Amateur Nihilism

How hilarious you preach the folly of immortality yet embrace it through technological progressivism the very embodiment of immorality’s modern popular form. What a very glaring contradiction you speak being a technological progressivism enthusiast yourself.

And let us describe technological progressivism for what it is, the ideal that humanity as a whole can somehow escape its natural limitations and confinements here on earth. The ideal that human beings one day will become technological gods to lord over the entire universe.

Nihilism is negative-idealism in the sense that most Nihilists have no vision for the future. A Nihilist cannot see ‘beyond’ his or her own life, thus many types of nihilism are solipsistic. For example, a Nihilist believes his/her life has no meaning, and is worthless, and could be relatively accurate and true with that judgment. However some lives are more valuable than others. This contradicts modernity and humanist notions of “Equality”. Some lives are worth more than others, hence, some lives have meaning and others do not. Nihilists do not account for this.

An amateur nihilist will say, “all life has no meaning” because his or her life has no meaning. The nihilist is projecting his or her own complete lack of value, negated, onto others, believing that since he has no worth in life, that others must not have worth, and this is false. It’s a logical fallacy. Also most nihilists cannot justify their ideology, beliefs, rationality of meaningless, in such that life has survival instincts. Nihilism cannot properly nor sufficiently explain survival instincts.

Another example, if life inherently has no meaning, then why is all life pre-programmed, genetically, to survive and live and reproduce? Nihilists have no good answers or response.

The “Average Nihilist” is a young, spurned, jaded male, who cannot get laid, and has little to no hope of doing so. A weakling, bullied throughout life. Thus the “Nihilist” believes, usually correctly, that (his) life has no meaning (to anybody else). That’s true. Many nihilists are worthless human beings. And if they died or commit suicide, then yes, nobody would care. To the Nihilists, this is their (moral) validation and redemption, their method of coping and saying, “haha, I told you so, I’m right!”

But it’s “right” in the wrong way.

Objectively, life has instincts, developed and evolved since eternity, and these instincts cause life to continue, despite the minority of excess that “chooses” not to. Over-population is the cause of such ideologies and rationalizations. When there are 10000000000000 human beings alive, then does it really matter if 1 person dies, or 100000 people die? No, because there are still 999999999999999 human beings left. The overall specie is not affected by the minority of nihilists, cynics, nay-sayers, and life-haters.

Life persists without them.

This leads to the notion of ‘Sacrifice’ and the “Social Justice Warrior”. When a specie is over-populated, larger and larger portions of that population can be easily and readily sacrificed for “some great cause” (even if it’s not great, even if it’s frivolous and worthless). Hence Nihilists are a type of human sacrifice, easily lost.

Like an extra limb you don’t need. Who needs a third hand when two do just fine?

Being ready for death in old age is nihilistic when old people believe in the afterlife, heaven, hell, or any other nihilistic notion out there that acts as a catharsis for the fear of death. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Old people who pass on a lineage, a family, sons, daughters, grandchildren, are less nihilistic. Reality is that “afterlife” simply means having children and reproducing. The son is “after the life” of the father, or daughter of mother, etc. That’s the literal translation.

No magic, no God, no christianity-judaism required. No Nihilism required. Just living with reality. Having a child, or not.

Not having children, for ideological reasons, or out of contempt, self-hatred, is nihilistic yes. And it is also the suppression of the sexual drives, which is the essence of life.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. I have never preached about immortality. I don’t believe in it. And because you are ignorant of what should be a very obvious fact, that only indicates to me that you have know idea what I’m talking about too.

Nihilism is socialistic and based in herd instincts, to bury your head in the sand, or to immerse yourself in society. Even your compulsions are socialistic as you have admitted such with your weakness toward women. You’re not an individualist because you don’t understand morality and self-responsibility. You don’t know how to live separately from society or others.

Somebody who is strongly self-responsible, rejects victim mentality, cannot be a nihilist. Because such a person confronts reality and attempts to recognize causes of life and existence, to take account for it all. Intelligence leads to morality, to know that people act and cause events in such a way as to affect others and everything else. Nihilism is a denial of morality and accountability.

