Nihilism is arguably the most misunderstood term in the history of philosophy. It is best understood as a risk inherent in the act of thinking itself, as noted by the 20th-century philosopher Hannah Arendt, rather than as a collection of "dangerous thoughts." Any notion, no matter how solid or widely accepted it initially appears to be, will eventually cause us to question its veracity if we give it enough thought. Additionally, we can start to question whether or not individuals who embrace the idea understand (or care) whether or not it is accurate. You can stop worrying about why there is so little agreement on so many topics and why other people seem to know so much about things that seem so uncertain to you. I believe that nihilism is beyond good and evil. But people in general have a predilection for negative nihilism. They ignore its positive counterpart out of ignorance. Nietzsche, for instance, had the latter in mind when he wrote those iconoclastic works. Baudrillard, in his most famous work on simulation and simulacra, also dedicates a whole chapter to nihilism. He also had the same in mind. The list is quite interminable. Some deconstructionists with American roots (Yale School of Critics) have also broached this topic to shed light on the modus operandi of deconstruction. I believe it was J. Hillis Miller who replaced the term with ‘parasite’ in his seminal essay The Critic as Host. He was defending ‘Deconstruction’ in the same vein as Philip Sidney did in the 16th century. The accusations levelled against poetry by Plato aeons ago seemed so rebarbative to him to have motivated him to write an ‘An Apology for Poetry’. The apology here was not an apology. It was a tirade against Plato’s Republic. Miller, on the other hand, was not only countering accusations but also explicating American deconstruction. The essay written way back in 1977 has so far received an astounding 935 citations. When I read the essay, I understood it made more sense and was less farfetched than its French counterpart.