How come nihilism is so popular today?

  • I've been trying to attack this question (or more precisely, come up with an answer to that fact) for some time now, but after a while of research I'm suddenly not so sure of the reason the situation is as it is.

    I used to think that nihilism today is so popular because of the uprising of positivism in science and scientism in the past century, but I'm not exactly sure anymore. I know some blame it today for post-modernism, but I'm not sure it's quite correct too. So, I'd like to see what people here think is the core issue that made room for the popularity (of course there are those who will argue with me about its popularity too) of nihilism in the last few decades.

    I should say, while it is not directly related, I am going to connect atheism in some way to nihilism, as in my opinion they both came from the same source last century, but I would definitely accept other point of views here.

    Edit: while writing a comment to @GeoffreyThomas' answer, I realized the two definitions of nihilism I'm talking about:

    1. Postmodern nihilism - the postmodern position that says "there's no one truth", which leads to a nihilism that denies objectivity, and is more popular today because, well, postmodern is quite popular today as it's a new school in philosophy.

    2. Existential nihilism - the existential crisis of "there's no meaning to life, we are nothing compared to the billions of years of the universe", which leads to a nihilism that denies any sort of hope and aspiration for a meaning.

    While I'm more interested in the nihilism that's rooted in the second definition, I'd love to hears answers about them both.

    You might want to state what makes you think that nihilism is especially popular today. I can't ever recall meeting anyone who describes themselves as a nihilist.

    @ChrisSunami yeah I thought about that, by I think the common definition fits - lack of meaning for life.

    What convinces you that a particularly large group of people today consider there to be a lack of meaning for life?

    The violence, suicides. People can be nihilists but lack the word in their vocabulary. A lot of houses of worship are drawing poor attendance nowadays in the West. By 2050, they will be packed to the rafters. Panic. Philosophers may have to play a therapeutic role. Who knows? I have suggested such temporary philosophies as existentialism. Books by Mortimer Adler. Any port in a storm. BTW I am agnostic myself, but I go to services sometimes. There are many agnostics, atheists etc in attendance Why not? There is still more truth to be had in the future if we can get there.

    @ChrisSunami I hear and see that everyday.

    @Gordon I'm not necessarily in disagreement, but in order for this to be a strong question, it should cite the evidence for its premise in the body of the question itself.

    @ChrisSunami a phenomenon can be widespread and popular even if people involved don't want to associate themselves with it. For example if there is a stigma attached or maybe even illegal.

    @YechiamWeiss Oh, now I understand your comment below. You made changes to your question. It's all good. I have very much enjoyed this topic, and the contributions from all parties.

    I still don't really understand what the question is asking. Are you asking why nihilism is popular amongst academics who have studied the history of philosophy and chosen nihilism? Are you asking why so many impoverished out-of-work American rust-belt factory workers addicted to opioids are committing suicide? Who exactly is the population that is exhibiting the alleged popularity of nihilism?

    @EricLippert "the population that is exhibiting the alleged popularity of nihilism" is the middle class citizens, the people who consume knowledge but are often not knowledgeable enough to be considered to have "academic" knowledge.

    Edited the tags to remove Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy since neither seemed apt. Added existentialism and postmodernism given the edit. Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Culture seem questionable, but I’ll leave that to the judgment of others.

    I refuse to believe nihilism is popular.

    The nihilism you define looks like simple pessimism. There is a more philosophical definition by which it states that nothing exists. I would say the principle cause of the nihilism you describe is the stagnation of the university philosophy department, but this would be a different topic.and is perhaps a tad contentious.

    @PeterJ I too think the "stagnation of the university philosophy department" has a big influence here. Although I'm in no position to say anything critical (if at all) about the state of philosophy in universities as I have no relation to it, I can say that in a more publical view I see lack of philosophy books (well, not in the nowadays regular sense of philosophy, those "have better life" kind of guidebooks, as I simply don't consider them much of philosophy), and the dominance of mechanistic Dawkins style pop science books.

    Existential nihilism is the default scientific position. Positing there's a meaning to life requires proof and it's obviously impossible to acquire one. Therefore a fully rational person would assume that position.

    @NikitaSokolsky why do you come to that conclusion? Not that I'm saying it's not what people think, but I mean philosophically speaking, why do you consider existential nihilism to be the default scientific position? Or should I ask otherwise - why do you think there's even a default position?

    I have an excellent answer to this question, but I just don't see the point in posting it. It's never really going to help anyone anyway.

