Talk:Nihilism

Is Nihilism merely an extension of logical bi-valence, and thus a form of Dialectic or Sophism?

This implies that Nihilism is a form of extreme rationalism, and not an extreme form of skepticism: “Political nihilism, a branch of nihilism, follows the characteristic nihilist's rejection of non-rationalized or non-proven assertions...”--Semeion (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Two sources worth considering

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Monism -- provides a logical definition of nihilism, as the assertion of a set of none to a count of targets for analysis. This could be a great "meta" point for understanding nihilism.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Moral Skepticism -- this sees nihilism as a variety of moral skepticism, which gives it more of a scientific angle than an outright denial. Conservationist666 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs a clearer definition

The first line:

"Nihilism (pronounced /ˈnaɪ.əˌlɪzəm/ or /ˈni.əˌlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life."

I think we can tighten this up a bit, and avoid the confusion where we assert "meaningful" (implied: objective meaning) before making any proof for it:

"Nihilism (pronounced /ˈnaɪ.əˌlɪzəm/ or /ˈni.əˌlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine denying objective truths, meaning, value or in some cases, knowledge."

Obviously, nihilism does not deny subjective assessments/"truths" because it must be considered true in order to be held as a belief, or at least preferential. What are your thoughts on this? Conservationist666 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there needs to be a {{nutshell}} definition. Andy_Howard (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutshells are not for use on article pages. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Objective Meaning?

2nd line in the article: "objective meaning". As far as I know all meaning is subjective. Things can only have meaning to an observer, in a context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.97.45 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, you're a nihilist. Some people insist that there is an objective meaning/purpose/goal/final cause for the universe itself, as a whole, and those people aren't nihilists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.142.150 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nihilism as a position of denying reality

Buridan has twice removed my addition regarding the extreme form of nihilism that denies reality itself.

[Oxford[1]]

[Answers[2]]

I just wanted to bring this up. I have not used language that implies that this is a necessary nor common form of nihilism. But, nevertheless, it is still a form of nihilism, and thus should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.164 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

what you just said is 'dear sir, i just copied a definition from somewhere else without giving proper citation'. we don't allow that. please try to find a reputable philosophical dictionary also. You may want to introduce your cited 'common usage' in the article below. --Buridan (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Well I apologise if I am not following the rules of Wikipedia, I edit extremely rarely. My point is simply that: - the denial of knowledge (epistemological nihilism) should be included in the opening of the article - the denial of existence/reality as a whole should also be included in the opening, as this is a valid (albeit the most extreme) form of nihlism. It is not a form of solipsism as it denies all existence, and thus the self, as well.

To be honest the article is biased towards existential and moral nihilism in its current form.

Please explain to me what you would want to see for my contribution to be valid. I am not trying to antagonise the community, but I am bringing forward true information and it should be included.

IEP defines epistemological nihilism, and also states it is associated with a 'radical skepticism that condemns existence' [IEP[3]]

I also apologise if naming you appeared hostile, it was not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.164 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the second paragraph of the metaphysical nihilism section because it is very clusmy. It quotes dubious sources and confuses radical skepticism and metaphysical nihilism. Radical skepticism will generally make no certain claims either way on such questions and this section unnecessarily adds a negative presumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.255.15 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok I made the changes and it meets the standards you set. Thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.164 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, i gave it it's own section so it can be expanded. I'm afraid I still don't think it is a primary definition in my book, and we should keep that first paragraph as clear and true as we can. --Buridan (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

--

Cool. [[4]] lists all the different forms Nihilism can take. When people talk about Nihilism, they are usually referring to existential or moral nihilism, true. However, these other forms are also valid forms of nihilism, and a nihilist will usually have to reconcile one form of nihilism with another. The extreme nihilist position I have mentioned, the negation of existence, is more accurately described as a branch of metaphysical nihilism, and I have changed the title of the section accordingly. Glad we shifted the article away from the typical bias.

On a side note, I've always been taught all forms of nihilism, so I was a little surprised at the article's lack of mention of these additional forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.164 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This diversity in types of nihilism still lacks in the opening line of the article, the referent of 'nihil' bere being only values. The focus on moral and/or existential nihilism is emphasised thereafter, but other negations though nihilism shouldn't be excluded in the introduction. Koffiemok (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I preferred it when it said 'values'. 'Meaningful aspects of life' sounds solely existential. 'Values' can refer to numbers as well as 'purpose'. I propose a switch back to 'values', but highlight the diversity of meaning behind that word. 94.195.129.111 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny, my motivation behind the switch was because the notion of 'values' has some pretty heavy moral connotations. The explicitation of 'meaning' was pretty much to highlight that nihilist negation is not merely applicable to morality.Koffiemok (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision of the Nietzsche-section

Due to the rather chaotic and otherwise lacking structure of the section on Nietzsche, I have started on some revisions. As the section in its current incarnation has precious few references (the third part of the section lacks any and all references; and a lot of the references are to the Will to Power, at that) and yet contains a lot of interpretations on Nietzsche, I would say that this is kind of overdue.

