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)

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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!

[rishi · Rating 3 out of 5]

pretty interesting and insightful but felt pretty repetitive

[ØMVЯ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed explanation of the roots behind the word and differences to similar yet contrastive phrases such as apathy. Somehow managed to write about the political expedience for people who love a nothingness.

[Victor Campos Nunes]

Much like the word “Fascism”, “Nihilism” has lost much of its referential force. It happens more often than not that people on opposite sides of the same spectrum accuse each other of being a nihilist (one could say the same thing about the word “fascist”). In his book, Nihilism, Nolen Gertz tries to identify roughly what nihilism is by pointing at examples; these examples, hopefully, help us understand the potential meanings of what we mean by the term. Gertz looks for explanations of nihilism in the history of western philosophy, from Plato to Hannah Arendt, as well as examples of it within contemporary debates that range from politics and education to technology and entertainment. Either way, these are Gertz’s interpretations of what the concept is, and not everyone might agree on them, but he is definitely closer to a proper definition of nihilism than the layman who hates Spliknot or South Park because they are, in their words, nihilistic.

The term “nihilism” comes from the Latin nihil (“nothing”), so Gertz delineates nihilism as an ideology of nothing, or as a belief in nothing, since we are adding an “ism” to that nothing. “Nothing”, however, is a term that raises more questions than it answers. What is nothing exactly? Is a chair more “something” than a rainbow? Is a rainbow more “something” than a mirage? Are dreams and memories on the same level of existence? Is a chair as real as moral principles? Is a chair really something or is it a term we create to name a certain collection of atoms? If chairs are actually atoms, is the belief in atoms a true belief, but belief in chairs a belief in nothing, therefore nihilism? Well, I can’t see atoms, but I can see chairs. If you go to a restaurant and there aren’t any chairs for you, good luck asking the waiter for some atoms instead of chairs. You can’t function without agreeing with the world that chairs are there, then isn’t the person who believes in nothing but atoms the actual nihilist?

Nihilism has a fuzzy referent—it can mean many things, so it is hard to point at a belief and say “this is nihilism” without thinking deeply about what we mean once we pronounce it. If someone rejects morality, they are accused of being a nihilist, but then that someone might accuse moralists of being the actual nihilists; their argument might be that moralists believe in something that isn’t as evident as things we can measure, like matter or the expansion of the universe. Nihilism leads us to many paradoxes if we don’t agree beforehand on what we mean by existence. There is (apparently) material reality, for example, but we often act based on symbolic and abstract realities—moral laws and principles may not be materially real, but they certainly feel real if you go to jail, hurt a friend, or make a promise.

You might argue that moral laws do exist, that they are ink on paper, but then someone will tell you that there is only ink and paper, not laws, and that we act under ideas that aren’t really there. Being a nihilist, then, might depend on which level we decide something is real: chairs are real in restaurants, for example, but not real when dealing with elemental properties in Physics. You may be a nihilist for not believing in chairs in the first case, but a nihilist for believing in chairs in the second case. In both scenarios, there is an explicit embrace of what is intuitively agreed by others to be nothing or, at best, irrelevant. Nihilism, then, isn’t necessarily an absence of belief in things, but also a positive belief in nothing—the reason opposites of the same spectrum can accuse each other of being a nihilist is due, perhaps, to the disagreement on what that nothing is. A person can be mistaken about something being something, so one can be a nihilist without knowing they are one.

Perhaps this is the reason Nietzsche accuses christians of being nihilists while, simultaneously, identifying himself as a nihilist: while Catholicism denies the physical world for the sake of a spiritual world it never experienced, Nietzsche desires to annihilate (turn to nothing) ideologies around nothingness. Christian faith, according to Nietzsche, is nihilistic because it believes unconsciously in nothing, which would make them passive nihilists. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would be an active nihilist, because he wants to create awareness to the nothingness at the center of many beliefs, and he does this as he invites the development of our own earthly, life-affirming morals. A passive nihilist believes in something, but they are unaware that something is actually nothing, while the active nihilist believes something to be nothing, fully aware of its nothingness.

Determining what nothing is is quite the challenge, but we can at least try to identify and warn against ideologies around nothingness that are damaging to humanity, contrary to human nature, or restrictive of human knowledge. I believe this is Gertz’s main goal in writing his book, since he writes extensively under restrictive interpretations of what nihilism is. Gertz defends that nihilism isn’t equivalent to being morose, a pessimist, immoral or suicidal, but quite the contrary—nihilism is often found in optimism, euphoria, hope, diversion, positivity, extreme moralizing attitudes, in any ideology that embraces what isn’t real as if it was.

If we follow this definition, it doesn’t take long to notice nihilism all around us. Say you wake up before the sun tomorrow—you go outside for a run, you contemplate the silent darkness of the world, you notice the trees dancing with the wind, and you listen to the birds singing. On your way, you may pass by a gym and see people unaware of nature even existing—they run on treadmills, watch large screens in front of them, and listen to loud music under fluorescent bright lights. Nihilism, the passive kind, can be extremely stimulating, and it is everywhere. What is more real or, at the very least, authentic? Roads or treadmills? The rising sun or fluorescent lights? Birds on trees or images on screens? You are reading this essay on a screen, obviously, but these questions should invite a critical reflection on the grounds and principles on which we are choosing to live our lives, not a rejection of everything that is modern.

Gertz calls attention to other interesting examples in his book where we may find nihilism. He talks about the potential nihilism existing at schools—the belief that students are learning anything at all under arbitrary and mind-numbing conditions; he calls attention to the potential nihilism existing at work—the belief that we are working to be happy, that expensive stuff will bring us happiness, that if we aren’t happy then there’s something wrong with us; and, finally, he calls attention to the potential nihilism existing at our own homes—the belief that our many screens (at which we are conditioned to spend most of our time, due to predatory strategies that exploit neurological weaknesses) show us reality, where Instagram or How I Met Your Mother convince you that they are somewhat more real than your own life.

Nolen Gertz’s book is short, accessible, and a fun read. It is also a fearless exploration of what nihilism is and can be. It is didactic about the history and the philosophy of nihilism, and it does that while dealing with sensible contemporary issues. Nihilism, in the way Gertz understands it, may be alive and thriving all around us. It may take nihilism (the active kind, that is) to awaken in us the knowledge of what is truly going on—that we are not only passively believing in nothing, but also living for nothing. Active nihilism may be dropped once we make evident all that nothing, because then it will be time to actually live for something.

For other book reviews: https://victorcamposnunes.substack.com/