Talk:Nihilism

Credible source to cite...

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

nemo senki

Changes to the article

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. There are 9 unreferenced paragraphs in the body of the article and it has the following maintenance tags: 1x clarification needed, 3x citation needed, 1x page needed, 1x who?.

In its current form, the article's title should be "History of nihilism" rather than "Nihilism": the readable prose size of the history section is over twice as long as everything else combined. Different forms of nihilism, by contrast, are only briefly mentioned later in a bullet list with a couple of sentences for each even though overview sources usually focus on them. One way to address this issue with WP:BALANCE would be to create a new article called "History of nihilism", move the whole history section there and use the history section here to present a concise summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

At the same time, the discussion of different types of nihilism here should be expanded. In addition to a brief definition of each position, there should be a discussion of its theoretical foundations, applications, reasons for supporting the position, and traditional arguments against it. There are different ways to implement this. Given that many positions belong to ethics/value theory, metaphysics, or epistemology, one way would be to have a main section for each of these major areas, possibly with one extra section for types of nihilism that don't neatly fall in any of these areas, like medical and logical nihilism.

There are more things to consider, like mentioning the relation to related outlooks like absurdism and some items in the todo list above, but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestions above. I think there would be a few more ways to improve the article. The section "In culture, the arts, and media" reads a little like trivia and includes various items that get little to no attention in overview sources on nihilism. I think it would be better to stick to the most important examples, such as Ivan Turgenev and Dada, and present them in a more condensed form in the section "Other positions" (which could be renamed to "Other forms") rather than have a separate section.

I also have the impression that the section "Etymology, terminology and definition" goes too much into detail on the etymology, delving into various marginally important historical instances with detailed references to specific authors. It seems to be well written and sourced, so it could be moved to the article "History of nihilism" while leaving a condensed one-paragraph summary here. To introduce the subject to new readers, the section should focus more on the definition underlying the different forms of nihilism as a denial of something with different forms denying different things. There could also be one paragraph to show the parallels and differences to related terms, like absurdism, pessimism, cynicism, and apathy. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right Phlsph7 - pessimism, cynicism, are it's nearest cousins, Sio8927 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Context, etymology, and pronunciation in the lead

Hello Wolfdog and thanks for your suggestion to include more context, etymology, and pronunciation in the lead, as an earlier version of this article did. One reason for not having some of these details is MOS:LEADCLUTTER, which warns against stuffing too many details into the first sentence, like etymology and pronunciation. The etymology is currently discussed in the section "Definition, related terms, and etymology" and we could move the pronunciation there as well. They are both not very essential to the topic, so it's probably better to reserve the lead for the most important aspects.

I think the current version is also not bad but it strikes me as somewhat repetitive. For example, the 1st sentence, the 2nd sentence, and the 3rd sentence say each time anew that some aspects of knowledge, morality, and meaning are rejected. All these points are then repeated one more time in later lead paragraphs in more detail. The previous version was more concise without this type of repetition. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I see for example that there's a whole etymology section. We could revert back to your previous version, but I do think the current second sentence is pretty crucial to keep somewhere in the lead section, since it describes in the most concrete terms some common forms of nihilism to otherwise confused newcomers.

Wolfdog (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to implement your idea, using the previous version of the lead while replacing the second sentence with your version. I modified it a little to reflect the order and terminology used later. I moved the pronunciation to the section "Definition, related terms, and etymology" and I removed the references per WP:LEADCITE since all of this is already discussed in more detail and with references in the body of the article. Have a look if this works for you. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good. Can we add "In philosophy" to the lede sentence? Wolfdog (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)