Q&A: Clarification of a Concept
Clarification of a Concept
Question
Hello,
I understood that nihilism is attributed to Nietzsche. I’m not sure whether that’s correct, but broadly speaking the idea that “there is no objective truth” seems to line up with nihilism.
Can it be argued that nihilism / “there is no objective truth” is also based on subjective truth? How can you have a discussion with a group that casts doubt on their own logic and on logic in general, while at the same time using it to arrive at that very insight (the doubt)?
This is effectively casting doubt on mathematics, casting doubt on physics, and on everything. Even if we say that this doubt did not prevent us from achieving amazing technologies, they will say, “What does amazing mean?” / “Who said that’s amazing?” etc.
Are these ideas (there is no objective truth / nothing has any meaning) a matter of belief, and if so, can one argue that they are self-contradictory? (I didn’t understand why assigning the meaning that there is no meaning is not self-contradictory.)
Thank you!
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Are you asking whether skepticism is not itself a claim? In other words: why doesn’t the skeptic doubt his own skepticism? A true skeptic doubts that too.
Discussion on Answer
There is no way to deal with essential skepticism. In my opinion nobody really believes in it, but if someone declares that he does, there is no way to shut him up.
If I make a claim about the implications of essential skepticism, would that be considered irrelevant?
That is, if I argue that his skepticism is valid only on the philosophical plane, but there is no way to apply it in any situation whatsoever (because every situation is based on foundational assumptions), so that in practice his own life contradicts his belief, and he uses it only as a philosophical tool.
For example: a person goes out to work because he believes that only in this way can he survive. (Who says? Isn’t that an unstated belief? And if he must, why?)
On the other hand, philosophy as a whole is not always applied in day-to-day life (and maybe that’s a good thing?).
If I make such an argument, would I be considered irrelevant? Is the postmodernist an essential skeptic?
Thank you!
Postmodernist is just a word. One needs to talk about a skeptic. What he’ll answer you is that he acts this way simply because he feels like it. He has no justification.
Something else I can’t manage to understand…:
How is it possible that many philosophers / scientists throughout history did not attach importance to the question, “What is the other person missing, such that he doesn’t agree with me?”
Especially after confronting the question of human evil.
And why did Nietzsche conclude that therefore there is no absolute truth?
That is an outrageous assumption. Even if none of us can know whether we grasp it, that does not mean there is no subjective idea that synchronizes with it.
Could it be that his apparent psychological problems caused him to adopt far-reaching insights?
Why does it seem as though the postmodern idea attacks the secular outlook more? Shouldn’t it be the opposite?
Thank you!
I’ve written more than once that in most disputes in philosophy, either it isn’t really a dispute at all (but rather different formulations of the same thing, or simply two different aspects, or different definitions of concepts), or one side is simply mistaken. There are few disputes with two genuine sides, and there indeed, even if you try to understand the other person, you won’t necessarily be persuaded.
There is no such thing as “the postmodern idea.” There is skepticism, and it attacks every idea.
“A true skeptic doubts that too.”
From your words it comes out again and again that you do not believe in opinions; rather, your mental state uses opinions in order to align with thought, but what determines things is the mental state…
Skepticism is not a mental state but a logical research tool.
There is no such thing as “a skeptic,” just as there is no such thing as “a believer.”
Every person always doubts and always believes; these are tools of the soul that can be used in beneficial ways.
I agree with you.
The question is what he gets out of this paradoxical skepticism.
It’s a “great” argument for practically any topic (what you see from here you don’t see from there; how will you deal with that if there is no such thing as “there”), but in the end reality forces us to assume that there is objectivity, even if you use semantic manipulations.
So the question is really: how am I supposed to act when a postmodernist wants me to prove that 1+1=2? Do you have a decisive or plausible argument that would deal with that?