What is nihilism? It is a concept in modern Western philosophy.
But in my opinion, it is not just a product of a bookstore. Rather, it is a real thing, hidden in the hearts of all modern people, a terrible heart disease. This tumor is slowly growing, and the symptoms have gradually appeared.
The uneasiness that looms in the midst of a carnival of indulgence, the restlessness that modern people enjoy the greatest wealth ever recorded but increasingly anxious—these are only the primary symptoms of nihilism—a rootless life, a loss of security.
What will happen next is unimaginable and dare not be imagined.
As the mood of the times, nihilism manifests itself in three main forms (not the only one, but the three most common): historical nihilism, social nihilism, and existential nihilism.
Historical nihilism undermines the fundamental hope for the future, social nihilism undermines the fundamental hope for communicative rationality, and existential nihilism undermines the fundamental hope for individual life.
First, we will introduce historical nihilism.
Does history have an inevitable purpose? Or is the direction of historical development the only one?
There are two answers, one yes and one no.
If the answer is yes.
Is it possible to recognize this direction and the decisive factors behind it?
If you can't know, then why do you say that there is this "only definite direction"?
If there really is a definite direction and is already known to us, what is the significance of all the efforts and sacrifices that human beings have made so far?
I mean, if the script of history has long been written and the direction of history has been determined, where is the freedom of mankind? The so-called "immeasurable head and immeasurable blood" is nothing more than a pawn in the invisible hand, and all the so-called creations, revolutions, and earth-shaking things are nothing more than the orderly implementation of the laws of history.
Rather than that, I would rather that humanity never know this so-called historical direction, thinking that freedom leaves ground.
If the answer is no, as I wish, the direction of history is not unique, and everything is determined by human beings themselves.
If history is stripped of objectivity, how much more can the laws of history leave? If the objective laws of history fail, can history still be recognized? Does this mean that we are not living in a clear chain of cause and effect, that the seemingly inevitable future is nothing more than ideological false promises – a hoax? Like the carrot hanging in front of the mule's eyes, its function is not to guide, but to stimulate, to stimulate this stupid beast to keep going forward, but it does not know that "ahead" is not a direction, because no matter which direction it goes, the carrot is "ahead".
If the direction of history is not unique and uncertain, then in which direction should we strive? Which goal is legitimate, worth pursuing, or even sacrificing? How do we judge social events? Who should we support and oppose? Who are the sinners of history and who are the heroes of history? After all, there are so many crooked sins in the world, and so many good things that backfire.
So, is there a definite direction for history? The answer given by historical nihilism is that "don't care"—is a gesture, not an answer. In the eyes of historical nihilists, "history" is a pseudo-concept, a forbidden area. In the past, great philosophers sought to break through the limitations of their own times and see through the essence of history; but now "living in the present" is "sober on earth." They don't have enough energy to endure even a little more truth, these fragile and flirtatious modern people.
A man who cares about history is a child who will never grow up. In their eyes, deep history becomes a fictional, clueless story, and time loses its meaning.
If history is hard to look back on and the future is not to be expected, is reality worth loving?
Social nihilism internally contradicts the rationality of the real society.
They do not believe that individuals can form a whole without fighting, and "society" is also a pseudo-concept in their view, never a steady-state structure.
There are too many dark sides in human nature, and the reason why we believe that selfish individuals can form a society is because of the belief in justice and goodness in our hearts, that is, we believe that everyone comes with a yearning for justice and goodness.
Justice is the highest value of politics, goodness is the highest value of morality, and politics and morality stipulate the minimum and maximum order of society, respectively. Social nihilism holds that these two supreme values are nothing more than wishful thinking and are not real. Once this is the case, all possibilities for the establishment of society will lose their place.
Modern politicians are no longer as arrogant as they once were to design an ideal state of absolute justice for humanity, but they still have the mission of being infinitely close to justice – not as a goal, but as a direction.
But for the nihilists, since history is a giant headless fly. Then the so-called justice is nothing more than a pseudo-concept without any clear connotation and pointing - the future is the past and the present judge, if even the judge himself loses legitimacy, then the judgment on justice or injustice will of course become weightless empty talk.
If justice cannot be expected, what about goodness?
What is kindness? Philosophers argue about this. But stripped of those specific contents, we can see the most basic characteristics of goodness: de-utilitarianism, and only non-utilitarian goodness is the most fundamental and stable goodness.
But human reason is goal-oriented thinking, and the heart and mind are driven by goals, how can we get rid of utilitarianism or goal-oriented thinking and choice? Even the golden rule of ethics, "Do not do to others what you do not want", behind it is the selfish intention of "not wanting others to treat you like this". Some people may be able to hold the selfless heart of the Grand Duke for a moment, but who can accompany this heart for life? I don't think anyone has ever seen it.
Those morals that seem noble are nothing more than a cover-up of hypocrisy, a lie of "being strict with others and being lenient with oneself."
Since justice and goodness are falsehoods, all institutions and morals are nothing more than self-deceptive lies, and society becomes a monster that cannot be understood and trusted.
