The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Dawnstorm]

So how about Auschwitz? Is that simply 'good' or 'bad' depending on the context? Good for Nazis, bad for Jews and homosexuals, with nary a reason to arbitrate between them? (Imagine the conservation: "Auschwitz bad? Well it all depends on one's point of view, now, doesn't it?") Or if value is something 'we assign,' why shouldn't we simply value things like life and liberty only when they serve our self-interests (as is the case with American foreign policy)? I mean, on your account, there's nothing inherently wrong with boiling children in vegetable oil; we just happen to generally take such things as wrong - I suppose because we've been arbitrarily socialized to do so. Once you realize this arbitrariness, what's to stop you, aside from the threat of force, from taking things any old way? And if arbitrary force is the deciding factor, doesn't this mean it all comes down to power, and that what we're really doing when we assign value is what we're told - which is to say that value is simply an societal control mechanism (as Ted Bundy persuasively argues)?

Sounds pretty cold to me, Grantaire! It's one reason why I abandoned contextualism some time ago: it just seems to collapse into nihilism.

I'm from Austria. "Nazi's are evil" and related slogans are what I was fed on from childhood onwards. Along with black and white pictures of piled up naked corpses and hitler speech. Some I know respond with an ardent anti-Nazi attitude that jumps at key words rather than content. Some appropriate the symbols (swasticas and such) and translate them into their own frustrations. They get labeled Neo-Nazi's, which some are but most aren't. And then there are a some, like me, who just internalised these images and shrug whenever they come up.

Self observation has taught me to differentiate between attitude and opinion; the one being a set of response patterns I acquired in my biography (obviously relative to my upbringing); the other being not much more than a verbalisation of my theories about my attitude, intermingled with communication strategies to place myself within certain social contexts. My opinions tend to be more stable than my attitudes; I realise again and again that opinions tend to grow old on me.

Yes, there seem to be certain constants (don't hurt others, try to be open to differing opinions...), but they're on an abstraction level where it ceases to be important whether they're "absolutely true" or not. I need to make decisions every day and they're based on the routines I've acquired. The need for opinions arises because I need to communicate with others.

I can't help feeling where too many people are of one opinion they huddle together for comfort. If people agree with me too quickly, I tend to be disappointed. I've caught myself arguing against the common consensus, just because the consensus got on my nerves.

In a nutshell, through self-obvservation, I think I've acquired the attitude that only with constant dissent, only with everybody vs. everybody, we can assure that Nazi's (and their ilk) don't return. Because then it's impossible to gain that momentum. And instead of absolute values, you'll have to fall back on other ways to ensure co-operation: economic rational choice, biological urges, plain old sympathy.

Bear in mind that this is an opinion based on an attitude I acquired in a world where the majority of people don't think like that. In the end it's just as likely that I'm just an imp who enjoys to spread chaos.

Personally, I find nihilism liberating. And my life certainly does not feel "cold".

The reason I don't post more often is that questions like these are too abstract for me; I tend to lose track of what I want to say...

 

[Grantaire]

Again No-Dog, you seem to be bashing nihilism. Myself, I find nihilism somewhat...refreshing. It frees me from so much. Sure, maybe it means that my hopes and dreams mean nothing, but it also means that I need not get depressed about anything (which is why I dislike people automatically equating nihilism to depression).

So how about Auschwitz? Is that simply 'good' or 'bad' depending on the context? Good for Nazis, bad for Jews and homosexuals, with nary a reason to arbitrate between them? (Imagine the conservation: "Auschwitz bad? Well it all depends on one's point of view, now, doesn't it?") Or if value is something 'we assign,' why shouldn't we simply value things like life and liberty only when they serve our self-interests (as is the case with American foreign policy)? I mean, on your account, there's nothing inherently wrong with boiling children in vegetable oil; we just happen to generally take such things as wrong - I suppose because we've been arbitrarily socialized to do so. Once you realize this arbitrariness, what's to stop you, aside from the threat of force, from taking things any old way? And if arbitrary force is the deciding factor, doesn't this mean it all comes down to power, and that what we're really doing when we assign value is what we're told - which is to say that value is simply an societal control mechanism (as Ted Bundy persuasively argues)?

