I’m not familiar with this quote.
Care to provide an objective theory of value?
Clayton -
http://mises.org/journals/aen/shackle.asp
Here is a G.L. S. Shackle interview that talks a bit about what he thinks is economic nihilism and how it applies to ethical questions.
Re: “We have the question of “what is the purpose of life?” that we’ve been asking since the dawn of time.”
What is the meaning of life: goals. It’s axiomatic and inescapable. It’s objective, just like the subjective theory of value is objective.
“It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality).(5) In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.(6) Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/six.asp
(5)On the value of life not depending on whether it is perceived as one of happiness, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 41.
(6)Elsewhere, I have written: “if a man cannot affirm a proposition without employing its negation, he is not only caught in an inextricable self-contradiction; he is conceding to the negation the status of an axiom.” Rothbard, Individualism, p. 8. Also see R.P. Phillips, Modern Thomistic Philosophy (Westminster, Md.: Newman Bookshop, 1934-35), vol. 2, pp. 36-37.
The purpose of all life is to reproduce
Ask biologists
Your parents create you for a purpose. Give them grandchildren.
Go ask a tree what is the meaning of life and you will hear a truthful response.
I’ll one-up you and say that “purpose” is a value judgement and thus subjective. Hence the “purpose of life” is whatever one wants it to be.
I wouldn’t call that nihilism, though. I’d call it existentialism.
I wouldn’t call that “nihilism”. To me, “nihilism” is the same as complete and utter skepticism. It leads to an abandonment of everything, leaving literally nothing (hence “nihilism”) left.
Nihilism is actually a problem of personal development. Descartes states in Principles of Philosophy, “This item of knowledge—I’m thinking, so I exist—is the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way.” [Emphasis added] In other words, nothing can be less certain than the fact of the existence of one’s own conscious experience. The problem of absolute self-doubt, nihilism, is a problem that is beyond philosophy, it’s a deficiency in the individual’s ability to cope with the world and accept that he has the right to assert himself among his peers as an individual. For this reason, it is not within the domain of philosophy to refute nihilism - it’s a problem of spiritual development that the individual who is holding nihilistic self-doubt has to conquer on his or her own.
Clayton -
I wouldn’t call that “nihilism”. To me, “nihilism” is the same as complete and utter skepticism. It leads to an abandonment of everything, leaving literally nothing (hence “nihilism”) left.
It is a loaded word, but when someone brings the word up that is where I tend to categorize it - hence why I contrast it with egoism, when I see the word in play. And I do think that may be a big Austrian point: egoism vs nihilism
I’d call myself a nihilist in the sense that I’ve rejected all external justifications for valuation*, but that does not mean that I abandon the enterprise of making valuations altogether - I just recognize them for what they are, namely my own subjective valuations. I say this is healthy. On the other hand, the kind of cartoonish nihilism portrayed in pop-culture (Big Labowski e.g.) is that of people who made the first step (rejecting all external justifications for valuation) without making the second (realizing that there’s no need for external justification in order to make valuations), and who as a consequence can’t find any meaning in life.
*“external justifications for valuation” means something external to the valuation itself which is supposed to validate the valuation. The problem for those seeking such external justification is that valuations are not in need of any validating. People mistake a statement like “murder is bad” for a statement about an objective reality - as if the question were whether or not it is objectively the case that murder is bad. But that’s nonsense. The referent of the statement is nothing other than the state of mind of the person making he statement. “Murder is bad” is identical in meaning to “I think murder is bad.” Assuming the speaker is being honest, and really does think that, the statement is true - the valuation is true. There’s no more need to justify one’s valuation that murder is bad than there is to justify one’s valuation that tomatoes are tasty.
Nihilism is actually a problem of personal development. Descartes states in Principles of Philosophy, “This item of knowledge—I’m thinking, so I exist—is the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way.” [Emphasis added] In other words, nothing can be less certain than the fact of the existence of one’s own conscious experience. The problem of absolute self-doubt, nihilism, is a problem that is beyond philosophy, it’s a deficiency in the individual’s ability to cope with the world and accept that he has the right to assert himself among his peers as an individual. For this reason, it is not within the domain of philosophy to refute nihilism - it’s a problem of spiritual development that the individual who is holding nihilistic self-doubt has to conquer on his or her own.
Clayton -
QFT.
Oopsie,
Should have been:
Clayton -
Isn’t it another nihlist tenet that there exists no absolute truth?
Isn’t this at odds with Austrian rationalism? (The proposition “There is no absolute truth” itself being an absolute validity claim)