Adopting Nihilism

Does ‘objective truth’ exist?

Truth, within the meaning the term most often occupies, does not exist when an observer has comprehended an object. Do electrons exist exist objectively? Yes. Do the laws of matter and motion exist objectively? Yes. Does this or that thing which cannot comprehend its own existence and what it interacts with exist objectively? Yes, but there is a common misconception, especially within the dogma of modern sciences, that because we can empirically test that this or that thing objectively exists, we have accessed an absolute form of objective knowledge. It is difficult to disagree with this but, sharing a similarity with everything which is not totally certain, still has some doubt. Of course the nature of nature in its purest form without the comprehension of an observer will exist objectively no matter if there is or is not a conscious interpretation. But how can we characterize nature as such and such and ascribe certain, perhaps subjective or malleable, meanings to those characterizations. As this is our only way of comprehending an otherwise meaningless, yet objective, existence of all things which must to exist as such and such with a certain characterizations for the necessity of consciousness.

If there were no observer(s), existence would be whole and objective as an absolute; without prejudice, without emotion, without language, without consciousness, without doubt. If we can conclude that a thing can be characterized (utilizing consciousness and language and expression to our advantage) and comprehended which could’ve not otherwise occurred without our human design, than the difference between subjectivity and objectivity has been rendered. What has been interpreted one moment may not be the same in the next and what differences or doubts can be pondered produce the ultimate schizophrenia of consciousness. There are perhaps many truths that pertain to our temporal representations and comprehensions of all things we have encountered. Imagine such an incomprehensible existence absent of man! The meaningless void of ignorant organisms that have not yet reached plurality on a distant exoplanet! The infants of life waiting to develop into conscious beings completely independent of man’s unique way of knowing and knowing meaning!

I’m sure there could be doubts with this nihilistic view of a universe absent of man. By declaring that there only subjective truths, I have also setup something that might be mistaken as a paradox; that the only objective truth is that existence without man is meaningless. It is odd that I should even write ‘objective truth’, when truth is only something we could believe to be an all-encompassing system of total explanation and empirical proof. But these systems are never without doubt and are always subject to further elaboration and/or transformation. Absolute certainty of a system being totally complete for eternity is impossible. And with doubt, revision, elaboration, change, confliction and continuity of these affects, we can understand the absence of anything totally objective. There is truth, but truth that is temporal, subjective and evolving; never stagnant.

Does this betray the traditional sense of truth? Is truth not that feeling of absolute knowledge that can stand the test of time and empirical trial? This feeling is but a feeling, just an aspect of man’s conscious action, comprehending what he sees and giving meaning to what he does not. How comforting must it be for the majority of wondering sacks of meat who are incapable of doubting; the masses. Maybe it is more honourable for them, those who exemplify subjective truth perfectly in their ignorance. Truth of the unknown, that state of humanlessness existence, amounts to meaninglessness and harmony. The sublime indifference.
There is only one absolute form of knowledge which can signify our drive for comprehension, which is that we shall never have absolute knowledge. How can we comprehend humanlessness? A state absent of our unique characterization(s) and meaning(s) is unfathomable. It is impossible to know this state because we can not comprehend that which is not an impossibilty but only impossible if you consider our human existence eternal, for which I hope you can defend without a single doubt to your system. Absolute, eternal certainty of any system we have conjured up with our devices and skull meat is an impossibility. Knowledge of humanlessness is an impossibility. These are only principles found through abduction.

So there is an answer to this indifference. The N word is seldom seen in any complex philosophical systems. No philosopher wants to advocate this checkmate of meaning. The outcome of diversified beliefs and doubts which attack the human inventions of meaning, comprehension and explanation reaching their climax. Is it in realizing the cosmic indifference of a humanless existence that Nihilism is tolerable? Is it in rendering the subjective truths temporal and doubtful without certainty that Nihilism could be rational? Is it really a necessity to develop our own subjective truths instead of choosing indifference? Or is choosing indifference suicidal? It seems to me that choosing the sort of cosmic nihilism through abduction I have explained would result in less destruction than what man has done to himself and the nature he apprehended.
Let me hear your doubts, your systems, your beliefs and criticize these views. Could nihilism be rational? Could nihilism characterize humanlessness? Where are the contradictions? I have some doubts…

Nihilism could characterize humanlessness, but since you’re human, what would that entail? A true nihilist would just suicide rather than expend his time and energy constructing a meaningful edifice to why nothing is meaningful. The true nihilists are those who just quietly die leaving no protestations or affirmations behind, no “excuses of meaning” as I’m sure they would see it.

The fact that such people are possible evidences that meaning isn’t absolutely given but is open to attack, and must defend itself. Like everything else, meaning (human or otherwise) is finite and mortal. Real nihilists lack an experience of meaning, whereas philosophical (fake) nihilists struggle with their experience of meaning and in that struggle try inverting and denying meaning in order to, unbeknownst to themselves, ground a meaning for themselves. Real nihilists just kill themselves or fade into “major depression” states, end up hospitalized or heavily medicated or dead from self-neglect. The rest of the “nihilists” just embarrass themselves by being clowns and caricatures of their own need for meaning in the struggle for meaning which they adamantly deny even as everything they do to “attack” meaning is an obvious defense of their own need to find something meaningful in their existence.

