التاريخي:
بداية من سقراط بتشككيه في عقائد الناس عن طريق الجدل، ثم إلى ديكارت الذي فضل التأمل موجز الفارق بينهما: «اذا كان سقراط قد قدم لنا النموذج المناهض للعدمية بصفته مصلحاً أجتماعياً؛ فديكارت بصفته مصلحاً لذاته.»

— ديكارت يرى أن حواسنا تخدعنا، ويشكك في الفرق بين اليقظة والمنام.. وللأمانة بعد تجربة نظارة apple بظني هذه السؤالات ستثار مجددًا وعلى وتيرة أقوى.

هنا نقطة جانبية: «ومن وحي ثلاثة أحلام راودته، مضى ديكارت لأحداث ثورة في الفلسفة والعلم.» وهذه إشارة جيدة؛ وبظني هذا مبحث لا ينبغي إهماله، في تتبع وحي الشيطان وسبله عند الفلاسفة، ولكن بمنهج واتزان.

ثم انتقل إلى هيوم واستخلص أن العدمية من منظوره هي: «مجرد نتاج للنفسية البشرية!» إذ «يمكن التغلب عليها بالتنوير من المنظور السقراطي، وفي ضبط النفس من المنظور الديكارتي»

• «هيوم يكتشف العدمية بداخل نفسه!» وأن كان ديكارت يقاومها فهيوم يقبلها.

ثم إلى كانط ويقظته بعد هيوم .. عبر الكاتب تعبير مضحك قائلا: «إذا كانت تجريبية هيوم ساقتنا إلى التشكيك، فمن الممكن أن تسوقنا مثالية كانط نحو الجنون.» LOL = احييه على هذا الحس الطريف.

• «تركنا كانط ونحن لا ندري من نكون» ،وموجز ذلك: «يبعدنا كانط عما نسميه عدمية إبستمولوجية، وأخذنا بدلاً من ذلك إلى ما نسميه عدمية وجودية!»

• يرى كانط الحرية؛ طاعة، إذ لا نكون أحرار إلا اذا اطعنا قوانين الذات؛ وبهذا يكون تعريف الاستبداد، هو التبعية!! أي الأضطرار إلى الامتثال لقوانين شخص آخر.
From Autonomy to Heteronomy.

وهذا مهم في الفلسفة السياسية.

وهو ما عبر عنه الكاتب: «مثلما فتحت إجابة كانط عن العدمية الإبستمولوجية الباب للعدمية الوجودية، فقد فتحت اجابته عن العدمية الوجودية الباب للعدمية السياسية!» وهذا مما أثر في الأدب الإنگليزي والروسي والألماني.

• يشير الكاتب إلى ارتباط العدمية؛ بالتدمير عند الروس «اذ اعتقدوا أن ما سيستطيع النجاة من الدمار هو وحده ما يستحق الأنقاذ.»

ثم ختم هذا التسلسل في نيتشة! بعنوان: «نيتشة والتشخيص» اكثر فيلسوف ارتبط اسمه بهذه الكلمة.

• قسمت إلى ايجابية وسلبية على حسب اثرها الروحي، ثم ابان عن مشاكل نيتشة مع الكهنة والتدين ووصم الغيب بالاشكالات وهلم جرا..

• «تشخيص نيتشة للعدمية معقدًا وواسع المجال، فقد كان شغله الشاغل منصبًا على فكرة العدمية باعتبارها تجنباً لما يعني كونك إنسانًا»

•وهو واسع لأنه تناوله على عدة صور في الاديان والفلسفة والفن والعلم، «حاول نيتشه أن يحملنا على أن اخلاقيات العبيد مدمرة للذات وأخلاقيات القيم الدينية التنسكية معادية للحياة -على أنه على عكس ما ظن كثير من اتباعه ومنتقديه- لم يدع إلى تدمير المجتمع فهذا لن يجدي في الحد من عدميتنا؛ إذ أن موت الإله لم يفض بنا إلا البحث عن رب جديد تلو الآخر، ولهذا كان دافعه شخصيًا أكثر منه سياسياً.»

• الناس بعد نيتشه يرون العدمية مبحث فلسفي جدير. وانتبهوا أن السلوك العدمي روتيني!

عودة للنقاط:

• في فصل كلمة العدمية عن الكلمات الأخرى التي ترافقها ويظن خطأ أنها ترادف العدمية أو تعنيها:

١- التشاؤم: «أن تقول ما الجدوى» LOL ولكن نولان يرى أن العدمية النقيض تماماً. (بيد أن تقسيمة نيتشة الايجابية والسلبية تفصل اكثر) مع ذلك كأن نولان يجعل العدمية في معناها الايجابي عند نيتشه ويطلقها في مصطلح العدمية (أو هذا ما فهمته)

لأن أغلب الشارحين الذين رأيتهم ينحون منحى نيتشه بالتقسيمه هذه (مقلدين له)، باستثناء نولان.

«التفاؤل هو ما يشبه العدمية! وليس التشاؤم.»

٢- التهكم: شأنه شأن التشاؤم يتعلق بالسلبية.

والمتهكم ليس عدمي لأنه قانع بالزيف ولا يتجنبه، والمتشائم قانع في اليأس ولا يتجنبه.

٣- اللامبالاة: ليست عدمية، من الممكن أن تكون موقفًا (لا اكتراثي) أو سمة شخصية

والفيصل أن هذه الكلمات هي تكشف الستار عن عدمية الآخرين، بينما المفترض أن العدمي لا يدرك أنه عدمي.

