Notable Philosophical terms

[PoetPhilosopher]

Existentialism - Wikipedia

Nihilism - Wikipedia

Absurdism - Wikipedia (NSFW picture in the link, but still informative)

Existential nihilism - Wikipedia

And there are more contained within the articles.

---

Epistemology - Wikipedia

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

---

Theory of forms - Wikipedia

Make sure you read Aristotle's refutation

---

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

---

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I thought it would be fun if there were any quizzes on whether a person is an existentialist or a nihilist, and what kind. Unfortunately, the only ones I found were the clickbaity "What food did you eat?" variety.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought it would be fun if there were any quizzes on whether a person is an existentialist or a nihilist, and what kind.

NO! That would be a nightmare, lmfao. Solving world poverty will be infinitely easier than getting a group of philosophers to agree to something that binary. It won't happen. And unless you're prepared to sit through grad-level philosophy discussions (some of the texts are at that level), that too will be very difficult. But if you want to start, I suggest you learn abit of German, and the Stanford philosophy site (it's been awhile since I've used it and don't whats it's called) will be your friend.
But, Nietzsche's not too bad or too hard. And I find him fascinating because those he's often considered a nihilist I am one of those who vehemently argues (there is no such thing as a lesser impassioned argument on the subject LOL) that he was not that, that he actually saw nihilism as a terrible thing to avoid, and when it comes to finding meaning and purpose and life Nietzsche possessed a lust for life few have matched. And also a fascinating biographical read, because the reputation he had while alive wasn't necessarily one you'd think of someone having who wrote the things he did (think of my over the top and violent prone rants and ramblings that I wouldn't actually do)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

NO! That would be a nightmare, lmfao. Solving world poverty will be infinitely easier than getting a group of philosophers to agree to something that binary. It won't happen. And unless you're prepared to sit through grad-level philosophy discussions (some of the texts are at that level), that too will be very difficult. But if you want to start, I suggest you learn abit of German, and the Stanford philosophy site (it's been awhile since I've used it and don't whats it's called) will be your friend.
But, Nietzsche's not too bad or too hard. And I find him fascinating because those he's often considered a nihilist I am one of those who vehemently argues (there is no such thing as a lesser impassioned argument on the subject LOL) that he was not that, that he actually saw nihilism as a terrible thing to avoid, and when it comes to finding meaning and purpose and life Nietzsche possessed a lust for life few have matched. And also a fascinating biographical read, because the reputation he had while alive wasn't necessarily one you'd think of someone having who wrote the things he did (think of my over the top and violent prone rants and ramblings that I wouldn't actually do)

Nietzsche was a nihilist.

(Actually I have no opinion on the matter, but while I've got you wound up, I might as well go for the gold.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is a pretty good article about Nietzsche, and why he wasn't a Nihilist. And as the article points out, Nietzsche did go as far as to claim that Christianity is nihilistic and life negating.
Nietzsche and the struggle against nihilism

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Just so that we are on the same page, you know I meant a quiz that tells us whether we ourselves are prone to more existentialist or nihilist thinking, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nietzsche was a nihilist.

(Actually I have no opinion on the matter, but while I've got you wound up, I might as well go for the gold.)

To use my own words, I find it absurd to say Nietzsche was a nihilist. We can find his warnings about his concerns should nihilism arise is the age after god's death, and saw things that deny the pleasures of life, such as Christianity's lists of "thou shalt not," as the real sources of nihilism because people are giving up their lives for promises of what we aren't certain will come.
Nietzsche himself found a life to have meaning and worth living when it was filled with song and dance. Art and poetry. Beauty and passions. Life itself and the pleasures of are sacred. If anything, it could be said Nietzsche's religion was embracing life itself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just so that we are on the same page, you know I meant a quiz that tells us whether we ourselves are prone to more existentialist or nihilist thinking, right?

To go by general terminology, probably. Though, again, I don't think any quiz can easily happen and be readily accepted by any large group or significant amount of individual philosophers. And quizzes really don't work in philosophy anyways. From the bit I know of online culture, philosophy isn't something that can be easily adapted to short attention spans, sound bites, and quizzes where it is inevitable there will be problems with it.
You don't want multiple choice questions in philosophy. You just don't. It would have to be more of an open-answer interview in essay form, with a two-way question/answer after the essay. And then probably some final considerations. Or else you'll just get people arguing (and those of us philosophically inclined have been debating and arguing since before the internet).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To use my own words, I find it absurd to say Nietzsche was a nihilist. We can find his warnings about his concerns should nihilism arise is the age after god's death, and saw things that deny the pleasures of life, such as Christianity's lists of "thou shalt not," as the real sources of nihilism because people are giving up their lives for promises of what we aren't certain will come.
Nietzsche himself found a life to have meaning and worth living when it was filled with song and dance. Art and poetry. Beauty and passions. Life itself and the pleasures of are sacred. If anything, it could be said Nietzsche's religion was embracing life itself.

That's interesting.

