"Nihilism" by Fr Seraphim Rose

[Anonymous No.18316623]

This book handily refutes liberalism in all of its forms, and all of its intellectual progeny.

[Anonymous No.18316631]

>>18316623
I've been thinking about reading it because I'm nihilistic. How does it fix nihilism? What is the books main point?

[Anonymous No.18316648]

>>18316631
here's a reading of the book if you don't want to buy a physical copy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrd76_o00E&list=PLJ4cgfQlICJm5DGBWDEmEcHqWyB9P2r6P

the basic overview of the book is tracing the roots of liberalism, examining how it has progressed further and further into outright nihilism and hatred of existence itself since the Enlightenment
Fr Seraphim uses transcendental/presuppositional argumentation to refute empiricism as a standard of proof

[Anonymous No.18316679]

>>18316648
>Fr Seraphim uses transcendental/presuppositional argumentation to refute empiricism as a standard of proof

[Anonymous No.18316695]

>>18316631
In a way it doesn't fix nihilism, it just shows its shortcomings. Also, if you're nihilist, you won't be reading your way out, since nihilism is not contradictory stance, thus nobody reasons himself into or out of it.

[Anonymous No.18316723]

>>18316679
>muh s0yj@k
>>18316695
>since nihilism is not contradictory stance
lol
how do you define nihilism? Fr Seraphim defines it as the rejection of objective truth, and I seriously doubt that you go about your life without making objective truth claims
in fact you've made some in your post just now
but let me guess: you don't care if you're contradicting yourself, do you? Because you see truth as a function of power rather than a thing in and of itself?

[Anonymous No.18316736]

>>18316723
Oops, I meant to say ''Nihilism is a contradictory stance.'' I don't know how the not got there.

[Anonymous No.18316745]

>>18316736
ah ok
what did you mean by
>In a way it doesn't fix nihilism
I thought about greentexting that
it doesn't fix it in the sense that people will still be nihilists because argumentation isn't enough to bring people out of spiritual states, but I do think Fr Seraphim succeeded in logically refuting it

[Anonymous No.18316764]

>>18316723
>Fr Seraphim defines it as the rejection of objective truth, and I seriously doubt that you go about your life without making objective truth claims
Not that anon but there's a difference between "rejecting objective truth" (whether this rejecting what one knows to be true or denying that there is any kind of truth at all) and assenting to either of these two (distinct) claims:
>1) we can't be certain that any of the statements we make are true (the sceptic position)
or
>2) there is no pre-existing value-laden intelligence from which objective moral values can be derived
Both of which I think are quite justifiable. I think it is more nihilistic to put phantasms between oneself and the external world in order to block unpleasant implications (namely, the potential meaninglessness of human existence).

Fr. Seraphim Rose's philosophy drives him to desperate lengths like rejecting evolution.

[Anonymous No.18316788]

>>18316631
It makes you understand that the nihilistic misery you experience in this world because you reject the truth of Christ is just a foretaste of the hell to come.

[Anonymous No.18316793]

Is this the one where he talks about sucking cock and smoking peyote in a cave leading him to have a hallucination of Mary that kickstarted the whole LARP thing? In another thread some guy was using this dude as a good example of Evangelicalism using Orthodoxy as a way to LARP itself into seeming like a much older tradition than it actually is (having only really become a thing as we know it in the 1970s).

[Anonymous No.18316800]

>>18316745
Its pretty much what you said. Nihilism is isn't logically sound, but nobody falls into nihilism because they think its logical, since its contradictory nature is very obvious. The people who are nihilistic on another hand won't be abandoning nihilism because it's contradictory, because they don't care anymore.