Anyone with a “joker” or “satyr” theme on their profile falls into this latter category – fake nihilists. There are others who become more “serious” and actually begin to inhabit and infect academic philosophy with their nonsense.

In other words, Wyld ,the definition of a ‘true’ Nihilist is no different from how mentally disabled persons view themselves. There may be a grey area there, giving some room for justification, perhaps.?

Meaning is a product of concentrated motion (you can also say of drives in alignment.)

Meaning thus comes from within.

Nihilists are people who see no meaning in life. This is because they have disconnected from their drives. It’s biological.

Nihilists seek meaning from without. They want the world to take care of them (they lack autonomy, so they never take responsibility for their own deeds.) When they are taken care of, they see meaning in life, thus they do not identify as nihilists (even though they still are.) When they are not taken care of, they become rebels who whine about how meaningless life is, thus identifying as nihilists.

Objective truth probably exists in the material physical sense of the universe but the verdict ultimately is still out as various paradoxes, contradictions, assumptions, and unknowns circumvent that entire subject.

Concerning human identity, activity, value, or relation to each other and the entire universe I would say it is all subjective as no objective truth exists within any of it as it is all contrived.

Do you really expect that your belief that 2 + 2 = 4 will change for the better at some point in the future?

Absolutes are fine. You just have to understand their nature: they are a product of assimilation. They do not exist outside od the mind.

It is relativists, not absolutists, who are nihilists. Whoever thinks or expects their opinions to be in the state of flux is a nihilist.

A true nihilist would commit suicide? I stopped reading your post after that bullshit. You don’t even know what nihilism is.

Satyr isn’t a nihilist and would take insult with that statement. He’s a retarded objectivist that has misplaced hate with nihilism, big difference. Fake nihilist?

Non nihilists make asses out of themselves discussing nihilism. You can always tell they have zero reading experience on the subject.

I am a nihilist since I see no objective meaning to human existence or to the universe
I am merely a biological organism existing at a given point in time no more or no less
I do give meaning to my own life though that in no way negates my very real nihilism
Since I could just as easily have never existed and it would actually be better if I had
Because death is my ultimate destination and so I therefore accept it unconditionally
Life is a mere detour by comparison and so is not as important as it is made out to be

Nihilism “A” is just depression without a belief in god to fall back on. It is indeed better for a nihilist to kill himself, if he does it cleanly. A nihilist is very essentially a zombie.

Most nihilists are alive only because it is scary to kill yourself.

Whoever is alive that does not have that fear, is certainly not a nihilist.
To have something to live for, anything at all, is to value, is not to be a nihilist.

On the other hand, nihilism “B” is just the belief in the absolute relativity of moral values. This is actually a great stimulus to a certain type of human; it means that all sorts of other values are suddenly available because the means to get them aren condemned anymore.

The proverbial death of god opened up this paradigm; essentially it is a paradigm of crime. The philosopher has always been feared and banished as the top criminal, and moral nihilism is certainly the philosophers ground.

Hail Nihilism!

(I am a nihilismist)

Nihilism is will to nil (= nothingness.) It is not a philosophical position, but a physiological condition whereby one no longer fights against death but aligns with it.

Philosophical position of nihilism is just a symptom that may or may not accompany physiological condition of nihilism.

Happy nihilists do not see themselves as nihilists. They are also not depressed. Not every nihilist is depressed.

Unhappy nihilists may or may not see themselves as nihilists. This depends on many factors.

Nihilism can also be defined as “lack of goals in one’s life” or “not willing anything”.

Nihilism is predomination of instinct over will, pleasure over power, energy discharge over energy concentration.

Philosophically speaking, nihilism means something else. There, nihilism refers to a position according to which life, or some aspects of life, are meaningless. Personally, I don’t care about what this term means philosophically speaking because philosophy, modern philosophy, has little to do with real life.

What does the question “is there objective reality” mean?

Satyr is a positive nihilist who thinks the lack of objective meaning to human existence means he is free to give subjective meaning to his life

And this is very liberating as it allows him and other positive nihilists such as myself to decide for ourselves what meaning we give to our lives

What if someone decides for themselves that the meaning of life is to sleep with as many women as possible? Would that make him a “positive nihilist”?

Yes

That shows how superficial the term “positive nihilism” is. It merely means “happy belief that meaning is a construct rather than something inherent to the universe”.

There is no differentiation between life-affirming constructs and life-denying constructs. Any kind of construct would do.

Indeed, life-denying constructs are truly nihilistic constructs whereas life-affirming constructs are not nihilistic at all.

A positive nihilist is simply someone who does not think there is any objective meaning to existence or the universe but who can still give
meaning to their own life. What the precise nature of that meaning is is of no importance to anyone other than the individual themselves

You are telling me what the term means. I am tellibg you why the term sucks.

I know what it means. I am just telling you that’s not what nihilism is.