Though even if I did have an opinion on the matter, you probably wouldn't like my lateral thinking approach to problem-solving.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you probably wouldn't like my lateral thinking approach to problem-solving

It's how you think. To not like it would be really no different than to not like someone for being male, Asian, short, or whatever.
Now, if I would like your thoughts on the subject and agree with them or not, that is another subject. And if I'd play devils advocate is also another subject.

 

[Heyo]

Nietzsche was a nihilist.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He never advocated against all values. Like the child of the Enlightenment that he was, he dismissed the old values and advocated for forming ones own.
And like today when the proponents of the old values defame atheists as nihilists, Nietzsche got the same treatment.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's how you think. To not like it would be really no different than to not like someone for being male, Asian, short, or whatever.
Now, if I would like your thoughts on the subject and agree with them or not, that is another subject. And if I'd play devils advocate is also another subject.

My way:

The best way of looking at a subject is from a fresh perspective, you can read about the person and their thoughts, but you must also draw from other sources and not just the horses's mouth, and crowd perception of who the person was can sometimes be valid, as the perceptions create a possible abductive reasoning argument. Sometimes reading too much about certain authors muddles your perspective if you are looking to be progressive in your ideology, as it gets you focused on the ideas of certain authors rather than the broader picture. For example, I can read a considerable amount about Plato's Theory of Forms, but it really won't make me of more sound thinking than just reading a Wikipedia article which also speaks of Aristotle's ideas on the matter and the possible refutations.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He never advocated against all values. Like the child of the Enlightenment that he was, he dismissed the old values and advocated for forming ones own.
And like today when the proponents of the old values defame atheists as nihilists, Nietzsche got the same treatment.

*sigh* I was being facetious.

 

[Valjean]

Just so that we are on the same page, you know I meant a quiz that tells us whether we ourselves are prone to more existentialist or nihilist thinking, right?

Might be interesting. If you find a good one, post it.

Though even if I did have an opinion on the matter, you probably wouldn't like my lateral thinking approach to problem-solving.

Might send the whole thread sideways.

 

[Augustus]

Like the child of the Enlightenment that he was, he dismissed the old values and advocated for forming ones own.
And like today when the proponents of the old values defame atheists as nihilists, Nietzsche got the same treatment.

Although Nietzsche would view Western Secular Humanistic atheism as being basically Christianity in new clothes and thus representing these old values.

 

[Heyo]

Although Nietzsche would view Western Secular Humanistic atheism as being basically Christianity in new clothes and thus representing these old values.

Debatable but I could see this being argued with success.

 

[Polymath257]

But if you want to start, I suggest you learn abit of German, and the Stanford philosophy site (it's been awhile since I've used it and don't whats it's called) will be your friend.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

This has a LOT of information about almost every possible philosophical position/question/debate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it would be fun if there were any quizzes on whether a person is an existentialist or a nihilist, and what kind. Unfortunately, the only ones I found were the clickbaity "What food did you eat?" variety.

What about the problem of non-union people practicing philosophy?
Will the philosopher's union go on strike? Economic lock-down is
bad enuf, but imagine the great loss to all of humanity if the
professionals refused to philosophize!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My way:

The best way of looking at a subject is from a fresh perspective, you can read about the person and their thoughts, but you must also draw from other sources and not just the horses's mouth, and crowd perception of who the person was can sometimes be valid, as the perceptions create a possible abductive reasoning argument. Sometimes reading too much about certain authors muddles your perspective if you are looking to be progressive in your ideology, as it gets you focused on the ideas of certain authors rather than the broader picture. For example, I can read a considerable amount about Plato's Theory of Forms, but it really won't make me of more sound thinking than just reading a Wikipedia article which also speaks of Aristotle's ideas on the matter and the possible refutations.

Philosophy acknowledges this with primary texts and secondary texts. And, because it is philosophy, the importance of the two are debated. But with some of them like Heidegger it's basically impossible without some sort of secondary source to be a Dante to mavigate you down the difficult concepts, translations, and cultural background info to help decipher some of his works (the first page in Being and Time (my copy, anyways) has a footnote explaining the translation of one word the os longer than the regular text of the page, and it stretches into the next page).
And then with Nietzsche, it does also help to understand the complications with approaching his stuff. Such as, the Will to Power is not canon, yet sought after by Nazis amd those who really don't know anything about Nietzsche (it is his words, but spoken through, carefully put together, and selectively edited by his Nazi sister for her own benefit in the party). It also helps explain why his later works aren't canon either, due to his illness (the drop in quality is also tragically apparent in his later works). Amd it also introduces the part of him you dont see much of in his writings, which is the whimsical, good natured, joke telling, devils advocate for the sake of thought and discourse, and known for saying stuff just to provoke a sharp response (and his female friends of "higher status" joking not to let their colleagues know they are friends with a man they defended as not misogynist).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

This has a LOT of information about almost every possible philosophical position/question/debate.

Lol! I thought it was Plato but I couldn't remember for sure.