Contemplations of my own philosophy.

Lately I have been in confusement as to how I should classify my own philosophy.

On the one hand alot of philosophical nihilism I find to be very inspirational but in contrast to a nihilist who believes in no purpose I believe in a purpose of survivalism and self preservation by any means necessary although at the same time I admit that there is no right way to these means as it doesn’t exist.

I also put in a heavy emphasis of man being amongst nature again where a natural balance halts any self destruction that man has created for himself through mendacious ideals.

[b]It has basically left me with one big question:

Am I a nihilist or just a amoral philosophical pessimist?[/b]

I would appreciate any answers or suggestions by others.

Classification was invented in order to compensate for human mental limits.

Classification is always stereotypical, and thus it is reductive, reducing the complexity and unlimited variety of the endless continueum of reality’s instance, into single moments and types, so that the limits of the brain can then deal with the concept which is not too vast for the brain’s applied information sorting.

Because you have changed your ideology through time and through life, you are not an absolute, and no are neither A nor B, but instead, a continuity which cycles through an infinite variety of phases, as does all other energy in the universe.

I very much agree with you but I struggle to explain this to others when they ask about my philosophical beliefs.

I am just trying to find a form of reference or classification that would somehow make it easier for other people to understand me.

Just call yourself an spectrum-phasic-infinitarian or something.

And then don’t tell anyone that, because it’s too hard to babysit other people’s mental limitations.

That would fly over their heads I am sure!

Dan I really would like an opinion and we don’t have to call it the end definition for my philosophy just like you said, that all individuals are constantly becoming and moving with there being no end fixed result but if you really was stressed to give a definition Dan, would you say that I am more prone towards philosophical nihilism or pessimism?

I think you’re a realist.
Your concepts of futility are not so hateful as that of the more bitterly pessimistic.

Because the most common belief systems are based on popular concent, of which is ignorant myth, they will call all true realists something like nihilists, in the same way that the bible refers to all atheists as fools.

Real “Nihilism” is a condition of neutrality, and it is a phase, somewhere near total balance or center, between a deconstructive-criticism and a favoratism.

So, first phase is pessimistic-cynic, next nihilistic amoral neutral, and lastly, again, baring fundamental values and favore towards specifics.

Realism is a good term. I like that.

Can a nihilist however have a belief in purpose of simplicity and natural survivalism by any means while he claims that no purpose doesn’t exist?

Can a nihilist have a belief that man needs to be close amongst nature in which the natural forces balances out all self destructive mendacious ideals that has been created throughout history by humanity?

Is that even possible?

Nihilism arose, especially in the supposedly Nietzschean ways, during a time of Germanic Romanticism, of which was very nature-oriented.

Many nihilists tend towards something -like- natural survivalism, which does not claim to have a universal value, but at the same time, is a relativistic reunification with bodily health set at higher priority than mental idealism.

Realism is, again, a clarification and syncronization with nature, as was the effort during the Romanticism, of which the christian fundies found disgusting, for the fundamentalists believe that moral ideals are BETTER than natural reality, [a reality] of which is neutral and all-permissive, and thus allowing infinity to exist…

So in many ways I could describe myself to others that I am a nihilistic realist in order for them to gain an understanding of my beliefs.

As always I find your posts Dan quite informative and very much helpful to my own insights.

It feels nice for me also, that we can relate to eachother.

You should lay down some tenets of your own -ism.

Sounds like a good idea in order to illustrate this thread.

Here in a couple of minutes I will do that so that you and Dan can become acquainted with some of the major themes of my thought.

I will try to make them brief and short as possible.

1. I believe the cosmos is sporadic and chaotic being nonlinear in all it’s motions.

I believe it is entirely impossible to know our relation or any relation as a whole that comprises the cosmos.

I believe that man is insignificant with the cosmos being indifferent and uncaring about all human events.

2. I am amoral in that I believe all morals to be a insane form of delusion.

3. I consider myself a anarchist in that I view all forms of government and politics as a form of insanity.

4. I view all of civilization to be a giant simulacrum of artifices that constantly perverts man’s original nature unto insanity.

I view it to be a giant cesspool of insanity and a cancerous tumor on this earth.

5. I view most of man’s desires for improvement, progression and rights as futile exchanges of insanity all stemming from man’s absurd quest to rationalize a irrational cosmos.

6. The only purpose that exists is the one we make for ourselves along with natural survivalism of complete individual independence from each other.

I believe that the most man can hope for in peace and tranquility is to return to the natural landscape that he stems from instead of the futile self destructive existance of creating false mendacious ideals that only furthers his distortion of reality.

7. I view all of knowledge to be based on assumptions.

I think that all our forms of higher reasoning is purely accidental and if one was to use critical epistemology one can see that all of knowledge is based upon unsubstantiated propositions or conjectures.

That’s a nice nihilistic way.

It’s not exactly the cave which speaks only by the ecos from those captive within it.

If tranquility and peace are that which one should return to, well then that is also a minimul/neutral persuit.

Now, try to imagine a form of energy that does not vibrate and does not impose itself upon us by pushing against us. We’re not getting all religious and mystical about it, but that sort of thing is probably what a few of the buddhas aimed for… Something other than all of the ignorance-based constructs of humanity.

Excellent. I think tenets are the best way to illustrate one’s -ism. You should form some axioms with these.

What do mean by axioms?

An axiom is a self-evident proposition, neither provable or unprovable.

I am not sure I would be effective in constructing those.