Nihilists are irresponsible, immature, naive, and ignorant. As I mentioned a moment ago, a Nihilist cannot “see beyond yourself”. You’re selfish, and lacking empathy. Just because your life has no meaning, doesn’t mean that other peoples’ lives have no meaning. Because some do. Some people have more meaning, or are worth more than others.

This is obviously true when people prefer their own kin, kind, family before others, and would choose one person to live over another, if forced to choose.

Therefore life is not nihilistic. Nihilism is a minority ideology and ranges in degree. People speak nihilistic ideals, but, act in different ways.

For example, there’s a Christian who claims “there is an afterlife/heaven/hell” but yet hesitates in dangerous situations. How can Christians who believe in afterlife hesitate, with fear, from jumping off cliffs while they believe in an afterlife?

Because beliefs can be lies. And they are lies in such they contradict the actions and behaviors.

This is why Nihilism is, overall, an irrational ideology. People claim to believe in this or that, like “god”, but when put to the test, they show their true colors. People are still animals, acting on instincts. The word-play, the memetic factor, the “I believe in god”, can all be bullshit, and it mostly is. Just a pile of lies.

Nihlists contribute to the cesspool, adding to the manure pile. Nihilism relies on emotionalism and victimization. “I’m a victim, my life has no meaning, help meeee!!!”

That stretches the concept too much. Without dissatisfaction there can be no motivation to take corrective action e.g. without hunger there can be no motivation to eat and so there can be no motivation to search for food that you can eat. Instead, there is simply passive acceptance of life e.g. you accept that you are hungry, which means that if you don’t eat you will die, and you accept that outcome without taking any action to prevent it from happening.

This reminds me of how psychologists say that everyone and everything that inflicts some kind of damage upon others exhibits a degree of pathology. The only difference between those who need psychiatric help and those who don’t being the degree of pathology they suffer from. So lions are pathological. In fact, everyone is. Which says absolutely nothing about reality but merely expresses their negative value judgment of, their disapproval of, cruelty.

By learning how to distinguish between factual statements (that merely describe how the world works) and value statements (that express the degree to which reality conforms to one’s expectations) the need to stretch the concept beyond what is reasonable disappears.

I am a pragmatist not an idealist or a solipsist. I do not think my life has no meaning or is worthless but whatever meaning it has is just temporary. For in
the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing as life itself is only temporary. A brief stop before the eternity of non consciousness that is death

Nihilism at least describes reactions to negative idealism. Obviously everybody has some degrees of discontentment and satisfaction with life. Perfection is never attained, hence people re-imagine the world according to their own subjective beliefs, values, and worldview. The ‘nihilistic’ aspect begins with solipsism, when, people are either too powerless or cowardly to conceive of how their ideal can match reality, or simply, reject reality altogether. The complete rejection of reality, a refusal of confronting challenges and hardships in life, avoidance of pain rather than confronting it, leads to a stunting effect.

When modernity is defined by sensationalism, commercialism, hedonism, and attention-seeking, lives of luxury, then what little is left of a “harsh reality” is even too much to bear for an average person. Hence nihilistic ideals, impossible to realize, or never intended to be realized, are a type of crutch. They are the “safe spaces” of society, that people harbor their more private resentiment and contempt, for others and themselves.

It’s pretty obvious, for example, how beliefs in the afterlife or “for a better world”, are generally nihilistic and life-annulling. For example, if people actually abide by what they claim, what they say, then those who truly believe in the “afterlife” ought not have fear or hesitations to die. But they do, and because they do, this demonstrates the hypocrisies and contradictions of nihilism.

Even despite all the claims people make, instincts are strong, and people act according to animal nature.

That’s why I characterize and pinpoint nihilism as a herd-instinct, a compulsion and tendency of any individual to bury his or her head in the sand. To swarm in numbers and a flock. Thus “humanist” ideology, that “we are all human”, is nihilistic. Because it is the death and destruction, sacrifice of an individual, to “the whole”. To give up your independence, in exchange for the benefits of society, to “become one” with humanity.

People ought to recognize how judeo-christian these conceptions are, to “become one with humanity (christ)”.

