Paradox of nihilism

Metaphysical nihilism is based around skepticism that concrete objects, and the self which perceives them, actually exist as concrete objects rather than as abstract objects. It is not a far stretch, in the framework of this theory, to assume that these objects do not exist at all. The philosophy can most succinctly be summed up using the model proposed by British philosopher Thomas Baldwin in his 1996 paper[2] on the subject which is referred to as subtraction theory. It holds that for a possible world with finite objects, any one or more of those objects may not have existed, and their non-existence does not mean that something equivalent exists in their place. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a world with no objects exists.

The paradox arises from the logical assertion that if no concrete or abstract objects exist, even the self, then that very concept itself would be untrue because it itself exists. Critics often point to the ambiguity of Baldwin's premises[3] as proof of both the paradox and of the flaws within metaphysical nihilism itself. The main point made argues that a world is itself a concrete object, and whether it exists or does not exist is irrelevant because in both instances it would disprove subtraction theory. In the case of its existence, subtraction theory fails because there is still a concrete object; if the world does not exist, subtraction theory fails because the truth of the world is revealed via subtraction theory, which itself exists, and therefore negates Baldwin's conclusion that a world with no objects can exist.

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no inherent meaning whatsoever, and that humanity in an individual and collective sense has no purpose. That is to say, while objects have the capacity for purpose or meaning, there is no universal truth that guides these individual purpose. Thus, without a universal purpose, all meaning objects could have does not exist, and the idea of any purpose or meaning attributed to something is untrue. If this is taken as a given, then existential nihilism holds that humans are compelled to make up meaning for themselves and others in the absence of a universal, unilateral meaning in order to spare themselves from the negativity surrounding the inevitability of death. Existential nihilism explores both the nature of this invention and the effectiveness of creating meaning for oneself and others, as well as whether the latter is even possible. It has received the most attention out of all forms of nihilism in both the literary and popular worlds of media.

Like metaphysical nihilism, existential nihilism stumbles when it comes to the nature of its conceptual existence. Common precursors to the paradox ask questions like Hegarty's,[1] implying that if universal truth does not exist to give meaning to life and nothing is therefore objectively true, existential nihilist theory would then be the universal truth it claims does not exist. Therefore, existential nihilism is at best an extremely flawed interpretation of the universe and at worst entirely untrue, as a theory which contends that nothing objective exists must necessarily then be subjective. In this case it is either untrue or has meaning, which would mean that there is a universal meaning (derived from the logical conclusion that the universal truth is nothingness) or even some meaning, which would be contrarian to the original claim.

Existential nihilists will refute this as a play on words by critics to blur the distinction between universal truth and the entire conception of truth. They would argue that the fact that a person edited an article about nihilistic paradoxes is objectively true (though epistemological nihilists and metaphysical nihilists would both question this) since the article was edited by someone, but that the editor and action itself has no more "universal" meaning than the existence of disease or the creation of life via sex. It is unfair, existential nihilists would argue, to denigrate a philosophy which simply denies the absence of universal truth in a moral sense (the idea that there is a moral God or Gods who designed the world and people with an innate morality and purpose) as one that happily rejects meaning without consideration for the logic of the universe.

Secondly, it isn't a paradox in the sense that all truths result in the Münchhausen trilemma, and every truth claim can be traced back to an axiom, circular argument, or infinite regress.

According to Jonna Bornemark, "the paradox of nihilism is the choice to continue one's own life while at the same time stating that it is not worth more than any other life".[4] Richard Ian Wright sees relativism as the root of the paradox.[5]