Sounds pretty cold to me, Grantaire! It's one reason why I abandoned contextualism some time ago: it just seems to collapse into nihilism.

That's not at all how I meant it. Because we live in society, society gives meaning, gives "right" and "wrong" to things.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Personally, I find nihilism liberating. And my life certainly does not feel "cold".

I imagine Ted Bundy would say much the same! His victims on the other hand... I suspect they would argue justice.

I can tell you're not a student of the German language! (or it's most 'salacious' derivitives) Oy Veh! is right.

Someone said 'Yiddish' and I thought they said 'gibberish'... That's the second or third time I've been corrected on that particular phrase!

It's in response to the de-mythification of the world, the spiritual wasteland that Eliot refers to. The presence of some of that is why I read fantasy, as it is the closest thing to myth being generated today in any medium. But this is also why I believe that fantasy should say something, have this underlying symbolic language and meaning.

I would actually go one step further, Erfael, and say this is what makes epic fantasy the primary cultural locus for exploring and examining these issues. It's all that's left of scripture once one accepts the scientific worldview.

That's not at all how I meant it. Because we live in society, society gives meaning, gives "right" and "wrong" to things.

I'm not sure this answers any of my questions, Grantaire. More than that, it seems to contradict the 'liberation' you (and Dawnstorm) allude to. On the one hand, if you want to anchor value in community, you need to explain why anybody should give a damn about what the community says, short of the threat of force. It's still arbitrary. The very freedom that you tout as an advantage is the very problem at issue: the inability to anchor value.

Why not simply roll some dice, and let them decide what's 'good' and what's 'bad'? Again, aside from the threat of force, what's the difference on your account?

 

[Larry]

I would actually go one step further, Erfael, and say this is what makes epic fantasy the primary cultural locus for exploring and examining these issues. It's all that's left of scripture once one accepts the scientific worldview.

Interesting that you say "scripture" here, as I think a very key religious divide falls along how people interpret the application of written codes/instructions to a life that is most certainly more mutable than something etched in stone.

Also, what about the tensions between written and oral traditions that seem to have been a major influence on fantasy writing? Think that's a topic we should explore?

 

[Grantaire]

I'm not sure this answers any of my questions, Grantaire. More than that, it seems to contradict the 'liberation' you (and Dawnstorm) allude to. On the one hand, if you want to anchor value in community, you need to explain why anybody should give a damn about what the community says, short of the threat of force. It's still arbitrary. The very freedom that you tout as an advantage is the very problem at issue: the inability to anchor value.

Why not simply roll some dice, and let them decide what's 'good' and what's 'bad'? Again, aside from the threat of force, what's the difference on your account?

For the survival of the society. I believe that that is the source of values. If something is considered harmful and a risk to the society, it is deemed bad. If it isn't harmful/is beneficial, it's deemed good. Humans as a species live in societies, we're fairly social animals. If we want to fit in, we must accept and live my the "good" and "bad" of the given society.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Dawnstorm - I don't really understand what your position is. I read and reread your posts, but I am still unclear. This is the definition of nihilism that I am accustomed to:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

I don't think you are using the word properly if I read the rest of your post correctly. Please tell me how nihilism could be liberating? Is meaninglessness liberating? Perhaps our definitions of liberating need to be discussed as well, or maybe the word meaninglessness?

I do understand how Nietzsche, who is often associated with nihilism because he did believe that values are baseless and man's current state of existence is something that should be overcome, and he did believe that violence was acceptable and healthy etc etc., can seem to be uplifting and liberating. But much of the lure of his philosophy is in his style and his wit and his brilliant prose. His cutting remarks are so astute and his criticisms of false altruism and masked cruelty and selfishness is so pointed and perceptive that it is easy to bask in his 'weltanshaung'. But if you try even for a moment to institutionalize his theories, you find that they are so thoroughly impractical and would require a total dismantling of any semblance of society as we know it. He would say that is what he wants, but would anyone else ever really want to live through such turmoil, violence and strife? It is liberating in the acidic anger and the retributive rhetoric, much as getting revenge is liberating.