اللامبالي لا يشعر بشيء، بينما العدمي عنده مشاعر!

اذن «العدمية، تجنب الواقع بدلاً من مواجهته، الاعتقاد بان ثمة عوالم أخرى بدلًا من تقبل العالم، ومحاولة الشعور بالقوة بدلًا من الأقرار بالضعف.»

• وهذا الاستنتاج يحيلنا إلى قول أن أي فلسفة تحاجج أن للحياة معنى؛ قد تكون عدمية أكثر من التي تحاجج بأن ليس لها معنى!! بيد أن غالب الناس يرون العكس وهو رفض القول بأن ثمة معنى.

• «لم تكن العدمية بالنسبة إلى نيشته أن الحياة بلا معنى؛ بل أنها بلا معنى ومواصلتها على أية حال!» اولئك «الفلاسفة لم يعتقدوا أن العدمية بيان عن الواقع؛ بل هي ردة فعل تجاه الواقع.»

— عقد موضوعا بعنوان: «العدمية باعتبارها انكارا للموت» وناقشه مناقشة جيدة جدًا!

وللأمانة في ظل ظروف القتل في غزة الآن؛ تتبادر للذهن شيء من هذه السؤالات؛ عن استمرارنا في الحياة رغم الذبح، وتوصل إلى نتيجة نستطيع أن نقول هي اخر ما يصل إليه الإنسان دون وحي.

ثم كيف أثارت الحروب فعلًا هذه السؤالات والمعالجة في تجنب مثل ذلك في التبرؤ من المسئولية، ناقش كلام الوجوديين في ذلك.

• الفصل الرابع كله بموضوعاته فصل ممتاز جدًا. واني لو عدت للكتاب مستقبلاً ساعود لهذا الفصل تحديدًا. لأن فيه نقاش للعدمية من وجهات نظر عدة قريبة ومهمة.

— هنا كلمة موجزة قالها: «العدمية من وجهة نظر الوجودية وما بعد الحداثة ؛ هي الهروب من الواقع في شكل الهروب من الحرية.»

• «حرية الآخرين تمثل تهديداً للعدمي؛ لأن مواجهة حرية الآخرين ستجعله مضطراً إلى مواجهة حريته، مما سيحمله على مواجهة المسئولية، وهذا يعني العودة للقلق.»

• «حين تنتشر العدمية؛ تصير رؤيتنا للعالم أشبه بالشخص المريض؛ فلا نريد سوى ما نعتقد أنه سيجعلنا أحسن حالاً، ونتجنب أي شيء يجعلنا نظن أنه سيزيد حالنا سوء.» ولهذا من الطبيعي أن نتبع مشاعرنا وقناعتنا فنصدق ما نريد أن نصدقه ولو كان هراءاً.

— الحقيقة بهذا الفصل أجد مقاربة كبيرة لمعنى العدمية في اللامبالاة ومع ذلك لم افهم جيدًا لما يفصل الكاتب بينها وبين اللامبالاة، ومع ذلك ارجو أن اقرا الكتاب بلغته الأصل لعل الفهم يكون أعلى، لاني شعرت بمواضع أن المترجمة ترجمت دون فهم.

تقريباً نوجز أن العدمية رغبة لأن تصير كالطفل، هانئ مرتاح جاهل: أن الحياة خالية من المعنى.

• في عصر الأسراف في الشاشة؛ نرى تجارة (الهروب من الواقع)! رغم أن الواقع يقدم ضمنيًا بما نشاهده من مسلسلات. لعلي اسميها على غرار ما يسمي الكاتب (العدمية السينمائية) Lol

• هنا نقطة مهمة جدًا في العدمية السياسية، وفي الفلسفة السياسية عمومًا
وفي خدمة التعليم لذلك وارتباطه في تسويغ العدمية:
«مصالح الطغاة تكمن في تغيير وعي المقهورين، وليس الموقف الذي يقهرهم، فكلما أمكن أن يساق المقهورون إلى التكيف مع ذلك الموقف كانت السيطرة عليهم أسهل»

ويذكر نقد فريري، «أن من الخطأ أن يعتقد الطلاب أن المدرسين لديهم معلومات اكثر، ومن الخطأ أن نظن أن التعليم مجرد عملية تبادل معلومات.» واسماه فريري بالمفهوم المصرفي.

«إن الطلاب لا يتعلمون كيف ينتقدون المجتمع، بل يتعلمون كيف يمتثلون له، ولهذا النموذج المصرفي بالتعليم هو نموذج قمعي صممه الطغاة.»

فصل اكثر واكثر عن عواقب أن يكون (المجتمع عدمي) ونولان عموما يحب أن يدرس الانسان اجتماعيا لا فرديا. يقول في فهم العدمية: «أفضل سبيل لفهمها لا أن نراها تجربة فردية؛ بل تجربة ظهرت نتاجاً لنظام يتغذى على العدمية.»

— الحقيقة فصوله الاخيرة ممتازة في فهم الفلاسفة عمومًا وفي تتبع سياق هذه الكلمة، ولا يسعني المقام لذكر كل شيء، وكله مهم، فيما اسماه «النظام العدمي»

• لا يمكن القول أن العدمية موقف أخلاقي أو ميتافيزيقي؛ باهمال أبعادها السياسية.

