Is Your Personal Philosophy Similar to Ligotti's?

[enthusiast]

Do you share Ligotti's pessimism? As for me, as much as I'm fascinated with Ligotti's fiction, my personal philosophy occupies a middle ground between pessimism and optimism. In spite of the tremendous amount of suffering and misery throughout human history, I believe (or want to believe) in the inherent goodness of most people and a hope for a brighter future for humankind, aided by advances in science and technology. I like to think that Walt Whitman's enthusiasm and celebration of nature and human life can co-exist with an acknowledgement of the world's bleaker realities.

[Nemonymous]

From my own point of view (as far as I can assess it), I do not really know my own philosophy of life, let alone TL's, so as to be able to compare them.

I can only *know* the published fiction of both. I include ostensible public pronouncements within this observed 'fiction'. Including this message.

des

[Dr. Zirk]

I'm a middle-grounder myself. Ligotti's pessimism is persuasive and compelling, but then again so is a view of snow on distant mountains on a sunny winter's day (not to mention puffy clouds and puppy dogs).

So I'd say that my personal philosophy is similar to Ligotti's, but acknowledges that pessimism simply doesn't answer the entire question. So I have to include elements of optimism as well. I think the movie I Heart Huckabees (brilliant!) captures my personal philosophy best - life is indeed "cruelty, manipulation, and meaninglessness." But then again, not all human connections are based exclusively on sorrow and pain, and anyone who has really experienced any manifestation of love knows that the species is not a total write-off.

[simon p. murphy]

I've been a moral/ethical nihilist since the end of my first year studying Philosophy. I'm not sure why TL is reluctant to call himself a nihilist - the term is only self-defeating if accepted as a global view, ie that 'everything is meaningless' - which is a clear example of the Liar Paradox - and to crudely paraphrase Ligotti, nobody is that retarded.

But I adhere to a much less extravagant nihilism that simply holds that there is no moral/ethical objectivity - 'common sense' realism concerning logic, external minds and objects is fine. By objectivity, I mean that moral values are neither divinely ordained, or universal in orientation. I believe that what moral sentiments that we humans (and possibly some other gregarious animals) do have are the contingent result of evolution by natural selection. Human psychology (at least, the heritable part of it) evolved as a result of differential survival and reproduction, 'ultimately' (Ernst Mayr's usage) to to track our biological interests. This is extended to morality in highly social animals in order to direct our in-group behaviour.

The emphasis here is contingency - as the somewhat muddled but brilliant biologist E.O. Wilson rightly said, we could have evolved like the termites, among whom eating dung is a biological necessity, in which case the practice would be revered among us. But we evolved the way we are contingently - it could have just as easily been otherwise. Morality rests ultimately (not proximately) on biology, which is itself a HUGE cosmic accident.

These views are based on the strength of current evidence in psychology and evolutionary biology. I'm prepared to defend them with arguments, but I also accept that I am often wrong or misinformed.

Otherwise, I don't believe in free-will (check out Benjamin Libet's experiments), and I sympathise strongly with most existentialist philosophers.

So that's my semi-Ligottian take on things.

Yours in Kali,

-D.

[simon p. murphy]

Oh, and I forgot to add this:

Despite the apparent grimness of my views, I love life. I've been a nervous wreck since I was a child, and had some pretty damn bad experiences, but I'm happy; I'm married and I have two children who I'd die for. Just because I don't believe in a grand design (or at least, in its relevance) doesn't mean I can't value friendship, love and sincerity.

- D.

[ventriloquist]

I will also say, "I do not really know my own philosophy of life." There are countless versions of me, long-dead yet still living, that had names for what they thought and for what they thought they were, but their beliefs are even deader than they are (and still floating out there, just the same.) Some of them are even writing this message, and keep in mind that one ought never to trust a dead man.

Dollglove: your point of view confuses me, I must admit. First of all, to say something like, "there is no moral/ethical objectivity," strikes me as an assertion of a "global view." And how does a nihilist manage to base his beliefs on psychology and biology? Since the rejection of one belief (Belief A) is, inevitably, to pose another (Belief B,) it makes no sense to me why one should define oneself in terms of opposition to Belief A, rather than support of Belief B. That is, if one is interested in defining oneself at all (see above.)

[simon p. murphy]

good points, ventriloquist.

What I mean by 'global nihilism' is a robust version of nihilism, which so far as I know, is the traditional meaning of the term, and can be vaguely defined as 'nothing is true' or 'everything is false'. In epistemology this is known as Irrealism, or non-realism. Such a view asserts itself over ontology (existence, being reality), metaphysics, logic - you name it. Of course, as I said above, the view is pragmatically self-defeating.

The reason a moral nihilist such as myself can still operate intellectually within biology and psychology, for example, is because the only truths I hold particularly in doubt are moral ones. Moreover, it is objectivity of these values I question, rather than their relevance to various aspects os society. A moral nihilist needn't either remove himself from moral discourse - in fact, I think it would be ridiculous; it isn't that moral principles (culturally developed) and moral sentiments (mostly biological, I would argue) aren't present in society, because they obviously are - just that they lack the kind of philosophical justification that would give them the status of facts in the same way that 'Australia is bigger than New Zealand' is a fact.

A moral proposition such as 'to kill human is always and everywhere wrong' or 'it is wrong to torture cats' is a different kettle of meat. You can demonstrate that torture is painful, and you can even demonstrate that cats feel pain, perhaps through some kind of brain scan; but as Hume noted, the 'wrongness' as a fact is elusive. In fact, the 'wrongness' isn't even necessary for someone to experience moral disapprobation upon witnessing an act of cat-torture. We can explain the etiology of their reaction (more simply, I hasten to add) with reference to their culture, their upbringing and their personal psychology. A moral fact plays no obvious causal role in such an event, so why postulate it as a cause?

Hence my moral skepticism.

Sorry for the lengthy rant, but I hope this does something to clarify my position.

[Nemonymous]

I think my post is the only nihilistic position it is possible to take if one considers oneself to be a nihilist.

I formed Zeroism in 1967 and Nemonymity in 2000. But I am pessimisitic about these concepts ... and about negative reactions to my posts on this thread.

Pessimism for me is to be positive and optimisitic - logically - that it (my pessimism) will self-fulfil and make a neat synergy or pattern with my life and my death. A pure art form with inner logic as well as outer illogic to disguise it.

I am interested by the posts above. But we can only infer TL's 'pessimism'. I often find myself to be in tune with his fiction and interviews. I don't know TL to talk to or to email to, so that is all I have got to go on. That discontact is neat and synergistic with Nemonymity.

Through all this, I find myself a person of this world with a career (now retired) and a family. The outer illogic?

[unknown]

I'm not entirely sure what my philosophical stance on life is. I remember reading the works of existentialists back in high school and feeling a really good connection with them.

The only two maxims for life that I've come up with that I think sum up my views on life are:
Life is too important to be taken seriously
and
I try to live the happiest, most ethical life I can.

[ventriloquist]

Hi, Dollglove, and thanks for the reply.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I suppose my question is more of a semantic one, i.e., why "moral nihilist," instead of "moral relativist," "moral skeptic," or some other designation? I'm wary of the baggage that comes with this particular n-word, and it strikes me that it is often used in places where another, positively descriptive term might be used instead.

On a side note, I tend to reject all forms of objectivity, so I am no less skeptical of scientific demonstrations and explanations of phenomena than I am of moral absolutes. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.