Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:28:31 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin (jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU)

I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence.

Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7)

Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness)

Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are.

I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness.

I realize there is not much new under the sun. Thus I would like some feedback on these comments. Maybe you know of works which deal with this subject? Maybe you would like to set me straight? Whatever. Hope to hear something.

Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu

Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats

I'm very interested in Jeff Irvin's comments on nihilism, existentialism, and Christianity, but would like to know which thinkers he has in mind when speaking about nihilism.

I also wonder if a distinction can be made between *ultimate* and *everyday* (or social/cultural) meaning, in which case I'd argue that humans often live quite well live without the former but have a much harder time doing without the latter. Obviously there are a fair number of atheists who still manage to survive within social contexts that they find meaningful. Any thoughts on this?

Best,

Christopher Forth
Univ. of Memphis
cforth@cc.memphis.edu

It seems that various things can be covered by the term nihilism: - there are no objectively existing values, i e no values independent of man - even subjectively existing values are in reality illusions, we only delude ourselves when we identify ourselves with them - there is no objective *purpose* to human life, or life/eistence in general - even subjectively constructed, individual purposes are illusions we create in order to cover up the ultimate meaninglessness and there probably are other types of nihilisms as well.

The same thing could be said about Christianity: there are many sorts of it. One type of Christianity may perhaps be called objectively nihilistic in the sense that it leaves man, i e each indvividual, absolutely free to create and sustain his own values in life. But he/she must of course bear the consequences of their choices and creations, the "rewards" and "punishments" as it were.

In fact, the german philosopher Karl Jaspers has written a book where he claims that Nietzsche's supposedly nihilistic thinking is actually compatible with the deeper sense of Christianity:

Jaspers, K. 1946: Nietzsche und das Christentum. Hameln: Verlag der BFCcherstube Fritz Seifert.

My 2 cents.
Bo

Bo Dahlin
Dept. of Educational Science & Psychology
University of Karlstad
S-651 88 Karlstad
tel: ++ 46 54 83 81 82

On Feb 18, Jeff Irvin wrote:
"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence. Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7) Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness) Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are. I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness. I realize there is not much new under the sun. Thus I would like some feedback on these comments. Maybe you know of works which deal with this subject? Maybe you would like to set me straight? Whatever. Hope to hear something."

Dear Prof. Irvin:
In fact there is a school of Christian Existentialism that began with Soren Kierkegaard. You might want to look at Walter Kaufmann's reader, *Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre* (N.Y., N.Y.: New American Library, 1975).

Dr. Timothy L. Bratton
Department of History/Pol. Science
6006 Jamestown College
Jamestown, ND 58405

bratton@acc.jc.edu
work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
home: 1-701-252-8895
home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507

"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.

Jeff Irvin wrote:

"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence.

Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7)"

Disclaimer: I am a Roman Catholic, and I write from the perspective of my beliefs, derived from but not necessarily synonymous with those of the Church.

Ecclesiastes is hardly representative of the Bible. My sense is that most Catholics (and probably most Christians and Jews) would say that life *without God* is meaningless. And I'm not sure how many would characterize meaning as deriving from "obedience" to God. It all depends on the spin you want to put on obedience, I guess; I would reject an image of God as anal-retentive rule-maker who demands obedience to Its every whim. But if you understand "obedience to God" as including simply living a life of love (Christian love, if you will), then I guess I would remove the objection.

"Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness)"

If you make a distinction between "absurdity" and "meaninglessness" (which I do, though I'm not sure I could easily describe the substance of the distinction), then I have no problem with understanding life as absurd, but I would reject the notion that life is meaningless. It seems to me that absurdity assumes a vantage point, a framework that could give meaning but, perhaps, fails. Christ is absurd to non-believers, and even believers can see and (possibly) laugh at that absurdity, all the while denying that the absurdity is the true meaning.

"Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are.

I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness."

I should think the Christian rejection of nihilism is akin to the Christian rejection of suicide. In a Created world, despair and hopelessness deny the goodness and the power of the Creator.

=Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Research Associate
=Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and
=American Institutions; 410 North Park Avenue;
=Bloomington IN 47408; 812/855-0261; FAX 855-3315
=http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/index.html

Christopher Forth wrote:

"I also wonder if a distinction can be made between *ultimate* and *everyday* (or social/cultural) meaning, in which case I'd argue that humans often live quite well live without the former but have a much harder time doing without the latter. Obviously there are a fair number of atheists who still manage to survive within social contexts that they find meaningful. Any thoughts on this?"

I think this is a very important distinction, and I think you are exactly right. *Everyday* meaning is essential for survival -- from what I know (very little), even "insane" people make sense of the everyday world, the problem being that their "sense" is very different from the sense of "sane" people.

In many circumstances many people can do quite well without any sense of *ultimate* meaning. For some people, like mystics, a sense of ultimate meaning is more important than -- perhaps even overlays -- a sense of everyday meaning. In some situations, like after the death of a loved one or a time of widely-shared crisis (a war, a flood, a famine), more people are more likely to seek for a sense of ultimate meaning.

Ken
=Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Research Associate
=Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and
=American Institutions; 410 North Park Avenue;
=Bloomington IN 47408; 812/855-0261; FAX 855-3315
=http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/index.html

Prof. Irvin's request for a recent discussion of Christian "Meaning" as opposed to Nihilism leads me suggest a brilliant book, Charles Davis - Religion and the Making of Society: Essays in Social Theology - (1994) which addresses the issue with historical as well as theological sophistication. R.P. Gildrie gildrier@lynx.apsu.edu

Jeff Irvin wrote:

"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existance."

Nothing in Christianity leads to this conclusion. The standard reply is that God's only begotten Son became human and suffered through the passion to prove his love for us.

Our existence here on earth is of crucial importance for Christians. Life is short, only three score and ten years. Our souls, they argue, are immortal, and it is here on earth that we face a crucial test. Through the vissitudes of our coroporeal life, do we deceive ourselves and become prideful, rejecting God, and becoming contemptuous of those less well off? During disasters, do we forsake God, deny him, or thank him for reminding us that this life is temporary and that we ought to key an eye on the prize, the salvation of our immortal soul.

There are many variation in Christianity. Calvin, for instance believed that life was pre-destined, that there was no way to earn one's admission into heaven. Does one who holds to a determinist metaphysics consider human existance to be meaningless? Yes, I think so. But many Christians, and certainly those in the late classical period, and throughout the Middle Ages believed that this life was important. They became monks, donated their inheritance to the Church, did penance, bought indulgences, all on the assumption that their actions would earn them admittance into God's presence.

This life, they felt, was a test. Life was not considered to be meaningless.

Gilbert Midonnet
GLM@Cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu

P.S. I am aware of the fact that the buying of indulgences did not become commonplace until the 14th C.

Chris,

I was thinking mainly of Nietzsche's work, since he seems to represent most nihilists. I realize there are others, some who even greatly influenced Nietzsche himself.

This is in response to Christopher Forth's message, which said in part: "I'm very interested in Jeff Irvin's comments on nihilism, existentialism, and Christianity, but would like to know which thinkers he has in mind when speaking about nihilism."

Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu

Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats

I must also reject the view that Christianity can best be understood as grounded in an acknowledgement of the meaninglessness of human existence. One could make an interesting case that it is grounded in tragedy: from the early pages of Genesis, there is palpable longing to be free of everything that destroys human life--murder, greed, injustice, oppression, despair, exploitation, selfishness, death, tears. Besides tragedy, however, as Frederich Buechner and Northrop Frye and others have pointed out, there is also comedy: the promise of better things to come, the promise of redemption. It is, as a previous writer on this thread has pointed out, laughably absurd--impossible to believe, too good and too contrary to all we know about human existence to be true.

Finally, there is--what?--romance/fairy tale: the Transformation of human beings and of creation itself by God, most dramatically symbolized in Christ's resurrection. Again, drawing on Buechner, the ugly frog really *is* transformed by a kiss into a handsome prince; human beings really are made new.