    @ToddWilcox is this sarcastic comment? Because if it isn't I'd love to hear your answer (and have a good answer to your statement), and if it is then it's a nice pun that I completely ruined :)

    @ChrisSunami : I can count on both hands and a foot the number of people I have met who describe themselves accurately regarding their implemented (versus aspirational) philosophy. Just because someone does or does not describe themselves as a nihilist does not make it so.

    A (too) straightforward historical answer is in IEP:"*In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness.*" While Sartre may have been responsible for giving the idea wide circulation he was not responsible for so many finding it appealing. But I doubt that *this* is the nihilism OP has in mind since existentialism calls for generating one's own meaning instead of searching for made ones, not giving up.

    @JonathanReez - A fully rational person would notice that the nihilistic view you endorse is based on a doubtful assumption.and is a speculation. It is not as easy as you think to prove that we must be so gloomy.

    If being an atheist (not believing in god) is nihilism, if believing that there might be life somewhere else in the universe - which undermines statements from several religions that the earth was the center of everything and human are the god’s most beloved creature; then that is better than nihilism. If we know more from modern science and think that race don’t matter - than that’s better than nihilism. If we think that we are not the best thing evolution might have created - than that is better than nihilism.

    @everestial007 by themselves, those statements are definitely not nihilistics. Please look at the definitions I've written.

    @YechiamWeiss Todd's comment was a joke. He comically espoused the Nihilist view in relation to this thread.

    @ToddWilcox hah, spot on. The ones who would appreciate it could probably come up with it themselves and the rest would just be annoyed by the one saying anything about it. Better to just shut up, watch some olympic games and drink some beer.

  • While I'm not entirely convinced of the premises of the question, in general people seek out philosophies that address conditions of life as they experience it. In the marketplace of ideas, a philosophy may thrive not as much because of its connection with deeper truth, but because of its connection with present conundrums.

    In light of that, I'd submit that part of the reason for the rise in the existentialist family of philosophies --existentialism, nihilism, absurdism, and so forth --is the rise of globalization. In a world with a diversity of culture and beliefs, it becomes more difficult for people to accept received beliefs without questioning them.

    I'd agree that there is a relationship here with scientism, although I would see that more as an attempted alternative to nihilism than as an extension of it.

    I too think there's a deep connection to the globalization.

    "In a world with a diversity of culture and beliefs, it becomes more difficult for people to accept received beliefs without questioning them." I think this sentence captures the essence of where I see the OP trying to go with this question. However, I do like Geoffery's answer for pointing out that what the OP is calling nihilism may not actually be quite extreme enough for that term.

    I.m.h.o. not just due to globalization. Also because we live in an Age of Information. It's harder to convince people of your believes when they have an easier exposure to other viewpoints.

    But existentialism is distinct from nihilism. Existentialists believe in "meaning" they think they created themselves. Nihilists don't create any meaning.

  • I can think of 2 reasons:

    1. Naturalism is the philosophy most promoted in public schools. With some exceptions, people tend to stick with what they're taught in school. Believing in a supernatural being that loves us used to be a widely accepted and even promoted way to view the universe, even in schools. That is no longer the case. The new standard is to tell children (and adults) that hydrogen + time = YOU; that they're the result of a cosmic accident and that every thought or feeling they've ever had is a chemical reaction. Surely this can swell meaninglessness in people when they want "meaning" to be more than just chemical reactions.

    2. Nihilism is no longer taboo. There was a time in the West where if you were not a Church Going Christian you were an outsider, and people don't want to be outsiders. One can reasonably assume that in that time many people adopted a faith-based philosophy not because they truly believed it but because they wanted to fit into their society. Nihilism could be seen as having a comeback not because more people are believing in it, but because more people are no longer afraid to admit it.

    I think your last sentence is a very good observation. Because people are no longer afraid to admit it, they tend to think about it more, and it may become more of an issue for them.

    While I'm not exactly sure that these observations are correct, I've upvoted simply for the fact that I think those are interesting points that should be considered. Thanks for the answer and welcome to the site :)

    @YechiamWeiss upvote purely for 'hydrogen + time = YOU'.

    In some circles, faith-based philosophy is taboo and nihilism is more accepted. I suspect some people on the fence between the two would pick nihilism to fit in.

