The categorization of nihilism into the classes of epistemological, existential, cosmic, moral and political is somewhat arbitrary both in its lack of hierarchical organization and generally in the way the classes are chosen. In dealing with these weaknesses, a firmer grasp of what nihilism is may be attained. Hierarchically speaking, epistemological nihilism is the broadest; it includes all other classes. If one believes that no knowledge is possible, then neither value in general nor in political or moral senses exists. Note that value may in actuality exist, but for all practical purposes it does not exist for the epistemological nihilist because something unknowable has no meaning for a human, the ostrich syndrome. An epistemological nihilist is all nihilists, but all nihilists are not epistemological nihilists. As I argue in “Epistemological Nihilism is Untenable,” I don’t think that any nihilist should be an epistemological nihilist. The second highest level on the nihilism hierarchy gets past the hyperbole of epistemological nihilism, existential nihilism. It is not as broad as epistemological nihilism and not as narrow as political or moral nihilism. Existential nihilism rejects all values as meaningless, while political value and moral values are specific types of values. Also at this level is cosmic nihilism, which comes to the same conclusion as existential nihilism but through different (and irrational) means. The cosmic nihilist comes to conclusion that value is meaningless through such high-sounding claims as “I’m going to die eventually no matter what I do” or “nothing I do now will matter in a million years” or “we and the earth are just an inconsequential piece of sand in a vast oceanic universe.” Both the existential and cosmic nihilist believes that value is nonexistent, they simply disagree in their approaches. So, an existential nihilist may or may not be an epistemological nihilist and may or may not be a cosmic nihilist (though he shouldn’t be either), and the existential nihilist is necessarily both a political and moral nihilist.  Thus, if ever I use only the word “nihilism,” I will be referring to existential nihilism because it the most tenable form of nihilism and its scope even includes the other forms of tenable nihilism while excluding the untenable epistemological and cosmic nihilism. With the arbitrariness of disorganization out of the way, I’ll speak briefly of arbitrary decisions in choosing exactly these five categories. Though wrong, it is necessary to include epistemological and cosmic nihilism in our classification because of their widespreadedness. The same reason coupled with its tenableness speaks for the necessity of including existential nihilism. It is political and moral nihilism that I find somewhat arbitrary. Existential and cosmic nihilism are very different from epistemological, so it is logical to give them a separate class although both are included in the scope of epistemological nihilism. Yet, the difference between political and moral nihilism and existential nihilism is only a matter of degree. They are exactly the same besides the fact that existential nihilism states its proposition with more force. Thus, the decision to include political and moral nihilism is somewhat arbitrary because any doctrine which denies value to only a specific area could be included in this third tier of the nihilism hierarchy. For example, we could just as well have chosen religious nihilism or supernatural nihilism or artistic or aesthetic nihilism or tradition or culture nihilism or racial nihilism. Each of these doctrines denies value for a certain thing but not for all things. The choice to classify political and moral nihilism is really then non-informative and only chosen because they were the most easily thought of. There are a plethora of nihilistic ideologies and another plethora of nihilistic ideologies that escape my mind presently or may have never even been thought of up to now. It is important then that scope should be kept in mind when using nihilistic phraseology. If only a limited scope is meant, use your words accordingly. Now, we can begin discussion and get beyond mere word disagreements.