Interestingly, Wikipedia does not mention despair as a requirement for defining nihilism, though it’s commonly implied. Maybe I’m not wrong after all.
Discussion
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nihilism
Try studying a word's etymology to understand it better. Modern definitions (e.g., Wikipedia, dictionaries) sometimes skew word meanings to better fit prevailing (secular) ideologies.
In this case, I think nostr:npub1nf9vm6uhs4j7yaysmjn9eqlf7et5t6hvrkdqgpd995vcc9yfjyas0pxa3x is right. “Nihil” means “nothing at all.” I think it’s correct to say Nihilism necessarily contains despair because there is no hope for any meaning.
Nothing does not mean no hope and despair.
Re-read that sentence. If there were hope, then there wouldn't be nothing; there would be something. Nothing can only be the absence of things.
If there is nothing, what are you hoping for?
Now I have to research “hope” 😆
Ok I’m not going to.
Absence is nothing. Hope is something. Is there no neutral state?
I think it's pretty binary: there is either something or nothing. 😄
To be fair, the path from rejecting Nihilism to accepting God is missing a step (i.e., existentialism). But I think it’s pretty easy to show that Nihilism doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. At the very least, if it’s true, there is no point in doing anything, so it’s impossible to have an optimistic or productive worldview.
I reject the idea that it’s impossible to have an optimistic view if there’s no point to anything, quite the opposite. But it seems this is existentialism so you are correct and I’m using the wrong terminology.
I'm a father and find optimism mandatory, if I thought there was nothing but shit for my daughters when they grow up it would drive me insane.
Of course. But I don’t see how it relates to what I said.
I was just confirming the idea that it's not impossible to hold an optimistic view if there is no point to anything..
Ah ok. 👍
I'm sorry to be pedantic; to clarify, I think you mean that there is no *objective* point to anything, but there is a *subjective* point; therefore, there is a point to our existence (which refutes Nihilism).
Aside: This is why definitions are important. It's easier to say there is no point to anything when what is meant is everyone determines the point individually because the latter sounds self-ish (which it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong!).
Existentialism argues that one's existence precedes essence, making the individual the author of meaning. To refute existentialism, one has to make the case that essence precedes existence (i.e., humans are made in the image and likeness of God).
One argument is, can we say something is objectively wrong, and therefore, its existence is contrary to an essence that preceded it? An example would be someone like Hitler or an action like rape. Some existentialists will bite the bullet and say we can't objectively say those things are bad. Others will rely on some collective utility to say those things are bad (which, in my opinion, at a minimum, undermines the theory if not outright refutes it).
The theist would then say that since we can say things are objectively good or bad, this leads to nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs ‘s statement, “You're meant for greater things.” The debate then continues about what is good and bad and what those greater things are.
I'm not trying to bait you into a debate you don't want to have. I'm just trying to briefly outline the classical arguments to show why I think the OP is right.