I'm starting out with adding some new paragraphs and get some structure going, and I'll start pruning the old bits of the article tomorrow. I hope you'll all chip in on sculpting this into something good!Koffiemok (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the "danger of danger" quote from Nietzsche is fabricated. Nietzsche actually wrote that morality was the danger of danger, not nihilism. 202.156.14.103 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, the quotation in the article is indeed faulty. However, the quote is not fabricated, but to be found elsewhere. Koffiemok (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Nihilist paradox

Is there interest in the content of nihilist paradox? If not, I'll AfD it for failing WP:N. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's completely unsourced, and I don't think it's a very significant area of debate. I've only ever seen it used as a snarky retort on internet forums, when the subject of nihilism comes up. I'd say AfD. Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist paradox Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Credible source to cite...

"The Matrix and Philosophy" by William Irwin...see chapter 13...(how appropriate)...

nemo senki

KSA?

What is "F. Nietzsche, KSA"? 128.198.25.20 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

KSA refers to the Kritische Studienausgabe, a collected edition of the majority of Nietzsche's work, published and revised by Colli and Montinari. This edition contains both the published works and the majority of Nietzsche's notebooks (his Nachlass), ordered chronologically. Besides being pretty much the standard for any serious Nietzsche-scholar, this edition actually contains the fragments that are referred to here. The Nachlass, containing these fragments, has not been translated into English in its entirety (though fragments often pop up in many english books and articles; the Will to Power is a flawed, posthumous and heavily edited composite created by Nietzsche's sister). It might be hard to get hold of for English speakers (and harder to read), but the accuracy makes up for a lot. Besides, using references to the KSA of the KSW (Kritische Sammtliche Werken; the even more extensive version) is standard in academia, so cross-referencing will probably get you far. Koffiemok (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Center for Nihilist and Nihilism Studies

I added the link to the Center for Nihilist and Nihilism Studies (nihil.org) and it was removed, so I inserted it again. Then it came to my attention a message from someone saying I should post here on Discussion before posting it, so I removed it an went here. Nihil.org is a site exclusively about nihilism, and I think, even better and more important than the other links. So here is the request. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.39.255.91 (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question concerning content=

I would like to know what the reason is to go so deeply into several opinions on the therm nihilism and several uses therof. I hardly think it is the object to name all examples. That would make for exactly the amount of people ever having lived on this planet. So, my question is if there should not be some form of linking to several other lemma's with more extended explanations on the individual thoughts. While I find Nietsche's Dionysian (for example) thoughts very interesting I don't think they are important on understanding the general concept of nihilism. This particular example might even be classified as deceptive for the understanding of the philosophies of Nietzsche. My thought is to summarize such short elaborations in a list, referring to the pages of the thinkers in question so that the elaborations on their personal views might be discussed there in a more complete way. What do the rest of you say? --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. The goal of the article (and of Wikipedia in general) is hardly to mention the [| opinions] of [| editors]. The content of the article is centered about what prominent contributers in the academic fields of philosophy, sociology, etc. have had to say about the subject. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this content is bound to be short and concise. As for the Nietzsche-section, the content is about what is relevant in the works of Nietzsche about the subject of nihilism (which would be why there is no mention of the Dionysian). How this is in any way deceptive, please clarify.Koffiemok (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point Koffiemok. But what part of such contributors ideas should be placed here and what part should be placed elsewhere? --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If by 'contributors' you mean 'we, the editors', then the answer would be 'none' and 'all', respectively. Wikipedia has a pretty clear 'no original research'-policy, at that. As for relevant academic (or similarly published) information, you'll just have to try and figure out where in the article it would fit. Rewriting a bit to make it fit is usually not that big of a problem, but it has to make some sense. Koffiemok (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Koffiemok, I think you used the term 'contributers' in regards to academic fields. I merely used your term. My question is what would be wise to place in an article such as this and what elaboration on such notes are more wise to place on the page of the academic in question? Or perhaps a better one: why did this page turn out the way it did?

Thanks!

--Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My question is: what has Cornell West contributed to this field of philosophy? I believe that in order to explore this subject, West must be included as a means of representing MODERN/CONTEMPORARY contributions. 71.230.9.128 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe the opinions of this person to be necessary? As far as I can see, his opinions on the matter has no notability whatsoever. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Music

I was thinking we may want to review/update the Music section. I know the Sex Pistols song is cited - but I don't necessarily think it is a proper example of Nihilism in music. I can't suggest better examples offhand, but will think. I think the Sex Pistols were generally commenting on their circumstances in the UK at that time. Nihilism is a loaded term that is sometimes associated with the punk movement, but I don't think the Sex Pistols were thinking that deeply. I believe it was social commentary instead and 'no future' is time and place specific. More research may be in order - I am sorry not to do it myself. There may be better examples to reference here. Please consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenylphree (talk • contribs) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If punk espoused nihilistic slogans, they were definitely tongue in cheek. Punk grew out of the civil rights movement of the 60's on the one hand, and was a bolder, revisionist expression of youthful angst on the other. Essentially, the punk philosophy was one of individual liberties and a protest against government control and corporatism, those last two elements defining in a nutshell 'fascism.' Punk was always more political and social than it was philosophical. I would also draw attention to the song 'Bodies.' Although it is on the surface extremely disturbing and offensive in its lyrics, the conclusion to the song is that it is unmistakably an anti-abortion song, not simply a shockingly gratuitous take on the subject. The subject saying 'I'm not an animal,' is the fetus itself, not the mother. The conclusion is that it is saying, 'I am human.' These sentiments and issues are hardly those of nihilists. Rather, I would say the song is simply heartbreaking. While the Sex Pistols are only one band, the post on Punk has it all backwards. Punk was a humanitarian movement in a retro guise. It was sardonic and sarcastic, but its excesses were meant to prove a point, obviously not to be taken literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFerozFelipe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If punk espoused nihilistic slogans, they were definitely tongue in cheek. Punk grew out of the civil rights movement of the 60's on the one hand, and was a bolder, revisionist expression of youthful angst on the other. Essentially, the punk philosophy was one of individual liberties and a protest against government control and corporatism, those last two elements defining in a nutshell 'fascism.' Punk was always more political and social than it was philosophical. I would also draw attention to the song 'Bodies.' Although it is on the surface extremely disturbing and offensive in its lyrics, the conclusion to the song is that it is unmistakably an anti-abortion song, not simply a shockingly gratuitous take on the subject. The subject saying 'I'm not an animal,' is the fetus itself, not the mother. The conclusion is that it is saying, 'I am human.' These sentiments and issues are hardly those of nihilists. Rather, I would say the song is simply heartbreaking. While the Sex Pistols are only one band, the post on Punk has it all backwards. Punk was a humanitarian movement in a retro guise. It was sardonic and sarcastic, but its excesses were meant to prove a point, obviously not to be taken literally. LaFerozFelipe (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)LaFerozFelipe