[Anonymous No.18316808]

>>18316800
what do you mean by nihilism

[Anonymous No.18316811]

>>18316764
>1) we can't be certain that any of the statements we make are true (the sceptic position)
If objective truth exists but is inaccessible, then it is functionally the same for us. We have no objective truth and you cannot make objective truth claims without contradicting yourself.
In order for human beings to possess knowledge, it is not only necessary for objective truth to exist, it must be accessible to us.
>2) there is no pre-existing value-laden intelligence from which objective moral values can be derived
Truth and morals/value judgements are bound up in one another. Without truth, you cannot say anything is certain including morals. Without morals, you cannot say anything is more valuable than another thing, therefore the distinction between truth and falsehood becomes irrelevant.
>I think it is more nihilistic to put phantasms between oneself and the external world
By "phantasms" I assume you mean abstractions? And I assume you mean they are just ideas, social/psychological constructs?
In that case you have just rejected all transcendental categories - truth, ethics, etc.
>in order to block unpleasant implications (namely, the potential meaninglessness of human existence)
If human existence is meaningless that entails far more than a potential feeling of "unpleasantness". In fact I would dispute that very claim - if human existence is meaningless then I could simply commit suicide, using one of many painless and subtle means of doing so, and put an end to my supposedly meaningless existence and not have to deal with anything.
If oblivion is inevitable, why not cut out the irrelevant middle-man of life and just hurry towards oblivion?
But more to the point: if human existence is meaningless then this very conversation is meaningless. Everything is meaningless. How do you justify anything you say or do, when you've just told us that it's all meaningless?

The worldview you've presented us with is utterly self-refuting. The only way you could accept this is if you're a sophist, and simply do not care about contradicting yourself.

[Anonymous No.18316812]

>>18316679
>transcendental/presuppositional argumentation
It's a funny thing, I asked on Jay Dyer's discord how do they respond to the archeological evidence of Yaweh being a semitic deity linked to Asherah and all that, the Ugaritic Texts, examples of similar myths in earlier religious writings etc and what I got from someone was
>do you know what is presuppositional criticism? These theories all come from humanistic scholars their worldview can't account for 'evidence'
>so you basically ignore these evidence because they don't fit in your dogma?
>nooo don't strawman pleaseeee

[Anonymous No.18316828]

>>18316793
I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like a rumor designed to smear Fr Seraphim.
>>18316800
>nobody falls into nihilism because they think its logical
exactly
nihilism isn't an ideology, so much as it is a spiritual disease
people require communion with God in order to cure that disease
communion with God leads to knowledge of God, not the other way around, God is not just an idea in our heads
you can't think and reason your way out of a living hell and that is precisely what nihilism is, a spiritual state, hell on earth

[Anonymous No.18316836]

>>18316808
Absence of all meaning and truths

[Anonymous No.18316842]

>>18316811
>In order for human beings to possess knowledge, it is not only necessary for objective truth to exist, it must be accessible to us.
The sceptic would say that he does not know for certain whether objective truth is or is not accessible, it only appears to him that he cannot be certain about the veracity of any of the information he appears to receive about the world. This seems to me to be quite a sensible position.
>Without truth, you cannot say anything is certain including morals. Without morals, you cannot say anything is more valuable than another thing, therefore the distinction between truth and falsehood becomes irrelevant.
On an objective scale, yes. But individual humans have subjective interests, which is why this quote of yours:
>If human existence is meaningless that entails far more than a potential feeling of "unpleasantness". In fact I would dispute that very claim - if human existence is meaningless then I could simply commit suicide, using one of many painless and subtle means of doing so, and put an end to my supposedly meaningless existence and not have to deal with anything.
>If oblivion is inevitable, why not cut out the irrelevant middle-man of life and just hurry towards oblivion?
is bizarre, since it presupposes that if you have no preordained purpose, you also have no incentive to live in the world at all, as if all your appetites vanish. That may be the case for you, fine, but you're positing it as if it's a universal condition.

[Anonymous No.18316850]

>>18316828
>Sounds like a rumor designed to smear Fr Seraphim.
the source is seraphim rose, dude. he was very open about his past as a mega-degenerate. its the entire reason you are in love with him, because he conforms to your evangelical dispensationalist love of the sinner who now agrees with you and sucks your cock because you were right all along.

