None of the great thinkers who were influenced by the idea of the nothingness of values were nihilists. Nietzsche was no nihilist, he exposed the nihilism in everybody else. The same goes for Sartre, he revealed that so many are clinging to values of which they cannot themselves be said to have chosen. Labeling somebody as nihilist is the most predictable attack made by nihilist people on the thinkers who are revealing the nullness of their own values.

Who has called Sartre a nihilist?

I believe it is Albert Camus who brought forth the idea that Sartre was a nihilist. This happened at a time where Sartre was becoming closer to Stalinism and the French Communist Party and he thought he could bring together existentialism and communism (perhaps his greatest failure). As Sartre tried to justify the purges, stating that a revolutionary movement was beyond the moral values of the western world, Camus, who I think is the only true Existentialist, along with Heidegger, accused Sartre of falling toward nihilism. I always found Sartre very pessimistic about the human condition: even though he admited the absurdity of life, he nevertheless tried to find a new meaning for life, somewhat through history and thus the historic determinism of communism. Camus was much more down the earth, more subject to the simple pleasures of life. He believed that Existentialism came with the resepct of human lives, since killing for a greater good (ie the Stalinist purges) was against existentialism as it meant that you put a meaning in each single life.

Nihilism: Theism is the ultimate nihilism, by the given definition, for a theist claims an arbitrary divine dictator outside the confines of a moral system: God is greater than morality. However, in my experience nihilism is used to describe one whose philosophy discounts human meaning and purpose; when one describes Nietzsche as a nihilist this is what is meant. The ubermensche of Nietzsche transcends human value and is thereby free to kill indiscriminately or lie or enslave. I personally have never felt Nietzsche to espouse nihilism, but the argument is difficult to refute.

No End in Sight: (Talk about nihilism...) War planners knew precisely what they were doing, and to the extent that this film portrays the Administration as myopic zealots the film is dangerously misleading. Things really went radically "south" the first time the Iraqi puppet parliament rejected the oil surrender law. It was at that time that Negroponte unleashed the tribal infighting canard, there had been national solidarity prevailing until then -- even among the Kurds. Asia Minor is a prize to these people and it must be controlled by overwhelming military dominance. One does not overwhelm China by creating stable autonomous regimes in the heart of the most readily profitable region on the planet. However, a plausible humanitarian crisis requiring decades to resolve -- now that is a plan to control and manage profit taking.

I saw No End in Sight, and I don't remember it taking "myopic zealotry" as the explanation for the fiasco. Someone might have said that in the film, but as I recall the film leaves it open. Still, taht is the Received View of the situation among most war critics, though many of us suspect more is involved, and certainly wouldn't be opposed to finding that there is more to it.

Do you, Mickleby, have any sources for your beliefs that I could go to? This isn't an unfriendly request, or a challenge--as a war critic from the beginning, I really want to know. I'm reading Fiasco, and so far it isn't there.

I do think that this movie, like Fiasco, is a wonderful chronicle of the events. See it!

Brad

I read the Prison article yesterday and enjoyed the read--guess because I'm a crim major. My constant argument of the overflooding of correctional facilities has been what this article summed up in a paragraph:

A more convincing argument is that imprisonment rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen because we have become progressively more punitive: not because crime has continued to explode (it hasn’t), not because we made a smart policy choice, but because we have made a collective decision to increase the rate of punishment.

The gross influx of inmates for drug offences saturates the prisons where we could otherwise place individuals worthy of incarceration (homicidal maniacs, child-raping priests, Bush, etc.).

Re: Malaysian Crackdown

I never did get him to reveal exactly which Asian country he was in, but I suspected our old buddy Kes was writing from Malaysia.

His departure seemed very abrupt considering he usually posted several times a day here at 1gm. After reading this story, I wouldn't be surprised to hear he is in prison for sharing his opinion with the world.

our old buddy Kes

Was asked not to comment here.

I see. Well, I guess thats better than prison ;-}

...child-raping priests, Bush, etc.).

lol!

Sure, that's the reason why I elected philosophy as my major in undergrad school. You read L'etre et le Neant and you realize that this guy was trying to build a life-based moral philosophy--why do you think he called it exist-entialism?

But Sartre was just the gateway; the core, for me, was Spinoza, the sun around which I orbited for a few years. Whether through lack of intellect, experience, or intuition (maybe all 3), I fell short of understanding him, but it was a trip. Whenever that question comes up about who we'd want to meet if they could be brought back to life, the little Jew from Amsterdam with the geometry of morality and the living sense of all-that-is that surpassed every belief, is at the top of my list.

The thing I like about the No End in Sight trailer is how vapid and self-serving the administration's PR campaign is, especially when juxtaposed to some of the fluttering images of war and low troop moral.

I am studying Spinoza. He is...spiritually uplifting and enchanting.

Any Web source recommendations or companion literature recommendation?

...recommendations or companion literature recommendation?

i guess this is what the phrase "imho" was invented for. imho, and i'm not claiming to be an expert, spinoza cannot be understood outside the context of the generations of jewish thought of which he was a part, had a profound knowledge of, and was profoundly influenced by. as far as "companion literature", then, at the very least you want to have some familiarity with the bible and the important jewish commentaries on it, especially rashi, maimonides, nachmanides and (most importantly) ibn ezra.

"Sartre was one of the great moral philosophers."

He was also a big fan of Mao and Che, who he called the most perfect man of his age.

I agree as far as requiring a cultural and historical context in order to understand him. I think this goes for any writer--so that one knows whether they are merely perpetuating social philosophies or something unique to their own. For instance, many argue that Spinoza's political philosophy is nothing more than a slight variation of Hobbesian thought. And that Spinoza's concept of God, or Nature, is nothing more than a slight variation of Descartes' model. Naturally these things are arguable, but also, I've only read somewhat of this, that many scholars on Spinoza consider him uniquely bound to his Jewish heritage but produced more of a sort of Jewish mysticism which really cannot be held has a proper complete philosophical system.

I personally hold the assumption that although his cultural ties he developed something which transcended it. But yes, thank you for those recommendations. I've read somewhat of Spinoza's direct influences and contemporaries.

Nietzche assigned the term "nihilism" to xians. They were nihilists because they despised and renounced the real world. Nietzche celebrated the real physical world. He severely criticized what he called "ressentiment" or the xian hatred of the success and joy that others took in that world.

Clearly the believers in a life after this one are the nihilists.

I believe Christians and supernaturalists are nihilists because they declare and worship something which they cannot truly understand. So God becomes whatever they want: "God is love," "god is the sum total of Universal law," "god is my supreme tax return agent."

God becomes whatever whenever but only become the person has emotional conviction in their own opinions and feelings. Christianity is a rampant and unchecked form of nihilism because it masks itself in tradition and "good feelings."

"i mean, say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it was an ethos."- walter

"we're going to cut off your johnson, lebowski!"

help, i can't stop.