In Christianity, meaning fills the universe--in Hopkin's phrase, "the world is charged with the grandeur of God." But that meaning belongs to God, and is often inaccessible to human beings--even Moses, Job, David, the prophets and the disciples are frequently in the dark as to what is going on. So: Christianity is a story that absolutely denies meaninglessness, even while it acknowledges that the experience of meaninglessness is a part of the tragedy of the human condition. The theological notion of "fallenness" is the rubric under which the problem of meaninglessness is considered.

In existentialism, as I understand it, meaninglessness can be rendered meaningful by human action--by telling and believing a good story about oneself and the world that makes it meaningful.

In nihilism--again, as far as I understand it, which admittedly isn't very far--such a response to meaninglessness is, well, cowardly. Nihilism acknowledges and even embraces meaninglessness--it does not try to escape from brute fact.

Consequently, Christianity condemns nihilism as intrinsically opposed to its own essential features: a meaningful universe that is best grasped by faith, hope, love.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:38:20 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@msuvx2.memphis.edu>

Jeff Irvin wrote:
>I was thinking mainly of Nietzsche's work, since he seems to represent most
>nihilists. I realize there are others, some who even greatly influenced
>Nietzsche himself.

I was afraid that you had Nietzsche in mind, which raises the question whether or not Nietzsche really qualifies as a nihilist. Actually, if you accept N. at his word--that his philosophy teaches one how to truly live in a world without an ultimate metaphysical ground--I think one is left with something like Sartre's position, which you don't see as nihilistic. What do you see as the primary differences between these two on this issue? Is it Sartre's humanism that prevents him from toppling into the nihilist abyss?

I'd argue that Nietzsche celebrated the creation of new meanings (however contingent) rather than slavishly adhering to "the old tables," which leads back to my point about the difference between cosmic and social meaning. While there are many who contend that there is no ultimate meaning to life, I think one would be hard pressed to find many who consistently reject *all* meaning. Even the most apparently "nihilistic" of avant-garde artists still worship at the altar of "pure" art to some extent or another, which places them squarely within a meaningful community or belief-system. It's amazing how easily one can find one's own meaning in "meaninglessness."

Chris Forth

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:01:00 -500
From: Richard Swerdlin <Swerdlin@COEFS.COE.unt.edu>

Interestingly, sometimes people get irritated if any "ultimate" questions are posed. Apparently the "everyday" world is easier to handle.

Richard Swerdlin
(swerdlin@coefs.coe.unt.edu)
Univ. of North Texas
Denton, TX 76208

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 21:00:30 -0500
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>

One place to look for considerations of the role of religion is Nietzsche (esp. _Twilight of the Idols_). At the same time, I would strongly suggest that you not look at Nietzsche if you are seeking a spokesperson for nihilism. Philosophizing with a hammer may seem nihilistic, but no more than is Camus (was Camus) in _The Rebel_. Implicit in many instances, although some might argue that he is sufficiently explicit, N. does present a very positive approach to a "new" world, and the path for what in various ages has been referred to as _the new man [person--albeit not for N.]_. A "philosophy for everyone and no-one" is hardly nihilkistic (- the "k").

Allan C. Mayberry Greenberg
Curry College
Milton MA 02186

amayberg@curry.edu

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:59:33 -0600 (CST) From: Annemarie Helen Sammartino <ari@owlnet.rice.edu>

February 21st, Kenneth Pimple wrote:
>
> In many circumstances many people can do quite well without any sense
> of *ultimate* meaning. For some people, like mystics, a sense of
> ultimate meaning is more important than -- perhaps even overlays --
> a sense of everyday meaning. In some situations, like after the death
> of a loved one or a time of widely-shared crisis (a war, a flood, a
> famine), more people are more likely to seek for a sense of ultimate
> meaning.
>

I would argue that it is not only in mystic's lives that a sense of "ultimate" meaning overlays everyday meaning. In fact, I would argue such a distinction between the ultimate and the everyday is unfruitful. Really it depends on how you are defining ultimate. If only strictly religious (or mystic) thought is considered to be ultimate than I believe that you are correct, the vast majority of people go through their lives without consulting the oracle on a daily basis. On the other hand, if we accept some sort of Nietzschean definition of truth as belief, than every assertion of validity would at some level access a sort of ultimate (i.e. metaphysical) belief system. I think what we have to distinguish between is a conscious search for meaning and an unconscious one. I think that is where the real distinction lies; a mystic or a person in crisis will look consciously for meaning in their lives, and this may not be the case for someone going through their everyday life. However, to frame this in terms of ultimate vs. everyday seems somewhat misleading.