[Anonymous No.18316853]

>>18316828
>communion with God leads to knowledge of God, not the other way around
how can I determine with which God I am meant to commune? even if you take a perennialist position and assume they're all convening with some kind of singular divinity, most creeds nevertheless suggest that not following the correct one will lead to perdition.

[Anonymous No.18316854]

>>18316842
>The sceptic would say that he does not know for certain whether objective truth is or is not accessible
Saying you're uncertain of everything is not a coherent worldview. If you're uncertain of everything why would you even bother trying to communicate with other people? It's absurd.

[Anonymous No.18316889]

>>18316854
Uncertainty is not the same as denial. Why would the sceptic *not* bother communicating with other people (or swear off it?). You seem to be positing some kind of homo scholasticus who only acts 100% rationally, and has no kind of emotional drive or inclination whatsoever. But even if this were the case, it would still be rational to engage with other people, for two reasons: 1. the possibility of coming into contact with positive knowledge (this is what Sextus Empiricus calls the 'curiosity' of the sceptic) and 2. the pleasure derived from social and intellectual intercourse.

[Anonymous No.18316899]

>>18316850
>the source is seraphim rose, dude. he was very open about his past as a mega-degenerate.
Where is the specific source for this? I haven't read all of Fr Seraphim's works.
Even if it is true, it's irrelevant. Many people have repented after leading degenerate lives.
>its the entire reason you are in love with him, because he conforms to your evangelical dispensationalist love of the sinner who now agrees with you and sucks your cock because you were right all along.
Christ came to lead sinners to repentance, not to flatter people who were already holy. If you scorn repentant sinners then you are not a Christian. Even heterodox forms of Christianity - Roman Catholicism, most forms of Protestantism, they would all agree with this.
You obviously have some kind of animosity towards Fr Seraphim. You have no idea who I am, you have no idea if I used to be an evangelical dispensationalist or not.
I don't know what your problem is, and frankly this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>>18316853
>how can I determine with which God I am meant to commune?
There are works of the Church Fathers that go into detail about other theological systems - hellenic simplicity, polytheism, etc.
If you're an atheist who is totally unfamiliar with any theology whatsoever, then the first step to moving closer to God is humility - admitting you don't have all the answers and you need help. Humility is key communion with God and we constantly have to keep ourselves in check, because we are always tempted to fall into pride.
>even if you take a perennialist position and assume they're all convening with some kind of singular divinity
Orthodoxy rejects perennialism on the grounds that it contradicts divine revelation and is relativistic. We worship the Holy Trinity.

[Anonymous No.18316916]

>>18316889
>You seem to be positing some kind of homo scholasticus who only acts 100% rationally, and has no kind of emotional drive or inclination whatsoever.
Of course nobody acts 100% rationally, but that's not the point. Absolute skepticism, denial of all certainty, is self-refuting. If you're not certain of anything whatsoever, even the existence and/or accessibility of objective truth, then it's irrational to go on arguing for absolute skepticism.

[Anonymous No.18316920]

>>18316854
>If you're uncertain of everything why would you even bother trying to communicate with other people?

Do you think people only communicate with others when they are 100% certain that they hold absolute knowledge on that which they speak? No of course not.
Your argument is wholly sophistic, it has no scope outside of itself.

[Anonymous No.18316934]

>>18316916
>Absolute skepticism, denial of all certainty, is self-refuting
No it isn't. Admitting that you are arguing probabilistically, and keeping the door open for correction is in no way self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.18316936]

>>18316899
>There are works of the Church Fathers that go into detail about other theological systems - hellenic simplicity, polytheism, etc.
Most religions have a corpus of revered fathers who write about why their creeds are better than those of other religions. Presumably if I were to determine who has the most correct idea about God, I would try read and evaluate all of these. But now I would getting into the territory of trying to "reason my way to God" that you said one ought to avoid. Why would I start with Orthodox Christianity first, and not Catholicism, or Calvinism, or Islam, or Zoroastrianism?

[Anonymous No.18316937]

>>18316916
The scepticism I'm thinking about (Pyrrhonism) doesn't positively deny the possibility of certainty, it just argues that no creed the sceptics have engaged with currently possesses it.