The notion that we are all equal or should be treated as such is as much a Utopian concept as a humanist one
That is why it tends not to translate very well to reality. Because like any Utopian concept it is very idealistic

That depends entirely on the manner in which any particular folks have come to encompass, to embrace and then through their behaviors, to embody their own understanding of the word.

And then [for some] in their attempts to intertwine, integrate and/or challenge the understanding of others. In particular, out in the world of actual social, political and economic interactions.

My own argument revolves around the extent to which [in a world sans God] mere mortals are able to propose a purpose that transcends the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But here we need to decide on an actual context. One we are all likely to be familiar with. One in which we share our own understanding of what having a “purpose” might mean. And, then, if our meanings come into conflict, assessing the extent to which this either can be resolved [in a political “consensus”] or linked to a frame of mind that is said to be [and then demonstrated to be] reflective of an optimal understanding.

Then we will have to agree to disagree regarding the manner in which we understand the meaning of examining a moral or political issue.

I am more inclined to choose one that is currently generating headlines. In other words, interactions in which political narratives are clearly at odds because folks along the continuum from left to right insist that if you understand the “human condition” in the optimal manner, you will share their own assessment of the conflict.

Whereas I propose [as a moral nihilist] that, in the absence of God, any and all “humanisms” are embodied in the manner in which I have come to understand the interaction between individuals “out in a particular world” that have come to embody dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least with respect to any particular context that precipitates any particular conflicting behaviors.

Conscience…fully developed and active or underdeveloped and dormant.

When people completely disconnect ‘gods’ or other abstractions into purely ideal forms, with no hint of realism or grounding, then yes, that type of nihilism is obvious. No “headlines” are required for it. If you don’t want to discuss the matter, then why are you even in this thread?

It sounds like you need to be unhooked from your “sky hooks” and prepare to go sky diving. Do you even have a parachute???

Coming down from Nihilism can be deadly.

In other words, if a conscience is “fully developed and active” it will be in sync with yours.

That’s objectivism alright.

And, indeed, any number of nihilists that I have come across over the years have posed a threat to this sort of thinking.

Thinking that basically revolves around this:

1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “nihilism”
3] “nihilism” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature.

And, not only that, but any number of nihilists I have come across over the years will insist that, in turn, only the manner in which they have come to understand the meaning of nihilism is the right one.

Not me though. I never lose sight of the fact [if it is a fact] that my own speculation about these things is just one more additional “existential contraption”. In, for example, exchanges like this.

Note to others:

What “on earth” do you suppose he means by this?

And, on the contrary, it is precisely the sort of “human all too human” encounters/conflicts that we come across “on the news” that generate [by far] the most fierce debates regarding “meaning” in our lives.

Now, why do you suppose that is, Mr. Philosopher?

Describe your conscience Iambiggie.

Well, we all come into the world hardwired [biologically, genetically] to react to the world around us with a “conscience”:

This thing:

…an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.

But, over the long course of human interaction [going all the way back to the caves], there have been any number actual, extant historical, cultural, experiential narratives regarding that which “here and now” was deemed to be right or wrong.

Now, as philosophers [ethicists] what are we to make of this?

Is the manner in which Jane or Abdul or Ivan or Fung or Kirra or Maria or Aguta exercises his or her conscience in a particular context able to be assessed as the right thing or the wrong thing to do?

Is there a manner in which one behavior or another can be said to be most in sync with nature? Or with a “moral imperative”?

With a “clear conscience”?

Again, focus the beam here on a specific behavior of yours. How is it a reflection of your conscience? What is your reaction when it comes into conflict with the behaviors of others. Whose conscience can be said to be more “reasonable” or more “virtuous”?

You have no conscience? If you have one you will personally attest to its nature. :evilfun:

Lamb, no more derailing threads with your petulant nonsense. Nobody wants to hear it. If you can’t stay on the topic of this thread, which is nihilism, then you should leave. Take your attention-seeking behavior elsewhere.

Iambiguous,
Let’s hash this out in the rant house polemics thread that’s just begun. By all means, explain your conscience there.

Perhaps, like Satyr, you should just ignore me. :wink: