Amateur Nihilism

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.

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.

Actually, since this thread pertains to nihilism, and I like to call myself – here and now – a “moral nihilist”, let’s keep it here.

My aim is to probe the extent to which someone may well be but an “amateur nihilist” when their moral and political values come into conflict with others.

My “thing” here as it were.

As for the role that my conscience plays in all this, I basically explained that above.

As with everyone else, I came into this world equipped biologically/genetically with a brain able to generate and then to sustain one.

This:

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

The very dictionary definition of a “conscience”.

Just like you. Just like every other poster on this thread.

But: It is this part that I would like most to explore:

[b]…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”?[/b]

With or without the polemics. On this thread or in creating a new one.

Preferably in the philosophy forum. With the proviso that the polemics there is not meant to be construed as personal attacks, merely a device for debating.

If you cannot define your conscience personally, what you believe is worth protecting, then there won’t be any meaning to our conversation for it won’t be my conscience conflicting with your conscience in a down-to-earth scenario. In other words, if you don’t take a position, you have no position.

In other words, until I grasp the precise definition/meaning of these words, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that we will ever take the discussion out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.

To explore our own values and our own behaviors as they pertain existentially to these words:

[b]…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”?

[/b]Looks like [as with so many objectivists over the years] we are “stuck”.

You can just assume that my frame of mind is not applicable to you and that those who don’t share your own are clearly not defining their words as all reasonable [and virtuous] men and women are obligated to.

Boy, does that bring back memories!!

Well this is a literary exchange so you and I both need to understand words of importance, but that requires you to be forthright which ain’t a part of your contraption.

Note to others:

See how this works?

We can go on and on and on and on and on squabbling over the definition and the meaning that we give to the words used in our “analysis” of these relationships.

Wendy,

How about if we both agree that your own meaning is the default here.

Now, using the manner in which you understand the meaning of the words I use here…

[b]…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”?[/b]

…how would you reconfigure them into a frame of mind more in sync with your own assumptions regarding what these words [in this order] would mean to a [more] rational man or woman.

Iambiguous I’m all ears and waiting for a response. Don’t keep me waiting.