— كلامه في العدمية السياسية مهم مهم مهم وفيه من تشريح الطغيان الكثير.

— انتقد البيروقراطية كأنموذج لذلك، واشار إلى كثير من اقوال هانا آرنت والذي ازعم على قراءة كتابها بعد هذه النقولات.

• تشكك آرنت في مساواة التقدم البشري بالتقدم العلمي، وتشكك أن كان فيه أي شيء أنساني! من الميتافيزيقا الأفلاطونية إلى اللاهوت المسيحي إلى البيروقراطية الرأسمالية.

(( جعلنا عاجزين عن الحكم على التجارب بأنفسنا، مما جعلنا أقل استعدادًا لمحاولة التوصل إلى إجماع بعضنا مع بعض، وأكثر استعداداً (وقدرة) لمحاولة تدمير بعضنا بعض في المقابل ))

• أسمع هذه الكلمة: «هكذا يكون الشعور بالتعاسة علامةً على وجود عيب؛ لكنه ليس في النظام؛ بل في الفرد؛ وبذلك تكون الفردية والاستقلالية مدمرتين! وهو ما يترتب عليه الاستجابة لمعاناتنا بالرغبة في العدمية في تغيير أنفسنا، بدلًا من المطالبة السياسية بتغيير النظام.»

— أخيراً في فلسفة التكنولوجيا (وهي مدار اهتمام عنده): «باسم الرؤية النفعية والمحايدة» يقول نولان: يجب أن لا نندهش أن التقدم التكنولوجي نادرا ما يتعارض مع القرارات السياسية. ويرى أن الخطر التي تشكله شركات مثل فيسبك، ليس بانتهاك خصوصياتنا بل في اعادة تعريفها! بل يرى أن التقدم هذا يزيدنا عجزًا سياسياً.

• هنا شيء ساخر: «في حكم البيروقراطيين غير البشريين المعروفين بالخوارزميات؛ يمكن أن يجعل المواطنين يشعرون أنهم بمأمن من التحيز والتحامل، وقد يجعل القادة السياسيين بمأمن من الاتهام بالتحيز والتحامل.» Lol

— هذه نفسها فكرة البحث عن الإله ووضع إله أو شيء أبوي كل مرة جديد نثق فيه ونسلم له، التي قدم لها.

———

الكتاب ممتع جدًا، يقع في ١١٢ صفحة، وتفكيك هذا المصطلح وتتبع الفلاسفة كلهم حتى الوصول للسياسة والتكنولوجيا.. جهد جبار، احترمه!!!

(كتب تحليل المصطلحات)؛ كتب تأخذ بقلبي، لأنها تدور على إشكالية التسمية ووعيها، أقدر حقًا من يهتم بالاصطلاحات ويفككها.

وكما قدمت نولان أحسن وأتى بتفنيد طيب، في تتبعه المميز؛ والذي لم اجده -فيما وقعت عليه- من الشارحين الآخرين.

لذا القراءة له؛ ازعم أنها ستكون مميزة وتفتح افقا.

— اطلت الكتابة هنا؛ وأرى أن ما انقصته أحسن مما كتبته.

والحمد لله.

[Nicolas Lontel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ça fait des années que j'essaie de comprendre ce qu'est le nihilisme, cet ouvrage de vulgarisation me permet enfin de comprendre de quoi il en retourne. À travers l'histoire philosophique, mais surtout Friedrich Nietzsche et Hannah Arendt, il montre comment le concept s'est formé, comment il a été utilisé, ce qu'il est et ce qu'il n'est pas (de l'apathie, du pessimisme, etc.).
Même si à certains moments, j'ai dû relire des passages pour bien comprendre, je dois avouer que c'est la première fois que je comprends un livre qui me parle de Nietzsche et il vulgarise plutôt bien des idées assez complexes.

J'ai aussi apprécié des réflexions plus large sur les liens entre le nihilisme et l'éducation, l'état et le capitalisme, ça aidait à préciser un peu le concept et à voir comment il était applicable (ou non) dans certains contextes. Je ne m'attendais pas du tout à voir une réflexion sur l'éducation et Paulo Freire, mais c'était le plaisir du développement de l'essai.

[Ibrahim Niftiyev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nolen Gertz's book is a really good book about nihilism, but, currently, I have a feeling that I used to know more about nihilism before this reading. After "Nihilism" everything became complicated for me about the phenomenon, yet I also feel inspired by similar philosophical topics. It is nice to see a void in your knowledge that you try to fill with philosophy. I used to be under severe apathy about the question "Who am I?"; however, now, I have an increased level of ensuring that it is worth discovering new horizons. Just like in the case of this book. I started to identify if I am a nihilist or not and learned that there is much more and that digging further is a must. I recommend this book, even though some parts are quite monotonic and the author's approach to certain topics is highly narrowed and superficial.

[Nwaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

يُعد كتاب "العدمية" للمؤلف نولن جيرتز عملاً آسراً، صيغ بعناية فائقة ومقدمة رائعة لهذه الفكرة الفلسفية.

لقد وجدتُ الفصل الثاني -الذي يستقصي الجذور التاريخية للعدمية بدءاً من سقراط ومروراً بأفلاطون وديكارت وهيوم وكانط ووصولاً إلى نيتشه- غنياً بالرؤى والأفكار الملهمة. وبالمثل، كان الفصل الرابع ممتعاً للغاية في تناوله لجوهر العدمية. ومع الانتهاء من قراءة الكتاب، يتضح أن الشاغل الرئيسي للمؤلف يتمثل في أثر المواقف العدمية على مجتمعنا وثقافتنا وحياتنا الفردية.

من وجهة نظر الكاتب تتجاوز العدمية مجرد كونها فراغاً وجودياً؛ فهي تتمحور بالأحرى حول كيفية توظيف المرء لحياته في ظل غياب أي معنى نهائي أو سلطة خارجية تفرض مثل هذا المعنى.

وتلتقي أفكار شخصيات مثل نيتشه وسارتر وليوتار وكامو عند فكرة مفادها أنه رغم خلو الحياة من غاية متأصلة فيها، إلا أن الأفراد يمتلكون القدرة والإرادة لصياغة المعنى بأنفسهم.

ومع ذلك، فإنني أختلف مع بعض جوانب تحليل الكاتب ، ولا سيما نقده الماركسي للرأسمالية وكذلك تناوله لمنهج حنة أرندت.

أوصي بشدة بهذا الكتاب لكل المهتمين بموضوع "معنى الحياة" من منظورين نفسي وسياسي.

[Eden · Rating 3 out of 5]

A strange, flawed, but interesting book. I don't quite know what to think of it. Some parts of it are very good, others are lackluster.

The author relies on Nietzsche a lot, but he doesn't fully understand his philosophy.

The book also wasn't what I expected it to be. I was hoping it would be a good introduction/exploration of the idea of nihilism, but it turned out to be an anti-enlightenment political book by the end. Nonetheless, it wasn't a waste of time as it did contain some useful insights.

[Nina Moretto · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book was like black tar heroin for 17 year old me

[Hanadi]

I enjoyed, was shocked and enlightened by this book. It was like reading Fromm's Art of Loving or Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. After finishing them, you do not know what to do with them.. you might forget them but they remain there, somewhere.

Nihilism is evading reality, escaping freedom and its responsibility. It's not denying the meaningfulness of life, rather it's believing that what makes life meaningful has become meaningless. As Nietzsche defines it: "That the highest values devalue themselves.

I liked Gertz reading of Nietzsche’s philosophy of nihilism:

Nietzsche’s diagnosis of nihilism was very complex and wide-ranging, Nietzsche’s primary concern was with the idea of nihilism as the evasion of what it means to be human. Nietzsche identified such nihilistic evasiveness in Christianity, in Buddhism, in philosophy, in art, in science, and in culture. Nietzsche’s diagnosis was that what these various versions of nihilistic evasiveness have in common is that they are a result of the repression required to live in civilized society, to live in peace rather than risk living in fear.

In the third chapter, it was made clear that nihilism is neither pessimism, cynicism nor apathy. On the contrary, while pessimism is dwelling on despair, nihilism is evading despair and hence is more akin to optimism; while cynicism is confronting deception, nihilism evades it by idealism; while apathy is about unfeeling, nihilism evade it by ... pity and sympathy that mislead us in believing in our superiority to those in need.

However, nihilism is not just an individual attitude but a social phenomenon and political issue. Our social, cultural and political systems are nihilistic because nihilism is these systems' way of perpetuating themselves. So, nihilism is dangerous because it "dehumanizes" humans and creates such empty, though seemingly full lives that are stuffed with "constructive activities" like watching TV to prevent the destruction of society.

Finally, nihilism might be fought by nihilism is what the author suggests at the end. " Technologies may not be creating new values, but they are creating new forms of nihilism. [...] if the nihilism generated by technological progress doesn’t make us too self-destructive, then perhaps instead it will make us just destructive enough to force us to finally become creative. In other words, if nihilism doesn’t kill us, it might make us stronger."

Nihilism is an intricately constructed book about such a popular yet evasive concept that adds something to anyone who comes to read it.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's always good to read about a thing and have an idea about the thing, to think 'I am thing' before you read and somewhere during thing be affirmed that it was right to think 'I am thing' and then get to the end of thing, finish thing, come to grips with the fact that thing must be thought about to be satisfactorily explained, for the sake of reading one must review, for the sake of reviewing one must read, yet one has realised maybe one has never really understood a book in a sense acceptable for the purpose of explaining thing and it has always been done for the malicious purpose of propping up one's ego as the reader of things, and it would be best if one went back to each and every thing and considered it deeply and thought it through, and took notes and didn't rely upon a special capacity of memory and speed of thought processing ability one doesn't possess, despite one's wishes, for the purpose of understanding thing. So this is not a review of thing so much as it is a stage of grief between seeing, knowing, and experiencing the effects of thing, quite like a the flash of a pistol, the roar of a bullet, and the impact into the now flailing body. The thing has happened upon me. I should go back and pretend I was a student and take thing a bit more seriously.

[Temuulen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read Dostoyesvky, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and confronting the existentialist literature of Camus and Sartre, must shamefully admit that for all the input I got, I never really cared to sort all of what I have read, this book nicely put all the stuff I've read, learnt and got insight from all these previous men into nicely designed abstract bookshelves in my head. Would recommend 10/10 to my fellow proactive nihilists that want to get out from an endless (in contrast to meaningful) loop of scepticism.

[Eric Piotrowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my quest to better understand nihilism — so I might fairly respond to the dragon in Grendel when my students read that book — I thought it wise to seek out an introduction to the concept.