Ari Sammartino
Rice University
ari@owlnet.rice.edu

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:02:05 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU>

Ari Sammartino wrote:
>I would argue that it is not only in mystic's lives that a sense of
>"ultimate" meaning overlays everyday meaning. In fact, I would argue
>such a distinction between the ultimate and the everyday is unfruitful.
>Really it depends on how you are defining ultimate. If only strictly
>religious (or mystic) thought is considered to be ultimate than I
>believe that you are correct, the vast majority of people go through
>their lives without consulting the oracle on a daily basis. On the other
>hand, if we accept some sort of Nietzschean definition of truth as
>belief, than every assertion of validity would at some level access a
>sort of ultimate (i.e. metaphysical) belief system. I think what we have
>to distinguish between is a conscious search for meaning and an
>unconscious one. I think that is where the real distinction lies....

I think this is a good point--indeed, cultural anthropologists and others have shown that a categorical distinction between religious ("ultimate"?) and cultural ("everyday"?) is really untenable. No doubt often "everyday" assertions of validity in the social world are made with all the conviction of a more explicitly metaphysical ("ultimate") belief system. Also, I agree that limiting our pool of conscious searchers for the ultimate to mystics is too narrow--rather, I'd say in that case we have people looking for the *experience* of the ultimate, which is not the primary goal for most believers.

However, the statement that initiated this thread was that humans cannot live without meaning, but the only examples of meanings offered were those of more explicitly spiritual nature--hence the references to Christianity, existentialism, and nihilism. My point is that one could easily include under this rubric other metaphysical ideas like humanism or nationalism, which while often unarticulated or uncritically accepted don't strike me as being "unconscious" per se. They do seem to be further examples of more secular belief systems that provide a meaningful context within which many people exist. While consciousness/unconsciousness might be as problematic as spiritual/ secular, clearly we should expand our category of "meaning" or "ultimate" beyond that initially offered.

In response to the list participant who chuckled at an apparent unwillingness to speak about "ultimate" issues by the simple mention of the "everyday," I did not detect any value judgements being made on either side, and thus don't understand the brief objection that was made.

Chris Forth
Univ. of Memphis
cforth@cc.memphis.edu

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 00:01:15 -0800 (PST) From: Leonard Charles Porrello <lporrell@harp.aix.calpoly.edu>

I wonder if we can draw a distinction between what we perceive as meaning and what meaning there actually might be. In other words, is it coherent to talk about experiencing epistemic meaninglessness (or nihilism) while believing that ontologically there actually is meaning? I want to make the distinction between ontology and epistemology because it seems that metaphysical ontology (from whence meaning is derived, granted it exists) is for most (if not all) grounded in faith. So, although I believe that life is meaningful, I could choose to believe it to be meaningless; neither faith nor despair are univocally warranted by either my experience or noetic speculations (or however you might mix and match the "two").

I am very unsure if what I am getting at makes any sense whatsoever. My brain seems to clunk-out before I can get too far.

Thanks in advance for all of your ideas.

L. Porrello
English Department
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: GTORDJMAN@runt.dawsoncollege.qc.ca

The subject of "nihilism" has come up recently in my class in reference to popular and youth culture as its alleged modern deciminator. In this sense, and in Nietzsche's sense (I think) is it correct to call "nihilism" a "philosophy" at all or is it an anti-philosophy, literally a "belief in nothing" (nihilo)? Obviously, such a definition would not make nihilism at all attractive to Christianity.
Any comments about accuarcy of my definition and relevance to youth culture would be greatly asppreciated.

gtordjman@dawsoncollege.qc.ca

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:25:21 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>

Chris Forth wrote:

Is it Sartre's humanism that prevents him from toppling into the nihilist abyss?