Dada

The Dada subsection is well-referenced, but do any of the sources actually claim, or support a claim, that Dada is nihilistic? Did the Dadaists consider themselves Nihilists? I realize this is a difficult question, since Dada had no consistent philosophy, or rather, the philosophy changed depending upon time and place: New York Dada and Berlin Dada, for example, were considerably different philosophically. My point is, is this subsection even appropriate, inasmuch as it makes no strong claim for Dada being a "cultural manifestation of nihilism"? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient schools of Nihilism

Vedic societies have had Nihilistic teachers since ancient times. Ramayana has a debate on Nihilism in Ayodhya kanda, sarga 108 and 109 that establishes the existence of such schools during its time. [5][6] I request that these sources be considered and stated in history of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.169.140 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete or full rewrite of Metaphysical and Radical nihilism required

The sections titled "Metaphysical nihilism" and "Radical nihilism" in their current form damage the article. They are currently nonsense. They either need a rewrite with coherent language, or should be removed for the time being. Even a section header with absolutely no text would be superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

Has anyone considered putting forth significant criticisms of nihilism before? There's already 'criticism' sections in other philosophical articles such as existentialism.--Drdak (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihilism is a rejection of philosophy

Nihilism rejects "meaning" and "purpose" as false assumptions. "Meaning" and "purpose" come from metaphysics, which, of course, is rejected by nihilism.

Nihilism also rejects "meaninglessness" and "purposelessness," as they are based on the false assumptions "meaning" and "purpose." This, of course, is the same basis as nihilism's rejection of philosophy. Or at least philosophy in the western tradition (sense), going back to Socrates. +2000 years of western philosophy (civilization?) is nothing more than a house of cards standing on nothing, in the eyes of the nihilist. The western philosophy (civilization?) is held up entirely by faith. (If there are turtles all the way down, then I stand corrected.)

Western philosophy/civilization is the transvaluation of values. It sees the real (the earthly life) as the lowest and the imaginary (e.g. the afterlife, Plato's idealism) as the highest. The earthly life is a mistake that should be overcome. The nihilist only has here and now.

Which is the real nihilism? Western philosophy/civilization? Or that which rejects it? Or we could label one as positive nihilism and the other as negative nihilism. Either one would just be a matter of semantics.

Nihilism is ultimately the rejection of faith. Or of those things which require faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This! "Nihilism rejects "meaning" and "purpose" as false assumptions. "Meaning" and "purpose" come from metaphysics, which, of course, is rejected by nihilism. Nihilism also rejects "meaninglessness" and "purposelessness," as they are based on the false assumptions "meaning" and "purpose." This, of course, is the same basis as nihilism's rejection of philosophy." I only wish you had a credible source to cite on this statement, as it truly captures the essence of nihilism. Although I suppose "credible" and "not credible" are equally unfounded... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.39.135 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This introduction to nihilism video basically says what I said, and more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJT3FXo0Ns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Moral nihilism

Could someone expand on moral nihilism to explore the belief that although morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality, it very much exists in society, and within that context is very important. In other words, just because it's relative, doesn't mean it's unimportant. 71.139.178.219 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No one ever said it was unimportant or not useful. 141.39.226.229 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of denial, not negativity.

Much of the article aside from actual quotations seems to cast nihilism in general as negative philosophy versus a neutral point of view on the subject. I could be biased, and please, forgive my ignorance, but a philosophy of lack of something (or in this case, most everything), does not necessarily mean that philosophy is bad.

For an example, the small section preceding footnote 39 is definitely not without bias, whether that bias belongs to the author in the footnote or the editor/author that made that addition.

Are there no more examples on the subject that cast nihilism in a more neutral light? I came to this page looking for facts yet feel like I mostly got opinions. I understand that cited works will be biased by their nature, however this article made a nihilist feel strongly enough on the subject to make an account to address this. Valvetrain (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Denial assumes that a thing positively exists in actuality, but is not a topic of speech. Negativity assumes that a thing is being spoken of, but does not really exist.Lestrade (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Nihilism in culture

Some of the entries can help one to understand what nihilism is, and others are like this:

In the manga-graphic novel series Bleach The Espada Ullquiorra Cifer's aspect of death is Nihilism.