Only after ordering Gertz's book did I find its first chapter online, and begin a process of blending doubt with confusion. Why is he dragging Lisa Simpson into this? How can he say "movies like The Big Lebowski have turned nihilists into icons" without addressing the fact that those guys are not actually nihilists, as Walter points out? What am I missing? Perhaps I don't understand nihilism after all. I mean, the IEP entry fits with my understanding, but maybe that is wrong, or I can't figure out how to square the circle here. "It's okay," I thought. "When I finish reading the book, this will all make more sense."

Well, I'm finished, and no it does not.

I will admit right away that I am a total neophyte when it comes to philosophy. I'm fascinated by it, but I have never studied it in any kind of comprehensive way. Still, I would have thought a "MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series" book on the subject could help a blockhead like me wrap his brain around this subject, and help me avoid pitfalls or mistakes in my teaching. Instead, I am filled with many more questions than answers. (And not good, healthy questions like the kind I get when I read the Tao Te Ching or a Cornel West book.)

To give just one example: Chapter 3 appears online here. In his attempt to pinpoint what nihilism is by demonstrating what it is not — an excellent strategy, to be sure — he writes:

Pessimists are not nihilists because pessimists embrace rather than evade despair. Cynics are not nihilists because cynics embrace rather than evade mendacity. A key part of evading despair is the willingness to believe, to believe that people can be good, that goodness is rewarded, and that such rewards can exist even if we do not experience them.

Huh? Am I reading this correctly? "nihilists […] evade despair [… and show] willingness to believe […] that people can be good, that goodness is rewarded"? Either this is gibberish or I am really stupid.

I feel like perhaps Gertz is playing fast and loose with different types of nihilism. I feel like the writing is intentionally opaque at times — which is the exact opposite of what I expected from an "Essential Knowledge Series" book. I feel like the tangents and diversions are more distracting than illuminating. Obviously these feelings of mine are enormously subjective, but if anyone considering a read of this text has as unsophisticated a mind as mine, be forewarned.

I tell my students all the time that (A) if your reader is trying to understand a concept and still does not get it, it's your fault as a writer; [This is true for teachers as well, of course.] and (B) confusion is always the first step toward enlightenment. Of course that confusion does not guarantee enlightenment, and I must confess that I do not feel significantly more enlightened after reading this book than I did before. (It's possible that I will gain enlightenment later, upon reflecting on what I've read here.)

This book contains many helpful things, and I am (after all) giving it three stars. The section about nihilism at school rings a dozen bells with me, and in fact I think some students will enjoy reading that section when I photocopy it for them. But as a comprehensive introduction to the subject, I feel that it is too diffuse and linguistically imprecise to provide what I need.

[Rachel Grey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nihilism is the ability to enjoy a glass of wine while watching the world burn.

I picked this book up because my reading about hedonism (which is pretty close to utilitarianism, in the end, with pleasure as the utility function) got me curious. I somewhat regret getting it as an audiobook because, as usual with nonfiction books, I would have liked to highlight a few phrases without having to quickly jot them down from memory like the line above.

(Adaptive, I have to admit, if the world is burning anyway and one happens to have a glass of wine.)

I learned that nihilism is not a well-formed system of thought that anyone advocates. When Gertz discusses the history of Western philosophers and how they dealt with the idea that perhaps something is meaningless, it was interesting but could have used the word "meaninglessness" all the way through. (I'd forgotten, if I ever realized, how lame Decartes' proof of the existence of God really was. Sheesh.) It wasn't until Nietzsche that psychological nihilism entered the picture, primarily as "apathy due to the belief that nothing matters" or, as it was more often discussed in the book, "situational apathy due to the belief that no relevant action can be taken". And later on, finally, was a discussion of active nihilism, as the desire to (or action of) destroying the current system in order for something else to arise. This could have simply been covered as "destructiveness" or perhaps even "disruption".

So perhaps I learned that "nihilism" is used for too many concepts, and always viewed as a negative even when the more specific concept in question could also be seen as adaptive.

There was interesting discussion of how an individualist but bureaucratic society might lead individual people toward nihilism (in the apathy sense, sitting around with their wine) because they believe, even correctly, that individual action might make no difference -- and overlook the possibility that collective action might still make a difference. I see collective action in a lot of places though, and reject the premise that we truly are in an individualist society. I also appreciated the discussion of the subjugation of experienced reality in favor of relying on experts and science -- though again, I've been seeing a huge countermovement toward "lived experience" in some contexts and "human voices" in others, so I (experientially) fail to agree that this subjugation ever really happened. Though I do agree that there's value in hashing out our shared experience with equals, to develop our worldviews and empathy and yes, okay, to become more human.

One last thing -- I learned that Kafka was a claims investigator at an insurance company. Suddenly a lot of his writings make more sense!

[Valdis Reķis · Rating 3 out of 5]

It kā īsa un kompakta grāmata, bet nefilozofijas studentiem grūti uztverama
`\_(ツ)_/¯
Autors apraksta vēsturi
Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Descartes has examined life and yet finds that the unexamined life was more “pleasant,” more “peaceful,” more worth living

Discovering life is meaningless is not nihilism for Nietzsche; rather discovering life is meaningless and yet going on with our lives anyway is nihilism.

