Truth

By believing in a purpose to life, I do not fit the criteria of existential nihilism, i.e. the most common definition of the term. If you want to get into semantics, many people would be nihilists to an extent, since I’m pretty sure there’s many meaningful aspects of life and not everyone adheres to the concept of them all.

Hope is a desire for something to be as it currently isn’t, therefore, conceptually it’s a delusion. Reality is what it is, not as we wish it to be. We are unable to control reality, even if we can influence it. The only control we possess is how we, as individuals, interact with reality. Many people alter their perception and perspective, they do this to build a bridge between reality and their delusions of how they believe things should be. This is unhealthy (i.e. unnatural) and it creates all manner of psychosis in us as individuals. We don’t want to accept reality, because we’ve been indoctrinated into what we’re supposed to believe. From our concepts of love to our concepts of family to our concepts of fulfillment and happiness… We’re marionettes, being influenced/manipulated/controlled at every turn.

You’re reaching here. It’s a figure of speech, not derived from my emotions or feelings, but my beliefs. I could have said “I believe”, but I didn’t think a rational person would seek to attack my literal words instead of the context of what I was saying. To be perfectly honest with you, I have been suppressing my emotions since I can remember, so the vast majority of the time… my words are spoken with no emotional basis at all.

Hope is the desire that it will become what it currently isn’t. And that is always true, although most often not in the particular direction hope for.

Quite the contrary.

Didn’t you say specifically that life is without meaning or purpose?
And that “There is no such thing as truth”? - A quintessential element aspect in life.

And of course, with there being no truth, you could hardly be telling it with your proclamations.

The most that you could claim is to be a “positive nihilist” (despite that being an oxymoron).

… and realizing that “enjoying life” was the objective purpose and incentive for accepting that dogma.

The more precise truth is that life is ALWAYS in the pursuit of sustaining itself (else it isn’t life). Enjoyment is a large part of its compass in that endeavor (although obviously flawed). Thus there actually IS an “objective purpose” whether known or preferred.

I never claimed that life has no purpose, in fact, I specifically stated that I believed it did. My reasoning was basically your point of life seeking to sustain itself (e.g. to live and live well). I do not however subscribe to some deeper meaning and/or different levels of existence.

A nihilist must possess all said beliefs of the doctrine to actually be a nihilist. How about we stop trying to label one another… I come to my own conclusions, I do not read manifestos. I didn’t even know what exactly a nihilist was until You called me one and I looked it up. Therefore, how can I subscribe to a doctrine that I have never read? Logical consequence and all that, right? Just on that basis alone, makes me not a nihilist, whether or not you perceive me as sharing some of that philosophy’s viewpoints.

I mean should I label you as a Muslim, just because you believe in a higher power? Would that not be a drastic oversimplication of your views/beliefs?

Also, for fuck’s sake, can we please stop citing things out of context to try and make a point. It’s not intellectually honest, it’s a technique used by people attempting to win an argument, not by people having a rational discussion.

Generally speaking, yes.

Hope can be irrational yes, but we must also remember that human beings are largely irrational where hopeful irrationalities are useful in terms of survival.

Beyond a child there isn’t any innocence in this world.

Interesting, I like how you tied hope to dysfunction. There are however limits to things even like self control.

Your only alternative is fear.

You simply misunderstand the concepts involved and are drawing irrational conclusions. Then you seem to feel the need to preach your misunderstanding, which wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t an exact copy of the nihilist propaganda manifesto.

Your philosophy leads to complete misery and hopelessness unto the death of a generation or two. Those who ignore you are the ones left to fill the gap.

No. Fear isn’t the only other alternative, try purpose.

The only one misunderstanding anything here is you. I’m not saying that we’re simply bags of flesh, existing only because we exist. I’m saying that we are biological organisms that exist to survive and flourish. We need purpose in our lives, not hope… one is fulfillment, the other is delusion. You can sit around and hope that your stomach gets full or you can find purpose in hunting/gathering and actually fill your stomach.

Hope prevents us from seeing reality, as it is. Hope fractures our psyche, preventing us from living in the here and now. Hope is a dysfunction, one that we’ve been indoctrinated with for centuries… it’s how those in power control the masses. If there’s hope, there’s disconnection from reality and people are unable to see what is actually happening around them.

To illustrate, we hope for the “good” in others, this hope blinds us to “evil” people. We hope for a fair and just system, this hope blinds us to the unfair and corruption in said system. Our hope deludes us, because hope is not reality.