"Nihilism" is also the name of a song released by the band Rancid in their 1994 album Let's Go.

The mere fact that nihilism is mentioned isn't sufficient grounds for including things like these in an encyclopedia article. These sorts of things I see as just trivia, useless information that contributes nothing of value to the article.24.227.162.10 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nihilism in films

I think that in the movie "Melancholia" from Lars von Trier, the character Justine, played by Kirsten Dunst is also a nihilist type of person. Yes, depression is also one of her problems, but at the end she is kind of happy that the world is ending, for her there is no sense of existing. Not even for her nephew, a boy, worth to panic because of the end approaching.

'Nietzsche' Quotes from The Will to Power

You might want to use these with care. See: [7] --88.78.58.238 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nihilism and culture and WP:TRIVIA

As per WP:TRIVIA all entries containing WP:OR or not citations has been deleted. The personal interpretation by individiual Wikipedia editors of some lines of movie, book, comicbook, songs, videogame dialogue not explicitly containing references to the word "nihilism" has been deleted as they constitute original research and cannot be included here, trivia or not. Please find some reliable secondary sources that mentions the cultural item in question and labels it or parts thereof nihilistic. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence (Nihilism is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life.) is not clearly written. I read through and dissected it, and eventually it made sense, but why not simplify this sentence to make it clear for the average reader? Jdevola (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nihilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131121232229/http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2013/09/Shields-final.pdf to http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2013/09/Shields-final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nihilism and Culture

The nihilism and culture section I think should be removed. Its not informative and really encompasses nothing more than random pop cultural references to nihilism. Any thoughts? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly agree, there are a million references to nihilism in culture, popular or not. Such a section can have value, but some of the examples here are not very noteworthy. - Yikkayaya (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nietzsche incorrect

Moved from User talk:Jmcgnh

 – content discussion, so belongs here

Hi Jmcgnh, I see that you undid my edit to the nihilism article. My reasoning for inserting the word 'incorrectly' is due to the following description:

"Nietzsche characterises this ascetic attitude as a "will to nothingness", whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent:"

The article named 'Wings to Awakening' that I cited does not explicitly mention Nietzsche, however it is a great explanation by Thanissaro Bikkhu (a Buddhist scholar) on the definition of non-self in Buddhism, its rationale and why it is different from a 'will to nothingness'. Perhaps I should devote a paragraph to this? I consider this, not as a contrasting point of view, but as a basic correction to Nietzsche's assertion. This is on the grounds that the Buddhist suttas state all of the different opinions that existed at the Buddha's time, including the assertion that life is essentially meaningless, which the Buddha, according to the earliest available suttas categorically denied. Perhaps you could provide guidance on how this could be incorporated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 10:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trutheyeness: This discussion should occur on the talk page of the article. It looks like you are engaging in WP:original research. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References

@Jmcgnh: Thanks for the feedback jmcgnh. I'll move the discussion to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trutheyeness: It's original research (WP:SYNTH) to say that because you feel one source contradicts something someone wrote or said that that person incorrectly stated something. You need a source that is reliable on the topic of what Nietzsche has said which states he was incorrect. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh and DIYeditor: Thanks for the feedback. Could you please comment on my intended changes below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction to Nietzsche's statement on Western Buddhism (following on from section 'Nietzsche incorrect')

Hey guys, Ive taken on the feedback from the prior section in this one (I've created a new section for clarity).

The section I take issue with in this document is the following:

One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls passive nihilism, which he recognises in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism, advocates a separating of oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterises this ascetic attitude as a "will to nothingness", whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent:[36]

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, KSA 12:9 [60], taken from The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann

I'd like to add the following section below it to show that Nietzsche is incorrect:

°However, Nietzsche's labelling of Schopenhauer's doctrine as Western Buddhism is not supported by the earliest available Buddhist texts. The Brahmajāla sutta from the Pali Cannon explains outlines sixty two philosophical and speculative views that existed in Buddha's time, including the view that life is essentially meaningless due to the self being destroyed after death. Then, in the Alagaddupama sutta, the Buddha outlines that he does not subscribe to this view. Thanissaro Bikkhu, a Buddhist scholar, has also elaborated on the nature of anatta (non-self), stating that it is a simplification of the Buddha's third insight, namely, that identifying with any phenomena as 'self' leads to suffering due to the impermanent nature of that phenomena. It must also be noted that if Nietzsche's assertion that Buddhism presents a "will to nothingness" is correct, then the Buddha, who represents the pinnacle of achievement in the Buddhist path, should be able to be described as having willed himeslf into nothingness. Hoewever, the Anuradha sutta describes how this is not so, and through a line of questioning establishes in a disciple the understanding the Buddha (referred to as the Tathagatha in the sutta) cannot be defined in such a manner.