[Anonymous No.18316962]

>>18316920
>Do you think people only communicate with others when they are 100% certain that they hold absolute knowledge on that which they speak?
That is completely different from what we've been discussing. You are arguing that ALL knowledge, for ALL people, in ALL scenarios, is uncertain. You are arguing that objective truth itself, the very concept of it, is uncertain.
Saying that objective truth itself is uncertain is a very different matter than, say, talking to another person and saying
>I think I saw a cougar in the woods yesterday
>>18316934
Yes it is. Your position is functionally the same as relativism, but you're trying to make it sound more reasonable by saying objective truth is merely uncertain rather than completely non-existent.
>>18316936
>But now I would getting into the territory of trying to "reason my way to God" that you said one ought to avoid.
Maybe I was too vague. What I meant was, reason alone is not enough to reach God. Reason is not evil, the rational intellect is not evil, it was given to us by God, but it has limitations and must be put in its proper place.
>Why would I start with Orthodox Christianity first, and not Catholicism, or Calvinism, or Islam, or Zoroastrianism?
In order to answer this question we would have to go into the specifics of those religions' theology and completely change the subject at hand. The Church Fathers go into detail about advanced theological topics such as hellenic simplicity (which Roman Catholicism, Calvinism and Islam subscribe to) and dualism (Zoroastrianism).
I will say this, you need to live a life within the Orthodox Church in order to truly know its doctrine. It is a holistic faith, not just a set of ideas you keep inside your intellect.

[Anonymous No.18316971]

>>18316962
>Yes it is. Your position is functionally the same as relativism, but you're trying to make it sound more reasonable by saying objective truth is merely uncertain rather than completely non-existent.
Start with the Greeks before posting please

[Anonymous No.18316975]

>>18316937
Doubt presupposes the existence of truth. If there was no distinction between truth and falsehood, then it would make no sense to doubt anything because everything would just be an opinion, a psychological construct, etc.

[Anonymous No.18316981]

>>18316971
This is not an argument. I think you're the person who posted that thread a day or two ago about pyrrhonism and got all the same answers I'm giving you, about the presupposition of truth in doubting something, etc.
Frankly you've already been refuted and you're just wasting everybody's time. If all you want is for people to agree with you, then go find a forum dedicated to skepticism/pyrrhonism and talk to those people.

[Anonymous No.18317077]

>>18316764
>desperate lengths like rejecting evolution.

Desperate? Rejecting evolution is vital to intellectual hygiene.

[Anonymous No.18317106]

>>18316981
>This is not an argument
No, it is. Presuppositional Apologetics, however, is not.

>>18317077
Ironic that your entire worldview is reliant upon evolution and Whiggism.

[Anonymous No.18317110]

>>18316936
> Why would I start with Orthodox Christianity first, and not Catholicism, or Calvinism, or Islam, or Zoroastrianism?

You can't join Zoroastrianism. As far as large religions you can join, it's basically Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. Of the three, there are probably good reasons for choosing Christianity. If you do that, orthodoxy is probably the last cucked branch. Qed my dude.

[Anonymous No.18317117]