 

[Dawnstorm]

Dawnstorm - I don't really understand what your position is. I read and reread your posts, but I am still unclear. This is the definition of nihilism that I am accustomed to:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

I don't think you are using the word properly if I read the rest of your post correctly. Please tell me how nihilism could be liberating? Is meaninglessness liberating? Perhaps our definitions of liberating need to be discussed as well, or maybe the word meaninglessness?

Considering your definition, I did use the word unproperly. But then, I've always had a problem understanding how anyone could be a nihilist under that definition; as nihilism - here - seems to set up values of it's own ("an embracing of nothingness", something like that), while basing these values on a refusal of all values. To me that's ironic at best and paradox at worst (depending on how you look at it).

I, myself, wouldn't have referred to myself as a nihilist; I seem to have prematurely appropriated a lable No-Dog has brought up (but not necessarily applied to me). If this caused you confusion, I appologise.

"Nihilism" (in the respect of "debasing beliefs") can be liberating in the sense that you're free to believe what you want; and that you're free to change your mind at any time. People who long to be "right" will look at nihilism and despair; people who fear they might be wrong will look at nihilism with a sigh of relief.

Again, I'm not really a nihilist. I find it very hard to pin down my position; but lables like "nihilist", "relativist", "scepticist" and to a minor extent "pragmatist" tend to induce more feelings of identification than "idealist", "rationalist" etc.

Btw, my knowledge of philosophy is broad but superficial. If I dug into it, I'd suspect that the thread of philosophy that would most appeal to me would be the "phenomenological" one (Husserl, Heidegger). Certainly, I found my way into sociology through those who derive their theoretical framework from them (Schütz, Berger & Luckmann).

I do understand how Nietzsche, who is often associated with nihilism because he did believe that values are baseless and man's current state of existence is something that should be overcome, and he did believe that violence was acceptable and healthy etc etc., can seem to be uplifting and liberating. But much of the lure of his philosophy is in his style and his wit and his brilliant prose. His cutting remarks are so astute and his criticisms of false altruism and masked cruelty and selfishness is so pointed and perceptive that it is easy to bask in his 'weltanshaung'. But if you try even for a moment to institutionalize his theories, you find that they are so thoroughly impractical and would require a total dismantling of any semblance of society as we know it. He would say that is what he wants, but would anyone else ever really want to live through such turmoil, violence and strife? It is liberating in the acidic anger and the retributive rhetoric, much as getting revenge is liberating.

Well, if values are baseless than so is then so is the belief that "man's current state should be overcome". This simply displaces values from a divine origin onto something "natural" (modeled on floods, lightening...). And you can do that because they're baseless. You might as well leave them where they are. After all, there's nothing to tell you the move is better.

The problem with nihilism is the moral shock you receive in transition; not the position itself. True nihilism is based on paradox: you need to refuse the values it provides because of the position it provides. Morally, you're left with an extremely fertile field to explore, without the need for wrong or right. If you despair, that's your problem.

As it is, I'm still not sure I'm making sense.

===

Which type of question do you guys consider more fruitful?

A) How can I prove that "Ausschwitz" was "evil"?
or
B) If they sent you to "Ausschwitz", would you rather be a Nazi or an inmate?

Personally, I learn more from B-type of questions. (And by inference, I enjoy stories based on B-type of questions more than those based on A.)