Usually, when quoting sources, both must be presented and the reader allowed to decide which is correct. However, in this case, the sources I have presented are the from the earliest Buddhist suttas available and, unless the logical reasoning in the new section can be refuted, clearly supersede Nietzsche's thoughts. If the source material of Buddhism itself contradicts Nietzsche and does not contradict itself, on what grounds can Nietzsche claim that Buddhism is nihilistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References

@Trutheyeness: You are still not signing your posts, please see the notice on your talk page. Further, you seem to be doing the same WP:SYNTH above where you are combining sources to say something new. Your analysis of these things, whether or not based on sources, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also your sources look weak. Please carefully read all of WP:RS and WP:OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, to head off any further efforts along these lines, what sources say the following:

• "However, Nietzsche's labelling of Schopenhauer's doctrine as Western Buddhism is not supported by the earliest available Buddhist texts."
• "It must also be noted that if Nietzsche's assertion that Buddhism presents a "will to nothingness" is correct, then the Buddha, who represents the pinnacle of achievement in the Buddhist path, should be able to be described as having willed himeslf into nothingness."

You must have a source that says that. Also any sources that are not on the topic of Nihilism are probably entirely irrelevant to this article. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Thanks for pointing out signing, I'm still new to Wikipedia editing and hadn't noticed my talk page. If you could please bear with me, I'd like to clarify a few things.

• With respect to source combining: I understand that sources so can't be combined to suggest a conclusion, so I will try and refrain from this in the future.
• With respect to the sources themselves: What criteria have been established to determine that my sources, where all but one are direct translations of the Buddhist Pali cannon, are weak? If you could please contrast sources for Nietzsche with the sources I have provided when explaining, that would be helpful.
• The problem I currently have with this section of nihilism is that without a counter argument, it seems as if Nietzsche is correct in comparing Buddhism to nihilism. I can get direct quotes from the suttas which deal directly with the subject of nihilism, but this will still not be of use if my sources are rejected.
• With respect to using Thanissaro Bikkhu as a source: The only criterion I can see that makes him an inferior source to Nietzsche is that Nietzsche is a well known writer in the West, whereas Thanissaro Bikkhu is only well known among practicing Buddhists. Is there anything else that would make him an inferior source than Nietzsche? Trutheyeness (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trutheyeness: Please WP:INDENT your posts with one more : than what you are replying to.

1. Ok.
2. a) The Pali cannon is a WP:PRIMARY source and doesn't belong in an article about Nihilism. b) Any statements about the implications or meaning of a primary source require a reliable secondary source c) Even if it were relevant to the article, the publishers appear to be amateur websites - try books.
3. Direct quotes of primary sources not related to Nihilism are not useful here unless they explicitly use the term "nihilism". Your analysis of them, however obvious you may feel it is, is not allowable.
4. Thanissaro Bhikkhu may be a reliable source in certain contexts, for example from books about Buddhism from publishers with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking, but unless he is speaking directly to the topic of how Buddhism relates to Nihilism, it could not be used in this article without WP:OR.

Please thoroughly read WP:RS and WP:OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Thanks for the feedback. Having read WP:RS and WP:OR I have a few follow up questions:

2) How do you define 'amateur'? Many monks do not seek payment for their work, meaning that they can't be termed 'professional' by definition. This does not mean that their contributions have no value. In addition, the internet is the cheapest way to disseminate information as publications cost money.

3) Having read your own comments and WP:PRIMARY, am I correct in assuming that a) I can quote or paraphrase a primary source as long as I do not use it to form conclusions and b) Any conclusions formed using the primary source can be added, provided that reputed secondary sources are used as reference? If so, I believe I can quote the translations directly as they use the words 'nihilist' and 'nihilism'.

4) Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs)

@Trutheyeness: If there is a publisher with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking then the monks might be allowable if they are directly speaking to the topic of nihilism. The websites you provided did not seem like what I would call reliable sources but we can take that to the reliable sources noticeboard. As far as the translations, who is the translator and where was the translation published? Does it meet WP:RS? Again, if you are not satisfied with my evaluation you can take it to WP:RS/N. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: That's good to hear :-). Not sure whether the following should be included as part of this page or as part of reliable sources noticeboard, but will post here for now (if the research below is unsatisfactory in your opinion, I will move it to the noticeboard for further discussion). I've done some preliminary research and have found that accesstoinsight.org is maintained by the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies. The center provides residential and online courses combining study, discussion, and meditation The accesstoinsight.org site itself includes full collections of works from authors, most of whom have these items already in print (something I was unaware of before). Thanissaro Bikkhu's translations are printed in a series named "A Handful of Leaves" (published by the Sati centre for Buddhist studies), while Bikkhu Bodhi's translations are printed in a variety of books. His credentials have been spoken about briefly in this wikipedia article I found and include giving the keynote address at the UN Vesak celebrations. I have not checked my other sources for translation yet, but I believe for my purposes accesstoinsight.org will be sufficient, if it is accepted as a valid source. You mentioned that books would be more reliable than a website; however, since this website is simply an online archive of the contents of these books, can it be used as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs)

References

@Trutheyeness: Frankly, none of what you mentioned sound like scholarly sources. It would be best to ask WP:RS/N about each of the publishers in question, and each of the authors. The question is not only whether the publisher is reliable, but whether the author can be considered to have an expert opinion on nihilism. Also, please sign your posts. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I guess that depends on your definition of scholarship, as both Buddhist monks have spent decades studying the suttas as well as practicing and testing their teachings. But yes, I'll ask in WP:RS/N. Thanks for you your assistance with this.Trutheyeness (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new section to the Nihilism article

@DIYeditor: Following a conversation on WP:RS/N see here, I believe that my sources have been deemed reliable - see quote by @Only in death: below:

I would have no issue with those two people being used as representative of their particular branch of religion (as primary sources) assuming you can find a reference where they have commented on Nihilism or Nietzsche. They are clearly qualified experts in their own religion to present their own view/opinion of said religion.

