camus on nihilism

Albert Camus (1913–60)

Nihilism is not only despair and negation, but above all the desire to despair and to negate.

Maybe. Maybe not.

A point of view always seems to lie inextricably embedded in the murky middle somewhere between a particular philosophy of life and whatever particular circumstantial convulsions you happen to be caught up in at the time.

In other words, you can have a brutally cynical and pessimistic philosophy of life yet be deeply enscounced in a comfortable, satisfying lifestyle. You may be loved and valued and respected. You may be fullfilled sexually, in perfect health and embarked on a career you find stimulating and rewarding. And as long as you are immersed successfully “out in the world” it is easy enough to distract yourself from philosophical qualms.

Or, instead, you can have a generally optimistic, cheery philosophy of life and then suddenly fall into a circumstantial abyss from which you cannot seem to escape. As your existential worries and woes accumulate day after day you may begin to notice how little your uplifting and benevolent philosophy is contributing to resolving the crisis. Or even comforting you.

Most of us, of course, flipflop back and forth between the two. Sometimes we are able to concentrate on philosophical questions and other times they are the farthest thing from our minds.

For example, how many people in the path of those tsunami waves in South Asia were able to take comfort in a benevolent philosophy of life? Some, perhaps. Especially those able to anchor their’s to God or some sort of religous salvation. But most were preoccupied with other things. Like coping with enormous grief and desolate feelings of loss.

I believe it is important for the philosophically minded to occasionally ask themslees, “how would my philosophy fare if it was me in the path of the tsunami?”

When push comes to shove, feelings of despair and negation sometimes make perfect sense. And for each individual, immersed in his or her own set of existential variables, it will always be something they have to work out for themselves. It is foolish to suppose you can really understand why others react as they do to life’s trials and tribulations.

And it can be especiallly foolish to suppose you really understand why you react as you do to your own.

Do you mean to say “are understandable”? Because I can’t see how feelings of despair “make perfect sense”.

what doesn’t make sense about it?

It doesn’t serve a purpose that I can think of. But maybe I’m missing something…

Yeah, I think an argument could be made that where there is desire, nihilism is virtually confusticated. :sunglasses:

The way I initially interpreted this statement is to say we essentially feel as if reality warrants, or ‘calls for’, despair and negation. Every person has his limits, so perhaps overwhelming sentiments of despair (provoking skepticism) can convince the subject that reality is despair and only deserves negation.

In my opinion, I think such an overall negation to be more a statement of lost faith or trust. That sort of ‘in your face’ nihilism, where one accepts despair and negation as a way of life, seems to me like a cry for help, purpose, or reason – or, as one of our esteemed colleagues on this forum might say, ‘emo claptrap.’

I meant that given a hole deep enough it can seem perfectly reasonable to feel despair.

So to feel despairing is in a sense to ask for help? Ah, then it does make more sense than I first thought. I like that.

I suppose it’s only attachment to despair, then, that makes no sense? What do you think? Or have I misunderstood you?

But “negation” can be linked to a particular circumstantial landslide that overwhelms someone. Their despair flows from an existential context they feel powerless to overcome. And indeed it may well be beyond overcoming. And their optimistic philosophy succumbs as well.

It has nothing to do with faith or trust, in my view.

And it is possible for someone to feel “thrown” into an essentially absurd and meaningless world [as I do] and be able to distract him or herself from the despair this can, at times, precipitate, by pursuing things like love, family, career, sports, the arts etc.

It is all rooted in dasein—in an individual’s “sense of self”.

It seems individuals almost always let their sense of self and the world they live in (‘dasein’) overwhelm their philosophy. For example one could accept ideas of atheism, nihilism and the like but although it will be a very poignant occasion for them they are still going to be more concerned with dasein; the welfare of their family, career, love, anything like that which when you accept nihilism becomes arbitrary. So back to the original point, I think it’s perfectly normal to have feelings of despair regardless of your philosophical views.

It seems nobody really lives directly in adherence to their philosophy because it suits their life better. Socrates is the only one I can think of who seemed to only live by his word. And he may not have even existed.

You have to remember that philosophy is not something most are able to pursue as a discipline. For instance, there are over 3,000,000,000 men, women and children around the globe that literally live on less than $2 a day. They are preoccupied mainly with survival. They leave all the stuff we talk about to God.

Yes, despair is an equal opportuinty emotional reaction. It can afflict anyone from a Platonist to a Nietzschean. But those who not have a philosophy that includes God can be especially afflicted because their suffering is viewed as essentially meaningless. And there is no Salvation to take its place.

I think philosophy will only make a comeback when it abandons scholastic, academic analysis and embraces a more existential agenda instead.

Agreed.

I think you got me. To despair, especially overtly, is an expression of grief or pain. For an introvert, I would expect the “cry” to be directed inward, as if to say “learn more, understand more, and perhaps you’ll find purpose.” An extrovert, on the other hand, is more likely to seek answers from others by making his despair that much more obvious (prompting recognition).

I realize these assertions may seem presumptuous, but they are not unfounded. I’ve personally experienced despair to such a degree, and for such a duration, that I resorted to both methods --those are my conclusions.

You restated almost exactly what I said. That feeling of powerlessness is a loss of faith, of ‘hope.’ A person can be pushed to a point wherein reality becomes torment – this is where negation may be a source of comfort.

Sure, but in direct relation to ‘reality’ as the respective ‘self’ perceives it.

iambiguous wrote:

It is all rooted in dasein—in an individual’s “sense of self”.

Yes, “reality” is as it is percevived [and then concieved] by each individual dasein. But there are some parts of this alleged reality that can be confirmed as in fact true, and other parts that can only be subjective points of view.

why does something have to serve a purpose to make sense?

Thought in its very nature is short-lived. So every time a thought is born, the dasein is born. But there’s been added to that the constant demand to experience the same things over and over again, thus giving a false continuity to thought. To experience anything knowledge is needed. Knowledge is the entire heritage of man’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences, handed on from generation to generation.

Just as we all breathe from a common fund of air, we appropriate and use thoughts from the surrounding thought-sphere to function in this world. That’s all there is to it. Man’s insistence that thought must be continuous denies the nature of thought, which is short-lived. Thought has created for itself a separate destiny. It has been very successful in creating for itself a separate parallel existence. By positing the unknown, the Beyond, the immortal, it has created for itself a way to continue on. There is no timeless, only time. When thought creates time, a space is created there; so thought is also space as well. Thought also creates matter; no thought, no matter.

Thought is a manifestation or expression of life, and to make of it a separate thing, impute to it a life of its own, and then allow it to create a future for its own unobstructed continuity, is man’s tragedy.

If it “makes sense” to do something, it’s because that something serves some function - it can be put into a larger context and valued for its relationship to that larger context. No? Otherwise, all that’s being said is that it’s understandable - i.e. nothing to be ashamed of or to be fought against.

i guess we just have different definitions of “making sense.” pretty much all that’s required to make sense according to my definition is that it’s logically consistent.

So “makes sense” means “is understandable”? That’s what I originally asked. Ok.

i didn’t notice that you asked anything