I would say that Sartre did tumble into the nihilist abyss and that it was his humanism which pulled him from this pit(e.g., Nausea). In fact, I would say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which leads us to belief in God."

Chris also raised the question of cosmic as opposed to social meaning. I do believe that this is a viable dichotomy, but I cannot say whether Nietzsche believed in a social order(meaning). It is my impression from his writings that he would be loath to lock himself into such a static model. Afterall, meaning requires a sense of good and evil, and I think Nietzsche rejected this idea completely for himself.

Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu

Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.

--John Keats

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:09:40 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@msuvx2.memphis.edu>

Commenting on the distinction between cosmic and social meaning, Jeff Irvin wrote:
I do believe that this is a viable dichotomy, but I cannot say whether Nietzsche
>believed in a social order(meaning). It is my impression from his writings
>that he would be loath to lock himself into such a static model. Afterall,
>meaning requires a sense of good and evil, and I think Nietzsche rejected
>this idea completely for himself.

I agree that Nietzsche said very little about the social order, except when he disparaged the conformism of living as one among the "herd." Yet I'm not certain that this means he rejected the possibility of "meaning." In fact, repeatedly throughout his writings he calls for the creation of new values to replace those purportedly founded upon absolutes. The Overman is for him not only someone with the guts to live in a world without cosmic meaning, but someone able and wiling to create his own truth. The sense of good and evil which Jeff claims is necessary for meaning is here created by this superior being. Shifting to the *Genealogy of Morals*, one sees that the masters name things/create values based on an affirmation of themselves rather than a ressentiment in the face of one's superiors (as the slaves did). This is not at all "cosmic" meaning here, but it's not quite "social" either, unless you read the caste of masters as a social group.

I admit that we could dance around like this in Nietzsche's writings for some time on this issue, but I think that we will finally have to decide exactly what definition of "nihilism" we are using before we attach such a label to Nietzsche--if for no other reason than to address his own take on the question.

Chris Forth

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 18:31:35 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>

Leonard Porrello writes:

>I wonder if we can draw a distinction between what we perceive as
>meaning and what meaning there actually might be. In other words, is it
>coherent to talk about experiencing epistemic meaninglessness (or
>nihilism) while believing that ontologically there actually is meaning?
>I want to make the distinction between ontology and epistemology because it
>seems that metaphysical ontology (from whence meaning is derived,
>granted it exists) is for most (if not all) grounded in faith. So, although
>I believe that life is meaningful, I could choose to believe it to be
>meaningless; neither faith nor despair are univocally warranted by either my
>experience or noetic speculations (or however you might mix and match the
>"two").
>
Leonard,

I would say that Christianity recognizes meaning because it is ontologically demanded. Yet it sees human existence when laid against eternity as unimportant, and consequently, in my opinion, meaningless while we reside on this earth.

". . .we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." Romans 8:36

"For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us eternal glory that far out outweighs them all(suffering)." 2 Corinthians 4:17

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature. . .." Colossians 3:5

"I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed." John 12:24

What it comes down to is that we all experience times of meaningless because it is part of the existential question. Whether we choose to belive there is meaning, or construct our own, is up to us.

Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu

Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.

--John Keats

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 23:53:36 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>

On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 GTORDJMAN@runt.dawsoncollege.qc.ca wrote: >
>The subject of "nihilism" has come up recently in my class in reference to
>popular and youth culture as its alleged modern deciminator. In this sense, and
>in Nietzsche's sense (I think) is it correct to call "nihilism" a "philosophy"
>at all or is it an anti-philosophy, literally a "belief in nothing" (nihilo)?
>Obviously, such a definition would not make nihilism at all attractive to
>Christianity.
>Any comments about accuarcy of my definition and relevance to youth culture
>would be greatly asppreciated.
>

It seems to me that Christians would be attracted to Nihilism because it ultimately shows life on this earth to be of little value outside of a relationship to God. Nihilism is encompassed, so Christians would say, by a larger order and meaning in the universe--God. It is Nihilism which is the starting point for any true philosophical journey. Some do not go beyond Nihilism. Their journey ends when they decide to accept contingency. Others flee the abyss, running to the arms of humanism, Christianity, or any other belief system which will assure them that life is not contingent, and thus meaningless.