>>18316962
>You are arguing that ALL knowledge, for ALL people, in ALL scenarios, is uncertain.
I don't think this is objectionable, at least as a starting off point. The point of epistemology is to try and figure out if there is anything we can be certain about, and how. I think it's a mistake to start off from the assumption that you do have certain knowledge about something (that seems hubristic to me). Most theories of knowledge begin at the bottom and try to work their way up. Platonism began with Socratic elenchus and aporia. The edifice of Cartesian rationalism began with a simple modest claim its founder believed he could be certain of, his own consciousness. The same goes for Kant. The sceptic position is simply one among many epistemological attitudes, to wit, a negative assessment of the success of those other theories. I think because we are discussing this in the context of religion you are hostile to entertaining this sort of doubt, because religion typically presupposes the existence of some kind of revelation which gives its hearers certain metaphysical and moral certainties. Otherwise I don't see how a sceptical starting point is in any way objectionable. And for most of its history Christianity does not appear to have had any problem with Pyrrhonist scepticism anyway. Montaigne wrote on the topic quite freely -- Vatican censors gave his works the seal of approval. The idea that intellectual relativism/scepticism is distinctly pernicious seems to be a rather modern phenomenon, specific to a certain contemporary culture war discourse.
>Saying that objective truth itself is uncertain
The sceptic doesn't doubt the existence of objective truth so much as the idea that anyone has convincingly demonstrated they possess it. This is especially relevant in the field of morals and metaphysics, which are static and absolute truth claims (and which the believer often considers to be not only objectively true, but rationally undeniable, hence the belief that people can merit going to hell for disbelief in it), rather than evolving probabilistic ones like those posited by scientists.
>In order to answer this question we would have to go into the specifics of those religions' theology and completely change the subject at hand.
No, because the problem is not with any specific religion, but rather, what the criterion between choosing between religions is. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutually exclusive religious creeds, but human beings only have a short lifespan. How is a human being supposed to divvy up his time properly in order to find God?

[Anonymous No.18317126]

>>18316975
>Doubt presupposes the existence of truth. If there was no distinction between truth and falsehood, then it would make no sense to doubt anything because everything would just be an opinion, a psychological construct, etc.
Doubt doesn't have to presuppose that truth (or falsehood) does indubitably exist, only that it might exist. If I'm going about my day and I see something that I find hard to believe, I can anticipate that there might be some alternative explanation for what I'm seeing, even if I cannot be certain that there is one. But the point is, sceptics don't reject the existence of truth. They only admit that they have no positive, foolproof, irrefutable way of certifying its existence.
>>18317110
>Of the three, there are probably good reasons for choosing Christianity. If you do that, orthodoxy is probably the last cucked branch.
The medieval philosophers are shaking their heads in shame.

[Anonymous No.18317160]

>>18317106
>No, it is. Presuppositional Apologetics, however, is not.
The topic of this thread is the book "Nihilism" by Fr Seraphim Rose. Go start a thread about pyrrhonism if you want to talk about it, you've already been refuted and I am done entertaining your relativist nonsense. Denying the existence or accessibility of truth while presupposing it is a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.18317173]

>>18317160
>you've already been refuted and I am done entertaining your relativist nonsense
meds

[Anonymous No.18317194]

The pyrrhonist just wants attention. Don't give him what he wants and he'll go away.

[Anonymous No.18317219]

I read the roosh article too. It seems like Seraphim Rose talks about an emotional nihilism specifically, not necessarily an intellectual one. Intellectual nihilism is irrefutable, and many orthodox thinkers cope with intellectual nihilism by vilifying its consequences. They cannot refute its foundation, and in their struggle against it, affirm its reality.

[Anonymous No.18317259]

>>18317219
>Intellectual nihilism is irrefutable
>They cannot refute its foundation, and in their struggle against it, affirm its reality.
Usage of terms like "irrefutable", "refute", and "reality" presupposes the existence of truth, because if nothing was true or false then nothing could be proven or refuted, nothing would be real or unreal.

[Anonymous No.18317271]

Roses fixation on Nietzsche in this book is weird and misplaced, I don’t think he understood the man at all

[Anonymous No.18317320]

>>18317259
>because if nothing was true or false then nothing could be proven or refuted, nothing would be real or unreal.
You just tried to refute nihilism by saying that if nihilism was real then nihilism would be real.

The terms are useful in this situation because we are talking about a system in which reality and truth are presumed. By making this presumption, the underlying statement is that they may not be real, but we choose for them to be real for the purpose of the discussion. We assume that nihilism is the default position when we talk about its invalidity. But all statements regarding truth can be invalidated through nihilism. That means that any system is a human construction on a foundation of ultimate nothingness.

[Anonymous No.18317326]

>>18317271
here come the onions nietzscheans...

[Anonymous No.18317342]

>>18317326
hurr