Could nihilism be part of a social ethos? This essay is not a journey into philosophical argumentation. Asking a broader general question about when reality meets philosophy is the only way to understand how nihilism has influenced classical theory. Providing an explanation for the form and function of modern society requires more than dividing reality into dichotomous reasoning rubric of subjective or objective. Even rubric expansion to include the idea of quality influencing the decision calculus does not account for shifts in reality itself. Quality has nothing to do with division of argumentation, because modern society functions from a social ethos that operational redefines logic within the confines of the game. This discussion is mainly taking about an idea entitled nihilist contempt that argues against constraining reality into subjective and objective reasoning even when quality is considered.
A reader capable of rational coherent thought is probably wondering how nihilism can be modified. From time to time theories blend and morph in and out of each other influencing philosophy in unexpected ways. Nihilism as a social ethos by itself is not social. Execution of pure nihilism is functionally self-defeating. Any nihilist that truly adheres to the theory will not be functionally driving change within society. Some of the ideas that nihilist thought produced allow for an interesting incorporation into the public mind. This development has produced a significant influence in the reasoning and logic used by society as a whole. The social animal can now simply react with contempt to society without any substantial negative recourse.
Nihilism by itself did not produce a significant following and this does not mean that philosophical dissemination has been strictly limited. The directions that nihilism allows through dispositional rhetoric are splitting reality. A new division of thought has developed. Take a moment to think about two dichotomous relationships that describe traditional views of reality. The objective and subjective relationship is different from the classical and romantic separation. Before philosophy ever moves form questions of reality to either of the two before mentioned relationships, a new influence on reality has to receive consideration. Could it be at this point in reasoning that logical reasoning is in question? That prose that follows is an attempt to find an answer. Beginning with some questions and then attempting to move from reality to reason and argument. This process requires proposing two ideas about nihilist philosophical dissemination. Two functional nihilist routes have influenced contemporary thought including both nihilist contempt and nihilist conformity.
Both of these ideas are important, but nihilist conformity is only a functional performance test against the nihilist influences on society other than a general feeling of contempt. The idea of nihilist contempt explains an attitude that changes perception and at time interaction between an individual and reality. Nihilist contempt allows a dispositional interaction with ideas and claims that makes dividing reality into terms like subjective and objective. It is possible for an individual to adopt some of the tenants and attitudes of nihilism, without actually becoming a nihilist in practice. This creates the potential for infinite potential outcomes. Two of the outcomes that develop prevalence within society are nihilist contempt and conformity.
An individual that develops a certain degree of nihilist contempt starts to view society as problematic. The social animal in this instance is developing an above average agitation with the beliefs of the majority. This is not an argument about politics or even political theory. Consider the following question for a moment. If nihilist contempt is just a general attitude of distrust and contempt, then does it provide an alternative for change? Political arguments move toward an alternative even if that potential solution is simply inaction. Nihilist contempt simply questions the very interaction between logic and reality making terms like objective and subjective operational different.
Nihilist conformity is a completely different outcome that results in a strengthening the inertia of the system. If the social animal is not actively seeking an alternative to the system, then it is possible that even thought dispositional that the social animal might both disagree with and willing perpetuate the system. This contradiction explanation is as simple as the idea of taking the path of least resistance simply out of lack of interest. The social animal is developing very nihilist tendencies while still being able to participate in the system. The result is a very large contingent of the population that is disinterested in society, yet will simply conform to the confines of a social order without revolution.
Does this premise, explanation of alternative, and analysis answer any serious questions about society? Probably not from lack of effort looking at the question, “Is nihilism a social ethos?” Defining nihilism in the context of a social ethos begins to explain why apathy has become so pervasive in modern society. Apathy in this case does not exclusively deal with inaction in terms of politics. A much larger question exists about how much apathy exists in the daily life of the social animal. Has nihilist contempt and conformity become so pervasive within society that nobody even notices them?
Related posts with score (high relevance to low):