 

[Gary Wassner]

So you would rather read about characters who confront the issues directly and struggle with the moral perspectives within the context of an ethical dilemma itself? Interesting, and I agree. I use my characters in such a way often, as I am certain so many authors do, to resolve through the action the particular moral or ethical conflicts. So, my character, for example, would find himself in a situation requiring a choice on his/her part. That choice would have both positive and negative consequences regardless of which route is ultimately taken. As in your example of being an inmate or a guard, the guard would have to deal with the horrible issues of following orders or following the more moral path at the risk to himself and his loved ones, whereas the inmate would confront the problem of survival and just how much one is willing to sacrifice ethically in order to survive, or being the courageous martyr and sacrificing his own life to make a statement of some sort.
Is that what you meant?
And, BTW, I still don't understand why you chose the label 'nihilist' for yourself. Surely you can find a better description of your world view? As it is, you are qualifiying it so much that it isn't nihilism after all anyway.

 

[Dawnstorm]

So you would rather read about characters who confront the issues directly and struggle with the moral perspectives within the context of an ethical dilemma itself? Interesting, and I agree. I use my characters in such a way often, as I am certain so many authors do, to resolve through the action the particular moral or ethical conflicts. So, my character, for example, would find himself in a situation requiring a choice on his/her part. That choice would have both positive and negative consequences regardless of which route is ultimately taken. As in your example of being an inmate or a guard, the guard would have to deal with the horrible issues of following orders or following the more moral path at the risk to himself and his loved ones, whereas the inmate would confront the problem of survival and just how much one is willing to sacrifice ethically in order to survive, or being the courageous martyr and sacrificing his own life to make a statement of some sort.
Is that what you meant?

Basically. Though I'd avoid reference to "courage" or "sacrifice" or similar terms, if they're not directly related to a character's idiom.

And, BTW, I still don't understand why you chose the label 'nihilist' for yourself. Surely you can find a better description of your world view? As it is, you are qualifiying it so much that it isn't nihilism after all anyway.

Then I'm probably not really a nihilist. I tend to get lost in terminological debates, so I try to resist that here. Apart from the inadequate use of "nihilism", did I make any point that would help clarify my position, or am I just rambling?

 

[Grantaire]

And, BTW, I still don't understand why you chose the label 'nihilist' for yourself. Surely you can find a better description of your world view? As it is, you are qualifiying it so much that it isn't nihilism after all anyway.

I think that trying to fit someone into an exact ideological/philosophical group is useless. Barely anyone is going to mesh precisely with any group. I have some nihilistic tendencies, but by your definition of nihilist, I am not one. So what is the point in trying to pin someone to a single view? We all have very mixed and varies views.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Hey everybody, I'm back from the hospital, a father of three (it was Father-of-one five days ago), and making a quick cameo appearance. I'm afraid I won't be able to do much more than that until I figure out how to type with my toes while holding an infant in each arm.

But since I've got a minute, let's play a game. It's called "What if You Couldn't Pick Your Own Ideology".

Here's how it works -- Try and visualize a world where everyone else gets to decide what you believe. Everyone gets a vote except you. Well, not everyone; just the people that have some sort of connection with you. And there's a pecking order. The vote of a friend gets weighted more that of an coworker. The vote of a family member gets weighted even higher. The vote of someone who is "dependent" on you gets the highest weighting.

I can just imagine how everyone would vote for my ideology. My wife would want something about holding to marital fidelity, mo matter what. Something about controling ones temper, things like that. My daughters would all want a mindset that wouldn't allow me to put work ahead of them. Oh, also I'm sure they would want to pick an ideology that had some blanket statement about putting their needs ahead of my own.

Of course I'd pick the same thing for them. Certainly the part about putting me ahead of themselves, after all, that's a pretty fair layman's description for 'love' and everyone wants to be loved. Something for the kids about respecting those old fogey parents of theirs. You get the idea. I wouldn't pick an ideology for them as open ended as some of the ones that I've read in this thread; partly for selfish reasons, but also because I want them to be happy and Grant, I hope that statement of belief (or lack thereof) works for you, but I just couldn't pick it for somebody else that I cared about. It sounds too much like a couple of dozen suicide letters that I've read in the past.

