globefront
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9
It would make logical sense that a nihilist would see no point in a governing body of any kind since that would be inherently purposeless as well. Moreover, the nihilists who focus their intellectual efforts against the existence of the state could be classified primarily as Political Nihilists.
Apart from the obvious lack of favor for the state, anarchists and political nihilists have a profound rebellious nature against many aspects which act to hinder individual freedom in general, either because of their lack of meaning or because they are intended to control. The “meaning” of these controlling factors that are overarching in all decision making factors within nations and communities is what is particularly repulsive to both intellectual groups. Both wish for the state to desist its tyrannical/pointless acts because they will or cannot do anything for real human development or enhancement of freedom.
The problem is that it is hard to contain nihilism where it exists in the political or civic realm since its main philosophy is that all things are of no meaning; this would include all morals, religions, places, infrastructure and so on. The problem is that Nihilism cannot be contained in only the political realm without its followers being hypocritical or paradox, mainly because how morals and ethics bleed over into the political. If you see no meaning in government involvement into abortion, is it because you think all abortion should be legal or because you think the state and abortion are meaningless actions? Therefore being a political nihilist you would inevitably realize that you must choose to be either an anarchist (end the state) or a full on nihilist (nothingness is the only rule in a meaningless existence).
In opposite, the anarchist may have their own moral code or voluntary community hierarchy for which they are a part of, therefore seeing the meaning in these engagements. A true nihilist would hold no loyalty to anything or any person, while the anarchist may. This is where I can see the two groups divide. For as much as both have a hatred for the authoritarian state, nihilism takes the idea of oppression to literally everything we have come to know – even our perception of reality in some cases.
I believe that at the heart of the division between political nihilism (which if self contained with politics alone is ultimately paradox) and anarchy lies in the decision one must make, which is: what is your rationale against the state?
Apart from the obvious lack of favor for the state, anarchists and political nihilists have a profound rebellious nature against many aspects which act to hinder individual freedom in general, either because of their lack of meaning or because they are intended to control. The “meaning” of these controlling factors that are overarching in all decision making factors within nations and communities is what is particularly repulsive to both intellectual groups. Both wish for the state to desist its tyrannical/pointless acts because they will or cannot do anything for real human development or enhancement of freedom.
The problem is that it is hard to contain nihilism where it exists in the political or civic realm since its main philosophy is that all things are of no meaning; this would include all morals, religions, places, infrastructure and so on. The problem is that Nihilism cannot be contained in only the political realm without its followers being hypocritical or paradox, mainly because how morals and ethics bleed over into the political. If you see no meaning in government involvement into abortion, is it because you think all abortion should be legal or because you think the state and abortion are meaningless actions? Therefore being a political nihilist you would inevitably realize that you must choose to be either an anarchist (end the state) or a full on nihilist (nothingness is the only rule in a meaningless existence).
In opposite, the anarchist may have their own moral code or voluntary community hierarchy for which they are a part of, therefore seeing the meaning in these engagements. A true nihilist would hold no loyalty to anything or any person, while the anarchist may. This is where I can see the two groups divide. For as much as both have a hatred for the authoritarian state, nihilism takes the idea of oppression to literally everything we have come to know – even our perception of reality in some cases.
I believe that at the heart of the division between political nihilism (which if self contained with politics alone is ultimately paradox) and anarchy lies in the decision one must make, which is: what is your rationale against the state?