However they, like you, took issue to the sub section on Nietzsche being modified and although it took a while, I now understand that I must have a source of sufficient weight that counter's Nietzsche's assertions and the source must refer to the topic of both nihilism and Nietzsche.

Since what I proposed does not fit that criterion, I would like to propose adding an additional section to the article on Nihilism that gives the perspective of the Buddha (as recorded in the Pali suttas) on what nihilism is, whether it is correct/incorrect and whether the Buddha subscribes to any notions of nihilism. This section will be supported by both primary and secondary sources which speak on the topic in question. If this is acceptable, I will write up a first draft and submit it here to be moderated.

One thing that I would like to note is that I will be using more sources for this, potentially including Nyanaponika Thera. His credentials are similar to those of Thanissaro Bikkhu and Bikkhu Bodhi, which I've listed below:

• Ordained in 1936
• Completed German translations of Sutta Nipata, the Dhammasangani (the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) during 1939 / early 1940s
• In 1952, both Venerable Nyanatiloka Thera and Nyanaponika Thera were invited by the Burmese (Myanmar) Government to be consultants to the Sixth Buddhist Council, to be convened in 1954 to re-edit and reprint the entire Pali Canon and its commentaries. (there have only ever been this many councils in 2500+ years). This is perhaps the strongest argument for his reliability as a source, as the council was attended by 2500 monastics from eight Theravada Buddhist countries.
• Has published 20+ books on Buddhism, none self published

Please let me know your thoughts.Trutheyeness (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

@Trutheyeness: Given the history, I believe you should post your proposed addition here before adding it directly to the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that just as a precautionary measure, but in general I think this is a good idea. If your concern is to make sure that Buddhism's views on nihilism are accurately represented, then a section on Buddhist views on nihilism is the appropriate place to put that. If you're also concerned that Nietzche's views on Buddhism's views on nihilism are incorrect, we just have to make sure that Nietzche's views are properly attributed to him as his views, and not claimed in the article's own voice as an objective statement of Buddhist beliefs. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: @Pfhorrest: Great! I've started pulling together material for a section on Buddhism and will post here once I have a draft for review. I'll also see how Nietzche's views can be presented as his own... although I'm hoping that with the section on Buddhism, it will become self evident.Trutheyeness (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: @Pfhorrest: and other editors: It's taken me a while to pull this together, but I've finally got a draft for review. Please let me know what you think.

Buddhism

The Buddhist Definition of Nihilism

The Theravada and Mahayana Trikpitika describe a multiplicity of views held by various sects of ascetics while the Buddha was alive, some of which were viewed by the him to to be morally nihilistic. In the Doctrine of Nihilism in the Appannaka Sutta, the Buddha describes nihilists as holding the following views:

* Giving produces no beneficial results

* Good and bad actions produce no results

* After death, beings are not reborn into the present world or into another world

* There is no one in the world who, through direct knowledge, can confirmed that beings are reborn into this world or into another world

The Buddha then states that those who hold these views will not see the danger misconduct and the blessings in good conduct and will, therefore, avoid good bodily, verbal and mental conduct, and will instead practice misconduct.

The Perception of the Buddha as a Nihilist

The culmination of the path that the Buddha taught was Nibbana, "a place of nothingness... nonpossession and... non-attachment... [which is] the total end of death and decay". In an article Ajahn Amaro, a practicing Buddhist monk of more than 30 years, observes that in English 'nothingness' can sound like nihilism. However the word could be emphasised in a different way, so that it becomes 'no-thingness', indicating that Nibbana is not a thing you can find, but rather a place where you experience the reality of non-grasping.

In a different article, Ajahn Amaro follows a similar theme by retelling the story of a Buddhist monk, Ajahn Sumedho, who in his early years took a nihilistic approach to Nibbana. A distinct feature of Nibbana in Buddhism is that an individual attaining it is no longer subject to the cycle of rebirth. Ajahn Sumedho, during a conversation with his teacher Ajahn Chah comments that he is "determined above all things to fully realize Nibbāna in this lifetime... deeply weary of the human condition and... [is] determined not to be born again". To this Ajahn Chah replies "what about the rest of us, Sumedho? Don’t you care about those who’ll be left behind?". Ajahn Amaro comments that Ajahn Chah could detect that his student had a nihilistic aversion to life rather than true detachment. With his response, Ajahn Chah chided Ajahn Sumedho about the latter's narrowness and tilted the his view so that he could see this attitude of self centred nihilism.

From the Majjhima Nikkaya it is apparent that similar misunderstandings also existed while the Buddha was alive. In the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha describes how some individuals feared his teaching because they believe that their 'self' or soul would be destroyed if they followed it. He describes this as an anxiety caused by the false belief in an unchanging, everlasting 'self'. All things are subject to change and taking any impermanent phenomena to be a 'self' causes suffering. Nonetheless, his critics called him a nihilist who teaches the annihilation and extermination of an existing being. The Buddha's response to this was that he only teaches the cessation of suffering. When an individual has given up craving and the conceit of 'I am', their mind is liberated, they no longer come into any state of 'being' and are no longer born again. The liberated mind is described in the Majjhima Nikkaya as 'untraceable', and in the Digha Nikkaya described as 'consciousness without feature'. With respect to these descriptions, no distinction is made between the mind of a liberated being that is alive and the mind of a liberated being that is no longer alive.