Autors paskaidro, ka nihilism nav ne pesimisms, ne cinisms, ne apātija. Nihilism ir gan mājās, gan skolā, gan darbā.
For now that we have improved working conditions, now that we have health care, 40-hour work weeks, sick leave, vacation time, photocopiers, and coffee machines, there is increasingly little left for us to hate about work other than working itself.

Nihilisti necer atrast kādu faktu vai patiesību, kas ļaus dzīvot ar mierinājumu. Un mūsu attīstītās tehnoloģijas ir līdzeklis, lai "atslēgtos" no ikdienas.

Nietzsche argues that science is not the enemy of religion, but is instead a new religion.

Atheists are called nihilistic for not caring about faith. The religious are called nihilistic for not caring about facts. Conservatives are called nihilistic for not caring about social progress. Progressives are called nihilistic for not caring about social norms. Vegetarians are called nihilistic for not caring about farmworkers. Carnivores are called nihilistic for not caring about farm animals.

if the nihilism generated by technological progress doesn’t make us too self-destructive, then perhaps instead it will make us just destructive enough to force us to finally become creative. In other words, if nihilism doesn’t kill us, it might make us stronger.


P.s.
Priecīgas Lieldienas:)

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an engaging read from beginning to end. Gertz takes you on a delightful ride through the history of nihilist thought and points out how and where Nihilism is prevalent in our modern lives. I enjoyed it very much.

One minor disappointment is that the conclusions are sometimes obscure or confusing (what is he trying to say...other than entertain me?) It still deserves 5 stars!

[counter-hegemonicon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophy and social criticism in the spirit of Neil Postman, a great reminder to remain alive and to think. Definitely a fun and engaging read with current references that are unpretentious and uncontrived. I was partial to the dialogue from the show Daria

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enlightening.

[Callen DeWit · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very intellectual and important book. I'm still trying to understand and summarize the takeaways, but basically: think critically, feel everything, and change the system.

[Lucí Amani · Rating 5 out of 5]

thought provoking and well-sourced! Nihilism is a word that's thrown around so much that I thought I knew what it was. Turns out I had some misconceptions. Worth the read to dispell pre-conceived notions

[toast · Rating 5 out of 5]