Even as a young adult I was far wiser than people like you. I worked with a Jehovah’s witness when I was 18, everyday he would come in and preach at people. I got fed up with it one morning and I said to him…

“I like martial arts, right? So imagine that I, having never studied any style before, go to a karate dojo. Once there, the sensei tells me how karate is the best martial arts and I would be a fool to listen to any other so-called masters of different styles. After hearing this, I then went around and started to preach how karate was the best martial arts. Now, without ever having explored another martial art, would my actions make me ignorant or enlightened?”

You speak as if you actually explored Nihilism fully, like you possess empirical knowledge of what such a philosophy can and will do (over a period of time that eclipses your own life time). I don’t know anything about nihilism, which is why I do not speak on it like I’m an expert.

Look, I get it, you desire validation of your own beliefs. The problem is that other people’s validation will never sate you, it only enslaves you.

Hope and/or fear are the emotors that purpose serves.

ALL conscious effort is derived by PHT, the Perception of Hope and/or Threat.

Hope gathers
Fear scatters.
… to or from the chosen “purpose”/goal.

Without purpose (a goal) you have no motivation at all. Hope to accomplish the goal or threat of not being able to accomplish the goal are automatically forthcoming merely by having a “heartfelt” goal (aka “blood”). Without hope, you have only threat/fear/insecurity/terrorism.

I disagree with your PHT theory and thus, I also disagree with any conclusions you draw from it as a basis of.

So we can just agree to disagree on this part of the conversation… you’re basically saying that our instincts are manifestations of hope or fear.

I had already guessed that you were going to say that.
But it isn’t a “theory”. It is true by the definition of the terms.
You can disagree that 2+2 is always 4, but it is an issue of understanding the definitions.

Perception of Hope is whatever inspires you toward it.
Perception of Threat is whatever inspires you away from it.

If you are neither inspired toward or away from anything, you are simply not alive and certainly have no goal/purpose at heart.

You knew I was going to say that, because you understand the flaw in your argument.

You, yourself, called it a theory. If it was “true”, it would be easily observable and quantifiable. A google search showed no such evidence to support the “truth” of this theory. No articles, no scientific method, no peer review, etc…

You’re not presenting something quantifiable, like 2+2 is always 4 (which isn’t necessarily accurate, depending on the context of what those theoretical values represent, i.e. absolute value). For instance, 2 steps forward plus 2 steps backwards, does not place you a distance of 4 steps from where you began. You’re presenting a concept, which stems from your own perception and perspective. You may very well be accurate, but you need more to sway other people’s opinions… assuming that they’re even open to the concept you’re presenting, which many people aren’t.

I do not agree with your theory, because you’re basically saying that the instinct to eat or survive is nothing more than hope. I see hope as unnatural, other species do not possess hope and they do just fine. Where does the lion find it’s motivation to live, since it doesn’t possess hope? Are you going to try and tell me that animals do have hope… they hope for a better life for their offspring, they hope that other animals do not eat them, they hope to one day live in a utopia, they hope that a higher power will take them to paradise if they live according to an arbitrary set of rules…

You can have purpose without hope. I play basketball to stay physically fulfilled, I’m not doing it because I have delusions of playing in the NBA one day. I do things because they create a feeling of fulfillment in me, not because I hope for things to be different than they currently are. I do not work as a coach and teacher because I think I’m making a difference in the world, I do it because it gives me fulfillment in my work… it gives me purpose, a purpose that I prefer to other fields and one that allows me to be more in line with my nature… guiding, teaching and mentoring others. Giving them the skills they need to live well. If this was ancient times, I would be teaching them things like farming, hunting, building, etc… it isn’t though, so I teach them about math, science, history, physical training, morality, ethics, etc… aspects of the current state of reality that they need in order to survive and thrive. Some will absorb these lessons, others will not. I cannot control such matters, so why should I inflict myself with feelings of disappointment, frustration and resentment over it?

I won’t be blowing up people any time soon, due to my beliefs… I don’t need validation and I don’t require to be righteous… I’ll leave that to people of faith/hope/conviction/etc… those people who do not accept reality for what it is and what it isn’t.

A Shieldmaiden

What she could have done was look to the individual. Not all individuals are looking to be deluded. When some ask for the truth, it is truth they are looking for.

That saying itself is a contradiction. I’m not so sure that one actually has to be cruel in order to be kind. One can choose one’s words albeit there will be those who will be hurt no matter what but there can also be words of balm for those people.
They’re just not ready to see themselves as they are.
It also depends on the nature of the relationship/friendship we have with people.

I agree with you there. Truth as we see it can become just as much a vice as a virtue depending on the situation/circumstances.

Anything that we “see” or believe can be turned around or turned upside down and it’s opposite would also be true - at least for me.
Truth can become vice and a lie can also become virtue if one chooses to do no harm.
Do we want to be staunch truethsayers or do want to be more humane? It can’t always be both.