    I would add a third reason - as an explicit rejection of religion. Specifically, rejecting the traditionalist dogma that is often used to promote and support oppression and discrimination. Most organized religions tend to be extremely patriarchal. Most tend to oppose alternate sexual and gender identities. Our society is in general more diverse and open than in the past, and that breeds an empathy and acceptance that is in direct opposition to bigotry. In addition, religion tends to be closely integrated with conservative political platforms, which younger people in particular tend to reject.

    I disagree with your implication that nihilism is the opposite of faith. Some religions are nihilistic.

  • Jacob Ross, Rejecting Ethical Deflationism,' Ethics 116, 2006: 742–68 defines nihilism as :


    '...the view that the notions of good and bad and of right and wrong are illusions and that, objectively speaking, no option or state of affairs is better than any other, nor are any two options or states of affairs equally good. Thus, while uniform theories assign the same value to all of our options, nihilistic theories don’t assign values to any of our options' (748).

    Naturally I don't know how acceptable this definition will be. One of its merits is that if this is what nihilism plausibly is, then it's hard to see how one could adopt nihilism and also believe that life has any meaning.


    Postmodernism appears to deprive virtually everything of meaning. But I don't think it has played a central role here. Relativism is a deeply entrenched style of contemporary thinking. Anyone who passes a moral or an aesthetic judgement is likely to meet with a response like : 'Well, that's just your opinion - other people think differently. You can't prove your opinion is better than theirs'. This is quite in line with Ross' definition and the relativist attitude behind it is a pervasive fact of contemporary life.


    Globalisation might (innocently) be a part cause of the current power of nihilism. As different lifestyles and belief-systems come into deep and frequent contact, it's hard to find an Archimedean point from which to survey them and make an informed, critical judgement between them.

    A collapse of tradition in the West, an implosion of communitarianism, has also played a part. People who are rooted in stable traditions don't doubt that life has a meaning; they have grown up with the idea of its having a particular meaning, the meaning set and fixed by the communities to which they belong and feel themselves to belong. The earlier work of Michael Sandel, esp. 'Liberalism and the Limits of Justice', Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 1998, heavily attacked the liberal political philosophy of John Rawls for its view of a political system designed by 'unencumbered selves', people without roots, tradition or community. Maybe we are all more or less unencumbered now.

    The melting and merging of social classes also comes into the picture. If classes were not communities, class cohesiveness (and not least working-class solidarity) imprinted a sense of who one was, who one wasn't, who was the ally and who the foe. A committed trade unionist, a militant communist, a rentier, had no doubt that life had a meaning even if they never used the phrase. Today most people describe themselves as 'middle class' in spite of not having any sharp sense of class and of holding widely divergent values which, in face of relativism (see above), they cannot defend : values which therefore are only simulacra of the real thing.

    Good answer. I think your comment on postmodernism is very perceptive. Before postmodernism came along, we already had Nietzsche, we had two World Wars, the Cold War, and the excesses of logical positivism. I found Hilary Putnam's lecture at U. Dublin on receipt of their Ulysses Medal to be very interesting.

    @Gordon what you say is what I was thinking as the sources for nihilism - Nietzsche, World Wars, positivism. Maybe postmodernism is the current source indeed, combined with globalization, but I still feel the other sources as influential.

    @GeoffreyThomas I like your answer, but I think Ross' definition lacks a bit from my view of nihilism - it isn't just the postmodern "there's no truth" position, that's one aspect of nihilism. But there's another - the one that the existential crisis leads to, the "there's no meaning to life, we are nothingness compared to the infinity of the world and history". That's my biggest concern with nihilism, and while your answer is a good one for the first aspect, I'm waiting to see others relating to the second.

    Well maybe I wasn't clear, I was complimenting Geoffrey because I think the postmodernism came as a result, or as one result, of the pre-existing nihilism. On the other hand, Modernism did have its problems. E.g. Many people admired Le Corbisier's Unite d'habitation in Marseilles, but very few residents lived in it as Corbusier planned They felt overcontrolled, perhaps manipulated. It was intended to create community, but in no time it atomized. Now it is upscale, I believe. So modernism could be heavy-handed.

    Here is the page regarding Putnam at Univ. College Dublin. I think his lecture can be accessed here. @YachiamWeiss Yes, Geoffrey is saying that postmodernism did not play the central role. From at least the 1860s in Europe things were leading to Nihilism, imo.