«(...) The possibility that everything they think they know about reality is an illusion»
«(...) Having grown accustomed to this reality, we would reject any challenge to this reality that was presented to us.»
«(...) For Socrates argues that the prisoners would not only continue to believe in shadows even if counterevidence was presented to them but would kill anyone who brought them this counterevidence, anyone who tried to convince them that their beliefs were false,.»
«“The unexamined life is not worth living.”»
«(...) And he argues that in order to avoid making such mistakes we must reject as false any beliefs that are held on the basis of uncertain foundations.»
«(...) Long as he can. In the same way, I happily slide back into my old opinions and dread being shaken out of them, for fear that my peaceful sleep may be followed by hard labour when I wake, and that I shall have to toil not in the light, but amid the inextricable darkness of the problems I have now raised.»
«(...) But knowledge of his situation is not enough to help him escape from it.»
«(...) As a war between his desire for happiness and his desire for knowledge.»
«(...) You could not claim that causality is something we can know to be true rather than something we can only believe to be true. Though we may see one event follow another, and see this sequence of events happen over and over again, it is impossible to see that this sequence of events must happen.»
«(...) Causality is a matter of probability (“The Sun will most likely rise tomorrow”) rather than of certainty (“The Sun will definitely rise tomorrow”).»
«Hume here suggests that what we experience as discovering something to be true may in reality be the experience of discovering something to be preferable.»
«In other words, supporting an idea may not be so different from supporting a sports team; we identify with a side, we take this identification to be meaningful rather than contingent upon factors beyond our control (like where we were born), and, most importantly, we want our side to win.»
«Our memories create a narrative from out of these perceptions, a narrative based on the idea there must be a “self” who was the cause of this narrative, but having removed causality as a foundation for knowledge, it cannot function as a foundation for identity either.»
«(...) It would make no sense that we are born with reason, with a faculty that is so often in conflict with our desires, if we were meant to be happy.»
«(...) When he wondered about the origin of evil, he reasoned that God, as “father” of all creation, must also be the “father of evil.”»
«(...) Nor that what was accepted as “morality” was moral.»
«For Nietzsche, however, who is a master and who is a slave is determined not by struggle but by birth, by who is born strong and who is born weak.»
«In other words, the slaves expected that if they defeated the masters, then they would finally become masters themselves.»
«(...) The reward of eternal bliss for having lived a “good” life was the knowledge that one’s enemies, those who had lived an “evil” life, were receiving eternal torture in Hell.»
«(...) But because morality led people to associate being “good” with being cruel to oneself.»
«If self-cruelty is good, then self-denial and self-sacrifice are the highest good.»
«(...) As seeking power has no purpose other than the ability to seek more power.»
«In other words, we have come to see life as something to endure rather than enjoy and have come to see humanity as something to loathe rather than love.»
«(...) Humans are to be understood as prisoners, forced to live meaningless lives in a meaningless world.»
«It is by believing in the existence of superhuman goals and superhuman purposes that we lose sight of human goals and human purposes.»
«(...) Allowing us to feel that we are better than we are, and that we are better than those in need.»
«(...) Pity is instead more likely to motivate us to perpetuate injustice by perpetuating the conditions that allow us to help the needy, that allow us to see ourselves as good for helping those we see only as needy.»
«(...) Nihilism is about evading reality rather than confronting it, about believing in other worlds rather than accepting this one, and about trying to make ourselves feel powerful rather than admitting our own weaknesses.»
«(...) We can find meaning in our lives even if life is itself meaningless. Indeed Tartaglia sees that we already do find meaning in our lives every day without having any evidence or reason to believe that life is itself meaningful»
«Tartaglia claims that if people can lose faith and yet continue on as before, then faith must not have been as “essential” as people—or philosophers like Nietzsche—have assumed.»
«What Tartaglia views as the way to respond to nihilism—to stop being bored or anxious and just reimmerse ourselves in our daily lives—is precisely what Nietzsche meant by nihilism. In other words, what Nietzsche wants us to overcome is not what Tartaglia means by “nihilism” but rather what Tartaglia means by “life.”»
«But to live meaningfully—to live as humans, to live in accordance with our own values rather than those that have been imposed on us—would endanger our culture and would endanger those who are powerful because of our culture.»
«Trying to live the lives that we should want is, according to Nietzsche, what makes us nihilistic, for which reason we come to see death as freedom, as freedom from life, from what our culture has defined as life, from what Tartaglia has defined as life.»
«Tartaglia may appear to be in agreement with Nietzsche about the idea that nihilism is about living in denial, but what Nietzsche means by “denial” is what Tartaglia means by “acceptance.”»
«Millions of people were being killed. Nazism and Fascism were spreading. The end of the world appeared to be imminent. And yet people continued to eat, to work, to gossip, to buy groceries, to sleep, to go on living as if nothing had changed. To see the routines that make up normal life continue when life was decidedly abnormal was to see how such routines not only help to make life easy to navigate but also help to make life easy to ignore. Whether faced with global war or with our own mortality, by maintaining order, regularity, and discipline we are able to reduce ourselves and the world to the most mundane concerns and so avoid having to think about anything more than what we’re going to eat for dinner. In other words, we live lives that are absurd.»
«For this reason we can only have the freedom that we at least claim to want if we recognize that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.»
«(...) The only freedom we exercise is the freedom to blame others, to blame God, or DNA, or society, or anyone but ourselves, for who we have become and how our lives have turned out.»
«We are willing to accept the idea that women are different from men due to differences in chromosomes because such ideas relieve the pressure of having to define ourselves by our actions rather than by our genetics. Moreover, we do not question the source of distinctions like “women” and “men” but instead embrace such distinctions and try to live in accordance with them, letting them define who we are and determine who we should be.»
«Women should always be women. Men should always be men. Heroes should always be good. Villains should always be evil. Such narratives are comforting. They replace the absurdity of existence with the clarity of essentialism. Yet they are comforting precisely because they are fictions, fictions that we are born into and that we perpetuate, fictions that transform the anxiety-inducing gray of life into the reassuring black-and-white of a 1950s sitcom.»
«By removing the false sources of meaning we rely on (such as God or DNA), we can confront the fact that we are alone and embrace the consequence of that fact: that we alone are capable of giving meaning to our lives.»
«(...) Every field of knowledge, every academic discipline, every science, operates through specific narratives with their own gamelike rules in order not only to transmit knowledge but even to legitimate its claims as knowledge.»
«Yet more and more governments fund and publics support only that which is productive, only that which produces the information necessary to make political and economic decisions. In other words, what is true has become less important than what is profitable.»
«To argue that there is no foundation for what we find meaningful and that we can consequently redefine the meaning of what is meaningful»
«(...) Meaning is and always has been socially constructed»
«(...) “Existence precedes essence”»
«(...) No external authority can serve as the guarantor that they required, the guarantor that life will turn out as promised, that justice will be served, that the good guys will win, and that the pain and suffering we experience will ultimately prove to have had a purpose.»
«If you are caught eating cake at 2 a.m. and you say, “My genetic predisposition to snacking made me do it,” then you’re engaging in seriousness. But if you are caught eating cake at 2 a.m. and you say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a piece of cake,” then you’re engaging in nihilism.»
