4 ms·

Headlines need to be hyperbolic nowadays to maximize clicks, and 'rising [sadness] among young men' doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 'rising nihilism among

by frank2 6y ago

Headlines need to be hyperbolic nowadays to maximize clicks, and 'rising [sadness] among young men' doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 'rising nihilism among young men'. I think the writer of the headline thinks that most of his or her readers are unaware of or uninterested in the philosophical connotations of 'nihilism'; to them it means 'without an enduring source of meaning', 'without enduring emotional connections' or more frighteningly 'without moral compass'. Here is a societal process (family instability), the headline wants to imply, that makes our country more dangerous.

dvtrn 6y ago
Hello! Your point is well met. However, I would challenge this: I think the writer of the headline thinks that most of his or her readers are unaware of or uninterested in the philosophical connotations of 'nihilism'; to them it means 'without an enduring source of meaning', 'without enduring emotional connections' or more frighteningly 'without moral compass'. While respecting that the English language is, and forever shall be fluid and dynamic given the particular zeitgeist a speaker inhabits--rhetorical evolution as an indicator of societal-change is not rhetorical refabrication as a device to give authority to an individualized degree of authorial intent. Which IMO contributes to a real misunderstanding to the beautiful nuance that exists within the various schools of nihilistic study; as I don't know of many that would justly simplify nihilism down to "without a[...]source of meaning' or even 'without moral compass'. We have perfectly cromulent and appropriate terminology existing already that encapsulates these things. At least not any that aren't preoccupied with merely the surface of whatever branch of 'nihilism' the author is supposing lies at the root of their thesis here. I still think 'melancholy' is a far more direct and appropriate description of the machinations that bring about such a sensation of existential malaise, far more than anything that approaches nihilism. THEN AGAIN... I am reminded that Sartre had a lot to say about the duality of meaning between what a thing presents itself to be on the surface, and what a thing is ("Being and Nothingness", Ch1. 'The Pursuit of Being') and this 'rhetorical refabrication' has a long history of precedent in such high falutin studies. The author brings up an interesting point of discussion that can be unpacked in a myriad of ways, I'm just not sure about the one that was chosen.

by frank2 6y ago

dvtrn 6y ago

Hello! Your point is well met. However, I would challenge this: I think the writer of the headline thinks that most of his or her readers are unaware of or uninterested in the philosophical connotations of 'nihilism'; to them it means 'without an enduring source of meaning', 'without enduring emotional connections' or more frighteningly 'without moral compass'. While respecting that the English language is, and forever shall be fluid and dynamic given the particular zeitgeist a speaker inhabits--rhetorical evolution as an indicator of societal-change is not rhetorical refabrication as a device to give authority to an individualized degree of authorial intent. Which IMO contributes to a real misunderstanding to the beautiful nuance that exists within the various schools of nihilistic study; as I don't know of many that would justly simplify nihilism down to "without a[...]source of meaning' or even 'without moral compass'. We have perfectly cromulent and appropriate terminology existing already that encapsulates these things. At least not any that aren't preoccupied with merely the surface of whatever branch of 'nihilism' the author is supposing lies at the root of their thesis here. I still think 'melancholy' is a far more direct and appropriate description of the machinations that bring about such a sensation of existential malaise, far more than anything that approaches nihilism. THEN AGAIN... I am reminded that Sartre had a lot to say about the duality of meaning between what a thing presents itself to be on the surface, and what a thing is ("Being and Nothingness", Ch1. 'The Pursuit of Being') and this 'rhetorical refabrication' has a long history of precedent in such high falutin studies. The author brings up an interesting point of discussion that can be unpacked in a myriad of ways, I'm just not sure about the one that was chosen.