Trutheyeness (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

@Trutheyeness: Since you reference a text I don't have easy access to, I can't actually verify that it supports what you have written, but the overriding problem of using primary religious texts such as these is that your use here will be seen as an act of interpretation, hence synthesis. The overall impression I have of your proposed addition is that it was written first, then sources (large source texts, not clearly addressing the issue at hand) are cited but not specifically enough to see that they support the statement of fact they are cited for.

In the context of this article, the "moral nihilism" of your first paragraph seems unrelated to the stream of discussion of moral nihilism here and at Moral nihilism. We have already started the article by saying that nihilism has many different definitions, so there may be little objection to adding some additional ones, presuming that we have suitable sources.

As for the comment from Only in death, it looks like they've given you an inch and you've declared that as good as a mile. You're making broad statements about Buddhism rather than specific claims attributed to specific authors. And if you're unhappy with the much more common spelling of "nirvana", you'll need to at least throw in a link or clarification for the reader that you either are or are not talking about the same thing (even if that thing defies definition). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks for the feedback. About the points you raised:

1 "Since you reference a text I don't have easy access to, I can't actually verify that it supports what you have written"

The comment is fair enough, however it leaves me in a bit of a bind as I've gone out and purchased translations of the Tripitika to be able to write this section. How are other literary sources verified when not everyone has access to them free of charge?

2 The overall impression I have of your proposed addition is that it was written first, then sources (large source texts, not clearly addressing the issue at hand) are cited but not specifically enough to see that they support the statement of fact they are cited for.

This section took about 4 or 5 hours of going through various sources to compile and that I didn't compile it first and add sources later. The reason that my sources are usually placed at the end of the paragraph is because the entire paragraph has been taken from that single source. However, the suttas are composed in verses and are numbered. Would it help if I added this numbering against the sentences in the paragraph so that a person could easily find the source statement(s) within the sutta that support what I've written? The danger here though, is that in doing so I'll give even more of an impression that I'm synthesising an opinion, even though this is not the case (see 3 & 5 below)

3 "the overriding problem of using primary religious texts such as these is that your use here will be seen as an act of interpretation"

The sutta translators, by nature of the translation into English have done most of the interpretation. In addition, I have used one of the translator's clarification notes in the appendix to put forward any views which are subject to debate (the clarification notes are secondary sources). I missed adding this last time, but I've gone back and added a reference to the relevant note.

4 "We have already started the article by saying that nihilism has many different definitions, so there may be little objection to adding some additional ones, presuming that we have suitable sources."

Thanks for this - hopefully I can clarify some of the points raised, to enable the section on moral nihilism to be included

5 "You're making broad statements about Buddhism rather than specific claims attributed to specific authors."

The Buddhist texts are unlike many other religious texts as they don't presume that you will believe them without question. As such, many suttas take the form of logical arguments (by the Buddha or one of his disciples), intended to prove that the Buddha's view point is correct. What I have done is taken the relevant portion of those arguments and placed them here. The statements I have made about Buddhism may be sweeping, but they come directly from the source, coloured by the view of the translator interpreting them from Pali into English. If the concern is that I've synthesised material from primary sources to come to my own conclusion then I'm not sure it applies in this scenario, as I've taken the Buddha's own 'if this then that' arguments (according to the suttas) and summarised them here.

6 "And if you're unhappy with the much more common spelling of "nirvana", you'll need to at least throw in a link or clarification for the reader that you either are or are not talking about the same thing (even if that thing defies definition)"

Nirvana and Nibbana are spelled differently because they originate from two different languages. The sutta translations I am aware of have always used the word Nibbana, as this is the original Pali word that the Buddha used. Nirvana is its Sanskrit form. Although Nirvana as a term has become better known due to its use within Hinduism (where its connotation is different), all translations and commentaries of Buddhism I know of use the word Nibbana. In this case, is the convention in Wikipedia to go with the term that is more commonly known by people or the term that is more commonly used by the those who are experts in the subject domain (i.e. translators of the Buddhist texts)? The literal meaning of Nirvana and Nibbana, when translated into English are equivalent and mean "to extinguish" or "to cool", but due to Sanskrit's close association with Hinduism and Pali's close association with Buddhism their connotation is different (many Hindus take Nirvana to mean 'to merge with God', and Buddhism is not fundamentally Theistic). My experience is that most people take the two to be equivalent to the Hindu definition of Nirvana, so my thought was to disambiguate the terms by sticking to the original Pali word. I didn't add this explanation in because I'd have to go looking for a source that addresses this topic, and specifically compares Hinduism to Buddhism (although I have a vague memory of reading this explanation somewhere).

Trutheyeness (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How can Buddha have used a term about a philosophy that did not exist? The term and concept were invented in the 19th century long after Buddha was alive. He cannot possibly have been talking about Nihilism or Nihilists. This is an inappropriate use of primary sources. If you want to summarize some secondary sources by experts that make comparisons of Buddha's philosophy directly to Nihilism then produce that material and refer to it. Are your sources really presenting the argument that Buddha used terms for and described Nihilism long before it was known in the west? We would need an expert on Nihilism to back up this extraordinary claim. If they are not experts in Nihilism and are starting this they are in fact not experts on the topic they are trying to address and not appropriate for this article. If you would like us to evaluate the claims please provide brief quotes of the directly relevant material from your sources (and hopefully not ones inserting the term Nihilism in a time period where it did not exist). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Please see my responses below:

• "How can Buddha have used a term about a philosophy that did not exist? The term and concept were invented in the 19th century long after Buddha was alive. He cannot possibly have been talking about Nihilism or Nihilists. This is an inappropriate use of primary sources."