«(...) The nihilist’s perspective can be very convincing, and so any further thought on the matter is made unnecessary.»
«We readily believe those who tell us what we want to hear (“A glass of wine a day will make you live longer”) and reject those who tell us what we don’t want to hear (“We need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions to protect the environment”).»
«Nihilism is therefore the ability to enjoy a glass of wine while watching the world burn.»
«Nihilists can be optimistic, idealistic, and sympathetic, as their aim in life is to be happy, to be as happy and carefree as they were when they were children, as happy and carefree as they were before they discovered that life lacked the meaning they thought they’d find in it when they grew up.»
«Preservation of the status quo is good. Disruption of the status quo is bad.»
«(...) Schools provide standardized testing in order to guarantee that students see schooling as nothing but a process of standardizing human beings.»
«Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”;»
«Freire argues that the banking model of education is an oppressive system designed by oppressors to teach the oppressed to accept their oppression.»
«In both cases the problem is not that society is failing to create good citizens, but that what is meant by “good” is what is good for society rather than what is good for humans, for the people who have to live in the society sustained by these educational and moral systems.»
«As Nietzsche warned, a society that only values its own survival, that only values the protection of the status quo, is a sick society, a society that creates good citizens but bad humans.»
«(...) But if challenge and uncertainty are required for growth, then an easy and stable life is really just a slow and steady death. In other words, such a life is nihilistic.»
«(...) Then this counterargument is really just another way of saying that the real world is dehumanizing and that we should just learn to accept it.»
«Making things is thus not only how we find out who we ourselves are but also how we find out who others are. Labor is then necessary not only for discovering one’s own identity but also for building a community.»
«A crisis of identity arises therefore when we lose control over what we make.»
«(...) Working without knowing what they’re working on or why,»
«For now that we have improved working conditions, now that we have health care, 40-hour work weeks, sick leave, vacation time, photocopiers, and coffee machines, there is increasingly little left for us to hate about work other than working itself.»
«The sense of community produced by labor no longer comes from sharing our creations with each other, but only comes from sharing our hatred of work with each other.»
«To become defined by a paycheck is to become defined by what one can consume rather than by what one can create, replacing pride in what we make with pride in what we own.»
«He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His work therefore is not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need, but only a means for satisfying needs external to it.»
«If we spend a third of our lives sleeping, and we spend our time at work trying to put ourselves to sleep, then for most of our lives we aren’t just acting like zombies, we are zombies.»
«We are happiest when we can deaden our minds at work and deaden our bodies after work, for which reason we call the hour after work, the hour we spend “eating, drinking, procreating”7 ourselves into a stupor, our happy hour.»
«The goods and services we can buy with the money we get from our labor must then be what drive us to keep laboring after our labor has become meaningless.»
«Goods are mass produced and thus no longer provide any way to identify the individuality of their maker.»
«Goods and services are then not meaningful because through them we learn about the people providing them, but are meaningful because of how they make us feel to have them.»
«Labor is not in itself meaningful. Money we get from labor is not in itself meaningful. The goods and services we get from money are not in themselves meaningful. But the feeling of fulfillment we get from goods and services is meaningful.»
«For if we are fulfilled not through what we do, but through what we can buy, through the goods and services that we can acquire, then without those goods and services, we are nothing.»
«In other words, such fulfillment still leaves us feeling empty.»
«(...) Such a feeling of emptiness does not lead us to realize that acquisition and consumption are actually unfulfilling pursuits. Instead this feeling leads us to endlessly pursue more and more acquisition and consumption.»
«In other words, if a life of acquisition and consumption is the only life we know, then we would not see a life of meaningless labor for meaningless money for meaningless goods and services for meaningless fulfillment as a meaningless life, instead we would see it as the real world.»
«(...) Because reality is meaningless, but because having workers accept meaninglessness as reality must be a benefit to someone else.»
«If the worker’s activity is torment for him, it must be pleasure and a joy of life for another.»
«Having workers believe that they have no choice but to work for a living is a belief that clearly benefits people who do not work for a living, people who do not need to work for a living, at least so long as there are workers who they can live off of instead.»
«For Plato, the answer to this question is that workers were willing to work for a living because they believed no other way of life was possible.»
«In other words, if you want people to accept the belief that working for a living is the only way to live, then you want people to accept nihilism.»
«Nihilism is therefore not best understood as an individualistic experience to be found wherever nihilistic individuals go, but as an experience generated by a system that feeds off nihilism, by a system that extends into every facet of human life.»
«When we think of nihilism as a way to describe an individual’s moral beliefs (or the lack thereof), we reduce nihilism to a matter that only individuals could resolve on their own. When we think of nihilism as a way to describe the universe’s meaningfulness (or the lack thereof), we elevate nihilism to a matter that only gods could resolve on their own. Either way of thinking about nihilism thus prevents us from recognizing the need to confront nihilism as a matter that could only be resolved collectively, at the level between that of individuals and of gods, at the level of the political.»
«What was inhuman was coercion. To be forced to do something—whether by another person or by nature—was to live like an animal, like something less than human.»
«(...) The beings who can engage in politics are the beings who are human.»
«According to Plato, unexamined lives are in themselves worthless, but they are nevertheless necessary since they still contribute to that which is worthwhile: the “harmony” of the polis.»
«Such harmony was to be achieved when everyone in the polis was doing what they were born to do.»
«Excluding citizens from scientific debate has without a doubt allowed scientists to work much more efficiently than would have been the case if scientists had needed the polis to reach a consensus every time they wanted to conduct an experiment.»
«(...) The overall development of society—at least until it reaches the point where automation truly does away with labor—is moving uniformly toward making all its members “laborers,” human beings whose activity, whatever it may be, primarily serves to provide life’s necessities»
«Necessity, not freedom, rules the life of society;»
«(...) We begin to think that there is something wrong with us if we cannot live under the conditions of desert life.»
«The purpose of this metaphor is to awaken us to precisely how lifeless our lives have become. To be in a desert is to be forced to be concerned with nothing other than bare survival, to be concerned with nothing other than the animal necessities that prevent us from experiencing human freedom.»
«Like someone lost in a desert, we cling desperately to any guide who claims to know the way out, even if that guide was the one who led us into the desert in the first place.»
«(...) A system that no one can explain or defend but that everyone follows without question»
«(...) A yearning that is experienced not as hope, but as torture.»
«(...) Having been born weak, of having been born mortal, of having been born human, can lead individuals to attempt to escape such limitations, an attempt that has resulted in the creation of philosophies, of religions, and of cultures that help individuals to escape from life itself.»
«(...) How another type of place—such as a desert—can motivate people to become incapable of forming relationships with others and to become concerned only with individual survival.»

[Zana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like books which talk to me... I mean like... This book seemed like it was explaining itself.. Did not like it.. I love being the listener.. Not the reader!