Historical nihilism and social nihilism eventually accumulate in the individual and give rise to existential nihilism.
In addition to the above two nihilisms, there is another cause of nihilism.
It is death, and death is a deconstruction and mockery of the meaning of all life.
No matter how many things you did before you died, how many good things and how many bad things you did, no matter what your intentions were, they were ultimately written off by death. The ancients often said that the three immortals, morality, meritorious service, and speech, in fact, how can these be immortal? Even if some people are "famous in history", but from the perspective of large-scale time, human history is just a fleeting meteor, and when the sun collapses and the universe is cold, where are human beings? Who remembers whom?
"Life is meaningful", in the eyes of nihilists, this is just a mutual comfort for some cowardly people who do not have the courage to face the truth of dead and silent life. The so-called meaning of life is not a direction, but a weight, so that people feel that they are not insignificant accidents, that the journey of life and the external world to which they are engaged are inevitable, and that they are in a whole with the external, present and future - such a life is understandable and has "importance".
The most feared thing about this species is not to bear, but to lose.
We made a simple analysis of nihilism, and then we made a synthesis: What is nihilism? What are its essential characteristics?
Nihilism, to put it bluntly, is "disbelief," which is not doubt, but negation, a fundamental, universal negation, a loss of the highest value and ultimate meaning.
Modern people are more or less nihilistic.
The nihilistic pathology is not a series of deep philosophical thoughts, but a hazy, inexplicable emotion and a practical attitude. As an emotion, it reveals the most is not "nothing" and "not caring", but a sense of anxiety with unusually clear purpose and utilitarianism. Modern people are relentless and determined to obtain any resource, and they never reflect on whether they really need these things, because they have lost the ability to reflect—because they have lost the standards of large-scale consideration, and those standards have been unconsciously eroded by nihilism—modern people are the faceless men in Spirited Away who completely surrendered himself to desire.
Nihilism does not believe, the result of not believing is insecurity, when a person loses his sense of security, he will fall into panic, and what if all people lose their sense of security (of course, provided that the sense of security is not destroyed by external threats, but by the fallacy of inner reason)? At this time, society presented not a collective panic, but a collective carnival - admittedly, I am a rootless person, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that everyone was like this, and I felt a little comfort in my heart, although nothingness was still coiled on the head, but I was not the only victim; but conversely, although I was not the only victim, but the nothingness was still hovering in the head - like the powerless man greeting the end of the earth, a kind of uneasy and relentless carnival began - we call it "entertainment".
After learning of the nihilism disease, the first question we ask cannot be "How should we oppose nihilism?" Rather, "Should we oppose nihilism?" Or"What are we going to do against nihilism?" ”。
The reason we oppose an idea should never be that it is harmful, but that it is wrong.
The problem is that there is nothing wrong with nihilism.
Looking back at the above three nihilisms, you will find that they are not a general and vague world-weariness, but a rational conclusion after careful consideration.
Reason has a strong capacity for introspection, it will repeatedly examine the system of knowledge and beliefs constructed by itself, and all the ideas in it must be unmistakable and must withstand repeated scrutiny. But when it is pushed to its extreme, it will find that all its knowledge of history, society, and life, and the consequent conceit, is based on an ambiguous, hasty foundation. By convention, unproven ideas must be shelved or even temporarily rejected.
The tricky thing about nihilism is precisely that it is rational, not irrational. How can reason argue against a notion that "makes sense"?
How do you fight back against nihilism? (The word "critical" can no longer be used, because it is a rational action, and reason must not stop here.)
The fundamental position against nihilism is that history, society and life are not an object of contemplation, but an object of creation.
Our confidence in these three comes not from rational screening, but from our own participation and experience. Nihilism as a rational conclusion is not wrong, but it is like Kant's "two-law reversal", which reveals the error of rationality's transgression rather than a problem for reason.
Modern people often pride themselves on "rationality", claiming to use reason to re-regulate everything and calibrate everything. But they overlook areas where reason should not be involved, such as the realm of meaning and value.
It is precisely because reason has tried to command a set of meanings for the world in its own power that it will sound such a harsh alarm as nihilism.
In the traditional world, nihilism only occasionally emerges in the minds of those who are desperate in the real world, because at that time reason was not a natural quality. History is immersed in the myth of reincarnation of cause and effect, realpolitik is also embedded in the myth of the divine right of kings, and even life is the home of religious myths.
But in modern society, history, rationally analyzed and planned, must be progressive; a rationally designed society must be just; and a rationally examined life must be meaningful. But what is "progress"? What is "justice"? What is "meaning"? For these basic questions, reason has been gently crossed, and it has become the birthplace of nihilism. When the tide of rational optimism receded and the fundamentals of modern society were re-examined, it was found that the original seizure of power by reason was too easy.
Nihilism is not an urgent problem to be solved, it is not even the problem itself, it is only a sign.
Just as reason cannot be the guide to all actions, so neither can nihilism be the guide to all actions. If the fall of a person or a society is blamed on a trend of thought, then this fall can never be forgiven and saved.