Nihilism as a problem of belief: "The case of OSHO"

Our world, where cultures, morals and values have been overthrown, has fallen into more difficult dilemmas with the Philosophy of Nihilism, which appeared in the 19th century and whose discourses date back to ancient philosophers. Nihilism is a movement of thought that argues that life is meaningless, that people's existence has no purpose, and that ignores all religious and moral values. Friedrich Nietzsche, the founder of the Philosophy of Nihilism, argued that God died and all moral and traditional values degenerated and decayed, based on the destructive effect of scientific developments in the 19th century and the thought of modernism. According to him, people have been exploited by the church and power holders for many years. Since human individual differences are ignored, he leads a life that he does not belong in order not to be excluded from society. This herd morality will end him inwardly and he will find himself in the dark world of Nihilism, even if he doesn't want to. This is not the end, but a new beginning. Because when a person realizes his own values, feelings and abilities, he will move on to become a superhuman and when the time comes, he will struggle with the Nihilist side within him and create his own value system. OSHO, on the other hand, created a new thought system that blends Nietzsche's world of thought with mysticism from certain points in another geography. He criticized the concept of God over the problem of evil and ignored the rules of religion over this thought. The thesis aims to get to know Nietzsche and OSHO more closely in the perspective of Nihilism, to enter the world of ideas and to reveal the similar and different aspects of non-Islamic intellectual currents based on the world of thought. While doing this, he develops and grounds his thoughts on the main axis of Kalam scholars. All the criticisms and objections made have been interpreted by focusing on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Thus, the subjective structure of thoughts was supported by a more robust argument.