And that's the thing: how could I hold to an ideology for myself that I would never think of wishing on someone else? I'd feel like a hypocrite. Shoot, I would be a hypocrite!

 

[Grantaire]

I'd been wondering where you were Texmex, congratulations!

It's not necessarily a strict matter of ideology, but I think personality plays a role in it. I'm by nature somewhat cold and distant. I'm not *touchy-feely*, I'm not too emotional. I feel somewhat disconnected with emotion and the mundane, I like looking at science and philosophy. For someone like me, how do you see my partial nihilism as not being capable of making me happy? I'm not happy in the exact same way as other people, in fact no one gains happiness from the exact same sources. I'm happy from gaining knowledge and understanding- I don't see how that conflicts. I know you're saying you wouldn't pick my view for anyone else, but I really think that the personality of a person really plays into it.


And that's the thing: how could I hold to an ideology for myself that I would never think of wishing on someone else? I'd feel like a hypocrite. Shoot, I would be a hypocrite!
Here's the thing...I would wish it on other people. I think that as a whole, people are far too concerned with trivial things, too fixed up on emotion. People need to take more of a dispassionate view, yet strive for understanding and wisdom (yes, I know that doesn't mesh with absolute nihilism, but as I said, I'm not an absolute nihilist).

 

[ironchef texmex]

I think that as a whole, people are far too concerned with trivial things, too fixed up on emotion. People need to take more of a dispassionate view, yet strive for understanding and wisdom,

Just a quick word of advice: never never never say the above to a wife... especially if she's pregnant. This has nothing to do with my prior post, just a tip on how not to get murdered in your sleep.

 

[Grantaire]

Hehe, I'll be sure to remember that

 

[Dawnstorm]

Choose for others?

If I had absolutely no choice, if I had to choose one for them, it'd probably be like that: "Choose your own ideology. Take your time. After all, you've got all your life."

And then we could start that intricate social dance that makes life interesting.

 

[Bond]

I wonder, so much talk here about being or not being a nihilist or rationalist, but is someone here NOT an existentialist? As for the define the terms game, tedious it may be but usually it's even more so if it isn't played. Tex, were you invoking Kant, the golden rule, something else, or nothing else? So many allied and similar ideas in philo I find that are attribuatable to different people when they seem to be talking about the same thing. I think I forgot to ask my prof what the difference between Sartre and Kant was. Can someone explain? As for Nietzsche's point-of-view, don't get me wrong it does have its virtues, but it does seem to be a philosophy that brings to mind the image of a restless angst-ridden teenager. Western society's current fascination with him at least as exemplified by those here seems to be interesting in itself. I think Gemquest mentioned Nietzsche went crazy, one must wonder how healthy it is to follow in his footsteps. I would have thought our self-preservation instincts would be kicking in somewhere along the line

By the way Tex---congrats!

 

[Gary Wassner]

Nietzsche had syphilis, Bond. Thus, the insanity....

And I echo the congratulations! I have three kids of my own, so I know the feeling.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Sartre and Kant

"I think I forgot to ask my prof what the difference between Sartre and Kant was."

Kant believed that reason (thinking clearly, rationally) could lead us to a determinate answer to the question "how should I behave?"

Sartre believed this to be false and that neither reason nor human nature could help to answer that question.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Tex, were you invoking Kant, the golden rule, something else, or nothing else?

Something else, but I don't have a name for it just yet. Keep waiting, though. When I finally dream it up the name will be oh-so enlightening.

Now, for my master-stroke (AND NO! That's not how I meant it! Focus, people). Let's tie this all back in to Gem's question about the nature of heroism.

Nietzsche had this idea that true altruism was an illusion. See, he said that everybody had to have a reason for doing something. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. And since we little 'ol humans are inherently egocentric, those "reason" are always going to have us at their core. Sure you gave money to the United Way, but you did it because of a guilt complex that you wanted to get rid of. So, literally, you weren't so much giving for the good of the one-legged orphans, you were giving to get rid of the voice in your head that said you were partially responsible for the fact that Johnny, the one-legged orphan has to use a roll of wrapping paper to get around because he can't afford a cane.