Even an anti-philosophy is a philosophy, just as anti-matter is still matter.

Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu

Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.

--John Keats

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:37:16 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>

On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:

> In fact, I would
> say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
> existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
> the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
> have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
> meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
> leads us to belief in God.">
>

Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is the "true" experience.

Jim Good
Rice University

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:53:45 -0500
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>

It is clear, and very understandable, that there are a variety of interpretations of Nietzsche, as is the case with so many other critical "intellectuals." I know that I have a particular view of him and his writings, and have a sense of what I have taken from his writings and what I have done with that. What I note is the lack of any references which go beyond general assertions, leaving therefore little basis for determining what new direction--if any-- we/I might consider moving in. So, let me note the following: I believe that the most important, or one of the most important things that N. has to say is to be critical, to reject "idols," to take risks, and to define one's own being. From _Die froehliche Wissenschaft_: "It is enough to love, to hate, to desire, to just experience--immediately we are gripped by the spirit and the power of the dream, and we ascend the most hazardous paths with open eyes and indifferent to all perils,high up to the roofs and towers of fantasy, without any dizziness, as if born to climb--we night-walkers of the day! We artists! We concealers of genuineness! We moonstruck and godstruck ones! We dead silent, indefatigable wanderers on heights that we do not perceive as heights, but as our plains, as our places of safety!" (second book in Werke, ed. K. Schlechta [Munich, 1954-56], II, 79)
And from _Beyond Good and Evil_: speaking of philosophers and friends of knowledge, that hey need not defend the "truth," "as though 'the truth' were such an innocuous and incompetent creature as to require protectors!....you know well enough that it cannot be of any consequence if you of all people are proved right, and that there might be a more laudable truthfulness in every little question mark that you place after your special words and favorite doctrines (and occasionally after yourselves) than in all the solemn gestures and trumps before accusers and law courts." In this particular edition, a footnote refers us to a N. footnote: "A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!!!" N. continues to note: beware "of the stupidity of moral indignation, which is the unfailing sign in a philosopher that his philosophical sense of humor has left him." (#25) Also from BGE, #260: "The noble human being...has power over himself,... knows how to speak and be silent,...delights in being severe and hard with himself and respects all severity and hardness."

Had I _Twilight of the Idols_ by my side, I would move to that short work now. But I hope my point becomes clearer.

Allan C. Mayberry Greenberg
Curry College
Milton MA 02186

amayberg@curry.edu

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:55:06 -0500
From: Steve Kreis <stevek@gate.net>

>On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
>
>> In fact, I would
>> say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
>> existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
>> the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
>> have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
>> meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
>> leads us to belief in God.">
>>
To which Jim Good responded:
>Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
>order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
>overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
>the "true" experience.

Well, my understanding of Kierkegaard is that despair is necessary and we must all experience it in order to become a true Christain (whatever that is). I remember how I felt after having read Kierkegaard's account of Abraham in "Fear and Trembling"---must man relive Abraham's dilemma on a daily basis? According to Kierkegaard, yes. Did Kierkegaard overstate his case? Well, I suppose that all depends on what a true Christian mighjt be. I haven't a clue but Kierkegaard thought he did and of course, he assumed his experience, was the "true" experience.

Dr. Steven Kreis                               Department of History
stevek@gate.net                          Florida Atlantic University

"I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there."

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:45:49 -0600
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>

Jim Good wrote:
>Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
>order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
>overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
>the "true" experience.

Isn't Kierkegaard a Scandinavian - in whom profound despair and clinical depression are endemic?

Will
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:45 -0600
From: Robin Kornman <rkornman@csd.uwm.edu>

You know, as a Buddhist, I always thought Kierkegaard's idea that one must give up hope first was extremely logical. That's rather the way our more philosophical meditators progress. There are some pretty definite and explainable reasons why a sense of hope is an obstacle to making utterly sound commitments.

Go to top of this page	View messages from March	View messages from April
Return to Discussion Thread Page	Return to H-Ideas Homepage