Why Nihilism Fails.
When Hume demonstrated an argument challenging the existence (or our ability to demonstrate the existence) of causality, he explicitly stated that philosophy should not be taken outside its realm. He had a good point; if anyone had been convinced by his argument and lived his/her life as though cause didn’t exist, they would be in terrible danger. While his wisdom may or may not be entirely true, there is certainly one thing that he points out: the gap between theory and practice. The same issue exists in math (where the hell will you find transcendental and imaginary numbers in the world?) and other sciences (curved space-time and the existence of semantic memory are beyond our senses and current technology). Yet, the gaping distance is little perceived if only because of how pragmatic these disciplines have demonstrated themselves to be (ie. they have placed a reliable predictability in the world, albeit incomplete). There is possibly something in the world that gives meaning to these disciplines.
Nihilism is all about dealing with the nonexistence of all type of meaning. It is absolutely an interesting and even eye-opening subject to study. However, next to “I don’t know,” “it doesn’t exist” is the easiest answer anyone can give to a problem. (Add “It’s bullshit” to the end of every answer to sound like a pretentious existentialist).
What is morality?
Morality doesn’t exist.
How can we define happiness or any other type of “emotion?”
Emotions don’t exist.
What does it mean to be human?
“To be human” doesn’t exist.
How do we know if something exists?
“Existence” doesn’t exist.
See? I don’t mean to put down existentialism; it is certainly a subject that has helped advance philosophy and our understanding of the world. What I am is criticizing is taking nihilism as an actual standpoint.
As the examples above demonstrate, to simply say “it doesn’t exist” leads to a dead end very fast. While everything can be explained away, it yields nothing in return. Really, it’s as though someone constructed an elaborate function that merely spit out zero no matter what the input was. Nihilism’s usefulness lies only in it’s use as a critical tool, that is, it can question propositions and assumptions about knowledge. This is why I don’t entirely disagree with nihilism.
Nihilism came about as a response to the growing anxiety that these questions inflicted. When we are faced with a question we have no answer to, we either attempt to answer it or concede to not knowing. Nihilism is a way of saying that, since the answer hasn’t been found, there must not be one. In this way, it helped remove the anxiety of not knowing. But it also made us fucking lazy.
This is why I brought up Hume’s former wisdom: adopting an idea that may be incompatible with the world is dangerous. To continue to doubt the existence of all meaning in life leads to a counterproductive bout. Nihilism can only destroy, and we cannot get anywhere unless we build. The more dangerous consequence of adopting nihilism is the destruction of reason.
Case in point: Fyodor Dostoevsky. In “Crime and Punishment,” the main character’s nihilistic turmoil was solved by adopting Christianity (symbolized by the cross that Sonya, the Mary Magdalene figure, hands him). When reason has seemed to fail to produce an answer, which is the inevitable conclusion of nihilism, it becomes easier to adopt really anything that can give us answers. In Dostoevsky’s case, Russia had lost it’s faith in Christianity (due to political corruption), so it adopted a nihilistic culture. In response, Dostoevsky offers Christianity again, only in a prettier package. There is really no other way to get out of nihilism other than the “leap of faith” that Kierkegaard prescribed from his philosophy. Essentially, letting go of reason is a consequence if one is to attempt to escape out of nihilism. If anything, any philosophical standpoint should offer reason as it’s rationale for existence (even if it may not be correct).
If the lack of reason and extreme deconstructionism weren’t enough failures from nihilism, there is an even larger failure of nihilism: it fails to teach us how to live with uncertainty. See, the only way to be able to answer anything uncertain, or even live with an uncertainty, is to be okay with not knowing. Ultimately, the lack of knowledge should be overcome (theoretically). This is why nihilism can never be constructive, because “not knowing” becomes a reason rather than an inspiration. Had nihilism been able to satisfactorily answer this failure, it would have been taken with the moderation it’s creators meant for it, not the mess that arose throughout many cultures.
So, you don’t know? Live with it (or fix that).
