++> Response to a Frank Masingill posting to D. Martorana
 ++> on the "nothing"
 
 WE>> What's a nihil?
 DM>> "nothing"
 
 DM>> It is not an easily defined word as even Webster gets lost
 DM>> in the "nihil - ism",  associating the term with a diverse of
 DM>> negative implications.
            
 FM> NihilISM basically presents a "system" of opinion which denies the
 FM> validity of philosophy as a valid approach as it grew from the
 FM> time of Parmenides through the various revelations of human reason
 FM> down through centuries of western civilization to the present.
 FM> It became intensely popular with young Russian intellectuals in
 FM> the extremity of the western intellectual breakdown of the 19th
 FM> century.  It is a kind of "escape valve" for those who see reality
 FM> as nothing more than a pressure of "systems of opinion" for one of
 FM> them to emerge as "truth."  Under the "nihil" the conflicting
 FM> opinions of human beings constitute the only possible reality and
 FM> since none of them have any ultimate validity there is room only
 FM> for suicide or utter boredom, seeking relief in drugs or
 FM> the equivalent. To accept the nihil as THE reality leaves nothing
 FM> further to discuss.  There is a reluctance, however, even on the
 FM> part of those who embrace it to carry it out to this logical end.
 
     Frank! You are playing the "partial true" card. By garnering
     some historical samples and extending them on the backs of
     some well chosen words (and through a few convolutions of
     convenient psychology), you present some half-truths and
     partial definitions.
 
   I see the "nihil" as essentially positive (if seeming dark in todays
   thinking). I see it not an "escape valve", but as just another door
   to learning.  No boredom, drugs or suicide, or at least no more than
   is/has been common to natural "all group" statistics.   It is NOT that
   it leaves nothing to discuss, it only urges other corners to be examined
   that are usually avoided because they don't have "GOOD FEEL". In an
   essential sense, it might be seen to question the world-common-wisdoms.
   To drag up old Russian-ish associations to the general area of such
   explorations is anecdotal, as we know a big bit more to fuel our views
   and we are a different English-y "minded" people with newer thoughts.
   You cannot force other minds into the convenient chains your points
   have need of by conjuring up some other groups from the grave that
   may or may not be of like thinking .....THEN take the evaluations of
   that thinking and apply it to us as if one concluded size fits all.
   History is' of value, but can quite often be an awkward fit when
   forced to describe new searchers. That we oft repeat in seemingly
   same ways, is an accepted knowing, but an old idea not right in its
   time, might well fit not so bad into another time, or mind view of it.
 
                                           ^_
      Things change, sometimes!!!!! ... _/"oo"\_ ... Dave
                                          _||_
 
    P.S. I was some little dismayed when I found 2500 year old
         Greeks agreeing with what I thought were my original
         insights  !!!!
 
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------