    @Yechiam Weiss. Thanks for the comment but you added the two definitions after I had written my answer. I can't be expected to answer on the second when it wasn't there when I answered the question. You must realise that point ? But as always I am very glad to exchange ideas with you. I look forward to our next encounter. Best - GT

    @GeoffreyThomas I'm very sorry if you feel like I'm asking you for more than your great answer - I am definitely not. When I said "I'm waiting to see others relating to the second" I meant from other people. Your answer is excellent in regards for the first definition.

    @Yechiam Weiss. Thanks for comment. I wasn't annoyed, just felt that when I answered I couldn't have given all you want because the second part of the question wasn't there then. No problem. It's a fascinating question as you have revised it. And I meant what I said - I look forward to our next encounter ! Best - Geoff

    @GeoffreyThomas me too, I love your answers and am looking forward to see others :)

    Nice answer, though I've considered that the loss of tradition was hastened on its way by two World Wars.

    @Mozibur Ullah. You have a point ! Best - Geoff

    @MoziburUllah the two World Wars (especially the second) are also often considered being the cause of postmodernism. Just noting.

    @YechiamWeiss: I think, given how long we have lived in a generally peaceful Europe, just how terrible two wars on that kind of scale must have been and how it must have shaken the Europe to its core.

  • If nihilism is more popular these days, I would argue this is because the ideas which guided people through life with certainty and optimism no longer enjoy a consensus.

    Nietzsche discussed the prospect of a post-religious world (God is dead, Will to power, Ubermensch), and was disgusted with the idea of an entire society driven by mass culture, which he thought would result in little besides mediocrity and hedonism.

    Collective trust is broken, and there has been a collective loss of innocence. The free flow of information has exposed and exaggerated scandal after scandal, and together these have undermined trust in most formerly untouchable institutions... the government, the church, the police, science, journalism, etc.

    It might be easy to say that the old consensus began to unravel in the 1960s, when society in American and Soviet spheres started to question themselves in a way they hadn't before. But I don't think it's quite that simple.

    In America, the civil rights act, the counter-culture, and the Vietnam War eroded trust in authority. In the USSR, de-Stalinisation, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia did something similar. In both cases individuals began to distrust what they had been told, and information was flowing more freely than before. Come the 1970s stagflation further undermined trust in the establishment as the economy worsened and nobody seemed to know why, or what to do about it.

    However, the time leading up to the Second World War was also a period of intense collective soul searching as things fell apart. This was also true during and after the First World War, given the scale of the slaughter. The difference however may be in the failure of optimism.

    After the First World War liberal, socialist, and fascist ideas were popular, and to simplify things; each argued that humanity could improve itself through hard work and scientific knowledge. This provided a certainty and optimism which would replace the feudal certainties of old; that all one had to do was put faith in God and King.

    After the collapse of the USSR it appeared as if fascism and socialism were both dead. Liberalism had won. Empowering individual freedoms seemed to make society better and people happy. The problem however was that by then the scientific consensus was fraying. Each time scientists had promised technology would make life better, it had years later made nightmares come true. Things like DDT, Chernobyl, CFCs, moved the popular consensus from thinking about science with delighted optimism, to fearful pessimism.

    After the Great Recession there appeared to be little left of any of the great optimistic ideas. Each of them had been proved dangerous and problematic. Irrational scepticism was rampant. In this zeitgeist where there is little in the way of an optimistic consensus, individuals are more likely to regard salvation as illusionary; religion, science, fascism, socialism, liberalism, have all failed to live up to their own hype. Today we live in a marketplace of dead ideas, so to speak.

    Perhaps it is the death of optimism which leads to the birth of nihilism.

    Wow. I think this is the most comprehensive answer here. Thank you very much.

    I listened to a Jordan Peterson lecture on this topic yesterday. You nailed it. +1

    @YechiamWeiss May I please have a tick if you are satisfied with the answer?

  • I find that most modern quirks can be attributed to globalism yes, but specifically the internet. The internet provides exposure to elements you usually would not see.

    If you are of the same mind as myself, you believe that people are a product of their surroundings. That is how patriots and ideological fanatics come to exist and how unique cultures are developed. A homogeneous mode of thought within a country/city/town, with (more or less) the same people, in (more or less) the same circumstances.

    So what happens when people's surroundings widen to the extent of the entire world? With a wide wide spectrum of all its characteristics and beliefs? That is the internet. I see no other way to explain radicalism (in any form) spreading at the rate that it does. Ideas that would usually die at conception are now allowed to reach the minds of the masses.