No, not at all. What’s the saying: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tred. When speaking the truth can become more harmful and damaging, then it’s only our egos at play and truth becomes vice.

lol Certainly not me.

…and if you’re going to lie for the sake of someone, make sure it’s believable but only for their sake.

Anyway, many of our so-called truths as we see truths are only our own subjective thinking and may not be so much truth at all.
Truth lies in deep vast waters…I think.

I don’t know if it’s in complete contrast. Nin seemed to be talking about his (her?) observations of what other people want; doesn’t mean he (she?) wasn’t willing to be cruel and serve them the painful truth.

I can sometimes be driven to come up with euphamistic ways of expressing the truth.

The reason we are built to not always seek out the truth is because we are limited animals engineered by nature for survival. Seeking/knowing the truth can be a strategy for survival, but not always. Most animals aren’t interested in truth (or lies), and have little intellectual grasp of what “truth” is. So obviously there are plenty of ways to survive without knowing the truth. If, for example, you lived in a culture that looked down upon, or even persecuted, those who didn’t believe in the dominant religion, it would be to your advantage to try to believe the religion despite having no evidence or intuiting the contrary.

[list][list]Anais Nin[/list:u][/list:u]

Above pic, I see, carefully chosen to project a certain image by you, but so limited in the description of who she was.

“And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom”.

Most women could relate to this.

Dedicated to the women by Anais Nin

youtu.be/AtLflH3-Jl4

and a trailer of the movie about Anais’s and Henry Miller’s life time affair, taken from her diaries.

youtu.be/ilACmWdTXWg

an extract from a letter from Henry Miller to Anais

In 1932, months after first meeting in Paris and despite both being married, Cuban diarist Anaïs Nin and hugely influential novelist Henry Miller began an incredibly intense love affair that would last for many years and, along the way, generate countless passionate love letters. Below, in my humble opinion, is one of the most powerful examples, written by Miller in August of 1932 shortly after a visit to Nin’s home in Louveciennes.

from A Literate Passion: Letters of Anaïs Nin and Henry Miller, 1932-1953

August 14, 1932

Anais:

Don’t expect me to be sane anymore. Don’t let’s be sensible. It was a marriage at Louveciennes—you can’t dispute it. I came away with pieces of you sticking to me; I am walking about, swimming, in an ocean of blood, your Andalusian blood, distilled and poisonous. Everything I do and say and think relates back to the marriage. I saw you as the mistress of your home, a Moor with a heavy face, a negress with a white body, eyes all over your skin, woman, woman, woman. I can’t see how I can go on living away from you—these intermissions are death. How did it seem to you when Hugo came back? Was I still there? I can’t picture you moving about with him as you did with me. Legs closed. Frailty. Sweet, treacherous acquiescence. Bird docility. You became a woman with me. I was almost terrified by it. You are not just thirty years old—you are a thousand years old.

Here I am back and still smouldering with passion, like wine smoking. Not a passion any longer for flesh, but a complete hunger for you, a devouring hunger. I read the paper about suicides and murders and I understand it all thoroughly. I feel murderous, suicidal. I feel somehow that it is a disgrace to do nothing, to just bide one’s time, to take it philosophically, to be sensible. Where has gone the time when men fought, killed, died for a glove, a glance, etc? (A victrola is playing that terrible aria from Madama Butterfly—“Some day he’ll come!”)…

Have you ever experienced this James?

That is love, at least from my experiences. A biochemical cocktail of addiction, to assist in propagating the cycle of life. Some individuals are more prone to addiction, so it hits these individuals harder, such as Henry Miller and myself. Just another example of nature vs nurture though… anyone who has experienced unfiltered love knows what it’s like to lack sensibility, but we’re conditioned to value sensibility over almost all else. I find it sadly amusing at how often our nature is in direct opposition with our nurture, then we wonder why people are so conflicted and emotionally damaged. All these conflicts, stressing us, until we either adapt or break. It’s a lot like the concept of strength training, stress the muscle and it will either adapt (e.g. develop) or break (e.g. result in injury)… the primary difference is that muscles are designed for constant stresses, the psyche is not… the injuries we inflict to our psyches isn’t healed in the same manner the body heals. If it takes us 4-8 weeks to fully heal from a sprained ankle (not including rehab), a part of the body that is designed to heal over time, imagine how long it takes to heal from an emotional trauma that isn’t designed to heal over time.

Only at the end, do you misunderstand.

Hatred, can also be a motivator.

So can’t love.

Does it really? I’ve been nursing a sprained ankle for about 6 weeks now. You telling me I should give it two more weeks before seeing a doctor?