Yes, the English term 'nihilism' was coined in the 19th century, however I'd argue that the concept/philosophy pre-dates the 19th century. A concept is defined as "an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars" by or "an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances". A philosophy is defined as "a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour" or "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology" .If these commonly used definitions of 'concept' and 'philosophy' are used with respect to the current topic, then it can be said that the Buddha spoke about nihilism when he was alive. The following are quotes from the translations showing the Pali language equivalents of the word 'nihilism':

* The term 'natthikavāda' in Pali is used to refer to nihilism (direct quote: "natthikavāda - Nihilism")

* In the translation notes, Bikkhu Bodhi writes: "Micchādiṭṭhi. In the Nikāyas usually explained as the nihilist view, e.g., at MN I 287,12-18"

* In the translation notes, Bikkhu Bodhi writes: "the full nihilist doctrine (natthikavāda). At DN I 55,15-31, it is called annihilationism (ucchedavāda) and ascribed to Ajita Kesakambalī. For the commentarial explanation, see Bodhi, Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship, pp. 77-83."

Generally, when translating from one language to another, a translator needs to use terms in the new language that accurately reflect what was trying to be said in the original language. That Micchādiṭṭhi is translated as 'the nihilist view', natthikavāda is tranlsated as 'nihilism' and ucchedavāda is translated as 'the nihilist doctrine' shows that the translator didn't use the term 'nihilism' to group a set of related concepts. Rather, this shows that the translator found that the conceptual equivalents of nihilism in Pali, which could be adequately rendered as 'nihilism' in English.

• "Are your sources really presenting the argument that Buddha used terms for and described Nihilism long before it was known in the west? We would need an expert on Nihilism to back up this extraordinary claim. If they are not experts in Nihilism and are starting this they are in fact not experts on the topic they are trying to address and not appropriate for this article. If you would like us to evaluate the claims please provide brief quotes of the directly relevant material from your sources (and hopefully not ones inserting the term Nihilism in a time period where it did not exist)."

As the above shows, according the suttas the Buddha did indeed use terms for nihilism and describe it as a concept. However, I disagree that we need an expert on nihilism to provide further backing, on the basis that the article on nihilism makes an allowance for multiple definitions of nihilism (likely because there is no consensus, even among experts, on a common definition). That said, the word nihilism cannot be arbitrarily defined either. So the question is whether the translator is justified in using the word 'nihilism' to translate Pali terms such as 'natthikavāda' etc. and equating nihilism with annihilationism . In this, I believe that they are, because the Buddha's descriptions of the theme include considerations such as existence and non existence, annihilation, the presence or absence of morality, all of which are important themes when discussing nihilism and found in various dictionary definitions. Just as the terms for 'water' in various languages can be understood to point to the same thing, by examining its defining characteristics in each language, the concept of 'nihilism' can likewise be recognised as discussed by the Buddha by looking for characteristics that are used as part of its definition. In fact, if you take the oxford definition of a nihilist ("A person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles"), a cursory reading of the suttas will show a number of other views described and rejected by the Buddha that could also meet this definition (e.g. the doctrine of non-doing which asserts that all things are pre-ordained so there is no reason for effort or morality). However, despite this, I didn't go into these doctrines as the translator doesn't use the word 'nihilism' and I would require a secondary source to point out this likeness.

Trutheyeness (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for taking the time for an in-depth reply. From what you are saying, if these statements are reliable for this article the history section needs revision. And perhaps to include some discussion of Gorgias. Maybe a subsection "Ancient history". —DIYeditor (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @DIYeditor:. Yes, I believe so - it would be good to revise history section. Having read through it, the defining characteristic of the History section seems to be that all prominent historical figures have an opinion on what nihilism is (the definition) and/or the attitudes that result from a holding a nihilistic position (nihilism as a philosophy). From this perspective, I believe that the content I proposed on Buddhism would fit into the existing history section quite nicely.

Having taken a look at Gorgias' philosophy I think it may be possible to include it, but potentially not on the same basis. I've only reviewed the Wikipedia article and a couple of other sources, but these sources show that although post 19th century thinkers debated Gorgias' philosophy as nihilistic or non nihilistic, neither Gorgias nor his contemporaries analysed his philosophy through the lense of nihilism (i.e. they didn't define nihilism or discuss its relationship to Gorgias' philosophy). However, given that Gorgias' philosophy is not my are of expertise it is possible that there could be other evidence on this that I haven't come across.

From what I can see, the current article on Nihilism seeks to outline the concept/philosophy of Nihilism, its evolution and various historical figures that contributed to this. As such, its primary focus seems to be Nihilism as a concept/philosophy as opposed to the origin of the English word (Nihilism) that is the label for it. Given that the article currently presents the historical figures that discussed the topic in chronological order, I'd like to propose that the history section begin with a sub-section on Buddhism, with a reference to the equivalent Pali terms, which will show that the concept of nihilism has been under consideration in various parts of the world at least since the time of the Buddha.

Trutheyeness (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)