    What usually happens with people is they either wholeheartedly accept what they are taught, wholeheartedly reject it, or just bounce in between. I believe that many are now becoming overwhelmed by the sheer amount of beliefs and the contradictions they create, so they find solace in active resistance, Nihilism. Reject all beliefs and (usually) find solace in science or materialism.

    I'm not sure that what you presented would conclude with nihilism, but rather with the idea of home, tradition - someone who is "overwhelmed by the sheer amount of beliefs and the contradictions they create", in my opinion, would actually end up closing himself to what he known his whole life - his family's traditions. Which is, by the way, another phenomena we can see, mainly in post modern people.

    That is what I was trying to point out, that people are no longer molded by their family's/country's traditions. They are shaped by the entirety of the world, and that ends up becoming too overwhelming for the majority.

    yes, and in response to that they DO end up closing themselves in their traditions - because of this overwhelmness.

    *How come XYZ is so popular today?* Digital soapboxes.

    What traditions, when they have no reliable ones to fall back on? People cling on to the concrete, something you found yourself relying on time and time again, that is how you find trust in the idea. You cannot have that when your opinion changes every week. If nothing you believe ever pans out to be true, what choice do you have but to adopt a Nihilistic point of view?

    @Ruski give up the search for "truth" and simply live by the way your parents live by. That's what I mean by falling back to tradition.

  • This answer is just speculation

    Why it is popular:

    People enjoy it. They can act how ever they please because immorality is impossible. It also makes them feel intellectually superior with no more effort than understanding a short sentence. The brevity of the belief is important to the "nihilists" laziness of learning and so their intellect and wisdom can be quickly demonstrated with few follow up questions that may reveal the holders knowledge of the subject.

    From my experience these people use nihilism as a tool which they turn on and off suiting their situation, they can do what they like because there is no meaning but others should do what is just.

    Why it was less popular in the past:

    Today there is more freedom, casual sex is risk free, marriages can be left, and fantasies can be lived out in fiction or video games, drugs are cheaper and safer than before and living without working is a possibility for most of the west, abandoning guilt allows people more freedom now than before.

    The rise of privacy means you are the only judge of your behaviour. A hundred years ago it did not matter what you thought, your neighbours knew what you were up to and would shun you if they thought you were immoral.

    Christianity is almost incompatible with nihilism as most people view an existence of god as a source of a meaning to life. Why this is the case is a different question.

    We know more about the universe and can see that the earth is not special, disease is not caused by evil and every observation points towards the universe being an uncaring reaction of the past.

    „living without working is a possibility for most of the west“? I must be doing something wrong then. ☺

    @BlackJack I don't know about all of eastern Europe but unemployment income is certainly available in US, Canada, west Europe, Australia and NZ.

    Western Europe here and of course there is unemployment income but only as long as one follows the rules which usually includes a) actively searching for a job and b) accept jobs offered by the job centre. So living without working might be possible, but not that easy.

    @BlackJack In theory that works but it is sort of the reverse catch 22 though, if you are too dumb to avoid getting a job, then nobody will offer you a job.

    Remarkably, most of your points are demonstrably false. Even without religious ethics individuals are very capable of arguing about morality, and many things are still considered very immoral; sex abuse, corruption, hate speech, etc. Casual sex is "risk free"... when STDs are on the rise across the West and HIV is still a problem? Never mind pregnancy. Absurd statement. In the past marriages were sometimes annulled before they could be divorced. Drugs are more available, but are often more dangerous. See opiate epidemic in the US, or the fact cannabis is much stronger now than it was...

    Also Privacy is much less nowadays. People will get fired for things they do in their private life, because it's easier for private and professional lives to spill over into one another given social media, never mind the state invasion of privacy with the surveillance programs revealed by Snowden. Most people can't afford to live without working. In the UK people who claim welfare but don't get a job will eventually stop getting benefits, and this had led to deaths, plus there has been a shortage of low cost public housing for years.

  • The way paradigms shift quickly in modern times is likely even more a cause than an enabling factor.

    Whoever has seen multiple contradicting views on one matter being accepted, then debunked, as truths through their lifetime will eventually find it unlikely that "the next truth will be any different" - and at the same time, see "truths are multiple, arbitrary, replaceable and abundant" as something that, being empirically/statistically proven to them, comes very close to a truth.

  • Because people can afford it.

    Back in a time when most of our efforts were invested in surviving, people couldn't afford being nihilists.