But here's the thing: just about everybody who isn't strapped down in a cell wearing a Hannibal Lector mask makes some sort of distinction between things like giving to the United Way -- self-centered or not -- and other activities such as.... oh... I don't know... taping cicadas to bottle rockets and setting them off.

Every once in a while we hear stories about boats capsizing and often the story involves one man or woman, who kept pushing other people on the lifeboat until they, themselves, drowned. Or a story about someone who keeps running into the burning building until they succumbed to the smoke and heat. But somewhere, deep down, there must have been some mindset that made those actions self-centered. Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, SO WHAT!

Call it self-centered all you like. I call it self-discipline. Which world would you rather live in: a world where people spend all their time accumulating money to go buy garbage for themselves, or a world where given the choice between buying a plasma screen or using their resources to help someone in need, they do the latter?

This isn't about religious vs. non-religious. This is about convictions. Discipline (training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character) creates conviction. Convictions that apply well to the golden rule -- Do unto others.... -- create heroism. If you were in a burning building would you want someone to come running in after you? If so, then you'll probably admire the guy who did it on the news. This can be somewhat subjective based on differing conceptions of "...as you would have done unto you." Which is why certain people consider terrorists heroes, while we don't. But that doesn't change the central premise; convictions that you would want done for you, that you find admirable. And the vast majority agree on the kinds of things that they want done to them.

We mentioned "The Greatest Generation". Perfect example. The men and women of WWII were disciplined by hardship, namely the Great Depression. They were 'perfected' by some really tough circumstances. When the time came, their convictions led them to do some pretty amazing things.

And if somewhere, deep down, they did it for themselves (meaning to assuage some guilt complex) then big deal. Who cares why they did it. They did it. That's what makes a hero.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Wow! What a population explosion - literally! Congratulations, Texmex! Have you come up with a new avatar yet?

It's also good to see the nihilists running for cover!

Which world would you rather live in: a world where people spend all their time accumulating money to go buy garbage for themselves, or a world where given the choice between buying a plasma screen or using their resources to help someone in need, they do the latter?

This isn't about religious vs. non-religious. This is about convictions.

I almost agree with you entirely, here, Texmex. I would just add that the issue isn't simply about convictions (which everyone has), but about which convictions are the best. It's about arbitrating between convictions that lead to things like altruism, consumerism, and terrorism. Adorno and Horkheimer credit Nietzsche with being among the first to realize the inability of modern reason to arbitrate between beliefs involving value.

Without this ability, the argument goes, immediate self-interest inevitably wins, because it becomes impossible to command collective consensus on traditional imperatives. It's no accident that 'for sale' (in its myriad versions) is the most common message in contemporary consumer society. Commercialism is simply self-interest made social. Egypt had its pyramids, Europe had its cathedrals, and we have our malls. The power of traditional imperatives continues to evaporate, leaving only the imperative to consume - which we inevitably share because of our hardwiring - as the only collective imperative left. Things like human rights, women's lib, etc., the pessimist would argue, find their foundation in economy rather than moral truth: giving agents equal bargaining power (or the illusion thereof) enhances systematic productivity.

Since the imperative to consume is irrational (which is to say, an arbitrary biological fact of being an animal), this means we are the most efficiently irrational civilization in the history of humankind.

Now if this picture is an accurate description of what's going on, a social truth we all unwittingly engage everyday, wouldn't it explain why so many people find epic fantasy attractive? Wouldn't it also explain things like the commercialization of traditional observances, the appeal of relativistic and nihilistic moral stances, or even the impossibility of finding consensus on this thread?

And here's a thought. Is it just a coincidence that epic fantasies tend to depict traditional societies (with their collective moral imperatives) on the brink of apocalypse?

Do we live in a world where Sauron has won?