    • There were much fewer safety nets given to the people by the state, so you needed a lot stronger ties to family and the local community. Without such strong ties, even a small illness, or even just breaking your arm could have led to not being able to work and to quickly starve to death.

    • There was a lot less access to affordable entertainment, which also meant more time being spent in a strong community spirit.

    Spending time with friends and family, the length of marriages, and church attendance have fallen in a very similar pattern: having an easy access to cheap entertainment and not having to rely so much on very close connections with other people for survival, made many people value those connections less, and finding their purpose within such small communities became less probable. We were conditioned for countless generations to find our purpose in filling a role within a small, tightly-knit community. With many of the constraints gone and the world opening up, some people might find their place in the larger world, but many do not.

    +1 Socionomists use bull and bear markets to attempt to predict or at least describe how social mood is expressed. This social mood would be the partial cause of nihilism and these markets.

  • Objectivism deserves denying, due to the apparent limits of the human senses.

    I wouldn't say this directly leads to nihilism, although I can see why a lot of people take it that way, which is unfortunate. The lack of an objective reality should only serve to open minds, making them more fluid and less steadfast in their beliefs, however it seems people take it as 'if nothing is true, why bother with anything?'. That's jumping to an extreme to discredit a position, and is unreasonable. Pragmatism should always win out in the human experience, and pragmatism would state that it's ok to rely on things that are a 'safe bet' such as the sun rising in the morning. It doesn't mean it's objectively true that the sun will rise in the morning, but it's close enough that pragmatically it doesn't make a difference.

    I would argue that Objectivism is what is splintering society - those who believe they have the objective truth on a matter are unwavering, and will decry those who disagree with them as crazy, or trolling, and that is becoming more and more common, with the extreme objectivists becoming more cemented in their views as time goes on.

    I would say, instead of taking nihilism from subjectivism, it'd be better to ask questions and try to empathize with others positions. Id also say that empathizing is not the same as sympathizing, which is another common misconception used to deny the need to do so. 'Why should I empathize with terrorists, I don't care how they feel!'. Empathy is the key to subjectivism, and in my opinion objectivism is closer to nihilism than otherwise, as if you already know the answers what is the point in questioning?

    Look at all zealots, oppressors, and psychopaths, and notice a trend - they all believe their viewpoint is the truth.

    A sad state of affairs, for sure, and I doubt it'll change anytime soon.

    I've often lamented the rise of the 'truth cultists' who view their truth as the only truth and any dissent as a reason to commit violence and to oppress. Truth cultists come in religious and athiest varieties to the point where the only difference between a smug religious truth cultist and a smug athiest one is the valence of a single question.

    You are not wrong my friend, you are not wrong. I'd argue cultist atheists are worse, as the religious folk generally believe in payment for sins in the afterlife, whereas atheists have less to lose - subjectively.

  • Ideas are prioritized in the mind by the degree of success achieved during their application (where application also regularly means reproducing the knowledge of parents, teachers, etc.). Where successes are of similar intensity, those earlier in life gain some additional priority compared to those later in life.

    Given that science has had what could be called a Tsunami of successes since the beginning of the 20th century, it is not surprising that more and more individuals grow up with the logical consequences of scientific success.

    The more science succeeds, the more the idea is spreading that the limits to what is possible are very expansive or even infinite. Almost anything seems possible in this speculative bubble. The mind perceiving itself inside a seemingly unbounded space of possibilities loses its frame of reference.

    If anything is possible then nothing is reliable. This is the logical consequence of great success. As long as no new limits appear, this inclined plane of nihilism will go on and on. But, as experience always shows, this cannot go forever, most of all because human expectations eventually rise faster than real capabilities.

    The next crash will inevitably come, be it in the financial industry, in global politics or in science. This will revive the idea of a fixed frame of reference and will end yet another era of nihilism in history. We will remember those ideas we have had success with earlier in our individual and collective history. And we will then learn from our mistakes and after some time of depression and quasi-religious belief will the next era of success, nihilism and mania begin.

    You say this is a way history works - have you seen it somewhen in history before?

    Say rome for example... of course at a different level, but hubris is not something invented today. Remember Ikarus? To be more specific, I think it is not history (in the sense of some abstract entity Marx might have understood it) but rather human nature itself that is causing it. Or just take rich people: they usually act quite nihilistic unless they set themselves limits (like Bill Gates for example).

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM